Document 2

Mapping the New Testament
Jewish and Christian

Perspectives Series
Editorial Board
Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, David Golinkin,
Freek van der Steen
Advisory Board
Yehoyada Amir, David Berger, Shaye Cohen,
Judith Frishman, Martin Goodman,
Clemens Leonhard, Tobias Nicklas, Eyal Regev,
Gerard Rouwhorst, Seth Schwartz, Yossi Turner
VOLUME 13
Mapping the New Testament
Early Christian Writings as a Witness for
Jewish Biblical Exegesis
by
Serge Ruzer
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2007
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
University of Tilburg: Faculty of Catholic Theology Utrecht,

The Netherlands
Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel
Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Israel
Published with the assistance of The Aryeh (Leo) Lubin Foundation in memory of his
parents Lilian and Moshe Lubin.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN 1388-2074
ISBN 978 90 04 15892 4
© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
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.
printed in the netherlands

In loving memory of
Alya (Alexandra) Ruzer and
Alexander Men
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... ix
List of Previously Published Articles .......................................... xi
Editorial Statement ..................................................................... xiii
Introduction: The New Testament as Witness for Early Jewish

Exegesis ....................................................................................... 1
1. Antitheses in Matthew 5: Midrashic Aspects of Exegetical
Techniques .............................................................................. 11
2. From “Love Your Neighbor” to “Love Your Enemy” .......... 35
3. The Double Love Precept: Between Pharisees, Jesus and
Qumran Covenanters ............................................................. 71
4. Who Was Unhappy with the Davidic Messiah? ................... 101
5. Negotiating the Proper Attitude to Marriage and Divorce .... 131
6. The Seat of Sin and the Limbs of Torah ............................ 149
7. Crucixion: The Search for a Meaning vis-à-vis Biblical
Prophecy. From Luke to Acts ................................................. 179
8. The New Covenant, the Reinterpretation of Scripture and
Collective Messiahship ........................................................... 215
Conclusion and Perspectives ...................................................... 239
Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................... 243

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is dedicated to the memory of Alya, who was my wife, and
Alexander, a close friend, whose tragic early deaths are still mourned.
With all differences of biography and temperament, they both lived their
lives with an utmost intensity; it is also with the intensity of thought
and feeling that they related to the Jewish-Christian conundrum. Each
of them in his/her own manner cherished and aspired to clarity.
Presenting the volume as a homage to them, I hope that attempts at
clarication undertaken here may be rated—with a measure of good
will—as clarity’s promising, even if problematic, siblings.
It is a great pleasure for me to acknowledge the help of my friends

and colleagues. Special thanks are due to my former Ph.D. supervisor
Guy G. Stroumsa for his continuing friendship, encouragement and
advice, which have been abundantly available for this present study
too. The Department of Comparative Religion of the Hebrew Uni-
versity has been my second home for almost fteen years now, and I
am grateful to my colleagues, especially Brouria Biton-Ashkelony and
David Satran, for their warm collegiality. I wish also to thank Aryeh
Kofsky and Amitai Spitzer for their wise assistance and the pleasure
of studying together.
Basic insights of this investigation have been presented at a number
of conferences, which engendered fruitful discussions. Moreover, earlier
versions of some chapters were at different times read by colleagues,
whose comments and criticism were important for further work on the
book. I should particularly like to thank Hans Jürgen Becker, Hans-
Dieter Betz, Hermann Lichtenberger, Lorenzo Perrone, Berndt Schaller,
Daniel Schwartz, and Justin Taylor. It goes without saying that I alone
am responsible for whatever deciencies remaining in the book.
I wish also to recall the memory of two remarkable men and scholars,
Shlomo Pines and David Flusser. In 1987, the former took me—then a
newcomer and a stranger in Jerusalem—under his guidance. He became
my rst Ph.D. supervisor, and his trust and friendship, admittedly much
less than deserved, were among the main forces that prompted me to
go forward with my research. The latter exerted a considerable inu-
ence further on—as he did for everyone in Jerusalem approaching the
study of Early Christianity.
x acknowledgements
I am glad to publish the book in the Jewish and Christian Perspectives

Series; and I take this opportunity to acknowledge the extremely impor-
tant contribution of the series coeditors, Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua
Schwartz, who closely read the manuscript and made many insightful
suggestions. I am indebted to the staff at Brill Publishers, particularly
series editor Freek van der Steen, for their professionalism and patient
cooperation. I am grateful for the nancial support provided by the
Aryeh (Leo) Lubin Foundation. I would also like to thank Ms. Evelyn
Katrak for her sensitive and diligent English editing.
I always feel gratitude to my parents, Anna and Lev, sister Genia
and her family, and my daughter, Asya, for their caring support and
generous interest in my work. Finally, I dearly thank my spouse, Ilana,
who for all the years of this project and well beyond has graciously
been both the mainstay and the excitement of my life.
LIST OF PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Chapter 1 is a revised version of an article previously published in:

H. J. Becker and S. Ruzer, The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting,
Paris 2005.
Chapter 2 is based on two separate studies published in: Revue Biblique

109 (2002) and 111 (2004).
Chapter 3 is a thoroughly revised version of an article rst published

in Hebrew in: Tarbiz 71 (2002); and later in an English translation in:
S. Notley et al. (eds.), Jesus’ Last Week, Leiden 2006.
Chapter 4 is a revised version of an article rst published in: Cristiane-

simo nella storia 24 (2003).
Chapter 6 is a thoroughly revised version of an article previously

published in: J. Assman and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transformations of
the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, Leiden 1999.
EDITORIAL STATEMENT
Judaism and Christianity share much of a heritage. There has been a

good deal of interest of late in this phenomenon, examining both this
common heritage, as well as the elements unique to each religion. There
has, however, been no systematic attempt to present ndings relative to
both Jewish and Christian tradition to a broad audience of scholars. It
is the purpose of the proposed series to do just that.
Jewish and Christian Perspectives will publish studies that are relevant
to both Christianity and Judaism. The series will include monographs
and congress volumes relating to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament,
the Second Temple period, the Judaeo-Christian polemic (from Ancient
until Modern Times), rabbinic literature relevant to Christianity, as well
as Patristics, Medieval Studies and the Modern Period. Special interest
will be paid to the interaction between the religions throughout the
ages. Historical, exegetical, philosophical, and theological studies are
welcomed as well as studies focusing on sociological and anthropological
issues common to both religions, including archaeology.
Detailed information can be obtained at:

www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/jcp
INTRODUCTION
THE NEW TESTAMENT AS WITNESS FOR

EARLY JEWISH EXEGESIS
When it comes to the dilemmas of self-denition in the Judaeo-Chris-

tian realm of late antiquity, biblical exegesis is justiably seen as one
of the main avenues for expressing and/or constructing an identity. A
complicated dynamic of adoption, appropriation and rejection of the
rival group’s stance is the process usually followed. Moreover, exegesis,
at certain stages, may be perceived as completely subjugated to the task
of achieving a separation, which means, according to a more general
model suggested by Daniel Boyarin, being “engaged in splitting off a
part” of one’s own self, so to speak, and “projecting it outward” as
representing the rival party—Judaism in the case of Christianity and
vice versa.1 Describing the process of what he sees as construction of
the orthodoxy, which according to him started in earnest somewhere
around the mid-second century, Boyarin uses the images of “sealed
borders” and “customs ofcers”, the latter’s main objective being to
prevent inltration of the hybrid species, the “dangerous in between”.
This strategy in no way achieves factual separation: The parallel courses
of development up to the fourth century bear witness to the lingering
polemical closeness of Judaism and Christianity or, more exactly, the
constant tacit use of the other party’s views as a point of reference in
establishing each group’s “orthodoxy”.
I nd Boyarin’s model extremely useful exactly because it turns out
to be so inadequate when we consider earlier manifestations of what
would become Christian exegetical traditions—manifestations that may
be portrayed as belonging to the inner-Jewish phase of the process. It
goes without saying that even at this early stage, exegetic statements can
be viewed as “acts of power” aimed at polemically avored self-deni-
tion; yet, as it seems, the genuine inherent concerns of ongoing religious
discourse, as well as the objective of “winning out” in the immediate
1
See Boyarin, Border Lines; The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia 2004, 146;
see also ibid., 1–33.
2 introduction
Jewish milieu, loom over the scene, dictating the hermeneutic agenda
and laying the foundation for all subsequent attempts at boundary
marking. These early traditions, unlike the later ones, do not seem to
be much worried about—to borrow Boyarin’s terminology—prevent-
ing religious “contraband from crossing the borders (from the side
representing the rival group—S.R.)”.2 Instead, they put great effort into
presenting their exegetic merchandise as a “legitimate export”. It is in
view of the unmistakably dialogical nature of the polemic conducted
by these early traditions that I have taken a particular interest in their
possible value as a reection of wider Jewish exegetical tendencies.
There is a scholarly consensus regarding the extreme importance
ascribed by the early Jesus movement to the link between its faith in the
messianic call of Jesus and the prophetic promises of Jewish Scripture;
the New Testament texts themselves clearly testify to that. One of the
core objectives of the initial Christian discourse seems to have been
to provide an exegetical justication for the Messiah’s death—vis-à-vis
the “regular” messianic exegesis of “stock” biblical proof texts.3 Pre-
occupation with this task—with the underlying claim of faithfulness to
the true tenets of biblical Judaism—characterized already the creators
and transmitters of the nascent oral tradition and the compilers of the
written Gospel accounts.
Yet, in addition to this crucial crucixion- and resurrection-centered
hermeneutics, the biblical orientation of Jesus’ disciples—and, seem-
ingly, of Jesus himself—engendered multiple exegetic traditions, attested
in various strata of the New Testament, that addressed a wide range of
issues of religious practice and belief not intrinsically connected to the
messianic kerygma. Naturally, this latter mode of exegesis features more
prominently in those layers of the earliest Christian tradition (e.g., the
Synoptic Gospels) that took an interest in Jesus’ biography and teaching,
not focusing exclusively on the soteriological function of his death.
As for this infatuation with Scripture, the Jesus movement shared it
with/inherited it from its late Second Temple milieu, where various
sects had developed a whole range of exegetical patterns pertaining
either to Torah’s practical ordinances or to the realm of religious ideas
and beliefs, or to both, as the means and expression of their religious
outlooks and—the two cannot realistically be separated—of their
2
Boyarin, Border Lines, 2.
3
See Luke 24:19 –27, 44 – 46.
the nt as witness for early jewish exegesis 3
competing claims to be the true representatives of the Jewish religion.4

Such Qumranic passages as the opening programmatic paragraph of
the Community Rule, Damascus Document 6, or the closing paragraph of
the Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) provide ne examples of the tendency to
collate idiosyncratic, identity-marking sectarian interpretation and an
appeal to shared exegetical patterns. Thus “sharing the infatuation with
Scripture” did not have to be limited to the Scripture-centered mode
of thinking as such but pertained to reliance on a common exegetical
legacy as well.5 In other words, these Second Temple Jewish groups,
and supposedly the nascent Christians among them, saw Scripture
“through the lens of earlier interpretation”. Offering their interpreta-
tion of the Book, the creators of the foundational Christian tradition
had thus—as far as their hermeneutical agenda and ways of reasoning
were concerned—to “go by the book”.
If the Second Temple Jewish genesis of nascent Christianity—mean-
ing also its polemical stance vis-à-vis other Jewish groups—is taken
seriously, it should be expected that its preoccupation with exegesis
would reect, either approvingly or polemically, both exegetical tradi-
tions current in rival circles and those of broader circulation. The New
Testament “conversation with Scripture” may thus be seen as bearing
4
See the discussion in A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean
Era: An Interpretation, Leiden 1997, 114–136, esp. 133. Or, if one wishes to attempt to
separate Christianity out of its initial Jewish context, one may rephrase it in the words
of M. Simonetti (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Edinburgh 1994, 1) as “Christi-
anity, like Judaism, is a religion of the Book. In it, Holy Scripture, regarded as the fruit
of divine revelation . . . occupies an absolutely fundamental place: every action in the
life of the community, collective or individual, from doctrine to discipline and worship,
should be shaped by it”. It is worth noting that for the earliest phase of Christianity’s
history the Simonetti’s “Holy Scripture” stands for some variation of Jewish Scripture,
whereas “shaped by it”, as is clear from the context, means “via exegesis”.
5
Of course, attempts to outline New Testament modes of exegesis vis-à-vis Scripture
alone—without addressing the existing exegetical legacy—may still be instructive. And
they are by no means out of fashion; see, for example, three central studies in: C. A.
Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, Shef-
eld 1997, 44–96: C. D. Stanley, ‘The Rhetoric of Quotations: An Essay on Method’;
W. Roth, ‘To Invert or Not to Invert: The Pharisaic Canon in the Gospels’; and S. E.
Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on
Method and Terminology’. Even when contemporaneous Jewish exegesis is referred
to—as in the study by D. Krause in the same volume (‘The One Who Comes Unbind-
ing the Blessings of Judah: Mark 11.1–10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zechariah
9.9, and Psalm 118.25–26’, ibid., 141–153)—the issue is touched on only in passing
and remains marginal to the discussion. To a certain extent, the same approach char-
acterizes Chapter 7 of this book.
4 introduction
witness, at least in some instances, to those broader tendencies. It is

at this particular point that the issue of the proper contextualizalion
of initial patterns of Christian biblical interpretation gives way to a
related and complementing one: How should this interpretation, rou-
tinely branded as “Christian”, be used—together with other available
sources—to reconstruct a fuller picture of early Jewish exegesis.
I am thus speaking about the transition from a model that juxtaposes
the New Testament to the text of the Jewish Scripture (independent
exegetical elaboration on the Holy Writ) to one that emphasizes the
conversation with contemporaneous exegetic traditions. This tendency
can be discerned even in so Scripture-centered a eld of research as
the study of the text form of the New Testament biblical quotations.
Earlier investigations laid much emphasis on the professed aim of
establishing which version of the Jewish Scripture the compilers of,
for example, the Gospels had before them—with an understandable
inclination to identify that version as the septuagintal one. From the
early fties on—and here the importance of Krister Stendahl’s seminal
work is evident6—more scholars have been ready to discern patterns
of midrashic exegetic nature in the New Testament treatment of bibli-
cal material. Accordingly, a suggestion has been put forward that the
biblical authority for the nascent Jesus movement was grounded not
exclusively—or maybe not so much—in a written sacred text as such
but in a text engulfed, as it were, by already existing and ever evolving
interpretations.7 Moreover, Jesus’ followers—and this too they seem
to have shared with other Jewish groups—did not always distinguish
between the biblical text itself and its “midrashic envelope”.8
The present volume thus focuses on links between the exegetical
trends current in various Second Temple Jewish circles—as attested
in Qumran, Pseudepigrapha, Jewish Hellenistic and proto-rabbinic
traditions—and patterns of New Testament conversation with Jewish
6
K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Uppsala
1954/Philadelphia 1968. See also R. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s
Gospel, Leiden 1967, etc.
7
The expression “the School of Matthew”, coined by Stendahl, was tailored to
designate, inter alia, the systematic application and adaptation of existing exegetic
techniques.
8
For a recent discussion of the issue, see J. L. Kugel, ‘Stephen’s Speech in Its
Exegetical Context’, in: C. A. Evans (ed.), From Prophecy to Testament, Peabody, Mass.
2004, 206–218.
Scripture. In a sense it builds upon the insights reached through the

study of New Testament biblical quotations, related to above; more
specically, it was the failure to explain these quotations as derived
from a single authoritative version of the Scripture that prompted the
researchers to appeal to a “targumizing procedure” embedded in a
contemporaneous exegetic culture. However, the focus of this volume
is no longer on isolated biblical quotations but rather on the complex
exegetical moves employed in the New Testament.
My investigation represents an attempt to outline the exact relation
between the inherited and the innovative features in the work of the
earliest Christian exegetes. Appraisals of that relation have been var-
ied, with far greater emphasis at times on the different and peculiar.
When the objective is a relief map of nascent Christianity against the
backdrop of Judaism, no wonder it is the Jesus movement’s “unique
contribution to rst-century Jewish exposition” that is highlighted—a
contribution, resulting in a “thoroughgoing reinterpretation of the biblical
writings [in relation] to the person, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus
the Messiah”, a reinterpretation that is perceived in terms of a “break
with Judaism”.9 The emphasis on the charismatic nature of the early
Christian exposition of Scripture, on the tension between “revelatory
exegesis” and “mundane hermeneutics”, also pertains here.10 It has been
suggested that already with Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
Christ has become the true hermeneutical key—hence the claim that
even in the earliest strata of Christian tradition, Jewish sacred literary
heritage, though appealed to for conrmation of the kerygma, is essen-
tially relativized.11 Given such an approach there is an understandable
tendency to portray even observed instances of overlapping in “mun-
dane” (i.e., non-messianic) biblical expositions as a paradox of sorts:
While adopting certain exegetical methods and techniques current in
Judaism, New Testament exegetes, most prominently Jesus himself,
9
E. E. Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in: M. J. Mulder
(ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism
and Early Christianity, Assen 1988, 691; emphasis in original.
10
See E. E. Ellis, Prophesy and Hermeneutics in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, Mich.
1978.
11
F. M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge 1997,
16. Young sees in the documented 2nd-century use by Christians of a codex format (as
opposed to scrolls) for Jewish scriptures a sign of such relativization (ibid., 14–15).
6 introduction
arrive at peculiarly bold and far-reaching conclusions unintelligible to

(hidden from) their Jewish milieu.12
This approach, highlighting the novel perspective of Christian
exegesis—a perspective quite naturally seen as different from that of
“most Jews”13—is to a considerable extent informed by later develop-
ments (from the 2nd century on), which may appropriately be called
the “formation of Christian culture”. It aims at discovering, as it were,
the implicit potential of the very earliest Christian exegesis for a thor-
ough reinterpretation and relativization of the Jewish Scripture; New
Testament biblical expositions are perceived here as the beginning of
the trajectory leading to the Church Fathers. The focus of the present
volume however, as well as the trajectory dening its perspective, is dif-
ferent. I will deal mostly with the other side of the exegetical entangle-
ment, paying special attention to the instances of exegetic similarity
and their interpretation: Do they point to a closeness of the early Jesus
movement to a particular Jewish group, or do they bear witness to a wide
contemporaneous circulation of certain exegetical patterns? Alterna-
tively, what is the relation between the variety of exegetic approaches
attested in the New Testament and the variety characteristic of the
wider Jewish milieu?
To put it differently: How can the New Testament be used to create
a fuller picture of Second Temple Jewish exegesis? And here comes
a complementary focus of the discussion, the alternative trajectory it
probes: the “mapping” of New Testament evidence as the early, and
maybe only, surviving witness to more general exegetic trends that did
have their origins in the Second Temple period but are attested in their
fully developed form only later, in rabbinic literature. New Testament
material can thus be studied as containing possible “missing links” in
the long trajectory of biblical exposition. The discussion throughout
this volume thus emphasizes the importance of the patterns of the Jesus
movement’s “conversation with Scripture” for a better understanding of
developments in early Jewish exegesis. It should be stressed that what is
meant here is not so much the evidence derived from the polemic against
other Jewish groups but primarily the evidence embedded in what is
put forward as representing the New Testament’s own position.
12
See Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation’, 721.
13
See Young, Biblical Exegesis, 285.
An emphasis on instances of closeness and similarity on the one

hand and on innovative elements on the other is intrinsically linked
to an investigation of the modes of exegetical polemic employed by
various segments of the Jesus movement. I suggest distinguishing two
substantially differing modes discerned in the earliest Christian sources.
One of them in fact comprises two stages: rst, a claim to a shared
exegetical inheritance with the authoritative group (e.g., the Pharisees)
is put forward; second, a polemical differentiation is derived (built upon)
this basic claim of belonging. This seems to reect the Sitz im Leben
of close social links with the authoritative group in question, with the
boundaries sufciently blurred. In other words, we are dealing with
a situation where the impetus of polemic and disagreement did not
really lead the community to reach a point of decisive boundary mark-
ing against those whose stance was different. This closeness, however,
does not necessarily point to a lesser polemical tension; sometimes the
opposite is true.14
The other mode does not seem to require the legitimacy of shared
levels of exegetic heritage, its point of departure being the presupposi-
tion of an essential gap in the patterns of biblical interpretation between
the followers of Jesus and those outside the movement. This may point
to a more advanced stage in the process of (certain segments of ) the
Jesus movement’s self-denition vis-à-vis its original Jewish milieu, and
a drifting away from it. It goes without saying that this latter mode
becomes predominant in later times, when the two distinct entities,
Jews and Christians, become a fact of both life and thought, and
much of the latter’s exegetical efforts are spent on trying to justify a
separate Christian existence and its supersessionist claim to the Jewish
scriptures.15 However, in light of sectarian Qumranic exegesis, it can
also reect an earlier tendency coexisting with the more conservative
one described above.
14
See J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son; The Transformation
of Child Sacrice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven 1993, 232, where the author,
describing Judaism and Christianity as two parallel “midrashic systems whose scriptural
basis is the Hebrew Bible”, sees in this situation the root of their mutually exclusive
identities. See also A. J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, Chicago-London
1994, 2, 25, 120–121, 192–193; J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman
World, Oxford 2004, 36 n. 33.
15
For a discussion of the importance of biblical exegesis for boundary making or,
rather, boundary maintaining, see W. Horbury, ‘Jews and Christians on the Bible:
Demarcation and Convergence [325–451]’, in: J. van Oort and U. Wickert (eds.),
Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicea und Chalcedon, Kampen 1992.
8 introduction
Sometimes the demarcation line between the two is also the line
between subtle moves presented as if continuing ordinary exegetical
discourse and exegesis claiming a quantum leap of revelatory prophetic
authority. Naturally, it is in the former category that one expects to
nd richer data for “mapping” the early Christian tradition as witness
for wider developments in Jewish exegesis. But again, since the earli-
est Jesus followers were denitely not the rst Jewish splinter group to
take pains to present its peculiar outlook as grounded in (true) biblical
interpretation,16 one should not exclude the possibility that even those
New Testament exegetical moves that consciously aimed at boundary
drawing might bear witness to existing patterns and hence be relevant
to the task of mapping.
A similar claim may be made with regard to another distinction that
I nd useful: that between exegetical traditions—either ascribed by the
Gospels to Jesus or found elsewhere in the New Testament—that do
not relate to the messianic claim and focus instead on general questions
of religious behavior and belief, and those that are explicitly tailored
to deal with Jesus’ messiahship. Clearly, in cases of the former type,
“mapping” New Testament evidence as witness to broader contem-
poraneous Jewish trends holds greater promise; and the investigation
conducted in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 6, and parts of Chapter 5, goes
in this direction. However, as Chapters 4, 5 and 7 demonstrate, even
the New Testament’s explicitly messianic exegesis may be illuminat-
ing—both with regard to its peculiar input and as a witness to more
general Jewish trajectories.17 The tentative but fascinating issue of later
rabbinic tradition polemically reacting to the Christian appropriation of
Jewish exegetical patterns is also addressed here and there; its thorough
study, however, remains beyond the scope of this book.
Without attempting to exhaust the issue, the discussion relates to
a representative variety of samples from different layers of the New
Testament tradition: Gospels, Epistles and Acts. Chapter 1 discusses the
exegetical techniques applied in a number of antithetical sayings from
the Sermon on the Mount and in a passage from Matthew 19. The
focus on structural features allows the singling out of elements belong-
16
See the discussion in Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects (note 4 above).
17
For a discussion of one such core messianic issue, see Levenson, Death and Resur-
rection, part 3 (‘The Beloved Son between Zion and Golgotha’), 173–232.
ing to the basic hermeneutical syntax of the wider contemporaneous

discourse. Chapter 2 addresses the famous idiosyncratic interpretation
of the love-your-neighbor precept (as love-your-enemy), and attempts
to outline its links to developments attested in relevant Jewish sources
and leading in a similar direction. Chapter 3 analyzes the basic char-
acteristics of the Synoptic section dealing with the great(est) command-
ment in the Torah, where Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 are
coupled. I offer several suggestions with regard to the hermeneutical
nature of the section and its relation to other (e.g., Qumranic) sources
where such coupling occurs. In Chapter 4 the Book of Acts becomes
the main New Testament focus of the investigation; this chapter tackles
the explicitly messianic modes of exegesis and their setting. Focusing on
divorce and related issues, Chapter 5 discusses the possible contribution
of the Pauline epistles both in elucidating the existing variety of Jewish
exegetical trends of late Second Temple Judaism and in clarifying the
nature of the Damascus Document’s interpretation of marital halakhah.
Chapter 6, where both Gospel evidence and Paul’s writings are con-
sidered, returns to the issue of the overall hermeneutical assessment
of the Torah; unlike Chapter 3, however, where general principles
underlying the corpus were the issue, the discussion here focuses on the
history of an alternative tendency—one emphasizing the all-encom-
passing system of particular commandments. Chapter 7 focuses on the
core problem of nascent Christian exegesis—namely, the search for
exegetical justication of the Messiah’s death and its constraints—as
it is reected in Luke/Acts. Finally, Chapter 8 examines the links of
the nascent Christian notion of the new covenant to certain Second
Temple exegetical tendencies.
I see the volume as aiming mainly at two groups of readers: students
of Early Christianity who wish to consider patterns of biblical exegesis
embedded in the New Testament tradition in their appropriate Jew-
ish framework, and students of late Second Temple and/or rabbinic
exegetical traditions who wish to widen their outlook through consid-
eration of relevant New Testament evidence.
CHAPTER ONE
ANTITHESES IN MATTHEW 5:
MIDRASHIC ASPECTS OF EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUES
This opening chapter addresses the exegetical techniques applied in a

number of antithetic sayings from the Sermon on the Mount as well
as in a passage from Matthew 19. The discussion relates mainly to the
structure of the text as it stands now, its redactional history being beyond
the scope of this investigation. A number of parallels in Jewish sources
are reviewed, and the question is raised of their relevance to the study
of the Sermon. It is suggested that even when the conclusions drawn
and the regulations derived from Torah exegesis in different traditions
vary radically, the exegetical techniques applied seem to constitute a
shared element of religious discourse, its basic syntax inherited from
earlier generations. Finally, a typology of the antitheses’ polemical
stance is suggested.
Antitheses in Matthew 5
While instances of Jesus’ separate treatment of some of the issues involved

in Matthew 5 are attested elsewhere in the Gospels,1 their thematic
combination within a unifying exegetical framework stands out as
the trademark of the compiler (editor) of the Sermon on the Mount.
The thematic combination includes a discussion of three prohibitions
from the Decalogue (Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5) and their parallels,
the “eye for an eye” issue (from Exodus 21) and the “love your neigh-
bor” precept from the Holiness Code (Leviticus 19). This strategy of
grouping Torah precepts resurfaces—with reference to Jeremiah—in
the tannaitic Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, which provides an example of a
different thematic combination with all components belonging to the
Decalogue:
1
See, for example, Matt 19:3–9 (cf. Mark 10:2–12) for the divorce issue or Matt
22:34–40 (cf. Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–37) for the discussion on the love-your-
neighbor precept. See also discussion in Chapters 2, 3 and 5.
12 chapter one
,

,

(9 )
[On the one tablet] was written: “You shall not take the name of the
Lord your God in vain.” And opposite it [on the other tablet] was writ-
ten: “You shall not steal”. This tells that he who steals will in the end also
swear falsely. For it is said: “Will you steal, murder and commit adultery
and swear falsely?” ( Jer 7:9).2
In Matthew 5, the discussion is presented as an uninterrupted sermon
initiated by Jesus himself, as opposed to instances where a discussion of
various religious topics is reported in the same Gospel and Jesus is por-
trayed as responding to a question addressed to him as a rabbi (i.e., Matt
22:16–22 and par., Matt 22:23–33 and par., Matt 22:34–40 and par.).3
Whereas this latter mode of discourse in that period seems mainly to
have characterized actual oral interaction between the general populace
and those considered the embodiment of the (legal) tradition—Jewish
sages or, in the wider context, Roman jurists—the thematic arrangement
of material in Matthew 5 may reect the later editorial process.4
Matthew 5:21–26
The rst antithesis is introduced in Matthew 5:21 with the formula:

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old (
)”.
Whereas the rst part of the saying that follows (“You shall not kill”)
is obviously taken from Exodus 20:13 (= Deut 5:17), the rest cannot
be found in any Old Testament text.5 M. McNamara was the rst to
point to the targumic paraphrase of Genesis 9:6 as a clear parallel to
2
Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Ithro 8, H. S. Horovitz (ed.), Jerusalem 1970, 233–234.
English translation of the Mekhilta is according to J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi
Ishmael, Philadelphia 1961.
3
Cf. Matt 22:41–46 and par., where Jesus poses a question to other teachers, who
fail to give a satisfying response.
4
See C. Hezser, ‘The Codication of Legal Knowledge in Late Antiquity: The
Talmud Yerushalmi and Roman Law Codes’, in: P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi
and Graeco-Roman Culture, Tübingen 1998, 583–584, 619–624. Hezser deals mainly with
a later period, but some of her suggestions may turn out to be at least partly relevant
for the rst century ce.
5
Cf. R. J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge 1975, 186;
J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, Rome 1976, 131–132.
midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques 13
the Matthew 5:21 ending.6 Tg. Onqelos interprets the biblical “Whosoever
sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed . . .” as relating to a
juridical procedure in which “by man” means “following the testimony
of witnesses according to the decision (sentence) of judges”:

( + .
.)

.7 The targumic paraphrase of the Torah seems
to have been one of the pillars of public teaching in the synagogue
already in the late Second Temple period. Biblical passages, therefore,
could often be remembered in their Aramaic form, and it is highly
probable that the popular exegetical tradition concerning Genesis 9:6
(attested in Tg. Onqelos and also in Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan—see below) was
in great part responsible (together with Exod 20:13) for the quotation
form in Matthew 5:21.8
It is worth noting that Genesis 9:6 was perceived already by Philo as
posing an exegetical problem: in Questiones et Solutiones in Genesim II.61,
Philo explains that the murderer will be punished by the “dissolution
of his soul” (i.e. he himself will be “shed”)—and this is in agreement
with the LXX version of Genesis 9:6 which reads: “
” (Whoever sheds the
blood of man, will be [ himself ] shed like [or instead of, against] his
blood). As for rabbinic tradition, there is evidence that already in its
early stages discussing Genesis 9:6 vis-à-vis Exodus 20:13 constituted
an accepted exegetical procedure. More than that, Mekhilta de Rabbi
Ishmael, mentioned in this connection by McNamara, perceives these
verses to be essentially two parts of the same commandment:
,
(6
)
,

(Horovitz, 232)
,

“You shall not murder”. Why is this said? Because it says [before]: “Who-
ever sheds man’s blood”, etc. [Gen 9:6]. We have thus [i.e. in Gen 9:6]
heard the penalty for it but we have not heard the warning against it.
Therefore it says here: “You shall not murder”.
6
M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome
1966, 127–129.
7
See A. Sperber (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch, Leiden 1959, 13.
The Old Syriac Gospel of Matthew, which has
in Matt 5:21, seems
to understand the received tradition in exactly this way. Tg. Neoti here closely follows
the Hebrew.
8
See S. Ruzer, ‘The Technique of Composite Citation in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt 5:21–22, 33–37)’, Revue Biblique 103 (1996), 67 and n. 5 there.
14 chapter one
The same technique is applied there to the seventh, eighth and ninth
commandments of the Decalogue. However, in the Mekhilta de Rabbi
Simeon ben Yohai, it is Numbers 35:16 and not Genesis 9:6 that is jux-
taposed to Exodus 20:13:
(16 )

.

.

.

“You shall not murder”. From the established rule “the murderer shall
be put to death” [ Num 35:16] we have learned about the penalty, but
where [can we learn about] the warning? Therefore it says here: “You
shall not murder”. And what if someone said: I am going to commit a
murder and after that let me be executed? [One may think that] then it
is permitted—therefore it says here: “You shall not murder”. And what
if someone is [anyway] being taken to be executed and thinks that then
he is allowed [to commit a murder]. Therefore it says here: “You shall
not murder”.9
It is clear from the combined Mekhilta evidence that the existence of
seemingly parallel or close Torah ordinances concerning murder was
seen as a problem by rabbinic exegetes. One of the solutions, offered
for Genesis 9:6 vs. Exodus 20:13, was to declare these two verses com-
ponents of the same commandment. According to this approach the
Decalogue prohibition does not widen the scope of the denition of
murder established by the traditional understanding of Genesis 9:6.
However, other conclusions also seem to have been drawn from the
juxtaposition of Genesis 9:6 and Exodus 20:13. Thus, for instance,
Pesiqta Hadta, a midrashic composition of uncertain provenance, con-
tains a midrash which suggests—relating to the four letters composing
the word [
] (= [you shall not] murder)—that Exodus 20:13,
in fact (unlike Gen 9:6?), speaks of murder as something committed
not only “by hand and by foot” but also by word of mouth and lack
of psychological involvement in the fate of the other.10 Indeed, the
midrash sees these moral deciencies as actually leading to the death of
the “other”, and they may therefore be considered murder in the legal
sense. And of course there is that famous talmudic saying (b. B.Mez.
9
Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimeon ben Yohai, J. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed (eds.), Jeru-
salem 1955, 152.
10
See Pesiqta Hadta, Shevuot, Beth ha-Midrash, vol. 6, A. Jellinek (ed.), Jerusalem
1938, 45.
58b): “If one offends his fellow man in public, it is as if he sheds a

man’s blood (
)”. The choice of words (“sheds a man’s
blood”) is rather telling: it attempts to deal with the “moral offense”
usually discussed—e.g., in Pesiqta Hadta—in connection with Exodus
20:13 as belonging to the legal realm of Genesis 9:6.
It is worth noting that Philo was already of the opinion that—or
was familiar with a tradition according to which—the prohibition in
the Decalogue “forbids murder, and under it come the laws, all of
them indispensable and of great public utility, about violence, insult,
outrage . . .”.11 However, unlike Matthew and the rabbinic sources
quoted above, Philo does not establish here any exegetical connection
to Genesis 9:6, though the idea of man being in God’s image, underly-
ing the regulation in Genesis 9:6, does feature prominently elsewhere
in Philo’s thinking:
But man, the best of living creatures, through that higher part of his being,
namely, the soul, is most nearly akin to heaven also to the Father of the
world, possessing in his mind a closer likeness and copy than anything
else on earth of the eternal and blessed Archetype.12
Returning to Matthew 5:21, what we encounter in this verse is seem-
ingly a juxtaposition of Exodus 20:13 and Genesis 9:6—the latter being
represented by its more or less standard interpretation, attested, inter
alia, in the Targum. Thus the polemic here should be seen as directed
against the exegetical tendency that perceived Exodus 20:13 and Gen-
esis 9:6 as having the same scope of application, a tendency similar to
the one attested in the Mekhilta. Denying the validity of this tendency,
Matthew’s Jesus suggests, instead, widening the scope of the Exodus
20:13 application (vis-à-vis that of Gen 9:6) to “murder committed also
by word of mouth”. He does so while adopting an approach similar
to the one attested in the passages from the Babylonian Talmud and
Pesiqta Hadta discussed above.
Another characteristic structural feature of Matthew 5:21–22 is the
gradual transition from the jurisdiction of an ordinary court to the
Sanhedrin to the Court on High, where Gehenna is the punishment.
11
Philo, De Decalogo 170. Philo calls the Exodus 20 prohibition of murder “the second
head”—he seems to have had the -- ! (adultery-murder-stealing)
order in his Greek Pentateuch text.
12
Philo, De Decalogo 132.
16 chapter one
This transition corresponds to the changes in the nature of the trans-

gressions mentioned: from hard-core crimes, tried in a court of law with
the testimony of witnesses, to offenses against fellow men that may not
be witnessed by a third party. It is worth noting that a similar transition
occurs in the Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan interpretation of Genesis 9:6:

Whoever sheds the blood of man with witnesses, the judges will nd him
guilty of murder. And he who sheds blood without witnesses, the Lord of
Eternity will call him to account on the day of Great Judgment.
It is instructive that whereas in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael it is claimed
that those who observe the Sabbath will be saved from “the birth pangs
of the Messiah, the day of Gog and Magog, and the Day of Great
Judgment” (Horovitz, 169), according to b. Shab. 118a they will be saved
from “the birth pangs of the Messiah, the judgment of Gehenna (= the
punishment in Gehenna), and the war of Gog and Magog”. Thus the
tradition from the Babylonian Talmud equating public offense with
murder, on the one hand, and the fact that “Gehenna” seems to have
been quite interchangeable in this context with the “Day of Great Judg-
ment”, on the other, allow us to posit that a similar basic logic governs
the transition from earthly to heavenly jurisdiction both in Matthew
5:21–21 and in the Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan interpretation of Genesis 9:6.
Having discerned these structural parallels, let us now inquire about
their meaning. All rabbinic parallels discussed above are found in
compositions belonging to a later period than the Gospel account. In
some cases we may reasonably assume that they represent an earlier
tradition—for example, when, as highlighted above, a similar motif is
attested in Philo’s writings. Yet if we attempt to prove a specic literary
link between those rabbinic parallels and the Gospel pericope, we will
nd ourselves on shaky ground. This is denitely less so if we focus
neither on the form of a particular saying nor on a specic literary link,
but on issues of religious discourse and on the exegetical techniques
applied. It is unlikely that Jesus—or the compiler of Matthew for
that matter—was the rst to recognize the problem of parallel Torah
precepts or the problem of jurisdiction in cases of “transgressions of
the heart” that could not be tried in a court of law. It is also unlikely
that the author of the Gospel text invented the method of playing a
Decalogue precept against its extra-Decalogue parallel in order to widen
the scope of the commandment, while later proponents of the same
technique followed his lead or invented the method independently. The

opposite seems much more probable (inter alia, again in view of the
evidence from Philo’s writings): Matthew 5:21–22 presents its argument
in accordance with an existing exegetical format; it ghts a current
exegetical tendency—the one perceiving Genesis 9:6 and Exodus 20:13
as the same prohibition—and follows an alternative one that tries to
widen the scope of Exodus 20:13. Thus Matthew 5:21–22 may or
even should be seen as an early witness to the exegetical techniques in
question, attested in later rabbinic sources.13
The meaning of
(to/by the men of old) from Mat-
thew 5:21 may thus be assessed as relating to an existing exegetical
opinion—in our case, the claim that Genesis 9:6 and Exodus 20:13
constitute one prohibition with the same subject matter—established
by previous generations of exegetes and seen by our preacher as either
mistaken or inadequate/insufcient. And indeed that has been the
opinion of a number of scholars.14 As David Flusser pointed out, in
some rabbinical sources the polemical juxtaposition of

(to full the Torah) and
(to abolish the Torah) stands
for opposition between the true and the mistaken interpretation of the
Scripture; this, then, may be the meaning of Matthew 5:17 (“Think
not that I have come to abolish the law/Torah . . . I have come not to
abolish . . . but to full”).15
Flusser quotes also in this connection the Sifra for Leviticus 15:33,
where the opposition seems to be between different stages of gradual
revealing of the Torah’s true meaning within the same school of inter-
pretation rather than between true and false exegesis:
13
See Ruzer, ‘Technique of Composite Citation’, 71 and n. 20 there. Cf. P. Sigal (The
Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth, Lanham 1986, 21), who agrees with the notion that this
antithesis (as well as others in Matt 5) is to be understood as a juxtaposition of different
interpretations of the Torah and not an attack on the Torah itself. At the same time
he perceives in the Sermon a radical departure from the body of existing oral tradition
as a whole. It remains unclear whether Sigal considers innovative only the results of
the halakhic procedure applied in Matt 5:21–22 or also the method itself.
14
See, for instance, J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, Rome 1976, 132
and n. 2 there.
15
See D. Flusser, ‘Torah in the Sermon on the Mount’, in: idem, Jewish Sources in
Early Christianity, Tel Aviv 1979, 230 and n. 11 there (in Hebrew); ‘ “Den Alten ist
gesagt” Interpretation der sogenannten Antithesen der Bergpredigt’, Judaica 47 (1985),
35–39; ‘Es wurde zu den Alten gesagt’, in: idem, Entdeckungen Im Neuen Testament, vol.
2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1992, 83–88.
18 chapter one
"
. . . .

The elders of old used to say: during her monthly period a woman should
not make her eyes . . .until she immerses herself into the water. [That was
the rule] until R. Aqiva had come and taught …16
Another instance of the distinction between an opinion of the “rst
generation(s) of a school of exegetes” and the “ultimate exegesis” is
found, this time with clear messianic overtones, in a famous passage from
the Community Rule: “. . . shall be ruled by the rst directives which the
men of the Community began to be taught (

) until the prophet comes, and the
Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9:10–11).17 Here, as in the Sifra
passage, the “rst directives” ( ) seem to denote not the
“Sinai generation” but rather the interpretations propagated by earlier
exegetes belonging to the community (school of interpretation)—this
time of Qumran. All this variegated evidence further strengthens the
suggestion that the polemic in Matthew 5 is directed against existing
exegetical trends propagated by some exegetes of established reputa-
tion—in the Gospel the nature of this basic authoritative community
may be indicated by “scribes and Pharisees” of Matthew 5:20, the
saying distinguished by the same dialectic of recognizing the authority
versus supersessionism observed in the Community Rule and Sifra.
And, nally, the New Testament itself provides additional instructive
evidence of a subtle tension between recognition of the contribution
of “the men of old” and the need for its polemical reworking. This
evidence, in light of which the interpretation of
suggested
above becomes even more probable, is found in Luke 1:2, where the
expression " ’ # clearly designates the author’s predecessors
within the Jesus movement who had tried—from Luke’s viewpoint with
only limited success—to compose accounts of Jesus’ life.
16
Sifra Metsora 5, 12, J. H. Weiss (ed.), Vienna 1862, 79c. In contradistinction to this
case the Sifra for Lev 15:29 ordains that those are not the “innovators”, but

(the rst ones) one is supposed to follow:
:

.
17
English translation of the Qumran material here and throughout the book is
indebted, unless otherwise stated, to W. G. E. Watson in: F. García Martínez (ed.), The
Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: Electronic Version, Leiden 1994.
Matthew 5:33–37
It turns out that the particular midrashic technique outlined above—a

juxtaposition of two Torah precepts, tailored to clarify the scope of
their application—is not restricted to the rst antithesis but repeatedly
employed in Matthew 5. One such instance is Matthew 5:33–37 (the
fourth antithesis), where the issue of swearing is addressed. To properly
appreciate the exegetic strategy of the Gospel passage, the patterns of
early Jewish biblical interpretation dealing with the issue should be taken
into account; and these patterns, as will be seen, are characterized by
the juxtaposition of Exodus 20:7 (“You shall not take the name of the
Lord your God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that
shall take the name of the Lord in vain”) and Leviticus 19:12 (“You
shall not swear falsely by my name”).
Here is the targumic evidence:
You shall not swear by the name of the Lord your God in vain (
)
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall swear by his name falsely
(
). (Tg. Onq. Exod 20:7)
My people, House of Israel, no one of you shall swear by the name of
the Memra of the Lord your God in vain ( ) for the Lord . . . will
not hold guiltless at the Day of Great Judgment any one who swears by
his name in vain ( ). (Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan Exod 20:7)
We may observe (a) that in the Targum, Exodus 20:7 was routinely
interpreted as relating to “swearing”; and (b) that the parallel between
Exodus 20:7 (
= in vain) and Leviticus 19:12 ( = falsely) was
recognized. Tg. Onqelos indicates that these two prohibitions should be
seen as synonymous—although a certain ambivalence may be discerned
here: the Targum speaks of punishment only in connection with false
(and not “vain”) swearing.18
There were also attempts, however, to use the obvious differences
between the Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 19:12 wording to widen the
scope of the Decalogue precept. Thus, among other sources, Pesiqta
Rabbati, a Palestinian midrash of the sixth century, stresses that in con-
trast to “falsely” of Leviticus, “in vain” of the Decalogue covers also
certain cases where no lie is involved but nevertheless the swearing is
considered a transgression: “Hizkiyah said: even if someone states with
18
Cf. Peshitta, which, not unlike Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan, uses the slightly ambiguous
in both cases.
20 chapter one
oath concerning an olive tree that it is an olive tree . . . it constitutes a

‘vain swearing’ [prohibited in the Decalogue]”.19 This general tendency
obviously predates Pesiqta Rabbati as cases of sinful “empty” or “obvious”
swearing are related to, inter alia, in the Jerusalem Talmud:
(. . . in the name of R. Yohanan): anything which is known to the two of
them constitutes “vain swearing” . . . Hizkiya used to say: if somebody
swears that “two is two”, he is guilty against this [Decalogue] command-
ment. ( y. Sheb. 3, 8 [34d])
The Talmud not only widens the scope of the Decalogue commandment
but also, unlike the Targum, leaves no doubt about the punishment that
is due for “empty” swearing:
In the name of R. Shmuel b. Nahman: twenty-four cities (city councils)
existed in the South and all of them were destroyed because of vain
swearing that was true to the facts. (ibid.)
The demand, reported in Sifra (91a), for “ ‘no’ which is truly so and
‘yes’ which is truly so” may be seen as a logical step in this direction.
This Sifra saying constitutes a clear tannaitic parallel to the “yes, yes;
no, no” of Matthew 5:37 which seems to represent an early tradition
and not the nal redaction of the text.20 While Josephus’ remark in the
Jewish War (II 8.6) on the Essenes avoiding swearing could possibly be
seen as indicating a marginal group fancy, Philo’s writings testify that
the above demand reects a long-standing religious concern of wide
currency:
There are some who without even any gain in prospect have an evil habit
of swearing incessantly and thoughtlessly about ordinary matters where
there is nothing at all in dispute, forgetting that it were better to submit
to have their words cut short. (De Decalogo, on Exod 20:7)21
But the difference between “in vain” and “falsely” is not the only dif-
ference between Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 19:12 discussed in rabbinic
sources. While “the name of the Lord your God” from the Decalogue
is understood as a reference to the Tetragrammaton proper (see Tg.
19
Pesiqta Rabbati, M. Friedman (ed.), Tel Aviv 1963, 113a.
20
See M.-É. Boismard, ‘Une tradition para-synoptique attestée par les pères anciens’,
in: J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Christianity, Leuven 1989, 191–194. Cf.
Jas 5:12 and 2 Cor 1:17. It is the former para-synoptic variant that is being supported
by patristic writings.
21
Cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus II.2 and the discussion that follows.
Pseudo-Jonathan, quoted above), “my name” from Leviticus 19:12 cov-

ers—according to Sifra, where the two ordinances are explicitly juxta-
posed—swearing by “every name which belongs to God and not only
the Holy Name”; and this is in addition to what is already covered by
the prohibition in Exodus 20:7!

" (12
)

'
' ' "

“And you shall not swear by my name falsely” [Lev 19:12]. What is the
point of Scripture? Since it is said: “You shall not take the name of the
Lord your God in vain” [Exod 20:7], I might have supposed that one
incurs liability only if he takes in vain the ineffable name of God. How
do I know that all of the euphemisms for God’s name also are involved
in a false oath? Scripture says: “[And you shall not swear] by my name
[falsely]”.22
In contradistinction to the exegesis attested in Philo, Sifra presents its
argument as based on the midrashic juxtaposition of what are perceived
as parallel Torah ordinances; in this case, however, the extra-Decalogue
verse is being used to widen the scope of a Decalogue precept and not
vice versa. We may thus observe two basic directions in which rabbinical
exegesis tries to widen the understanding of Exodus 20:7: from “false”
to “empty” swearing and from swearing by the Holy Name itself to
swearing by any name that “belongs to God”.23
With regard to the exegetical position represented in Matthew
5:33–37, then, we may conjecture that here, as in the rst antithesis, not
the biblical prohibition as such but one of its current interpretations is
being addressed—namely, the “minimalistic” interpretation, which does
not distinguish between
of the Decalogue and of Leviticus
19:12. In fact, the interpretation in question seems to represent an
even more “restrictive” position, as it brings into the picture a third
parallel from Deuteronomy 23:22 (“If you make a vow to the LORD
your God, do not postpone fullling it”). The problem of “using the
Lord’s name” then becomes restricted to the realm of vows. Against
this interpretation, Matthew’s Jesus suggests widening the scope of the
prohibition by moving in two directions:
22
Sifra, Qedoshim 2. English translation is according to J. Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical
Translation, vol. 3, Atlanta 1988, 103–104.
23
On the transition “from old to new halakha” on swearing, see Y. N. Epstein,
Introduction to Tannaitic Literature, Tel Aviv 1957, 377–378 (in Hebrew).
22 chapter one
1. In Matthew 5:33 and 5:37 he moves from “false” through “empty”

swearing to the ultimate conclusion that any swearing is suspected
of “emptiness”.
2. In Matthew 5:34–35 he states that not only swearing by the Holy
Name itself but also swearing by God’s Temple, etc.—wherever it
may be said that
(my name is called upon it)—is
covered by the prohibition (with a peculiar development in Matt
5:36, where an additional motif is introduced).
The Gospel does not refer explicitly to Leviticus 19:12 (as noted, it
refers instead to Deut 23:22), but Leviticus 19:12 is clearly present in
Matthew 5:33 and 5:37 thinking. The interpretation of the Decalogue
commandment here has the same agenda and is construed along the
very lines of thinking that characterize rabbinic exegesis, which is for-
ever trying to determine what kind of swearing (swearing about what
and by what “name”) is prohibited in Exodus 20:7.
Here again I tend to believe that while it would be preposterous
to try to prove any specic link between the pericope in question
and exegetical traditions attested in later rabbinic sources, Matthew
5:33–37—despite the undeniable originality of the discourse—pres-
ents its argument in accordance with an existing exegetical format. It
is thus with regard to the basic characteristics of this format, attested
also later in rabbinic sources, that Matthew 5:33–37 may be seen as
an early witness. And vice versa: the logic and the structure of Jesus’
reasoning in Matthew 5:33–37 as well as in Matthew 5:21–22 may
be better understood if the tendencies of rabbinic thinking discussed
above are given proper consideration. It should be stressed that here
also, as in the case of the rst antithesis, Philo may denitely be seen
as an early witness to the general trend of widening the scope of the
commandment—not, however, for the specic exegetic technique of
“composite citation”.
Matthew 5:27–32
Let us turn now to Matthew 5:27–32—a passage that contains the

second and third antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount. In Chapter
6, the traditions presenting idolatry and lust as two basic expressions
of the evil impulse will be reviewed.24 Moreover, since in a number of
24
See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Seat of Sin in Early Jewish and Christian Sources’, in:
sources from the late Second Temple period and later, idolatry was
presented as having become obsolete, lust came to be portrayed in these
sources as the main outlet of the evil impulse—or at least as the rst
of the capital sins. The Damascus Document (CD-A) 4:15–18 and Luke
16:14–18 provide good examples of such a tendency; it deserves notice
that in both these texts lust is coupled with greed as a major tempta-
tion ensnaring man. The prohibition “You shall not commit adultery”
might in certain contexts—in Qumran, for example—have come to
represent the Torah prohibitions in general;25 hence the centrality of
the adultery issue, discussed also in other parts of the New Testament
(i.e., Matt 19; Rom 7; 1 Cor 6; 1 Thess 4).
In Matthew 5:27–30 one comes across the same basic exegetic
technique already discerned in the passages relating to murder and
“vain swearing”: to prove his point Matthew’s Jesus juxtaposes various
Torah ordinances perceived as related to the same issue. In addition
to obvious references to Exodus 20:14/Deuteronomy 5:18 (Matt 5:27)
and to Deuteronomy 24:1 (Matt 5:31), there is Matthew 5:28 $
% & ' ' # ( (every one who looks at
a woman lustfully), which points to Exodus 20:17/Deuteronomy 5:21

= ( & )

(you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife). In the tannaitic sources,
which discuss the commandments from the second part of the Deca-
logue (e.g., Mekhilta), we nd the argument served by the same basic
technique of juxtaposing parallel Torah ordinances. More exactly, the
Mek. R. Ishmael connects “You shall not covet” from Exodus 20:17 (as
a rst step toward “hard-core” adultery) with “You shall not commit
adultery” from Exodus 20:14. Further on the Mekhilta connects “You
shall not commit adultery” to Leviticus 20:10, which stipulates that in
a case of adultery with a married woman both the adulterer and the
adulteress should be put to death. The Mekhilta quotes the opinion that
Exodus 20:14 speaks about the same issue: “We have heard about the
punishment but did not hear the warning— therefore it says here: ‘You
shall not commit adultery’ [and now we hear it] (

,
)”.26 This last opinion is also cited in
J. Assman and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transforming the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, Leiden
1999, 367–391.
25
See CD-A 7:6–9, 16:10–12.
26
Mek. R. Ishmael (Horovitz), 232.
24 chapter one
the Mek. R. Shimon b. Yohai (Ithro 20): Exodus 20:14 and Leviticus 20:10
have the same subject matter, but one is an absolute imperative while
the other describes the punishment. According to this interpretation
the true importance of Exodus 20:14 is that with it adultery becomes
absolutely forbidden—even if one is ready to accept the punishment
and be executed for the transgression. Philo testies to a different trend,
but he also seems to have been of the opinion that Exodus 20:14 and
its parallels outside the Decalogue have the same subject matter: he
interprets the Decalogue prohibition in light of the list of illicit types
of intercourse found in Leviticus 18:10–16. Characteristically, in his
deliberations here Philo relates to a variety of adulterous acts but not
to adulterous thoughts/intentions.27
However, an alternative interpretation is also reported in the same
passage from Mek. R. Shimon b. Yohai: the prohibition in the Decalogue
is addressed to someone who eats/drinks from his own plate/glass (a
standard metaphor for sexual intercourse) but imagines that he eats/
drinks from the plate/cup of another:

And if someone eats from his own plate but images himself eating from
his friend’s plate, drinks from his own cup but imagines himself drinking
from his friend’s cup, is that permitted? [To prohibit that the Scripture]
says: “You shall not commit adultery”.28
Thus the tannaitic sources take the discussion, presented as the exege-
sis of Exodus 20:14, in two different directions. First, adultery equals
adultery proper—illicit intercourse with another man’s wife—and the
transgressors should be punished by death. The ordinances of Leviticus
20:10 and Exodus 20:14 have, according to this line of thinking, the
same substance—except that the one relates to the penalty whereas the
other provides the warning. Second, compared to Leviticus 20:10 there
is more to the Exodus 20:14 ordinance, and this additional substance
can be seen as connecting the adultery issue with the mental/sensual
sphere of coveting/lust related to in Exodus 20:17. The absence of the
latter trend in Philo’s deliberations on Exodus 20:14 has already been
27
See Philo, De Decalogo, 168–169; cf. De Specialibus Legibus, III.37–42.
28
Mek. R. Shimon b. Yohai (Epstein and Melamed), 152–153.
observed. This trend, however, resurfaces in a later talmudic source

(b. Ber. 61a):
Adultery means to look on a woman. Every one who walks behind a
woman [to look at her] loses his share in the world-to-come . . . One, who
gives her money from hand to hand while counting the coins in order to
(have an opportunity) to look at her, even if he has done good deeds and
studied Torah like Moses our Teacher—he will not escape the judgment
of Gehenna.29
As in the two cases discussed earlier, the Mekhilta evidence here makes
possible a better appreciation of the exegetical structure of Matthew
5:27–30. Some early Jewish exegetes seem to have claimed (as later
documented in Mekhilta) that the substance of the precept is “adultery
proper”—meaning illegal intercourse with a married woman—a trans-
gression for which the death penalty would be the punishment ordained
by the Torah, as specied in Leviticus 20:10. Jesus is portrayed in Mat-
thew 5:27–30 as one who is not satised with this solution—which is
presented as something other teachers have been saying—but chooses
instead the alternative suggestion, also attested in the Mekhilta, that the
subject matter of Exodus 20:14 should be widened to accord with the
prohibition in Exodus 20:17.
The resulting switch from “hard-core adultery” to “coveting” pro-
duces similar results both in the Sermon and in a number of rabbinic
sources, such as the talmudic passage just quoted: as in the case of
anger versus real murder addressed above, here also transgressions of
the heart, which cannot be proved in court, bring to the fore—both in
early rabbinic tradition and in the Sermon—the question of the judg-
ment of Gehenna (instead of regular juridical procedure). The emphasis
on the role of the hand and the eye as agents of lust (Matt 5:28–30)
may be also reasonably seen as reecting an existing trend; another
expression of this general tendency is attested in m. Nid. 2:1 and b. Nid.
13b: “It was taught in the School of R. Ishmael, ‘You shall not commit
adultery’ means that there should be in you no adultery, neither with the
hand, nor with the foot” (I deal with this issue in Chapter 6).
Further on, however, the Sermon returns to the connection, rejected
earlier, between Exodus 20:14 and Leviticus 20:10, bringing up the
issue of a married woman who commits a “real” adultery. It may be
29
English translation of passages from the Babylonian Talmud are according to
the Soncino edition.
26 chapter one
suggested that with the practice of putting to death both lovers losing
its grip, other measures came to the fore—in particular, divorce. Hence
the reference to Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:31–32—whether
originally part of the pericope or not—justly belongs to the discus-
sion, bearing witness to the compiler’s versatility in the current Exodus
20:14 exegesis.30
Matthew 5:27–32 and the discussion in the Mekhilta differ not only in
certain important details31 but in general tone: polemics in the Sermon,
as opposed to reporting different opinions without attempting to estab-
lish which interpretation is the correct one in the Mekhilta. The latter
attitude, sometimes dened as “classicist”, characterizes legal discourse
in both rabbinical and Roman law compendia of late antiquity,32 and it
is clearly at variance with the attitude attested in the Gospel tradition,
which seems to represent an earlier period. All these differences not-
withstanding, the Sermon and the tannaitic sources have been shown to
share both agenda and basic exegetical technique. It may be suggested
that here too they all bear witness to the same traditional exegetical
structure that was routinely used as early as the rst century c e.
On divorce: Matthew 5:31–32
It has been observed in the research that Jesus in Matthew 5:31–32

adopts the interpretation of (something indecent[?]) from
Deuteronomy 24:1 as well as the position with regard to divorce ascribed
by m. Gittin 9:10 to the school of Shammai, as against the interpretation
ascribed by the same mishnah to the school of Hillel:33

.
( )
,
.
( )
,

( )
,

.

30
See J. A. Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 2nd ed., Cambridge 1998, 83, where he
comes to the conclusion that “Matthew . . . . has modied it [the discussion—S.R.] to
make it better suit his Jewish-Christian concerns, casting it in terms of [the] Hillel-
Shammai dispute”.
31
Cf. Sigal, Halakah of Jesus, 92.
32
See Hezser, ‘Codication’, 612, 628–629, 633–636.
33
See, for example, W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Com-
mentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1988–1997, I:
522–32, esp. 530; Sigal, Halakah of Jesus, 21.
The school of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he
has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he has found in her
indecency in anything (Deut 24:1). And the school of Hillel say: [He
may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written,
Because he has found in her indecency in anything (ibid.).
R. Aqiva says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is writ-
ten, And it shall be if she nd no favor in his eyes (ibid.).34
Thus according to the school of Shammai, only adultery constitutes a
sufcient reason for divorcing a wife, whereas Hillel is presented in the
Mishnah as initiating a chain of authorities (including R. Aqiva) who
believed that almost any reason would sufce—a position presented
in Matthew 19:3 as that of the Pharisees: “And Pharisees came up to
him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for
any cause?’ ”. It stands to reason that from the outset this position,
far from being characteristic only of Hillel, was widely held; it is only
later, and in view of the importance ascribed to Hillel in the rabbinic
perception of the history of halakhic controversies, that it became
strongly connected with this particular sage.35 While not denying the
early circulation of this halakhic trend, Vered Noam has argued that
in fact it was a more stringent marital halakhah, the one that would
be ascribed to the school of Shammai, that had a domineering posi-
tion in the days of Jesus.36 If so, on this issue Matthean Jesus may
have in fact followed a majority opinion! It is also worth noting that
Philo does not discuss at all the reasons for the divorce but, not unlike
the passage from Deuteronomy 24 itself, concentrates instead on what
happens after divorce (“. . . for any cause whatever, after parting from
her husband and marrying another . . .”).37
Mishnah Gittin reports a number of additional instances of polemics
between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel relating to
the marriage-divorce issue:
34
English translation of mishnaic material is according to H. Danby, The Mishnah,
Oxford 1974.
35
See A. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Hillel and Jesus: Are Comparisons Possible’, in: J. H.
Charlesworth and L. L. Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major
Religious Leaders, Minneapolis 1997, 31–55, esp. 39, 41–47. For a discussion of Hillel’s
hermeneutical stance, see D. R. Schwartz, ‘Hillel and Scripture: From Authority to
Exegesis’, in: Hillel and Jesus, 335–362.
36
V. Noam, ‘Divorce in Qumran in Light of Early Halakhah’, Journal of Jewish
Studies 56 (2005), 206–223, esp. 219.
37
Philo, De Specialibus Legibus III.30.
28 chapter one
1. m. Git. 4:5—The world was not created except for the sake of pro-
creation (so Shammai, referring to Genesis 1), so one is supposed
to allow half-slave half-bondman to marry (and procreate).
2. m. Git. 8:4–5—A difference of opinion is attested with regard to
which kind of divorce is legally sound and which is not. The “wrong”
divorce creates a situation where a divorced woman who remarries
may be considered an adulteress and her children—bastards (cf.
Matt 5:31).
3. m. Git. 8:8—A husband gives his wife a divorce and then changes
his mind.
Unlike the Mishnah, the earlier Gospel tradition does not mention
by name the two sages, who might have been older contemporaries
of Jesus or belonged to the previous generation;38 but it does seem to
relate to a yet unsolved exegetical controversy, siding with one of the
existing opinions.
In contradistinction to the pericopes discussed above, in Matthew
5:31–32 it is the existence of conicting interpretations of a difcult
biblical expression ( ) that constitutes the exegetical crux of
the polemic; neither juxtaposing different Torah ordinances nor widen-
ing the scope of the precept is employed here. This demonstrates the
variegated nature of both the polemical patterns and the exegetical
methods used in the Gospel. To better appreciate this variety, let us
consider a pericope from outside the Sermon that addresses the same
adultery-divorce issue.
On divorce: Matthew 19:3–9 (cf. Mark 10:2–12)
We have observed that in Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees ask Jesus’ opin-
ion on the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 ( ), which
m. Gittin 9:9 ascribes to the school of Hillel. But as opposed to the
Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:18: “For truly I tell you, until heaven
and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass
38
In these instances also, the attribution to the schools of Shammai and Hillel may
indicate an attempt to overcome the anonymity of the longstanding tradition; see note
35 above and the discussion there. Cf. Hezser (‘Codication’, 610–611, 628), who
discusses the return to anonymity in later stages of construction of the meta-discourse
in the Jerusalem Talmud.
from the Torah (law) until all is accomplished”.), Deuteronomy 24:1

is presented in Matthew 19:7–8 as an ad hoc regulation with only a
limited period of application. The notion of ad hoc Torah regulation
(
) is attested in later rabbinical sources, and even Philo cre-
ated a tripartite division of the Torah material: God’s words, Moses’
own deliberation and a mix of the two.39 It is seemingly vis-à-vis these
tendencies that one should examine the “liberal” position with regard
to the Holy Writ attested in the Matthean pericope under discussion.40
It is also telling that the Gospel, which elsewhere is more than ready
to report on Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees, does not here give
the slightest indication that Jesus’ statement provoked a resentment or
any other negative reaction. Could it be that in this instance also the
reasoning of Matthew’s Jesus reected an inherited exegetic pattern?41
This is a question that cannot be addressed here; it necessitates further
investigation.42
Beyond that “liberal” quality of the statement in Matthew 19:7–8,
verses 4–6 establish that for the true eternal principles of marital union
one has to look to the story of the creation. This is one of the char-
acteristic midrashic features to be discerned in traditions ascribed to
the school of Shammai in m. Gittin referred to above. The saying from
Genesis 1:27 is used in m. Gittin 4:5 to create a halakhic midrash: man
nds his fulllment in procreating, hence one should adopt a lenient
39
See Philo, De Vita Mosis II, 188–91.
40
Cf., Davies-Allison, Matthew, 1:527; 3:11–12, where a reference to Mal 2:16 is
discerned here.
41
B. Repschinski (‘Taking On the Elite: The Matthean Controversy Stories’, in:
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Atlanta 1999, 1–23, esp. 14, suggests that the
prominence given to the Pharisees in the “controversy stories” by the compiler of Mat-
thew reects the closeness of the former to the Matthean community and hence the
acuteness of the polemics. Repschinski seems to overamplify the controversy aspect in
some of the pericopes he discusses (incl. Matt 19:3–9); but in general his suggestion is
convincing. Moreover, this polemical closeness may denitely account for the reliance
on shared exegetical patterns.
42
In Chapter 5, a hermeneutical move in the opposite direction and found in CD-A
5:1–8 is discussed. Instead of Moses’ initiative to add to the “initial Torah”, the pas-
sage from the Damascus Document speaks of concealment of the “existing Torah” (with
the similar purpose of “adjusting God’s demands” to Israel’s real abilities). This latter
perception seems to reect the Damascus Document programmatic notion of the written
Torah forever retaining its status, while in actuality being reinterpreted according to
the revelation of the new covenant. See P. R. Davies, ‘The Judaism(s) of the Damascus
Document’, in: J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon and A. Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus
Document; A Centennial of Discovery, Leiden 2000, 33–34.
30 chapter one
attitude toward an additional marriage union. Although the specic

halakhic decision at which the Mishnah arrives here may characterize
only Shammai (or certain followers of his), using the creation story to
dene basic principles of Jewish marriage seems to represent a wider
midrashic trend.
Let us have a closer look at Matthew 19:4–6. The argument here is
presented as a midrashic combination of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24:
He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the
beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man
shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two
shall become one esh’? So they are no longer two but one esh. What
therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder”.
A number of rabbinic sources put Genesis 2:24 to halakhic use with
regard to problems pertaining to marriage; for example, the following
is an interpretation in b. Sanh 58a attributed to R. Elazar (an early tan-
naitic authority from the second half of the rst century?):
“He should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two
should become one esh”. “His father”—i.e. the one who belongs to his
father, his father’s sister (R. Aqiva: his father’s wife); “his mother”—his
mother’s sister (or his mother herself ); “and cling” not to male but to
female; “to his wife”—and not to his fellow’s wife; “one esh”—not to a
beast or an animal, they never become “one esh”.
Genesis 1:27, however, is referred to mostly in connection with the
androgyne-centered notion of the rst man’s nature.43 Yet there is a
marriage-centered midrash on Genesis 1:27 in b. Yeb. 63a where the
same R. Elazar refers to Genesis 5:2 (= Gen 1:27): “One who does not
have a wife is not a man (Adam) because it is said, ‘Male and female
He created them’ ”. It is worth noting that the talmudic discussion
here centers on encouragement to marry—seemingly detached from
the call to procreate—not on the prevention of divorce and/or second
marriage.
Hence the importance of the evidence from the Damascus Document,
where Genesis 1:27 is used, as in Matthew 19, to establish the marital
halakhah (CD-A 4:15–18):44
43
See, for example, Gen. R. 8.1, Lev. R. 14.1. See also discussion in Chapter 5.
44
M. Kister (‘Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls’,
in: T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde [eds.], Diggers at the Well, Leiden 2000, 157–158)

They . . . are caught twice in fornication: by taking two wives in their lives,
even though the principle of creation is (Gen 1:27) “male and female
he created them”.
The exact meaning of the above admonition—does it refer to remar-
riage or bigamy (polygamy)?—has been much discussed, and I shall
return to the issue in Chapter 5. Sufce it to say here that whatever
the true intention of the Damascus Document admonition, it can be stated
that while halakhic and non-halakhic decisions derived from discussions
of the marriage-divorce issue might have differed from tradition to
tradition, the appeal to Genesis 1 and 2 and, even more specically, to
Genesis 1:27 is attested in at least some of those discussions, including
the Qumranic, New Testament and later tannaitic evidence.45 So it may
be suggested—with even greater probability than with regard to the
pericopes discussed earlier—that in this case also the exegetical move
in Matthew 19:4–6 represents an inherited midrashic feature.
Conclusion
Five pericopes from the Gospel of Matthew were examined in this

chapter, four of them from the Sermon on the Mount and one from
Matthew 19. In every one of them the argument is presented in the
form of an interpretation of the Torah, suggesting a Jewish-Christian
milieu sensitive to the characteristic late Second Temple features of the
art of exegesis. The investigation centered less on the text form and
more on the general agenda and structural features of New Testament
even suggests that the corresponding descriptions of the initial ideal state of affairs in
Matt 19 (* #) and CD-A 4 (
) might have been derived from the
same formula.
45
W. D. Davies (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, London 1964, 252) views
certain isolated sayings of the Sermon as expressions of polemics with the Essenes,
whereas J. Kampen (‘A Reexamination of the Relationship between Matthew 5:21–48
and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in: D. J. Lull [ed.], Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
Chico, Ca. 1990, 34–59, esp. 58) reaches the conclusion that “there are larger bodies
of material in the Gospel of Matthew which reect some debate with a viewpoint we
nd represented in the preserved writings of Qumran”. Both Davies and Kampen,
however, analyze primarily the ideas expressed and positions taken (hence “debate”),
while the present study emphasizes the issue of shared exegetical structures and pre-
suppositions underlying the debate.
32 chapter one
exegetical passages, as well as on the techniques applied. Juxtaposing two

or more parallel Torah precepts as a means of widening the scope of
the commandment was shown to be one of the most important exegeti-
cal tools used in Matthew 5. Other hermeneutical devices, including
moving from a juridical procedure dealing with hard-core transgres-
sions to judgment in Gehenna as punishment for transgressions that
cannot be tried in the court of justice, choosing one of two possible
interpretations of a difcult biblical expression (Deut 24:1: ),
or appealing to the story of the creation—always used for backing the
tougher religious standards—were also outlined.
A number of relevant Jewish exegetical traditions from outside the
New Testament were also reviewed. These traditions might differ from
the Gospel sayings in tone (non-polemical in Mekhilta but polemical in
CD) and in the details of their halakhic and other conclusions; but it
turned out that they deal with the same exegetical problems and fol-
low the same basic structure of argument. In the case of appealing to
Genesis 1 and 2 for the sake of establishing the marriage law (Matthew
19) it appears that the same exegetical technique was applied in the
rabbinic sources and in Qumran, which enables us more or less safely to
dene the strategy employed in Matthew 19:4–6 as an inherited one.
In the other cases, mostly rabbinic parallels, attested in tannaitic
and amoraic (i.e., later) sources, were available. Philo supplied only
half-parallels: similar ideas but not necessarily the same exegetic tech-
niques. Nevertheless, it would be preposterous to see the shared technical
features of the exegetical discourse as rst invented either by Jesus or by
the transmitters of the Gospel tradition and later reinvented or picked
up by certain tannaitic authorities. It is much more plausible that
both New Testament and rabbinic sources bear witness to an existing
midrashic pattern that should be described as Palestinian rather than
Hellenistic. Thus one may apply Fitzmyer’s suggestion—that Matthew
has modied the discussion of the divorce issue to make it better suit
his Jewish-Christian concerns, casting it in terms of a known exegetical
polemic—also to the rst, second and fourth antitheses.
It should be emphasized again that what is observed here is not neces-
sarily an inherited opinion on the issues under discussion (the period was
one of a great uidity and variety of opinions!) but inherited technical
or structural characteristics of exegetic discourse. The Sermon material
may, therefore, be seen as early witness to—or as witness to an early
stage in the development of—certain exegetical patterns otherwise
attested only in later rabbinic sources, thus providing us with an impor-
tant link in the history of Jewish exegesis that was hitherto missing. The
midrashic device of composite citation observed in the Sermon on the
Mount—namely, the polemically avored juxtaposing of parallel Torah
precepts—is one of these patterns. The importance of the First Gospel
evidence is here further enhanced, given the absence of this exegetical
technique in Luke’s version of the Sermon as well as in Philo’s exege-
sis—in spite of the latter’s obvious inclination to see the Decalogue in
light of the extra-Decalogue “special laws”, and vice versa.
The foregoing analysis lends support to the opinion that the intention
of the compiler of Matthew 5 was to present the polemics as directed
not against the Torah but against certain contemporaneous exegetical
tendencies. Such tendencies include opinions that do not recognize
in the Decalogue commandments additional meanings vis-à-vis the
parallels outside the Decalogue, or refer to hard-core transgressions
only or, just the opposite, ascribe too broad a meaning to the difcult
“ ” from Deuteronomy 24:1. My analysis therefore supports an
interpretation of “
” (to/by the men of old) (Matt 5:21, 33)
as relating to a long chain of exegetical tradition, and of “
' ,—)- ' ,” (to abolish the law—to full the
law) (Matt 5:17) as relating to a lacking or incomplete—not necessarily
wrong—interpretation of the Torah as against the true (profound, exhaustive)
one. In their classic commentary on Matthew, W. D. Davies and D. C.
Allison mention this interpretation of the Sermon’s intention as only
the sixth among nine possibilities and then dismiss it altogether in a
footnote, claiming: “However, in the following paragraphs Jesus’ words
are much more than exegesis”.46 I certainly believe that this appraisal
deserves to be revised.
Berndt Schaller has suggested a different explanation for the open-
ing formula, one based on his reading of “./ 0 )

. . . &1 23 & 4” (You have heard that it was said to the
men of old . . . But I say to you) as analogous to the rabbinic expression
“ . . .
” (I have heard and understood . . . but the
teaching/text instructs otherwise).47 If accepted, this suggestion would
modify our appraisal of the antitheses’ polemical aspect. However,
46
Davies-Allison, Matthew, 480.
47
See B. Schaller, ‘The Function and Character of the Antitheses in Matt 5:21–48
in the Light of Rabbinical Exegetic Dispute’, in: H.-J. Becker and S. Ruzer (eds.), The
Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting, Paris 2005, 70–88.
34 chapter one
in this case also, the conclusions regarding basic exegetical patterns

employed in Matthew 5:21–37 ( juxtaposition of parallel Torah pre-
cepts, using differences in wording to widen the scope of the precept)
would remain valid.
The passage from Matthew 19 differs in this respect from the rst
four Matthew 5 antitheses. This passage was chosen for discussion (a)
because its subject matter (the divorce issue) and its immediate context
( Jesus’ conversation with a young man in Matt 19:16–20) point to a link
with the Sermon on the Mount tradition; and (b) because of its anti-
thetical structure. However—unlike Matthew 5:31–32—the polemically
avored argument is presented here not as disclosing the true meaning
of Deuteronomy 24:1 but as dismissing Deuteronomy 24:1 as an ad hoc
palliative of Moses’ invention for the sake of a more profound and truly
godly ordinance from elsewhere in the Torah. The question as to the
extent to which this position might have had a standing in a broader
Jewish milieu in the rst century c e needs further deliberation. In any
case, the variegated nature of the antithetical constructions attested in
Matthew warrants emphasis. It is, of course, instructive that the “liberal”
attitude toward certain “secondary” parts of the Torah is documented
only in Matthew 19—that is, it is relegated to a position far outside the
Sermon on the Mount with its programmatic/apologetic statement: “For
truly, I say to you, till the heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not
a dot, will pass from the Torah until all is accomplished”.
CHAPTER TWO
FROM “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR” TO “LOVE YOUR ENEMY”
Let us turn now to what is arguably the most famous antithesis of the
Sermon on the Mount—namely, the love-your-enemy precept, appear-
ing both in the Matthean version of the Sermon (Matt 5:44) and in its
Lukan parallel (Sermon on the Plain—Luke 6:35). There have been
attempts to present the saying in Luke as primarily belonging to the
category of moral teaching.1 Regarding Matthew 5:44, however, there
is general agreement that the precept is being put forward in the con-
text of a midrashic elaboration of Leviticus 19:18, a biblical verse that
speaks of love toward one’s neighbor. In both versions of the Sermon,
enmity or hatred is dened as the opposite of love, while the enemies
there are not simply insufciently pious or even shamefully sinful per-
sons whom one may resent, but real “hard-core” enemies, those who
hurt one physically or rob one of his possessions.2 The originality of
the maxim in Matthew 5:44/Luke 6:35 has been duly emphasized in
research; most scholars, moreover, seem to agree that the origin of this
particular exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18 should be attributed
to Jesus himself.3 On the other hand, the question of close tendencies
in Jewish thought before Jesus, in his time and afterward has been also
raised. Regarding the nature of precedents and parallels or, better,
developments leading in this direction, as attested in relevant Jewish
sources, a number of evaluations have been put forward.
For the sake of reassessment of the issue, a variety of Jewish exegetical
trends from the Second Temple period, which concern themselves with
Leviticus 19:18, should rst be reviewed. Some of the material previ-
ously discussed in the research will be re-evaluated here, and instances
1
See, for example, O. Seitz, ‘Love Your Enemies’, New Testament Studies 16 (1969/
1970), 39–54, esp. 52. For a discussion of this issue, see H. D. Betz, The Sermon on
the Mount; A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain, Min-
neapolis 1995, 294–328.
2
See R. H. Gundry, Matthew; A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under
Persecution, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids 1994, 96.
3
See, for example, Betz, Commentary, 309, 311.
36 chapter two
of additional, previously overlooked, evidence will be addressed. Special

attention will be paid to exegetical attempts to dene the scope of
applicability of the love-your-neighbor precept, in particular attempts
to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to cover enemies also; character-
istic features of the exegetical trends of this last kind will be outlined.
Further on, in the second part of the chapter, the results of the analysis
will provide a basis for the discussion of the love-your-enemy precept
in the Sermon on the Mount, while the following chapter, Chapter 3,
will focus on a related though different exegetical pattern attested in
the Gospels—namely, a collation of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus
19:18 into a “double love command”.
Tensions in the biblical text
We should relate rst to the biblical ordinance “love your neighbor

as yourself ” (Lev 19:18) presented in Matthew—and, as will be seen,
possibly also in Luke—as the basis for the love-your-enemy exegesis.
The verse is part of the so-called Holiness Code, which opens with
God’s call to the children of Israel to “Be holy as I, your Lord, am
holy” (Lev 19:2). Among other things, the Holiness Code (H) ventures
to dene the proper attitude toward one’s fellow men, and there are
three key instances where the scope of the applicability of that attitude
is addressed: Leviticus 19:3, 17–18 and 34. The sequence of these verses
seems to indicate a step-by-step widening of that scope: from awe of
and respect for one’s parents (Lev 19:3), to love of one’s “neighbor”
(Lev 19:18), to love toward a stranger who “sojourns with you” (Lev
19:34).4 Consequently one may claim that the scope of applicability
question is already crucial for the Holiness Code itself or, in the words
of Jack Milgrom, that the “dynamic catalyst that turns H’s view of the
Lord’s covenant from a static picture into one of ux is its concept of
holiness. For H the ideal of holiness is not only embodied in a limited
group (priests), animals (sacrices), and space (sanctuary) but affects
all who live on God’s land: persons and animals, Israel and the ger
(sojourner)”. Milgrom thus discerns in Leviticus 19 signs of “mobil-
ity” and “moving boundaries”, and sees the view of holiness presented
4
See B. A. Levine, Leviticus; The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary, Philadelphia
1989, 129–131. Cf. Jub 7:20–21.
from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy” 37
there as “a dynamic concept” that “breaks apart” the static picture of

holiness propagated by the priestly source (P).5
The tension persists, however, even within a smaller unit of the text
that includes Leviticus 19:18 and two preceding verses. Here a variety
of both desirable and undesirable attitudes (love, revenge, hatred, jus-
tice, violence, reproof ) is attested, as well as a variety of designations of
the “other”: , , ,
, , , (neighbor,
brother, next of kin, citizen, one belonging to your people, stranger;
LXX: ,
, , , , ,
—the LXX translates both and as ).6 It seems
that this multiplicity of descriptions of the “other” bears witness to a
specic problem existing already on the level of the biblical passage
itself—namely, a question that is fundamental to this unit or, as suggested
above, even to the Holiness Code as a whole: What are the limits of
applying the admonition of Leviticus 19:17–18?7
The beginning of Leviticus 19:18 (“ - - - ”,
“you shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against your own
people”) establishes an intrinsic connection between the call to love one’s
neighbor and the issue of vengeance. It may also point to a different
standard in regard to other nations. Moreover, the choice of verbs
here is identical with the one in Nahum 1:2, where the enemies of the
Lord seem to be equated with the (political) enemies of Israel: “'
” (“the Lord wreaks vengeance on his adversaries
and harbors wrath/bears a grudge toward his enemies”). All this seems to
bring the “enemies” into the picture, again already on the level of the
5
J. Milgrom, ‘The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Pentateuchal Codes with
Emphasis on Leviticus 19’, in: J. F. A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus; A Conversation with
Mary Douglas, Shefeld 1996, 70–72. Cf. the opposing views expressed in the same
volume in the course of discussion (ibid., 80–83). See also J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22,
Anchor Bible, New York 1991–2001, 1596–1602.
6
On this tension between different designations of the “other”, see also G. J. Wen-
ham, The Book of Leviticus: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand
Rapids 1979, 269 (it seems to have been reected later in Hillel’s paraphrase of the
commandment in b. Shab. 31a). In some exegetical elaborations of the love-versus-
hatred issue, the hatred toward one’s brother was presented as a particularly heinous
disposition. Thus, unlike the Peshitta version of the story of Cain and Abel, which
speaks, following the Hebrew, of Cain’s anger and his being displeased, A Syriac Life of
Abel places emphasis on Cain’s hatred toward his brother. See S. Brock, ‘A Syriac Life
of Abel’, Le Muséon 87 (1974), 472. And, of course, the brothers’ hatred for Joseph
greatly troubled early Jewish exegetes; see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible; A Guide to
the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, Cambridge, Mass. 1998, 438.
7
See also Betz, Commentary, 302; Wenham, Leviticus, 269.
38 chapter two
biblical text itself. There has even been an attempt to argue that the
commandment to love one’s neighbor was given in Leviticus 19:18 in
terms of a specic interpretation—namely, one that expressly excludes
enemies.8 Further on, the discussion will address a range of exegetical
expositions on Leviticus 19:18 that try to restrict the application of the
precept to one’s own community or, alternatively, widen it to include
total outsiders and even enemies. New historical circumstances or a
“new sensitivity” may condition those expositions—but, as tensions dis-
cerned in the biblical text in question suggest, not exclusively. Leviticus
19:17–18 seems to be one of those instances where exegetical traditions
develop around the verse not only as a reection of new circumstances
and ideas (“historicist” model) but, inter alia, as a result of a reading of
the Bible (“formalist” model).9 It is this exegetical side, the early history
of Leviticus 19:18 exegesis that this investigation focuses upon; it is in
this context that the “enemy issue” will be addressed.
Between “your enemy” and “one who hates you”
Although, as was remarked in the previous paragraph, the question of

“enemies” seems somehow to be present already in the Holiness Code
itself, the words “enemy” and “enmity” do not appear there. In the
beginning of Leviticus 19:17, however, there is a prohibition of hatred
toward those of your own tribe: “You shall not hate your brother . . .”
(
- , ). What, then, is the
relation between hatred and enmity?
The word “enemy/enemies” (, LXX: ) as well as such
expressions as “treat with enmity” (, LXX: ) in most cases
appear in the Bible in a context presupposing a war and an external
(political) enemy of Israel and, by transference, of God himself, as, for
example, in Exodus 15:6,9; Leviticus 26:25; Numbers 24:18; Deuter-
onomy 20:14; 1 Samuel 24:5; 1 Kings 8:44; Ezra 39:27; Psalms 56:10.
This context often presupposes revenge, victory and salvation. There are
8
See U. Luz, Matthew 1–7, trans. W. C. Linss, Minneapolis 1989, 338–346. Conse-
quently, Luz sees Matt 5:43–44 as a clear expression of the author’s anti-Jewish (sic!)
sentiment.
9
Terminology suggested in D. Boyarin, ‘ “Language Inscribed by History on the Bod-
ies of Living Beings”: Midrash and Martyrdom’, Representations 25 (1989), 139, 151.
also quite a few instances where God himself is presented as a party to

the war waged, as an agent of the enmity. Here are three of them:
(1) Exod 23:22: - ( ! ! ) (“I will
be an enemy to your enemies”)
(2) 2 Chr 20:29: '
; (“The Lord has fought against
the enemies of Israel”)
(3) Lam 2:5 (!!!) (" ) (“The Lord has
become like an enemy, he has destroyed Israel”)
In the rst two cases the Lord ghts the battle of Israel; in the third
the Lord is against Israel, it is as if he becomes an enemy. This last
example will later be dealt with separately.
In contradistinction to the “enemy”, “one who hates you” in most
cases in the biblical texts is not identied as belonging to a different
tribal, ethnic or political entity. He is not an outsider but a sinful
insider, one who hates righteousness and hence hates the Lord and
the righteous ones (or the other way around). Thus we read—to quote
only few examples—“Evil shall slay the wicked; and those who hate
(LXX: ) the righteous will be condemned”. (Ps 34:22[21]);
“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate (#$) the
Lord?” (2 Chr 19:2); “You who hate (, ) the good and
love (, %) the evil” (Mic 3:2). In some cases, however, these
are righteous ones who hate evil: “men who are trustworthy and who
hate a bribe ([] , )” (Exod 18:21). At least in some
instances, it seems clear that hatred signies an inner disposition rather
than an action proper.10
In spite of the difference of meaning between “enemy” and “hater”
suggested by the sources reviewed, this distinction is not unequivocal.
Some cases bear witness to an overlap of meaning between the two
notions. For example:
(1) Ps 129:5: “May all who hate Zion (LXX: ) be put to
shame . . .” Here those who hate Zion are clearly enemies from out-
side. The same is true with regard to Ps 89:20–23 (21–24), where
foes = enemies = those who hate (==) (- -
).
10
See, for example, Deut 4:42; 19:4,6.
40 chapter two
(2) Exod 23:4–5: “If you meet your enemy’s () (LXX: )
ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you
see the ass of one who hates you () (LXX: ) lying
under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you
shall help him to lift it up”. Enemy here is “one who hates”. This
enemy does not seem to belong to another ethnic or political entity,
he is not one against whom war is waged.
As the last example clearly demonstrates, the difference between the
two notions becomes even more blurred in the LXX, where
occasionally stands for both “hateful” and “enemy”. An instructive later
tannaitic evidence of a similar blurring of the distinction is found in
m. Sanh. 3:5: “. . . an enemy is he who has not spoken to his neighbor
(sic!) for three days”.
Early witnesses for the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18
Ben Sira
In a passage from Ben Sira (about 185 b c e) we read:
Wrath and anger are loathsome things, which the sinful person has for
its own (i.e., these are qualities of the sinners). The vengeful will suffer
the Lord’s vengeance, for he remembers their sins . . . Should a person
nourish anger against another, and expect healing from the Lord? Should
a person refuse mercy to a man like himself . . . If one who is but esh
cherishes wrath, who will forgive his sins? Remember your last day, set
enmity () aside . . . Think of the commandments, hate not
your neighbor. (Ben Sira 27:33–28:9)11
The expressions set in bold type indicate, to my mind, that the fragment
is an (early) exegetical exposition of Leviticus 19:17–18. One is forbid-
den to harbor wrath and anger or to seek vengeance (with reference to
the beginning of Lev 19:18: - - ) or to hate (Lev 19:17:
- )—with an exegetic collation between “your brother” from
the beginning of Leviticus 19:17 and “your neighbor” from the second
part of Leviticus 19:18. The emphasis here is on the interpretation
of kamokha (“as yourself ”) as “one who is but esh” exactly like you.
Justice demands that one treat his fellow men with tolerance, as their
11
The English translation is from The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,
RSV.
shortcomings are of the same kind as his. God is presented here as the
guarantor of justice (Lev 19:18: “. . . I am the Lord!”): if one does not
comply, God will deal with him on the Day of Judgment—coinciding
in Ben Sira 27–28 with the person’s departure from this world—with
the same intolerance he now treats his neighbor.
This exegetical tendency characterizes some additional traditions dat-
ing from the Second Temple period too (i.e., 2 En 61:2: “As a person
makes a request from the Lord for his own soul, in the same manner
let him behave toward every living soul”). It is also attested in later
rabbinic sources; according to the saying ascribed by Abot De-Rabbi
Nathan (B, 53) to the mid-rst century c e R. Hanina: “If you hate
your neighbor whose deeds are wicked like your own, I, the Lord, will
punish you as your judge; and if you love your neighbor whose deeds
are good as your own, I, the Lord, will . . . . have mercy on you”. (cf.
Matt 6:14–15; Luke 6:37–38). This feeling of basic human solidarity
( your neighbor is in fact like you, and his weaknesses are the same as yours, so you
have no reason at all to hate him or to despise him) and the exegetical trend
connected with it have been thoroughly studied.12 Their role in wid-
ening the scope of application of Leviticus 19:18 has also been duly
emphasized. It is worth noting, however, that in Ben Sira the neighbor
in question seems to be one of our own kind—sinner, yes, but not a
“hard-core” enemy, not one who persecutes you and, of course, not
an enemy from outside.13
Another exegetical tendency is attested in the Targums: “Love (be
kind) to your fellow man: what you dislike, do it not unto him” (Tg
Yer. I on Lev 19:18). The Targum interprets kamokha (as yourself )
from Leviticus 19:34 as in the same way. This particular exegesis, which
establishes a connection between the Torah precept and the Golden
Rule, deals with the substance of the demand to love your neighbor
as you love yourself without addressing the question of the scope of
its application.14 The same stance is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels.
Admittedly, unlike in the Targum, Jesus’ saying “whatever you wish
that men would do to you, do so to them” is quoted in Matthew 7:12
12
See D. Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message’, in:
idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem 1988, 477.
13
It may be argued that the Lev 19:18 “neighbor” ( ) originally referred to the
person living “next door”, and the whole issue here was that of “good/bad neighbor”
in the social sense. Therefore, LXX already “universalizes” and “spiritualizes”
the neighbor. See Betz, Commentary, 304–305.
14
See also Tob 4:14–15. For further examples, see Kugel, Traditions, 756.
42 chapter two
as if detached from its exegetical context—“love your fellow man” is

omitted. However, this context is clearly indicated by the statement
that immediately follows: “For this is [the meaning of ] the Torah and
the Prophets”. In Luke 6:31 the exegetical context of the maxim is
restored (see discussion below).
The problem of dating targumic traditions is a complicated one, and
we cannot go into that problem here. There are, however, sufcient
reasons to believe that the tradition, which found its way into a Pales-
tinian Targum, is an early one—the above New Testament evidence
clearly indicates that. Moreover, a similar kind of exegesis is attested
already in the book of Jubilees, where the wording seems to indicate
that the problem of the scope of application of Leviticus 19:18 is taken
into consideration:
And among yourselves, my sons, be loving of your brothers as a man
loves himself, with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him,
and acting together on the earth, and loving each other as themselves.
( Jub 36:4)
Pseudepigrapha
A number of passages from Pseudepigrapha bear witness to one more
pattern of thought presented in an exegetical connection with Leviticus
19:18. According to the Testament of Benjamin, through undivided love
toward the righteous and toward the sinner, the pious man overcomes
the evil in the sinner:
. . . he is merciful to all, even though they may be sinners. And even if
persons plot against him for evil ends, by doing good this man conquers
evil, being watched over by God. (. . .) And if your mind is set towards
good, even evil men will be at peace with you and . . . will respect you and
will turn back to the good. (T. Benj. 4:2f; 5:1)15
Another passage from the Testament of Benjamin has a distinctly polemic
avor as regards the interpretation of Leviticus 19:18:
The good set of mind does not talk from both sides of its mouth . . .; but
it has one disposition . . . toward all men . . .; whatever it does, or speaks . . .,
15
The English quotations from Pseudepigrapha are from: J. H. Charlseworth (ed.),
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, New York 1983. See H. W. Hollander and M. De
Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; A Commentary, Leiden 1985, 424. For further
examples and for the role of reproach in preventing not only the sin of the sinner but
also the hatred toward the sinner, see Kugel, Traditions, 752–756.
it knows that the Lord is watching over its life . . . the works of Beliar are
twofold, and have in them no integrity. (T. Benj. 6:5f )
How far-reaching is this polemical attitude? Is it dictated also by the
hope to reform/convert sinners? Does it, in contradistinction to pas-
sages from the Targum and Ben Sira quoted above, include not only
sinners but also “hard-core” enemies? We may not be able to reach a
denitive answer to these questions.16 Let us notice, however, that had,
say, persecutors, those “haters from outside”, been included, the position
taken by the Testament would have meant readiness for martyrdom.17
A number of pseudepigraphic compositions from the Second Temple
period bear witness to another exegetic tendency—namely, a tendency
to collate two “love commandments”, those of Deuteronomy 6:5 (“you
shall love the Lord your God”) and of Leviticus 19:18 (“you shall love
your neighbor”) in a kind of summary of one’s religious obligations.18
This tendency, attested also in the New Testament, is briey addressed
in the second part of this chapter but, as noted, is dealt with more
extensively in Chapter 3.
Qumran
An important piece of Leviticus 19:18 exegesis is found in the Damascus
Document:
And concerning the saying, You shall not take vengeance on the children of your
people, nor bear any rancor against them (Lev 19:18), if any other member of
the Covenant accuses his companion (, neighbor) without rst rebuk-
ing him before witnesses; if he denounces him in the heat of his anger or
reports him to his elders to make him look contemptible, he is one that
takes vengeance and bears rancor, although it is expressly written, He
(God) takes vengeance upon his adversaries and bears rancor against his
enemies (Nah 1:2). If he holds his peace towards him from one day to
another, and thereafter speaks of him in the heat of his anger, he testies
against himself concerning a capital matter because he has not fullled
the commandment of God which tells him: You shall rebuke your companion
(neighbor) and not be burdened with sin because of him (Lev 19:17). (CD 9: 2–8;
4Q270 Frag. 6, 3:16–21)
16
The issue was addressed in Betz, Commentary, 310–311 and note 876, there.
17
See Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 489.
18
See, for example, Jub 36; T. Dan 5:3; T. Iss. 5:2, 7:6; T. Zeb. 5:1. For a discussion
of the issue, see Flusser, Jesus, Jerusalem 2001, 88–90; Kugel, Traditions, 682–683.
44 chapter two
Here Leviticus 19:17–18, considered as a unit, is being applied to the

neighbor, who is one “of your people and a member of the Covenant”—
namely, the elect, the members of the sect as opposed to the enemies,
i.e., the outsiders. As far as the outsiders are concerned, the members
of the community are called to follow the example of God, who does
bear rancor against his enemies. They are commanded, however, not
to try to actually take vengeance on the enemies but to leave it to God.
The reference to Nahum 1:2 supports our suggestion that “enemies”
were felt to be “present” in Leviticus 19:18 inter alia because of the
verbs , (take vengeance, bear a grudge), identical with those
used in Nahum 1:2 in relation to enemies of God (= of Israel).19
Here, as elsewhere in the Scrolls,20 the biblical command of mutual
love is restricted to the sons of light and is paralleled by the sectarian
command of animosity toward the sons of darkness. It seems that,
unlike Ben Sira, the exegesis in Qumran tended to interpret kamokha
(as yourself ) in a restricting sense—namely, “one who belongs to your
group of chosen ones (belonging to the same New Covenant)”. This
community of the New Covenant now represents “Israel”, and the
level of animosity toward the outsiders/persecutors is on a par with
the animosity toward the enemies of biblical Israel.
Still, a kind of dissent, a reservation of sorts, is also voiced in the
Scrolls. There is that rather skeptical appraisal of the unredeemed
human nature/esh: it turns out that even the elect can be saved only
by the undeserved grace of God.21 Another departure from that clear-
cut dichotomy between love for your own (those who are like yourself ),
on the one hand, and animosity toward outsiders, branded as enemies,
on the other, may be discerned in the famous Qumranic concept of
delayed vengeance. So in the Community Rule we read:
I will pay to no man the reward of evil; I will pursue him with goodness.
For judgment of all the living is with God and it is he who will render to
man his reward . . . I will not grapple with the men of perdition until the
Day of Revenge, but my wrath shall not turn from the men of falsehood
and I will not rejoice until judgment is made. (IQS 10:17–20)22
19
See the discussion of the tensions in the biblical text of the Holiness Code at the
beginning of this chapter.
20
See 1QS 1:6, 9–11; I deal with this passage at length in Chapter 3.
21
See, e.g., 1QH 5:8; 1QS 9.
22
Cf. IQS 9:21ff; Rom 12:19–21.
It may be clearly seen that although vengeance is suspended, there is

still a strong desire for it to be wrought in the future.23 I would like,
however, to emphasize another characteristic aspect of this suspended-
retaliation attitude attested in the Scrolls: God himself is presented as
one who tolerates (maybe even lends support to) the evil world order
for the present. God is, seemingly, behind those who hurt and persecute
his chosen ones. This religious outlook, found, as highlighted above,
also elsewhere in earlier Jewish sources (Lam 2:5), is articulated with
particular force in the Scrolls and will be particularly important for
our further discussion.
Philo
A reference to Leviticus 19:17–18 may be discerned in Hypothetica 7.8:
“. . . no unjust scales, no false measurements, no fraudulent coinage (a
reference to Lev 19:35) . . . the secrets of a friend must not be divulged
in enmity (& '
( —i.e., after a quarrel,
when friends become enemies)”.24 With Philo, however, the admoni-
tion seems to represent neither an issue of central importance nor an
especially strongly held belief. Elsewhere Philo claims quite convincingly
that “those whom we call our kinsfolk or within the circle of kinsmen
our friends are turned into aliens by their misconduct when they go
astray. For agreement to practice justice and every virtue makes a closer
kinship than that of blood, and he who abandons this enters in the
list not only of strangers and foreigners but of mortal enemies” (Spec.
Leg. III, 155).25 It should be emphasized that the “enemies” in both
cases are not external ones, but “friends turned enemies”. Admittedly,
topoi of the Hellenistic ethics of friendship and brotherly love may be
discerned in Philo’s thought;26 but at the same time the fact that he
presents the discussion of these issues as an elaboration on Leviticus
19:17–18 seems to bear witness to certain internal developments in
Jewish biblical exegesis.
23
For a discussion of the variety of attitudes in the Essene movement and on its
fringes, see Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 469–489.
24
The English quotations from Philo throughout this book are according to the Loeb
Classical Library edition. Lev 19:16 is addressed in Spec. Leg. IV (LCL, vol. 8), 183,
n. 188. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2:207. See also Kugel, Traditions, 767.
25
Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL.
26
See H. D. Betz, ‘On Brotherly Love (( )’, in: idem (ed.), Plutarch’s
Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, Leiden 1978, 231–263.
46 chapter two
Early rabbinic Midrash

Some traditions ascribed to sages from the second century b c e to
the rst century c e, are relevant to our discussion. Thus the Talmud
attributes to Hillel the following saying: “Whatever is hateful to you,
do it not unto your fellow man. This is the essence of the Torah . . .”
(b. Shab 31a). We have seen that this exegesis was part of the targu-
mic tradition, already found in Jubilees, and that in the Gospels (Matt
7:12; Luke 6:31) Jesus also adopts this Golden Rule interpretation of
Leviticus 19:18 (in its positive form, not unlike Jub 36:4)—one more
indication of its early provenance. Later R. Aqiva would be counted
among the most distinguished proponents of this high evaluation of
Lev 19:18.27 In the Mishna tractate The Sayings of the Fathers a number
of different tendencies may be discerned. One is a continuation of the
trend found already in Ben Sira—namely, that if one does not wish to
be judged severely by God, one had better not treat his fellow man as
a sinner because, in this respect, as well as in others, his fellow man
is exactly like himself. That attitude is suggested by Hillel’s maxim in
m. Abot 2:3: “Judge not your neighbor lest you nd yourself in his
place”.28 The same sentiment is expressed in Matthew 7:1–3: “Judge
not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you
will be judged”, etc.
The latter exegetical emphasis may be seen as a distinctive mark of
the emerging new religious sensitivity of the Second Commonwealth.29
Being good, righteous, virtuous or just—these are attributes that belong
only to God, while one shares with his fellow humans imperfection
and an inclination to sin. God is just and benevolent, he causes the
sun to rise and sends blessed rain to the just and unjust alike. This last
sub-motif, attested in the New Testament (Matt 5:44–47), resurfaces
later in b. Taan. 7a, where for this reason the day of rainfall is said to
better express God’s benevolence than does the day of resurrection
(when only the just will return to life). I would argue that although
in this rabbinic context, as well as in fragments from Ben Sira and
2 Enoch discussed above, the scope of the application of Leviticus
19:18 is widened to include a fellow man who is a sinner, (external)
enemies are not referred to.
27
See Sifra, Qedosh., Par. 2, ch. IV.
28
This is the reading suggested, inter alia, in Flusser, Jesus, 85. The alternative one
is: “. . . until you nd yourself in his place”.
29
See Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 469–489.
There is, however, a distinctive development in early rabbinic tradi-

tion, one that does address the issue of mortal enemies—those who
cause death and destruction. This time—a development characteristic
of the Second Temple period—it is an internal destruction, the loss
of the soul, of the world to come. In this context instead of an enemy
proper we are dealing with one who incites to sin. Moreover, accord-
ing to m. Abot a man may lose his soul in hell (after death) because
of those fellow human beings, who are closest to him—e.g., his wife
(1:5) and maybe even his neighbor (1:7), a sentiment also attested in
the Gospels, e.g., Matthew 10:34–37. Both emphases—that on the
soul/sin/hell and that on bringing the agent of destruction inside the
intimate circle of a person’s existence—may be seen as expressions of
the process of internalization.30
One may see Matthew 10 as an expression of the same development.
Here Jesus rst speaks about future persecutions, with kings, governors
and Gentiles in general as natural enemies (with a telling addition of
the synagogue authorities in verse 23!); but then he says (10:28): “And
do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear
him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”. Further on, however,
he switches to a man’s immediate family (10:36): “And a man’s foes will
be those of his own household/)( ( * +))(
.” Another witness to this process of internalization and its
polemical character may be found in the Passover Haggadah, an early
version of which is believed to have been composed either right after
the destruction of the Temple or close to the time of the Bar Kokhba
revolt.31 Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law, is presented here as the ultimate
enemy, worse even than Pharaoh. For all its importance, however, this
development cannot account for a call to love one’s enemies; and it
is not presented in the midrashic sources as an exegesis of Leviticus
19:18.
30
A later stage of this process was discussed in G. Stroumsa, ‘Internalization and
Intolerance in Early Christianity’, in: idem, Barbarian Philosophy; The Religious Revolution
of Early Christianity, Tübingen 1999, 86–99.
31
See a discussion in S. Pines, ‘On the Metamorphoses of the Notion of Freedom
(herut)’, Iyyun 33 (1984), 247–265 (in Hebrew).
48 chapter two
The exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 in the Epistle of Aristeas and its

later modications
Let us consider now a peculiar trajectory in the exegesis of Leviticus

19:18, the earliest example of which is provided by The Epistle of Aris-
teas, its most probable dating being 2nd century b c e (suggestions range
from the 2nd century b c e to the 1st century c e).32 According to David
Flusser, key instances of the Jewish delegates’ speeches in the composi-
tion bear witness to a Palestinian tradition adapted to the situation and
integrated into the general Hellenistic framework of the Ep. Arist.33 It
is my opinion that there are quite a few passages of this kind in the
Ep. Arist. that may be plausibly explained as exegetical expositions of
Leviticus 19:18. Moreover, as will be seen immediately, here, unlike in
most of the sources discussed above, not simply fellow men (neighbors)
or even sinners, but real hard-core enemies are the issue.
Two kinds of enemies are mentioned in the Ep. Arist. First, there are
external enemies, those with whom the state is at war; in this case a
truce is recommended, because a truce granted by God—unlike deploy-
ing great forces and going into battle—does bring conicts to a lasting
conclusion (193–194). Second, there are internal enemies—namely,
individuals guilty of serious crimes or those whose acts may put the
state in jeopardy from within. In this case, too, the Jewish sages implore
the king to adopt a lenient and humane attitude, basing their advice
on an existing interpretation of kamokha (as yourself = as you yourself
would like to be treated):
Insofar as you do not wish evils to come upon you, but to partake of every
blessing, [it would be wisdom] if you put this into practice with your subjects,
including the wrongdoers, and if you admonished the good and upright
also mercifully (207).
According to Flusser, the Jewish sages’ advice concerning the treatment
of “enemies of the state” bears witness to an early stage in the develop-
ment of what may be called religiously motivated Jewish humanism.
32
For the Greek text, see H. St. J. Thackeray, ‘The Letter of Aristeas’, in: H. B. Swete,
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 531–606. The translation
used below is that by R. J. H. Shutt, from Charlesworth, OT Pseudepigrapha.
33
D. Flusser, ‘Love the Human Beings! A Note on the History of Jewish Humanism’,
in: idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period; Sages and Literature, Jerusalem 2002, 146–150
(in Hebrew). The study rst appeared in Russian translation in Vestnik: International
Journal of Jewish Studies in Russian 1 (1999), 194–201.
Now, the topos of leniency was standard in the ethos recommended to

Hellenistic rulers, an important topic in Greek and Roman political
ethics.34 But again, what is of greater interest to us here is not the source
of the idea but the fact and the ways of its inner-Jewish adaptation to
exegesis of Leviticus 19:18.35
The sages’ advice is backed by the claim that God himself is merci-
ful; moreover, the hope is expressed that by acting mercifully the king
will be able to reform the wrongdoers—again, as noted above, a motif
attested elsewhere in early Jewish exegesis of Leviticus 19:18:36
King : How can one keep his kingdom without offence to the end? Answer:
You would administer it best by imitating the eternal goodness of God. By
using long-suffering and treatment of those who merit [punishment] more
leniently than they deserve, you will convert them from evil and bring them to
repentance (187–188) . . . so that it is your duty neither to inict punishments
easily nor to submit men to torments, knowing that the life of mankind
is constituted in pain and punishment . . . you will be inclined to mercy,
even as God is merciful (207).
In yet another passage, ending with a reference to the Greek ideal of
, the question of the scope of applicability of the love-
your-neighbor precept and of the true meaning of kamokha (as yourself )
is explicitly addressed—italicized remarks in parentheses indicate what
I see as instances of exegetical reference to Leviticus 19:
King : To whom must a man be generous? Answer : It is a man’s duty [to
be generous] toward those who are amicably disposed to us (Lev 19:18:
kamokha = as he treats you). This is the general opinion. My belief is that we
must [also] show liberal charity to our opponents so that in this manner
we may convert them to what is proper and tting to them. You must
pray God that these things be brought to pass, for he rules the minds
of all (Lev 19:18: “I am the Lord ” ). King: To whom must one show favor?
Answer : To his parents, always, for God’s very great commandment (Lev
19:3 and, of course, Ex 20:12,) concerns the honor due to parents. Next
[and closely connected] he [God] reckons the honor due to friends, call-
ing the friend an equal of one’s own self ( ,-./ 01 2341 0./ 567./;
kamokha = one who is like you) You do well to bring all men into friendship
with yourself (227–228).
34
I am thankful to Hans Dieter Betz for drawing my attention to this fact. See also
the discussion of Philo’s exegesis above.
35
Cf. the discussion above of the Targum exegesis of Lev 19:18 and of Hillel’s
saying reported in the Talmud.
36
See the discussion above of T. Benj. 4:2f; 5:1.
50 chapter two
In addition to trends attested elsewhere in Ep. Arist. and discussed

above (such as the hope to overcome evil with good, bring the evildoers
to repentance), this passage bears witness to a number of important
exegetical features:
(1) It sees Leviticus 19:18 as a step in the process of widening the
circle of persons towards whom we are implored to “show liberal
charity”—with the initial position being put forward in Leviticus
19:3 and the direction being set by Leviticus 19:34.
(2) It points out the gap between the attitude of (interpretation sug-
gested by) the masses— = as he treats you—and the “enlightened”
understanding of Leviticus 19:18: = who is one like you (with an
additional reference to Deut 13:7: = your friend
who is like your own self ).37 Ordinary people just cannot grasp it.
(3) The mention of the necessity of appealing to God in order to
change either the hearts of the opponents or your own disposition
(the text is ambiguous) may indicate a midrashic elaboration on the
Leviticus 19:18 ending: “I am the Lord!”38
The emphasis on the gap between the “unaware” masses and the wise
king, as well as the call to follow the example of God Almighty who is
benevolent, highlight the particular feature of the exegetical trend rst
attested in the Ep. Arist.: Leviticus 19:18 is presented here as “designed”
for the ruling authority. It is the ruling authority that has to deal with
both the external enemies and the “enemies of the state”, and it is this
ruling authority that is requested to renounce revenge and act leniently.
The motif of the renunciation of revenge by the powerful should seem-
ingly be considered as a type of its own, distinguished—in the history
of the love-your-enemy precept—from the motif of the nonviolence
of the powerless.39 We have seen that in its attempt to give credence to
the non-obvious wisdom of humanism the Ep. Arist. employs a variety
of different and seemingly independent arguments: God’s benevolence,
practical considerations, hope to reform the evildoers and an elevated
standard of demands addressed to the elite.
37
Cf. Exod 23:9.
38
Cf. Sir 17:14; 18:13: “The compassion [or ‘love’ ] of man is for his neighbor, but
the compassion [or ‘love’ ] of the Lord is for all living beings”.
39
See L. Schottroff, ‘Non-Violence and the Love of One’s Enemies’, in: L. Schottrof,
R. G. Fuller, C. Burchard and M. J. Suggs, Essays on the Love Commandment, Philadelphia
1978, 9–39, esp. 18–22. Schottroff, however, saw the trend attested in Ep. Arist. as
belonging exclusively to Hellenistic Judaism.
Let us note one more distinctive feature of the recommended leni-

ency toward criminals: the ruling authority is implored “neither to inict
punishments easily nor to submit men to torments” (Ep. Arist. 207, see
above). It turns out that this was not an isolated case of exegetical
fancy dictated by particular circumstances. The trend reappears later,
mutatis mutandis, in the context of halakhic discussions on proper forms
of execution. There is little doubt that those hard-core criminals who
were sentenced to death were seen by many as enemies of humanity.
Thus, for instance, Philo rationalizes, commenting on Deuteronomy
21:23: “And as it was necessary that the enemies of every part of the
world after receiving their punishment would be hanged up and so
displayed before the sun, the heavens, the air, the water and the earth”
(Spec. Leg. III.152). However, according to Moshe Halbertal, certain
halakhic developments during the tannaitic period seem to express the
sentiment of a “liberal charity” of sorts toward those archenemies.40
For our present discussion it will sufce to mention that in some rab-
binic sources this new halakhic tendency is presented as an exegetical
elaboration of Leviticus 19:18: “Lo, it is said, “love your neighbor as
yourself ”—hence you should choose for him a light death (form of
execution)” (b. Sanh. 45a).41 In the tannaitic layer of the tradition, God
himself is presented as one who feels sorry for executed criminals:
“R. Meir said: at a time when a (hanged) man suffers, what is said about
the Shekhina? So to say: I feel pain in my head, I feel pain in my arm”
(m. Sanh. 6:5).42 Consequently, when the judges are called upon to show
consideration and mercy, they are in fact called upon to follow God’s
example. Both in Ep. Arist. and in the rabbinic sources in question the
enemies toward whom the ruling authority is being especially exhorted
to show mercy are “internal” ones, neighbors turned enemies.
To sum up the discussion up to now, it has been suggested that the

scope of applying Leviticus 19:17–18 constituted a problem already in
the biblical text itself. The problem there was triggered/expressed, inter
alia, by the multiplicity of terms for “another” employed in the passage
(brother, next of kin, neighbor, etc.) and a transition from parents to
40
M. Halbertal, Interpretative Revolutions in the Making, Jerusalem 1997, 145–167 (in
Hebrew).
41
See also b. Sanh. 52a.
42
See also Mek. de-R. Ishmael on Exod 15:2.
52 chapter two
neighbor to stranger in the wider context of the Holiness Code. The

question of the proper attitude toward one’s enemies was recognized
in some quarters of early Jewish exegesis as an intrinsic part of that
problem—e.g., Philo, Qumran.
A number of different exegetical developments have been reviewed.
In some of them an attempt was made to restrict the scope of the appli-
cation of Leviticus 19:18 to those of one’s own kind (kamokha = one who
belongs to your group—e.g., the Qumranic Community Rule); in others the
application was conditioned by the behavior of the “neighbor” (Philo,
Spec. Leg.). In certain cases the anticipation of future punishment of the
“outsiders” was an integral part of the exegesis (Qumran). Another
tendency, attested in a number of Second Temple period and early
rabbinic sources, emphasized the demand of an unconditioned liberal
charity toward fellow men, based either on expectation of their change
of heart or on the feeling of human solidarity, which was supposed
to include even the sinners. This tendency was backed by a particular
interpretation of kamokha: “another” is, in fact, “like you” (kamokha),
both are sinners, and if one wants to be forgiven by God and enjoy his
mercy and love, one should act in this fashion toward that other sin-
ner. This is the tendency that has usually been presented as the Jewish
background to the love-your-enemy command in the Gospels. I have
suggested, however, that within this tendency—all possible gray areas
notwithstanding (it may be claimed that in some instances there was
even a readiness to forgive those who hurt you personally)—the prob-
lematic “neighbor” is mostly a sinner and not a hard-core enemy.
A distinctive exegetical development has been discerned where real
enemies, both external and internal (criminals), are the issue. It has
been traced from the Epistle of Aristeas to tannaitic halakhic traditions,
and we have seen that when trying to dene the proper attitude toward
those hard-core enemies our sources appeal to Leviticus 19:18. The
particular perception of what love toward the other means here (less
severe torture or an easier death for the convict) may sound peculiar;
but in any case enemies are clearly included here in the category of
“neighbors”. It should be emphasized, however, that the Leviticus 19:18
exegesis of both the Epistle of Aristeas and the halakhic discussions is
designed for the ruling authority and not for hurt or persecuted indi-
viduals or minorities. Here, as well as in the exegeses mentioned above,
God is presented as kind and benevolent, and the ruler or the judges
are called to follow his example. Hence the importance of the “I am
the Lord” ending of Leviticus 19:18 for that kind of exegesis.
It has been observed that in the Epistle of Aristeas the call to widen the
scope of application of Leviticus 19:18 to include hard-core enemies
is presented as a difcult one, one that is not obvious at all. Hence the
emphasis on the gap in understanding between the wise king and the
“commoners”. Moreover, in its attempt to give credence to the “strange
wisdom” of unconditional love the composition employs—a feature
observed also elsewhere in Leviticus 19:18 exegesis—a variety of dif-
ferent and not necessarily harmonized arguments. This multiplicity of
arguments will serve as an important precedent when we turn to the
exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18 found in the Sermon on the
Mount/Sermon on the Plain.
And, nally, two more characteristic patterns of the Second Temple
period religious thinking have been addressed in the foregoing part of
our investigation:
(1) There is an exegetical trend to collate two “love commandments”
(Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18), thus creating an “ultimate
summary” of one’s religious obligations—to be treated separately
in Chapter 3.
(2) According to some sources (e.g., Qumran, cf. Lam 2:5) God is
presented as being behind the present acts of animosity against a
chosen community, as backing the enemies or even becoming “like
an enemy” himself.
“Love Your Enemy” Precept in the Sermon on the Mount
The investigation in the rst part of this chapter focused on a variety

of exegetical trends from the Second Temple period, which concerned
themselves with Leviticus 19:18.43 Special attention was paid to exe-
getical attempts to dene the scope of applicability of the love-your-
neighbor precept, in particular attempts to widen the scope of Leviticus
19:18 to cover enemies also; characteristic features of the exegetical
trends of this last kind were outlined. With this preparatory work done,
we may now approach the discussion of the love-your-enemy precept in
the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:44) and in its parallel in the Sermon
on the Plain (Luke 6:35).
43
See also S. Ruzer, ‘From “Love Your Neighbor” to “Love Your Enemy”: Trajec-
tories in Early Jewish Exegesis’, Revue Biblique 109 (2002), 371–389.
54 chapter two
As noted, while other opinions also have been expressed concerning

the genre of the saying in Luke, there is general agreement regarding
the precept in Matthew 5:44 as representing a midrashic interpretation
of Leviticus 19:18. On the one hand, in both versions of the Sermon
enmity or hatred is dened as the opposite of love. On the other, the
enemies here are not simply sinful persons whom one may resent but
real “hard-core” enemies, those who hurt one physically or rob one of
his possessions (Matt 5:38–42). Many scholars believe that the origin
of this particular exegetical elaboration on Leviticus 19:18 should be
attributed to Jesus himself.44 Moreover, the maxim in Matthew 5:44/
Luke 6:35 has been traditionally perceived as belonging to the innova-
tive core of Jesus’ teaching.
The emphasis on the innovative character of the maxim notwith-
standing, a number of evaluations have been raised regarding if not
parallels then at least tendencies leading in this direction, as attested
in early Jewish traditions—before and after Jesus.45 On the basis of
the earlier discussion in this chapter, those evaluations will now be
reconsidered.46 It will be shown that the exegetical strategy in the
Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, aiming at widening
the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to cover enemies also, is characterized,
like other attempts of that kind in early Jewish exegesis, by a variety
of suggested and not necessarily harmonized reasons. An additional,
previously overlooked, exegetical trajectory that might have led to the
love-your-enemy exegesis both in the New Testament and in later rab-
binic sources will also be outlined.
A number of exegetical expositions on Leviticus 19:18 appear in

the New Testament. In some of them attempts are made to dene
the proper attitude toward one’s neighbor, or even the scope of the
application of the precept, without addressing the issue of enemies/
persecutors at all.47 There are also, however, at least three instances
44
See note 3 above.
45
For a bibliography, see Betz, Commentary, 294–296. Flusser, in the new English
version of his book on Jesus, dedicates a whole chapter to the issue. See Flusser, Jesus,
81–92.
46
See also S. Ruzer, ‘ “Love Your Enemy” Precept in the Sermon on the Mount in
the Context of Early Jewish Exegesis: A New Perspective’, Revue Biblique 111 (2004),
193–208.
47
See, for example, Matt 22:34–40, Mk 12:28–34, Luke 10:25–38.
in the New Testament where an exegesis of Leviticus 19:(17–)18 is

employed for the sake of dening the proper attitude toward one’s
enemies—inter alia, deciding whether this attitude includes vengeance.
One of these instances is found in Romans 12:9–20, where Paul seems
to have adopted the exegetical line that characterized, as outlined in
the rst part of this chapter, the Dead Sea Scrolls (see also discussion
in Chapter 3). “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Lev
19:17) and “you shall not take vengeance . . . against the sons of your
own people” (Lev 19:18) are interpreted by the apostle as a call to
show kindness and affection toward those of one’s own, the members
of the chosen group, “the brothers” (Rom 12:10,16). The “outsiders”,
the enemies, the persecutors, are a different story: the admonition not
to avenge yourself is accompanied by intense hope for the wreaking
of vengeance by God himself in the future (Rom 12:19). It is worth
noting that Paul refers here to Deuteronomy 32:35, which is part of
a long passage giving a rather graphic description of God’s venge-
ful visitation on his (and Israel’s) enemies. One may wonder whether
the ending of Leviticus 19:18 (“I am the Lord”) does not serve as an
additional trigger to that kind of exegesis.48 Moreover, one’s patient
suffering, devoid of elements of resistance or vengeance, is supposed to
increase the enemies’ impending punishment (Rom 12:20).49 It is pos-
sible that in addition to this exegetical option Paul also employs here
an alternative but no less traditional one—namely, that the evil ones
will eventually be reformed by one’s good attitude (Rom 12:21).50 The
question, however, remains unresolved, as the verse allows of another
interpretation as well.
The other two instances are found in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt 5:43–48) and in its parallel in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke
6:31–38)—it is these passages that henceforth will be of exclusive
concern to us:
48
Biblical verses where “turning the other cheek” is recommended also point in this
direction (anticipation of revenge): Lam 3:27,30; Prov 20:22; 24:29.
49
Cf. 2 Mac 7:13–18.
50
See the discussion of T. Benj. and Ep. Arist in the rst part of this chapter.
56 chapter two
Matt 5:43–48 Luke 6:31–38

43 “You have heard that it was said, —You 31 And as you wish that men would do
shall love your neighbor and hate your to you, do so to them. 32 “If you love
enemy”. 44 But I say to you, Love your those who love you, what credit is that
enemies and pray for those who persecute to you? For even sinners love those who
you, 45 so that you may be sons of your love them. 33 And if you do good to
Father who is in heaven; for he makes his those who do good to you, what credit
sun rise on the evil and on the good, and is that to you? For even sinners do the
sends rain on the just and on the unjust. same. 34 And if you lend to those from
46 For if you love those who love you, whom you hope to receive, what credit
what reward have you? Do not even the is that to you? Even sinners lend to
tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you sinners, to receive as much again. 35
salute only your brethren, what more are But love your enemies, and do good,
you doing than others? Do not even the and lend, expecting nothing in return;
Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, and your reward will be great, and you
must be perfect, as your heavenly Father will be sons of the Most High; for he is
is perfect. kind to the ungrateful and the selsh.
36 Be merciful, even as your Father
is merciful. 37 “Judge not, and you
will not be judged; condemn not, and
you will not be condemned; forgive,
and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and
it will be given to you; good measure,
pressed down, shaken together, running
over, will be put into your lap. For the
measure you give will be the measure
you get back”.
I am of the opinion that the reasoning propagated here in the Gos-

pels differs considerably from that of Paul as expressed in Romans 12,
although there have been attempts to harmonize the two positions.51
In any case, it is worth noting that the apostle does not claim that the
attitude in question forms part of the kerygma.52 Whether or not we are
dealing with a specically Qumranic inuence, Paul seems to use here
what he himself considers a traditional motif, not unlike that attested
in the Book of Proverbs:
Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, . . . lest the Lord see it, and be
displeased, and turn away his anger from him. (24:17–18). . . . If your
enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him
water to drink; for you will heap coals of re on his head, and the Lord
will reward you. (25:21–22)
51
See, for example, J. Rausch, ‘The Principal of Nonresistance and Love of Enemy
in Matt 5, 38–48’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966), 31–41.
52
In contradistinction to the call for brotherly love among the members of the
chosen group that is backed by a Christ-centered ecclesiology (Rom 12:5).
It should be emphasized that in Matthew 5:43–48 (and Luke 6:31–38)

the love-your-enemy issue is also addressed as completely divorced from
the messianic theme; the absence of the latter is commonly considered
to be an outstanding feature of the Sermon. One may venture to sug-
gest, therefore, that the diversity of solutions for the problem attested
in the New Testament bears witness not only to the complex history of
the early Christian tradition but also, maybe mostly, to the acuteness of
the “enemy issue” in the wider milieu of Second Temple Judaism.
Neither the complex history of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (SM/

SP) tradition53 nor the question whether the love-your-enemy precept
may with sufcient certainty be traced back to Jesus himself can be
the subject of discussion here.54 Matthew 5:43–48 and Luke 6:31–38
will be treated as two similar, but still different, expressions of the same
exegetical trend, striving to widen the scope of applicability of Leviticus
19:18 beyond the commonplace “brother” and “good neighbor”. In
both instances the love precept is discussed in its antagonistic connec-
tion with vengeance, which is the issue at the beginning of Leviticus
19:18.
In the SM the context of Matthew 5:43–48 is clearly exegetical, as
it is for the whole sequence of antitheses in Matthew 5; as argued in
Chapter 1, every antithesis in the sequence is presented by the gospel
writer as an elaboration on a biblical verse or group of verses. In Luke
the exegetical structure of the Sermon as a whole is not that obvi-
ous, which caused some scholars to believe that in the case of the SP
the love-your-enemy precept appears in the context of general moral
teaching detached from biblical exegesis. However, in spite of the exclu-
sion of some exegetical elements from the SP version of the Sermon,
important remnants of exegetical structure may still be discerned. It
can be suggested that such a remnant is found in Luke 6:31: “And as
53
See Betz, Commentary, 1–50. A number of scholars have argued that the com-
mand to love one’s enemies (as well as the Golden Rule) points to the Q-source. See,
for example, G. Strecker, ‘Compliance—Love of One’s Enemy—The Golden Rule’,
Australian Biblical Review 29 (1981), 38–46, esp. 39; D. Flusser, ‘The Synagogue and the
Church in the Synoptic Gospels’, in: S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker (eds.), Jesus’
Last Week, Leiden 2006, 17–40.
54
See W. Klassen, ‘The Authenticity of the Command: “Love Your Enemies” ’,
in: B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus, Leiden 1999,
385–407.
58 chapter two
you want that others would treat you, so you should treat them”. This
seems to be an interpretation of kamokha (as yourself ) from Leviticus
19:18, belonging to a trend attested elsewhere in early Jewish sources,
discussed above. Telling uctuations between positive and negative
formulations of this precept may be discerned in different traditions.
However, since the focus of this study is on the exegetical attempts
to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to include enemies and not on
the exact nature of the kind attitude one is supposed to show to one’s
enemies, these uctuations, which constitute a separate and much
debated issue will not be discussed here.
As observed, the same precept, known as the Golden Rule, appears
also further on in the SM (Matt 7:12), where, unlike the elaboration in
Matthew 5:43–48, it is detached from the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18.
In Luke 6:31, conversely, the precept seems to provide the much-needed
exegetical link between the biblical text and the love-your-enemy com-
mand: Love your enemy not (only) because he is like you in the eyes of
benevolent God, but (also) because that is the attitude you would like
to get from him (instead of his habitual enmity). It is possible that this
reects, inter alia, a difference in the concrete situation to which the
redactors of SM and SP respectively react.55 What interests us, however,
is that the SP bears witness to a different (unlike SM) exegetical proce-
dure: extending the scope of the Leviticus 19:18 application by evoking
a Hillel-type interpretation of kamokha (as yourself ). On the other hand,
the SM version as it now stands does not relate to kamokha at all.56
In Matthew 5:46–47, as everywhere in the SM, the recommended
exegetic option is presented as a polemic against conventional assump-
tions. The same line of reasoning may be discerned in Luke 6:32–34.
A number of suggestions have been made as to who Jesus’ exegetical
opponents here could be, and Qumran exegetes are among the candi-
dates discussed in this context (more on this in Chapter 3).57 Whatever
the case, this polemical aspect clearly represents a continuation of the
tendency observed earlier in The Epistle of Aristeas. There is also, how-
ever, an important difference, which is obviously due to the difference
55
See Betz, Commentary, 312.
56
The possibility of the priority of Luke in this particular instance is a complex
issue and is beyond the scope of this investigation.
57
For a review of Qumranic parallels for the use of in Matt 5:43–44 see
G. Molin, “Matthäus 5,43 und das Schrifttum von Qumran”, in Bibel und Qumran,
Berlin 1968, 150–152. See also Flusser, Jesus, 93–103.
of situation: in place of the emphasis of the Ep. Arist. on the gap in

understanding/perception between the common folk and the wise king,
we nd in the Gospels indignation at the “way of sinners, Gentiles and tax
collectors” (Matt 5:46–47; Luke 6:33). Another common traditional fea-
ture of the SM and SP versions is to present God’s benevolence toward
the whole of mankind as an argument for the love-your-enemies precept:
the listeners/readers are implored to follow God’s example (Matt 5:48;
Luke 6:35–36).58 One wonders if this argument was perhaps perceived
in the original context of the Sermon as a midrashic elaboration on
the Leviticus 19:18 ending (“I am the Lord”)—in a similar manner to
Ep. Arist. 227–228 discussed above. In contradistinction to the Epistle
Aristeas, however, the important parallel between God and benevolent
ruler is absent in the Gospels. The context of the saying in both SM
and SP clearly indicates that we are not dealing here with advice to a
ruler/ruling authority: “But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil.
But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also . . . But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you” (Matt 5:39, 44; cf. Luke 6:35). God is perceived here as
benevolent to the evil ones who persecute a minority—not to the people
who disobey the rules established by those in power.
It turns out that in the SM/SP tradition a variety of different rea-
sons for renunciation of revenge and/or love for enemies is being put
forward: in addition to the call to follow the example of God’s benevo-
lence (an exegetical move that may refer to the ending of Leviticus
19:18, “I am the Lord”), there are also other arguments used in the
Sermon. According to one line of thinking, one should treat his enemy,
as he would like that enemy to treat him (Luke 6:31). Still one more
avenue, observed already in Ben Sira and, later, in Hillel’s teaching, is
indicated in Luke 6:37: Do not judge others lest you be judged sternly
(by God) (cf. Matt 6:12, 14–15; Luke 11:4). These two arguments seem
to presuppose both basic human solidarity and hope for reforming the
opponent. As we have seen, this kind of variety of arguments, having
58
For a discussion of possible avenues of exegetical developments leading from
the Holiness Code command “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy”
(Lev 19:2) to the SM/SP command “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48) or “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke
6:36); see L. Sabourin, ‘Why God Is Called “Perfect” in Matt 5:48’, Biblische Zeitschrift
24 (1938/1939), 266–268.
60 chapter two
accumulative effect, also characterizes some other texts (e.g., Ep. Arist.,
T. Benj.) discussed in the rst part of this chapter.
One may say that both tendencies—to emphasize basic human soli-
darity in weakness on the one hand and to speak of God’s benevolence
toward humanity on the other—feature prominently in early Jewish
exegetical thinking with regard to Leviticus 19:18. The relevance of
these tendencies for understanding the New Testament love-your-enemy
command has been once again highlighted by David Flusser. According
to Flusser, the emphasis should be on Matthew 5:45, with its picture
of a blessed rain sent benevolently by God to all the inhabitants of
the earth.59 However, the plurality of arguments put forward in the
Gospels may indicate insufciency—from the point of view of Jesus?
the compiler? the redactor?—of any one of the arguments taken alone.
The argument from God’s example would seemingly work better on
a powerful ruler (as in Ep. Arist.) than on a persecuted minority.60 On
the other hand, the arguments of basic human solidarity or hope for
the opponents’ repentance cannot be readily applied when the oppo-
nents in question are not simply “sinners” but persecutors, “hard-core”
enemies. Thus the arguments of God’s benevolent example and of
human solidarity, even combined, cannot fully account for the dra-
matic exegetical development attested in the SM/SP tradition. It will
be suggested that as far as the multifaceted background of the New
Testament love-your-enemy command is concerned there is in fact at
least one more exegetical factor to be considered, a factor that up to
now has not received sufcient attention in the research.
Let us go back to an already mentioned feature of the exegetical

elaboration on Leviticus 19:18 found in the Sermon—namely, the
sharp distinction made between the morals of “sinners, tax-collectors
and Gentiles” (Matt 5:46–47; Luke 6:33) and the religious imperative
addressed to the true followers of Jesus. Both similarity to and differ-
ence from an attitude attested in the Ep. Arist. were duly emphasized
above. Further comparison between the SM and SP versions shows
that in contradistinction to the Ep. Arist., where the gap in wisdom
between the king and the simple folk was the issue, what distinguishes
59
Flusser, Jesus, 81–92.
60
For an updated discussion of the SM/SP Sitz im Leben see Klassen, ‘Authenticity
of the Command’, 385–407.
the two categories of persons in the New Testament is, inter alia, their
understanding of just reward. In fact, “reward” (8 ) is the key
term here: “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?
Do not even the tax collectors (further: the Gentiles) do the same?”
(Matt 5:46). Those belonging to the negative category are alternatively
branded as “Gentiles” (Matt 5:47: , B, D and Z) or “sinners” (Luke
6:32–34).61
It seems that the line of reasoning attested in Matthew 5:46 stands
for an independent argument, one that is not connected to the argument of God’s
benevolence. Let us notice that this demand to forsake the consider-
ations of immediate reward strongly resembles that of an early 2nd
century b c e sage Antigonos of Sokho. A saying, attributed to him in
the Mishnah, runs as following: “Be not like servants who serve the
master on condition of receiving a reward, but be like servants who
serve the master not on condition of receiving a reward. And let the
awe of God be upon you” (m. Abot 1:3). One is not supposed to be like
those (in the Gospels, sinners, Gentiles, tax collectors; in the Mishnah,
“unworthy servants”) whose attitude and behavior are conditioned by
expectations of immediate (earthly?) reward. In the case of m. Abot,
however, the attitude toward God was the issue; in the SM/SP it is
the attitude toward other men. It is worth noting that at least accord-
ing to the Pharisaic understanding of Antigonos’ maxim, a better reward
awaits later those who are ready to serve God unconditionally on this
earth.62 In like fashion those who are ready to forget considerations of
reward/reciprocity in their dealings with their fellow men are encour-
aged by the SM/SP that a better reward ( ) is in store for
them (Matt 5:12, 46–47; Luke 6:32–35, esp. 6:35).63
The appearance of parallel demands to forsake considerations of
reward—on the one hand from God, on the other from fellow men—
might have been nourished, inter alia, by the tradition that had brought
together two love commandments: Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus
19:18. It has been suggested that the double love command pattern was
61
For a discussion of the SM/SP particular choice of negative examples here, see,
e.g., Betz, Commentary, 319.
62
See, e.g., Abot R. Nat. 5, 1. The same idea, without reference to the saying of
Antigonos, seems to be present in Abot R. Nat. 10, 1–2.
63
For a discussion on the “better reward” and, especially, on substituting 9
(Luke 6:33–34) for (Matt 5:46) see E. M. Sidebottom, ‘ “Reward” in Matthew 5,
v. 46, etc.’, Expository Times 67 (1955–1956), 219–220.
62 chapter two
a characteristic of the new religious sensitivity that took hold of certain

trends in Judaism in the last centuries of the Second Temple period, as
indicated by the Jewish composition “The Two Ways” incorporated into
the Didache, as well as T. Dan. 5:3, T. Iss. 5:2, 7:6; cf. T. Zeb. 5:1 and Jub.
36:7f.64 In the following chapter, I srengthen this appraisal, showing that
this pattern of thought also found its way into the Qumran community.
Of course, the Synoptic gospels are among the important witnesses
to that tendency (Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–38).65
Whereas in its early phase, reected in the mishnaic saying attributed
to Antigonos and in Jub. 36:7, no such distinction had been attested,
from now on a differentiation was made between serving God out of
awe (fear of just punishment) and serving God out of love for love’s
own sake, irrespective of any considerations of reward-punishment. In
the talmudic evidence, it is Abraham who characteristically features as
a true Pharisee of love ( y. Ber 9,5 [14b]).66 However, man is an image of
God, so within that new approach, collated with the double love com-
mand notion, man’s attitude toward fellow human beings is supposed
to reect/mirror/bear witness to his attitude toward God.
All this strengthens the suggestion that this kind of double love
command pattern of thought, recorded elsewhere in the Gospels and
seemingly part of the teaching of the historical Jesus, might have been
also somehow present in the SM/SP tradition under discussion. If the
suggestion is basically correct, an additional motif may be at work in
the Sermon. As one is to be ready to relate to God without any expecta-
tions of reward or good treatment by God, this attitude is supposed to
be mirrored in one’s relations with other men; one is thus admonished
to love them irrespective of their attitude.67
Let me emphasize that “irrespective of their attitude” is an under-
statement here. Combined with the denial of vengeance (“an eye
for an eye”) and the call to turn the other cheek, the solution in the
64
See Flusser, Jesus, 89–90.
65
For a discussion on the authenticity of the commandment see, e.g., R. H. Fuller,
‘The Double Commandment of Love: A Test Case for the Criteria of Authenticity’,
in: Essays on the Love Commandment, 41–56.
66
See Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 474.
67
Or, maybe, pray for those who hurt you, personally; see t. B. Qam. 9, 29–30;
y. B. Qam. 9,4 [6d]. It is worth noting that biblical examples usually cited as precedents
speak either of enemies who have repented (Gen 20:17), or of friends who have hurt
you only by a lack of real empathy ( Job 42:10).
Sermon may mean readiness for martyrdom.68 If God is presented

as benevolent also to the evil ones—which in our context means to
persecutors/enemies—he might be perceived as backing, at least to
some extent (for the time being?), the deeds of those enemies. We have
seen that this motif, expressed forcefully in Qumran, is attested also
elsewhere, including the Bible itself, where on certain occasions God
is said to have “become like an enemy” (Lam 2:5). Thus the existence
of the double love command pattern of thought gives new life to the
old—and persistent—biblical tendency to see enemies as agents of
God, those who in fact carry out punishment ordained by the Lord.69
In the context of the SM/SP, however, it is not so much professing
one’s sins and readiness for the teshuvah that is required, but rather lov-
ing acceptance of the predicament, which seems here to be (positively)
transferred from God to his human agents.70
The idea of the death of martyrs as a means of either their own

self-purication or atonement for sins of the people/members of the
chosen community is found already in Pseudepigrapha, 2 Maccabees
and Qumran.71 Here, however, we are dealing with a development in a
different direction: the perception of God as one who brings suffering,
and eventually even death, on someone not as a punishment but as a
test of the person’s ability to go on loving his Creator even at those
awful moments. It is well attested in early rabbinic literature, so m. Ber.
9:5 (paralleled in Sifre Deut. 32) reads: “And you shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
might . . . With all your soul—even if he should take your soul (life)”.
A further, more developed, evidence referring to the Song of Songs is
found in Mekhilta R. Ishmael on Exod 15 (the Song on the Sea):
“This is my God and I will beautify him” (Exod 15:2). Rabbi Aqiva says:
Before all the nations of the world I shall hold forth on the beauties
and splendor of him who spoke and the world came to be. For, lo, the
68
Cf. Matt 5:11–12/Luke 6:22–23 ( :' ; ! !). See Betz,
Commentary, 323–325 and note 17 above.
69
The example of 2 Maccabees 7 may also be added. See discussion in Chapter 7.
70
The situation inevitably raises the problem of theodicy; and the Lord’s Prayer—
Matt 6:13 (= Luke 11:4): “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil”—seems to address this very issue.
71
See D. Flusser, ‘Sanctifying God’s Name in Second Temple Judaism and in Earliest
Christianity’, in: Holy War and Martyrology in the History of Israel and the Nations of the World,
Jerusalem 1968, 61–71 (in Hebrew). This idea is discussed at length in Chapter 7.
64 chapter two
nations of the world keep asking Israel, “What is thy beloved more than
another beloved, O most beautiful of women?” (Cant 5:9), that for his
sake you die, for his sake you are slain, as it is said, We have loved you
unto death (ad mwt), “for thus do the maidens (almwt) love Thee” (Cant
1:3)—and it is said, “for Your sake we have been killed all the day” (Ps
44:23). You are beautiful, you are heroes, come merge with us! But Israel
reply to the nations of the world: Do you know him? Let us tell you a
little of his glory . . . And when the nations of the world hear all his praise,
they say to Israel, Let us go along with you, as it is said . . . (Cant 6:1). But
Israel reply . . . :You have no part of him . . . “My beloved is mine, and I
am his . . . He feedeth among the lilies (Cant 2:16; 6:3)”.72
A passage from the Palestinian Talmud dealing explicitly with Deuter-
onomy 6:5 should also be adduced:
R. Aqiva was judged before the wicked Tunius Rufus (Tunus Trufus). The
time for the reading of “hear O Israel” arrived. Aqiva began to recite
and smile . . . “But all my life I have read the verse, ‘And thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
your might.’ I have loved him with all my heart, and I have loved him
with all my property (sic!), but until now, I did not know how to love him with
all my soul. But now that the opportunity of [loving Him] with all my
soul has come to me, and it is the time of the recital of ‘Hear O Israel’,
and I was not deterred from it; therefore I recite, and therefore I smile.”
( y. Ber. 9,5 [14b]).
In the Babylonian parallel (b. Ber. 61b, Oxford Opp. Add. Folio 23) the
motif of the true knowledge of God is lacking, and Daniel Boyarin sug-
gested that this may reect a later stage of the tradition.73 Boyarin also
argued that at some point in the history of this tradition an important
development may be discerned: death is now conceived of as an ultimate
religious fulllment and not just as a matter of preference in circum-
stances that leave no other acceptable choice, as, for example, in 2 Mac-
cabees 7. In contradistinction to the former saints/martyrs, R. Aqiva
and others executed by Tunius Rufus are said to “have loved God more”
with reference to Songs of Songs 3:3 that speaks of “love of the soul”.74
72
Be-shalah, P. 3, p. 127 in Horovitz’s edition. Cf. Zech 8:20–23.
73
D. Boyarin, Dying for God; Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism,
Stanford 1999, 105–109.
74
See E. E. Urbach, ‘The Homiletical Interpretation of Canticles’, Scripta hierosolymi-
tana 22 (1971), 251. Another midrashic development may be discerned in the rabbinic
sources quoted above: from the enemies/Gentiles who kill to enemies/Gentiles who
ask questions and want to join Israel. Or the other way around? Do we have here
two competing reections? It deserves notice that whereas In Zech 8:20–23 the plea
of Gentiles is accepted, in the Mekhilta it is rejected.
The transition here is from death that is inevitable to death that is the
highest and the truest of spiritual experiences. According to Boyarin,
this transformation in the attitude toward violent death at God’s hands
was accompanied by introducing into martyrology narratives metaphors
with intensive erotic avor;75 hence, it is only natural that references
to the Song of Songs feature so prominently in the relevant rabbinic
texts. When this transformation rst occurred remains a debated issue:
while Boyarin sees it in the context of the competition with emerging
Christianity, Flusser is of the opinion that the readiness to joyfully
accept violent death became an important idea already among the
covenanters of Qumran.76
With regard to the said rabbinic sources and Boyarin’s conclusions,
I would like to add two remarks that bear on our discussion. First,
R. Aqiva’s most memorable dictum on the issue is presented not only
in m. Ber. 9:5, quoted above, but also in Sifre Deut. 32 as an exegesis on
the love commandment from Deuteronomy 6:5, not on the Song of
Songs: “And thou shalt love the Lord with all thy soul: [ This means]
even when He takes your soul (life), and so it says, ‘For your sake we
have been killed all the day’ (Ps 44:23)”.77 In other words, go on loving
God even (especially?) when he takes your life, i.e., acts as an enemy!
Second, although in all relevant cases the death and the suffering are
presented as inicted by God, there is always a human agent—be it
the “nations of the world” generally speaking, the “wicked kingdom”
or the wicked Tunius Rufus—an enemy who provides for the violent
character of the death. It is, however, clear for both the victim and the
persecutors that the death is, in a deeper sense, by the hand of God
and for God’s sake; it is God who leads us unto death.78 Thus in the pas-
sage from Mek. R. Ishmael on Exod 15 referred to above, Israel is said
to have proclaimed “For your sake we have been killed all the day”
with reference to Psalms 44:23, while the nations of the world repeat
basically the same statement (again, with regard to the fate of Israel)
but this time with the reference to the Song of Songs 1:3.
75
Boyarin, Dying for God, 109–110.
76
Flusser, ‘Sanctifying God’s Name’ (note 71 above).
77
See also Sifre Zuta ad locum (M. I. Kahana, Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy; Citations from
a New Tannaitic Midrash, Jerusalem 2002, 147–148.
78
For a discussion of the transformation of almwt (maidens that “love you”, Cant
1:3) into al mwt (“unto death”, Ps 48:15), see Boyarin, Dying for God, 109–111. As he
remarks there, “The transformation is itself a representation of the question directed
at God in other texts as well: If you love us so much, why do you kill us?”
66 chapter two
The presence of two parallel “channels of enmity” directed at the

sufferer later nds forceful expression in the Song of Songs Rabbah. The
context there is clearly that of persecution: God who torments and
the enemies (the nations of the world) who torment stand side by side,
but it seems that the love of the sufferer is due only to God (Song Rab.
on Cant 2:5):
“For I am sick with love (holat ahava)” (Cant 2:5). Said the Congregation
of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the world, all of
the sorrows (holaim) which you bring upon me are so to make me love you
more (leahaveni lakh).79 Another interpretation of the phrase, “for I am sick
with love” (ibid.) would be: said the Congregation of Israel before the
Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the world, all of the sorrows that the
nations of the world bring upon me are so to make me love you more
(or: because I love you).
The dating of either this particular passage or the Song Rab. as a whole
is not an easy task.80 To be on the safe side, we may see it as a later
development of a theme attested already in the early tannaitic period.
The attitude expected from the martyr toward God is one of love.
Moreover, the suffering is supposed not to kill the love but to increase
it, bring it to its true fulllment. Of course, one should not suppose
that this was a routine or obvious reaction to torments. A common
understanding of the nature of Job’s wife’s advice in Job 2:9 (

) that has found its way into the Revised Standard Version gives an
indication to the contrary: “Curse God, and die” (cf. LXX: +
<= + [A: ] ) )( ). We have seen above that in
the tannaitic tradition recorded in Mek. R. Ishmael on the Song on the
Sea it was the outsiders, the “nations of the world” that had difculty
in apprehending Israel’s capability to love his God—instead of hating
him?—in time of suffering and martyrdom. I nd it intriguing that
in the same Song Rab., in the vicinity of the midrash just quoted, it is
narrated that there are some people—this time, however, they are not
Gentiles, but unenlightened insiders—who turn love into enmity:
79
J. Neusner (Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation, Atlanta 1989, 163) chooses
another translation, “to make me more beloved to you”. However, the understanding
suggested above is more plausible vis-à-vis the immediate context.
80
It seems to be a more or less established consensus that the Song of Songs Rabbah
existed already in the sixth century. See M. D. Herr, ‘Midrash’, Encyclopaedia Judaica,
11:1511. See also Neusner, Song Rabbah, x. The particular tradition discussed here does
not appear in the Song of Songs Zuta.
Said R. Aha, “An ignorant person (am ha-arez) substitutes enmity for love,
saying, for instance: You shall be at enmity ( ) [with the Lord your
God] instead of: You shall love ( ) [the Lord your God]”.81
The argument of the midrash may be summarized as follows. The
enemies, the nations—and maybe, in a sense, God himself—bring upon
man persecutions and death. Yet one should love the Lord his God
and not be like those common folk (a homage to Ep. Arist.) who say,
“. . . ” (wa-ayavta) instead of “. . . ” (wa-ahavta)—those who
under duress feel enmity toward God instead of love.
Conclusion
It has been observed that the plurality of Leviticus 19:18 exegeses found
in early Jewish tradition characterizes also the New Testament. Only
some of the exegetical expositions of Leviticus 19:18 there are of the
love-your-enemy type. As the reections on the love command in the
New Testament are usually connected neither with Jesus’ death and
resurrection nor with the messianic theme in general, this diversity of
exegetical suggestions seems to bear witness not so much to the com-
plex history of the early Christian tradition as to the plurality of more
general exegetical developments in Second Temple Judaism.
The discussion in this chapter focused mainly on the tradition of the
Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, more specically, on the
exegetical attempts to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to include
also enemies. Some other important exegetical characteristics, as, for
example, preference for a positive formulation of the “love command-
ment” (as opposed to a negative formulation attested in a number of
early Jewish sources) remained beyond the scope of this investigation.
The two versions, that of the Sermon on the Mount and that of the
Sermon on the Plain, were compared; it was shown that the version
of Luke contains some important exegetical elements missing in Mat-
thew. It was noted that several different, not necessarily harmonized,
reasons—backed by different exegetical moves—are explored in the Ser-
mon for the love-your-enemy command. So the diversity of exegetical
81
This juxtaposition, seemingly suggested by the similarity in Hebrew of the two
verbs, might already have been intended somewhere in the Bible, e.g., Judg 5:31;
1 Sam 18:1–5 and 29; Lam 1:2. See Betz, Commentary, 305, n. 829.
68 chapter two
solutions mentioned above characterizes not only the New Testament

in general but even the particular tradition attested in the Sermon. It
was observed that the Sermon shares this plurality of argument with
other texts, such as Ep. Arist., that try to promulgate the “unnatural”
widening of the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to include enemies.
I have tried to show that in addition to the motifs highlighted by
previous research (e.g., God’s benevolence and human solidarity in weak-
ness and sin), a further exegetical undercurrent may be discerned here,
an undercurrent hinted at by the key term 8 and the reward
motif this term designates. This undercurrent seems to be intrinsically
connected, on the one hand, with the imperative to love God uncon-
ditionally and, on the other, with the double love command pattern
of thought. Just as one is supposed not to expect earthly reward from
God but to love him unconditionally, yet in awareness of the promise
of a greater reward, so one is supposed to behave accordingly in one’s
relations with other people.
According to some early rabbinic sources the love for God may be
called true love only if it survives torments and death at the hands
of God. Descriptions of violent death at the hands of God in those
sources always include a human agent—an enemy, a persecutor. This
human agent features prominently in the SM/SP tradition, which also
shares, both with the rabbinic sources and with the Ep. Arist., the feeling
that this elevated kind of love differs greatly from “common sensical”
understanding. It is worth noting that in the context of the SM/SP,
persecution seems to be conned to insults, loss of property and physical
harm, but stops short of violent death. This fact may strengthen the
opinion that the enemies of the Sermon belong to a narrower milieu,
one that does not necessarily include Gentile persecutors. This ts
the general trend in the Leviticus 19:18 exegesis: as we have seen, in
most Second Temple period traditions centered on human solidarity
in weakness, on the one hand, and God’s benevolence, on the other,
the counterpart of human interaction, the neighbor—even the sinner
toward whom we are admonished to show charity—is not an outsider,
not a member of different ethnic entity. The only clear exception here
is the Epistle of Aristeas, but it is really a special case: Leviticus 19:18
is addressed here to a foreigner and a king who by the nature of his
ofce has to deal with external political foes.82
82
For a discussion of the social setting of the love-your-enemy precept, see
However, as Jesus’ tragic end was very much on the mind of the
authors/editors of the Gospel, Gentile persecutors might have been also
somehow present in the picture. But even if the Gentiles are “in the
picture” here, they are not introduced in opposition to the “reactionary
Jewish particularism”:83 the universalism-versus-particularism problem,
addressed in the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 elsewhere in the Gospels
(see, for example Luke 10:25–38) does not seem to be an issue here.84
On the other hand, the Synoptics express unequivocally the belief
that the death of Jesus is willed by God (see esp. Matt 26:36–39; Mk
14:32–36; Luke 22:39–42; cf. Rom 8:3, 32, etc.). It may be suggested,
therefore, that the exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18 in the SM/
SP bears witness to a peculiar early development within a tendency, a
different offshoot of which is later attested in rabbinic martyrdom texts:
in the Sermon the demand to show unconditional love toward God is
transferred—in accordance with the double love command pattern of
thought and the imperative to forsake considerations of reward—from
God to the human agent of enmity. If one’s attitude toward a fellow
man is supposed to bear witness to/mirror his attitude toward God,
then one should love his persecutor and pray for him.
The love-your-enemy command in the SM/SP might have denitely

reected Jesus’ outstanding personality, and it was undoubtedly crucial
for the formation of Christian religious outlook. Later developments
resulted in a fully articulated Christian exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 in
light of Matthew 5:43–48/Luke 6:27–36, with its newly developing
and different perceptions of whom one sees as his/her enemies. The
investigation in this chapter, however, centered on the command as a
part of and a witness to internal developments in early Jewish exegesis,
not on its role as a starting point for a new way of thinking informed
by the belief in Jesus the Messiah. This approach seems justied,
A. Milavec, ‘The Social Setting of “Turning the Other Cheek” and “Loving One’s
Enemies” in Light of the Didache’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 25 (1995), 131–143.
83
As suggested e.g., by Luz (Matthew 1–7, 344). See also B. Bowman Thurston,
‘Expository Articles: Matthew 5:43–48’, Interpretation 41 (1987), 170–173.
84
For a different opinion, see Davies-Allison, Matthew, I, 550. Du Plessis (‘Love and
Perfection in Matt. 5:43–48’, in: The Sermon on the Mount: Essays on Matthew 5–7, Neo-
testamentica 1 [1967], 28–34) leaves all options open: “Jesus refers not only to enemies
of the people but also to adverse national relations and in conclusion, and perhaps
more, to personal enemies”.
70 chapter two
inter alia, in light of the observation already made that the instances
of exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 in the SM/SP, as elsewhere in the New
Testament, are never presented as conditioned by or connected with
the messianic kerygma.
CHAPTER THREE
THE DOUBLE LOVE PRECEPT: BETWEEN PHARISEES,

JESUS AND QUMRAN COVENANTERS
Introduction
Alongside sayings that determine the importance of the ever-expanding

system of commandments as a whole,1 tannaitic sources also document
traditions exemplifying an opposite or complementary trend. This con-
verse trend can be discerned in attempts at formulating a concise set of
principles that represent the whole Torah. Thus in Sifra Qedoshim (2.4,
cf. Gen. R. 24), Rabbi Aqiva is the one who determines that Leviticus
19:18 is
(“the core/great[est] precept in the Torah”).
In the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sabb. 31a), it is Hillel who claims that
,

(“the following is the summary of the whole Torah: what is
hateful to you do not do to your neighbor/friend. The rest is nothing
but commentary, go and study it”).2 Assigning the tradition to Hil-
lel—that is, already within the Second Temple period—is supported
by early textual witnesses, e.g., ones from Pseudepigrapha and Didache
(discussed below). As the rest of the passage in Sifra Qedoshim attests, Ben
Azai contests the words of Rabbi Aqiva, which suggests that Leviticus
19:18 was not the only candidate for the role of the central precept
in the Torah. Moreover, the tradition was not necessarily referring to
only one core precept.3
It is not inconceivable that this tendency, of which statements den-
ing the second half of Leviticus 19:8, “you shall love your neighbor
as yourself ”, as the core precept in the Torah are excellent examples,
was a result of the inuence of certain philosophical trends in the
Roman-Hellenistic world at that time.4 Even so, it would seem that this
trend had already taken root and been internalized in Jewish religious
1
See m. Abot 2:1; m. Mak. 3:15.
2
Cf. Abot R. Nat. version B, 27 (Schechter ed., 53), where the same sentence is put
in the mouth of Rabbi Aqiva.
3
A later echo of arguments on the subject can be heard in b. Mak. 23b–24a.
4
On such patterns of thought in the Hellenistic-philosophic culture including those
internalized by Philo, see M. E. Boring, K. Berger and C. Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Com-
mentary on the New Testament, Nashville 1995, 128–129.
72 chapter three
discourse by late Second Temple times, which is evident in the fact that
the discussion of principles of behavior and faith is formulated there
as exegesis of Israel’s canonical texts.
The debate on the question “What is the core commandment in the
Torah?” related with certain variations in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt
22:34–40, Mark 12:28–34, Luke 10:25–28),5 has been examined in
research in this context. This debate, already touched on in Chapter 2,
will now become the focus of our investigation. Here are the three Gos-
pel versions in English translation (Revised Standard Version); discussion of
the relevant textual variants in the Greek text follows immediately:
Matt 22:34–40 Mark 12:28–34 Luke 10:25–28

34 When the Pharisees 28 And one of the scribes 25 And behold, a lawyer
heard that he had silenced came up and heard them stood up to put him to
the Sadducees, they came disputing with one another, the test, saying, “Teacher,
together. 35 And one of and seeing that he answered what shall I do to inherit
them, a lawyer, asked him them well, asked him, eternal life?” 26 He said
a question, to test him. 36 “Which commandment is to him, “What is written
“Teacher, which is the great the rst of all?” 29 Jesus in the law? How do you
commandment in the law answered, “The rst is,— read?” 27 And he answered,
(Torah)?” 37 And he said Hear, O Israel: The Lord “You shall love the Lord your
to him, “You shall love our God, the Lord is one; 30 God with all your heart,
the Lord your God with and you shall love the Lord and with all your soul, and
all your heart, and with all your God with all your heart, with all your strength, and
your soul, and with all you and with all your soul, and with all your mind; and your
mind. 38 This is the great with all your mind, and neighbor as yourself ”. 28
and rst commandment. 39 with all your strength.’ 31 And he said to him, “You
And a second is like it, You The second is this,—You have answered right; do
shall love your neighbor as shall love your neighbor as this, and you will live”.
yourself. 40 On these two yourself.’ There is no other
commandments depend commandment greater than
all the law (Torah) and the these”. 32 And the scribe
prophets”. said to him, “You are right,
Teacher; you have truly said
that he is one, and there is
no other but he; 33 and to
love him with all the heart,
and with all the understand-
ing, and with all the strength,
and to love one’s neighbor
as oneself, is much more than
all whole burnt offerings
and sacrices”. 34 And when
Jesus saw that he answered
wisely, he said to him, “You
are not far from the king-
dom of God”.
5
For discussion of the relationship between the three synoptic versions, and of the
process of their crystallization, see V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testa-
the double love precept 73
The Gospels give a double answer to the question “What is the greatest
commandment in the Torah?”:6 the love of God with all one’s heart
and with all one’s soul and with all one’s mind (and/or strength) (Deut
6:5), and the love of one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18), are the two precepts
upon which the whole system of religious conduct should be based.
This coupling of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is the identify-
ing feature of the tradition related here in the Gospels. Also signicant
are the textual variants in the Gospel manuscripts that characterize the
rst half of the answer referring to Deuteronomy 6:5. These variants
oscillate between a three-part formulation found in most manuscripts
of Matthew and in several manuscripts of Mark (
/ = with
all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind/strength),
which corresponds to the biblical version of Deuteronomy 6:5 as well
as its targumic paraphrases and a four-part formulation ( []
!
= with all your heart, with all your soul, with
all your strength, and with all your mind), which occurs in several
manuscripts of Matthew, in most manuscripts of Mark, and in all the
manuscripts of Luke.7 Textual variation also exists in the denition of
the third component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 commandment ("
= mind or ! = strength) as well as the order of the components.
Yet the rst—Deuteronomy 6:5-centered—part of the answer to the
question “What is the great(est) commandment in the Torah?” (“What
is the core precept/principle in the Torah?”)8 remains limited to the
programmatic declaration, without any further elaboration. In no
variant, then, does the four-part formulation have any function in the
narrative of the Gospel.9
ment, Nashville 1972, 30 n. 18, 34–45, 59–60 and 70 –90; A. J. Hultgren, ‘The Double
Commandment of Love in Mt 22:34 – 40: Its Sources and Composition’, Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 36 (1974), 373–378; F. Meirynck, ‘Luke 10:25–28: A Foreign Body in Luke?’
in: S. E. Porter, P. Joyce and D. E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries; Essays in Biblical
Interpretation in Honour of M. D. Goulder, Leiden 1994, 149–165; J. J. Menken, Matthew’s
Bible; The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven 2004, 215–218. One of the instruc-
tive distinctions Hultgren makes is between the “conict story” of Matthew and the
“didactic dialogue” story of Mark.
6
Both the RSV and NRSV consistently use law for (Torah).
7
K. Aland, Synopsis, 248–249.
8
For reading
in Matt 22:36 as “core precept/principle” (
) instead of
“commandment” () see note 45 below and the discussion there.
9
Contrary to a number of other citations, also notably diverging from the biblical
original, that clearly come from the Gospel compiler, this one is put in the mouth of
74 chapter three
As noted in the Introduction, the basic presupposition of this book

is that—at least in some cases—the compilers of the Gospel and other
New Testament traditions used the biblical text in accordance with
the characteristic hermeneutical style of late Second Temple litera-
ture. In other words, they referred not only to the biblical text itself
but also (rather?) to the midrashic interpretation that enveloped the
text, at times even without making any clear distinction between the
two.10 The expression “the school of Matthew” that Krister Stendahl
coined many years ago concerning the First Gospel’s treatment of the
biblical text seeks to dene, among other things, the phenomena of
applying hermeneutical techniques and the dependence on existing
interpretations.11 In light of this understanding, which has inltrated
scholarship in the last decades, a readiness has emerged to examine
citations of the Scripture in the Gospels at their points of diversion
from the Bible, not only against the Hebrew and Septuagint versions
but also against the exegetical traditions connected to the cited verses.
Such traditions are attested, inter alia, in the Aramaic Targums of the
Bible, and the targumic traditions have been systematically examined
both by Stendahl and by those who follow his lead.12 It is in accordance
with this approach that the basic characteristics of the three Synoptic
versions of the section dealing with the great(est) commandment in the
Torah will be discussed below, and several suggestions with regard to
their hermeneutical nature will be made. Among other topics, the Jewish
hermeneutical context in which the coupling of the verses Deuteronomy
6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 could occur will be outlined.13
Jesus himself. This may be one of the reasons this saying is so authoritative that even
the Old Syriac Gospels, excelling in their sensitivity to what seemed to be divergent in
the Old Testament quotations in their Greek source from the biblical (Peshitta) form,
and in most cases attempting to correct the text to t the Peshitta, in this instance
remained faithful to the Greek Gospel. See S. Ruzer, ‘Biblical Quotations in the Old
Syriac Gospels: Peshitta Inuence and Hermeneutical Constraints,’ Ph.D. diss., The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996, 68–74 (in Hebrew).
10
See also J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen 1954;
and, especially, A. T. Hanson, The Living Utterances of God; The New Testament Interpretation
of Scripture, London 1980, 3–4.
11
See Introduction, note 6.
12
Ibid. See also the discussion in Chapter 1.
13
See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Double Love Precept in the New Testament and the
Community Rule’, Tarbiz 71 (2002), 353–370 (in Hebrew) [an English version appeared
in Jesus’ Last Week, 81–106].
This endeavor of trying to outline the Jewish hermeneutical context

is justied, given the existence of a general exegetic tendency in Sec-
ond Temple Judaism that emphasized the “. . . ” (“And you shall
love . . .”) commandments (hereafter: love commands),14 and because
there are at least two internal indications in the Gospels themselves
that the answer to the inquiry on the great(est) Torah precept consti-
tutes a point of agreement, or overlap, between Jesus and his Jewish
environment:
1. While, according to Matthew, the question is put to Jesus, who then
delivers the answer, in Luke it is Jesus who asks the question, while
the reply, consisting of the four-part expansion of Deuteronomy 6:5,
is given by a sage/expert in the Law ( ). In contradistinction
to this, Mark’s rendition may be seen as a mixed one. The question
is asked of Jesus, who answers it using the four-part expansion of
Deuteronomy 6:5. Then the scribe (# $%!) who was talking
to him repeats the answer in agreement, only omitting the fourth
component containing " (knowledge, recognition). The use of
the term “law” (Torah) in this context (law and the prophets in Mat-
thew) conveys the Gospel-writers purport of imbuing the conversation
with the sense of a discussion between the sages (Torah experts) and
emphasizing Jesus’ expertise in the Torah-centered discourse.15
2. In Matthew and Mark, the passage is inserted in the Gospel nar-
rative immediately following the disputation between Jesus and the
Sadducees on the resurrection of the dead. There Jesus argues a
position presented as identical to that of the Pharisees, which he
backs by means of an obviously exegetical reference, all of which is
portrayed as being well accepted by the Pharisees.
14
See Flusser, Jesus, 81–92; idem, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 469–489. See also the discus-
sion in Chapter 2 and below.
15
See O. S. Brooks, ‘The Function of the Double Command in Matthew 22:34–40’,
AUSS 36 (1998), 7–22, esp. 8, 15–17; cf. J. B. Stern, ‘Jesus’ Citation of Deut 6:5
and Lev 19:18 in the Light of Jewish Tradition’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966),
312–316. Jesus’ faithfulness to the Torah and his expertise in rabbinic debate will be
greatly emphasized further on, in a different socio-cultural context in Judeo-Christian
circles. See S. Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity
According to a New Source’, in: The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, 4 vols., Jerusalem
1996, 4: 211–284.
76 chapter three
The search for the Jewish hermeneutical setting will focus, inter alia, on
the opening paragraphs of the Community Rule from Qumran, which, as
far as I am aware, have not yet been dealt with in this context. While
some recent studies have discussed the possible connection between
the Rule and the various socio-cultural patterns of the Hellenistic
world,16 it is permissible to say that the relationship between the Hel-
lenistic world and the traditions attested in the Gospels, including the
traditions examined in this chapter, has received the most attention
in scholarship.17 This direction of research is undoubtedly important;
however, it does not pertain to our current interest, which is rather the
internal exegetical aspect—namely, biblical interpretations used in sup-
port of religious positions, within the Community Rule on the one hand,
and in the Gospels on the other. This discussion will thus center on the
common exegetical features of both traditions, which, of course, may
reect the process of internalization of the general cultural standards
by Jewish sects who perceived those standards as derived from the
“Torah and the prophets”.
The forms of the Deuteronomy 6:5 precept in the New Testament within early
Jewish exegesis
The following two characteristic features of the Synoptic citations of

Deuteronomy 6:5 have been noted above: 1) the appearance of "
as the third component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love command, and
2) the appearance of a four-part formulation instead of the three-part
version attested in the Bible. We have seen that these peculiarities are
partially documented in manuscripts of all three Synoptic Gospels.
The use of " here seemingly constitutes a noticeable depar-
ture from both the Masoretic text (
'
16
As, for instance, utopian thought: D. Mendels, ‘Hellenistic Utopia and the Es-
senes’, Shenaton; An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 4 (1980), 226–238 (in
Hebrew); voluntary religious associations: M. Klinghart, ‘The Manual of Discipline in
the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations’, in: M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods
of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York 1994, 251–267; social ‘networks’ of
friendships: W. O. McCreary, ‘Friendship and Second Temple Jewish Sectarianism’,
in: G. Wilson and M. Desarding (eds.), Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean
Antiquity; Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, Waterloo 2000, 402–421. See also J. Taylor,
Pythagoreans and Essenes; Structural Parallels, Leiden 2004.
17
Concerning the pericope under discussion see for example, Davies-Allison,
Matthew, 3:241.

) and the Septuagint that translates here
!, namely, strength or might. Several solutions have been suggested
in research. Davies and Allison attempted to explain the occurrence
of the three-part formulation in Matthew— (heart),
(soul ),
" (mind )—as a reference to the three internal components of a
human personality, a kind of anthropological tripartite division.18 The
drawback of this explanation is that it makes no reference whatsoever
to the (exegetical) link to Deuteronomy 6:5. The Gospel saying is
presented in this reading as an expression of general religious wisdom
that is not obliged, even supercially, to be backed by biblical exegesis.
Another explanation is based on the Septuagintal version of Deuter-
onomy 6:5: while (“very”?) is rendered there ! (B: !)
and not ", " (as thought) does appear as a translation for
the rst component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love precept,
,
with the biblical meaning of thoughts of the heart.19 Thus, according to
this explanation, the passage is formulated after a septuagintal biblical
version to which the compiler of the Gospel tradition had access. It is
also possible to claim that the appearance of " at the end of the
three-part formulation in Matthew is actually a repetition of
()—that is, the reference here is not necessarily to Deuteronomy 6:5
but rather to such verses as Deuteronomy 10:12, 30:10, where the love
command consists of only two constituents ('

).
Yet even if dependence on the Septuagint could explain the appear-
ance of ", it fails to explain the four-part structure—,

, !, "—attested in Mark and Luke.20 It is difcult to
be satised with the at ruling of Joseph Fitzmyer, who states without
any further discussion, that this four-part text form is derived from
Deuteronomy 6:5, saying that the commandment “insisted on the
absolute love of the Lord in a total personal response; the three (or
four) [sic!] faculties (heart, soul, might [and mind]) were meant to sum
up the totality of undivided dedication to him”.21
18
Ibid.
19
This, apparently, is Stendahl’s opinion. See Stendahl, The School of Matthew, 76.
20
Cf. Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 217.
21
J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and
Notes, Garden City 1985, 878. Cf. R. J. Karris, ‘The Gospel According to Luke’, in:
R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
Herndon, Va. 1997, 702.
78 chapter three
In my opinion, these explanations do not deal adequately with the

passage, as they do not explore the possibility that what in fact underlies
the four-part structure of the quotation in the Gospels is an existing
midrashic elaboration of Deuteronomy 6:5. An attempt, then, should
be made to describe this elaboration’s nature. This direction of inves-
tigation conforms to the assumption that the Gospel writers’ treatment
of biblical materials was in fact conditioned by existing hermeneutical
strategies.
An interpretation of in Deuteronomy 6:5 as “your wealth” or

“possessions”, seems to have been already extant in the Second Temple
period—it is this interpretation that is attested in targumic traditions,
including Targum Neoti and the Peshitta. This interpretation of
likewise appears in tannaitic sources, such as Sifre Deut. 3222 and m. Ber.
9.5; in both instances it is collated with an alternative exegetical option,
which is made explicit in the mishnaic passage:
.

'
.

.

.

.
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your might.
With all your heart—with both of your inclinations, with the good incli-
nation and with the evil inclination.
With all your soul—even if he should take your soul (life).
With all your might—with all your wealth.
Another reading, with all your might—with every measure that he has
measured for you, be exceedingly grateful to him.
Possibly such an interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:5 underlies the
description of the communal practices in the Jerusalem congregation of
Jesus’ followers (Acts 4:32): “Now the company of those who believed
were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which
he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common”.23
22
See also Sifre Zuta, M. I. Kahana, Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy; Citations from a New
Tannaitic Midrash, Jerusalem 2002, 148.
23
For a discussion of this verse, see B. Gerhardsson, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu Apg
4:32’, in: idem, The Shema in the New Testament, Lund 1996, 239–246.
Birger Gerhardsson tried to show that this type of exegesis of Deu-

teronomy 6:5 was embedded in several key passages in Matthew—for
instance, in the descriptions of Jesus’ temptations by Satan.24 Ger-
hardsson also argued that this interpretation of the third component
of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love command, as a request to appropriately
manage one’s personal wealth (to demonstrate a readiness to share with
others?), explains the carrying-over—in the Gospel discussion of the
Torah’s greatest commandment—into the second love command from
Leviticus 19:18, (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself ”);25 this issue
will be addressed again later in the chapter. Gerhardsson’s thesis about
the structure of the temptation narratives is surely worthy of attention;
however, as regards the Synoptic pericope we are concerned with, his
argumentation for tying " to (goods, possessions) is not very
convincing26—in contradistinction to Acts 4:32, the Gospels do not
seem to employ an interpretation of in Deuteronomy 6:5 as .
So, similarly to the interpretation of Leviticus 19:18, which I have dealt
with in Chapter 2, the New Testament’s treatment of Deuteronomy
6:5, is also characterized by its multiple usages and by the application
of different interpretations.
Gerhardsson, who, as noted, has detected signs of an interpreta-
tion of in Deuteronomy 6:5 as in key passages in Matthew,
sees this as proof of the proximity of the Gospel to the world of the
sages. What relation, if any, does this Matthean tendency have to the
Qumranic exegesis? According to Gerhardsson, the material at our
disposal is insufcient to determine with certainty how the members
of the sect understood the biblical verse.27 Yet the communistic quality
of the Jerusalem congregation in Acts 4, which seemingly, at least in
part, depended upon an exegetical reading of '

denitely recalls sociological-exegetical
comparisons with the Community Rule where the procedure of entering
the sect is described—including sharing of wealth. Can any exegetical
references to the same Torah verse be discerned in the Rule?
24
Matt 4:1–10. See Gerhardsson, ‘The Temptation Narrative (M) and Deut 6:5’,
in: The Shema, 16, n. 15.
25
See the discussion in Gerhardsson, ‘The Hermeneutic Program in Matthew
22:37–40’, in: The Shema, 202–223.
26
See also Davies-Allison, Matthew, 3:241.
27
Gerhardsson, ‘The Temptation Narrative’, 16, n. 15.
80 chapter three
Gerhardsson himself has noted one passage in the Rule (1QS 9:8–11,
22–25) as possibly containing echoes of an exegesis of Deuteronomy
6:5:
8 And the goods () of the men of holiness who walk in perfection.
Their goods must not be mixed with the goods of the men of deceit who
9 have not cleansed their path to separate from injustice and walk in a
perfect behaviour. They should not depart from any counsel of the law
in order to walk 10 in complete (
) stubbornness of their heart, but
instead shall be ruled by the rst directives which the men of the Com-
munity began to be taught 11 until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs
of Aaron and Israel. (. . .) 22 for the men of the pit in clandestine spirit.
To them he should leave goods and hand-made items like a servant to
his master and like one oppressed before 23 someone domineering him.
He should be a man enthusiastic for the decree and for its time, for the
day of revenge. He should perform (God’s) will in all (
) that his hand
should tackle 24 and in all (
) that he controls, as he commanded.
And all that happens to him he should welcome freely and be gratied
by nothing except God’s will. 25 He should relish all the words of his
mouth, wish for nothing that he has not commanded [and] be ever alert
to the precept of God.
Gerhardsson gives here only a general referral, without any further
elaboration. Yet, it is possible to speculate concerning his reasoning:
the use of the phrase “the stubbornness of their heart” along with the
repeated use of
(“in all that his hand”, “in all that he controls”,
“all that happens to him”) suggests the possibility that embedded in
1QS 9 lies an interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:5. If we accept this
suggestion, then line 8 (and, seemingly, also line 22) identies the subject
of the wealth/goods among the subjects of the command, “And you
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your might”.
However, what according to Gerhardsson constitutes here a common
denominator with a Pharisaic hermeneutical pattern only highlights
the difference between the hermeneutic of the sages and that of the
Qumran community. In the Rule the emphasis is shifted from a will-
ingness to share one’s personal possessions with others, to a refusal
to accept either the “sons of darkness” or their possessions into the
community of the redeemed.28 The situation may be characterized as
28
Another distinguishing mark of Qumranic interpretation may be pointed out
here: it allows for the understanding that when the time comes—in the days of the
Messiahs and the eschatological prophet—a different interpretation of the love precept
will be possible (1QS 9:11).
follows: While the halakhic interpretation in 1QS differs from that of

the sages (and, according to Gerhardsson, also of Matthew), it is still
based on the same underlying exegetic position that understands
as . One can also observe that the passage from 1QS 9 provides no
substantiation for Gerhardsson’s opinion that " in Matt 22:37
(cf. Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) refers to a person’s internal stance that
enables him to act justly with his personal possessions, being ready to
give them up for the benet of another.
Gerhardsson further noted two consecutive passages from the Thanks-
giving Hymns where echoes of the interpretation of the Deuteronomy
6:5 can be discerned:
(1):
[] [ ]

[. . .] [. . .]

] []
25 and you hate injustice, for ever [sic]. And myself, your servant, you
have favoured me with the spirit of knowledge [to love tr]uth 26 [and
justice,] and to loathe all the paths of injustice. I love you liberally, and
with (my) whole heart [. . .] you 27 [. . .] your wisdom, because these
things happen at your hand and without your ap[proval] nothing [exists].
(1QH 6:25–27)
(2):

. . .
[

[ . . .
[ ] . . .
.
12 those who [ lo]ve you for all days and . . . 13 I love you lavishly, with (my)
whole heart and with all (my) soul I have puried . . . 14 [ I have] imp[osed
on myself not] to turn aside from all that you have commanded. . . . so as
not] 15 to desert all your precepts. (1QH 7:12–15)
These passages exemplify an exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5, where refer-
ence is made to only the rst two components of the command. It may
be alternatively suggested that the exegesis refers to the two-component
variant of the same biblical tradition recorded in Deuteronomy 10:12;
30:10. In any case, there is no trace of an identication of as
()—a fact that denitely sits well with the thematic nature of the
Thanksgiving Hymns. It will be suggested below that apart from the texts
noted by Gerhardsson, there are also clear allusions to Deuteronomy
6:5 in the opening paragraphs of 1QS that hence deserve special
attention in relation to the discussion of the Gospel text-form of the
Deuteronomy 6:5 citation.
82 chapter three
The love commands in 1QS 1
The Community Rule was intended for the

(enlightened one)—that
is, for the leaders of the community or, possibly, for all its members29—
and outlined the rules of conduct for the community as well as the
procedures for entering the covenant30 and/or for its yearly renewal.31
Hence the importance of the opening paragraphs of the scroll,
which obviously have the programmatic character of a declaration of
intentions:32
1 For [the Instructor (
)] [ book of the Rul]e of the Community
( ): in order to 2 seek God [with all (one’s) heart and with all
(one’s) soul (

); in order] to do what is good and just in
his presence, as 3 commanded by means of the hand of Moses and his
servants the Prophets (

); in
order to love everything 4 which he selects and to hate everything that
he rejects (

); in order to
keep oneself at a distance from all evil, 5 and to become attached to all
good works; to bring about truth, justice and uprightness (

) 6 on earth and
not to walk in the stubbornness of a guilty heart and of lecherous eyes 7
performing every evil; in order to welcome into the covenant of kindness
( ) all those who freely volunteer to carry out God’s decrees,
8 so as to be united in the counsel of God and walk in perfection in his
sight, complying with all 9 revealed things concerning the regulated times
29
The vagueness of the meaning of the term
was pointed out in S. Metso,
‘In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule’, in: D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich
(eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden 1999, 312 and
n. 15 there.
30
See, for example, J. J. Collins, ‘Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule
Books’, in: A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. D. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity
vol. 1, Leiden 2001, 31.
31
See B. Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions from Qumran for the Annual Covenantal
Ceremony’, in: L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: 1947–1997, Jerusalem 2000, 263–264; M. Kister,
‘5Q13 and the Avodah: A Historical Survey and Its Signicance’, Dead Sea Discoveries
8,2 (2001), 136–148. On a possible connection to Hellenistic socio-cultural norms see
above, n. 15, and the discussion there.
32
The issue of the different stages in the compilation of the scroll that supposedly
reect different concepts and positions is not our objective here. For a review of the
status quaestionis see, for instance, M. Blockmuehl, ‘Redaction and Ideology in the “Rule
of the Community” ’, Revue de Qumran 18 (1998), 541–560; E. Puech, ‘On S. Metso,
“The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule” ’, Revue de Qumran 18
(1998), 448–453.
of their stipulations; in order to love all the sons of light, each one 10
according to his lot in God’s plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness,
each one in accordance with his blame (

) 11 in God’s
vindication. All those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their
knowledge, their energies, 12 and their riches to the Community of God
(

) in order to
rene their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees and marshal their
energies 13 in accordance with his perfect paths and all their riches in
accordance with his just counsel . . . 16 And all those who enter in the
Rule of the Community shall establish a covenant before God in order
to carry out 17 all that he commands and in order not to stray from
following him (

).
Already in the second line the combination

(“with all
[one’s] heart and with all [one’s] soul”) appears, which seems to allude
to the group of sayings in the Pentateuch containing this word com-
bination (Deut 6:5, 10:12 and 30:10)—with the additional

(“with all your might”) in Deuteronomy 6:5. Moreover, the opening
lines of 1QS seem to interpret the essence of what God “commanded
through Moses and through all his servants the prophets” (1QS 1:3:

) as clinging to God “with all
one’s heart and with all one’s soul”. Further on is an indication that
the commandment as it is worded here constitutes, in the mindset of
the scroll’s compiler, the foundation of the covenant:

(1QS

1:16–17, cf., 1QS 1:7–8).
The Qumran author also claried his interpretation of loving God:
“to love everything which he selects and to hate everything that he
rejects; in order to keep oneself at a distance from all evil” (1QS 1.3–5:

). The denition of love
here necessarily includes the element of hate (to hate everything that
the loved one hates)—seemingly, an extreme sectarian reworking of a
more general tendency attested later in y. Ber. 4, 1 [7d]:

(“keep us away from what is
hateful to you and bring us closer to all you love”). In column 1, lines
9–10, a shift occurs: now it is not God but a fellow human being who
becomes the object of love (or, respectively, hate). These lines will be
addressed further on, but at present the focus is the lines 11–12 that
follow:
84 chapter three

[ ]

And all those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their knowledge,
their energies [strength], and their riches to the Community of God in
order to rene their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees and marshal
their energies [literally: strength] in accordance with his perfect paths and
all their riches in accordance with his just counsel.33
The appearance of the words
(“all their riches”) indicates that
the text goes on here with exegesis begun in 1:2, an interpretation that
may now be more narrowly dened as exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5.
The Qumran exegete seemingly adopted the understanding of
in Deuteronomy 6:5 as referring to one’s possessions. If this is indeed
the case and to “love God with all your might” is interpreted here as
readiness to put all one’s possessions at the disposal of the “community
of God”, what is the explanation of
(“their knowledge
and their strength”)? Since the Septuagint already attests to “strength”
(!) as an accepted interpretation of , one may assume that
(“knowledge”), in this context, is merely one more exegetical suggestion
for understanding the third component of the love command. If this is
correct, then 1QS 1:11–12 recorded a number of different interpreta-
tions of the word from Deuteronomy 6:5 in a side-by-side manner
similar to that which is found in m. Ber. 9:5.
Thus, 1QS 1:11–12 seems to attest to the appearance of the paral-
lels " () and ! (
), with both interpreting the prob-
lematic
of Deuteronomy 6:5. The same pattern resurfaces
further on in the scroll, where the prohibition of social contacts with
outsiders is the issue (1QS 3:2):

(“his knowledge, his energy and his wealth shall not enter the coun-
cil of the Community”).34 In my estimation, the appearance of this
interpretative tradition in the Rule could provide a background and/or
explanation for the appearance of the combination of " and
! in Luke 10:27 and the Synoptic parallels. If this is indeed the
33
Cf. CD-A 14:11–17.
34
Shaul Shaked suggested that the hermeneutical parallel between possession and
knowledge (as two interpretations of the same word ) could have originated
from the connection between and the Aramaic-Syriac / (~å) meaning
“proper procedure/understanding” (personal communication). This very interesting
suggestion requires a separate discussion.
case, the absence of reference to in this Synoptic tradition may be

deliberate—the rules for handling common property are not of major
importance to the Sitz im Leben of the members of Jesus’ entourage,
whose experience is reected in the Gospel narratives. In contrast,
however, the interpretation of as is the only understanding
referred to in Acts 4:32. In the latter instance, the organizational struc-
ture of a close-knit community based on sharing possessions is described
in a similar manner to what one nds in Qumran and especially in
the Community Rule. Apparently such a sociological situation made this
exegetical option particularly attractive and relevant.
In principle, the demand “to convey all their knowledge () to
the community of God” could also refer to the rst component of
the Deuteronomy 6:5 love commandment, “with all your heart” (

), especially in light of the further elaboration provided in 1QS
1:12 (“rene their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees”)—as well as
the interpretation preserved in the Septuagint (see above). If this was
the intended interpretation of the Qumran author, then the phrase
“with all their strength” (

) would refer to “with all your
soul” (
) in Deuteronomy 6:5; and “their goods” (
)
would then be the only interpretation suggested in 1QS for “with all
your strength” (
).
Even allowing for this reading of 1QS 1:11–12,35 the Qumran pas-
sage still provides an explanation for the appearance of (")
and
(!) side by side in the citation of Deuteronomy 6:5 pre-
served in the Gospel record, although the explanation of the four-part
text-form in the Gospels would in this case, of course, be different.
This possibility, however, seems less probable because the combination
“knowledge-strength-possessions” appears throughout the Community
Rule as dening what the covenanters were to bring with them—and what
the “sons of darkness” were not allowed to bring—into the sectarian
assembly (1QS 3:2, cf. 6:9–10; and 8:23). Apparently, the Qumran
community interpreted “possessions” to include even one’s intellectual
faculty; moreover, knowledge played the decisive role in the forming of
the community consciousness of the sect, as reected, inter alia, in the
special position of the maskil (enlightened one).36
35
A saying in 1QS 2:3 could be understood in this vein, “May he illuminate your
heart with the discernment of life and grace you with eternal knowledge”.
36
See C. A. Newsom, ‘Knowing as Doing: the Social Symbolics of Knowledge of
Qumran’, Semeia 59 (1992), 139–153.
86 chapter three
Moshe Weinfeld, who deals with the bulk of the Rule as separated
from the opening paragraphs, raises an alternate possibility that both

and referred to , while was an interpretation
of from Deuteronomy 6:5.37 He also mentions the Gospels in
this context, but he perceives the " appearing there within the
framework of a reference to Deuteronomy 6:5, not as a parallel of
but rather as a parallel of the rabbinic notion of evil inclination (
), which holds that a person should love his Creator with both of
his inclinations, the good together with the evil, as exemplied in m.
Berakhot, Sifre Devarim and Sifre Zuta (see above). This suggestion likewise
seems problematic, since in this case the exegetical passage from 1QS
1 skips—without any visible reason—the intermediate component of
the Deuteronomy 6:5 love command,
(“with all your soul”).
Weinfeld excuses the absence of reference to “your soul” by means of
another supposition—namely, that the sect members were exemplary on
this point, being ready for martyrdom along the line of the widespread
exegetical understanding documented later in the Mishnah,

(“with all your soul—even if he should take your
soul”), and apparently for this reason no special reference was necessary.
The argumentation, however, does not seem sufciently convincing.
The double love command within early Jewish exegesis
The identifying feature of the answer given in the Gospels to the

question “What is the greatest commandment in the Torah?” is the
integration of the two love commands, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus
19:18. Researchers have already noted a number of traditions presum-
ably within Jewish literature of the Second Temple period or slightly
later that indicate a similar combination of biblical texts as attested in
the Gospels. What follows is a list of the major witnesses with reference
to their problematic aspects.
37
M. Weinfeld, ‘ “And let all those who freely volunteer to be in his truth bring all
their knowledge, strength, and goods into the community of God”. (The Rule of the
Community, p. 1, line 12)’, in: B. Oppenheimer (ed.), Studies in the Bible; In Memory of
Joshua Meir Grinch, Tel Aviv 1982, 37–41 (in Hebrew).
1) Book of Jubilees:
And he commanded them that they should guard the way of the Lord so
that they might do righteousness and each one might love his neighbor.
( Jub. 20:2)
I exhort you, my sons, love the God of heaven, and be joined to all
of his commands. ( Jub. 20:7)
And among yourselves, my sons, be loving of your brothers as a man
loves himself, with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him,
and acting together on the earth, and loving each other as themselves.
And regarding the matter of idols, . . . and hate them and not to love
them . . . Remember, my sons, the LORD, the God of Abraham, your
father, and (that) I subsequently worshipped and served him . . . And now
I will make you swear by the great oath . . . And (that) each will love his
brother with compassion. ( Jub. 36:4–8).38
The book of Jubilees may be dated with certainty to the pre-Christian
era. The fact that its fragments were found at Qumran suggests a
broad distribution at about the time of the outset of Christianity.39 Yet
although the ideas that appear in these passages are similar to those
expressed in the Gospels, the conspicuous exegetical coupling of the
two love commands is not documented in Jubilees. Likewise, there is
no reference here to the various components of the commandment to
love God (heart-soul-strength); in other words, no explicit exegetical
reference is made to Deuteronomy 6:5.40
2) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:

Love the Lord and your neighbor; be compassionate toward poverty and
sickness. (T. Iss. 5.2. cf. T. Iss. 7.6, “The Lord I loved with all my strength;
likewise, I loved every human being as I love my children”.).
Throughout all your life love the Lord, and one another with a true
heart. (T. Dan 5.3).41
38
Trans. O. S. Wintermute in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepig-
rapha, vol. 2, New York 1983.
39
See D. Flusser, ‘The Ten Commandments and the “New Covenant” ’, in: Judaism
of the Second Temple Period; Sages, 169.
40
Apart from Deut 10:12; 30:10 mentioned above, the requirement to love God
appears in additional passages in the Bible, independently of the three-part formula-
tion “with all your heart, with all your soul, with all you strength”. See, for example,
Deut 11:13, 22; Josh 21:5; 23:1; Isa 56:6; Ps 31:24.
41
Trans. H. C. Kee in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
vol. 1, New York 1983.
88 chapter three
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs were transmitted by Christian

scribes. Doubts have been raised as to the pre-Christian, Jewish origin
of these compositions.42 It is worth noting that while some fragments
related to certain of the Testaments were discovered among the Qumran
library, others—among them the Testament of Issachar and the Testa-
ment of Dan—have no attestation in a Semitic source from the Second
Temple period.43
3) Philo:
And there are, as we may say, two most especially important heads
(%&" ) of all the innumerable particular lessons and doctrines; the
regulating of one’s conduct towards God by the rules of piety and holi-
ness, and of one’s conduct towards men by the rules of humanity and
justice; each of which is subdivided into a great number of subordinate
ideas, all praiseworthy. (Philo, Spec. Leg. II.63).44
It is noteworthy that the two great(est) rules are not dened by Philo with
reference to love commands from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18,
but rather to the two parts of the Decalogue presented as “heads” or
“principles/precepts” for the rest of the commandments in the Torah.
Philo uses here the word %&" , which according to Flusser is the
most suitable Greek translation of
(“precept/principle”). Flusser
also thinks that Philo based himself here on the words of a sermon
he had heard, whereas the translator of the Matthean tradition into
Greek, who reads
in Matthew 22:36, did not nd, unlike Philo,
the appropriate Greek word, because of his simplistic literary style.45
42
Contrary to the traditional view, which sees the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as
a Jewish composition—a view expressed in, among other works, the pseudepigraphic
collection from the beginning of the 20th century by E. Kautzsch and R. H. Charles;
M. de Jonge and those who followed his conclusions argued for the Christian nature of
the texts. See H. W. Hollandes and M. de Jonge, The Testamnets of the Twelve Patriarchs:
A Commentary, Leiden 1985, 82–85. The suggestion of an Essene source of the Testa-
ments was raised in J. J. Collins, ‘Testaments’, in: M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of
the Second Temple Period, CRINT 2,2, Assen 1984, 342–344.
43
See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 879.
44
Trans. C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, London
1854–55.
45
See Flusser, ‘The Ten Commandments’, 180; see also n. 8 above and discussion
there.
4) Sibylline Oracles:
And, above all, love your neighbor as yourself, and love God from the
soul and serve him. (Sib. Or. 8, 480–482).46
Opinions vary concerning the dating and source(s) of the different sec-
tions of the Sibylline Oracles. One theory about the eighth book suggests
it is actually derived from a Jewish tradition, but it is estimated that
the tradition belongs to the period after the destruction of the Temple
(from the end of the 2nd century c e).47
5) Didache:
The Way of Life is this: First, thou shalt love the God who made thee,
secondly, thy neighbour as thyself: and whatsoever thou wouldst not have
done to thyself, do not thou to another. (Did. 1.2).48
This saying comes from the “ Two Ways” section in Didache, which is
believed to reect a Jewish tradition from the Second Temple period
that has been integrated into a Christian composition.49
Each of the above witnesses contains certain problematic aspects;

therefore, scholars’ opinions concerning a pre-Christian precedent for
the combination of the two love precepts range from unequivocal to
somewhat reserved. Flusser maintains that the extant material at our
disposal almost certainly attests to the pre-existence of a Jewish tradition
where the two love commands were joined prior to their appearance in
the Gospels. This supposed tradition characterized not only Essene and
quasi Essene circles (from whence came such texts as the book of Jubilees,
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and The Two Ways) but also Pharisaic
circles, where great emphasis was placed on the love of God as a virtue
that outweighs the fear of God. According to Flusser, it is merely a
46
Trans. J. J. Collins, in: Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (note 41 above).
47
J. J. Collins, ‘The Sibylline Oracles’, in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period,
357–358.
48
Trans. K. Lake, in: The Apostolic Fathers, London 1965.
49
For a survey of the scholars’ suggestions, and renewed debate on the topic, see
W. Rordorf, ‘An Aspect of Judeo-Christian Ethic: The Two Ways’, in: J. A. Draper (ed.),
The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden 1996, 148–164. See also M. Del Verme, Didache
and Judaism; Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work, New York and London 2004.
90 chapter three
matter of coincidence, or misfortune, that the double love command

is not documented in the surviving early rabbinic traditions.50
Gerhardsson, on the other hand, attributes greater weight to the
problematic aspects of the above-mentioned textual witnesses and pre-
fers to leave the question open. He emphasizes, however, the traditional
exegetical format in which the double love command is presented in
the Gospels:
Whether one can establish the pre-existence of the double command in
prior Jewish tradition or not, it stands here so formulated, and what is
signicant is that it is presented as “reading” [i.e. interpretation—S. R.]
of the “Law”.51
It should be noted that all the textual witnesses surveyed above lack an
exegetical reference to the three-part structure of Deuteronomy 6:5.
Only in the Testament Issachar (7.6) does an exegetical reference to the
phrase
surface (with
explained as with all your
strength); however, it is devoid of any reference to the other components
of the biblical command. The absence of explicit exegetical reference to
Deuteronomy 6:5 is especially evident in Didache, which does elaborate
exegetically on Leviticus 19:18 (
), explaining it as, not
doing to others what you would not want done to you. Furthermore,
in the texts surveyed above there is no mention of the Torah, whose
summary, or basic principles, the two commandments are meant to
represent, according to the Gospels.52
Love and vengeance at Qumran
Let us now return to column 1 of the Community Rule. Above we have

examined the exegetical references to Deuteronomy 6:5 found in 1QS
1:1–8 and 11–13. It was suggested that the phrase “as he commanded
through Moses and through his servants the prophets” (1:2–3) assigns
to Deuteronomy 6:5 in its Qumranic interpretation the status of a
50
Flusser, Jesus, 89–90. It does, however, surface in such later, yet clearly not
inuenced by the New Testament, midrashic compositions as Midrash Pitron Tora (ed.
Urbach) and Shne Luhot ha-Berith. I thank Marcel Poorthuis, who drew my attention
to these texts.
51
Gerhardsson, ‘The Hermeneutic Program’, 202–223.
52
One may wonder if this fact is somehow connected to the pseudepigraphic char-
acter of Jubilees and the Testaments.
summary of the covenant stipulations. Also, to clarify the meaning of

loving God, the author of 1QS employed love’s antithesis, hate: “to
love everything which he selects and to hate everything that he rejects”
(1:3–4). The exegetical elaboration of the command to love God is
interrupted in the middle, however, by a reference to loving one’s fellow
man, employing the same contrast between love and hate:

. . . to love all the sons of light, each one according to his lot in God’s
plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with
his guilt in God’s vindication. (1:9–11)
The command to discriminate between the sons of light and the sons
of darkness is reiterated later in the scroll (for example, 1QS 9:21; cf.
CD-A 9:1–5). Its appearance in the opening lines of the Community
Rule strengthens the view that it was one of the central tenets of the
sect. As Aharon Shemesh stated, “separateness is the principle written
on the face of the sect’s business card. This manifesto is represented
in almost every column in Qumranic writings and is expressed in a
variety of ways”.53 He also noted that the command to love all the sons
of light and to hate all the sons of darkness is not put forward here as
an independent general principle, but rather serves as an interpretation
of the second love precept from Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself ”.54 The core separatist tendency of the sect, then,
is intrinsically connected with the community’s peculiar interpretation of
Leviticus 19:18—an interpretation which stands in contrast to alternate
exegeses that existed at the end of the Second Temple period in other
Jewish circles.55 It should be noted that Shemesh in his study focused
on the Community Rule’s interpretation of Leviticus 19:18, overlooking
the hermeneutics connected to Deuteronomy 6:5.
53
A. Shemesh, ‘The Distinguisher between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Dark-
ness, between Israel and the Nations’, in: D. Boyarin et al. (eds.), Crown of Life; Studies
in the Talmudic and Rabbinic Interpretation in Honor of Haim Zelman Dimitrovsky, Jerusalem
2000, 209 (in Hebrew). See also Collins, ‘Construction of Israel’, 42; D. Flusser, ‘The
Essene Sect and Its Views’, in: idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and
Apocalypticism, Jerusalem 2002, 19–23 (in Hebrew).
54
Shemesh, ‘The Distinguisher’, 210. Shemesh also pointed out the correlation of
Qumranic interpretation with that of rabbinic circles on this point.
55
See Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions from Qumran’, 271; cf. S. D. Fraade (‘Interpreta-
tive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran’, Journal of Jewish Studies 144
92 chapter three
I have discussed the development of various interpretive approaches

to Leviticus 19:18 in Chapter 2; here it will sufce to reiterate two
comments:
(1) In the biblical text itself, a tension exists between the impetus to
form the sacred congregation of the sons of Israel, i.e., establish
their separation and peculiarity (Lev 19:2 “You shall be holy, for
I the LORD your God am holy”), and the gradual expansion of
the sacred circle which has at its center the laws that delineate
holiness: from family members (v. 3), to friends and acquaintances
(v. 18) to sojourning foreigners (strangers) (v. 34). It would appear
that a certain instability of the borders of the circle of holiness is
also expressed in the multiplicity of terms dening the other in the
biblical passage: (“your companion”), / (“your
countryman”), (“your friend/neighbor”), (“your brother”).
Although enemies are not explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 19, the
reference to revenge in Leviticus 19:18 suggests that the associative
connection to the topic of one’s attitude toward enemies is present
somewhere in the backdrop.
(2) When the conditions are set for an all inclusive look at the differ-
ent components of the biblical canon, the contrast between one’s
relation to friends (brothers, fellow Israelites) and one’s relation to
enemies could be supported by a comparison of Leviticus 19:18
with Nahum 1:2, where the same set of verbs appear, and :
' (“The LORD takes vengeance on
his adversaries and rages against his enemies”.) This comparison
is evidenced in Qumran:

. . .

And what he said: Lev 19:18 “Do not avenge yourself or bear resent-
ment against the sons of your people”: everyone of those brought to
the covenant who brings an accusation against his fellow, unless it is
with reproach before witnesses, or brings it when he is angry, or tells it
to his elders so that they might despise him, he is “the one who avenges
[1993], 51): “The community’s own self-understanding as an elite remnant . . . is deeply

tied to its collective activity of . . . interpretation”.
himself and bears resentment”. Is it not perhaps written that only Nah
1:2 “he (God) avenges himself on his foes and bears resentment against
his enemies?” . . . for he did not fulll the commandment of God who said
to him: Lev 19:17 “You shall reproach your fellow so as not to incur sin
because of him”. (CD 9:2–8)
According to the exegesis propagated here, the command to love one’s
neighbor () given under the great oath, “I am the LORD”, is valid
only toward those “brought to the covenant”—namely, the members
of the sect. On the other hand, the sons of darkness deserve the pun-
ishment spelled out in Nahum 1:2, “The Lord takes vengeance on his
adversaries and rages against his enemies”.56
In my opinion, the saying in column 1 lines 9–11 of the Community
Rule should be viewed in light of the tradition preserved in the Damas-
cus Document—that is, as a hermeneutical interpretation of Leviticus
19:18, aided by Nahum 1:2, with the expression “God’s vindication/
vengeance” (“to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance
with his guilt in God’s vindication”, 1QS 1:10–11) being the meeting
point between the two traditions.57 Because the expectation for revenge
in Qumran was closely linked with the sect’s understanding that the
day of vengeance had not yet come (but would come in the future!),
hate toward the sons of darkness became the obligatory solution—in
fact, a religious duty—for the intervening period; as long as vengeance
is not possible, hate takes its place.58
In studies whose prime objective is a systematic survey of the biblical
material embedded in the Qumranic scrolls, no mention is usually made
of the opening paragraphs of the Community Rule, which, seemingly, do
not t the criteria of explicit quotations. Even Geza Vermes, whose
survey includes not only straightforward quotations but also complex
midrashic constructions, does not remark on them. Vermes is willing
to consider sayings preceded by such introductory formulae as
. . . (as in 1QM 9:11) and others, but he apparently
considers the introductory formula from 1QS 1:3
56
See Shemesh, ‘The Distinguisher’, 210–211.
57
Cf. 1QS 9:21, 23: “And these are the regulations for the Inspector in these times,
concerning his love and his hatred. . . . He should be a man enthusiastic for the decree
and for its time, for the day of revenge”.
58
See D. Flusser, ‘The Sect of the Judean Desert and Its Views’, in: Judaism of the
Second Temple Period: Qumran, 9; idem, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 483.
94 chapter three

(“he commanded by the hand of Moses and by
the hand of all his servants the prophets”) too vague.59 Conversely, I
have endeavored to show that the opening lines of 1QS rely upon an
exegesis of each of the two love precepts, including reference to the
various components of Deuteronomy 6:5.
The question of reward
Earlier the programmatic nature of both the opening paragraphs of

Qumran’s Community Rule and the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ conversation
with the “sage” or “scribe” regarding the greatest precept in the Torah
was indicated—one more similarity between the two traditions. Both
instances present a claim of supreme loyalty to (a particular interpreta-
tion of) the Torah of Moses over against competing notions concern-
ing the requirements of the Law. It has been claimed, moreover, that
the whole purpose of the annual covenant renewal described in 1QS
columns 1 and 2 was none other than “to strengthen the members of
the Community in keeping the Law of Moses in its Zadokite-priestly
interpretation”.60 The Qumran and Gospel traditions both relate to a
goal that adherence to the double love command would make possible to
attain. In Matthew and Mark, the conversation occurs immediately after
Jesus’ polemic with the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection
(Matt 22:23–33, Mark 12:18–27). Jesus here not only states his belief in
the resurrection of the dead but also takes pains to provide exegetical
backing for his belief from the Torah. This is an exegetic procedure
apparently intended to further liken him to the Pharisees—granted that
the latter’s position is adequately represented in m. Sanh. 10:1–2:
:" . . .

(“All Israelites have a share in the world to
come . . . And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he
59
See G. Vermes, ‘Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature’, Journal of Semitic Studies
34 (1989), 493–508. See also P. Wernberg-Moller, ‘Some Reections on the Biblical
Material in the Manual of Discipline’, Studia Theologica 9 (1956), 40–66; J. A. Fitzmyer,
‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the
New Testament’, New Testament Studies 7 (1961), 297–333; S. Metso, ‘The Use of Old
Testament Quotations in the Community Rule’, in: R. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson
(eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, Shefeld 1998, 217–231.
60
Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions’, 264.
that says that there is no resurrection of the dead [prescribed] in the

Torah”). The fact that Jesus, in the Gospels, bases his argumentation
specically on Exodus 3:6 (“I am the God of your father, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”) deserves noting.
It possibly indicates a lack of exact differentiation between eternal life,
or “the world to come”, as a continuation of existence after death (i.e.,
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being now in the bosom of God), and
eternal life as resurrection from the dead at the end of days—a lack
of differentiation that also characterizes certain rabbinic traditions. I
return to this issue in Chapter 7.
Whatever the exact meaning, the immediate proximity of the two
passages may indicate that the question “What is the greatest precept
in the Torah?” in Matthew and Mark is connected with the attaining
of a goal, a certain dimension of which is discussed in Jesus’ previous
conversation with the Sadducees. The end of the passage in Mark reaf-
rms this supposition, where Jesus states that the scribe (# $%!)
with whom he was conversing is “not far from the kingdom of God”.
Of course, the expression “kingdom of God” in the Gospels does not
necessarily mean eternal life or resurrection of the dead; yet again the
proximity of the passages does suggest that from the standpoint of the
compilers of the Gospel tradition, both presuppose a shared ultimate
goal, which could of course be interpreted in several ways.
As distinct from Matthew and Mark, Luke inserts the episode involv-
ing the great(est) commandment well away from the argument with the
Sadducees (10:25–37), so that there is obviously no connection between
the two.61 However, the ultimate objective is explicitly referred to in both
the sage’s question, ( '
()* +
); “Teacher,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”), and in Jesus’ concluding remark
(, '% (
, “do this, and you will live”). The sage wants
to know which commandments he would need to fulll in order to
merit eternal life (()* + = )—whichever meaning
we may ascribe to the expression. As Craig Evans has demonstrated,
the hermeneutic coupling of fullling the requirements of the Torah
with receiving eternal life is also typical of the targumic outlook. He
conjectures that the position recorded here in Luke, as well as that of
the Targum, stem from a common Second Temple tradition.62 One
61
The argument with the Sadducees is reported in Luke 20:27–39.
62
C. A. Evans, ‘Do This and You Will Live: Targumic Coherence in Luke 10:25–28’,
96 chapter three
might add that there is actually agreement between the three Syn-
optic versions in terms of a general denition of the goal to which
the double love command, as a summary of the Torah, is meant to
lead—the difference is that while in Luke the matter is determined
within the framework of the conversation itself, in Matthew and Mark
it is established by the broader context.
Returning to the Community Rule, it too denes the goal or reward for
those who walk in the way indicated by its programmatic interpretation
of the double love command. Except that there, in keeping with the
characteristic Qumranic style mentioned earlier, the denition of the
goal for the sons of light entering into the covenant is accompanied by
spelling out the punishment for the sons of darkness:
1 And the priests will bless all 2 the men of God’s lot who walk unblem-
ished in all his paths and they shall say: “May he bless you with everything
3 good, and may he protect you from everything bad. May he illuminate
your heart with the discernment of life (
) and grace you with
eternal knowledge ( ) 4 May he lift upon you the countenance
of his favour for eternal peace ( )” And the Levites shall curse
all the men of 5 the lot of Belial. They shall begin to speak and shall
say: “Accursed are you for all your wicked, blameworthy deeds. May
God hand you over 6 to terror by the hand of all those carrying out acts
of vengeance. May he bring upon you destruction by the hand of all
those who accomplish 7 retributions. Accursed are you, without mercy,
according to the darkness of your deeds, and sentenced 8 to the gloom
of everlasting re ( ). (1QS 2:1–8)
Thus it becomes clear that while the specic viewpoints of the Community
Rule and the Gospel traditions may differ with regard to the exact nature
of the anticipated goal or reward— and as
opposed to (()* +, “eternal life”)—and while the
Qumranic tradition is distinct from the Gospels in its emphasis on the
sharp differentiation between the lot of the sons of light versus the lot of
the sons of darkness, there is a common interpretive structure in both
traditions that posits adherence to the two love commands as leading to
the goal or prize, characterized by the nomen rectum (“eternity”). It
in: B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Jesus in Context, Leiden 1997, 377–393. A
methodological issue crucial for the discussion in Chapter 1 receives renewed attention
in Craig Evans’s article—namely, the relevance of traditions, i.e., targumic ones, attested
in later rabbinic strata of Jewish sources for New Testament research.
is noteworthy that also in the Community Rule the word (life) (

. . . ) is mentioned in this context; it appears, however,
in a different conguration from that of the Gospels.63
Conclusion
The interpretation given to the two love commands in the Community

Rule differs in signicant details from that advocated by the Gospels. An
obvious difference in the Gospels is the lack of reference to possessions,
as an interpretation of —a difference in exegesis plausibly con-
nected to differences in social circumstances. There is another equally
important difference related to the prescribed attitude to the “other”. It
seems that, like philosophical schools in the broader Hellenistic world,
various sects of the Second Temple period were here characterized
by a wide spectrum of attitudes; in the Jewish milieu, this variety of
approaches plausibly found expression also in the interpretation of
Leviticus 19:18.64 On the basis of the content of the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt 5:43–48; cf. Luke 6:27–36), and the parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) presented in the Gospel as a clarication
on the question of the greatest Torah commandment, one can con-
clude that hatred toward enemies does not characterize the exegesis of
Leviticus 19:18 attributed to Jesus.
The two traditions are further at variance concerning the anticipated
goal/ reward of the right religious stance: contrary to the Gospels, which
advocate the Pharisaic emphasis on (“eternal life”—however
understood), the Community Rule separates (“life”) from
(“eternity”), blessing all those who walk blamelessly in the way of the
double love command with (“eternal peace”) and
(“eternal wisdom”).
63
See Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions’, 265. For an illuminating discussion on the complex
relationship between another pericope from the New Testament and the Qumran texts,
including a passage from the Community Rule, see T. A. Carmody, ‘Matt 18:15–17 in
Relation to Three Texts from Qumran Literature (CD 9:2–8, 16–22; 1QS 5:25–6:11)’,
in: M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelsky (eds.), To Touch the Text; Biblical and Related Studies
in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, New York 1989, 141–158.
64
See D. Flusser, ‘Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum’, in: Judaism
of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 201; idem, ‘The Pharisees and Stoics According to
Josephus’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages, 210–221, esp. 216.
98 chapter three
However, despite all the differences in exegesis and ruling, it seems

that the two traditions rely on a common basic exegetical structure
that they develop in different directions. Hermeneutical reliance on
the pair of love precepts from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18,
is evidenced both in 1QS and in the Gospels. In both traditions, the
double love command is presented as a summation of the Law of Moses
(“Law [ Torah] and the Prophets” in Matthew and in 1QS), with an
eternal goal as a reward for its fulllment. The opening paragraphs of
the Community Rule should be added, then, to the list of early sources
where the paired love commands appear. The importance of this wit-
ness is its undisputed pre-Christian date of composition, as opposed to
such texts as the Testament of Issachar and the Testament of Dan, providing
a clear proof for the existence of this type of exegetic pattern prior
to Jesus.
Owing to the differing interpretations attested in the Community Rule
and the Gospels, there is no particular basis for speaking about a direct
inuence.65 It is more likely that the two traditions employed the same
basic hermeneutical pattern, which comprised the pairing of the two
love commands as a sum of the covenant stipulations. This basic pattern
seems to signify a point of overlap between the approaches of different
groups: the texts discussed above present Jesus, the early sages and the
members of the Qumran community as sharing it. Granted that pre-
rabbinic circles of the sages and Jesus, on the one hand, and Qumran
covenanters, on the other, belonged to different strata of rst-century
Jewry, the fact that both the Community Rule and the Gospels adopt this
shared hermeneutic pattern testies to its wide acceptance at the end
of the Second Temple period. It is the analysis of the New Testament
evidence—together with its Qumranic counterpart—that makes such
a conclusion possible.
The substantial dissimilarities in outlook among these groups nd
their expression in the different directions in which each of them
develops their exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. In
this chapter I have dealt with the conspicuous Qumranic traits in the
exegesis attested in the opening paragraphs of the Community Rule (i.e.,
the sharing of possessions and the love-hate dichotomy). It is of interest
that alongside the substantial divergences in exegesis, there is also an
65
I thank Daniel Schwartz for his important comments, which helped to clarify
this point.
overlap in certain details. As we have seen, the Gospel interpretation

of the third component of the love command from Deuteronomy 6:5
( as ") is better understood in light of the exegesis found in
Qumran.
CHAPTER FOUR
WHO WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE DAVIDIC MESSIAH?
Whereas the preceding discussion concerned the patterns of New

Testament interpretation of Scripture not connected intrinsically to the
Jesus-centered kerygma, this chapter deals with traditions centered on
messianic exegesis. More than twenty years ago, David Flusser outlined
the variety of messianic concepts current in different Jewish milieus of
the late Second Temple period.1 Two important conclusions relevant
to the present discussion can be drawn from that study: (a) that antici-
pation of the Davidic Messiah was only one of a number of existing
patterns of messianic expectations, an anticipation that was sometimes
competing and sometimes in harmony with traditions emphasizing other
charismatic gures—either human or angelic in nature—of the era of
salvation; and (b) that nascent Christianity inherited a variety of Jewish
messianic beliefs, so that their different patterns may be discerned in
different strata of the early Christian sources.
Regarding the range of beliefs relating to the Davidic Messiah, it
has been noted that in a number of important texts from Qumran,
such as 1QSa (1Q28) 2:11–22 (cf. 1QS 9:10 –11), the kingly Messiah
is consciously subjugated to the priestly one,2 whereas in some other
Qumranic passages the emphasis is neither on kingly nor on priestly
messiahship but on the anointment of the spirit as the crux of the
eschaton. This anointment is granted either to a charismatic gure—the
Teacher of Righteousness, the future prophet-priest of the last days (e.g.,
1QpHab 2; 7)—or even to each and every member of the “messianic
community”, as in 4Q270 9; CD-A 5:20 – 6:1. In contradistinction to
1
D. Flusser, ‘Reection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs in Earliest Christianity’, in:
Z. Baras (ed.), Messianism and Eschatology, Jerusalem 1983, 103–134 (in Hebrew) [= idem,
Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Sages, 246–277].
2
See L. Schiffman, ‘Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls’, in:
J. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah; Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Min-
neapolis 1992, 116–129; J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star; The Messiahs of the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, New York 1995, 75–77; P. Schäfer, ‘Diversity and
Interactions: Messiahs in Early Judaism’, in: P. Schäfer and M. Cohen (eds.), Toward
the Millennium, Leiden 1998, 15–35.
102 chapter four
Qumran, in the eschatological thinking reected in rabbinic sources

the Davidic Messiah does acquire the status of the leading, and often
the only, messianic gure.3
Jesus of Nazareth, too, was seen by many of his early followers as
the Messiah of Davidic descent—the opening statements of the Gospel
of Matthew and of the Epistle to the Romans, inter alia, bear witness to
the centrality of that belief in the nascent Jesus movement. However,
other early Christian traditions emphasized instead the prophetic aspect
of Jesus’ mission—an aspect that was later suppressed for the sake of
the kingly one but still features prominently in Luke and Acts.4 But
this is not all: members of the nascent post-resurrection Jesus move-
ment seem to have been recruited from various Jewish groups, and it
stands to reason that some of them may have been mainly interested
in the priestly aspect of the eschaton; it is to such an audience that the
Epistle to the Hebrews was possibly addressed.5 For this audience the
supposedly Davidic descent of Jesus could have been a liability rather
than an asset (see Heb 7:14).
Such a non-harmonized variety of attitudes toward Davidic mes-
siahship points to polemics, to a process in which certain tendencies
receded while others gained ground. Although the polemical anti-
Davidic nature of some concepts (e.g., those attested in Qumran) has
been duly emphasized in the research, the exegetical aspect of this
ongoing polemic deserves more attention. Since the emphasis on the
exclusive (eternal) mission of the House of David characterizes only a
limited number of biblical traditions—e.g., those attested in 2 Samuel
7:10 –16; Isaiah 11:1; Zechariah 12 and certain passages from the Book
of Psalms6—one may expect to nd an exegetic re-evaluation of such
texts in those Jewish groups that regarded them as belonging to the
core of the Holy Writ: only texts having a sacred status are worthy of
3
See E. E. Urbach, The Sages; Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem 1979/1987,
649–690.
4
See R. L. Brawley, ‘The Identity of Jesus in Luke 4:16–30 and the Program of
Acts’, in: idem, Luke-Acts and the Jews; Conict, Apology and Conciliation, Atlanta 1987,
28–50. See also Matt 16:13–14 and parallels; Matt 17:1–3 and parallels.
5
For discussion of this issue and further bibliographical references see M. M. Bourke,
‘The Epistle to the Hebrews’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 921.
6
See, for example, J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Son of David Tradition and Mt 22:41–46
and Parallels’, in: idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, Missoula
1974, 115–121; S. Talmon, ‘The Concept of MÊšiah and Messianism in Early Juda-
ism’, in: The Messiah, 79–115.
who was unhappy with the davidic messiah? 103
being interpreted, and vice versa.7 Thus Philo, for whom corpus of
Scripture deserving interpretation is limited to the Pentateuch, may
have clung to his perception of Moses as an ideal prophet, king, priest
and lawgiver for all time without being obliged to address the issue of
the House of David, attested elsewhere, outside the Pentateuch (see
De Vita Mosis II 2–3, 292). And there is no need to suppose that Philo
is expressing here a peculiarly “Alexandrian” outlook completely for-
eign to Palestinian Jewry—there may well have been common ground
between Philo and his contemporaries in the Land of Israel.8 Contrary
to Philo, members of the Qumran community as well as early follow-
ers of Jesus—another eschatologically inclined group from the period
preceding the destruction of the Temple that evinced great interest in
prophetic literature—might have felt pressed to cope with the Davidic
Messiah-centered traditions.
In this chapter a number of Qumran and New Testament passages
are discussed in which, as will be suggested, a polemical re-evaluation of
the Davidic Messiah’s role and status is achieved by means of biblical
exegesis. First, two exegetical fragments from Qumran will be addressed;
further along the Qumranic evidence will inform the evaluation of the
exegetical situation with regard to the Davidic Messiah in the New
Testament Book of Acts. The Book of Acts describes the early history
of the Jesus movement following Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is
generally agreed that one of the main objectives of the compiler was
to provide an explanation for the unexpected shift in the eschatological
scenario—namely, that instead of the “salvation of Israel” (administered
via a kingly Messiah of Davidic lineage) the center of the salvation
event has been transferred from Jerusalem to the Diaspora and from
the Commonwealth of Israel to Gentile God-fearers. Acts, therefore,
seemed to me a natural choice to begin the investigation of the New
Testament Davidic Messiah-centered exegesis.
It should be emphasized again that there are also other messianic
notions—e.g., that of Melchizedek, Son of Man, Son of God—that
7
See, for example, M. Halbertal, People of the Book; Canon, Meaning, and Authority,
Cambridge, MA 1997, 19–26.
8
See D. Flusser, ‘Who Is Afraid of Philo of Alexandria’, in: Judaism of the Second
Temple Period; Sages, 205–209. It is worth noting that Philo’s emphasis on Moses does
not in principle preclude him from expressing hope for the restoration of the Jewish
kingdom in the Land of Israel, a restoration led by a kingly gure. See H. A. Wolfson,
Philo; Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, vol. 2, Cambridge,
MA 1947, 95, 405–418.
104 chapter four
are crucial for the overall picture of the Qumran community and/or
the Jesus movement messianic beliefs. Here, however, the focus will be
exclusively on the Davidic aspect of the problem.
Qumranic evidence: Pesher Isaiah
The rst text to be considered is a part of 4Q161 or 4QIsaiah Pesher

(4QpIsa), composed in the rst century b c e.9 Of the biblical prophets
Isaiah seems to have been by far the most popular at Qumran.10 The
passage in question relates to Isaiah 11:1–5, one of the biblical passages
laying claim to a salvic role for the House of David:11
11:1 There shall come forth a shoot () from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch () shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the
LORD shall rest upon him (
), the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge
and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the
LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his
ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide
with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with
the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the
wicked. 5 Righteousness ( justice) shall be the girdle (belt) of his waist
(loins), and faithfulness the girdle of his loins (hips).
The interpretation, 4QpIsa suggests, is an eschatological one:
11 [Isa 11:1–5 A shoot will issue from the stu]mp of Jesse and [a bud]
will sprout from [its] ro[ots.] Upon him [will be placed ] the spi[rit of ] 12
[YHWH; the spirit] of discretion and wisdom, the spirit of ad[vice and
9
See J. Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge du volume V des “Discoveries in the Judaean
Desert of Jordan” ’ , Revue de Qumran 7 (1969–71): 183–186. More exact dating to the
rst half of the rst century B C E has been posited in, for example, G. J. Brooke,
‘Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts’, in: C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans
(eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, Leiden 1997, 632. The editio princeps is
J. M. Allegro, DJD V, Oxford 1968,11–15, pls. IV–V. For a discussion of pesher and
other types of biblical interpretation attested in Qumran, see C. A. Evans, ‘Biblical
Interpretation at Qumran’, in: A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. D. Chilton (eds.),
Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part Five: The Judaism of Qumran; A Systemic Reading of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, vol. 2, Leiden 2001, 105–24.
10
See Brooke, ‘Isaiah in the Pesharim’, 609–632, esp. 631.
11
For an evaluation of the pesharim as witnesses for text variants of Isaiah in Qum-
ran see G. J. Brooke, ‘The Qumran Pesharim and the Text of Isaiah in the Cave 4
Manuscripts’, in: A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrews, Biblical
Texts; Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman, London 2001, 304–320.
courage,] the spirit of knowl[edge] 13 [and of respect for YHWH, and

his delight will be in respecting] YHWH . . . 16 . . . Justice will be the belt
of ] his [ l ]oins and lo[yalty the belt of his hips.] . . . 18 [ The interpreta-
tion of the word ( pesher) concerns the shoot] of David (
) which
will sprout in the [nal days] 22 . . . (

) . . . And as for
what he says: “He will not 23 [ judge by appearances] or give verdicts on
hearsay”, its interpretation ( pesher): which 24 [. . .] and according to what
they teach him, he will judge, and upon their authority 25 [. . .] with him
will go out one of the priests of renown (
)…
(4QpIsa/a Frags. 8–10, 11–18)12
According to this Qumranic interpretation, dened in lines 18 (restora-
tion) and 23 as pesher, Isaiah 11:1 hints at the “shoot of David” (zemah
David ), kingly Messiah.13 Similar understanding of this verse is attested
both in the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) and in the Aramaic Targum

, “There shall come forth
the king from among of the sons of Jesse, and the Messiah shall grow
from among his sons’ sons”. It thus seems clear that what we have in
4QpIsa is not a peculiar Qumranic exegesis but rather a widely circu-
lated tradition. The argument may also be put the other way around:
the fact that such an interpretation is attested in Qumran (and in the
New Testament) indicates the early provenance of the corresponding
tradition from the Targum.
This is not, however, the only similarity between the Qumranic
pesher and the Targum. The Targum understands Isaiah 11:5 (

= “justice shall be the belt of his loins”) as speaking of the
Messiah’s entourage: “And he will be surrounded by the just (ones)”
(

). Like the Targum, our pesher also prefers not
to allow the Davidic Messiah to become an absolute ruler.14 In 4QpIsa,
12
For a discussion of the relation between the six 4QpIsa manuscripts see Brooke,
‘Isaiah in the Pesharim’, 618–619.
13
Cf. 4Q285 Frag. 5 1–4; see discussion in Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 57–58,
76–77. The expression zemah David has biblical roots: see Jer 23:5, 33:15; Zech 6:12.
14
Again an argument for an early date of the exegesis attested in the Targum.
M. Kister (‘ “Let us make man”: entangling unity with plurality’, in: Sugiyot be-mehqar
ha-talmud; Proceedings of the 1997 colloquium commemorating E. E. Urbach, Jerusalem 2001,
28–64, esp. 29–37 [in Hebrew]) discussed a parallel polemical tendency discerned in
rabbinic sources, where unlike earlier descriptions of theophany, God was depicted as
surrounded by a heavenly entourage. R. P. Gordon discussed the possibility of a con-
nection between the 4Q161 exegesis and two other Targumic traditions (to Isa 2:13
and Zech 11:1); see G. Vermes, T. H. Lim and R. P. Gordon, ‘The Oxford Forum
for Qumran Research: Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285)’, Journal of
Jewish Studies 43 (1992), 92–94.
106 chapter four
however, the motif of kingly entourage takes on distinctively Qumranic

polemical overtones: according to lines 22–25, the Davidic Messiah
will carry out judgment in compliance with what he will be told to do
not simply by “the just ones” but by (one of ) “the priests of renown”.
Also at variance with the Targum, the pesher from Qumran presents
the idea as exegetically derived from Isaiah 11:3 and not (only?) from
Isaiah 11:5.15
One may, therefore, posit the existence—at the time of the compila-
tion of our pesher —of an exegesis of Isaiah 11 that applied the prophecy
to the Messiah from the House of David and mentioned some kind of
kingly entourage. The need of the Qumranic exegete to relate to this
tradition may be explained by its being a well-known interpretation of
the biblical passage in question. It also served well the overall aim of
4QpIsa to express eschatological hope vis-à-vis traumatic events the
community had been through.16 The author of the pesher, therefore,
adopted the basic structure of the inherited exegesis but reworked it in
such a fashion that Isaiah 11 became a proof text for the idea of the
superiority of the priestly authority over the kingly one.
Qumranic evidence: 4QFlorilegium
Let us turn now to the Midrash on the Last Days, known also as
4QFlorilegium (4Q174) and believed to have been composed in the rst
century b c e.17 Only fragment 1 of the scroll is adequately preserved
and it has been analyzed in numerous studies, the most exhaustive being
that of George Brooke, according to whom two initially independent
15
See Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 76. 4Q285 Frag. 5 1–4, mentioned in note
13 above, may be of relevance here, but its fragmentary character precludes a proper
comparison. Its restoration suggested by Vermes (previous note, 84–90) does not indi-
cate here, unlike 4Q161, any reservations with regard to the domineering position of
the Davidic Messiah.
16
See Brooke, ‘Isaiah in the Pesharim’, 621, 623.
17
The editio princeps is J. M. Allegro, DJD V, 53–57, pls. XIX–XX. For the end
of the rst century B C E dating of the scroll see, for example, G. Vermes, The Dead
Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed., Shefeld 1995, 353. A. Steudel, on the other hand,
(‘4QMidrEschat: “A Midrash on Eschatology” [4Q174 + 4Q177]’, in: J. T. Barrera and
L. V. Montaner [eds.], The Madrid Qumran Congress, vol. 2, Leiden 1992, 538–541),
suggested that 4Q174 was composed during the rst half of that century. Cf. J. H.
Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translation,
vol. 6B, Tübingen 2002, 248.
exegetic traditions may be discerned in the text, but there are good
reasons to believe that they were purposely combined in this fragment
in order to serve a unied exegetic program.18 Relevant lines from the
rst portion of the text to be discussed read as follows:
1…2 Sam 7:10 [nor will] a son of iniquity [afict] him [aga]in as in the
past. From the day on which 2 [ I appointed judges] over my people,
Israel”. This (refers to) the house which [he will establish] for [ him] in
the last days, as is written in the book of 3 [ Moses: Exod 15:17–18 “The
temple of ] YHWH your hands will establish. YHWH shall reign for ever
and ever”. . . . 5 . . . He will appear over it for ever; foreigners shall not again
lay it waste as they laid waste, in the past, 6 the tem[ple of I ]srael on
account of their sins. And he commanded to build for himself a temple
of man, to offer him in it, 7 before him, the works of thanksgiving. And
as for what he said to David: 2 Sam 7:11 “I [shall obtain] for you [rest]
from all your enemies”: (it refers to this), that he will obtain for them rest
from a[ ll] 8 the sons of Belial, those who make…the s[ons of ] 9 light
fall, . . . Blank 10 [And] YHWH [de]clares to you that 2 Sam 7:12–14 “he
will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish
the throne of his kingdom 11 [for ev]er. I will be a father to him and
he will be a son to me”. This (refers to the) “branch of David”, (

) who will arise with the Interpreter of the Torah ( )
who 12 [will rise up] in Zi[on in] the [ l ]ast days (

), as it
is written: Amos 9:11 “I will raise up the hut of David which has fallen”.
This (refers to) “the hut of 13 David which has fall[en”, w]hich he will
raise up to save Israel. (4Q174 1:1–13)
4QFlorilegium focuses here on certain topics of an eschatological charac-
ter and treats them by means of addressing different biblical texts (e.g.,
2 Sam 7, Exod 15:17–18, Amos 9:11), which indicates that the passage
may be classied as a thematic midrash that nevertheless retains so basic
a feature of continuous pesharim as to rely on whole biblical units (in this
case on 2 Sam 7).19 The question of the Davidic Messiah is clearly at
the heart of the exegesis attested in this part of the scroll: the destined
role of the House of David is the common theme of most of the bibli-
cal passages addressed here: 2 Samuel 7:10 (lines 1–2), 2 Samuel 7:11
(line 7), 2 Samuel 7:12–14 (line 10), Amos 9:11 (line 12). It has been
observed that some of the interpretations suggested in 4QFlorilegium
18
See G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran; 4QFlorilegium in Jewish Context, Shefeld 1985,
129–158.
19
See Steudel, ‘4QMidrEschat’, 537–538; Evans, ‘Biblical Interpretations’, 109–
120.
108 chapter four
are not marked as pesher, which may indicate that the basic structure
of the exegesis attested here, including the biblical passages chosen for
interpretation, was not an invention of the Qumranic author and was
not ascribed to the Teacher of Righteousness but was widely known
also outside Qumran.20 However, some elements of the 4QFlorilegium
exegesis obviously reect the Qumranic outlook. So “Israel”, either
mentioned (4QFlor 1:2) or hinted at (4QFlor 1:7) in the biblical passages
under discussion, undergoes further on an exegetical transformation
into “sons of light” (4QFlor 1:8–9).
A number of suggestions have been put forward concerning the
nature of the “temple of man” ( , miqdash adam) from 4QFlor
1:6. Most scholars subscribe to various modications of two explana-
tions: an eschatological temple to be built in the future instead of the
currently functioning corrupted one,21 or the existing Qumranic “com-
munity of the faithful”, which as such should be considered the true
last days substitute for the sanctuary in Jerusalem.22 It seems, however,
that even if miqdash adam stands here for the “community of the faith-
ful” already existing in Qumran, it does not annul the anticipation
of the appearance—in the eschaton—of a new ideal temple, with the
Davidic Messiah presented as the one charged with the building of
that temple.23
4QFlorilegium engages the famous House of David passage from 2
Samuel 7 as its primary biblical source of reference, while projecting
the biblical promises into the eschaton (line 2). It has been observed that
gezera shawa, a midrashic technique well attested in tannaitic sources,
20
See Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 140–141, 164; see also discussion of 4QpIsa
above.
21
See J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Lit-
erature and in the New Testament’, New Testament Studies 7 (1960), 314; Brooke, Exegesis,
136; D. Flusser, ‘Two Notes on 2 Sam VII, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity’,
in: Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 91; idem, ‘The Temple of the End of Days’,
in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 179–183; M. O. Wise, ‘4QFlorilegium and
the Temple of Adam’, Revue de Qumran 15 (1991), 102–132.
22
D. Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple’, in:
A. Caquot et al. (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica, Leuven 1986, 165–189; A. S. Kaufman,
‘The Cubit and the Human Temple at Qumran’, Niv Hamidrashia 24–25 (1993), 51–56.
Cf. Collins (The Scepter and the Star, 107), according to whom the “sanctuary of man”,
whether understood as a real temple or the Qumran community, does not belong to
the end of days but represents an interim arrangement.
23
See Brooke, Exegesis, 179; Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 174–189.
is being applied here.24 Within the framework of that technique the

Qumranic author makes use of the fact that in 2 Samuel 7 the word

(house) and its derivatives have three different meanings corre-
sponding to three different aspirations: (1) the king’s palace, symbol of
his greatness and power (2 Sam 7:1–2); (2) the sanctuary to be erected
in the future, the place where God is due to dwell (2 Sam 7:5–7, 13);
and, (3) the House of David, either the king’s progeny in general or
a specic offspring (2 Sam 7:16), i.e., synonymous with the word
(your offspring) appearing in 2 Samuel 7:12.
It may be surmised that 4QFlorilegium aims at dening a proper
hierarchy between these different aspirations. The objective is achieved
through bringing into consideration two additional biblical passages:
Exodus 15:17–18 (line 3) and Amos 9:11 (line 12). The reference to the
verse from Exodus that is obviously devoid of any immediate link to the
Davidic motif and contains, right before the words quoted in the scroll,
the expression (ordained place of Your, O Lord, dwelling),
seems to be tailored to enhance the polemical motif already present in
2 Samuel 7: not the “king’s house” but the “Lord’s house” constitutes
the core of the promise. We see, however, that further on the author
of our pesher does adopt the “standard” messianic interpretation of
2 Samuel 7:12: = kingly Messiah, descendant of David (line 11),
an interpretation that serves his objective of rmly establishing the place
of the Qumran community as the subject of the salvation of Israel—
most probably in light of its conicts with other Jewish groups.25
But characteristically he does not stop at that: the reference to Amos
9:11 (“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen”)
allows him to introduce an additional eschatological character, the
Interpreter of the Torah. It is difcult to decide whether in 4QFlorilegium
this Interpreter of the Torah is equated with the “booth of David”
( ) or is charged with the task of erecting it (lines 12–13)—he
and not the Davidic Messiah! The latter interpretation is especially
plausible in light of a passage from the Damascus Document,26 where the
same verse from Amos is discussed and it is stated unequivocally that
the books of the Torah, interpreted by the Interpreter of the Torah,
24
See, for example, Brooke, Exegesis, 129–130, 134–135.
25
For a discussion of the historical background of the 4Q174, see Steudel,
‘4QmidrEschat’, 538–541.
26
CD-A 7:14–19 [4Q266 3 iii ].
110 chapter four
the true star and the leader of Israel, are that very “booth of the king”
the prophet speaks about:
As he said: Am 5:26–27 “I will deport the Sikkut of your King 15 and
the Kiyyum of your images away from my tent to Damascus”. The books
of the law are the Sukkat 16 of the King, as he said Am 9:11 “I will lift
up the fallen Sukkat of David”. The King 17 is the assembly; and the
plinths of the images ‘and the Kiyyum of the images’ are the books of
the prophets, 18 whose words Israel despised. Blank And the star is the
Interpreter of the law ( ), 19 who will come to Damascus,
as is written: Num 24:13 “A star moves out of Jacob, and a sceptre arises
20 out of Israel”. The sceptre is the prince of the whole congregation
and when he rises he will destroy 21 all the sons of Seth. Blank These
escaped at the time of the rst one’s visitation.
Acts 15:14–21 provides important complementing evidence from the
late Second Temple period; here also Amos 9:11 is understood as con-
nected with preaching/interpreting Torah. Moreover, this interpretation
seems to be presented by the author of Acts as reecting a traditional
Jewish exegesis (see below).27 In any case, the Interpreter of the Torah
is presented in 4QFlorilegium as the ultimate agent of salvation, a gure
of even higher status than the “branch of David” ( —lines
11–13). If the identication of the Interpreter of the Torah here as
the Priest of the last days, as suggested by some scholars, is accepted,28
the polemical shift performed in 4QFlorilegium turns out to be similar
to the one discerned in the Qumran interpretation of Isaiah: some
kind of mighty patron (Interpreter of the Torah? Aharonic Messiah?)
is to be attached to the Davidic Messiah in the last days; it is accord-
ing to that patron’s will (according to his interpretation of the Holy
Writ!) that the kingly Messiah will have to act. It is worth noting that
our pesher does not show any interest in the continuation of the Amos
prophecy (9:11–12), where the place and function of Gentiles in the
days of salvation are addressed:29
27
In light of the evidence in both the Damascus Document and the Book of Acts it
is difcult to accept the identication of the “booth of David” with the “offspring of
David” suggested in Brooke, Exegesis, 139.
28
See, for instance, Flusser, ‘The Temple’, 104–109; Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 183
and note 47 there; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 114–115, 122–123. 4QFlor 2:7 may
also point to such identication.
29
According to Steudel (‘4QmidrEschat’, 540), lack of interest in the Gentiles, even
as enemies of the Jews, may point to a relatively early date of composition.
9:11 “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and
repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of
old; 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations
who are called by my name”, says the LORD who does this.
Lines 3–4, however, indicate that the basic stance of 4QFlorilegium is
far from being universalistic:
Exod 15:17–18 “The temple of ] YHWH your hands will establish. YHWH
shall reign for ever and ever”. This (refers to) the house into which shall
not enter 4 [. . . for] neither an Ammonite, or a Moabite, or a bastard, or
a foreigner, or a proselyte, never, because his holy ones are there.
The notion of two Messiahs, the priestly Messiah of Aaronic descent
and the Messiah of Israel subjugated to the former, is attested in a
number of Dead Sea scrolls and constitutes the well-known and much-
debated feature of Qumranic belief that was addressed at the begin-
ning of this chapter. This notion seems itself to be rooted in certain
biblical traditions.30 What is special about the 4QFlorilegium treatment
of the issue, as well as that of 4QpIsa discussed earlier, is that these
compositions promote the notion while trying to cope exegetically
with “uncomfortable” biblical proof-texts that proclaim the Davidic
family domination over Israel. Although an attempt to re-evaluate the
2 Samuel 7 appraisal of the role of the Davidic offspring may have
been made already in 1 Chronicles, the Midrash on the Last Days from
Qumran denitely provided—by introducing a competing charismatic
gure—greater impetus and highly discernible polemical overtones
to this move.31 Unlike allusions to xed biblical exegeses that may be
discerned in pesharim,32 in cases that are the subject of this study the
authors from Qumran spell out an existing interpretation and do so in
order to re-evaluate it polemically.
The second fragment of 4QFlorilegium is build around the references to

Psalms 1 and 2 that commence the collection of hymns traditionally
ascribed to King David. The one and only appearance of the genre
30
See W. M. Schniedewind, ‘King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the
Duality of Qumran Messianism’, Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994), 71–78.
31
See Schniedewind, ‘King and Priest’, 72–73.
32
The issue is discussed in M. Kister, ‘Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Inter-
pretations and Pesharim’, in: D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Forty Years of Research, Leiden 1992, 27–39.
112 chapter four
marker pesher, which denes the interpretation of both Psalms 1:1 and
2:1–2, may indicate that at the time of composition of 4QFlorilegium
these two texts were perceived as a single hymn.33 Judging by talmudic
evidence, even much later the two texts were still considered by some
rabbis to form one pereq (division or chapter). Thus it is claimed in b.
Ber. 10a that “Every chapter ( pereq) that was particularly dear to David
he commenced with ‘Happy’ and terminated with ‘Happy’. He began
with ‘Happy’ as it is written, ‘Happy is the man’ (Ps 1:1), and he
terminated with ‘Happy’ as it is written, ‘happy are all they that take
refuge in Him’ (Ps 2:12)”.34 It stands to reason that the ancient Psalm
2, where the king is presented as God’s chosen one, God’s anointed
protégé whom God calls “son”, was perceived as relating to the House
of David.35 It seems, therefore, that this part of the Midrash on the Last
Days from Qumran also deals with biblical texts understood by many at
that time as establishing the messianic status of David’s elect offspring.36
Seen vis-à-vis such a background, the exegesis our midrash presents
is of a clearly polemical nature: the author of 4QFlorilegium suggests
that Psalms 1:1 and 2:1–2 relate not to an elect individual (David? his
messianic offspring?) but to each and every member of the Qumran
community:
(14 ) Midrash of Ps 1:1 “Blessed [the] man who does not walk in the
counsel of the wicked”. The interpretation ( pesher) of this wor[d: they
are] those who turn aside from the path of [the wicked,]. . . (18) Ps 2:1
[“Why ar]e the nations [in turmoil] and hatch the peoples [idle plots?
The kings of earth t]ake up [their posts and the ru]lers conspire together
against YHWH and against (19) [his anointed one (
)”. Inter]pretation
of the saying: [the kings of the na]tions [are in turmoil] and ha[tch
idle plots against] the elect ones of Israel in the last days (

).
(4Q174 (Flor) 1:14, 18–19)
33
See Brooke, Exegesis, 147 and note 162 there.
34
It is worth noting that the example in the Babylonian Talmud related to here
is in fact the one and only “chapter” of this kind that may possibly be discerned in
Psalms. See note ad loc. in the Soncino edition of the Talmud.
35
For a discussion of the dating and original context of Ps 2 see M. Dahood, The
Anchor Bible: Psalms I 1–50, Garden City 1979, 8.
36
Steudel (“4QmidrEschat”, 534), who conducted a comparative study of 4Q174
and 4Q177, even came to the conclusion that “this psalm-citing part of the com-
position—probably about 15 columns—obviously represented the main part of the
scroll”, while the midrash on the Nathan prophecy from 2 Sam 7:10–14 constituted
an “introductory” part.
This polemical exegetic move is accomplished, as in the previous part

of the pesher, via the introduction of additional biblical references, at
least three of which—Ezekiel 44:10 (4QFlor 1:16), Daniel 12:10 and
11:32 (4QFlor 2:3)—provide exegetical backing for a transition from
the singular forms, used here in the biblical text of Psalms, to the plural
of the community. The same polemical agenda is served by 4QFlor
1:18–19, where
(his anointed?) from Psalms 2:2 is interpreted—in
typically Qumranic fashion—as plural of

(

=) (the elect [anointed] ones of Israel in the last days); other
Qumran texts would call them

(the anointed of spirit).37 So
the “plotting” against the king-Messiah is explained as persecution of
the elect community of the sons of Zadok and those who joined them
in the time of trial preceding the eschaton proper.
I have briey reviewed evidence from 4QIsaiah Pesher and 4QFlorilegium.
The ideas these texts propagate—the superiority of the priestly Messiah
over the kingly one and the idea of a “collective anointment/messiah-
ship of spirit”—are not at all peculiar; they are attested also elsewhere
in Qumran. What is special about the passages under discussion is that
they bear witness to the situation the Qumran exegetes found them-
selves in: those exegetes seem to have shared with wider Jewish circles
a reverential attitude to certain biblical traditions and hence had to
cope with the existing Davidic Messiah-centered interpretation con-
nected with those traditions. This interpretation, however, only partly
tted the religious outlook of the community, and the Qumran pesher
tried to alleviate the problem by suggesting a number of polemically
avored amendments to the inherited exegesis.38
Jesus as the Davidic Messiah
Discussion of the Qumran evidence prompts us to inquire about the

exegetical situation with regard to the Davidic Messiah in nascent
Christianity, another eschatologically inclined group from the period
preceding the destruction of the Temple. As already noted above, the
37
See, for example, 4Q270 frag. 2, 14; 1QS 2:25–3:12; 1QH 4:17–27; 8:1–21;
12:29–34; cf. 4Q521 frag. 8, 9.
38
Another telling example of “anti-Davidic” polemics in Qumran (4Q448), although
of a slightly different type, was discussed in M. Kister, ‘Notes on Some Texts from
Qumran’, Journal of Jewish Studies 44 (1993), 289–290.
114 chapter four
tradition of Jesus’ Davidic descent, even if a trustworthy one,39 might

have caused uneasiness to those of Jesus’ followers with alternative
messianic agendas. Moreover, even those whose eschatological aspira-
tions did center on the Davidic Messiah might have had good reason
to be uneasy: there were clearly some salvic functions pertaining to
the kingly Messiah that could not possibly be ascribed to Jesus.40 The
beginning of the Book of Acts bears witness to the reection on the
issue by the compiler, looking back to the earliest stages in the history
of the Jesus movement:
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at
this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not
for you to know times or seasons which the Father has xed by his own
authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come
upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea
and Samaria and to the end of the earth”. (Acts 1:6–7)
The expected national salvation of Israel has not arrived, and the
emphasis here, as well as in a programmatic statement by Paul in
Romans 1:1–5, is being consciously shifted from the kingly aspect of
Jesus’ messianic mission to the prophetic one: Jesus is the one who has
already received the anointment of prophecy/spirit, and he is the one
who is going to share this anointment—which has nothing specically
Davidic about it—with his followers. Resurrection is, of course, another
not specically Davidic gift that Jesus’ followers are eventually to receive
(See Rom 1:5; 1 Thes 3:13–18).
The emphasis on the prophetic/Holy Spirit aspect (as distinguished
from the kingly one) of Jesus’ mission and of the eschaton in general is
admittedly characteristic of the compiler of Luke-Acts.41 However, Paul’s
epistles also are characterized by an almost complete lack of interest
in Jesus’ Davidic line of descent. Only once—in the opening lines of
the Epistle to the Romans—does Paul nd it necessary to relate to the
issue (Rom 1:1–4):
39
According to Shmuel Safrai, claims of this kind by certain families were not
that exceptional in those days and did not necessarily mean a claim for messiahship
(personal communication).
40
See Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 13, 204–208.
41
See Brawley, “The Identity of Jesus” (note 4 above). See also G. Alley, ‘Good News
to the Poor: Luke’s Exegesis on Isaiah 61:1–2 within the Synoptic Gospels’ Tripartite
Redemptive Framework’, M.A. thesis, the Rothberg School for Overseas Students, the
Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2001.
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the
gospel of God 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in
the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended
from David according to the esh 4 and designated Son of God in power
according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead . . .
Worthy of note is the claim that the prophets had spoken about Jesus
(verse 2)—blocks of Jesus-centered exegesis of the prophetic texts must
already have been in circulation in Paul’s time. We can only guess to
what biblical texts this exegesis related; some of them might have been
connected with the House of David-centered biblical passages. Whatever
the case, Paul accepts the tradition but does so with a reservation: he
nds it necessary to emphasize that Jesus is a son of David
(“according to the esh”, verse 3)—an expression that in Paul’s usage,
at least in some contexts, expresses misgivings.42 A polemical tone may
be discerned in this passage: Paul does not (cannot?) ignore the tradi-
tion of Jesus’ Davidic descent, which has seemingly gained ground; but
he turns the kingly motif into a secondary one, emphasizing instead
Jesus’ prophetic gift and resurrection. It is those heavenly gifts, not
connected intrinsically with Jesus’ line of descent, that make Jesus the
elect son of God. Moreover, according to Paul, all of Jesus’ followers
will eventually share the gifts of Holy Spirit and resurrection—this
is undoubtedly one of the central motifs of Paul’s preaching (see, for
example, 1 Thess 3:13–18).
It should be noted that David is mentioned only two additional
times in Romans (4:6 and 11:9) and nowhere else in the whole Pauline
corpus! In both cases, the verses Paul quotes from Psalms provide a
proof-text for the apostle’s insights on the “human condition”—the
author of the Psalms represents here the predicament of the religious
individual. Neither the quotations themselves nor Paul’s interpretation
of them have anything to do with the Davidic dynasty.
The reservations expressed in the programmatic openings of both
Acts and Romans, that “nal account” of Paul’s thinking,43 indicate that
the belief in Jesus as rst and foremost the Davidic Messiah also had a
problematic aspect. The discussion below will be restricted to evidence
42
See Gal 4:22–31. See also J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Letter to the Romans’, in: The
New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 833.
43
Description suggested by K. Stendahl in idem, Final Account; Paul’s Letter to the
Romans, Minneapolis 1995.
116 chapter four
found in the Book of Acts, where, characteristically, this problematic

aspect is addressed by means of biblical exegesis—of prophetic oracles
with Psalms clearly perceived as such—in a series of programmatic
speeches.44 Although the speeches are by different protagonists and
located in different parts of the narrative, they are generally believed
to be literary creations of the compiler;45 one is therefore justied in
trying to discern some common features or shared agenda in those
scattered instances of biblical interpretation. This of course does not
exclude the possibility of relying on an inherited tradition; actually, in
some cases new research prompts us to look for a more complicated
model—namely, one that establishes a balance between the outlook of
the compiler of Acts and the apostles’ authentic theology.46 As far as
the scriptural references employed in the speeches are concerned, the
following assessment by Jacques Dupont seems fairly convincing: while
the speeches in Acts are the compiler’s compositions, the scriptural
quotations in them seem to point to the underlying traditions.47
Acts 2:22–35
The passage begins with Peter’s portraying Jesus as “a man attested to

you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs. . . . [whom] God
raised. . . . up, having loosed the pangs of death” (22, 24) and ends, cor-
respondingly, with Jesus being proclaimed “lord and Messiah/Christ”
(

, 36). In between, this kerygma is backed by bibli-
44
The theology of the compiler of Acts was ttingly described as “based on the
proof from prophets”. See P. Schubert, ‘The Final Cycle of Speeches in the Book of
Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968), 1–16.
45
See, for example, H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, Philadelphia
1987, xliii–xlv. For a discussion of the “report to the community of believers on recent
portent events” pattern employed in Acts (and Luke) and its literary sources, see L. M.
Maloney, “All that God Had Done with Them”: The Narration of the Works of God in the Early
Christian Community as Described in the Acts of the Apostles, New York 1991, 187–194. The
study by E. J. Woods (The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts, Shefeld 2001,
246–248) points to an essential link in Luke-Acts between “spirit-inspired speeches”
and miracles.
46
See, for example, D. R. Schwartz, ‘On Some New and Old Wine in Peter’s
Pentecost Speech (Acts 2)’, in: D. T. Runia (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual; Studies in
Hellenistic Judaism, vol. 3, Atlanta 1991, 256–257.
47
J. Dupont, ‘Ascension du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’après Actes 2:33’, in:
B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, Cambridge
1973, 228.
cal exegesis characterized, as noted already by Jan Doeve, by certain

midrashic features.48 The proof-texts invoked here are taken from
Psalms, and the authorship of David is strongly emphasized (“For David
says concerning him”, 25; “but he [ David] himself says”, 34). All this
clearly indicates that as far as the compiler of Acts is concerned, the
messiahship of Jesus is a Davidic one.49
However, the compiler of Acts, writing several decades after the
events, should have been well aware that the salvation of Israel, a
seemingly indispensable feature of the Davidic Messiah’s mission, had
not yet occurred; this is even more so if a later, post-destruction of
the Temple, dating of the tradition, is accepted (cf. my suggestion in
Chapter 7, “Conclusion”).50 As pointed out above, the compiler clearly
showed that awareness at the beginning of his composition. His choice
of proof-texts as well as his exegetic emphases may thus be plausibly
seen as tailored to alleviate the tension between the basic allegiance
(his own and that of his milieu) to the notion of Jesus’ Davidic mes-
siahship and alternative, non-kingly aspects, which form the core of
Jesus’ “good tidings”.
First, in Acts 2:25–28 a passage from Psalms 16:8–11 is related to.
David, explicitly named as the author of the saying, is called

and (“ancestor/forefather” and “prophet”, 29, 30)—and not
“king”. Such an emphasis on the prophetic (and not regal) character
of David’s calling seems to be in agreement with an existing Jewish
tradition: it is not only attested in later Jewish sources but may also
be corroborated by the rst-century ce evidence from Qumran (i.e.,
11QPs).51 The exegesis is presented in Acts 2 by the speaker (Peter) as
a hidden interpretation (hidden even from David himself ?), one that
48
See Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 168–176.
49
This emphasis on the Davidic covenant—at the expense of the Mosaic Sinai
covenant—is discussed in R. F. O’Toole, ‘Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of
Pentecost’, Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983), 245–258.
50
See, for example, Conzelman, Acts, xxviii; J. Taylor, ‘The Making of Acts: A New
Account’, Revue Biblique 97 (1990), 504–524.
51
See J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘David “Being Therefore a Prophet . . .” (Acts 2:33)’, Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972), 332–339. Fitzmyer focuses on Acts 2 as witness to an early
stage in the development of the David-as-prophet tradition; he does not discuss the
Acts 2 exegetical agenda that prompted the author to adopt the said tradition. See also
L. V. Le Roux, ‘Style and Text of Acts 4:25(a)’, Neotestamentica 25 (1991), 29–32; U. C.
Wahlde, ‘The Problems of Acts 4:25a: A New Proposal’, Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 86 (1995), 265–267.
118 chapter four
is revealed only now, in the last days. According to Peter’s pesher, the
psalm hints at the resurrection of Jesus:
29 Brethren, I may say to you condently of the patriarch David that he
both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being
therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him
that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he foresaw
and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned
to Hades, nor did his esh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up,
and of that we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:29–32)
We may see that although the Davidic motif is indisputably present here,
it undergoes a drastic modication: it is no longer kingship over Israel,
victory over nations or even building the ideal sanctuary, as in Qumran,
that are signs of Davidic messiahship but the resurrection of David’s
offspring prophesied by the king (“God had sworn with an oath to him
that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw
and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah/Christ . . . .”, 30 –31).
Further on, in Acts 2:34–35, the opening verse from Psalm 110 (“The
LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies
your footstool’ ”) is interpreted. Exegetical references and allusions to
Psalms 110:1 are also widely attested elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment—both in the Synoptic tradition (Matt 22:41–45 and parallels; cf.
Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; 16:19; Luke 22:69) and in the Epistles (Rom
8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12). This
seems to indicate that the verse was already at an early stage adopted
in the Jesus movement as a “stock-quotation”. In the Synoptic tradi-
tion, Psalms 110:1 is presented as an important and at the same time
problematic proof-text of the Jewish messianic exegesis. Discussion of
its meaning follows immediately after the discussions, of a distinctively
exegetic character, on resurrection (Matt 22:23–33 and parallels) and
on “the greatest commandment/central principle” in the Torah” (Matt
22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; reported in Luke 10:25–28)—two issues that
seem to have been “inherited” by Jesus from the religious agenda of his
Jewish milieu. According to the gospel tradition, on both of these issues
Jesus and the Pharisees were of a similar, or at least close, opinion (see
discussion in Chapter 3).
It is with the same Pharisaic counterparts that Jesus is further on por-
trayed as being engaged in disputing the meaning of Psalms 110:1:
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them
a question, 42 saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is
he?” They said to him, “The son of David”. 43 He said to them, “How
is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 44
The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies
under thy feet?’ 45 If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did
any one dare to ask him any more questions. (Matt 22:41– 46, cf. Mark
12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44)
It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that this last issue might also
have been an integral part of the exegetical deliberations of Jesus’ time
and as such was “inherited” and re-evaluated by the Jesus movement.52
Pharisees are presented in the Synoptic pericope as those whose mes-
sianic beliefs focus on a Davidic Messiah—in other words, as true
predecessors of the rabbinic tradition53—and their stance is clearly
in agreement with Matthew’s own position, forcefully stated in the
opening passages of his Gospel.54 Jesus, however, rejects such a notion
or at least expresses his reservations about it. Many scholars, among
them authors of inuential commentaries, subscribe to the opinion that
Jesus could not possibly have promoted here an outright anti-Davidic
stance. Fitzmyer, for example, rejects the claim made by some others
that Jesus here called into question the Davidic descent of the Messiah;
he argues instead that Jesus could not possibly have denied the Davidic
Messiah-centered belief, and that the difference between Jesus and his
opponents here was in fact one of emphasis—namely, Jesus saw the
Davidic Messiah as less involved politically.55 However, in light of what
has been said above on the problematic aspect of Davidic messiah-
ship as felt in some Jewish circles of the late Second Temple period,
including certain groups within Jesus’ movement itself, the possibility
that Jesus in fact preferred an alternative messianic outlook cannot be
excluded outright.
Even if what is expressed here in the Gospels is not a rejection but
only a reservation, the question lingers: What is behind this reservation:
emphasis on the prophetic anointment of the Messiah or on a priestly
52
A distant echo of those disputations may still be discerned in talmudic litera-
ture—e.g., b. Ned. 32b and later midrashic compositions: see Midrash Tehilim, ad loc.
53
See Urbach, The Sages, 649–690.
54
See B. T. Viviano, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’, in: The New Jerome Bibli-
cal Commentary, 666.
55
Fitzmyer, ‘The Son of David Tradition’, 122–125; cf. Davies-Allison, Matthew,
3:254–255.
120 chapter four
Messiah? It is worth noting in this connection that in Psalms 110:4

the king elect is called “a priest forever”—a polemical move against
the established (Aharonic?) priesthood? Or, maybe, the emphasis is on
a Messiah of a “heavenly/angelic order”? The question at this stage
cannot have a denite answer, but there can be scarcely any doubt
regarding the polemical character of the exegesis presented in the Syn-
optic pericope, which clearly aims at establishing the superiority of the
future Messiah over David (and his progeny).56 It may be observed that
instances of polemic centered on the interpretation of difcult bibli-
cal passages are widely attested in rabbinic literature; some of them,
moreover, follow the “how it can be that…” format found here in the
Synoptic tradition; b. Ber. 10a, where the “provocative” questions are
conveniently attributed to a
(min, heretic), provides here an instruc-
tive example. Whether speaking of the Messiah Jesus here necessarily
meant himself is an open question; arguments of the scholars who
subscribe to such an assessment57 remain inconclusive. The question
however seems to be irrelevant for present discussion.
Coming back to Acts 2:24–35, we may note that the author sug-
gests here an interpretation that presents Jesus as David’s offspring, the
true Messiah and the true pesher of Psalms 110:1. The pesher pattern of
the biblical quotations in Acts 2 has been appropriately described as
an interpretation “which is eschatologically applied to the present”.58
In contrast to the Synoptic pericope discussed above, the author of
the Acts shows no interest in establishing the Messiah’s superiority
over David. His agenda is different: the biblical text, which originally
described the achieved triumph of the victorious king (David himself ?),
portrayed as sitting at God’s right hand,59 and which might have been
interpreted as relating to the messianic triumph, is transformed here
into a prophetic proof-text for the delay of the victory: “sitting at God’s
right hand” seems to be invoked, inter alia, to explain Jesus’ absence
after resurrection. If this reading is correct, the exegesis here should
be viewed as an attempt at “damage control”—in contradiction to
interpreters who do not recognize Jesus’ absence after the resurrection
56
See Davies-Allison, Matthew, 250, 255; Viviano, ‘Matthew’, 666.
57
See, for example, Flusser, Jesus, 32.
58
E. E. Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts’, in: idem, Prophecy and
Hermeneutics in Early Christianity, (see Introduction, note 10), 202–203.
59
See M. Dahood, The Anchor Bible: Psalms III 101–150, Garden City 1970,
112–114.
as a problem of the compiler of Acts, arguing that he did not “draw

a rigid distinction between the resurrection and exaltation (I return
to this the issue in Chapter 7). Some scholars who share this latter
perception even think that Davidic-centered biblical passages readily
suggested themselves “as the ideal opportunity to express conviction in
Jesus’ triumph” in resurrection.60 The interpretation suggested here,
then, differs substantially.
Unlike the Qumranic pesher, in both exegetical references to Psalms
in Acts 2 David’s role, paradigmatic for his messianic offspring, is
one not of a king but of a prophet. Moreover, Jesus’ messiahship
as presented in Luke-Acts as a whole has been portrayed as one of
unequivocally pneumatic type, with receiving the Spirit and giving it to
the community as its core characteristics.61 In other words, the shift of
emphasis proclaimed in Acts 1:6–8 is completed/backed in Acts 2 by
means of exegesis. Exegetic emphasis on resurrection as the key fea-
ture of Jesus’ Davidic messiahship is also promoted further on in Acts.
This time it is Paul who follows Peter’s precedent in a programmatic
sermon, which the author of Acts has him deliver in the synagogue
of Antioch on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14–34). A reference is made here
to the same verse from Psalms 15:10 as in Acts 2:27; moreover, it has
been suggested that 2 Samuel 7:6–16—the passage which 4QFlorilegium
relates to—is also alluded to in Paul’s speech.62 The Davidic descent of
Jesus is properly highlighted; but characteristically in Acts 13:30–34 a
claim is made that it is the resurrection—and not the messianic king-
dom—that constitutes “the sure mercies of David” (with reference to
Isa 55:3) promised by God:
30 But God raised him from the dead; 31 and for many days he appeared
to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now
60
O’Toole, ‘Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant’, 250–251. See also J. J. Kilgal-
len, ‘A Rhetorical and Source-traditions Study of Acts 2,33’, Biblica 77 (1996), 180.
Cf. Dupont (‘Ascension du Christ’, 222, 225), who observes that the Ps 110:1 idea of
the king’s exaltation by/at God’s right hand corresponds only vaguely to the idea of the
ascension to heaven.
61
See O. Mainville, ‘Le messianisme de Jésus: le rapport / annonce / accomplisse-
ment entre Lc 1,35 et Ac 2,33’, in: J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, Leuven
1999, 313–327. Dupont (‘Ascension du Christ’, 226–240) sees in Acts 2:24–35 a midrashic
pesher, which alludes also to Ps 68:19, thus emphasizing a parallel with Moses’ ascen-
sion to Mount Sinai and bringing down the Torah. See also M. Gourgues,’ ” Exalté à
la droite du Père” (Actes 2.33)’, Science et esprit 27 (1975), 327.
62
See Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features’, 198–208.
122 chapter four
his witnesses to the people. 32 And we bring you the good news that what
God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fullled to us their children
by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, “Thou art my
Son, today I have begotten thee”. 34 And as for the fact that he raised
him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this
way, “I will give you the holy and sure mercies/blessings of David (

)”.
Acts 4:25–28
In Acts 4:25–26 a passage from Psalms 2:1–2—the same passage

referred to in 4QFlorilegium—is quoted: “Why do the nations conspire,
and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and
the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed”.63
I have suggested that a messianic interpretation centered on a Davidic
Messiah might have existed in relation to this passage in the late Sec-
ond Temple period. The author from Qumran had to cope with that
interpretation, and he did it by claiming that the text speaks of the
suffering of his unjustly persecuted messianic community and not of the
supposedly triumphal kingly Messiah. It comes as no surprise, however,
that the author of Acts does interpret Psalms 2:1–2 as relating to Jesus’
(= the Davidic Messiah’s) own suffering:
24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and
said, “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the
sea and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy
servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the
peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in
array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against
his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against
thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever thy
hand and thy plan had predestined to take place”.64
63
For a discussion on the structure of the passage from Acts 4 and its “prayerful”
character see U. C. von Wahlde, ‘The Theological Assessment of the First Christian
Persecution: The Apostles’ Prayer and Its Consequences in Acts 4, 24–31’, Biblica
76 (1995), 523–531. T. Bowman (Spiritual Life in the Early Church, Minneapolis 1993,
58–60) points to a number of specically Jewish elements that may be discerned in
the description of the apostles’ prayer. As A. Triter (‘The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts’,
in: C. H. Talbert [ed.], Perspectives on Luke-Acts, Danville 1978, 168–186) demonstrated,
prayer was of particular theological concern to the author of Acts.
64
As far as I can see, no variants relevant to the present discussion distinguish the
Western recension of Acts here. See J. Rius-Camps, ‘Las variants de la Recensi no
However, the context in which the quotation from Psalms 2:1–2 and its
exegesis appear in Acts (4:1–21) is, as in 4QFlor 1:18–19, the persecu-
tion of the whole community. In fact, the Davidic Messiah-centered
interpretation of Psalms 2:1–2 is tailored to strengthen the spirit of Jesus’
followers, to enable them to stand rm in the days of persecution and
speak fearlessly about the Messiah’s resurrection (Acts 4:29–33). It may
be that according to the exegetical tradition—seemingly of Palestinian
provenance—the compiler of Acts used here, both Pilate and Herod
might have stood for Gentiles of Psalms 2:1–2 who together with “the
peoples of Israel” conspired against God’s anointed one.65 The transi-
tion to the persecution of the disciples is a natural one—it should be
remembered that for the author of Luke-Acts, Jesus clearly sets an
example and a precedent for his early followers: in the rst chapters
of Acts the community of Jesus’ followers is depicted as engaged in
the same activities as Jesus was during his lifetime.66
Marcel Poorthuis has noted that none of the surviving interpretations
of Psalm 2 in rabbinic literature locates it in the present but rather in
the eschatological future.67 The situation in Acts 4 is clearly different; the
question of how it should inuence our assessment of the 4QFlorilegium
stance—between realized and future eschatology—warrants further
investigation. As Poorthuis also noted, nearly all surviving early rabbinic
interpretations, especially the amoraic, identify the anointed with the
people of Israel, not with an individual Messiah. Yet some of them
do bear witness to an exegetical tradition that also reads Psalms 2:1–2
as speaking of rebellion against the Messiah as an individual. I quote
one of the talmudic sources:
Why is the chapter ( pereq) of Absalom (Ps 3) juxtaposed to the chapter
( pereq) of Gog and Magog (Ps 2)? So that if one should say to you, is it
possible that a slave should rebel against his master [i.d. nations against
God and/or his anointed one], you can reply to him: Is it possible that
a son should rebel against his father? Yet this happened; and so this too
[will happen]. (b. Ber 10a; cf. b. Sukk. 52 b)
Occidental de los Hechos de los Apostoles (Hch 4,23–31)’, Filologia Neotestamentaria

10.19–20 (1997), 99–104.
65
See C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary,
Edinburgh 1994, 246–248. Cf. Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features’ (note 58 above); R. J. Dillon,
‘Acts of the Apostles’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 737–738. See S. F. Plymale,
The Prayer Texts of Luke-Acts, New York 1991, 78–88; Von Wahlde, ‘Theological Assess-
ment’, 530–531. For connection to Luke 2:31, see G. Kilpatrick, ‘LAOI at Luke II.31
and Acts IV.25, 27’, Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965), 127.
66
See Bowman, Spiritual Life, 55–56.
67
Personal communication.
124 chapter four
The evil forces leading the rebellion are called here “Gog and Magog”,
hence it is clear that the Messiah meant by this tradition is none other
than the kingly (Davidic) Messiah of the last days.68 The tradition
seems to be aware of the problematic aspect of this exegesis: the “so
if one should say to you” passage both bears witness to that awareness
and strives to offer a solution. It is admittedly difcult to establish with
certainty when the tradition attested in the Babylonian Talmud and
attributed there to a tannaitic teacher, R. Johanan, started.69 Moreover,
even in the sources subscribing to that notion, the Messiah’s suffering
never ends up with his death but signals a preliminary stage of salva-
tion leading eventually to his kingly triumph.70 But if we are faced
with the two options—that the compiler of Acts invented the Davidic
Messiah-centered exegesis of Psalms 2:1–2, which was later reinvented
by the rabbis, or that the compiler of Acts was building on an existing
exegesis attested later in the Talmud—the second of the two seems
more probable.
We may, therefore, posit the existence of a basic exegetic notion,
which both 4QFlorilegium and Acts 4 related to and further developed.
The Acts 4 exegesis may then be characterized as a midway position:
it shares with the Qumran pesher the emphasis on a “messianic com-
munity” persecuted by fellow Israelites, while claiming—in opposition to
the Qumran exegesis, which eliminates such a possibility—that distress
and persecution pertain also to the Davidic Messiah himself. Unlike
his Qumran predecessor, the compiler of Acts does adopt the existing
Davidic Messiah-centered exegesis of Psalms 2:1–2, reworking it so that
the rebellion against the Lord’s anointed becomes the archetype for the
persecution of his followers—be it the whole Jesus movement in Jerusa-
lem or only the small group of apostles engaged in active preaching of
the gospel over whom the danger looms.71 Also, unlike 4QFlorilegium, the
68
See Barrett, Acts, 245.
69
On the one hand, the exegetical tradition speaking about the Davidic Messiah’s
suffering—although in connection with Isa 53 and not Ps 2—is attested in rabbinic
(including tannaitic) sources: see A. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According
to Jewish Interpreters, New York 1969, 7–11. On the other hand, the Targum Jonathan
on Isa 53 seems to present a polemical rejection of that notion; see A. Sperber, Bible
in Aramaic 3:107–109.
70
See discussion in Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 123–126.
71
For the latter opinion see J. Dupont, ‘Notes sur les Actes des apôtres: I. La prière
des apôtres persecutes (Actes, IV, 23–31)’, Revue biblique 62 (1955), 45–47.
author of Acts does not restrict his exegesis to the notion of “internal
strife” but adds the seemingly inherited—and later attested in rabbinic
sources—element of “external persecution”, represented here by the
gure of Pontius Pilate (and, maybe, also Herod).
Acts 15:13–21
After Paul’s arguments for bringing the gospel to the Gentiles without
demanding that they embrace the ritual obligations of the Torah,
as well as Peter’s reaction have been presented to the reader in Acts
15:1–12, it is James’ turn to formulate his position. The discussion of
the exact relationship between Peter’s stance and that of James, as well
as between this passage and the tradition attested in Acts 21:18–25,
is beyond the scope of this study. Sufce it to say that historically the
position formulated here by James seems to have been a compromise
destined to solve the issue of common meals that arose at Antioch,
while presenting it as a resolution of the Jerusalem council is a well-
calculated move on the part of the author of Acts, tailored to back
his linear presentation of the initial stages of the Church’s history.72
As noted earlier, the author of Acts is generally believed to have been
responsible for composing the speeches, so we have reason to consider
the interpretation of Amos 9, attested here (Acts 15:15–21)73 as part
of the book’s overall exegetic strategy. This, of course, does not exclude
the possibility that the author relied here on a tradition that might have
gone back to the days of the Jerusalem Church.74
Although the particularities of the exegetic move performed here may
remain obscure, its main point is clear: possible reservations notwith-
standing, James gives Paul’s “universalistic” move his consent, quoting
as a biblical proof-text the same passage from Amos 9—possibly an
editorial note composed after the fall of the Davidic kingdom in the
sixth century b c e75—of which 4QFlorilegium also made use. As empha-
72
For a discussion of these issues see, for example, Dillon, ‘Acts’, 751–752; Fitzmyer,
Acts, 551–553.
73
With a possible addition from Isa 45:21 at the end of the quotation. See Dillon,
Acts, 752.
74
See discussion in R. Bauckham, ‘James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13–21)’, in: B.
Witherington (ed.), History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, Cambridge 1996,
154–184.
75
See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos, The Anchor Bible, New York 1989,
889–890; M. Barré, ‘Amos’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 216.
126 chapter four
sized above, the Qumran exegete was not at all interested in bringing
Gentiles into the “fold of the last days’ salvation” even as submissive
subjects of the Davidic Messiah: he ignores the continuation of the
Amos passage, which speaks about the fate of the Gentiles, concentrat-
ing instead on the “internal relationship” between the Davidic Messiah
and his “booth”, the Interpreter of the Torah.
As suggested above, the connection between Acts 15:16 and 21
seems to indicate that the compiler of James’ speech76 not only related
to the same passage from Amos but was also aware of the exegetical
link established—e.g., in Qumran—between the “booth of David” and
preaching/interpreting the Torah:
16 “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling (booth) of
David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 17
that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are
called by my name”, 18 says the Lord, who has made these things known
from of old. 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble
those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to
abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what
is strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has
had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in
the synagogues. (Acts 15:16–21)
Yet his emphasis differs greatly from that of 4QFlorilegium. Although the
quotation in Acts 15 seems to be a conated one, on the core point it is
close to the Septuagint understanding of Amos 9:11–12: the booth of
David is going to be restored so that “all men shall seek the Lord”:

-
. . .
-

'-

-
(A) . . .

! "#
$", ’ %
&
'( ( ’ ) , &*+

, "+ ,
! -.
The interpretation in the Septuagint is based on reading in the Hebrew

(shall seek) instead of
(shall possess) and (men/man-

kind) instead of (Edom).77 This understanding contradicts the
Masoretic text, according to which the result of the restoration will be
76
The question of the relationship between the inherited tradition and the author
of Acts’ contribution is addressed in Barrett, Acts, 728.
77
See Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 885–91. For a discussion of the quotation’s
conated character see Bauckhman, ‘James and the Gentiles’, 157.
Israel’s rule over “all the sons of Edom”.78 This is also how the pas-
sage is understood in the Aramaic Targum, where

(kingdom of the Davidic dynasty) is substituted for (booth
of David); thus the motif of Israel’s rule over Gentiles becomes even
further highlighted. Some targumic versions insert

(house of
Israel) in the second part of Amos 9:12:
(
:..)

(so that the
people of Israel to whom my name is attached shall possess what is left
of Edom and of all the rest of the nations). The Targum, therefore,
states unequivocally that it is Israel that God’s name is “attached to”
and eliminates the very possibility that God’s name is (or was) “attached
to” at least some other nations—a possibility that at least suggests itself
in the Hebrew text and is adopted in the RSV English translation of
Amos 9:11–12 (“that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all
the nations who are called by my name”).79 It is admittedly difcult
to establish what exactly the Septuagint version reects here: Hebrew
text variant or peculiar exegesis. Whatever the case, the “universalistic”
potential of this version—Gentile God-fearers have access to the Jewish
proclamation of (the Torah of ) Moses by the Jews in the synagogues
of Diaspora—is of an undeniably polemical character and could
certainly serve apologetic needs vis-à-vis a broader audience of the
Greek-speaking world. It is this “universalistic” feature that seems to
have prompted the author of Acts to use the Septuagint-like reading.
And as the context in Acts 15 suggests, the interpretation in question
is an existing one and not an ad hoc innovation by James.80
To sum up, the interpretation of Amos 9:11–12 suggested in Acts
15:13–21 may be characterized as a polemical combination/rework-
ing of exegetic traditions connected to a stock proof-text of messianic
exegesis. A Davidic Messiah-centered interpretation is adopted here;81
78
See Fitzmyer, Acts, 555.
79
See Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, vol. 3, 432. The Peshitta seems to retain at least
some measure of ambiguity. See The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version,
part III, fasc. 4, Leiden 1980, 36.
80
See Barrett, Acts, 727–728.
81
Some scholars, pointing to the highly peculiar appearance of the name Simeon
in James’ speech (Peter is always called Peter elsewhere in Luke-Acts), have raised
an intriguing suggestion that it is actually not Peter but Simeon from Luke 2:25–32
who might originally have been meant here. See R. Riesner, ‘James’ Speech (Acts
15:13–21), Simeon’s Hymn (Luke 2:29–32), and Luke’s Sources’, in: J. B. Green and
M. Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ; Essays on the historical Jesus and New
128 chapter four
but not unlike the Qumran pesher, the compiler of Acts ignores, or at the
least subdues, the kingly aspect of his Davidic Messiah, thus rejecting
interpretation of the kind attested in the Targum. As in 4QFlorilegium,
the emphasis is shifted from the kingly Messiah himself to the “booth of
David”,82 although the objective here is different: not to introduce, as in
Qumran, the competing messianic gure of a (priestly?) Interpreter of
the Torah, but to substitute the Gentiles’ “search for God” for the rule
of a Davidic Messiah over the nations. The link between the “booth of
David” and the (interpretation of the) Torah, a link that is attested in
Qumran, also undergoes a polemical re-evaluation in James’ speech:
it is not exclusively via accepting the Torah, which is preached in all
the synagogues of the Diaspora, but rather via the Gentiles’ “turning
to the God of Israel” that the “booth of David” is restored. These
conclusions on the relation between the exegetical stances of Acts and
4QFlorilegium somewhat correspond with the suggestion made by Richard
Bauckhman that the “booth of David” is interpreted in Acts 15—not
unlike miqdash adam in 4QFlorilegium—as the eschatological Temple,
which is “the eschatological people of God, compounded of both Jews
and Gentiles”. He also believes that this interpretation of Amos 9:12
may go back to the days of the Jerusalem Church.83
Conclusion
The anticipation of a Davidic Messiah belongs to the spectrum of Sec-

ond Temple Judaism distinguished patterns of messianic belief—thanks
both to notions of the distant past that found expression in a number
of biblical texts and to certain exegetical traditions connected with
those texts. In eschatologically oriented groups like Qumran or nascent
Christianity this seems to have resulted in a problematic situation: on
the one hand, in these groups the biblical books containing the proof
texts of the Davidic messiahship enjoyed the sacred status of Holy
Testament Christology, Grand Rapids 1994, 263–278. If this possibility is considered, the
connection with Simeon’s messianic prophecy reaching its climax in proclaiming the
“enlightenment of the Gentiles and the glory of Israel” (Luke 2:32) further enhances
the messianic avor of James’ speech.
82
See Barren, Acts, 726. For a discussion of the possible relation—association with
and/or deliberate dissociation from—of James’ speech in Acts 15 to Qumranic ideas,
see Riesner, ‘James’ Speech’, 271–272 and 276–277.
83
See Bauckhman. ‘James and the Gentiles’, 164–166.
Writ, while the corresponding exegetical traditions were widely known

and could not simply be ignored. On the other hand, the emphasis on
Davidic messiahship did not exactly t either “group interests” (as in
Qumran) or a type of experienced eschatological reality (as in nascent
Christianity). Each of these communities, therefore, developed its own
modied, polemically avored brand of exegesis, which was supposed
to alleviate the problem. The comparative study of New Testament
and Qumranic evidence, then, helps clarify this characteristic Second
Temple tension between inherited (and seemingly widespread) patterns
of messianic exegesis and their “sectarian offshoots”.
Who then was not unhappy with the Davidic Messiah? If rabbinic
sources are really continuing here a Pharisaic tendency, the Pharisees
might have been those who unabashedly emphasized the Davidic mes-
siahship; Matthew 22:41–46—and to somewhat lesser degree Synoptic
parallels—should then be seen as an early witness to that tendency. It
may be, therefore, that one of the reasons nascent Christianity—all
problems notwithstanding—clung to the notion of kingly messiahship’s
centrality in the eschaton, and insisted on presenting Jesus as the Davidic
Messiah, was that such were the preferences of an inuential group
of Jesus’ followers recruited from the Pharisaic milieu. Unlike the rst
Christians, Qumran exegetes, bound by different loyalties, did not
hesitate, at least at some points, to turn the Davidic Messiah into a
secondary gure.
CHAPTER FIVE
NEGOTIATING THE PROPER ATTITUDE TO MARRIAGE

AND DIVORCE
In Chapters 3 and 4 two telling instances of parallel patterns of biblical

exegesis in the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls were discussed:
the double love command in Matthew 22:34–40 (cf. Mark 12:28–31;
Luke 10:25–28)/1QS 1:1–12 and the exegesis of Amos 9:11–12 in
Acts 15:13–21/4QFlorilegium 1:10 –13. In both cases, it was argued that
the two disparate sets of writings used common underlying exegetical
patterns, even though the particular religious ideas to which the biblical
interpretation is tailored in each case differ and sometimes even stand
in sharp opposition. In view of this it was further suggested that, rather
than indicating direct inuence, the appearance of these basic patterns
both in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament indicates their
broad circulation in the rst century c e.
This chapter continues the previously tested line of investigation
and approaches from a different angle an issue already touched upon
in Chapter 1. It will focus on an additional set of common exegeti-
cal patterns discerned in several places in the New Testament, as well
as in CD-A 4:15–5:2—patterns employed for negotiating the proper
attitude to marriage and divorce in the context of the eschatological
outlooks reected in these texts. Here too an attempt will be made
to distinguish between the characteristic features of either Qumran
or nascent Christian exegesis and the exegetical patterns common
to a variety of Second Temple Jewish groups. To that end, relevant
instances of early rabbinic exegesis will be taken into consideration.
Focusing on the meaning and implications of existing parallels, I shall
tentatively probe a not too obvious, but central to this book, avenue
of New Testament relevance for a better understanding of Qumranic
and wider Jewish exegetical tendencies.
Matthew 19/Mark 10 and the Damascus Document
Lust, adultery and divorce are bound together in the discourse on “You
shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:13) in the Sermon on the Mount
132 chapter five
(Matt 5:27–32). In Matthew 19:3–9 the issue of adultery—in connection

with divorce—is addressed again but from a different exegetic angle. The
tradition attested in Mark 10:2–12 is usually seen as the source of the
Matthean version, thus it may be surmised that the Matthean redactor,
mindful of the precedent in the Sermon on the Mount, inserted the
ruling from Matthew 5:32 into the later episode (Matt 19:9):1
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful
to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not
read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and
female, 5 and said,—For this reason a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one esh’?
6 So they are no longer two but one esh. What therefore God has joined
together, let not man put asunder”. 7 They said to him, “Why then did
Moses command one to give a certicate of divorce, and to put her
away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed
you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I
say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries
another, commits adultery”. (Matt 19:3–9)
The next chapter deals with the traditions presenting idolatry and lust
as two basic expressions of the evil impulse; it also relates to the fact
that in a number of sources dating from the late Second Temple period
and further on, idolatry was presented as having become obsolete.2
Lust therefore came to be portrayed as the main outlet of the evil
impulse—or rather as one of the limited number of “cardinal sins”
constituting a major danger to the covenant. Such is the assessment
propagated in a number of later rabbinic sources; and this seems also
to be the stance attested in both the Damascus Document and Luke. We
read in the text from Qumran (CD-A 4:14–21, cf. 6Q15 1):

. . .

. . . .

14 . . . Its explanation: 15 They are Belial’s three nets about which Levi,
son of Jacob spoke, 16 in which he catches Israel and makes them appear
before them like three types of 17 justice. The rst is fornication; the
second, wealth; the third, delement of the temple. 18 He who eludes
1
See Davies-Allison, Matthew, 3:8–18.
2
See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Seat of Sin’, 367–391.
the proper attitude to marriage and divorce 133
one is caught in another and he who is freed from that, is caught 19 in

another. Blank The builders of the wall . . . 20 are caught twice in fornica-
tion: by taking 21 two wives in their lives, even though the principle of
creation is Gen 1:27 “male and female he created them”.
The perception attested further on in the Damascus Document (CD-A
7:6–9; 16:10–12), according to which the prohibition of adultery—
understood in CD-A 4 in a rather peculiar sense—and other immoral
behavior represents Torah prohibitions in general, may indicate the
centrality of the issue in a broader social context. And this in turn may
inform our appraisal of the fact that it is repeatedly addressed not only
in the Gospel passages mentioned above but also elsewhere in the New
Testament.3 Thus in Luke 16:12–18 the issue seems to be chosen to
represent the “dots” of God’s law that will never become void:
The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed
at him. But he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before
men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an
abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until
John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and
every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass
away, than for one dot of the law to become void. Every one who divorces
his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a
woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”.
It should also be noted that the coupling of lust/fornication with
greed as another of Satan’s snares found in CD-A 4:15–19 invective,
likewise characterizes the quoted passage from Luke and the Gospel
section to be the focus of discussion in this chapter (Mark 10:17–31,
Matt 19:16–30)—as well as additional New Testament passages and
some later rabbinic elaborations on the theme.4 The appearance of this
combination in Qumran and in the New Testament indicates its broad
circulation already in the Second Temple period, whereas the specics of
the application may be attributed to the differences in social context.
The exact halakhic intentions of both CD-A 4 and Matthew 19
(Mark 10) have been thoroughly discussed in research.5 Hence the
3
See Rom 7, 1 Cor 6, 1 Thess 4.
4
See discussion in Chapter 6. See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Death Motif in Late Antique
Jewish Teshuva Narrative Patterns and in Paul’s Thought’, in Transforming the Inner Self,
151–165.
5
See, for example, A. Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic on Marital Law: CD 4:20–5:11
and Its Social Background’, in: The Damascus Document: A Centennial (see Chapter 1,
134 chapter five
focus further on will be rather on general observations on the nature

of exegetic patterns employed there, which has not previously received
much attention; possible implications for solving the halakhic conun-
drum, however, will also be outlined.
Marriage and eschatology
First, it should be noted that the discussion in Matthew 19 (and Mark

10) is linked to the key theme of the Gospel—namely, the kingdom of
heaven/of God. Flusser suggested that Jesus’ kingdom of heaven held
the intermediary position in the overall redemption scenario between
the “covenantal past” and the eschaton of the last judgment;6 and the
passage from Matthew 19 may provide a useful test case for Flusser’s
thesis. To this end, the following episode with the little children brought
to Jesus should be considered:
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on
them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, “Let
the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs
the kingdom of heaven”. And he laid his hands on them and went away.
(Matt 19:13–15)
My interpretation is that the function of this episode is tailored to
ameliorating the preceding sayings on eunuchs: although those “who
have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”
(Matt 19:12) are to be duly appreciated, this does not mean the rejec-
tion of marriage and childbearing. Moreover, according to what may
be gleaned from Matthew 18:3 (“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn
and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the king-
dom of heaven”) and similar sayings, in Matthew 19:13–15 children
are accepted into the kingdom on account of some precious qualities
supposedly pertaining to childhood and not because the apocalyptic
end of time is due to arrive within their lifetime. Flusser’s suggestion,
then, sits well with the Gospel section under discussion.
note 42), 147–160; Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 83. See also M. Kister, ‘Divorce,
Reproof and Other Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels: Jesus Traditions in the Context
of Qumranic and Other Texts’ (fortcoming).
6
See D. Flusser, ‘The Stages of Redemption History According to John the Baptist
and Jesus’, in: Jesus, 258–275.
A comparison with 1 Corinthians 7 is instructive here. Paul’s advice

against remarriage is put forward there as being based on two differ-
ent reasons. The advice does relate to the needs of the “intermedi-
ate phase”, needs that in fact pertain to every time and every period
(1 Cor 7:32–35):
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about
the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is
anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are
divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of
the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is
anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for
your own benet, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good
order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
However, it also stems, and not to a lesser degree, from acute expecta-
tion of the imminent end (1 Cor 7:26, 29):
I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain
as he is . . . I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short;
from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.
The New Testament treatment of the issue of marriage is thus char-
acterized by a variety of both attitudes and arguments employed for
their backing. Moreover, one may discern here a certain development
of the motif from its initially non-eschatological provenance to its
eschatological re-interpretation. Was the said development inherited
or introduced by Paul? Paul himself nds it necessary to stress that
the interpretation is the fruit of his own contemplation.7 Whatever the
case, the core motif of Paul’s elaboration is explicitly stated at its very
beginning: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It
is well for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1). It is instructive
that Jesus’ appraisal of marriage, as represented in less eschatologically
charged Matthew 19:1–15, is denitely more positive.
The Dead Sea Scrolls in general and the Damascus Document in
particular are believed to represent a variety of eschatologically a-
vored religious outlooks.8 Some of them are centered exclusively on
7
1 Cor 7:25, 40.
8
For an illuminating suggestion concerning the relationship between the CD
community and that of Qumran, see S. Ivri, ‘The Exegetical Method of Damascus
Document’, in: M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Khirbet Qumran Site, New York 1994, 329–338.
136 chapter five
the upcoming end of days, while others mainly focus on the interim
period characterized by the more or less prolonged existence of the
sect governed by its rule and surrounded by the sons of darkness. The
link between the acuteness of eschatological expectation and the stance
on marriage and divorce, observed in the New Testament evidence,
should prompt us to ask, what measure of eschatological tension, if
any, should be ascribed to the CD-A 4:21 ruling on marital halakha?
Or, taking the same question from an opposite point: How should this
ruling inform our appraisal of the Damascus Document’s overall eschato-
logical stance? In this context, it should be noted that the discussion of
marital halakha in the Damascus Document is prexed to the section deal-
ing with the new eschatological interpretation of the Torah pertaining
to the (intermediary) “age of wickedness”, where unclean wealth and
delement of the Temple, the other two “Satan’s snares”, are related
to again (CD-A 6:11–16):9
But all those who have been brought into the covenant 12 shall not enter
the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close 13
the door, as God said: Mal 1:10 “Whoever amongst you will close its door
so that you do not kindle my altar 14 in vain!”. Unless they are careful
to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the Torah for the
age of wickedness: to separate themselves 15 from the sons of the pit; to
abstain from wicked wealth which deles, either by promise or by vow,
16 and from the wealth of the temple and from stealing from the poor
of the people, from making their widows their spoils.
Patterns of midrashic discourse
Some observations made in Chapter 1 are relevant to the present

discussion and deserve to be reiterated in this paragraph. In the Ser-
mon on the Mount (Matt 5:31–32), it is not the validity of the Torah
ordinance but conicting interpretations of a difcult expression (

) found in Deuteronomy 24:1 that constitutes the exegetical crux of
the polemic; it has even been suggested that Matthew’s Jesus may in
fact have represented here a domineering halakhic position of his time.10
9
Cf. 4Q266 3 ii; 4Q267 2; 4Q269 4 ii; 6Q15 3,4. For 4Q266 see J. M. Baumgarten,
The Damascus Document (DJD 18),Oxford 1996, 29–93; for 4Q267 see DJD 18, 95–113;
for 4Q269 see DJD 18, 123–136; for 6Q15 see DJD 3, 128–131.
10
See Noam, ‘Divorce in Qumran’, 218–219. See also Chapter 1, note 33 and
discussion there.
The unequivocal allegiance of the Sermon to the Torah is stated in

Matthew 5:18: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away,
not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the Torah (law)
until all is accomplished”.11 In contradistinction to this, the same bibli-
cal verse is presented in Matthew 19:7–8 as an ad hoc regulation with
a limited term of application:
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a cer-
ticate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your
hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the
beginning it was not so”.
An analogous exegetical move tailored to serve the purpose of “adjusting
God’s pronounced demands” to Israel’s de facto performance is attested
in CD-A 5:1–5:
. . . And about the prince it is written: 2 Deut 17:17 ‘He should not mul-
tiply wives to himself ’. However, David had not read the sealed book of
the law which 3 was in the ark, for it had not been open in Israel since
the day of the death of Eleazar 4 and of Jehoshua, and Joshua and the
elders who worshipped Ashtaroth. One had hidden 5 the public (copy)
until Zadok’s entry into ofce . . .
The urge to tackle this discrepancy seems to have been connected to
the notion of the ideal state of affairs ascribed to the days of creation.
It should be emphasized, however, that the Damascus Document solution
differs substantially from presenting Moses as adding regulations to
the “initial Torah” on his own initiative; instead, it ascribes Torah’s
concealment to problematic periods of history such as that of David.
This reects the Damascus Document programmatic stance, according to
which the written Torah—the one the members of the group share
with the rest of Israel—forever retains its status, while in actuality it is
re-interpreted according to the revelation of the new covenant.12
Yet, as noted in Chapter 1, Philo already speaks of a tripartite division
of the Torah material: God’s words, Moses’ own deliberation, and a mix
of the two; and the notion of ad hoc Torah regulation is also attested
in later rabbinical sources.13 In addition to it, there seem to have been
11
For a recent reassessment of the issue, see also Schaller, ‘The Character and
Function of the Antitheses in Matthew 5’, 21–48.
12
See Davies, ‘The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document’, 33–34.
13
See Philo, De Vita Mosis II, 188–191; y. Hor. 1,8 [46b]; b. Sanh. 75b, 80b; b. Av. Z.
24b; b. Hor. 6a; b. Zev. 119b; cf. m. Par. 7:6,7; t. Nid. 1:9.
138 chapter five
prophetic precedents of questioning the value of Deuteronomy 24:1.

One of those was discussed by Michael Fishbane, who shows that the
oracle from Jeremiah 3:1 is engaged in a polemical reassessment of the
tradition attested in Deuteronomy 21:4, equating
(“something
indecent”) with adultery, albeit on an aggadic rather than a halakhic level.
As a result, the tradition “is transformed in relation to the addressee (the
audience) and the goal or intent of the address itself ”.14 It is vis-à-vis
these tendencies, rather than Qumran, that one must examine the
attitude to the Pentateuch attested in our Gospel pericope. It should be
noted, however, that the Gospel pericope in question gives no indica-
tion whatsoever that Jesus’ ruling here is nourished by a prophetic-like
inspiration—instead it is portrayed as a piece of regular exegesis. In
any case, it stands to reason that in this instance also the reasoning of
Matthew’s Jesus reected an inherited exegetic pattern: no uproar or
opposition is reported by Matthew, who is generally only too eager to
highlight Jesus’ clashes with the Pharisees.15
As a complementing exegetical feature to that “liberal” attitude to
Holy Writ, Matthew 19:4–6 establishes that the foundational principles
of marital union should be sought in the story of the creation. In the
Mishnah, this is one of the midrashic features characteristic of tradi-
tions ascribed to the school of Shammai—the school that Matthean
Jesus agrees with on the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:9 (and, before
that, in Matt 5:32).16 Although the specic halakhic decision at which
the Mishnah arrives here may characterize only Shammai (or some of
his followers), the technique of using the creation story to dene basic
principles of marriage seems to represent a wider midrashic trend.
In Matthew 19:4–6 we read:
4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the
beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a
man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the
two shall become one esh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one esh.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”.
14
See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 308–312; idem,
‘Torah and Tradition’, in: D. A. Knight (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament,
Philadelphia 1977, 285.
15
See the discussion in Repschinski, ‘Taking on the Elite’, 1–23. See also Davies-
Allison, Matthew, 3:19.
16
See m. Git. 4:5. The saying from Gen 1:28 is used here for creating a halakhic
midrash: man nds his fulllment in procreating; hence one should adopt a lenient
attitude to allow for an additional marriage union.
The argument here is presented as a midrashic combination of Gen-

esis 1:27 and 2:24. As observed in Chapter 1, a number of rabbinic
sources do use Genesis 2:24 for clarifying halakhic questions (i.e., m.
Git. 4:5), whereas Genesis 1:27 is mostly referred to in connection with
the androgyne-centered notion of the rst man’s nature.17 Hence the
importance of the early evidence from CD-A 4:20 –21, where Genesis
1:27 is referred to, as in Matthew 19, in connection to the marital
halakha:

They . . . are caught twice in fornication: by taking two wives in their lives,
even though the principle of creation is Gen 1:27 “male and female he
created them”.
As noted, the question of the exact meaning of this admonition remains
unresolved. The text may be understood as permitting second mar-
riage after the death of the rst wife—if read, as suggested by Joseph
Fitzmyer, in light of 11QTemple 57:15–19:18

Blank

He shall not take a wife from among all 16 the daughters of the nations,
but instead take for himself a wife from his father’s house 17 from his
father’s family. He shall take no other wife apart from her 18 because
only she will be with him all the days of her life. If she dies, he shall
take 19 for himself another from his father’s house, from his family. He
shall not pervert justice,
If so, the same position may in principle be ascribed to Matthew 19:9
(unlike the Markan parallel, which sounds like a total rejection of divorce
17
See, for example, Gen. R. 8.1, Lev. R. 14.1. See also Chapter 1, note 43, and
the discussion there. Elsewhere I have discussed the possibility that the compilers of
the Old Syriac Gospels recognized the androgyne-motif overtones in the Greek ver-
sion of Matthew 19 (Mark 10) and tried to subdue them in Syriac. See S. Ruzer,
‘The Reections on Genesis 1–2 in the Old Syriac Gospels’, in: J. Frishman and
L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation; A
Collection of Essays, Louvain 1997, 91–102.
18
Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 83. For the Temple Scroll, see Y. Yadin, Megillat
ham-miqdash—The Temple Scroll, 3 vols. + Suppl., Jerusalem 1977 (revised English edi-
tion 1983).
140 chapter five
and remarriage). Some scholars, however, put forward strong arguments

for the anti-bigamy (anti-polygamy?) leaning of the CD passage.19 This
basic problem is addressed again below, but it should be stressed already
now that while halakhic and non-halakhic decisions derived from the
discussions of the marriage-divorce issue might differ from tradition
to tradition, the appeal to Genesis 1–2 and, even more specically, to
Genesis 1:27 is common to the New Testament and Qumran and thus
seems to represent—in both traditions—an inherited, and hence early,
midrashic feature.20
Pro- and anti-marriage stance
There is, however, a meaningful difference between the Gospel and

the Damascus Document passages in their choice of the additional bib-
lical proof-text. The tradition ascribed to Jesus in Matthew 19:3–6
midrashically combines Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, presenting marriage as
the restoration of the ideal bond described in Genesis 1:27; as noted,
this move clearly indicates a high appraisal of marriage, including
the aspect of physical intimacy (
= are one esh) with
emphatic reiteration: “so they are no longer two but one esh”. The
Damascus Document instead picks up Genesis 7:9 (CD-A 5:1:

, “two and two, male and female, went into
the ark with Noah”), where the distinction between the sexes is kept
intact with no “union in esh” in sight. This motif of Noah’s and his
sons refraining from sexual intercourse while on board the ark would
feature prominently in the Midrash and in early Syriac Christian
exegesis.21 In light of the CD general outlook—sexual intercourse as
intrinsically unclean, connected with “lust” (
) and permitted only
for procreation, with the possible implication that some group mem-
bers, or even the majority do not marry at all22—ignoring Genesis
2:24 may be more than mere coincidence here. It is noteworthy that
this frowning upon the “esh” constitutes a highly visible feature not
19
See, for example, Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, 147–160; Noam, ‘Divorce in
Qumran’, 206–223.
20
See Chapter 1, note 45.
21
See N. Koltun-Fromm, “Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah’s Righteousness
in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic”, in: The Book of Genesis (note 17 above),
57–72.
22
See Davies, ‘Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document’, 34.
only of the Damascus Document but also of a number of core Qumran

texts propagating the “esh-spirit” dualism.23 Although there is a text
from Qumran (4QInstruction) that does refer to the “oneness in esh”
approvingly, even there it is far from being presented as

(“the principle of creation”).24
In this instance Paul’s stance is instructive (1 Cor 6:15–20):
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I
therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a pros-
titute? Never! 16 Do you know that he who joins himself to a prostitute
becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become
one esh”. 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with
him. 18 Shun immorality ( ). Every other sin which a man commits
is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within
you, which you have from God? . . . So glorify God in your body.
Hard to believe, but in his passionate admonition against lust and
immoral behavior Paul applies Genesis 2:24 to the contemptible inter-
course with a prostitute! In rabbinic sources there is a tendency to
glean from the creation account rules pertaining to the marital laws of
the Gentiles—the ruling from m. Gitt. 4:5 mentioned in Chapter 1 that
deals with “half-slave half-bondman” may also reect that tendency. It
turns out that there is a tradition, attested in a later rabbinic source,
that both applies Genesis 2:24 to the Gentiles and interprets the ending
of the verse (“and cleaves to his wife, and they become one esh”) as
describing sexual relations with a prostitute:

.

:

“AND SHALL CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE,” . . . If a harlot was stand-
ing in the street and two men had intercourse with her, the rst is not
culpable while the second is, on account of the verse, Behold, you will
die . . . for she has been possessed by a man (Gen 20:3). But did the rst
23
See, for example, D. Flusser, ‘The “Flesh-Spirit” Dualism in the Judean Desert
Scrolls and the New Testament’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 244–251;
idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline Christianity”, in: Judaism and the Origins
of Christianity, 23–74, esp. 60–74. See also S. Metso, ‘The Relationship between the
Damascus Document and the Community Rule’ and C. Hempel, ‘The Laws of the
Damascus Document and 4QMMT’, in: The Damascus Document: Centennial (note 5
above), 69–93.
24
See the discussion in Kister, ‘Divorce, Reproof ’ (note 5 above).
142 chapter five
intend to acquire (marry) her through cohabitation? Hence this proves

that cohabitation in the case of the Noachides acquires, though that is
not in accordance with [ Jewish] law.25
One may speculate as to the extent to which Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corin-
thians 6 is inuenced by the fact that the Epistle addresses a Gentile
audience and/or is linked to an existing midrashic tradition. Whatever
the case, Paul, unlike Jesus in Matthew 19, understands Genesis 2:24
as an etiological saying describing a pitiful state of affairs and not as
God’s commandment—an illuminating indication of how far reserva-
tions concerning the “esh” could go. One may wonder what be Paul’s
interpretation would of the beginning of the verse: “Therefore a man
leaves his father and his mother”. Judging by the opposition between
(“joins himself to a prostitute,” verse 16) and
(“is united to the Lord,” verse 17), Paul might
have in mind that the “father” is God himself.26
It should be emphasized that while Paul in his complex argumentation
uses an explicitly Christological motif of members of the community
as “members of Christ” (1 Cor 6:15), the rest of his reasoning is not
intrinsically connected to the messianic kerygma. It seems reasonable that
before being incorporated into Paul’s Christology this “non-kerygmatic”
section could have had an existence of its own. We can then combine
the evidence from the Gospels, Qumran and Pauline writings to recon-
struct the eschatologically avored segment of the variety of attitudes
toward marriage and esh; in this perspective the attitude attested in
Matthew 19 should be seen as belonging to the moderate side, with
Paul and Qumran far to the other end of the spectrum.
The New Testament and the marital halakhah of the Damascus Document
Suggestions concerning the exact meaning of the CD problematic

admonition—that is, whether it is directed against polygamy, divorce,
remarriage or some combination of these—have been based either
on the philological analysis of the passage (e.g., attempts to solve the
25
Gen. R. 18, 24 (Theodor-Albeck, p. 167).
26
A similar interpretation of Gen 2:24, with the Holy Spirit representing “mother”,
was developed—either relying on 1 Corinthians 6 or independently—in the rst half
of the 4th century by Aphrahat. See Aphrahat, Demonstrations 18.10 (D. I. Parisot,
Patrologia Syriaca 1, Paris 1894, 840).
problem of the masculine plural sufx of in CD-A 4:21) or on

reading it in the context of the Qumran and even more general Jewish,
halakhic tendencies.27 As for New Testament evidence, it has only rarely
been recruited to elucidate the meaning of CD-A 4:21, and then rather
hesitantly. Tom Holmén, however, did refer to 1 Corinthians 7 as indi-
cating that a particular interpretation of , and correspondingly
of the Damascus Document admonition as a whole, is possible—namely,
that although remarriage is not rejected in principle, it is acceptable
only after the ex-wife/husband has died. As he put it, although this
kind of approach “may seem bafing to us, it cannot be regarded as
impossible for the Qumranites. At least Paul seems to have cherished the
same kind of opinions”.28 I suppose that the cautious wording reects
doubts as to how one should evaluate Paul’s reasoning here. What does
it mostly represent: the apostle’s peculiar kerygmatic stance, his agenda
vis-à-vis the Gentile audience or inherited patterns of Jewish religious
thought? As already suggested, the bulk of Paul’s reasoning on the issue
probably bears witness to existing patterns of belief; hence, the evidence
from 1 Corinthians may be used with more condence in the discus-
sion of the CD stance.
I would like also to introduce additional Pauline evidence that, as far
as I am aware, has not yet been considered in this context:
1 Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the
law (Torah)—that the law is binding on a person only during his life?
2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he
lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning
the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives
with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies
she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an
adulteress. 4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through
the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has
been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.
(Rom 7:1–4)
There have been attempts, though they are not very convincing, to
interpret Romans 7 as a whole as addressed exclusively to a Gentile
27
In addition to studies referred to above, see also T. Holmén, ‘Divorce in CD
4:20 –5:2 and in 11QT 57:17–18: Some Remarks on the Pertinence of the Question’,
Revue de Qumran 18.3 (1998), 397–408; J. Kampen, ‘A Fresh Look at the Masculine
Plural Sufx in CD IV, 21’, Revue de Qumran 16.1 (1993), 91–98.
28
Holmén, ‘Divorce in CD’, 401.
144 chapter five
audience and thus pointedly to only Gentile concerns.29 Whatever the

case, however, the opening (“Do not you know, brethren, for I speak to
them that know the law/Torah”.) presents the argument that follows as
embedded in traditional Torah-centered teaching. There is no special
reason in this case to dismiss the apostle’s words as sheer rhetoric—as a
rule, Paul’s discourse is distinguished by a sharp differentiation between
various types of truth: revealed, transmitted by a tradition or attained
in the process of the apostle’s own contemplation (see, for example,
1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 1).
The line of Paul’s argument here may indicate a similar differen-
tiation: while vv. 2–3 represent the inherited thema, v. 4 promotes the
new Christological rhema. What parameters of the inherited tradition
underlying Romans 7:2–3 may be gleaned from the text? It discusses
the possibility of severing the marital bonds and presents it as unlawful
except after the death of the spouse. It deserves notice that the spouse’s
death and the remarriage that follows are presented in Paul’s peculiar
context as a desired development!30 The wording here is characterized
by repeated use of the expression “in his (i.e., the man’s/ husband’s) life”
( , ! "), a close parallel to the enigmatic
from CD-A 4:21.31
How can the observed characteristics of the passage from Romans
7 inform our interpretation of CD-A 4, and vice versa? Paul’s switch
from “a person” (# ) in v. 1 to “a married woman” ($
%&) in v. 2 may indicate that the inherited argument employed here
could in principle be applied in both directions; so we can hardly derive
from the passage a sure indication regarding the gender behind
of CD-A 4:21. It is clear, however, that the meaning of “in his life” in
Paul’s epistle cannot be reduced to “all the time while they live together
(are married)”—an interpretation of the CD ruling suggested by Louis
Ginzberg.32 Hence the evidence from Romans 7 does not work in favor
of the interpretation of the Damascus Document prohibition as concerned
exclusively with polygamy.
The option not only of polygamy but also of divorce could not be
seen as underlying Paul’s reasoning here—neither of them would t the
29
Most recently, see J. Gager, Reinventing Paul, Oxford 2000, 126–128.
30
Cf. the discussion in 1 Corinthians 7.
31
Cf. 1 Cor 7:39.
32
L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect, New York 1976, 20 (originally published in
German in 1922).
message the apostle is propagating. Of course, it does not necessarily

prove that the same is true for CD; although each of the two traditions
build on the same basic pattern, it does not immediately follow that
their contents are identical. Yet to my mind, all limitations notwith-
standing, Romans 7:1–3 should be taken seriously in any discussion of
the Damascus Document position on the issue. At this initial stage of the
inquiry, it may be suggested that since the perception of death as the
natural limit for application of Torah’s halakhah underlies both sources
(though not present in Matt 19:3–9!), it seems to reect a more general
trend. Paul’s rhetorical claim in Romans 7:1 for presenting a traditional
argument emerges as fairly adequate after all.
Further inquiry
It seems tting to conclude this chapter with suggestions for further

inquiry. First, the introduction of Romans 7:1–4 into our discussion
raises the question of genre. It is clear that Paul does not have any
halakhic interest here—the marital law centered thema is used only as
a pretext for promoting one of Paul’s core religious ideas: salvation
through Jesus’ death and not through following the Torah (ritual) stipula-
tions. Matthew 19:3–9 is likewise characterized by a mixture, albeit of
a different kind: after the ideal based on Genesis 1, 2 is presented, the
practical halakhah is suggested, halakhah that turns out to be based on
Jesus’ (= Shammai’s) interpretation of the same verse from Deuteron-
omy 24, which has just been branded a compromise initiated by Moses:
He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to
divorce your wives (in Deut 24:1), but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (

from Deut 24:1 interpreted as
), and marries another,
commits adultery”. (Matt 19:8–9)
It was suggested by Holmén that what CD-A 4:21—5:1 propagates is
“the ideal of matrimony” and not a call to actually prohibit the cur-
rent practice.33 To what extent should the New Testament evidence
strengthen that assessment and make us reconsider the perception of
the passage of the Damascus Document as a piece of marital halakhah?
33
Holmén, ‘Divorce in CD’, 407.
146 chapter five
Second, the fact that neither Matthew 9:3–9 nor Romans 7:1–6—nor
1 Corinthians 6, 7 for that matter—relate to polygamy should be taken
seriously into consideration. As noted, the polygamy-oriented inter-
pretation of CD-A 4:21 may be sustained even vis-à-vis the opposing
New Testament evidence. But if it is sustained, this should inform our
understanding of the social background of the CD polemic34 and, more
specically, of the group that is represented by the “builders of the
fence” (
). While many scholars, starting with Solomon Schech-
ter, have identied the “builders of the fence” with the Pharisees,35
others have seen the admonition as directed by the compiler against
contemporary Jewish society in general.36 It is instructive that in the New
Testament not only Matthew, distinguished by his preference for Jesus
vs. the Pharisees “controversy stories pattern”,37 but also his Markan
source present lenience in matters of divorce as the characteristic feature
of the Pharisaic stance (Matt 19:3; cf. Mark 10:2). But, as noted, in all
Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees—be it in the form of discussion
or invective—polygamy never features. There is no particular reason
to doubt this kind of presentation, which, on the one hand, does not
seem to be inuenced by any immediate messianic (kerygmatic) concern
and, on the other hand, is substantiated by tannaitic evidence that
attributes such a divorce oriented approach specically to Hillelites.
Thus if we adopt the restricting polygamy-centered interpretation of
the CD-A 4 invective, the least we should say is that Jesus’ Pharisees
and the “builders of the fence” do not represent the same distinctive
outlook. Whether the difference should be explained as pointing to a
diachronic development within the same group or to different groups
is a question that warrants further deliberation.
Conclusion
It is clear that if the Qumran community and the nascent Jesus move-
ment are perceived as merely two among a number of the Second Tem-
34
See Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’ (note 5 above).
35
S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries; Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Cambridge
1910, 36 n. 22.
36
See J. G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document, New York and
Berlin 1995, 121–122.
37
See Repschinski, ‘Taking on the Elite’ (note 15 above). See also idem, The Contro-
versy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship
between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism, Göttingen 2000.
ple Jewish groups, a comparative study of the respective corpora—if

not necessarily pointing to a direct development of New Testament
traditions from earlier Qumran ones—may contribute to better under-
standing of the Jewish setting of the former. Our discussion of exegetical
parallels corroborates this basic position. I suggested a complementing
direction, which can also be fruitful: we should more intensely introduce
evidence from the New Testament into the discussion of texts from
Qumran. Thus investigation of Paul’s epistles may prove useful for
elucidating the meaning of the Damascus Document marital halakhah, while
the combined evidence of the epistles and the Gospels may be helpful
in clarifying the nature of the CD eschatological stance and/or the
identity of the opponent, with whom the CD exegesis polemicizes.
And, of course, the two sets of writings should be studied compara-
tively (together with other relevant Jewish writings)38 to outline both
the common basic patterns and the variety of exegetical trends of late
Second Temple Judaism. Exactly because there are signicant differences
in exegetical approach and religious ideas, clearly indicating that we are
dealing with separate communities, the existence of common patterns
testies to their broad circulation. All this is especially valid when the
New Testament traditions in question are not intrinsically connected
with the messianic kerygma. The comparative study may, inter alia, pro-
vide an additional criterion for distinguishing peculiar Qumran ideas in
the Scrolls from those representing wider Jewish circles. Thus in light of
New Testament parallels such CD patterns as relying on Genesis 1:27
for establishing marital halakha, portraying lust as the main outlet of the
evil impulse or combining it with greed as cardinal “Satan’s snares”,
should be seen as representing common Second Temple tendencies
rather than particular sectarian exegetical patterns. On the other hand,
observed differences in attitude toward “esh” allow us to appreciate
better the nuanced variety of existing approaches.
Admittedly, the case of adultery-divorce at this stage provides mostly
questions for further inquiry rather than denite solutions, but it aptly
illustrates both the potential and the limitations of the approach
suggested.
38
See, for example, M. Kister, ‘Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and
Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings’, in: J. C. Reeves (ed.),
Tracing the Threads; Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Atlanta 1994, 1–34.
CHAPTER SIX
THE SEAT OF SIN AND THE LIMBS OF TORAH
In the previous chapter, it was suggested that Paul’s writings might

contribute to a better understanding of the Second Temple and later
Jewish exegetical tendencies, and Romans 7:1–4 was among the evi-
dence reviewed there. Continuing that line of investigation, another
passage from Romans 7 will now be discussed, where the apostle speaks
of “two Torahs”—the true spiritual one and another, represented by
the sinful limbs of the human body. Paul, however, is in no way the
only New Testament author interested in identifying the locus of sin,
hence, as in the preceding discussion, complementing evidence (e.g.,
from the Gospels) will also be taken into consideration.
Since emphasis on the intention of the heart—and not only on
deeds—as transmitted by the Synoptic Gospels is considered to be an
outstanding feature of Jesus’ preaching, it comes as no surprise that
the heart is sometimes presented in the Synoptics (e.g., Matt 15:17–19)
as the true source of transgressions. In the Sermon on the Mount and
elsewhere, the attention paid to what goes on in man’s inner self (Matt
5:22: “whosoever is angry with his brother . . .”)1 and the emphasis
on love as the central imperative of God’s Torah point in the same
direction. Yet side by side with this we also nd in the Sermon on the
Mount a statement of quite a different kind:
29 If your right eye causes you to sin (ƴƬƣƮƦƣƭɛƨƧƫ), pluck it out and
throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that
your whole body be thrown into hell (ƥɗƧƮƮƣƮ). 30 And if your right hand
causes you to sin (ƴƬƣƮƦƣƭɛƨƧƫ), cut it off and throw it away; it is better
that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into
hell (ƥɗƧƮƮƣƮ). (Matt 5:29–30)2
1
See the discussion in Chapter 1; see also Ruzer, ‘The Technique of Composite
Quotations’, 65–75.
2
Cf. Matt 18:8; Mark 9:43, 45; Luke 17:1. For possible relationships among the
Synoptics here, see W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible, New York
1971, 217.
150 chapter six
The opposition between these two existential impetuses, the heart and
the limbs, as the seat of sin remains unresolved in the Gospel text,
causing discomfort for exegetes. Modern commentaries aptly demon-
strate the exegetical tension there between locating sin in the heart or
in the limbs. While the Anchor Bible Commentary allows for the sinful
potential of limbs as agents of “known occasions of sin”, such as lust-
ful sights or physical contacts,3 the International Critical Commentary
(ICC) dismisses the cutting off of sinful limbs as an allegory, stating
with unreserved condence that:
Jesus and the NT writers knew well enough that amputation would
scarcely curb the passions since the problem is not with the body itself
but, as Paul put it, with “sin that dwells in me” (Rom 7:17, 20) . . . The
lustful eye is not to be mutilated but brought into custody.4
In contradistinction, John McKenzie in The Jerome Biblical Commentary
claims no less forcefully:
The restatement of the Law [here] is directed at the roots of the impulse . . .
The fact that the saying is couched in a rather intense hyperbole
does not entitle interpreters to reduce it to a vague form of spiritual
detachment.5
In the new edition of the same commentary a different appraisal of
Matthew 5:29–30 is expressed. Benedict Viviano writes:
These verses parallel Mark 9:43–47 but are omitted by Luke, probably
because of the Oriental hyperbolic mode in which they are expressed.
The point is that Jesus calls for a radical ordering of priorities. The logic
of one’s decisions and moral choices is important. It is better to sacrice
a part of one’s moral freedom than to lose the whole.6
This very opposition between presenting the heart as the source of sin
and blaming bodily members, discerned both in the Gospel account
and in attempts at its interpretation, triggered the present examination
of the seat of sin in early Jewish sources, which aims at clarifying the
3
See Albright-Mann, Matthew, 63.
4
Davies-Allison, Matthew, 1:524. On this occasion, Origen is quoted by the ICC
compilers as one who wrote—commenting on Matt 15:4—that the Christian “amputates
the passions of the soul without touching the body” (ektemnoi to tes psyches pathetikon, me
haptomenos Iou somatos). See Origen, Opera omnia, Berolini 1834, 3:334.
5
The last statement refers to a parallel saying in Matt 18:9. See J. L. McKenzie,
‘The Gospel According to Matthew’, in: J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The
Jerome Biblical Commentary, 2 vols., London 1968, 2:72, 94.
6
Viviano, ‘Matthew’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 642.
the seat of sin and the limbs of torah 151
extent to which this opposition, seemingly characteristic of the New

Testament evidence, is an inherited one. In other words, is it intrinsic
to Jewish exegetic traditions from the Second Temple period dealing
with the question of the seat of sin? What opinions are attested in those
traditions concerning the source of sin? Do sins begin in the heart
(often synonymous in this context with a person’s soul)7 or in some
particularly treacherous bodily limbs, or is the source of transgression
external to both soul and body? A distinction must be made between
two different, though interconnected, motifs—namely, bodily limbs as
an impetus in man’s sinful inclination and the post factum punishment of
guilty limbs—the punishment that may befall the limbs either in this
world or in Gehenna.8 It is clear that the tradition from the Sermon
on the Mount quoted above addresses the preventive “cutting off ” of
the limbs—to curb the evil inclination—rather than the punishment
of guilty limbs; the present discussion will also focus on the motif of
bodily limbs as existential impetuses—with a special emphasis on an
exegetical pattern connecting certain guilty members or, alternatively,
them in toto to the complete set of Torah prohibitions. It should be
emphasized that the issue here is the evaluation of a human predica-
ment vis-à-vis sin, a predicament enacted in the life of everyone, and
not the primordial origin of evil, the nature of the fall in the Garden
of Eden (human? angelic?), etc.9
Let us start with a brief review of the main trends regarding the seat
of sin attested in Jewish sources from the Second Temple period and
their development in later rabbinic literature. As in previous chapters,
the focus will be on the “internalized phase” of the trajectory, with the
inuence of wider Hellenistic tendencies on Jewish ideas in question
remaining beyond the scope of the discussion. Among other trends,
a gradual suppression of the bodily limbs’ responsibility for transgres-
sion in rabbinic sources will be discussed. Further on, I shall return to
the New Testament and demonstrate that both the Synoptic and the
Pauline treatment of the seat of sin bear testimony to an early stage
of those rabbinic tendencies. And nally, some further developments
in Christian thought after Paul will be briey touched upon.
7
It seems to have been thus understood in the Bible; see S. Schechter, Aspects of
Rabbinic Theology, New York 1961, 260.
8
For a thorough examination of the latter scenario, see S. Lieberman, ‘On Sins
and Their Punishment’, in: idem, Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature, Jerusalem
1991, 70–89 (in Hebrew).
9
For a discussion of this question and bibliography, see R. Davies, ‘The Origin of
Evil in Ancient Judaism,’ Australian Biblical Review 50 (2002), 43–54.
152 chapter six
The latter avenue of investigation will be limited to a few initial

observations. To offer a clearer picture of post-Pauline trends concern-
ing the seat of sin one would have to examine Christian sources from
the second to fourth centuries. An attempt should be made to nd out
to what extent the solutions offered for the problem in Early Christi-
anity—in its attempts at boundary marking vis-à-vis Judaism—were
inuenced by the particular belief in the Messiah’s expiating death
and resurrection. Another possibility should also be checked—namely,
that some older or more general lines of reasoning were adapted to
that end. The question of possible mutual inuences between Jewish
and Christian authors during not only the early formative but also the
later periods needs to be addressed, a question that does not necessar-
ily have a denitive answer.10 All this is well beyond what this chapter
aspires to accomplish.
The sin of the heart
The rst approach to be discussed is the one ascribing to the human

heart/human soul responsibility for sinful inclinations. This heart-
centered approach is thought by some scholars to be the dominant
one in the Jewish thought of late antiquity: it is described by Solomon
Schechter as the true representative of rabbinic theology.11 As noted,
such an impetus to sin is attested already in the Bible, often being com-
bined with the notion of “change of the heart” or turning away from
sin. Ezekiel 18:31; 36:26–27 and Psalms 51:12 provide characteristic
examples, where the “change of heart” is coupled with receiving the
new spirit.12 In rabbinic literature this heart-centered outlook nds its
classical, if relatively late, expression in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana:
10
For an evaluation of the possibility of this kind of inuence see G. Stemberger,
‘Exegetical Contacts between Christians and Jews’, in: M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I, Göttingen 1996, 571–586. From his early
publications, J. Neusner has been advocating the most pessimistic view regarding the
possibility of such contacts. See, for instance, J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism; The
Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran, Leiden 1971, 187. The possible inuence
of the shared general (Greco-Roman) milieu, rather than reciprocal contacts between
Judaism and Christianity, needs also to be taken into consideration. See, for example,
B. L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World, Tübingen 1995, 9.
11
Schechter, Aspects, 243, 255. See also F. C. Porter, ‘The Yecer Hara: A Study in
the Jewish Doctrine of Sin’, in: Biblical and Semitic Studies, New York 1901, 110, 116
and 132–133.
12
See Le Dictionnaire de spiritualité, Paris 1953, 2:1046.
The heart sees, the heart hears, the heart speaks, the heart walks, the heart
falls, . . . the heart is tried, the heart rebels, . . . the heart whispers, . . . the
heart desires, the heart commits adultery, . . . the heart is stolen, . . . the heart
goes astray, . . . the heart hates, the heart is jealous, . . . the heart covets, . . . the
heart is deceitful, the heart schemes, . . . the heart is arrogant.13
As will be shown, seeing, hearing, speaking and walking feature promi-
nently in early descriptions of the physical actions of the serpent and
Eve that led to the Fall. With those descriptions in mind, one may
discern in this section from Pesiq. R. Kah. a polemical note arguing the
heart to be the only true reason for a person’s sins. This heart intuition
is often formulated in rabbinic literature in terms of the yetzer ha-ra,
evil inclination; thus in b. Ned. 32b bodily limbs are presented as suc-
cumbing to the siege laid (on the heart) by the yetzer ha-ra. The evil
inclination is usually combined with an additional notion of the good
inclination, also dwelling in the heart. This construction is found already
in the early strata of rabbinic literature, which suggests that the double
notion of the good/evil inclination was known already in the tannaitic
period: “And thou shalt love Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy
soul and with all thy might. With all thy heart—with both thine impulses, thy
good impulse and thine evil impulse” ( '

) (m.
Ber. 9:5).14 A parallel (and later) notion of two hearts is also attested,
where each heart is a seat of one inclination. Unlike humans, angels
have only one heart, and in messianic times the Israelites will attain
this.15 A complementing list of positive attributes is also ascribed to
the heart in the fragment from Pesiq. R. Kah., quoted above: “. . . the
heart thinks, . . . the heart is humbled, . . . the heart is awake, the heart
loves, the heart accepts words of comfort, . . . the heart receives com-
mandments, etc.”
As Schechter noted, however, the term “evil inclination” ( yetzer [ ha-
]ra) suggested by Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 seems to have been coined at
an earlier stage, while the “good inclination” ( yetzer [ ha-]tov) notion
developed later, forming, together with yetzer ha-ra, the dialectical heart
notion. One of the indications is the use, already in the Scripture
13
Pesiq. Rab Kah. 124a and b (ed. Buber). See Schechter, Aspects, 255–256 and n. 2
there. See also y. Ber. 4.1 [7d]; Cant. R. 1.2; b. Sukk. 52a. See the discussion in Urbach,
The Sages, 471–477.
14
See also b. Ber. 61b; cf. Sifre Deut. 35; Abot R. Nat. 47a.
15
See Gen. R. 48.11 (Vilna); b. Meg. 14a.
154 chapter six
(Deut 31:11), of the noun yetzer alone, without the predicate form of
“evil”, as representing the unreliability of man, the factor responsible
for Israel’s apostasy. Another indication is provided by the Aramaic
targumic tradition, which routinely adds, when translating the word
yetzer, the predicate form of “evil” lacking in the Hebrew original (Tg.
Ps.-J., Deut 31:21; cf. Targum for Ps 103:14).16 It seems highly pos-
sible then that the term yetzer ha-ra predates the New Testament; it has
even been suggested that it was used in its rabbinic sense as early as
in Ben Sira.17 Geert Cohen Stuart, without necessarily denying early
appearances of the term itself, argued alternatively that it is only in
the second century c e that the characteristically rabbinic concept of
evil inclination was formed.18
Within this general tendency to see the heart as the true seat of the
evil inclination, a number of questions are raised in rabbinic sources.
One avenue of discussion explores when the yetzer ha-ra rst affects a
person’s heart. Arguments for the embryonic state are offered, but the
domineering notion is that the evil inclination begins to dwell in the
heart only from the moment of birth.19 The death of small children
then is understood as atonement not only for the sins of their parents20
but possibly also for their own transgressions, since even a small child’s
intentions are basically evil.21 We are not forced to relegate such ideas to
later developments during the time of the Talmud, because Philo was
already not only familiar with them but viewed them as expressed in the
Bible and worthy of allegorization. Thus commenting on Genesis 8:21
(“And the Lord God said: Never again will I curse the earth because of
the deeds of men, for the thought of man is resolutely turned toward
evil[s] from his youth”), Philo suggests that “youth” here stands for the
16
See Schechter, Aspects, 243. It is not impossible that this historical development
inuenced often-repeated statements that the evil inclination of any specic person
is older (by at least 13 years) than his good inclination. See, for example, Abot R. Nat.
32d.
17
See Porter, ‘The Yecer’, 145, who refers to Sir 15:14; 21:11.
18
G. H. Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man between Good and Evil; An Inquiry into the
Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Yeer Hara’, Kampen 1984.
19
With Gen 4:7 (“. . . guilt lies at the door/entrance”) serving as the proof text. See b.
Sanh. 91b; Cf. Gen. R. 34, 10; y. Ber. 3,5 [6d]. An isolated opinion is attested, according
to which yetzer ha-ra begins to grow only from the age of ten; see Tanch. Beresh. 7. See
Urbach, The Sages, 220 and n. 14 there.
20
See b. Sabb. 119b.
21
See y. Ber. 3.1 [6b]. Intentions only, since the child is still unable to perform sinful
deeds. On this point Augustine would gladly have agreed with the Talmud.
“swaddling bands” of the tiny child, while the resulting pitiful state
characterizes the whole life span of an individual.22
A second issue discussed in rabbinic sources is the (supporting) role of
certain bodily parts in causing one to sin. This follows a tendency attested
already in the Bible: while in Job 31:1 the eye seems to be responsible
for a specic transgression (“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how
then could I look upon a virgin?”),23 in Numbers 15:39 it represents
generally—like the heart—sinful intent or desire:
That when they shall see them, they may remember all the command-
ments of the Lord, and not follow their own heart (thoughts) and eyes
going astray after diverse things. They must not let their heart (thoughts)
and eyes wander free, into all manner of unfaithfulness.
Similarly, in rabbinic sources usually the eyes (or eye) are named together
with the heart as co-agents of sin.24 However, side by side with tradi-
tions that presuppose a parallel responsibility between heart and eye as
agents of sin, we nd a related statement ascribed to a tannaitic teacher
that may indicate the rst sinful impulse coming from the heart, the
eyes only following the lead (Sifre Numbers, 115):25
“. . . not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes [which you are
inclined to go after wantonly] (Num 15:39)”: Does this indicate that the
eyes follow the heart or the heart the eyes (

)? Argue in this way: do you not have the case of a blind
man who may perform every despicable deed that the world contains? So
what does Scripture mean when it says, “. . . not to follow after your own
heart and your own eyes which you are inclined to go after wantonly”?
It teaches that the eyes follow the heart.26
The possibility of overcoming the evil inclination dwelling in the heart
is also discussed. Prognoses vary from altogether pessimistic to mildly
optimistic. According to a typically optimistic opinion going back it
seems to tannaitic times, when the words of the Torah manage to nd a
22
Philo, Ques. in. Gen. II.54.
23
Elaborated upon in Abot R. Nathan B 2 (Schechter, 8–9).
24
See, for instance, m. Abot 2:9, 11; cf. ibid., 5:19. See also y. Ber. 4.2 [7d]; cf. b.
Sanh.48a; b. Ber. 20a; b. Zebah. 118b; Num. R. 16. Cf. Matt 20:15. The eye sometimes
also represents greed or envy, which is seen as one of the basic characteristics of the
evil inclination; see m. Abot 2:11.
25
See also Ber. 1.4 [3c].
26
English translation according to J. Neusner, Sifré to Numbers: An American Translation
and Explanation, Atlanta 1986.
156 chapter six
dwelling place in the chambers of the heart and enter and dwell there,
the evil inclination loses its dominion over the person. In principle, then,
yetzer ha-ra, which has possessed the heart since the moment of birth,
can be expelled from the heart and exchanged for quite a different
tenant, the Torah.27 This replacement of the evil inclination with the
Torah, achieved through diligent study and incessant efforts at keeping
the commandments, should not to be confused with the prophetic hope
that God will change man’s heart related to above.
Flesh and bodily limbs
To review other opinions regarding the location of sinful inclination, let

us turn rst to Philo. It goes without saying that Philo’s anthropology
reects opinions widely held in Hellenistic philosophic circles. What
gives this anthropology its specic Jewish coloring is an attempt to
establish a link between a philosophic notion and the Scripture. There
is the whole portion of Philo’s thought where he was concerned with
the divine harmony between the revealed Law and the law installed
by God in the cosmos as well as in humanity; such harmony diffuses
the inner conict of the soul that may often lead to sin.28 It is not this
pattern, however, that is particularly relevant to the present discussion
but rather those lines of reasoning attested in Philo’s treatises where he
addressed the inherent human tendency to rebel against God’s com-
mandment and tried to pinpoint the source of this rebellion.
Writing on the body, senses and mind (head)—the latter being the
seat of heavenly thoughts and self-control—Philo returns to the biblical
account of the double creation of Adam, from dust of the earth and
from God’s spirit, and Eve, followed by the story of their seduction
by the serpent. According to Philo, the serpent allegorically represents
the love of pleasure that rst encounters and has a discourse with the
senses (represented by Eve). Through the senses the serpent cheats the
27
As, for example, in Ab. R. Nat. 15b. The issue is treated in Cohen Stuart, The
Struggle in Man, 60–66. The pessimistic appraisal is discussed in S. Ruzer, ‘The Death
Motif in Late Antique Jewish Teshuva Narrative Patterns and in Paul’s Thought’, in:
Transforming the Inner Self (see Chapter 1, note 24), 151–165.
28
E.g.: De Opicio Mundi 1–3, 17–20, 143–147. See Wolfson, Philo, 192–194. I am
grateful to Francesca Calabi of the University of Milan, who drew my attention to a
number of important statements by Philo in this vein.
mind, the ruling part of the soul, itself.29 Philo believed the mind to
have been seduced prior to the sinful act; at least in some instances,
however, the initial source of this love of pleasure seemed to be located
outside the soul, in the human body as a whole. So Philo, commenting
on Genesis 7:21 (“All esh that moved died [in the ood]”):
Excellently and naturally has [Scripture] spoken of the destruction of
moving esh, for esh moves the sensual pleasures and is moved by sensual
pleasures. But such movements are causes of the destruction of souls,
just as the rules of self-control and patience are the causes of salvation.
(Ques. in Gen. II.22)30
It must be noted, however, that an alternative tendency also is attested
in Philo’s writing, according to which at least the sensations and pas-
sions—if not the physical body itself—are necessary to men, i.e. to the
proper functioning of the mind. The mistake or sin is seen then as
derived not from the body/the sensations but from their wrong treat-
ment by the mind (e.g., Leg. All. II.38). Yet the negative evaluation of
the esh in general, which seems to remain dominant in Philo, may be
likewise found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Thus, in T. Zeb. 9
the negative evaluation of the esh is combined—without any attempt
at harmonization—with the notion of the exclusive responsibility of the
head: “Do not be divided into two heads, because everything the Lord
has made has a single head. He provides two shoulders, two hands,
two feet, but all members obey(!) one head . . . Since they are esh . . . the
spirits of deceit had led them astray”.
It may be added, following Ephraim Urbach, that an extreme dual-
istic anthropology similar to Philo’s was adopted not only by Josephus
(e.g., War III.8, 5; VII.8, 7) but also by at least some of the Tannaim,
who, according to a later witness, applied, to man the saying, “Shake
off the salt and throw the meat to the dog” claiming that the salt stands
here for the soul, God’s share, the meat for the body—the parents’
share (b. Nid. 31a).31 Existence of a schism between the components of
humanity (be it a di-partite or a tri-partite division, similar to what is
found in Philo—Plato) has long been recognized by students of rab-
binical literature.32 However, this idea of an anthropological schism,
29
See Ques. in Gen. II.54; De Opicio Mundi 165.
30
Cf. Spec. Leg. IV.187–188.
31
Cf. b. Nid. 16b. See Urbach, The Sages, 218, 331.
32
See Urbach, The Sages, 220. Sometimes the division, in the Talmud and in the
158 chapter six
which blamed man’s body for the sins he committed, was seen by some
teachers as problematic. A rst-century Tanna is claimed to have spoken
of the whole person (body and soul) as standing before the heavenly
Judge (m. Abot 3:1), and a polemical statement attributed to Hillel in b.
Ab. Zar. 27b reads that it is exactly man’s body that constitutes the image
of God.33 Attempts at harmonization of the anthropological schism
were not lacking, and a solution of shared responsibility was suggested
in the following dialogue found in the Talmud:
The body and soul can free themselves from judgment. How? The body
can say: It is the soul that sinned, for since the day that it left me, I lie still
as a stone in the grave. And the soul can say: The body has sinned, for
since the day I left it, I y in the air like a bird, lame and blind. . . . Even
so the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the soul and casts it into the body
and judges them as one. (b. Sanh. 9Ia–b)34
The above harmonization is similar to that proposed by Philo, who not
only sees the soul as approached by sin through the body but states
that the soul and even its upper part, the mind itself, are united with
the sinful esh and, therefore, tainted by sin. Consequently, “the Law
prescribes purication for both the body and the soul”.35
Alongside the attitude that views humanity’s being esh as the rst
cause of its sinfulness, the body as a whole as the abode of sin, Philo
sometimes also located sinful desire specically in certain parts of the
body. Philo’s argument was presented as an interpretation of the bibli-
cal account in Genesis 3:14–15, where the issue is the peculiar bodily
structure of the serpent. Philo claimed that the belly, the only remaining
external organ of the serpent, represented the seat of the inclination
to seek pleasure, the source of sin:
The serpent spoken of is a t symbol of pleasure because in the rst
place he is an animal without feet sunk prone upon his belly. . . . The
lover of pleasure . . . is so weighted and dragged downwards that it is
with difculty that he lifts up his head, thrown down and tripped up by
intemperance . . . causing the cravings of the belly to burst out and fanning
Midrash, is not of body vs. soul but that of bodily functions vs. heavenly attributes:
man is said to be like the beasts with regard to eating, drinking, propagating, relieving
himself, and dying. See Gen. R. 14.3; b. Hag. 16a; cf. Gen. R. 8.11.
33
See Urbach, The Sages, 226–227.
34
See Urbach, The Sages, 223.
35
Spec. Leg. I.259; II.251. See also Spec. Leg. I.314, III.86, 89.
them into ame, make the man a glutton, while they also stimulate and
stir up the stings of his sexual lusts. (De Opicio Mundi 157–163)36
It may be surmised that Philo was familiar with the story of the serpent
being deprived of other bodily limbs after his transgression. Cutting
off the serpent’s legs, suggested by the biblical account itself in Genesis
3:14, was elsewhere interpreted by Philo as “dissolution and paralysis”
of the whole body as the result of the belly’s dominion over it. The
belly is presented here as the worst enemy of the rest of the bodily
parts, causing their paralysis/amputation:
And it is the custom of adversaries that through that which they bestow
as gifts they cause great harm, such as defectiveness of vision to the eyes,
and difculty of hearing to the ears, and insensibility to the other (sense
organs); and they bring upon the whole body dissolution and paralysis
taking away all its health. (Ques. in Gen. I.48)
The amputation motif receives a different twist in the Apocalypsis Mosis,
where not the belly the serpent is left with but the limbs that were
dismembered as punishment are said to be the means of the serpent’s
ensnaring:
Accursed art you beyond all wild beasts. You shall be deprived of your
hands as well as your feet. There shall be left for you neither ear nor wing
nor one limb of all that with which you enticed them in your depravity
and caused them to be cast out of Paradise. (Ap. Mos. 26)
The origin and sources of the Apocalypsis Mosis is admittedly a disputed
issue. Most scholars, admitting Christian editing, speak of traditional
Jewish material used widely by the author(s). The fragment in ques-
tion has no distinct Christian elements, so there is reason to believe
that we have here an example of (per)using an older midrash.37 It has
been alternatively argued—most forcefully by Michael Stone—that the
absence of Christian elements in a text does not necessarily classify it
as Jewish.38 The question remains open; but whatever the particular
milieu in which the Apoc. Mos. in its present form initially circulated,
what is important for the present discussion is that the text bears witness
to a certain development in the tendency—found already in Philo—to
36
Cf. Ques. in Gen. I.31; Ebr. 22; Spec. Leg. I.150; Leg. All. I.70; III.114.
37
See Johnson, ‘Life of Adam and Eve: An Introduction’, in: The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, 1:249.
38
M. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, Atlanta 1992, 42–70.
160 chapter six
see a connection between the serpent’s sinful nature, his punishment

(curse) by God in Genesis 3 and the resulting form of his body. It will
be seen right away that advanced stages of this development—whoever
incorporated it into the Apoc. Mos.—may be discerned in later rabbinic
midrash.
The basic structure of the story contains two main elements: the act
of cutting off the limbs and the explanation for the deed. There can
be little doubt that the amputation motif itself clearly belongs to the
category of traditional midrashic material; as noted, it is suggested by
the biblical account itself, is hinted at by Philo and resurfaces in dif-
ferent strata of the midrash dealing with Genesis 3:14–15, e.g., Genesis
Rabbah 20.5.39 On the other hand, the justication for the amputation
proposed by the Apoc. Mos. differs both from that of Philo and that of
the Genesis Rabbah. I would venture to suggest that in the Apoc. Mos.
the justication motif is one superimposed on the story—as the text
stands, it is not at all clear why the serpent’s wings and not his tongue
are among the punished limbs. However, as will be seen, the motif of
legs, hands etc., being inciters of sin does reappear, mutatis mutandis, in
a later midrash. First, however, let us take a closer look at the story
told in the Apoc. Mos.:
16 And the devil spoke to the serpent, saying, “Rise and come to me, and
I will tell you something to your advantage”. Then the serpent came to
him, and the devil said to him, “I hear you are wiser than all the beasts;
so I came to observe you. I found you greater than all the beasts, and
they associate with you . . . Why [then] do you eat of the weeds of Adam
and not of the fruit of Paradise? Rise and come and let us make him to
be cast out of Paradise through his wife . . .”. The serpent said to him,
“I fear lest the Lord be wrathful to me”. The devil said to him, “Do not
fear; only become my vessel, and I will speak a word through your mouth
by which you will be able to deceive him”.
18 Then the serpent said to me, “May God live! For I am grieved over
you, that you are like animals. For I do not want you to be ignorant;
but rise, come and eat, and observe the glory of the tree”. And I said to
him, “I fear lest God be angry with me, just as he told us”. He said to
me, “Fear not; for at the very time you eat, your eyes will be opened and you
39
Cf. Pirke R. El. 14 (Friedlander, 99). Note the later tradition clearly discriminating
between the punishment of the serpent and that of the devil in Pirke R. El. 12. Gen.
R. seems to preserve an earlier version of the midrashic elaboration: there are as yet
no attempts to justify the particular form of punishment. Justication attempts usually
characterize more developed forms of a tradition.
will be like gods, knowing good and evil . . .”. And I said to him, “It [the tree]
is pleasing to consider with the eyes”; yet I was afraid to take the fruit.
And he said to me, “Come, I will give it to you. Follow me”.
19 And I opened (the gate) for him, and he entered into Paradise,
passing through in front of me. After he had walked for a while, he
turned and said to me . . . wishing in the end to entice and ruin me. . . . For
covetousness is the origin of every sin. And I bent the branch towards
the earth, took of the fruit, and ate . . .
21 And I cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Adam, Adam, where
are you? Rise, come to me and I will show you a great mystery”. And
when your father came . . . I opened my mouth and the devil was speak-
ing, and I began to admonish him, saying, “Come, my lord Adam, listen
to me, and eat of the fruit of the tree of which God told us not to eat
from it, and you shall be as God”. Your father answered and said, “I
fear lest God be angry with me”. And I said to him, “Do not fear . . .”.
Then I quickly persuaded him. He ate and his eyes were opened, and
he also realized his nakedness. And he said to me, “O evil woman! Why
have you wrought destruction among us? You have estranged me from
the glory of God”.
32 Then Eve rose and went out and fell on the ground and said, “I
have sinned, O God . . . I have sinned much . . . and all sin in creation has
come through me”.
The structure of the narrative has two outstanding features: the intro-
duction (in addition to the serpent) of the gure of the devil40 and the
striking symmetry between the behavior of the serpent and that of
Eve. The devil addresses the serpent, who is fearful at rst (16), and in
a like manner the serpent addresses Eve, who also expresses her fear
(18). The devil appeals to the serpent’s supposed inferior status and calls
upon him to “rise over himself ” (16); in a similar fashion the serpent
manipulates Eve (18)—it is worth noting that in both manipulations the
issue seems to be the quality of the food supply! The serpent “speaks
words of the devil” (18) and Eve does the same (21). The serpent walks
in the garden—his legs are among the auxiliaries of his snare—and
draws Eve after him (19); in like fashion Eve draws Adam after herself
(21), etc. The story, then, strongly suggests that Eve’s guilt parallels
the serpent’s; Eve declares that “all sin in creation has come about
through me” (32). Moreover, in the text as it stands now, some elements
of the serpent’s punishment—e.g., cutting off of the hands (26)—may
be properly understood only if we see them as a punishment betting
40
And elsewhere also angels; see Apoc. Mos. 13; cf. Gen. R. 20.5 and Pirqe R. El. 13
(Friedlander, 91–96).
162 chapter six
Eve—it is Eve who confesses that she “bent the branch toward the
earth, took the fruit, and ate” (19).
Eve escapes amputation in the Apocalypsis Mosis, but the amputation
does take place—and this time not as a punishment but as a preventive
measure—in the famous midrashic description of Eve’s creation:
I will not create her from [Adam’s] head, lest she be swelled-headed;
nor from the ear, lest she be an eavesdropper; nor from the mouth, lest
she be a gossip; nor from the heart, lest she be prone to jealousy; nor
from the hand, lest she be light-ngered; nor from the foot, lest she be
a gadabout; but from the modest part of man, for even when he stands
naked, that part is covered. (Gen. R. 18, 2)
It is clear that Adam’s limbs and, by extension, Eve’s are the real source
of sin here; each of those limbs is the abode of a particular evil inclina-
tion, and they must therefore not be employed at all in further creation
and not merely punished afterward.41 We see that the underpinnings
of the amputation motif may be discerned already in the Apoc. Mos.,
and the motif is re-used (adapted) later in rabbinic Midrash. One may
view this later appropriation as an additional corroboration of this
motif ’s Jewish origin; but even if the process of transition included
some Christian stages—or Jewish-Christian or whatever gray areas,
defying denition, might have existed—we may speak of a meaningful
hermeneutical tradition concerning Genesis 2–3 that for a long period
of time had a particular function—i.e., was called up to meet certain
religious needs and had an impact on the development of rabbinic
thought.42
In sum: In a number of texts reviewed in this section the source of
temptation is located neither in the soul/heart nor in the esh in gen-
eral but in specic bodily parts. Sometimes it is one particularly sinful
member: the belly’s role has been highlighted, but of course other limbs
also are portrayed as the main culprits—one such natural candidate is
the sexual organ (as, for example, in b. Sukk. 52b.). In still other cases
different limbs are presented as responsible for different temptations.
The latter motif is especially relevant for the discussion that follows.
One more remark: It should not be overlooked that in the rabbinic
literature, altogether different developments are also attested. This
41
Although in the end, according to the continuation of the same midrash, all
preemptive measures prove insufcient!
42
Cf. remark in J. A. Sanders, ‘From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4’, in: J. Neusner (ed.),
Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Leiden 1975, 75.
multifaceted literature offers many examples of a positive evaluation

of bodily limbs in general and specic limbs in particular. In b. Šabb.
151a–b, for example, even the sexual organ gets a positive evaluation,
whereas castration—and baldness—is viewed negatively.43
Limbs and their temptations
Let us now concentrate on a particular sub-development of the tradition

that sees different limbs as responsible for different temptations. This
sub-development found expression in the composing of lists of guilty
bodily parts. A later and modied expression of this trend is attested
in the tractate Makkot of the Babylonian Talmud by the name of R.
Simlai (3rd century): The sum total of 613 Torah commandments is
subdivided into 248 positive precepts, which correspond to the 248
parts of the human body, and 365 negative precepts, paralleling the
number of days in the solar year.44 The meaning of the number 365
is explained by the suggestion that Satan every day tries to entrap
man and cause him to transgress a commandment. It might be argued
that the limbs in this talmudic passage, being connected with positive
commandments only, do not belong to the realm of Satan, the realm
of temptations and transgressions. At rst glance it may seem to be a
completely different tendency from that discerned above in the Apoc.
Mos. and the tradition on the creation of Eve from the Genesis Rabbah.
However, on closer inspection the connection suggested here with the
positive precepts presents itself as secondary.
Thus the fact that the same total number of limbs, 248, is mentioned
in the Mishnah45 without any connection to the Torah commandments
led Urbach to conclude that the connection of the body parts with the
positive precepts attested in the Talmud is the result of a later develop-
ment. He further suggested that it was the earlier knowledge—from
existing medical treatises—of the number of the bodily limbs and the
idea that every limb, as well as every day of the year, needs a precept
“that led to the xing of the exact number six hundred and thirteen”.46
43
See also b. Bek. 44a–45b.
44
See b. Mak. 23b. It is the earliest extant Jewish source that speaks of the sum total
of 613 commandments.
45
See m. Ohol. 1:8.
46
Urbach, The Sages, 342–343.
164 chapter six
Following Urbach, one may note that in the Talmud itself, side by side
with this later development, a residual tradition is attested where the
limbs are still associated with transgressions. For example, in b. Ned. 32b,
Satan, the numerical value of whose Hebrew name, we are informed,
is 364, is connected with the days of the year and with the negative
commandments—exactly as in the section from b. Makkot discussed
above. It is Abraham, the numerical value of whose name is 248, who
represents in this passage the positive precepts; however, it is explained
that at rst his name was Abram (numerical value 243) and only later
was he given the additional letter he (numerical value 5). With the he
Abraham gained mastery over the ve additional limbs: two eyes, two
ears and the membrum (

,
, ), “which
entice one to immorality”. It is clear, then, that what Abraham was
granted here was the power to resist the temptations having their abode
in those ve limbs, temptations that had led and would lead men to
transgress the Torah’s negative precepts.
Would it be too far-fetched to suppose that what Abraham had at
his disposal before attaining his new level of self-control was the abil-
ity to suppress sinful desires of the rest of the members of his body?
Such a hypothesis—that this Talmudic section bears witness to an older
layer of tradition where limbs were viewed as seats of temptations—is
corroborated by Abot R. Nat. 32a, where it is stated unequivocally that
all 248 organs are ruled by the evil inclination! It is telling that even
Schechter, notwithstanding his eagerness to demonstrate that according
to the rabbis the real drama goes on within man’s heart, had to agree
that according to the passage from Abot R. Nat., the heart in itself seems
no more corrupt than the rest of the 248 bodily organs.47
Combining this with the evidence supplied by additional talmudic
sources where there is a clear parallel between the actions of the evil
inclination and that of the limbs (both yetzer ha-ra and the limbs are said
to seduce a man in this world and testify against him in the world to
come),48 we may conclude that the development of the motif of count-
ing the limbs bears witness to the survival of the ambivalent evaluation
of the limbs’ character and function in the Jewish tradition of late
antiquity. The suggestion may be raised that the later modication of
this motif—in which the limbs became connected exclusively with the
47
Schechter, Aspects, 257.
48
E.g., b. Taoan. 11a; b. Suk. 52b.
positive commandments—was a reaction of sorts to the opposite trend

to see in the bodily members the source of every possible transgression
of the Torah’s negative precepts. This reaction seems to go hand in hand
with putting ever greater stress on the heart or mind or soul as respon-
sible for sinful inclinations, as the seat of the evil inclination. The same
gradual suppression of the bodily responsibility for transgressions may
be discerned in the halakhic developments of the early tannaitic period
as expressed in the rulings on some technical aspects of the execution of
hard criminals. As shown by Moshe Halbertal, these halakhic develop-
ments were characterized by a transition from prescribing an execution
that punishes the body to prescribing an execution that punishes the
soul but leaves the body intact. According to Halbertal, during that
period in certain circles the human body was strongly associated with
the concept of the image of God, so any considerable harm to it as a
result of a proper halakhic procedure became unthinkable.49
Exterior sources of sin
This review of the trends concerning the seat of sin would be decient
without mention of one additional idea attested in Jewish sources of the
Second Temple period and continuing on to late antiquity—namely, the
notion of the exterior source of sin. Genesis 3 and, even more emphatically,
the apocryphal story of Adam and Eve contained this exterior element:
the transference of the guilt from Adam to Eve to the serpent (and
further to the devil), characteristic, as duly noted above, of that group
of traditions. This transference, featuring prominently in the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs,50 is also indicated in the rabbinic sources. Thus
in Sifre Deut. 323 we read:
R. Nehemiah applied it (“For their vine is the vine of Sodom; their grapes
are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter”, Deut 32:32) to the nations
49
See Chapter 2, note 40 and discussion there. Possible links of Halbertal’s con-
clusions with the schemes developed in the present chapter warrant further inves-
tigation.
50
The question of a distinct Jewish stage in the history of the T. 12 Patr. remains
open. However, almost unanimous agreement suggests that the material included
in the book “was partly taken directly from the OT and partly derived from Jewish
sources and Haggadic (sic!) traditions”. (H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, Leiden 1985, 84). See note 38 above and
the discussion there.
166 chapter six
of the world: you are certainly of the vine of Sodom and of planting
of Gomorrah. You are the disciples of the primeval serpent that caused
Adam and Eve to go astray (

). Their clusters are bitter—the gall of the great ones among
them is spread out in them like a serpent.51
The following talmudic tradition elaborates further on the same motif,
explaining the nature of the difference between the nations and Israel
and the persistence of the serpent’s snare even in the latter (b. Šabb.
146a):
The serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her (
):
[as for] the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness departed;
the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness did not
depart. R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi. What about proselytes (
)? Though they were not present, their guiding stars (
) were
present, as it is written, [ Neither with you only do I make this covenant
and this oath], but with him that stands here with us this day before
the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day.
Now he differs from R. Abba b. Kahana, for R. Abba b. Kahana said:
Until three generations the lustful [strain] did not disappear from our
Patriarchs (

): Abraham begat Ishmael, Isaac
begat Esau, [but] Jacob begat the twelve tribes in whom there was no
taint whatsoever.
Concerning the human predicament, the perception attested here is one
of, in the words of Schechter, “a certain quasi-external agency . . . re-
sponsible for sin”, whilst man’s own “spontaneous nature” seems to be
tailored to live in accordance with God’s will.52 Yet attempts at annulling
the tension between the external and internal factors are also not lack-
ing, as the following statement equating the evil inclination with Satan
amply demonstrates. It is found in b. Baba Bath. 16a side by side with
descriptions of Satan as belonging to a different, non-human, sphere:

:" . (“Resh Lakish said:
Satan, the evil prompter, and the Angel of Death are all one”.).
When, however, the notion of an external source of temptation
is unequivocally expressed, it may be another human being—with a
woman as the usual culprit—or evil spirits (spirits of Beliar), both highly
developed motifs in T. 12 Patr.53 The situation is similar in the Dead
51
Cf. b. Ber. 61a; b. Erub. 18a.
52
Schechter, Aspects, 263.
53
For the former see especially, T. Jud. 13; T. Reub. 5; for a recent reassessment of
Sea Scrolls. Paul Garnet summarized the two central features of the
Qumranic idea regarding the source of sin as follows: “[1 ] In Qumranic
texts a parallel is established between sin and illness; sin is contagious
and contact with sinners is to be avoided (sinners make others to sin);
[2] Another cause of sinful behavior is the activity of evil spirits. It is
not clear whether the ultimate destiny of the wicked is annihilation or
eternal punishment, but the eternal punishment of evil spirits is more
certain”.54 According to the Testaments, the inuence of the evil spirits
is to be fought either through the self-training of the person’s mind (as
in T. Benj. 3) or with the help of the angel of peace, who intervenes in
order to guide the person’s soul (T. Benj. 6). In the Testament of Simeon
(3.1) we are presented with a nuanced picture. Spirits of deceit and
envy rule over the entire mind of man, while the rst three on the list
of the evil spirits are described as having their seat in the body: impurity
is seated in the nature and senses, insatiable desire in the belly, belliger-
ence in the liver and the gall.55 At least in some Qumranic texts the
issue of the internal struggle against the sinful inuence from outside
seems to be overshadowed by a keen interest in redening the exact
nature of sin, conditioned by a newly revealed, true interpretation of
Torah precepts (vis-à-vis previous stages of relative ignorance).56
Preliminary results
A number of different trends regarding the seat of sin in Jewish religious

thought of the Second Temple period up to late antiquity have thus far
been reviewed. We have seen that in addition to the idea of external
the issue see I. Rosen-Zvi, ‘Bilhah the Temptress: The Testament of Reuben and “The
Birth of Sexuality” ’, The Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006), 65–94. For the latter see
T. Benj. 3, 6; T. Issa. 3; T. Reub. 2. Cf. 1 Enoch 6; 10:7: “And the whole earth has been
deled through the teaching of the works of Azazel; to him ascribe all sin”.
54
P. Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls, Tubingen 1977, 114.
55
See Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments, 94. As noted, the same obvious con-
nection with the belly is also found in Philo (Ques. in Gen. I.48).
56
See G. A. Anderson, ‘Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls’,
in: D. P. Wright (ed.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells; Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near
Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 49–64.
Cf. Tertullian’s (On Repentance 3) readiness to allow that there are sins that “are
imputed to chance, or to necessity, or to ignorance”, combined with his insistence on
the central role of the will in all other cases of either ghting the sin or submitting
to its demands. See A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand
Rapids 1978, 3:659.
168 chapter six
factors causing man to sin, a variety of ideas concerning the inner loca-
tion of the yetzer ha-ra exists. In some texts—such as T. Zeb. 9 quoted
above—different and conicting ideas are presented side by side, while
in others attempts at harmonization may be discerned. For the sake of
clarity three basic—different, but not necessarily disconnected—theses
may be formulated:
a) The heart (mind, soul) is the seat of temptation. Transgression is
committed by the heart. The organs depend on the heart’s decisions.
The ght is fought in the heart. In rabbinic terminology: one is
exhorted to substitute Torah for the evil inclination as the “tenant”
of the heart. According to the T. 12 Patr., the angel of peace will
guard one’s soul.
b) Humanity’s esh is the rst cause of sinfulness. One’s body ignites
the process of temptation, and only at some later stage does the
heart/soul/mind succumb to temptation. It is with the heart’s con-
sent that the sinful inclination is realized in an appropriate action.
c) Different sinful inclinations have their abode in different limbs of the
body. The sum total of the limbs (with the addition of the days of
the solar year) corresponds to the sum total of the Torah’s positive
and negative precepts. The limbs not only perform sinful deeds but
are the true inciters of sin; therefore, not the punishment of the
limbs in the Gehenna but rather their preventive amputation or
non-creation is called for.
It has been suggested that in some cases the notion connecting sins with
limbs belongs to an early layer of tradition, overshadowed further on
by heart/soul-centered concepts. But in contrast to the corresponding
halakhic developments, these heart-centered tendencies do not fully
suppress the limb-centered ones, which are still found not only in
Pseudepigrapha but also in later layers of rabbinic literature. There are
indications that both traditions, of limbs and of heart responsibility,
existed side by side in the early tannaitic and even in the pre-Christian
period, although their fully developed forms are usually attested only in
later midrashic tradition. In some cases, earlier stages of those develop-
ments may be reconstructed, even when the extant textual evidence for
such reconstruction is lacking.
New Testament evidence
Let us now return to the New Testament, rst to the Synoptics. It

has already been noted that one of the conicting notions discussed
above—namely, that the heart is responsible for sin—is reected in the
Sermon on the Mount. It is further forcefully expressed in Matthew
15:17–19, where the heart is claimed to be the sole source of a person’s
evil thoughts and of evil deeds resulting from evil thoughts:
17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the
stomach, and so passes on? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds
from the heart, and this deles a man. 19 For out of the heart come evil
thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.
The important link between sin and delement that is clearly present
here is beyond the scope of this investigation. Sufce it to say that
Jesus’ stance on the deling power of sin as different but no less real
than ritual impurities has been discussed in the research vis-à-vis other
roughly contemporaneous perceptions attested, e.g., in Philo, Qumran
and early tannaitic traditions.57 Bart Koet analyzed the attitude toward
the existing system of Jewish purity in Luke-Acts and suggested a
nuanced appraisal of Jesus’ stance in the double treatise: Jesus is rep-
resented—in accordance with Luke’s general tendency to afrm delity
to the Torah—as cautious to avoid impurity. Yet the transgressions of
impurity are seen as less ominous than sins of some other kinds, and
considerations of purity may be sacriced for the sake of performing
what are perceived as more important religious obligations.58
As for the heart being the true culprit, we also nd the Synoptics
stating alternatively that the body as a whole, the esh, is the seat of
sin,59 as well as specifying which particular limbs are perceived as the
source of temptation. At the beginning of the chapter a reference was
made to Matthew 5:29–30, where the eye or the hand was blamed as
the inciter of sin. A discussion of the meaning of the choosing of this
57
See J. Klawans, ‘The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism’, Journal of
Jewish Studies 48 (1997), 14–16. See also T. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah; Was Jesus
Indifferent to Impurity? Stockholm 2002.
58
B. J. Koet, ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke-Acts’, in: M. J. H. M.
Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness, Leiden 2000, 93–106.
59
Matt 26:41: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit
indeed is willing, but the esh is weak”. Cf. Mark 14:38; Luke 22:46.
170 chapter six
or that particular member as the source of lustful inclinations cannot

be entered into here—one may consult the Davies-Allison commentary
for a review of possible interpretations.60 Instructive later evidence is
found in Mekhilta R. Simeon: “Why is (lo) tinoaf ( , [do not] commit
adultery) a four-letter word? Because it is possible to commit adultery
by foot, by hand, by eye and by heart”.61 What is important for the
present discussion is the obvious presence of the amputation motif in
Matthew 5:29–30: the limb is to be cut off as a preventive measure
in order to escape Gehenna. It likewise deserves notice that the use
of the word vɗƭưƳ (limb) in the Gospels is restricted to this Matthean
passage.
It may also be of some interest that in the course of the further
discussion in the above Mekhilta passage, the eye and the heart function
as synonyms (of intent), thus reducing the number of components in
the list to three: hand, foot and eye/heart. This is evidently also the
case with Matthew 18:8, which supplies an additional example of the
amputation motif with a fuller list of limbs:
If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble (ƴƬƣƮƦƣƭɛƨƧƫ),62 cut it
off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame
then to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal re.
And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it
is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to
be thrown into the hell (ƥɗƧƮƮƣƮ) of re.63
Although the discourse in Matthew 18 includes, at least in some manu-
scripts, a reference to the Son of Man (Matt 18:11),64 and the role of
Jesus himself is greatly emphasized there (Matt 18:20), the saying in
Matthew 18:8 itself is devoid of any messianic connotations. Moreover,
it has a clear parallel in the Sermon on the Mount, in a passage that is
generally believed to belong to the earliest stratum of the Gospel tradi-
tion and may possibly go back to the early days of Jesus’ mission.65 My
60
Davies-Allison, Matthew, 1:524–527.
61
Mek. R. Sim. on Exodus, Ithro 20 (Hoffman’s edition, 111). See also Pesiq. Rab. 24.
62
The Hebrew equivalent is most probably (mezannah). See, for instance, Num.
Rab. (Vilna) 17. 5 (
. . .
, “the heart and the eyes . . . cause the
body to stumble”). Cf. b. Ber. 20a; Tanh. (Warsaw) Shelah 15.
63
It is not impossible that the idea of two eyes here is a parallel to that of two
hearts mentioned earlier.
64
On the variety of possible meanings of this title in the Gospels, see Flusser, Jesus,
124–133.
65
See, for instance, Viviano, ‘Matthew,’ 639.
suggestion, therefore, is that the appearance of the amputation advice

and the tension between blaming the heart and seeing bodily limbs as
the seat of sin, attested side by side in the Synoptics, reect the Second
Temple period plurality of existing Jewish approaches reviewed earlier.
The testimony of the Synoptics with its rst-century dating corroborates
the descriptions found in Philo and the pseudepigrapha. The Synoptic
material, then, provides here an important missing link in the history
of the development of both the heart- and limb-centered traditions,
lling the void between their earlier forms and the more developed
modications attested in rabbinic literature.
Alongside those two tendencies, which were held in tension, the
Synoptics also bear testimony to alternative evaluations of the source
of sin—such as blaming an external agent. Thus in the discourse in
Matthew 18:6–7 as well as in its Synoptic parallels,66 another person
acts as the blamed external agent. A believer is compared here to a
small child, and for him, it seems, the danger comes from outside:
But, whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,
it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his
neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for
temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to
that man by whom the temptation comes!
Alternative Synoptic evidence suggests that, at least in some cases—as,
for example, in Matthew 12:43–45 (= Luke 11:24–26)—the external
agents of sin are evil spirits that cause man to stumble. Although the
Qumran literature may offer a number of illuminating parallels, it is
still not clear to what extent the Gospel traditions establish a connection
between sin, evil spirits and sickness. The issue is a complicated one
and demands further study. At least sometimes—e.g., Matthew 8:2–15
(cf. Targum on Isa 53:4)—the above connection is ignored. Without
attempting a denitive answer to this question, one may note that when
the Synoptics adopt the motif of evil spirits, they seemingly make use
of traditional material. Even when the spirits’ task is to make Christo-
logical statements (as, for example, in Luke 4:40–41; cf. Mark 1:32–34),
the Synoptic parallels make it possible to reconstruct the earlier layer
of the tradition, where the demon theme was still divorced from the
messianic one (see Matt 8:16–17).
66
See Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1–2.
172 chapter six
The seat of sin in Pauline epistles
Let us now address Paul’s stance on the question of the seat of sin. It
turns out that also Paul’s thinking on the subject is characterized by an
unresolved variety of approaches: sometimes, e.g., in Romans 2:5, it is
the heart that is pinpointed as the only real culprit; in other cases, e.g.,
Romans 7:14, it is the esh that is to blame. The apostle’s appraisal of
the role of the bodily limbs deserves special attention. It is instructive
that in certain contexts Paul assigns the limbs a positive role; the very
diversity of bodily members, including the weak and unimportant ones,
then symbolizes the desired diversity of the members of the Church,
who collectively represent the body of Christ.67
In other, more ambivalent, references the limbs are presented
with two options: either to succumb to sin or to become “vessels of
righteousness”.68 I will focus on a series of sayings in Romans 7–8 where
the limbs are depicted as the seat of unlawful passions:
7:1 Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know
the Torah/law—that the law (ȭ ƮɝvưƳ) is binding on a person only during
his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as
long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law
concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulter-
ess if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her
husband dies she is free from that law (ǰƱɜ Ƶư˃ Ʈɝvưƶ) . . . . 4 Likewise,
my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so
that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the
dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 While we were living in
the esh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members (ȀƮ
ƵưʴƳ vɗƭƧƴƫƮ ȍvːƮ) to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are discharged
from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not
under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit . . . 14 We
know that the law is spiritual (ƱƮƧƶvƣƵƫƬɝƳ); but I am carnal (ƴɕƲƬƫƮɝƳ),
sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do
what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do
not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that
do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good
dwells within me, that is, in my esh. I can will what is right, but I can-
not do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want
67
See 1 Cor 12:12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25–27; Rom 12:4–5. Cf. 1 Cor 6:15: “Do
you know that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members
of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid”.
68
See, for example, Rom 6:13, 19.
is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that

do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I nd it to be a law that
when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law
of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members (ȀƮ ƵưʴƳ vɗƭƧƴƫƮ vưƶ)
another law ( ȅƵƧƲưƮ ƮɝvưƮ) at war with the law of my mind and making me captive
to the law of sin (ȀƮ Ƶˑ Ʈɝvˎ ƵʦƳ ǱvƣƲƵɛƣƳ) which dwells in my members. 24
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God [– it is done] through Jesus Christ our Lord! So
then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my esh I serve
the law of sin (Ʈɝvˎ ǱvƣƲƵɛƣƳ) . . .
8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal
bodies . . . 13 for if you live according to the esh you will die, but if by
the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
What follows is an attempt to reassess the structure of Paul’s reasoning
vis-à-vis more general tendencies in Jewish thought, discussed above.
When the apostle speaks of salvation (as in Rom 7:25) or, further, of
the Spirit of God coming to dwell in man’s heart/mind as the result
of Jesus’ resurrection (8:11, 13), his reasoning is explicitly informed by
his very particular belief in Jesus’ salvic resurrection.69 Alternatively,
when he describes the general (inter alia, his own?) human condition,
including the lack of adequate inner resources for overcoming sin and
thus the need for intervention from outside, there is a much stronger
probability that he is making use of traditional material. For example,
this is how Joseph Fitzmyer perceives Paul’s reasoning here:
Paul describes the moral experience of the Ego faced with the law,
depicting it as a battle between the Ego of esh dominated by sin and
the spiritual law of God [toward which the mind/heart—nous/cardia is
naturally inclined—S.R.] . . . The Ego nds itself on both sides and is torn
by the division.70
If so, we may observe that what Paul describes in Romans 7–8 is, in
a sense, a variation of the rabbinic double-inclination notion. The
important difference, however, is that in the epistle the evil inclination
is said not to belong initially to the very same heart/mind but to be
imposed on the mind from the outside (7:17, 20). Moreover, the oppo-
sition in verses 8:11 and 8:13 seems to indicate that the self-imposing
evil impulse is understood as a spirit, the spirit (the Ego according to
69
See Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 135.
70
J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The
Anchor Bible, New York 1971, 473.
174 chapter six
Fitzmyer) of the esh living according to its nature. One of the illu-
minating parallels from the Dead Sea Scrolls that may be pointed out
is from the Community Rule:71
15 From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be.
Before they existed he made all their plans 16 and when they came into
being they will execute all their works in compliance with his instructions,
according to his glorious design without altering anything. In his hand
are 17 the laws of all things and he supports them in all their needs. He
created man to rule 18 the world and placed within him two spirits so
that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation: they are
the spirits of truth and of deceit. 20 In the hand of the Prince of Lights
is dominion over all the sons of justice; they walk on paths of light. And
in the hand of the Angel 21 of Darkness is total dominion over the sons
of deceit; they walk on paths of darkness. Due to the Angel of Darkness
22 all the sons of justice stray, and all their sins, their iniquities, their fail-
ings and their mutinous deeds are under his dominion 23 in compliance
with the mysteries of God, until his moment; and all their punishments
and their periods of grief are caused by the dominion of his enmity; 24
and all the spirits of their lot cause the sons of light to fall. However, the
God of Israel and the angel of his truth assist all 25 the sons of light.
He created the spirits of light and of darkness and on them established
all his deeds 26 [on their p]aths all his labours ‘and on their paths [all]
his [ labours.]’. God loved one of them for all. (1QS 3:15–26)
We have seen that the external agent idea is found not only in Qumran
but also in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; as noted, in Romans
7–8 it receives an interesting twist: the spirit of sin, which takes hold
of the Ego, does emerge from outside the nous/cardia but not from
outside the body.72
As noted in Chapter 5, efforts have been made to show that Paul
in Romans 7 meant law as natural law or the law of the pagans, but
these arguments have proved unconvincing. Fitzmyer represents many
scholars today in arguing that the law Paul was referring to in this
part of Romans is the Torah—“the law given to Moses for the Jew-
ish people”.73 This is unequivocally indicated by, among other verses,
Romans 7:1–3. I would like to suggest further that in the context of
71
See also IQS 4:1–20. For further references, see Fitzmyer, Romans, 465–466.
72
Cf. T. Sim. 3.1.
73
Fitzmyer, Romans, 463–464, 468ff. Stanley Stowers (A Rereading of Romans, New
Haven & London 1994, 137–139, 117) has argued that the same is true even for
Romans 1–2. For a different appraisal, see Gager, Reinventing Paul (see above Chapter
5, note 29 and discussion there).
Paul’s discussion of the law in Romans a distinction should be made

between the apostle’s treatment of the esh in general and the members of
the body in particular.
The word ƴːvƣ is used throughout Romans to designate the body
that is dominated by sin,74 whereas vɗƭƩ (limbs) appears only in Romans
7 when the apostle claims that this domination by sin makes for a
law of sorts, another law (ȅƵƧƲưƳ ƮɝvưƳ).75 The antithetical parallelism
between the Mosaic law accepted by the human mind and the sinful law
represented by the bodily limbs reminds us of the ambivalent status of
the limbs in the rabbinic tradition, where one may discern a develop-
ment that turns every limb from the seat of a particular transgression
into a tool for performing a particular Torah commandment. It is not
impossible then that Romans 7 bears testimony to an early stage of this
development, when the dominant trend was still to connect the limbs
with (transgression of ) negative commandments. The limbs already
represent here—antithetically—the Torah, although no numerical
computations are yet mentioned. If my suggestion is accepted, the
evidence of this rst-century epistle may be of critical importance for
our efforts to reconstruct the trajectory along which the Torah-limbs
exegetical connection was developed.
Conclusion
In Jewish sources of the Second Temple period and continuing on to

the period of late antiquity, a multiplicity of concepts/notions regarding
the seat of sin were attested.76 Although attempts at a harmonization
of heart/limbs as agents of sin were not lacking, the tension or even
opposition between viewing the heart/soul/mind or the body as the
rst source of evil inclination should not be overlooked. Within the
primary general framework, where bodily limbs were seen as the source
of temptation, a tendency to compile lists of different limbs responsible
for different transgressions as well as some of its important developments
74
See Rom 1:24; 4:19; 6:6, 12; 7:14.
75
See Rom 7:22–23. It seems that to do negative things can constitute a ritual in
its own right.
76
Concerning the variegated multiplicity of experiences of evil, see F. Stolz,
‘Dimensions and Transformations of Purication Ideas’, in: Transformation of the Inner
Self, 211–229.
176 chapter six
were observed: The demonic character of the limbs is in some instances

downplayed; telling remnants of the ambivalent appraisal of the limbs’
role notwithstanding, a tendency prevailed to stress the responsibility
of the soul and to present the bodily members as destined to perform
God’s will. At some point a connection between the limbs of the body
and the positive commandments of the Torah was established, and it
suppressed the earlier connection between the limbs and the negative
Torah precepts. According to some rabbinical sources it is Torah’s
dwelling in the heart (from where it uproots the previous tenant, the
evil inclination) that is to provide for this transformation.
The Synoptic pericopes dealing with the question of the seat of sin
clearly belong to the earliest layer of the Gospel tradition and are not
intrinsically connected with the specic messianic beliefs of the nascent
Jesus movement; they may therefore be seen as bearing testimony to
wider contemporaneous Jewish trends—namely, to a relatively early
stage of the transition from utterly negative appraisal of the bodily
limbs’ role to connecting them with the positive commandments of
the Torah. A characteristic plurality of conceptions is discerned in
the Synoptics: heart, limbs and external factors, including evil spirits,
are alternatively presented as the source of sin. As midrashic sources
where the amputation motif is attested are of later date, the presence
of this motif in the Synoptics is of particular interest. The Synoptics
represent a stage when the amputation motif was not yet sufciently
suppressed and the limbs were not yet turned into “the instruments of
righteousness unto God”.
In Romans, the characteristic plurality of locations of sin may
likewise be discerned. A distinction between Paul’s references to the
human esh in general and to bodily limbs in particular was noted. It
was suggested that in this epistle we have a testimony to an early stage
of a more general Jewish exegetic development, when the limbs were
still associated with ȅƵƧƲưƳ ƮɝvưƳ, transgressions of the Torah’s nega-
tive precepts, whereas later (from the 3rd century on?) they became
connected with the Torah’s positive commandments.77
It is worth noting that while in the rabbinic milieu the way to over-
come sin in most cases led via Torah (which was to take hold of and
dwell either in the heart/mind or in the limbs, depending on where the
77
See note 44 above and discussion there.
seat of sin was believed to be), Paul employed God’s spirit, which was
to enable the believer (who is “in Jesus Christ”) to yield his members as
performers of God’s will.78 While the link to Jesus’ atoning death and
resurrection clearly represents Paul’s contribution to the development
of the theme, the deep-seated intuition that the cleansing from sin will
be achieved by means of an intervention from outside, by acquiring
a “new tenant” for one’s human abode, is shared by Paul and later
rabbis. More than thirty years ago Ellis Rivkin argued that this feeling
of powerlessness may in fact have been a characteristic feature of the
Pharisaic outlook, and his insightful remarks still exercise their sugges-
tive strength.79
As Romans 8:11 clearly indicates, according to Paul the resurrection
of Jesus gives hope also to esh and bodily limbs, which are not doomed
to remain forever the seat of sin. This intuition retained its centrality
in Christian thought after Paul. It played an especially signicant role
in cases, as with Tertullian, where there was a need to ght Gnostic
tendencies. Tertullian takes care to stress that apart from incidents of
ignorance, there is no sin except in the will, and even bodily mortica-
tion has nothing to do with punishing the limbs, which are eventually to
enjoy resurrection.80 This post-Pauline rehabilitation of the members of
the body invites a comparison with the eventual turning of the bodily
limbs into “the instruments of righteousness unto God” in rabbinic
tradition. Whether post-Pauline and rabbinic rehabilitation of the
limbs were two completely independent or, alternatively, interconnected
processes, is indeed an intriguing question.
78
See Rom 6:9–13; 8:1–2. The biblical reference seems to be Ez 36:25–27, where
the spirit’s function is not unlike that of the angel of peace of the T. 12 Patr.; see
discussion above.
79
See E. Rivkin, ‘The Pharisaic Revolution’ and ‘Heirs of the Pharisees’, in: idem,
The Shaping of Jewish History, New York 1971, 42–105. See also Ruzer, ‘The Death
Motif ’, 151–165. But see Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 135.
80
See, for example, Tertullian, On Repentance 3.11 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:658–659,
665); On the Resurrection of the Flesh 11, 14, 15 and 17 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:552–557).
In Chapter 46 of the latter composition (ibid., 578–579) Tertullian takes great pains to
try to convince his readers that, “It is [only] the works of the esh, not the substance
of the esh, which St. Paul . . . condemns”.
CHAPTER SEVEN
CRUCIFIXION: THE SEARCH FOR A MEANING

VIS-À-VIS BIBLICAL PROPHECY
FROM LUKE TO ACTS
Introduction
As New Testament traditions themselves amply testify, Jesus’ crucix-

ion constituted a core problem for the nascent Jesus movement. That
a messiah, instead of bringing salvation to the people of Israel, had
been put to death could have been and seemingly was perceived as
scandalous and nonsensical. Awareness of the problem can undoubtedly
be discerned in the words of Paul: “But we preach Christ crucied,
a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23:

, ,
). Paul claimed that the solution had been provided
not by human reasoning but by the Holy Spirit.1 As for the author of
Luke, he clearly indicates his perception of the basic difculty faced
by the community of Jesus’ followers immediately after the death of
their teacher:2 While the disciples could encompass a prophet who had
been persecuted and executed, the crucixion stood at rst glance in
stark contradiction to the expectation that Jesus would bring messianic
salvation (Luke 24:17–21):
1
See 1 Cor 2:6–13.
2
The question of the historical accuracy of Luke-Acts in its reconstruction of the
beliefs and expectations within the nascent Christian community cannot be elaborated
here. The merits of its author as a historian constitute a long-debated issue. See, for
example, H. J. Cadbury et al., ‘The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History’,
in: F. J. F. Jackson and K. Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of
the Apostles, vol. 2, London 1922, 16–29; C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of
Hellenistic History, Tübingen 1989, esp. 63–100, 415–427; S. Mason, Josephus and the New
Testament, Peabody 1992; G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Denition; Josephos, Luke-
Acts and Apologetic Historiography, Leiden 1992, 184–229 (ch. ‘Josephus and Luke-Acts’);
L. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel; Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke
1.1–4 and Acts 1.1, Cambridge 1993; idem, ‘Fact, Fiction, and the Genre of Acts’, New
Testament Studies 44 (1998), 380–399; D. W. Palmer, ‘Acts and the Ancient Historical
Monograph’, in: B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (eds.), The Book of Acts in Its Ancient
Literary Setting, Grand Rapids 1993; M. L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts; Their Content,
Context and Concerns, Louisville 1994; D. Marguerat, La première histoire du christianisme:
les Actes des apôtres, Paris 1999, 11–63.
180 chapter seven
17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding
with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then
one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor
to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in
these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to
him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed
and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests
and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucied
him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes,
and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.
Of course, other Gospels also betray signs of despair, but Luke greatly
enhances the effect, elaborating on the theme for a whole chapter with
recurring episodes of the disciples’ disbelief and bewilderment. This
critical issue is addressed again in the opening chapter of Acts, where
the author has the disciples once again expressing their uneasiness about
the obvious lack of fulllment of the messianic scenario, whereas Jesus
proclaims that the hoped-for restoration of Israel needs to be preceded
by a preparatory mission (Acts 1:6–8):
6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at
this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not
for you to know times or seasons which the Father has xed by his own
authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come
upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea
and Samaria and to the end of the earth.
This passage, as well as the one that immediately follows, clearly indicates
that the author does not wish to abrogate the hope for Israel’s redemp-
tion, which seems to be presented as having also political overtones.
Daniel Schwartz argued convincingly that the tradition reected here
relates to the mission within the limits of the Land of Israel—according
to him, that would be the meaning of ( ! ") #" in Acts
1:8, which in principle, like its Hebrew equivalent (), can denote
both the world and the particular territory populated by the people of
Israel.3 If his analysis is accepted, we have one more indication that the
mission inspired by the Holy Spirit aimed at preparing the ground for
Israel’s salvation. The redemption is thus postponed, but not without
good reason, and in due time Jesus will return to restore the kingdom
to Israel as expected (Acts 1:9–11):
3
D. R. Schwartz, ‘The End of the Ge (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian
Vision?’ Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986), 669–676.
crucifixion 181
9 And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up,
and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing
into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven?
This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the
same way as you saw him go into heaven”.
The same crucial section, which provides a transition from the Gospel
of Luke to Acts, indicates that the problem was seen by the author as
an exegetical one (Luke 24:25–27, 44–46):
25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all
that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ
should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with
Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures
the things concerning himself . . .
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you,
while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Torah
of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fullled”. 45 Then
he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them,
“Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day
rise from the dead”.
In the Gospel narrative, this novel exegesis is ascribed to the resurrected
Jesus himself, whereas in Acts 2:1–36 it is presented as communicated
by the Holy Spirit. What we have here then is, seemingly, an indication
that providing an exegetical justication for the scandal of the Messiah’s
death—a novelty vis-à-vis the current messianic exegesis of biblical
“stock” proof texts—was one of the most urgent tasks of the creators
and transmitters of the nascent Christian tradition. I am far from
suggesting that the trauma of the disciples following Jesus’ crucixion
and their way of coping with and overcoming it were primarily of an
exegetical nature, but the exegetical aspect does feature prominently
in the culture-conditioned literary evidence that has reached us. I will
relate to some of the exegetic options that seem to have been available
to the creators of the early Christian narrative, using the “persecuted
prophet” biblical motif as the point of departure. It will be suggested
below that this motif was consciously subdued in important parts of the
New Testament tradition; possible reasons for that will also be outlined.
As for the historical Jesus, there are numerous indications that he did
see himself as a prophet. Jesus’ self-perception, however, is beyond the
scope of the discussion that follows.4
4
Cf. J. W. van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom and Jesus’ Death’ (forthcoming), who
182 chapter seven
The focus will be on Luke and Acts seen as the creation of a single
author,5 with other traditions used mostly as a backdrop. This choice
may be found useful for a number of reasons. First, this New Testa-
ment author is often more explicit than others in spelling out both his
agenda and his notion of the problems faced by the Jesus movement.
Second, the single author hypothesis makes it possible to relate his
treatment/editing of the common Gospel tradition (in Luke) to his
more independent approach in Acts; a comparison of his suggestions
regarding the meaning of the crucixion in these two literary settings
promises to be instructive. Third, if composed by the same author,
Luke/Acts as a sequel is also the only New Testament narrative dealing
explicitly with the transition from the initial eschatological hope, through
its debacle in Jesus’ death, to a modied post-Easter eschatology. The
narrative of Luke/Acts can thus be expected to account not only for
the postponement of salvation but also for the changes that the meaning
of Jesus’ death underwent in light of that postponement.6
The persecution of God’s prophets in the Hebrew Bible and in Luke
The closing section of Luke assumes that Jesus’ execution could in no

way negate his prophetic status—it is only his messiahship that seems
to be compromised (Luke 24:19–21). Indeed, the motif that most
readily suggests itself as a biblical pattern, not only for Jesus’ rejection
by his fellow Israelites but also for his suffering and even being put
to death, is the “persecuted prophet” motif emphatically celebrated,
discusses the possibility that Jesus—in his premonition of a tragic end—viewed his future
death as that of a martyr. See also J. C. O’Neill, ‘Did Jesus Teach That His Death
Would Be Vicarious as Well as Typical?’ in: W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering
and Martyrdom in the New Testament, Cambridge 1981, 9–27; he comes to the conclusion
that Jesus not only saw himself as one destined to die as a sacrice for people’s sins but
also expected his close circle of disciples to be ready to follow the same path.
5
In this chapter I subscribe to the perception of Luke and Acts as composed by
the same author; see discussion in H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles; A Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia 1987, xxxi–xlii; cf. idem, The Theology of St. Luke,
Philadelphia 1982, 9. However, my analysis does not necessarily point to the “double
treatise” (Luke-Acts) model; rather it strengthens the possibility of two separate com-
positions (Luke and Acts—see below)—by the same hand but under different literary
circumstances. For discussion of the latter model, see M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo,
Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, Minneapolis 1993.
6
See Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 123.
crucifixion 183
for example, at the end of 2 Chronicles.7 This motif continued to be

invoked—e.g., after the Maccabean revolt—in Second Temple Judaism.
Two passages are particularly relevant in this context: Jubilees 1:12
and 1 Enoch 89:51–53. In his discussion of Second Temple evidence,
David Flusser also mentions in this context the Ascension of Moses and
the Ascension of Isaiah—he sees the latter as a book that was composed
at the end of the Second Temple period in circles close to those of the
Dead Sea Scrolls.8
In 2 Chronicles, as elsewhere in the Scripture, the rejection of
God’s messengers is perceived as a (temporary) disruption of God’s
plan—in other words, as “God’s suffering [a setback]”. Moreover, Ter-
ence Fretheim discerns a potential link between the suffering of elect
individuals, such as prophets—those who are bearers of God’s spirit/
word—and God’s own suffering; he distinguishes this sub-pattern of
God’s sympathy for an individual (“individualization of the sympathy”)
from a more general pattern of God’s suffering caused by his sympathy
for the suffering people of Israel.9 Indication of the setback, however, is
followed by the promise of salvation, which will ensue after the period
of tribulation; the collation of these motifs becomes the distinguishing
feature of the closing verses of 2 Chronicles, which also became the
closing verses of the Hebrew Bible. The presence of the punishment
sub-motif—avenging the innocent blood of the prophets as a necessary
step toward eventual redemption—deserves special notice. At the end of
2 Chronicles, this sub-motif—present also elsewhere in the Bible, e.g.,
in Nehemiah 9:26–37 and 2 Chronicles 24:20–22—refers explicitly to
the destruction of the Temple:10
15 The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by
his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his
7
Another often quoted example is Neh 9:26–37.
8
D. Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name in the Second Temple Period and the Beginnings
of Christianity’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages, 239, 242–244 (in Hebrew).
The Jewish origin of the tradition that Israel murdered its prophets constitutes one
of the central foci of investigation in D. M. Scholer, Israel Murdered Its Prophets; The
Origin and Development of the Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism, Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1980.
9
T. E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, Philadelphia 1984,
107–135, 144–148, 154–166. For a discussion of the enhancement of the mythic poten-
tial of biblical metaphors of divine weakness and suffering—either with the people of
Israel or with an individual—undertaken in rabbinic sources, see M. Fishbane, Biblical
Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003.
10
As observed already in S. H. Blank, ‘The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Lit-
erature’, HUCA 12–13 (1937–1938), 327–46, esp. 336–337.
184 chapter seven
dwelling place; 16 but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despis-
ing his words, and scofng at his prophets, till the wrath of the LORD
rose against his people, till there was no remedy. 17 Therefore he brought
up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men
with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion
on young man or virgin, old man or aged; he gave them all into his
hand . . . 19 And they burned the house of God, and broke down the wall
of Jerusalem, and burned all its palaces with re, and destroyed all its
precious vessels . . . 22 Now in the rst year of Cyrus king of Persia, that
the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished,
the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made
a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: 23
“Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has
given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build
him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of
all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.’ ”
(2 Chr 36:15–23)
In Jubilees 1, reference to the destruction of the Temple as punish-
ment is absent, while in 1 Enoch 89:51–57 it appears in the guise of
a mysterious dream sequence:
51 And again I saw those sheep that they again erred and went many
ways, and forsook their house, and the Lord of the sheep called some
from amongst the sheep and sent them to the sheep, 52 but the sheep
began to slay them . . . 53 And many other sheep He sent to those sheep
to testify unto them and lament over them. 54 And after that I saw that
when they forsook the house of the Lord and His tower they fell away
entirely, and their eyes were blinded; and I saw the Lord of the sheep
how He wrought much slaughter amongst them in their herds until 55
those sheep invited that slaughter and betrayed His place. And He gave
them over into the hands of the lions and tigers, and wolves and hyenas,
and into the hand of the foxes, and to all the wild 56 beasts, and those
wild beasts began to tear in pieces those sheep. And I saw that He for-
sook their house and their tower and gave them all into the hand of the
lions, to tear and devour them, 57 into the hand of all the wild beasts.
And I began to cry aloud with all my power, and to appeal to the Lord
of the sheep, and to represent to Him in regard to the sheep that they
were devoured.11
It is in exactly this form—destruction of the Temple as the necessary
prelude to redemption—that the motif of punishment was picked up
11
English translation follows R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament in English, London 1913.
crucifixion 185
in later rabbinic traditions.12 Especially instructive is the passage in Sifre

Deut. 43.16, where a rm belief is ascribed to R. Aqiva—who quotes
Isaiah 8:2, Jeremiah 26:18 and Zechariah 8:4 as proof texts—that until
the full destruction of the (Second) Temple takes place and the murder
of the ancient prophets is thus avenged, there may be no redemption
for Israel.13 As is suggested below, it is with this biblical-turned-rabbinic
pattern in mind that Luke’s approach may be better appreciated.
The identication of Jesus as a prophet or a man of great standing
“before God and all the people” is not lacking in passages reecting
Luke’s own contribution to the Gospel narrative, such as Luke 4:14–29;
13:33; 24:19; Acts 2:22, 36; 7:37; this clearly reects the author’s par-
ticular interest in portraying Jesus as a prophet.14 The focus further on,
however, will be on Luke’s reworking of the inherited Gospel tradition
with an emphasis on two such instances. The rst is Luke’s treatment
of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem, attested also in Matthew:15
Luke 13:33–35 Matt 23:33, 36–39

Nevertheless I must go on my way today You serpents, you brood of vipers, how
and tomorrow and the day following; for are you to escape being sentenced to
it cannot be that a prophet should perish hell? . . .
away from Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusa- Truly, I say to you, all this will come
lem, killing the prophets and stoning those upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusa-
who are sent to you! How often would I lem, killing the prophets and stoning those
have gathered your children together as a who are sent to you! How often would I
hen gathers her brood under her wings, have gathered your children together as a
and you would not! Behold, your house is hen gathers her brood under her wings,
forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see and you would not! Behold, your house
me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you,
in the name of the Lord!’ you will not see me again, until you say,
‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of
the Lord.’
12
See the discussion in Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name’, 238–245.
13
Cf. y. Taoan. 4.9 [69a–b], b. Git. 57b, b. Sanh. 96b. See also the comment in Scholer,
Israel Murdered Its Prophets, 182–183.
14
See, for example, B. E. Beck, ‘ “Imitatio Christi” and the Lucan Passion Narra-
tive’, in: W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament,
Cambridge 1981, 29; Brawley, ‘The Identity of Jesus’, 6–27.
15
See K. Aland (ed.), Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 7th ed., Stuttgart 1984, Nn.
212–213/285. This pericope is widely held to have been derived from a Q-tradition;
see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV ), The Anchor Bible, Garden
City 1985, 1034; J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), The Critical
Edition of Q , Minneapolis 2000, 420–423 (Q 13:34–35).
186 chapter seven
In Matthew this lament concludes a whole chapter of polemic by

Jesus against the Pharisees, with Jerusalem as the setting. In Luke, the
Pharisees are portrayed as friendly to Jesus, and the scene is located
away from Jerusalem. What pertains to our discussion, however, is that
before the utterance that is shared in common with Matthew, Luke’s
Jesus declares (23:33): “Nevertheless I must go on my way today and
tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should
perish away from Jerusalem”. This addition unequivocally establishes
(a) that Jesus is a prophet and (b) that what follows is nothing less than
a prophetic speech representing God’s own lament.
The second example, in a similar vein, also represents a tradition
shared by Matthew and Luke,16 but with Luke attributing the saying
to God’s wisdom, thus again emphasizing Jesus’ (prophetic) role as one
who transmits God’s oracles:17
Luke 11:49–51 Matt 23:33–35

Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, You serpents, you brood of vipers, how
‘I will send them prophets and apostles, are you to escape being sentenced to
some of whom they will kill and perse- hell?Therefore I send you prophets and
cute’, that the blood of all the prophets, wise men and scribes, some of whom
shed from the foundation of the world, you will kill and crucify, and some you
may be required of this generation’. will scourge in your synagogues and per-
secute from town to town, that upon you
may come all the righteous blood shed on
earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to
the blood of Zechariah the son of Bara-
chiah, whom you murdered between the
sanctuary and the altar.
16
Again Q; see Synopsis (previous note), N. 284; Critical Q (previous note), 284–289
(Q 11:49–51).
17
But see Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name’, 243, where he suggests that “Wisdom”
is to be understood as a reference to a Wisdom literature text. On the basis of the
attribution of the saying in question to the Wisdom of God, it was held by a number
of scholars that this saying is of Jewish provenance; see discussion in Scholer, Israel
Murdered Its Prophets, 170 and n. 1 there. Moreover, a reconstruction of the “pre-Q ,
pre-Christian” version of the saying has been suggested; see M. J. Suggs, Wisdom,
Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, Cambridge 1970, 15.
crucifixion 187
These examples clearly demonstrate Luke’s tendency to highlight the

portrayal of Jesus as a rejected and suffering prophet,18 with the adjunct
idea of God’s anger resulting in punishment of Israel—in the rst
example the destruction of the Temple is explicitly mentioned. As noted,
the motif of persecuted prophets seems to have been a widespread one
in Second Temple Judaism; thus both Luke and his sources within the
Gospel tradition were trying to adapt an existing exegetical tradition
to Jesus’ situation. Later rabbinic narratives appropriated the motif
while reacting to the actual destruction of the Temple with much more
elaborately related and gory details.19 It can be suggested, then, that
the Gospels here basically bear witness to an early—pre-70 c e—stage
in the development of the pattern.20 This pattern should rather be
seen as proto-rabbinic, since it is not attested in sectarian writings
from Qumran, where the themes of the persecution of the “anointed
with Spirit”—be it the Teacher of Righteousness or the community at
large—and the anticipated destruction of the deled Temple remain
dissociated, the latter not being explained as the punishment for the
former.21
Jesus’ suffering and the Book of Acts
Unlike his reworking of the inherited tradition in the Gospel, where

he enhances the theme of God’s persecuted messenger with its inevi-
table repercussions, in Acts the author drops completely the motif of
“God’s setback”.22 This tendency, introduced already in the program-
matic independent addition to the post-resurrection narrative in Luke
18
As an example of Luke’s employing the identication of Jesus as a prophet—
without the accompanying motif of rejection and punishment—where the Synoptic
parallels entirely lack this identication see Luke 7:36–50, esp. v. 39 (cf. Matt 26:6–13,
Mark 14:3–9).
19
See, for example, y. Taoan. 4.9 [69a–b], b. Sanh. 96b, b. Git. 57b.
20
With several exceptions, e.g., Matt 22:7; 23:32–36, where a post-70 editing
of an earlier tradition is suspected. See D. Flusser, ‘Two Anti-Jewish Montages in
Matthew’ and ‘Matthew’s “Verus Israel” ’, in: Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,
552–574; idem, ‘Hatred of Israel in Matthew’s Gospel’, in Judaism of the Second Temple
Period: Sages, 345–347.
21
See Damascus Document 4–6, 4QFlorilegium 1:1–19, 1QpHab 2,7, 1QHodayot(a) 12;
cf. 4QMessianic Apocalypse, Frag. 8, where the list of the prophetically anointed is not
built around biblical gures perceived as having been persecuted.
22
Cf. Romans 11.
188 chapter seven
24, has multiple attestations in Acts. We have seen that already in the
opening section of Acts (1:6–11) the author denies that what seems like
a postponement of Israel’s salvation is in any sense a failure, claiming
instead that this postponement is in fact a necessary prerequisite for the
prophetic “winning out” of Israel in anticipation of their redemption.
Acts 2:22–24 seems in this respect to express the author’s basic stance
throughout the book:
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested
to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God
did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—23 this Jesus,
delivered up according to the denite plan and foreknowledge of God
($ % & '$ ( )#* + +), you crucied and killed
by the hands of lawless men ( , ! -.). 24 But God raised
him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible
for him to be held by it.
Far from being a setback, Jesus’ death is depicted as an inherent part
of God’s salvation design, an essential prerequisite for entering the era
of resurrection. The meaning of the Messiah’s crucixion here seems
to be that resurrection cannot be achieved without the death that pre-
cedes it. This in fact is a continuation of the line employed already at
the end of the Gospel. The recurring argument is clear: What looks
like a setback in the salvation plan is actually the fulllment of the
main element of its agenda, established not post factum as a reaction to
tragic developments but from the very beginning in God’s mind and
in his—previously not comprehended—revelation to Israel. It should
be noted that in contrast to Jesus’ prophetic laments addressed in the
previous paragraph, at the end of the Gospel of Luke and at the begin-
ning of Acts, it turns out that Jesus’ rejection and death, lamented by
the unaware disciples, should not be lamented at all!
Already in Luke 24:26, crucixion is portrayed as nothing but a
needed transitory stage on the way to glorication: “Was it not neces-
sary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Again, continuing the line adopted in the Gospel, the author of Acts
emphasizes the immediate nature of the transition from what might
have been perceived as the tragedy of death to the glory of ascen-
sion. In fact, the narrative does not dwell on Jesus’ death; there is no
substantial gap in time between the tragedy and salvation, a gap that
would be necessary to enhance the motif of God’s suffering (a setback).
The suffering of God’s chosen one here is nothing but a prelude to his
crucifixion 189
immediate entering “into his glory”—namely, his resurrection and the

victorious preaching of messianic salvation “to all nations”.23
The key-motif of the preordained, uninterrupted salvation scenario,
discerned in Peter’s kerygmatic speech in Acts 2:22–24, discussed above,
dominates also the joint proclamation by Peter and John in Acts 4.24
The latter passage is also characterized by an emphasis on immediately
granted salvation—this time, however, it is not Jesus’ resurrection but
the disciples’ redemption from the fear of persecution (Acts 4:24–31):
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said,
“Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea
and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy
servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the
peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in
array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against
his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against
thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever thy
hand and thy plan had predestined to take place ()" / !
( '0 [ ] )* # ). 29 And now, Lord, look upon
their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all bold-
ness, 30 while thou stretch out thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders
are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus”. 31 And
when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together
was shaken; and they were all lled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the
word of God with boldness.
Throughout Acts, the author insists on dening various communities of
the nascent Jesus movement as sharing the gift of the Holy Spirit—in
other words, as a prophetic movement.25 And he acknowledges the
obstacles and persecutions God’s new latter-day prophets have to over-
come in Jerusalem.26 Yet, in a balancing act, he avoids presenting those
23
This was often observed; see, for example, Beck, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 34; cf. ibid.,
47. For a different appraisal see E. Schefer, Suffering in Luke’s Gospel, Zürich 1993.
According to Schefer, suffering constitutes a core theme of the Gospel, where he
discerns a comprehensive view of various forms of human afiction for which Jesus’
suffering provides a redemptive alleviation. In his study Schefer does not discuss Acts,
but he singles out the motif of suffering in that book as one that should be studied in
the future (ibid., 165). I am not aware whether this line of investigation has actually
been probed.
24
See Beck, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 39.
25
See, for example, Acts 2:14–21, 7:51–56, 8:14–17, 10:44–48, 15:7–9.
26
See Acts 4:1–31. See discussion in Chapter 4.
190 chapter seven
obstacles as a asco, insisting instead on portraying the mission—again,

rst in Jerusalem and Judea and then in the Diaspora—as extremely
successful. Moreover, it is worth noting our author’s claims—as in
Acts 2:41–47, 6:1–7—for success within the variegated strata of Jew-
ish society.
Whether or not the author is really Luke the physician, the compan-
ion of Paul, he is generally believed to have been familiar with details
of the apostle’s mission.27 It comes as no surprise then that he recounts
Paul’s problems vis-à-vis both the Jerusalem apostles and the general
Jewish populace. However, here too our author performs a balancing
act, integrating Paul’s personal troubles and setbacks into a broader,
and brighter, picture.
To that end the author employs a number of tactics. First, he con-
sistently plays down the tension and the (sometimes bitter) polemic
between Paul and the “Jerusalem group”—most prominently in Acts
15 and 21. This tendency of Acts is well known and has received much
attention in research;28 it is even more conspicuous in light of Paul’s
attitude reected in Galatians 1–2 and his famous diatribe in Galatians
4:24–26: “Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the
present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But Jerusalem
above is free, and she is our mother”. Second, he has Paul return again
and again to preach in synagogues or to Jews generally—notwithstand-
ing his recurrent declarations that now, having been rejected, he is
turning to the Gentiles. This again in clear contradistinction from,
e.g., Galatians 1:13–16, where Paul explicitly presents himself as the
apostle to the Gentiles and thus distances himself from Peter, who is
to proclaim the good news to the Jews. The Book of Acts accordingly
avoids ascribing to Jesus, or God, a preference for the Gentiles—at the
expense of the Jews—even at this troubled intermediary stage. Here
it is Romans 11, where Paul gives vent to the feeling of failure and
despair concerning the present state of the mission to the Jews that
may provide an illuminating point of comparison.
The author of Acts must have been fully aware of the developments
that had led to the Jesus movement turning into a mostly Diaspora
phenomenon. Moreover, the main objective of Acts is to explain and
justify the “reaching out” of Paul’s mission. It is thus signicant that
27
See Conzelmann, Acts, xxxiii.
28
See, for example, ibid., xlvi, 115–117.
crucifixion 191
the opening sections of the narrative give no hint that God might have
abandoned Jerusalem because of Jesus’ crucixion there. On the con-
trary, the resurrected Jesus commands his disciples to stay in the city,
which is to be the locus of the outpouring of spirit. The author also
repeatedly reminds us—even at later stages of Paul’s ministry—“how
many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed;
they are all zealous for the Torah” (Acts 21:20).29 And, nally, he is
ready to ascribe Paul’s failure to convince the Jews to that apostle’s
problematic past (Acts 22:17–21)! All this amounts to a refusal to see
the current stage as one of rejection on the part of Israel and, hence,
a refusal to transfer the election to the Gentiles.30
As noted, the motif of punishment was at the core of biblical and
later elaborations on the theme of prophets’ suffering, as well as of
the Gospel portrayal of Jesus’ rejection. Thus the modication of this
motif, or rather its practical elimination in the narrative of Acts, is
instructive. True, the lines of Joel (2:30–32) that the author has Peter
quote in Acts 2:19–21 include a reference to the Day of Judgment
(“The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before
the great and terrible day of the LORD comes”), but this theme does
not receive emphasis in the continuation of the narrative. Moreover,
further along in the description of the same Pentecost event it is stressed
that the reaction to Peter’s speech, even by those who had had Jesus
“crucied and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23; cf. 2:36),
was immediately to repent and join the group, thus making irrelevant
the avenue of punishment:31
“Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made
him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucied”. 37 Now when
they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the
rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to
them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to
all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”. 40
29
See also Acts 9:15. Cf. an unexpectedly optimistic ending to the description of
Paul’s initial troubles in Acts 9:23–31.
30
See also Brawley, ‘The Identity of Jesus’ (note 14 above).
31
Cf. a different interpretation in G. W. H. Lampe, ‘Martyrdom and Inspiration’,
in: W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament; Studies
Presented to G. M. Styler by Cambridge New Testament Seminar, New York 1981, 131.
192 chapter seven
And he testied with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save
yourselves from this crooked generation”. 41 So those who received his
word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand
souls. (Acts 2:36–41)
Moreover, the author clearly wants to create the impression that even
those who had not joined the ranks of the prophesying community
held it in great esteem (Acts 2:46–47):
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their
homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising
God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their
number day by day those who were being saved.
This last passage faithfully represents another important feature of
Acts: no destruction of the Temple is foreseen as a punishment for
the rejection of Jesus and/or his disciples. This is the more striking
in view of the tendencies present in the common Gospel tradition
and enhanced in Luke that have been discussed above. Notwithstand-
ing that Jesus had been crucied following his clash with the Temple
authorities after prophesying the destruction of the Jerusalem sanctuary,
in Acts the disciples cling resolutely to the Temple precincts as to the
center of sanctity, the true omphalos of the world, to which the Messiah
should return and where he should be awaited. Moreover, in Acts 21
the author insists on the Temple’s unchallenged sanctity for Paul even
at a later stage of his mission to the Gentiles.32 It may be added that
a differentiation between the sanctuary proper and the holy city of
Jerusalem is nowhere highlighted in the composition.33
32
See Conzelmann, Acts, 180, where he attributes the picture to the express design
of the author of Acts—not to the real facts. Cf. F. F. Bruce (‘Stephen’s Apologia’, in:
B. P. Thompson [ed.], Scripture, Meaning and Method, Hull 1987], 37–38), who sees the
author of Acts as differing on this point from both the apostles and the Hellenists.
D. L. Wiens (Stephen’s Sermon and the Structure of Luke-Acts, Richland Hills, Tex. 1995,
188) discerns in the report of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21–23) an indication of
the annulment of the authority of “those who continue to claim to be the temple’s
guardians” on behalf of the group that “represents a gentile people-in-the-making who
claim to dwell in the rebuilt tent of David”—an interpretation without substantiation
in the text of Acts, to my mind.
33
See J. J. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second
Temple Period, International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1, Bar-Ilan University 1998.
Cf. Conzelmann, The Theology, 133. As pointed out by Justin Taylor (personal com-
munication), Acts 1:11 may possibly indicate a return to the Mount of Olives (cf.
Zech 14:4).
crucifixion 193
But this generally positive attitude to the Temple throughout the book
does have its moments of crisis. The author enables us to realize that
in the nascent Jesus movement a variety of attitudes toward the Temple
existed. Thus in Acts 7, Stephen, a member of the Hellenistic Jewish
branch of the movement, speaks boldly against the Temple and pays
dearly for that.34 There seem, however, to be certain proto-Christian
Jewish sentiments underlying his speech, which are not necessarily per-
ceived as exclusively Hellenistic. Thus Marcel Simon emphasizes what
he sees as the difference between Stephen’s position and the relativiza-
tion of the Temple’s standing characteristic of Hellenistic Jewry (e.g.,
Philo), coming to the conclusion that “the most authentic lineage” of
Stephen’s speech is to be found not in the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian
outlook but in certain Palestinian (e.g., Essene) trends characterized by
hostility to the Temple.35 It seems that one does not need to draw too
sharp a dividing line here between “Hellenistic” and “Palestinian”.
In any case, the author of Acts gives no indication whatsoever that
Stephen’s stance was looked upon favorably by the non-Hellenistic part
of the Jesus movement—those who are emphatically presented in his
narrative as coming daily to the sanctuary. It may be surmised that the
speech in Acts 7 represents the stance of neither the non-Hellenistic part
of the Jerusalem community nor of Luke himself. Moreover, Stephen’s
attitude has been described as an aberration in the early Church, being
distinct not only from that of the majority of the Jerusalem community
but also from that of Paul and even the Epistle to the Hebrews: Stephen
seems to have seen in the Temple from the very beginning a “falling away
from the authentic” God-inspired tradition of Israel.36 Paula Fredriksen
34
It has been suggested that the author draws here upon a different source; see, for
example, Bruce, ‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 37. For a discussion of the historical circumstances
reected in the narrative, see N. H. Taylor, ‘Stephen, the Temple, and Early Christian
Eschatology’, Revue biblique 110 (2003), 62–85.
35
M. Simon, ‘Saint Stephen and the Jerusalem Temple’, in: idem, Le Christianisme
antique et son contexte religieuse: Scripta Varia, vol. 1, Tübingen 1981, 160–167 (relying on
H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentum, Tübingen 1949). Cf. Bruce,
‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 37–38. A Samaritan inuence as the background of Stephen’s
speech has also been suggested; see A. Spiro, ‘Stephen’s Samaritan Background’, in: J.
Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1967, 285–300. This
suggestion is rejected by many scholars, among them B. T. Donaldson (‘Moses Typology
and Sectarian Nature of Early Christian Anti-Judaism: A Study in Acts 7’, Journal for
the Study of the New Testament 12 [1981], 27–52), who attempts to contextualize Acts 7
within the Second Temple Jewish world, classifying it as a sectarian polemic.
36
See Simon, ‘Saint Stephen’, 153–154. But see Taylor (‘Stephen, the Temple’,
194 chapter seven
has recently suggested a new assessment of Paul’s attitude toward the

Temple, noting, e.g., a lack of emphasis on even the Temple’s current
inadequacy—and anticipation of the impending destruction—which
puts in even greater relief the difference from Acts 7.37
In fact, even Stephen does not anticipate destruction of the Temple
as punishment for Jesus’ rejection; rather, he claims that from the
very beginning there was no need at all to build a temple—obviously
a motif completely different from that of punishment meted out for
persecution of the prophets.38 Moreover, in the preamble to Stephen’s
speech the author takes care—another balancing act—to provisionally
mitigate Stephen’s position, presenting as a false one the accusation
that Stephen had talked about the destruction of the Temple as God’s
vengeance (Acts 6:12–14):39
And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they
came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13
and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak
words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say
that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the
customs which Moses delivered to us.
This attempted elimination in Acts of the destruction theme—the theme
that, as we have seen, featured prominently in the biblical promise of
punishment for rejection of God’s messengers—was prepared already in
63–64, 73–77, 80–81), who believes that the extreme criticism of the Temple in Acts
7 faithfully represents the attitude of the early Christian movement as a whole and
presupposes here continuity with Jesus’ prophecy of destruction. Accordingly, Taylor
does not think that Stephen’s speech goes against Luke’s theology. Cf. Bruce, ‘Stephen’s
Apologia’, 37–38, where he sees Luke’s own stance as differing both from the apostles
and from the Hellenists.
37
P. Fredriksen, ‘Paul, Purity, and the EkklÏsia of the Gentiles’, in: M. Mor and
J. Pastor (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Jerusalem 2005, 205–218.
38
See Simon, ‘Saint Stephen’, 153–154. Cf. Bruce (‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 39), who,
harmonizing, as it seems, Stephen’s speech with Hebrews, reads into Acts 7 a claim
that “All that the temple order stood for had become rendered for ever obsolete by
the work of Christ”. Cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, Oxford
1982, 286.
39
Notwithstanding the protestation to the contrary, the speech itself seems strangely
enough to conrm the accusation; see Conzelmann, Acts, 48. H. A. Brehm (‘Vindicating
the Rejected One: Stephen’s Speech as a Critique of Jewish Leaders’, in: C. A. Evans
and J. A. Sanders [eds.], Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, Shefeld
1997, 266–299) attempts to alleviate the problem by presenting the crux of Stephen’s
polemics as directed against “Jewish leaders” rather than against the Temple itself.
crucifixion 195
the passion section of the Gospel. Here is Luke reworking the common
tradition of Jesus being interrogated by the High Priest:
Matt 26:59–66 Mark 14:55–64 Luke 22:66–71

59 Now the chief priests and 55 Now the chief priests and 66 When day came, the
the whole council sought the whole council sought assembly of the elders
false testimony against testimony against Jesus to of the people gathered
Jesus that they might put put him to death; but they together, both chief priests
him to death, 60 but they found none. 56 For many and scribes; and they led
found none, though many bore false witness against him away to their council,
false witnesses came for- him, and their witness did and they said, 67 “If you
ward. At last two came not agree. 57 And some are the Christ, tell us”. But
forward 61 and said, “This stood up and bore false he said to them, “If I tell
fellow said, ‘I am able to witness against him, say- you, you will not believe;
destroy the temple of God, ing, 58 “We heard him say, 68 and if I ask you, you
and to build it in three ‘I will destroy this temple will not answer. 69 But
days.’ ” 62 And the high that is made with hands, from now on the Son of
priest stood up and said, and in three days I will man shall be seated at the
“Have you no answer to build another, not made right hand of the power
make? What is it that these with hands.’ ” 59 Yet not of God”. 70 And they all
men testify against you?” even so did their testi- said, “Are you the Son of
63 But Jesus was silent. mony agree. 60 And the God, then?” And he said
And the high priest said to high priest stood up in the to them, “You say that I
him, “I adjure you by the midst, and asked Jesus, am”. 71 And they said,
living God, tell us if you “Have you no answer to “What further testimony
are the Christ, the Son of make? What is it that these do we need? We have
God”. 64 Jesus said to him, men testify against you?” heard it ourselves from his
“You have said so. But I 61 But he was silent and own lips”.
tell you, hereafter you will made no answer. Again the
see the Son of man seated high priest asked him, “Are
at the right hand of Power, you the Christ, the Son
and coming on the clouds of the Blessed?” 62 And
of heaven”. 65 Then the Jesus said, “I am; and you
high priest tore his robes, will see the Son of man
and said, “He has uttered seated at the right hand
blasphemy. Why do we still of Power, and coming with
need witnesses? You have the clouds of heaven”. 63
now heard his blasphemy. And the high priest tore his
66 What is your judg- garments, and said, “Why
ment?” They answered, do we still need witnesses?
“He deserves death”. 64 You have heard his
blasphemy. What is your
decision?” And they all
condemned him as deserv-
ing death.
196 chapter seven
In passages discussed earlier, we saw that elsewhere in the Gospel Luke

emphasizes—while applying it to Jesus—the biblical motif of the rejec-
tion of prophets, including eventual punishment and the destruction of
the Temple, the motif present in the shared Gospel tradition. Luke also
retains Jesus’ apocalyptic speech, with its reference to the destruction
of the Temple in an undisclosed future (Luke 20:5–36, esp. 20:5–8).
With Luke, this catastrophe is, again following the biblical pattern, a
necessary step on the way to salvation; wishing to explicitly encourage
his readers, he has Jesus say: “Now when these things begin to take
place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing
near” (21:28, unparalleled in the other Gospels).40 However, here, in
the section immediately connected to the crucixion, Luke goes in the
opposite direction, avoiding any mention of the touchy issue of Jesus’
prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple—the issue that in the
Matthew and Mark parallels is clearly at the heart of the accusation.41
The same holds true for Luke’s depiction of crucied Jesus mocked
by the bystanders—unlike in the other Synoptics, there is no mention
here of the destruction of the Temple or even of the “chief priests”,
who are supplanted by the “rulers”:42
Matt 27:38–43 Mark 15:27–32a Luke 23:35–38

38 Then two robbers were 27 And with him they 35 And the people stood
crucied with him, one on crucied two robbers, one by, watching; but the rul-
the right and one on the on his right and one on ers (1 3!) scoffed at
left. 39 And those who his left. [28] 29 And those him, saying, “He saved
passed by derided him, who passed by derided others; let him save him-
wagging their heads 40 him, wagging their heads, self, if he is the Christ of
and saying, “You who and saying, “Aha! You who God, his Chosen One!” 36
would destroy the temple would destroy the temple The soldiers also mocked
40
See a discussion in S. Notley, ‘Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree’, in: Jesus’ Last
Week (see Chapter 2, note 53), 107–120, esp. 116.
41
It has been repeatedly observed that Luke’s attitude toward the Temple is much
more positive than that of Mark (and Matthew). See, for example, Fitzmyer, Luke
X–XXIV, 1461; J. B. Green, ‘The Death of Jesus and the Rending of the Temple Veil
(Luke 23:44–49): A Window into Luke’s Understanding of Jesus and the Temple’, in:
E. H. Lovering (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Atlanta 1991, 543–546 and
n. 9 there. In a recent study, Eyal Regev attempted to demonstrate that this tendency in
Luke (and according to him in the other Synoptics as well) should be seen as a conscious
attempt to play down the uncomfortably anti-Temple attitude that characterized the
historical Jesus; see E. Regev, ‘Temple or Messiah: On the Trial of Jesus, the Temple,
and Roman Policy’, Cathedra 119 (2006), 13–36 (in Hebrew).
42
In accordance with the exegesis of Ps 2:1 presented in Acts 4:25–27.
crucifixion 197
table (cont.)
Matt 27:38–43 Mark 15:27–32a Luke 23:35–38
and build it in three days, and build it in three days, him, coming up and offer-
save yourself ! If you are 30 save yourself, and come ing him vinegar, 37 and
the Son of God, come down from the cross!” 31 saying, “If you are the
down from the cross”. 41 So also the chief priests King of the Jews, save
So also the chief priests, mocked him to one another yourself !” 38 There was
with the scribes and elders, with the scribes, saying, also an inscription over
mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he can- him, “This is the King of
“He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the the Jews”.
not save himself. He is the Christ, the King of Israel,
King of Israel; let him come down now from the
come down now from the cross, that we may see and
cross, and we will believe believe”.
in him. 43 He trusts in
God; let God deliver him
now, if he desires him; for
he said, ‘I am the Son of
God’ ”.
Two additional peculiarly Lukan traits are noteworthy in this context.

One is the recurrent emphasis, unparalleled in the other Gospels, on
Jesus’ adherence to the Temple even after the cleansing episode in
Luke 19:47; 21:37–38 and 22:53: “And he was teaching daily in the
temple . . . And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night
he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet. And early in the
morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him . . . I
was with you day after day in the temple”. This clearly is to set a
precedent for the disciples’ faithfulness to the Jerusalem sanctuary as
suggested in Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46–47; 21:20–26 et al. (see above).43
Another is Luke’s version of the cleansing of the Temple—the most
peaceful and least violent version when compared with those of the
other Gospels (see Luke 19:45–46; cf. Matt 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–17,
John 2:13–17).44
43
For a discussion of Luke’s and other New Testament authors’ attitude toward the
Temple, see E. Regev, ‘Kingdom of Priests or Holy Nation? Attitude to the Temple in
Nascent Christianity’, Cathedra 113 (2004), 5–34 (in Hebrew).
44
According to Flusser’s interpretation (D. Flusser, ‘Literary Relationship between
the Three Synoptic Gospels’, in: idem, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, Tel Aviv 1979,
28–49 [in Hebrew]), this peculiarity of Luke’s points to the third Gospel’s priority here
as regards closeness to the initial tradition. For an illuminating shift in appraisal of the
meaning of the episode with regard to the historical Jesus, see three consecutive studies
198 chapter seven
As noted, in Acts’ treatment of the crucixion and its repercussions

this tendency, felt already in Luke’s Gospel, develops into subduing
or even eliminating the punishment/destruction motif. This feature
of Luke/Acts stands in even greater relief when compared with 1
Thessalonians, the earliest Pauline epistle and thus the earliest extant
Christian document, where we read (1 Thess 2:14–16):
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ
Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own
countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus
and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all
men 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be
saved—so as always to ll up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath
has come upon them at last!
This passage bears witness to the notion of Jesus’ crucixion as a con-
tinuation of the line of the rejection and killing of Israel’s prophets, with
the complementing traditional motif of punishment—albeit without
reference to the Temple—to be meted out to Jesus’ (and consequently
Paul’s) Jewish opponents.45 However, further along Paul’s position46
seems to have undergone a substantial transformation: Although the
expression “wrath of God” (4#5 +), central to the passage just
quoted, also features prominently in Romans,47 the later epistle is
distinguished—especially in Romans 9–11—by a much more serene
by C. A. Evans: ‘Jesus’s Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989), 237–270; ‘From “House of Prayer” to “Cave of
Robbers”: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment’, in: C. A. Evans
and S. Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality
in Honor of James A. Sanders, Leiden 1997, 417–442; and ‘Diarchic Messianism in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Messianism of Jesus of Nazareth’, in: L. W. Schiffman, E.
Tov and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery,
Jerusalem 2000, 558–567.
45
A suggestion has been even raised, though it is not completely convincing, that not
only the obvious “Jews” but also “your own countrymen” from verse 14 denote here
Jewish opponents—in the latter case, those acting in the Diaspora; see K. P. Donfried,
‘Paul and Judaism: I Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case’, Interpretation: A Journal of
Bible and Theology 38 (1984), 242–253.
46
Doubts have been expressed with regard to the authenticity of the passage from 1
Thess 2; I however tend to agree with those who see it as coming back to Paul himself.
For a discussion on the variety of positions on the issue and the arguments propagated,
see Donfried, ‘Paul and Judaism’ (previous note). See also G. O. Okeke, ‘I Thess. II
13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews’, New Testament Studies 27 (1980), 127–136.
47
See Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4,5. I believe that Donfried
(note 45 above) is right in stressing the eschatological dimension of Paul’s usage of
4#5 +.
crucifixion 199
attitude toward “unbelieving Jews”. The motif of Jesus as a persecuted

prophet to be avenged seems also to have eventually been dropped in
Paul’s writing. The stance of Acts may, then, reect something more
than a personal fancy of the author, known for his penchant for har-
monization and fondness of “Jewish heritage”, though these personal
inclinations of the author may well have contributed to his sensitivity
to the problem.48
It could be argued that it is the clash of the “rejected prophet” pat-
tern—entailing punishment and destruction—with the programmatic
insistence on the realization, albeit partial, of messianic salvation in
Jesus’ resurrection that made this pattern not only unsatisfactory49 but
also inadequate. I thus suggest seeing in Luke/Acts a prime example
of nascent Christian tradition’s reaction to this inadequacy. Another
obvious source of inadequacy of the biblical persecuted prophet pat-
tern is that it lacks the motif of resurrection, which is denitely central
to Acts: This composition—as well as the Gospel of Luke—does not
develop the view of Christ’s death as atoning, focusing instead entirely
on the resurrection as the salvation event.50
The pattern of martyrdom or beneciary death
Alternative foundational patterns could have been probed by the

author of Luke/Acts for understanding Jesus’ crucixion in view of the
inadequacy of the rejected prophet motif. In this regard the pattern of
martyrdom/ beneciary death—entailing forgiveness of people’s sins
and redemption of Israel, attested in a number of compositions but
most notably in 2 Maccabees 7 (cf. 4 Macc 6:29; 17:21 and Daniel
3, 6)—has recently been addressed by Jan van Henten, who distinguishes
between the phenomena of martyrdom and benecial death, discerning
the latter in 2 Maccabees.51 Flusser discerns the martyrdom pattern
48
See, for example, Luke 1:5–10; 2:21–24, 39, 41–49; 23:56. See also the discussion
in Conzelmann, Acts, xliii–xlvi.
49
Once the messianic claim concerning Jesus became the core point of the kerygma,
the prophetic title could clearly no longer sufce.
50
See Conzelmann, Acts, xlvi.
51
See discussion in van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’. See also J. W. van Henten, The
Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People; A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, Leiden 1997.
The distinction between the Jewish martyrological concept of the suffering/persecution
that the righteous suffer (mainly from outside enemies) and the suffering/persecution
200 chapter seven
also in Qumran, e.g., in the Community Rule (4:7–8), the Thanksgiving

Scroll (17:10, 24–26) and the War Scroll (16:13, 17:1–3).52 It should be
noted, however, that in none of these Qumranic instances do we nd
the motif of the death of a martyr as bringing forgiveness to the sin-
ful others. It should also be emphasized that unlike Flusser, who views
the prophets’ rejection and persecution as belonging to the category of
the death for the “sanctication of the Name”, I suggest distinguishing
between the two.
In light of the above evidence, it may be argued that while it is
plausible that early Christian tradition applied existing Jewish martyr-
dom traditions to the interpretation of Jesus’ death, it reworked them
considerably. It was observed, for example, that unlike 2 Maccabees,
where the martyrs’ resurrection is presented as their individual vindication,
Jesus’ resurrection—and not only his atoning death—is perceived in
some New Testament texts as having benecial signicance for others.53
As noted, the almost exclusive emphasis on Jesus’ beneciary resurrec-
tion—at the expense of his suffering and death—is characteristic of
the author of Luke/Acts. Another reason the 2 Maccabees martyrdom
pattern might have been of little help to him—and elsewhere in the
New Testament—in interpreting Jesus’ crucixion was that 2 Maccabees
7 contains neither a reference to the eschaton nor a clear notion of a
collective eschatological resurrection.54
Still, there are three important elements in the 2 Maccabees mar-
tyrdom narrative, absent in the prophets’ persecution pattern, with
regard to which it may be plausibly argued that they found their way
into the interpretation of the crucixion in Luke and Acts: (a) a speedy
deliverance, (b) the centrality of the resurrection/ascension motif and
(c) the presence of a foreign authority.
of God’s messengers at the hands of their own people has been noted, e.g., in D. R.
Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew,
Cambridge, Mass. 1967, 176; Scholer, Israel Murdered Its Prophets, 11–12.
52
Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name’, 238–247.
53
Emphasized by H. J. de Jonge, J. Holleman and D. G. Powers; see discussion in
van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’.
54
See van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’. In his study, van Henten summed up the
relevant vocabulary of martyrs’ beneciary death as attested in 2 Macc 7, underlining
the differences with the vocabulary employed in the New Testament. My focus is on
the (dis)similarity not necessarily in the formula but rather in the pattern of thought.
crucifixion 201
a) A speedy deliverance
This element features prominently in 2 Maccabees 7–8, both on a
personal and on a national level. Starting with the latter, the section
as a whole highlights the redemptive change in Israel’s fortunes as the
immediate outcome of the seven brothers’ benecial deaths (2 Macc
7:32–33; 8:2–5):
7:32 For we are suffering because of our own sins. 33 And if our living
Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again
be reconciled with his own servants…
8:2 They besought the Lord to look upon the people who were
oppressed by all, and to have pity on the temple which had been pro-
faned by ungodly men, 3 and to have mercy on the city which was being
destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, and to hearken to the
blood that cried out to him, 4 and to remember also the lawless destruc-
tion of the innocent babies and the blasphemies committed against his
name, and to show his hatred of evil. 5 As soon as Maccabeus got his
army organized, the Gentiles could not withstand him, for the wrath of
the Lord had turned to mercy.
As for individual deliverance of the martyrs, its speedy character is

emphatically stated—in collation with national salvation!—in 2 Mac-
cabees 7:36–37 (italics added):
36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everow-
ing life under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will
receive just punishment for your arrogance. 37 I, like my brothers, give
up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show
mercy soon to our nation.
As noted earlier, both in the Gospel (Luke 24:26, 46–47) and in Acts
(2:24), the immediate nature of Jesus’ entering “into his glory” is
highlighted—with the tragedy of the crucixion being presented as no
more than a necessary preliminary phase for the victory of resurrection.
Hermann Lichtenberger singled out two more instances peculiar to
Luke’s passion narrative as indicating proximity to the speedy deliver-
ance pattern found in 2 Maccabees 7–8.55 One is the assurance the good
thief received from Jesus in the course of the crucixion agony (Luke
23:43): 6) 78, 90 #, 0 ’ + & 8
55
H. Lichtenberger, ‘Martyrdom in the New Testament’, in: Z Nového Zákona/From
the New Testament, Prague 2001, 96–105, esp. 99.
202 chapter seven
) : (And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be
with me in Paradise”). Another may be discerned in Luke’s version of
Jesus’ last cry on the cross (Luke 23:46): ; <0 <$ #&
=
+ 6), >, ? ! ) )+ .
+ ?)@ A) (Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said,
“Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” [Ps 31:6] And having said
this he breathed his last). The Lukan version of the cry on the cross
was interpreted—in light of the Synoptic parallels (Matt 27:46; Mark
15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me [Ps 22:2]”)—as
an indication that Luke intended to make his crucixion narrative
“almost tranquil”.56 In other words, to reject the claim—possible in
view of the events—that God had forsaken his just ones. This is again
a motif featuring prominently in 2 Maccabees 7, where care is taken
to stress that whatever impression one may get vis-à-vis the persecu-
tion, “The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion
on us” (2 Macc 7:6).
It may be added that in his time it was Hermann Samuel Reimarus
who seems to have interpreted Jesus’ words at the Last Supper: “For I
tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until
the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18, cf. Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25),
as expressing Jesus’ belief in a speedy deliverance of Israel—namely,
within a year, before the next Passover.57
b) The centrality of the resurrection/ascension motif

The issue of post mortem existence features prominently in 2 Maccabees’
description of martyrdom; it is explicitly stated that the brothers’ unwav-
ering faithfulness to their religion is founded on the hope of a future
life, which is perceived as the core tenet of the covenant:58
10 After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was
demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth
his hands, 11 and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his
laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again” . . .
13 When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth
in the same way. 14 And when he was near death, he said, “One can-
56
See O. C. Edwards, Luke’s Story of Jesus, Philadelphia 1981, 93. Cf. Schefer,
Suffering in Luke’s Gospel, 103.
57
See A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus; A Critical Study of Its Progress from
Reimarus to Wrede, Baltimore 1998, 13–21, esp. 18. See also the discussion below.
58
Cf. the Wisdom of Solomon 3–5; see note 65 below.
crucifixion 203
not but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that
God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no
resurrection to life!” . . .
23 “Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning
of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life
and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the
sake of his laws” . . .
29 “Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers.
Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your
brothers” . . .
36 “For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of
everowing life under God’s covenant (1 #, + -<(
'!B C)# ). - D" C) 0
+ ))* );
but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your
arrogance.”
The centrality of the afterlife motif in the Gospel narrative cannot
be overestimated. Luke’s previously noted exclusive emphasis on the
speedy deliverance of resurrection also bears witness to that. The text
of 2 Maccabees 7 just quoted, however, points to a specic feature of
the afterlife tradition that may inform our reading of Luke and Acts:
a certain blurring of the distinction between resurrection (7:10, 13,
23 and 29) and the post mortem existence of the soul (7:36). A similar
lack of distinction or, rather, a lack of harmonization among the vari-
ous traditional notions, may be observed in rabbinic sources, which in
addition to numerous references to
(general resurrection
of the dead in the future)59 also attest to variegated notions of the
continuation of a “spiritualized” existence—one may say ascension—
of an individual, following his death.60
Luke is the only Gospel writer who shows awareness of the conun-
drum and invests considerable effort in trying to clarify the issue. His
addition (in bold below) to the Synoptic version of Jesus’ answer to
the Sadducees is one such instance (Luke 20:27–40; cf. Matt 22:23–33,
Mark 12:18–27):
27 There came to him some Sadducees, those who say that there is no
resurrection, 28 and they asked him a question, saying, . . . 34 And Jesus
59
See discussion in E. E. Urbach, The Sages—Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols, Jeru-
salem 1987, 1:649–660, where the connection between the resurrection of the dead
and the redemption of Israel is outlined.
60
For examples and discussion see Ruzer, ‘The Death Motif ’, 151–165.
204 chapter seven
said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage;
35 but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the
resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36
for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are
sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are
raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he
calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God
of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all
live to him ( 7 E -, D*, ) #, 78
DE )”. 39 And some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken
well”. 40 For they no longer dared to ask him any question.
I would suggest that the addition was meant if not to solve then at least
to alleviate the difculty present in the common Gospel tradition: While
the question of the Sadducees, as well as Jesus’ answer, speak of future
resurrection, the Torah proof text seemingly relates to the patriarchs’
current “dwelling with God”—a notion that better suits the belief in
a post mortem existence. My interpretation seems more than probable in
light of the description in Luke 16:22 of a poor man called Lazarus,
who “died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom”. The
whole passage in Luke 16:19–31 leaves no doubt that it is not the res-
urrection but rather an afterlife in a heavenly abode (ascension) that is
meant here. Again, Luke is the only Gospel writer to narrate the story
and invoke the tradition speaking of the righteous being in the “bosom
of Abraham”, which resurfaces in later rabbinic sources.61
Luke is also the only gospel writer who, in describing Jesus’ post-
Easter appearances, nds it necessary to emphasize the distinction
between resurrection and a post mortem spiritualized existence (Luke
24:36–43):62
36 As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. 37 But they
were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. 38 And
he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in
your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me,
and see; for a spirit has not esh and bones as you see that I have”. 40
And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41
61
See b. Qid. 72b, Pesiqta Rabbati 43. Cf. John 1:18, where Jesus is said to be “in the
bosom of the Father”. The context seems to indicate that Jesus is presented here as a new
Torah. For Torah being kept in the “bosom of God”, see Avot de R. Nathan A, 31.
62
Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80, who vehemently opposes the “so-called
Christians” who deny resurrection of the dead, believing instead in the post mortem
heavenly existence (ascension) of their souls.
crucifixion 205
And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them,
“Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled
sh, 43 and he took it and ate before them.
On top of all that, unlike this last passage from Luke 24, the exegetical
strategy employed in Acts 2, while explicitly focusing on resurrection
is in fact tailored to tackle also the complementing motif of Jesus’
ascension (Acts 2:32–36):
32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being
therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from
the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which
you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he
himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 till I
make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ ( Ps 110:1) 36 Let all the house of
Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and
Christ, this Jesus whom you crucied”.
c) The presence of a foreign authority

One of the clear markers of the 2 Maccabees martyrdom pattern—as
distinct from that of the persecuted prophets, who suffer at the hands
of their own people—is the dominant role of an outside enemy who is,
sometimes in collaboration with certain circles within the Jewish society,
the immediate agent of suffering.63 Clearly, the political reality of the
late Second Temple period as well as that following the destruction of
the Temple could have contributed to the importance of this element
of the developing tradition. This is aptly demonstrated by the tendency
of the rabbinic midrash to introduce the character of a foreign occupier
into the deliberations on the murder of a prophet by his own kinsmen
and its repercussions.64
This motif of an “outside enemy”—or rather collaboration between
the cruel foreign authority and hostile elements from within—nds
its expression in introducing Herod Antipas, rst, into the passion
63
See discussion in van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom.’ D. R. Schwartz (‘The Other
in 1 and 2 Maccabees’, in: G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa [eds.], Tolerance and
Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge 1998, 30–37) discusses a tendency
of 2 Maccabees to distinguish between righteous and wicked, both within the Jewry
and within its Gentile environment—in contradistinction to the 1 Maccabees stance,
with its clear overlap between wickedness and “gentileness”.
64
See, for example, y. Ta{an 4.5 [69a–b].
206 chapter seven
narrative (Luke 23:6–12) and then into the exegetical appraisal of Jesus’
crucixion in Acts 4:24–28:
23 When they were released they went to their friends and reported what
the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard
it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who
didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them,
25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the
Holy Spirit, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain
things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers
were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27
for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant
Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever thy hand and thy
plan had predestined to take place.
The same motif features prominently in the programmatic statement
of Acts 2:22–23, where the crucixion is presented as the outcome of
Jesus’ Jewish enemies’ collaboration with the lawless Romans:
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to
you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did
through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered
up according to the denite plan and foreknowledge of God, you cruci-
ed and killed by the hands of lawless men.
To concluding the discussion in this section, I would argue that while
these three important elements of the Second Temple Jewish martyr-
dom tradition, reected in 2 Maccabees, seem to have informed the
understanding of Jesus’ crucixion in Luke and Acts,65 they could not
adequately support the exegetical program advanced in Luke 24. As
noted, the professed objective of that program was to look for the mean-
ing of the crucixion in Scripture, to present Jesus’ death as grounded
in biblical prophecy—hence the problematic status of more recent
compositions of a clearly non-scriptural standing such as 2 Maccabees,
which could have been alluded to but not used as a proof text.66
65
Cf. Beck (‘Imitatio Christi’ 30–47), who discerns a common background of ideas
for the Lukan passion narrative and the Wisdom of Solomon.
66
Even an allusion to a particular 2 Maccabees 7 passage would be difcult to locate
with any certainty. However, Acts 5:39 is believed by some to be alluding to 2 Macc
7:19; see Nestle-Aland, Greek-English New Testament, 8th rev. ed., Stuttgart 1998, 801.
While I have focused on general patterns of belief that might have been shared by the
Maccabees martyrdom tradition and Luke-Acts, an illuminating comparative analysis
of the sub-motifs and terminology employed in these two traditions is conducted in
crucifixion 207
Isaiah 53: A prophet whose suffering has a vicarious redemptive meaning
The references to what is usually called the Servant Song are absent
from the earliest strata of the New Testament. It can thus be argued
that the initial notion of Jesus’ beneciary death—to the extent that it
was linked to Jesus’ own views—seems not to have derived from Isaiah
53.67 For this investigation, which focuses not on the “earliest strata”
but rather on the attitude characteristic of Luke/Acts, it is important
that there are only scanty references to Isaiah 53 elsewhere in the Gos-
pels—and not necessarily with an eye to the vicarious aspect of suffering!
A brief review of relevant passages in the Gospels outside Luke will
help to achieve a better appreciation of the latter’s contribution.
First, a passage from Matthew 8:17 represents an instructive case of
restricting the exegetical potential of the Servant Song to providing a
justication for Jesus’ healing activities—in contradiction or at best only
in anticipation of its function as a biblical proof text for the salvic
meaning of the cross:
16 That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with
demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were
sick. 17 This was to fulll what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah [53:4],
“He took our inrmities and bore our diseases”.68
Second, the passion narratives employ a number of references to
motifs present in Isaiah 53, notable among them being: (a) the suffer-
ing servant’s silence before his accusers, as attested in Isaiah 53:7 (Matt
27:12; Mark 14:49; John 1:29); (b) suffering as atonement for the sins of
many (Isa 53:4–6, 8, 10, 12—Matt 20:28, 27:38; Mark 10:45, 15:27).69
Van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom.’ Van Henten’s conclusion that the presentation of
Jesus’ suffering is closer “to the tradition of the suffering righteous, which means that
we should not ignore the passion narratives’ allusions to Hebrew Bible passages stem-
ming from that tradition” seems to correspond with my suggestion of the 2 Maccabees
“inadequacy” as a proof text.
67
See, for example, M. de Jonge, God’s Final Envoy; Early Christology and Jesus’ Own
View of His Mission, Grand Rapids 1998, 30–33. For discussion of a range of opinions
on the issue, including by those scholars who were persuaded that the notion of the
Suffering Servant did play a major role in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission, see
D. J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, Shefeld 1983, 164–175.
68
Cf. Mark 1:32–34; Luke 4:40–41. See also 1 Peter 2:21–25; 1 Cor 15:3.
69
Cf. 1 Peter 2:24 (“bore our sins”); 1 Cor 15:3 (“died for our sins in accordance
with the scriptures”); Heb 9:28 (“bore the sins of many”). The atonement sayings in
Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 are regarded by many as inauthentic; see, for example,
O’Neill, ‘Did Jesus Teach?,’ 24.
208 chapter seven
However, these possible allusions are few and vague—a far cry from
what might be considered an explicit reference.70
Luke thus seems to be the only one among the Gospel writers who
takes pains to make the connection to Isaiah 53 explicit.71 He presents
the persecution of Jesus—and the latter’s need to defend himself with
a sword—as the fulllment of the oracle in Isaiah 53:9, 12:
36 He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and
likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy
one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fullled in me,—‘And
he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its
fullment”. 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords”. And
he said to them, “It is enough”. (Luke 22:36–38)72
In continuation of this tendency, Isaiah 53 is explicitly presented in
Acts 8:26–35 as the biblical key to understanding Jesus’ death on the
cross.73 It is noteworthy, however, that even Luke does not use Isaiah 53
as a proof text for either expiatory death or resurrection—the biblical
passage is referred to exclusively in connection with the circumstances
of Jesus’ passion and his bearing under suffering.74 This restricted line
of exegesis stands out in even greater relief if compared to such Second
Temple Jewish appraisals of Isaiah 53 as the tradition from 4Q 491c
frag. 1 (4QSelf-Glorication Hymn), where as argued by Israel Knohl, a
collation of Isaiah 53 with ascension motifs is accomplished.75
How should we interpret the somewhat hesitant introduction of
Isaiah 53 into the crucixion discourse in our New Testament source?
In principle, it may be suggested that since the wider Scriptural text
from which the quoted passages are taken contains passages with
70
Moo (Old Testament in Passion Narratives, 224) seems to believe it is exactly the lack
of explicit references that indicates this exegetical pattern was widely recognized. I do
not nd it convincing.
71
Cf. Moo, ibid., 172. Moo also discusses an analogous exegetical option probed
in the passion narrative—namely, Zechariah 9–14—but comes to the conclusion that,
unlike the other Synoptics, Luke “betrays no interest” in it (ibid., 223).
72
Cf. the episode of Jesus being crucied together with two robbers, which remains
unexploited in the Gospels as far as the potential link to Isaiah 53 is concerned: Matt
27:38; Mark 15:27; cf. Luke 23:32.
73
As Acts 8:34 seems to indicate, the author was aware of an interpretation,
according to which Isaiah 53 was speaking about the prophet himself and not about
a future progeny of David.
74
As noted in Beck, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 43.
75
I. Knohl, ‘The Suffering Servant: From Isaiah to The Dead Sea Scrolls’ (forth-
coming).
crucifixion 209
some resurrection/ascension-centered exegetical potential, the author

of Luke/Acts, as well as his audience, was well aware of that but
did not nd it necessary to highlight this potential in his narrative.76
Alternatively, Luke’s “conservative” approach could simply bear wit-
ness to a relatively early stage in the Christian exegetical quest, when
the appropriation of Isaiah 53 had just begun. The New Testament
exegete may then be perceived as yet unaware of the existence of a
Jewish interpretation perfectly tailored to serve his needs.
The former explanation looks to me less probable—especially in view
of the systematic efforts to provide biblical backing for Jesus’ salvic
resurrection that characterize the author of Luke and Acts. Also the
allusion to resurrection/ascension to be possibly discerned in Isaiah
53:10–11 is at best vague:
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief;
when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he
shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;
11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satised; by
his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be
accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.
It is noteworthy that in classical rabbinic midrashim, as well as in old
liturgical poetry ( piyut), Isaiah 53 does feature prominently as the key
proof text for the Messiah’s suffering, but not for his resurrection or
ascension.77
Whatever the case, the reluctance to appeal to Isaiah 53 may reect,
inter alia, a problematic standing of the Deutero-Isaiah passage vis-à-vis
the hermeneutical program formulated in Luke 24: With the professed
objective of providing biblical backing for the kingly Messiah’s death and
resurrection/ascension, and the emphasis on the Messiah’s immediate
“coming into his glory”, the author of Luke/Acts ends up showing a
preference for the gure of David in Psalms. Of course, the traditional
messianic expectations, centered on “restoring the kingdom of Israel”,
did not t the type of eschatological reality experienced by the early
Jesus movement. As argued in Chapter 4, it is exactly this problem
that the author attempts to solve in Acts 1–2 by redening David the
king as the prophet of resurrection and ascension, thus building upon a
76
As noted, Moo (note 70 above) applied this reasoning to the other Gospel writ-
ers also.
77
See the discussion in M. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination; On Jewish Thought and
Theology, Cambridge, Mass. 1998, 75, 82–85.
210 chapter seven
tradition belonging to the pool of ideas inherited by the Jesus movement

from pre-Christian Judaism.78 It is arguably this agenda that causes the
author to omit in the Gospel any references that might put too strong
an emphasis on the suffering and despair of Christ on the cross.79
Conclusion
Beginning with the internal New Testament evidence that Jesus’ death
was a challenge for early Christian exegesis, this chapter has dealt with
the hermeneutical strategies employed in Luke and Acts vis-à-vis the
“scandal of the crucixion”. The discussion focused mainly on the
biblical pattern of persecuted prophet(s). This pattern, with its sub-
motif of God’s vengeance through the destruction of the Temple, was
picked up and developed in Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism; the
Gospels may be seen as bearing witness to its relatively early (pre-70 c e)
form. The punishment-destruction motif featured also as a self-evident
argument in Christian anti-Jewish polemics as early as mid-second
century.80 We have seen, however, that in the general outline of the
double treatise this motif is rst subdued in the Gospel of Luke and
then completely abandoned in Acts. The author of Acts shows no
inclination to invoke either the general motif of punishment or that
of the destruction of the Temple; this seems to be one of the reasons
for dropping the murdered prophet theme.81
78
This David-centered tendency features even more prominently in the Codex Bezae
of Luke, where quotations from David’s psalms mark not only the end of Jesus’ life on
the cross but also the beginning of his mission in the scene of the baptism; see S. Ruzer,
‘Son of God as Son of David: Luke’s Attempt to Biblicize a Problematic Notion’, in:
L. Kogan, S. Lyosov and S. Tiscenko (eds.), Babel und Bibel 3, Winona Lake, In. 2007
(forthcoming). That the perception of David as a prophet, far from being a Christian
innovation, was in fact a part of the “Jewish heritage” has been recently demonstrated
on the basis of biblical, Second Temple (11QPs[a], 4 Macc), and rabbinic evidence
in M. Daly-Denton, ‘David the Psalmist, Inspired Prophet: Jewish Antecedents of a
New Testament Datum’, Australian Biblical Review 52 (2004), 32–47. See also M. De
Jonge, ‘The Earliest Use of Christos. Some Suggestions’, New Testament Studies 32 (1986),
334–335; idem, ‘Jezus als profetische Zoon van David’, in: F. García Martinez, C. H.
J. de Geus and A. F. J. Klijn (eds.), Profeten en Profetische Geschriften, Festschrift A. S. van
der Woude, Kampen-Nijkerk 1987, 161–164.
79
Cf. Moo, Old Testament in Passion Narratives, 287. For an exhaustive discussion of the
use of various lament Psalms in the descriptions of Jesus’ passion, see ibid., 225–300.
80
See, for example, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 16.
81
It is noteworthy that even The Letter of Barnabas, with its vehemently polemical
crucifixion 211
One further observation in the same vein seems appropriate here.

It has been suggested by Daniel Boyarin that at some rather early
point in the process of the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and
Christianity, martyrdom came to be viewed by both sides as an ultimate
religious fulllment and proof of the true faith.82 Moreover, the suffering
of the Messiah is greatly enhanced in a number of rabbinic elabora-
tions, amounting to what Michael Fishbane calls “midrashic theologies
of messianic suffering”.83 The tendency of the author of Luke/Acts to
play down this motif and emphasize instead the speedy transition to
redemption goes in the opposite direction. While the main objective of
the chapter was to highlight the focal junctures of the double treatise
exegetical agenda, these features can also constitute an argument for
an early date of Acts’ composition.
We have seen that there are common traits in the approach to the
problem of Jesus’ crucixion in Luke and Acts. Yet there is also a
notable difference: in the Gospel, the author’s position nds its expres-
sion in a subtle “editing” of the received tradition, whereas in Acts the
treatment of the crucixion is of a much more independent kind. The
observed difference may provide an argument for the position that Acts
should be regarded as the sequel to the Gospel (i.e. a distinct book)
rather than as Part II of a work conceived and executed as a single
composition—hence the use of “Luke and Acts” or “Luke/Acts” and
not “Luke-Acts” throughout this chapter.
Luke/Acts has proved to be an instructive test case for an early
Christian author’s probing of a number of exegetical schemes, no one
of which is without its shortcomings. It was observed in the research
that the passion narratives, far from being the elaboration of a single
literary genre, derive rather from a mixture of various—Jewish and
Graeco-Roman—literary forms.84 I have stressed a different kind of
stance, interprets the destruction of the Temple as a punishment for Israel’s general
disobedience toward God, spelled out in biblical prophecy—without establishing a link
to Jesus’ death; see Ch. 16.
82
D. Boyarin, Dying for God; Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism,
Stanford 1999, esp. 105–110.
83
See discussion in Fishbane, Exegetical Imagination, 73–85.
84
U. Kellermann, Auferstanden in den Himmel; 2 Makkabäer 7 und die Auferstehung der
Märtyrer, Stuttgart 1979, 46–53. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Genre of the Passion
Narrative’, Studia Theologica 47 (1993), 20, where she argues that the literary form of
the earliest version of Mark’s passion narrative is closest to Graeco-Roman accounts
about the death of famous persons. See also van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’.
212 chapter seven
variety—that of exegetical strategies, and hence of biblical proof

texts referred to. It was suggested—by Adela Yarbro Collins among
others—that the passion narratives were from the beginning designed
as the fulllment of a cluster of biblical passages;85 I have argued that
Luke/Acts provides a rare opportunity to investigate the process of
consequent probing of variegated exegetical options, each one of which,
as noted, turns out to be problematic. The process started with the
persecuted prophet pattern, entailing punishment; the motifs linked to
the benecent death of a martyr—somehow lacking biblical author-
ity—were then introduced; and at a certain stage Isaiah 53 started
coming into the picture. Finally, the emphasis moved to David and
Psalms—in one more attempt to provide an adequate solution to the
hermeneutical objective stated in Luke 24.
Exegesis dealing with the meaning of crucixion clearly reects the

particular situation and agenda of the Jesus movement. It comes as
no surprise that, unlike some other modes of New Testament biblical
interpretations, this one is presented in Luke/Acts not as “growing out”
of existing patterns but rather as a revelatory one. Yet the hermeneutical
process under discussion does relate to, and thus bears witness to, exist-
ing Jewish exegetical traditions. I have suggested that the inadequacy of
the persecuted prophet pattern stemmed not only from its biblical link
to God’s vengeance but also from the author of Luke/Acts’ frowning
upon its later function—widely attested in rabbinic sources—with the
enhanced centrality of the Temple-destruction-as-punishment sub-motif.
In view of the absence of this sub-motif from such core Second Temple
texts as Jubilees, the New Testament where it is reected may be seen
(together with 1 Enoch) as an important corroborating witness for the
variety characterizing this particular trajectory of Jewish exegesis. Also,
as shown already in Chapter 4, the reinterpretation of Davidic mes-
siahship attempted in Acts—with all its undeniable originality—throws
additional light on the circumstances that engendered parallel attempts
at the messianic reinterpretation attested in Qumran. It has been noted,
however, that nothing in somewhat cautious exegetical moves that the
author of Luke/Acts performs vis-à-vis Isaiah 53 betrays his awareness
85
See, for example, A. Yarbro Collins, ‘From Noble Death to Crucied Messiah’,
New Testament Studies 40 (1994), 481–503.
crucifixion 213
of the peculiar Qumran interpretation of the Servant Song propagated

in 4QSelf-Glorication Hymn—a fact that should inform our attempts at
nascent Christianity’s positioning among different groups within late
Second Temple Judaism.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE NEW COVENANT, THE REINTERPRETATION OF

SCRIPTURE AND COLLECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP
The notion of new covenant surfaces only once in the whole vast
corpus of the biblical literature—in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. 32:39–40).
Scholars generally agree that the passage faithfully expresses Jeremiah’s
views if not necessarily the prophet’s ipsissima verba.1 There also seems
to be almost a full consensus that this oracle does not refer to a new
revelatory meaning of the Torah; rather, that the Torah’s internaliza-
tion is the issue.2 As observed more than half-century ago by W. D.
Davies, the tension between external and internal covenants did not
have to mean that Jeremiah disrespected the former, that of Sinai.3 In
fact, internalization (realization?), sometimes equated with the universal
knowledge of God, has been seen by most scholars as representing the
true novelty of the covenant in this passage, as compared to the situation
reected in such sayings as Deuteronomy 6:6–7, 10:12, and 30:6 and
Psalms 37:31 and 40:8. In other words, but for internalization/realiza-
tion, Jeremiah’s covenant was the same covenant, albeit renewed, as the
preceding ones: same nation, same kernel of both new and old—the
1
See, for example, J. Bright, Jeremiah, The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1965, 287; cf. J.
Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance en Jér 31, 31–34’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963), 20,
who inclines to ascribing the passage to a disciple of Jeremiah. For attempts at historical
contextualization, see J. Mejía, ‘La problématique de l’Ancienne et de la Nouvelle Alli-
ance dans Jérémie xxxi 31–34 et quelques autres texts’, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume —Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 266–267; W. L. Holladay, ‘The Structure and Pos-
sible Setting of the New Covenant Passage, Jer 31, 31–34’, in: V. Collado Bartolomeu
(ed.), Palabra, prodigio, poesia, Rome 2003, 188–189, where the year 587 bce, close to
the destruction of the Temple, is suggested as the time of the passage’s composition.
M. Weinfeld (‘Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel’, Zeitschrift für die
Altestestamentliche Wissenschaft 80 [1976], 17–56) perceives the passage as belonging to
a series of antithetical oracles, typical of Jeremiah, juxtaposing the old situation with
the expected spiritual metamorphosis of Israel. According to Weinfeld (ibid., 43) the
sources of the tradition may be discerned already in Hosea.
2
See Bright, Jeremiah, 283; Mejía, ‘La problématique’, 267, 272; G. P. Couturier,
‘Jeremiah,’ in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 290. See also C. K. Stockhausen,
Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant, Rome 1989, 104–105.
3
W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or Age to Come, Philadelphia 1952, 21.
See also Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance’, 16–17.
216 chapter eight
Lord’s Torah.4 Admittedly, there have been some voices of dissent,

claiming that Jeremiah’s oracle, if contextualized in the aftermath of
the destruction of the Temple, may express the prophet’s perception
of Moses’ covenant as “now a dead letter”,5 but the former appraisal
remains the dominant one. It will be shown below that in 2 Corinthians
3 Paul adopts the internalization-centered understanding of Jeremiah
31:31–34. It will be claimed, however, that at the core of Paul’s reason-
ing there also lies the notion of the new covenant as designating an
ultimate messianic reinterpretation of Scripture—an idea that seems to
have reected not only the apostle’s thinking but also that of his milieu
within the Jesus movement. It is this peculiar exegetical development
and its genesis that this concluding chapter is going to deal with.
The possible repercussions of this emphasis on new eschatological
exegesis for the role ascribed to the messianic leader(s) vis-à-vis the
community of the electi will also be addressed. As noted in Chapter
4, research of the last decades has highlighted the varied nature of
Second Temple Jewish messianic notions; the discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls was especially instrumental in clarifying that anticipation of
the Davidic Messiah was only one of a number of existing patterns of
messianic belief, competing with traditions focusing on other charismatic
initiators of the era of salvation, such as the priestly Aaronic Messiah,
a prophetically inspired leader or even an angelic gure.6 This variety
may be seen as building, inter alia, upon alternative notions of sacral
4
See W. C. Kaiser, ‘The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34’,
in: V. L. Tollers and J. P. Maier (eds.), The Bible in Its Literary Milieu, Grand Rapids
1979, 112–114; W. E. Lemke, ‘Exposition Articles: Jeremiah 31:31–34’, Interpretation 37
(1983), 183–187, where an instructive comparison with Jer 24:7, 32:39–40; Ez 11:19,
36:26 is conducted.
5
See Holladay, ‘The Structure and Possible Setting’, 188. Cf. Weinfeld (‘Jeremiah
and the Spiritual Metamorphosis,’ 32), who allows that the prophet might have per-
ceived the new covenant as associated not with formal statutes but exclusively with the
“circumcision of the heart”. J. Swetnam (‘Why Was Jeremiah’s New Covenant New’,
in: G. W. Anderson [ed.], Studies on Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers, Leiden 1974,
111–115) suggested a completely different solution. According to him, the passage from
Jeremiah reecting the criticism against the priestly circles that had formerly been in
control of the Scripture at the same time bears witness to a new development—namely,
the beginning of Torah study in the synagogues, polemically presented as standing for
non-mediated access to the knowledge of God.
6
See Schiffman, ‘Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls’, 116–129;
Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 75–77; Schäfer, ‘Diversity and Interactions’, 15–35.
the new covenant 217
anointment attested in biblical tradition—such as kingly, priestly and

prophetic7—with the oil of anointment being replaced in the latter
with the spirit of prophecy (the Holy Spirit), to be “poured out” on
the initiate. It should be noted that different anointments might have
been perceived as pertaining to the same person. One example could
be the traditions of biblical and Second Temple period provenance
presenting King David as a prophet.8
Nascent Christianity, far from being homogeneous, inherited a vari-
ety of Jewish messianic ideas, so that various, even conicting, notions
may be discerned in the different strata of early Christian sources.9
This chapter will deal with a peculiar pattern of belief that has not
received due research attention—namely, that of a “collective messiah-
ship” seemingly devoid of the need for a personal messiah. This issue
has already been touched on in Chapter 4, and the discussion will now
be taken further, focusing on the exegetical aspects.
After reviewing Qumranic evidence on the idea of “collective anoint-
ment” and its possible biblical roots, I will discuss the notion of the new
covenant as a radical reinterpretation of the Torah and then return,
nally, to the collective messiahship, tying the two themes together.
Collective messiahship in Qumran and the New Testament
The notion of collective messiahship is attested in Qumran, where it is

clearly linked to the prophetic type of anointment—that is, anointment
with the Spirit. Thus, for example, in fragments of the Damascus Docu-
ment found at Qumran such as 4Q266 ii 2:12 (= CD-A 6) and 4Q 270
ii 2:12, 2:14, “the anointed/messiahs by his/the Holy Spirit” or “the
messiahs of (his) Holy Spirit” ( /
)
serve as the community’s collective self-denition. In other passages
(e.g., 4Q266 iii 2:9; 4Q267 2, 6; 4Q269 iv 1:2), a shorter title, “the
anointed of the holiness” (
), denotes the whole community
of the covenanters—as distinguished from the Qumranic priestly elite,
those belonging to the “Aaronic anointment”. Given that the forms
“his messiah” and “his messiahs” are not always distinguishable in the
7
For the biblical “pre-history” of the messianic idea see, for example, Talmon, ‘The
Concept of MÊšîah’, 79–115.
8
For recent discussion see Daly-Denton, ‘David the Psalmist’, 32–47.
9
See Flusser, ‘Reection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs’, (see Chapter 4, note 1). The
issue was addressed in Chapter 4.
218 chapter eight
Dead Sea scrolls, there may in fact be additional instances of this col-
lective usage. One such instance according to my reading, admittedly
a minority opinion, may be the so-called Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521
2 ii 1:

).10
Such “democratic widening” of the scope of anointment seems to
have been rooted in biblical precedents reecting both the prophetic
polemic with the institutionalized patterns of anointment, especially
the priestly one (e.g., Isa 66:1–2; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:25–27), and the
prophetic hope for end-of-days redemption. An instructive example
may be found in Joel 3:1–2, where God promises:
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all
esh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall
dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the
menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.
The reworking of the oracle’s opening line in Acts 2:7 (“And in the
last days/ȀƮ ƵƣʴƳ ȀƴƸɕƵƣƫƳ ȍvɗƲƣƫƳ it shall be, God declares”) bears
witness that the passage from Joel was susceptible to eschatological
interpretation. It is instructive that this passage was employed in Acts
2 as a proof text for the prophetic outpouring of the Spirit within the
Jesus movement.11 The author of Acts seems to have perceived the
phenomenon as foundational, one that both marked the borders of
the “community of the saved” and backed the claim that the era of
end-of-days messianic salvation had truly begun. Paul’s epistles also bear
witness to this outlook, which in all probability was not introduced by the
apostle but inherited by him from the preceding phase in the development
of the Jesus movement, which in its turn might have been inuenced
10
For a different understanding, see E. Puech, ‘Messianism, Resurrection, and
Eschatology’, in: E. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed
Covenant; The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Notre Dame 1994, 235–256;
idem, ‘Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism’, in: J. Charles-
worth, H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema (eds.), Qumran-Messianism, Tübingen 1998,
543–565. See also discussion in G. Alley, ‘Good News to the Poor: Luke’s Exegesis on
Isaiah 61:1–2 within the Synoptic Gospels’ Tripartite Redemptive Framework’, M.A.
thesis, Rothberg School for Overseas Students, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
2001.
11
Acts 2:1–4, 14–24, 35–36; 8:14–17; 10:44–48; 15:8. The emphasis on Jesus’ pro-
phetic calling/messiahship also features prominently in the Third Gospel thus being
characteristic of both parts of the Luke/Acts sequence. See discussion in Chapter 7
and bibliographical references there.
12
See D. Flusser, ‘The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity’, in: Judaism and
the Sources of Christianity, 23–74, esp. 30–50, 71–74.
by Qumran-like ideas.12 One of the indications of this pattern of belief

being shared by wider circles rather than representing the apostle’s
peculiar inclinations is that in some instances Paul evinces a palpable
discomfort with the notion of the collective prophetic anointment,
trying to propagate alternative end-of-days emphases instead. Most
notable among the latter are (as in 1 Corinthians 2, 13) the expiating
death and resurrection of the one and only Davidic Messiah and/or
the expectation of his second coming. Notwithstanding the much-felt
presence of the collective anointment idea, there is only one New Testa-
ment example, 1 John 2:20, of using the plural language of anointment
in an explicitly eschatological context (see discussion below).
It will be suggested below that Jeremiah 31:31–34—as noted the
only biblical passage introducing the notion of an eschatological new
covenant/testament (presented in Jeremiah 32:40 as the everlasting
one)13—could serve as another scriptural point of reference for this
idea of collective messiahship:
31 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a
new covenant (
) with the house of Israel and the house of
Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when
I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my
covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the LORD: I will put my Torah within them, and
I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall
be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and
each his brother, saying, “Know the LORD”, for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.14
Both Qumran and early Christian authors made use of the notion
of a new covenant (testament), which allowed them to redene the
13
See B. Renaud, ‘L’alliance éternelle d’Ez 16, 59–63 et l’alliance nouvelle de Jér
31, 31–34’, in: J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book; Textual and Literary Criticism and Their
Interrelation, Leuven 1986, 337–339, who discussed the problematic of “new-eternal” in
the context of the dialectic tension between rupture and continuity, comparing Jeremiah
31 with Ezekiel 16. See also Mejía, ‘La problématique’, 273–274, who compares the
new covenant idea found in Jer 31:31–34 (a) with the notion of the renewal of the
covenant attested, e.g., in Deuteronomy; and (b) with a series of biblical traditions that
report establishing seemingly “new” covenantal relationships between God and either
Israel or selected individuals, but do not use the phrase “new covenant” itself (ibid.,
268–271). He seems eventually to come to the conclusion that the new covenant notion
reects, in a sense, the core condition of any covenantal outlook.
14
“Law” of the RSV has been replaced throughout this chapter with “Torah”.
220 chapter eight
community of the electi as different in scope from the historical Israel.

The similarity in tactics between the two movements at this point, as
well as the possible inuence of Qumranic thought on early Christianity,
have been thoroughly studied.15 It is noteworthy that the emphasis on
exclusivity seems to have been intrinsically connected, both in Qumran
and in nascent Christianity, with the idea of the remission of sins of
those belonging to the new covenant—4Q266 frag. 3 1:4, Luke 22:20
(cf. Matt 26:27–29; Mark 14:23–25; 1 Cor 11:25–26) and Romans 11:26
are ne examples of such an outlook. This is, of course, an idea that
features prominently in Jeremiah 31:34.
The new covenant and the reinterpretation of Scripture
The prominence of the notion of new covenant in both communities,

however, seems to have stemmed not only from the collation of their
eschatological and “sectarian” interests but also from the fact that each of
them consciously propagated a dramatically innovative (re)interpretation
of the Scripture. Thus in the passage from the Damascus Document related
to above, the new covenant (

) is conditioned upon the
“unearthing” of the previously hidden meanings of the Torah—rst and
foremost that in these days of preparation for the eschaton the covenant-
ers are required, in a radical departure from the priestly ordinances of
the Pentateuch, to cut their ties with the Jerusalem sacricial cult and
the rest of Israel (“sons of the pit/perdition”):
11 But all those who have been brought into the covenant 12 shall not
enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who
close 13 the door . . . 14 . . . Unless they are careful to act in accordance with
the exact interpretation of the Torah for the age of wickedness (

): to separate themselves 15 from the sons of the pit (

); to abstain from wicked wealth which deles, either by promise or
by vow, 16 and from the wealth of the temple . . . 19 . . . according to what
they had discovered, those who entered the new covenant (

)
in the land of Damascus. (CD-A 6:11–19; 4Q266 iii 2:17–25)16
As in Jeremiah 31, the idiom of the “new covenant” is juxtaposed in
the Damascus Document to the covenant of the old, termed “covenant
of the very rst”:
15
See, for example, Flusser, ‘Dead Sea Sect’ (note 12 above).
16
Cf. CD-A 1:45; 3:14–17.
However, when he remembered the covenant of the very rst, he saved

a remnant] for Israel and did not deliver them up to destruction. (4Q266
2 ii 1:9–10)
. . . deceit] [in order to div]ert Israel from following [God. But God
remembered the covenant of the very rst (
), and from]
[Aaron] raised men of knowledge /and from Israel wi[se men], and
forced them to lis[ten.] (4Q266 iii 2:9–11)
Moreover, predecessors—whether the “very rst” of Sinai or those of
the earlier periods of the community’s history17—are explicitly identi-
ed through their interpretation of the Torah, once valid but now
obsolete: “To act according to the interpretation of the Torah (

), which were taught the rst ones (

)
until the arrival of the completion of the end (
)”. (4Q266
3 iii 1:3)
The new covenant is likewise intrinsically linked to a new, previously
unknown, interpretation—this time of a biblical composition from the
Prophets section of the Scripture—in the Qumranic Pesher Habakkuk,
where the content of this dramatically new exegesis is presented as one
hidden even from Habakkuk himself but revealed in the “pre-escha-
tological” period to the Teacher of Righteousness, who thus seems to
enjoy an even more privileged status than the biblical prophet:18
1 Hab 1:5 you reported it. Blank [ The interpretation of the word con-
cerns] the traitors with the Man of 2 Lies, since they do not [believe in
the words of the] Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of 3 God;
(and it concerns) the traito[rs of the] new [covenant] (

)
since they did not 4 believe in the covenant of God [and dishonoured]
his holy name. 5 Likewise: Blank The interpretation of the word [concerns
the trai]tors in the 6 last days. They shall be violators of [the coven]ant
who will not believe 7 when they hear all that is going [to happen to] the
nal generation, from the mouth of the 8 Priest whom God has placed
wi[thin the Community,] to foretell the fullment of all 9 the words of his
17
See discussion of the from 1QS 9 in Chapter 1.
18
The issue is addressed in S.-K. Wan, ‘Charismatic Exegesis: Philo and Paul
Compared’, in: D. T. Runia (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual; Studies in Hellenistic Judaism,
vol. 4, Atlanta 1994, 54; J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel; The Letter/
Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians Tübingen 1995, 67–68. Cf.
D. Dimant (‘Qumran Sectarian Literature’, in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period
[see Chapter 3, note 42], 527f ), who perceives the author of another Qumran composi-
tion, the Temple Scroll, as one who “was undoubtedly convinced that he was writing the
truly divine Torah as revealed to him through tradition and divine inspiration”.
222 chapter eight
servants, the prophets (

), [by] means
of whom God has declared 10 all that is going to happen to his people
[Israel]. (1QpHab 2:1–9)
1 And God told Habakkuk to write what was going to happen 2 to
the last generation, but he did not let him know the end of the age (

). 3 Blank And as for what he says: Hab 2:2 ] “So
that the one who reads it/may run/”. 4 Its interpretation concerns the
Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God has disclosed 5 all the mysteries
of the words of his servants, the prophets. Hab 2:3 For the vision has an
appointed time, it will have an end and not fail. Blank7 Its interpretation:
the nal age will be extended and go beyond (

) all that 8 the prophets say, because the mysteries of God are
wonderful. (1QpHab 7:1–8)
Despite the important similarities between the Damascus Document and
Pesher Habakkuk, two differences relevant to our discussion should be high-
lighted: (a) in the pesher, the previously unheard-of revelatory exegetic
content pertains not to halakhic ordinances but rather to the salvation
scenario itself—more specically, to its unexpectedly long duration; and
(b) the portrayal of the covenanters as the “anointed of the Spirit” is
lacking in the pesher, the emphasis there being on the prophetic-like
anointment of the Teacher of Righteousness.
The new covenant in Paul
While the notion of the new covenant features prominently in the

post-Pauline Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 8:6–9:20; 10:16–29; 12:24;
13:20), only two explicit references to the new covenant occur in the
authentic Pauline letters: 1 Corinthians 11:25 and 2 Corinthians 3:6.19
The former merely reiterates Jesus’ words over the cup during the Last
Supper; the new covenant in this context seems to indicate rst and
foremost a covenant of sacricial atonement/remission of sins—with
an implicit reference to the promise in Jeremiah 31:34: “. . . for I will
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”. The latter,
however—not unlike the above Qumranic admonition—elaborates on
the meaning of the new covenant in connection with the interpretation
19
Unlike its integrity, the authenticity of 2 Corinthians has never been seriously
questioned; see, for example, J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, Oxford-New
York 1996, 252–256.
of Scripture and is thus of primary importance for our investigation.20

The opening passage of 2 Corinthians 3 reads as follows:
1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as
some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves
are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known
and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Messiah
delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living
God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such is
the condence that we have through Messiah toward God. 5 Not that
we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our
competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers
of a new covenant (ƬƣƫƮʦƳ ƦƫƣƪəƬƩƳ), not in a written code but in the
Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor 3:1–6)21
Even more than the Damascus Document and Pesher Habakkuk, where the
reference was implicit,22 the wording here leaves no doubt that the
author is referring to Jeremiah 31:31–34: not only the appearance of
the term “new covenant” itself but also the key themes of internalization
(“written on your hearts”)23 and, hence, the lack of a need for outside
instruction testify to that.24 A complementing motif of Spirit, derived
inter alia from Ezekiel 36 is clearly present here too—see below. Fur-
ther on, Paul species the kind of insightful knowledge that underlies
the new covenant: according to the apostle it is the true, previously
20
Cf. Couturier, ‘Jeremiah’, 289, where he reads 1 Cor 11:25 and 2 Cor 3:6 har-
monistically.
21
To clarify the argument, “Christ” of the RSV English translation is replaced
throughout this chapter with “Messiah”.
22
Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that in Qumran the new covenant notion is
derived from Jeremiah 31. See Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 150 and n. 181 there. See,
however, Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 44, where he seems to suggest that Qumranites
while using the new covenant notion did not necessarily refer to Jeremiah but might
have had an “independent source of inspiration”.
23
See Mejía, ‘La problématique’, 267; Furnish, II Corinthians, 194–196.
24
According to Jer 31:31–34 there is no need for further instruction seemingly even
by God himself—the motif is unparalleled in the Hebrew Scripture! See Coppens, ‘La
nouvelle alliance’, 17–18. 2 Cor 3:3 may refer to Ez 11:19; 36:26 (“heart of stone” );
see Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 46–48. W. Baird (‘Letters of Recommendation: A Study
of II Cor 3:1–3’, Journal of Biblical Literature 80 [1961], 166–172) suggests accepting
a minority reading (ȍvːƮ, “in our heart”, instead of ȹvːƮ, “in your heart” ); he thus
believes that the real issue here is Paul’s credentials as “apostle of the new covenant”
rather then the “(un)ripeness” of his audience. See also C. J. A. Hickling, ‘The Sequence
of Thought in II Corinthians Chapter Three’, New Testament Studies 81 (1974/75),
380–395; E. Richard, ‘Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II Cor.,
iii, 1–iv, 6’, Revue biblique 88 (1981), 363.
224 chapter eight
hidden—and hidden even now from the non-committed, deceived by

“the god of this world” (ȭ ƪƧɜƳ Ƶư˃ ƣȜːƮưƳ, 2 Cor 4:4)25—meaning of
the old covenant, the Torah of Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18):
12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who
put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end (ƵɗƭưƳ)
of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day,
when they read the old covenant (ƵʦƳ ƱƣƭƣƫʗƳ ƦƫƣƪəƬƩƳ), that same veil
remains unlifted, because only through Messiah is it taken away. 15 Yes,
to this day whenever Moses is read26 a veil lies over their minds; 16 but
when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is
the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And
we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being
changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this
comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Thus, far from dismissing the old Scripture, Paul, like the Damascus
Document and Pesher Habakkuk, presents the new covenant as conditioned
on a thorough reinterpretation of the customarily read sacred texts as
speaking of Jesus the Messiah (see 2 Cor 3:12–18)—in deviation from
contemporaneous exegetic patterns, those that “the rst ones were
taught”. One may wonder what picture of Torah’s reading the apostle
have in mind: private or taking place at a Sabbath synagogue meeting
as meant in Acts 15:21?
It is not possible to address here the notoriously complex issue of
Paul’s attitude towards the ritual obligations of Mosaic Law. Sufce it
to note that a number of scholars have argued convincingly that both
Paul’s general tendency and his stance in the passage under discussion
are a far cry from the straightforward supersessionist negation of the
Torah.27 The newness of the new covenant with Paul, then, would
25
For a recent discussion on 2 Cor 4:1–6 see G. Dantzenberg, ‘Überlegungen zur
Exegese und Theologie von 2 Kor 4,1–6’, Biblica 82 (2001), 325–344.
26
For a similar usage ( “Moses” = “the Torah/Book of Moses” ) see Acts 15:21. Cf.
“David” instead of “Psalms/Book of David” in 4QMMT d, Frags. 14–21, 10.
27
For our passage see Hafemann (Paul, Moses, 439–444), who sees the fall-judgment-
restoration sequence in the history of Israel as the true “plot” of Paul’s reasoning here
and, hence, the Spirit of the new covenant as the same Spirit as in previous salvic
revelations, meant to bring about obedience to the Torah. For a “new appraisal” of Paul’s
general stance vis-à-vis the “law”, see K. Stendahl, Final Account; Paul’s Letter to the Romans,
Minneapolis 1995; J. Gager, Reinventing Paul, Oxford 2000; P. Fredriksen, ‘Judaism, the
Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and
2’, Journal of Theological Studies 42, 532–564; eadem, ‘Paul, Purity’, 205–218.
be—in accordance with Jeremiah 31—the “ripeness” of the time

and people’s hearts as a result of the gift of the Spirit.28 The pres-
ent analysis, however, pertains only to a particular dimension of that
problem—namely to the relation between Paul’s stance and that of the
Scrolls. A number of scholars have underlined the gap between the
two, discerning here a clear-cut dichotomy, the tendency that found its
typical, and maybe strongest, expression in the following statement:
At this point Paul’s idea of the ‘new covenant’ is fundamentally different
from the conception of it which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The
Qumran sectarians regarded themselves as constituting a “household of
the Spirit” devoted entirely to obeying the law; they seem to have had
no sense whatever of any incompatibility between ‘life in Spirit’ and
‘life under law.’ For Paul, on the other hand, these stand over against
one another as two radically different and mutually exclusive modes of
existence.29
In contradistinction to such dichotomy, which, in my opinion, is some-
what overdone,30 I would like to emphasize that all possible differences
notwithstanding, the comparison of the two traditions highlights their
shared claim to the unearthing/revelation of the eschatological mean-
ing of the old Torah, which presupposes also a claim as to the latter’s
unquestioned validity. Possibly the ƵɗƭưƳ of 2 Corinthians 3:13 should
then be understood, in light of the Qumranic idiom
from
1QpHab 7:2, as denoting the ultimate meaning of the Holy Writ per-
taining to the end of time. Yet it deserves notice that unlike Habakkuk
28
See Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 440–445, 450. For a revived argument for the tradi-
tional view of the contrast between “old” and “new” as that between Torah and Gospel
see S. Grindheim, ‘The Law Kills but the Gospel Gives Life: The Letter-Spirit Dualism
in 2 Corinthians 3:5–18’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001), 97–115.
29
V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians, The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1984, 199. See also
W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the Dead Seas Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit’, in: K. Stendahl (ed.),
The Scrolls and the New Testament, New York 1957, 180–181; H. Braun, Qumran und das
Neue Testament, 2 vols., Tübingen 1966, 1:198. Further on in his commentary Furnish
(ibid., 200) somehow ameliorates the power of his above wording, stating that “Paul
does not reject the law as such”. Cf. Couturier (‘Jeremiah’, 289), who argues that in
the eschatological context of Qumran the new covenant “designates nothing more
than the Mosaic covenant with strong legalistic tendencies”.
30
See studies by Stendahl, Gager and Fredricksen, mentioned in note 27 above. See
also Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 153–154, where he outlines the striking parallels between
Paul and the Qumranic authors, nding the only essential difference in the person
and work of Christ! See also D. Flusser, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’, 48–50. The tension
observed—e.g., in Galatians 5:18–23—clearly testies against such dichotomy.
226 chapter eight
in the pesher, Moses is not presented by Paul as someone to whom God

did not disclose that ultimate meaning.
Judging, however, by the recurrent use of the substitution and/or
supersession language in scholarly analysis of 2 Corinthians 3:12–18,31
the undeniably polemical tone of the passage has been effective in
obscuring the fact that in Paul’s reasoning here the new covenant is
counterposed not to the Torah but to its “insufciently messianic”
interpretation (in a Damascus Document terminology it would be branded
as unbetting to the “age of wickedness”)—whether it is the blindness
of Paul’s contemporaries or the hesitance of Moses himself that are
to blame. The rhetoric of the epistle seems to suggest a comparison
between Paul and Moses; and the subtle interplay between the iden-
tication with Moses (Paul being misunderstood as was Moses in his
time) and a desire to supersede him has been identied in the research.32
However, my reading suggests that the comparison Paul makes here
is not with Moses the giver of (the text of ) the Torah but rather with
Moses the interpreter, the one who conveys the meaning(s) of the revealed
Holy Writ.
To what extent this aspect is underrated in research may be exempli-
ed by Stockhausen’s conclusions with regard to the elements of the
pre-Pauline Jewish “pool of concepts” underlying the apostle’s notion
of the new covenant: (1) It is new; (2) it is written on hearts, which are
not stone but esh; (3) it imparts individual knowledge of God; (4) it
involves forgiveness of sins and is a divine mercy; (5) it reconstitutes the
people of God; (6) it imparts the spirit and is itself a spiritual reality.33 It
is telling that even in this most thorough investigation of 2 Corinthians
3:1–4:6 the centrality of biblical interpretation is somehow overlooked.
Although there were sporadic attempts to see Paul as promoting in 2
Corinthians 3 an interpretation of the Torah—e.g., along the patterns
of ( Jewish) Hellenistic allegorization34—they do not seem to gain a
31
A telling example is provided by Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 71–72, 77–79, 85,
125–132, 155.
32
See Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 41–42, 105; see also previous note.
33
Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 63; cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 453: “ƵɗƭưƳ [2 Cor 3:13]
does not mean the real or Spirit-inspired meaning [of the Scripture] but the conse-
quences of encountering the glory of God”.
34
See R. M. Grant, The Letter and the Spirit, New York 1957, 50–51; see also
B. Cohen, ‘Note on Letter and Spirit in the New Testament’, Harvard Theological Review
47 (1954), 191–203.
hold in further research.35 Even when 2 Corinthians 3 is seen as an

exercise in exegesis, this is usually understood as pertaining exclusively
to Paul’s polemical interpretation of Moses’ veil experience in Exodus
34. The exegetical crux of the passage is perceived then as dealing
mainly with Paul’s (believers’?) mystically avored stance, as compared
with that of “ordinary Jews” and maybe of Moses also, rather than
with the contents of the messianic reinterpretation of the Torah.36 To
the best of my knowledge, there has been no attempt to establish an
essential connection between Paul’s notion of the new covenant here
and his appeal to hermeneutics.37 As opposed to that, the reading
based on a comparison with the Scrolls and propagated here38 brings
35
As reected, inter alia, in standard commentaries; see, for example, Furnish, II
Corinthians, 199–200, who reviews such attempts and rejects them as totally off the
mark. Cf. J. D. G. Dunn (‘2 Corinthians 3:17—“The Lord Is the Spirit” ’, in: idem, The
Christ and the Spirit; Collected Essays, vol. 1: Christology, Grand Rapids 1998, who argued
uncompromisingly that 2 Cor 3:13–14 (the “veil verses”) “does not mean that they [the
Jews] fail to understand the true meaning of the law…. It is not the difference within
the old dispensation that Paul is describing, but a difference between dispensations”.
36
Thus Richard (‘Polemics’, 341, 362, 367) upholds the exegetic emphasis but
restricts it to Paul’s treatment—seemingly combining midrashic and ( Jewish) Hel-
lenistic methods—of the episode with Moses’ veil in Exodus 34. Cf. A. T. Hanson,
‘The Midrash in 2 Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration’, in: S. E. Porter (ed.), The Pauline
Writings, Shefeld 1995, 98–123, who understands Paul’s treatment of Exodus 34 as
a midrash speaking of Moses’ vision on Mount Sinai—namely, the vision of the pre-
existing cosmic Christ, the image of God, as reected in the tabernacle. To that end
Hanson has to read 2 Corinthians 3 harmonistically together with the prologue of the
Fourth Gospel. In his important contribution, Wan (‘Charismatic Exegesis’, 54–82)
does see 2 Corinthians 3 as an exegetical debate but again—since Wan’s focus is on
the charismatic foundation of true exegesis—as related exclusively to Exodus 34: in
other words, Torah as mainly a proof text for Paul’s mystical experience (“removing the
veil”) rather than for Jesus’ messiahship. At the end of his study (ibid., 78), Wan does
observe, however, that with Paul, the believer equipped with a new, direct encounter
with the Lord/eschatological Spirit (“removing the veil”), is in a better position to
understand the profound meaning of the Torah. But see Hafemann (Paul, Moses, 456–458),
who sees Paul’s interpretation of, again, Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3–4 as completely
non esoteric—and thus distinguished from the Qumran revelations of the Teacher of
Righteousness. See also W. C. van Unnik, ‘ “With Unveiled Face”: An Exegesis of 2
Corinthians iii. 12–18’, in: idem, Sparsa Collecta: Part One: Evangelia, Paulina, Acta, Leiden
1973, 194–210; L. L. Belleville, ‘Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34
Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.7–18’, in: C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and
the Scriptures of Israel, Shefeld 1993, 165–186.
37
Even Wan (‘Charismatic Exegesis’ 54–82), who put so much emphasis on (char-
ismatic) exegesis in Paul and the Scrolls, does not link this phenomenon to the notion
of a new covenant—nor to Jeremiah 31—crucial for both the early Jesus movement
and the Qumran covenanters but, admittedly, not for Philo, who is, for Wan, the main
point of reference.
38
See also J. A. Fitzmyer (‘Glory Reected in the Face of Christ [2 Cor 3:7–4:6]’,
228 chapter eight
me to the following twofold suggestion. First, that it is the notion of

a thorough reinterpretation of the Scripture as speaking of the Mes-
siah—according to a hermeneutic program reected also elsewhere in
the New Testament, most prominently in Luke 2439—that is at the core
of Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 3. Second, that this hermeneutical
notion is nothing less than a foundational element of Paul’s perception
and/or presentation of the new covenant concept.
An additional reason for this exegetical aspect being ignored may be
connected to the understandable tendency of the research to concen-
trate on biblical passages as the possible background for Paul’s reasoning
here,40 whereas this intrinsic link between the new covenant and the
revelation of a dramatically new meaning of the known covenantal
Scripture features explicitly neither in Jeremiah 31 nor in the other pos-
sible proof texts. This link, then, should rather be seen as representing
an exegetical development from the Second Temple period. Of course,
the suggestion that Paul’s readers would have been able to appreciate
the subtlety of the apostle’s midrashic exercise makes one wonder
with regard to the social texture of his Corinthian audience. Thus,
Joseph Fitzmyer, who perceives Paul’s thinking here as guided by a free
associative process (by means of gezerah shawa and pesher), speaks of a
“mixed community”.41 One may see such a development leading to a
in: idem, According to Paul; Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, Mahwah, New Jersey 1993,
77), who states that we nd in the CD and 1QpHab “a renewed understanding of the
Mosaic Covenant of old . . . to which the Pauline passage is not unrelated”. Fitzmyer,
however, does not relate to the exegetical aspect of the new covenant, focusing instead
on the notion of mystical “illumination”, for which he suggests instructive Qumranian
parallels, such as 1QH 12:5–6, 27–29; 1QSb 4:24–28 (ibid., 75–79).
39
See discussion in Chapter 7. For a completely different appraisal see Lemke
(‘Expository Articles’, 187), who harmonistically interprets Paul’s presentation of the
new covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 in light of the apostle’s mission—namely, as relating
to inclusion of the Gentiles.
40
Thus Stockhausen (Moses’ Veil, 58–71) arrives at the conclusion that, for example,
2 Corinthians 3:1–6 actually refers to a number of biblical passages (in addition to
those from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Exodus 34:1–4 and Exodus 36:21 are mentioned)
that form “a cohesive group in themselves on the basis of hook-word linkage” of
ƦƫƣƪəƬƩ-ƬƣƲƦɛƣ-ƭɛƪưƳ-ƥƲɕƷƺ. He also suggests (ibid., 55ff.) that for the sake of creat-
ing his composite exegetic structure Paul consciously used the existing technique of
interpretation—namely, gezera shava (as well as, elsewhere, pesher). It is at this stage of
the analysis that Paul is presented as working vis-à-vis not only the biblical text but
also existing patterns of interpretation.
41
Fitzmyer, ‘Glory Reected’, 64–65, 67–73. Cf. C. K. Stockhausen (‘2 Corinthians
3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis’, in: Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 143–164),
who presents Paul the exegete as “a man with method” but seems to perceive the
common ground between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries as limited to a general
Jewish “infatuation with Scripture”.
perception of the new covenant as a new understanding of Scripture,

as reecting a well-known emphasis of the Second Temple period on
interpretation as a means of reassessing the Holy Writ (see Introduction).
I would also tentatively suggest that as far as Paul and the Qumran
authors are concerned, it might have found exegetical justication in
Jeremiah 31:34 (“for they shall all know me”)—with “knowledge of
God” equated with a true, previously hidden, understanding of God’s
will as expressed in the Torah.42
Although the content of the exegesis suggested by Paul differs sub-
stantially from that in the Damascus Document, as well as from that in
Pesher Habakkuk, all three traditions make use of and relate to the basic
hermeneutical pattern of revealed reinterpretation of the Torah outlined
above. In Chapter 3, I discussed the case of the double love command,
where, too, an overlap of the basic exegetical structure between the
New Testament and Qumranic evidence, along with differences of inter-
pretation, was discerned. There it was possible—in light of additional
indications—to suggest with a measure of certainty that the existence
of such an exegetical structure shared by Qumran and early Christian
sources pointed to its wide circulation in Second Temple Judaism. In
the present case, however, such additional indications (i.e., evidence that
a similar pattern was employed in proto-rabbinic circles) are lacking.
Yet we may still observe that the idiosyncratic rethinking of the new
covenant idea in terms of Torah’s dramatically new meaning, attested
in 2 Corinthians 3, is shared by the authors of the Damascus Document
(with regard to the Torah) and of Pesher Habakkuk (with regard to the
Book of Habbakuk) and, seemingly, their community(ies). This basic
pattern thus at least signies a point of overlap between the approaches
of various eschatologically minded groups, while again the substantial
dissimilarities in outlook among those groups nd expression in their
differing notions of the new covenant’s content.
42
For the centrality of the “knowledge of God”/internalization for Jeremiah’s new
covenant see studies referred to in notes 2 and 3 above. See also Renaud (‘L’alliance
éternelle’, 336–337), who singles out the association of the covenant with the knowl-
edge of God (and remission of sins)—granted by God’s grace and not as the result
of people’s merits!—as the core similarity between Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 16. Cf.
the mostly theological discussion in G. Couturier, ‘Alliance nouvelle et home nouveau
en Jérémie 31, 31–34’, in: O. Mainville (ed.), Loi et autonomie dans la Bible et la tradition
chrétienne, Montreal 1994, 79–116.
230 chapter eight
The new covenant and the Spirit
As noted, the oracle in Jeremiah 31 lacks any explicit reference to a

new content of the covenant. The prophet emphasizes instead what
was termed internalization of the covenant now written “upon their
hearts”—as opposed to the previous stage, when the covenant was of
an external nature and hence prone to failure. This ultimate “change
of heart” is reintroduced, also in the context of Israel’ redemption, in
Ezekiel 36:24–29:43
24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the coun-
tries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water
upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from
all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you (
), and a new spirit I will put within you (

); and I will take out of your esh the heart of stone and give you
a heart of esh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (
). 28 You shall dwell in the land, which I
gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29 And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses; and I will summon
the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you.
It is noteworthy that the “change of heart” is described in terms
of receiving the Spirit, the sub-motif absent in Jeremiah 31. At the
beginning of this chapter, the centrality of the notion of “anointment
by the Spirit” for the Qumranites’ new-covenantal self-denition was
stressed. As has been observed, this motif also features prominently
in 2 Corinthians 3 (3:3, 6, 17–18).44 So the basic exegetical pattern
shared by the two traditions seems to have included—in addition to
the reinterpretation of Jeremiah 31 as speaking of a new revelatory
meaning of the old Scripture—an exegetical collation of Jeremiah 31
with Ezekiel 36.
In rabbinic sources, interpretation of the religious lore is also some-
times ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Thus Pesiqta Rabbati (28, 30, 34–37)
is distinguished by its recurrent formula “X said by the Holy Spirit”.
Although the dating of the traditions documented in these sources
43
Cf. Jer 24:7. See discussion in Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance’, 19–20.
44
I tend to agree with Dunn’s analysis (‘2 Corinthians 17’, 115–116, 123–125),
according to which the “Lord” of 2 Cor 3:17 (“The Lord is the Spirit”) refers to God
and not to Jesus.
remains a notoriously tricky issue,45 there is evidence that the notion

of an inspired exegesis belonged from a relatively early stage (i.e., the
end of the Second Temple period) to a wider Jewish tradition. Thus
Sze-kar Wan has shown that the inclination for prophetic-like exegesis
characterized not only Zealots, whom Josephus criticizes for that, but
also Philo and Josephus himself—at certain point the latter even com-
pared himself with Jeremiah. The tendency, then, should not necessarily
be seen as limited to eschatologically minded groups.46 However, what
distinguishes the particular eschatological brand of the pattern attested
in 2 Corinthians 3 and in the Damascus Document (and to a lesser extent
in Pesher Habakkuk) is the explicit awareness of the dramatic departure
from the “mundane” ways of interpretation—hence, the need for a
“new covenant”-centered argumentation. From the point of view of
the discussion in this volume, this marks a decisive change in approach
already touched on in the previous chapter: It is here that the interest
in the shared patterns of biblical interpretation as the means of choice
for “winning over” the members of the immediate milieu gives way to
the emphasis on a revolutionary new content of revelation.
Back to collective anointment
In both Jeremiah and Ezekiel the metamorphosis is unmediated—that

is, it is performed vis-à-vis people’s hearts by God himself. Jeremiah
expresses the idea in the most unambiguous manner: Having outlined
in utopian terms the uniqueness of the new arrangement (“I will put
45
But see M. Friedman (Pesikta Rabbati; Midrasch für den Fest-Cyclus und die ausgezeichneten
Sabbathe, Vienna 1880/Tel Aviv 1963, 24), according to whom the so-called Homilies
of the Holy Spirit represent the oldest part of the Pesiqta, for which a dating as early
as the 3rd century has been suggested. See also A. Goldberg, Erlösung durch Leiden; Drei
rabbinische Homilien über die Trauernden Zions und den leidenden Messias Efraim (PesR 34.36.37),
Frankfurt 1978, 142. For discussion of rabbinic usages of the gift of the Holy Spirit, see
M. Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Period Times
and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages, Jerusalem 1966, 340–358 (in Hebrew).
Haran suggests that in early rabbinic traditions the gift of the Spirit signies an event
of revelatory exegesis localized in time, which is thus intentionally distinguished from
the (biblical) prophecy standing for a life-long vocation. Cf. 1 Cor 7:25, 40.
46
Wan, ‘Charismatic Exegesis’, 54–55. For Wan ( ibid., 79) Paul in 2 Corinthians
3:1–4:4 clearly belongs to the same tendency, as “in both Philo and Paul there is a
formal adherence to the canonical authority of scripture, but it is constantly threat-
ened to be undermined by their personal [mystical] experience”. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy and
Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 152ff. But see Hafemann (note 36 above).
232 chapter eight
my Torah within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I
will be their God, and they shall be my people”), the prophet stresses
that the true covenanters—those who will undergo that “existential
transformation”—will have no need of charismatic leaders to teach
them and interpret for them the terms of the covenant. One wonders
how in such eschatologically oriented groups as Qumran and the Jesus
movement that kind of utopian internalization of both knowledge and
piety interacted with notions of a personal messiah perceived as an
end-of-days teacher and interpreter of the Torah.
Let us return now to the passage from the Damascus Document, which
it seems useful to quote here at length (CD-A 5:21—6:21):
5:21 And the land became desolate, for they spoke of rebellion against
God’s precepts through the hand of Moses and also
6:1 of the holy anointed ones (
). They prophesied deceit
in order to divert Israel from following 2 God. But God remembered the
covenant of the very rst, and from Aaron raised men of knowledge and
from Israel 3 wise men, and forced them to listen. And they dug the well:
Num 21:18 “A well which the princes dug, which 4 the nobles of the people
delved with the staff ”. The well is the Torah. And those who dug it are
5 the repenting ones of Israel, who left the land of Judah and lived in
the land of Damascus, 6 all of whom God called princes, for they sought
him, and their renown has not been repudiated 7 in anyone’s mouth. Blank
And the staff is the interpreter of the Torah (

), of whom 8
Isaiah said: Isa 54:16 “He produces a tool for his labor”. Blank And the
nobles of the people are 9 those who have arrived to dig the well with
the staves that the scepter decreed, 10 to walk in them throughout the
whole age of wickedness, and without which they will not obtain it, until
there arises 11 he who teaches justice (

) at the
end of days. Blank But all those who have been brought into the covenant
12 shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the
ones who close 13 the door, as God said: Mal 1:10 “Whoever amongst
you will close its door so that you do not kindle my altar 14 in vain!”.
Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation
of the Torah for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves 15 from
the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth which deles, either
by promise or by vow, 16 and from the wealth of the temple. . . . 17. . . . to
separate unclean from clean and differentiate between 18 the holy and the
common; to keep the sabbath day according to the exact interpretation,
and the festivals 19 and the day of fasting, according to what they had
discovered, those who entered the new covenant (

)
in the land of Damascus; 20 to set apart holy portions according to
their exact interpretation; for each to love his brother 21 like himself; to
strengthen the hand of the poor, the needy and the foreigner; Blank for
each to seek the peace.
Unlike the situation in Pesher Habakkuk, where the Teacher of Righ-

teousness is clearly the chosen mediator of the new exegetic revelation,
those who “entered the new covenant” (6:19:

),
the members of the community as a whole, are described here as the
anointed (the messiahs) of God’s Holy Spirit (6:1:
). Else-
where in the Scrolls, as for example in 1QS 11, the spirit is presented
as transforming the “inner man” of the covenanters and thus allow-
ing them to escape the bondage of sin. Accordingly, in the Damascus
Document the unearthing of the last-days meaning of the Torah, which
was to govern the life of the covenanters, is ascribed to the collective of
the “nobles of the people” (6:8). However, in the same passage two
charismatic gures—who may in fact be one—are also mentioned: the
interpreter of the Torah (6:7:

) and “he who teaches justice
at the end of days” (6:11:

); the former (and
hence maybe also the latter) is usually identied in research with the
priestly Messiah of the eschaton.47 We thus nd here both patterns of
messianic belief—the personal and the collective—side by side, with
the tension between them seemingly unresolved. However, as other
Qumranic texts indicate,48 the new covenant period might have been
perceived as representing an intermediary stage preceding the appearance
of the Aaronic Messiah. Thus the collective anointment of the Spirit
did not necessarily overlap or collide with the authority derived from
personal messiahship.
As noted above, the motif of the superuity of any outside human
instruction features prominently in 2 Corinthians 3, constituting there
one of the basic exegetical links to Jeremiah 31. However, there is more
to it: While Jesus the Messiah is obviously the core message/content of
the new covenant understanding of the Torah, Paul, unlike the Gospel
writers, does not claim here that it was Jesus himself who taught his
followers this kind of biblical interpretation.49 Actually, apart from a
very few instances—most notably, when quoting the blessing formulas
pronounced over bread and wine (1 Cor 11:23–26) and arguing in favor
of his controversial mission to the Gentiles (Gal 1:15–16)—the apostle
47
Suggested in, inter alia, Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 165–189; Collins, The Scepter
and the Star, 114–115, 122–123. 4QFlor 2:7 may also point to such identication.
48
For instance, 1QpHab 2, 4QFlorilegium 1.
49
All four Gospels ascribe to Jesus a Messiah-centered biblical exegesis; but see
especially the programmatic passages in Luke 24:25–27, 32, 44–46.
234 chapter eight
does not use Jesus traditions as foundational.50 As the catchphrase

goes: with Paul the teaching of Jesus was replaced by the teaching about
Jesus—and the latter is presented in the passage from 2 Corinthians 3
as communicated in an immediate revelatory act of Spirit. Thus, for
example, in 2 Corinthians 3:3 one reads: “And you show that you are
a letter from Messiah delivered by us, written not with ink but with
the Spirit of the living God”. Moreover—similarly to Qumran—with
Paul, e.g., in Galatians 5:17–26, the gift of Spirit engenders the inner
transformation, insuring the fulllment of the covenant obligations.51 Of
course, in practice this programmatic stance could not always be sustained,
and it then became a source of tension: Facing problems in various
communities, Paul had to revert to the tactics of external instruction
and reprimand. Moreover, as already noted, sometimes, particularly
in his correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul nds it necessary to
downplay this aspect of the spirit-engendered ecstatic illumination.52
The dialectics of the foundational belief in a personal Messiah versus

the collective messiahship idea may be observed also in other New Testa-
ment texts. Sufce it to quote here one passage, where again an allusion
to Jeremiah 31:34—with its idea of superuity of an outside human
instruction—is easily discerned (in bold below). Moreover, the passage
seems to bear witness to competing claims for collective eschatological
anointment by various groups within the Jesus movement:
18 Children, it is the last hour (ȀƴƸɕƵƩ ɉƲƣ); and as you have heard that
antichrist (ǰƮƵɛƸƲƫƴƵưƳ) is coming, so now many antichrists (ǰƮƵɛƸƲƫƴƵưƫ)
have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out
from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would
have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that
they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed (ƸƲʴƴvƣ ȄƸƧƵƧ) by
the Holy One, and you all know . . . 22 Who is the liar but he who denies
50
See J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 2004,
89. Stockhausen (Moses’ Veil, 175) notes that in the communication of the contents of
the new covenant as presented in 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:6, the role of Jesus is “minimal”,
but neither he nor Lieu point here to a possible link to the notion of “collective mes-
siahship”. Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 67.
51
See J. Lambrecht, ‘Transformation in 2 Corinthians 3, 18’, in: R. Bieringer and
J. Lambrecht, Studies on 2 Corinthians, Leuven 1994, 295–307, where he argues that
according to Paul here all believers are transformed like Moses was transformed. Cf.
Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 439–444.
52
Possibly in reaction to ecstatically or Gnostic-minded groups within the move-
ment. See 1 Corinthians 12–14.
that Jesus is the Messiah . . . 25 And this is what he has promised us, eter-
nal life. 26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you; 27
but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you
have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing
teaches you about everything. . . . (1 John 2:20–27)
Conclusion
The main argument put forward in this chapter was that in 2 Corinthians
3 a peculiar understanding of Jeremiah 31 may be discerned—namely,
that the biblical oracle on the new covenant should be understood
as relating to a dramatic revelatory reinterpretation of the Holy Writ. The
analysis presented here shows that far from being Paul’s ad hoc inven-
tion, this idiosyncratic approach reected an existing pattern attested
also in Qumran. While the Pauline and Qumranic traditions differed
substantially in their perception of the content of that new interpreta-
tion, foundational for the covenant, they shared the basic hermeneutic
structure underlying their respective exegeses. Whether the phenomenon
is to be explained as the result of a direct inuence of Qumranic ideas
on Paul and/or the Jesus movement before the apostle joined it, or as
dependence of both sources on a common tradition was not the issue
here, since in either case the New Testament material may be seen as
bearing witness to a current Jewish exegetic trend that, even if it did
not have a wide circulation, was at least characteristic of eschatologi-
cally minded Second Temple Jewish groups.
I am far from suggesting that the issue of Torah exegesis necessarily
retains in Paul the centrality it had in Qumran. True, as highlighted
in the introduction to this volume, the reinterpretation of the core
biblical texts as pointing to Jesus as the Messiah was one of the main
avenues for expressing and/or constructing the early Christian iden-
tity. Moreover, Chapter 7 outlined in detail a preoccupation with the
foundational hermeneutic that characterized the author of Luke and
Acts. However, all this does not necessarily oblige Paul to focus rst
and foremost on exegesis. The apostle’s agenda might have brought
other notions to the fore—and the case of the scholars who have
emphasized, inter alia, “Spirit”, “turning to God and/or Christ” and
“illumination/transformation” is denitely well argued. Yet even if the
“glory of exegesis” was really to a certain extent “fading away” in the
context of Paul’s thinking and mission, even then, or maybe especially
then, it is illuminating that, when appealing to the notion of new
236 chapter eight
covenant, the apostle seems to invoke the foundational link to the basic
reinterpretation of the Holy Writ. This link may be seen as a lingering
residue from an inherited—and reworked—tradition, for which, then,
2 Corinthians 3 becomes a crucial witness.
The importance of the context of Paul’s writings—namely, that he
mainly addressed (e.g., in the epistle under discussion) a Gentile Dias-
pora audience—has been duly stressed in recent research.53 Since in
Paul’s view Gentiles were not supposed to become subjugated to the
“mundane”, emphatically halakhic understanding of the Torah, this
may well have enhanced the apostle’s readiness to speak in terms of the
Torah’s dramatic reinterpretation. As argued, however, basically such
readiness both reects and bears witness to an inner-Jewish develop-
ment attested in the Land of Israel.
Jesus was undoubtedly at the very heart of Paul’s thinking—de-
nitely not less so than the Teacher of Righteousness for such Qumran
authors as that of the Pesher Habbakuk. It is thus most instructive to
discover in Paul, in contradistinction to, for instance, Luke, a total
lack of emphasis on Jesus’ role as the eschatological interpreter of the
Torah. Instead, the apostle speaks of the unmediated revelation by
the Holy Spirit addressed to the community as a whole. This also, far
from being Paul’s ad hoc innovation, seems to have reected an existing
pattern of belief conditioned, inter alia, by Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel
36. Given the centrality of the Holy Spirit motif, it was suggested that
Pauline writings and the Scrolls, investigated comparatively, testify here
to the late Second Temple currency of the exegetical collation of the
two biblical oracles.
The peculiar notion of a collective anointment by the Spirit belongs
to the multifaceted range of late Second Temple messianic beliefs.
This notion, like those relating to various kinds of a personal messiah,
should be seen as rooted in earlier Jewish redemption-centered tradition,
such as the tradition that nds expression in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel
36. Special emphasis has been placed in this chapter on Jeremiah
31:31–34 and its concept of the new covenant’s extremely egalitarian
and “democratic” nature. Both in the Qumran scrolls and in early
Christian writings, characterized by an essential link to Jeremiah 31,
a relation—or rather a dynamic tension—may be observed between
53
See Stendahl, Final Account; Gager, Reinventing Paul; Fredriksen, ‘Judaism, the Cir-
cumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope’ (note 27 above).
the collective and personal messiahship patterns. It stands to reason

that this tension was rooted in both the groups of texts representing
communities that on the one hand propagated the belief in a personal
messiah (or messiahs) and on the other adopted the emphatically col-
lective new covenant outlook of Jeremiah 31.
CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
Two core strategies of the New Testament conversation with the Jew-
ish Scripture have been discussed in this book. The rst, which has
received most of the attention, strives to establish itself as sharing with
the relevant Jewish milieu not only a veneration of Scripture but also
current patterns of exegesis. It is this “hermeneutical belonging” that
is time and again presented as the leading argument for the truth of
either Jesus’ or the Jesus movement’s preaching. It is upon these shared
hermeneutical grounds that the innovations of, inter alia, messianic
exegesis of the kerygma build.
The period was one of intensive exegetical activity, and from the
surviving traditions it may be surmised that this exegesis—even within
the Land of Israel—was of an extremely variegated nature, with par-
ticular end-results of the hermeneutical process reecting the tendencies
and approach of certain teachers or groups. Thus it is mostly not these
particularities of interpretation but rather the appeal to basic patterns
of hermeneutical procedure, shared by the creators of the New Tes-
tament tradition with broader Jewish tradition, that was supposed to
give them polemical credibility vis-à-vis their Jewish reference groups.
It is to these general hermeneutical patterns that they seem to have felt
obliged. The described strategy, then, differed substantially from that of
a later stage, the one aiming at “waterproof partition”, at establishing
a clear-cut demarcation line, with the “custom control” of emerging
orthodoxy armed with a self-imposed mandate to prevent inltration
of those “dangerous in between”. It is this observed strategy that con-
stitutes the raison d’être of this volume’s primary focus on mapping
the instances in the New Testament conversation with Scripture that
possibly mirror/bear witness to patterns of contemporaneous Jewish
exegesis.
An attempt was also made to nd out what exactly such New Tes-
tament traditions—sometimes the only early witnesses to exegetical
tendencies otherwise attested only in later rabbinic sources—possibly
reect: current trends of wide circulation or those characteristic of only
certain Jewish groups. This in turn may allow us to dene more precisely
the nature of nascent Christianity’s Jewish milieu(s). New Testament
traditions are thus presented as witnesses for “broader Judaism”, not so
240 conclusion and perspectives
much in the polemical invectives they contain against contemporaneous

Jewish groups and practices but also, and even predominantly, in what
seems to be a positive internalization and appropriation of patterns
current in the relevant Jewish milieus.
The second core strategy discussed in the book, most prominently
in its concluding chapter, emphasizes instead the basic novelty of the
propagated, previously unheard of, (messianic) exegesis, conditioning its
availability on prophetic-like inspiration of the Spirit. It is emphatically
this inspiration and not being rooted in accepted hermeneutical patterns
that is presented by Paul in 2 Corinthians—to a Gentile audience but
implicitly also to his Jewish opponents (within the Jesus movement?)—as
the true source of authority. This latter strategy, proudly advertising
the novelty of its insights, is admittedly very different from the former
one. Yet it turns out that its conscious emphasis on the previously hid-
den dramatic reinterpretation of the Scripture, revealed exclusively
to the adepts of the Jesus movement, combined with presenting this
reinterpretation as the foundational element of the new covenant, fol-
lows a hermeneutical pattern already established in Qumran. Thus in
this case also, a New Testament tradition provides a key corroborative
witness for the existence and currency of such a pattern in the rst
century c e, while again the differences of outlook nd expression in
the differing content of the dramatic reinterpretation.
It is clear that the success of the endeavor of mapping the New
Testament as a witness for wider Jewish hermeneutical trends depends
to a great extent on one’s ability to distinguish the rhema of a peculiar
“Christian input” from the thema of the shared exegetical background
reected in the New Testament tradition in question. An attempt has
been made in the book to solve the conundrum with regard to the vari-
ety of instances found in different layers of the New Testament corpus:
Synoptics, Acts, Pauline epistles. A number of reasonable procedures
that make it possible to perform the division have been suggested, with
intuition—hopefully, of an informed kind—retaining its centrality.
It goes without saying that this book has only made initial inroads
into the task of mapping; Paul’s writings especially, but not exclusively,
are in need of further exploration. And, of course, the same reasoning
that made it possible to approach the New Testament as an important
source of information on wider late Second Temple patterns of Jewish
exegesis may be applied, with some modications, to notions, practices
and beliefs reected in the earliest Christian writings outside strictly
exegetical modes of discourse. Scholars of Qumran have developed
conclusion and perspectives 241
important methods and insights that make it possible to learn from the
Scrolls not only about the particular group that supposedly produced
many of them but also about rival groups and also “wider Judaism”. It
may be hoped that similar systematic efforts will be invested in a critical
rethinking of the “witness value” of the earliest Christian writings.
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES*
Hebrew Bible
Genesis Leviticus
1 28, 32, 145 18:10–16 24
1:27 29, 30, 31, 139, 140, 19 11
147 19:2 36, 59n58
1:28 138n16 19:3 36, 50
2 32, 145 19:12 19, 20, 21, 22
2:24 30, 139, 140, 141, 142 19:16 45n24
3 165 19:17 38, 40
3:14 159 19:17 (LXX) 49
3:14–15 158, 160 19:17–18 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45,
4:7 154n19 51, 55
5:2 30 19:18 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40,
6:5 153 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47,
7:9 140 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,
7:21 157 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60,
8:21 153, 154 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
9:6 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 73, 74, 79, 86, 88, 90,
9:6 (LXX) 13 91, 92, 93, 97, 98
9:6 (Targum) 13, 13n7, 16 19:18 (LXX) 37, 41n19
20:17 62n67 19:18 (Targum) 41
49:11 3n5 19:34 36, 41, 50
19:35 45
Exodus 20:10 23, 24, 25
3:6 95 26:25 38
15:6,9 38
15:17–18 107, 109, 111 Numbers
18:21 39 15:39 155
20 11 24:18 38
20:7 19, 20, 21, 22 35:16 14
20:7 (Targum) 19
20:7 (Peshitta) 19n18 Deuteronomy
20:13 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 131 4:42 39n10
20:14 23, 24, 25, 26 5 11
20:17 23, 24, 25 5:17 12
21 11 5:18 23
23:4–5 40 5:21 23
23:4–5 (LXX) 40 6:5 9, 36, 43, 53, 61, 64,
23:9 50n37 65, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
23:22 39 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84,
34 227 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91,
34:1–4 228n40 94, 98, 99
36:21 228n40 6:5 (LXX) 77, 84
6:5 (Peshitta) 78
* Prepared by Sergey Minov

244 index of ancient sources
6:6–7 215 53:7 207

10:12 77, 81, 83, 87n40, 53:9,12 208
215 53:10–11 209
11:13 87n40 55:3 121
13:7 50 56:6 87n40
19:4,6 39n10 66:1–2 218
20:14 38
21:4 138 Jeremiah
21:23 51 7:9 12
23:22 21, 22 23:5 105n13
24:1 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 24:7 216n4, 230n43
34, 136, 138 31 230, 233, 235, 236,
30:6 215 237
30:10 77, 81, 83, 87n40 31:4 234
31:11 154 31:31–34 219n13, 223n24,
31:21 (Targum) 154 236
32:35 55 32:39–40 216n4
33:15 105n13
Joshua
21:5 87n40 Ezekiel
23:1 87n40 11:19 216n4, 223n24
16 219n13, 229n42
Judges 18:31 152
5:31 67n81 36 236
36:24–29 230
1 Samuel 36:25–27 177n78
18:1–5 67n81 36:26 216n4, 223n24
18:29 67n81 36:26–27 152
24:5 38 44:10 113
2 Samuel Hosea
7 108, 111 6:6 218
7:1–16 109
7:6–16 121 Joel
7:10–14 107, 112n36 2:30–32 191
7:10–16 102 3:1–2 218
1 Kings Amos
8:44 38 5:25–27 218
9:11 107, 108, 109, 110
Isaiah 9:11–12 110, 126, 127, 131
2:13 105n14 9:11–12 (LXX) 126, 127
2:13 (Targum) 105n4 9:11–12 (Peshitta) 127n79
8:2 185 9:12 128
11:1 102, 105 9:12 (Targum) 127
11:1 (Targum) 105
11:1–5 104 Nahum
11:3 106 1:2 37, 44, 92, 93
11:5 105, 106
11:5 (Targum) 105 Zechariah
45:21 125n73 6:12 105n13
53 124n59, 212 8:4 185
53 (Targum) 124n69 8:20–23 64n72,74
53:4 (Targum) 171 9–14 208n71
53:4–12 207 9:9 3n5
index of ancient sources 245
11:1 105n14 Job

11:1 (Targum) 105n4 2:9 66
12 102 2:9 (LXX) 66
14:4 192n33 31:1 155
42:10 62n67
Malachi
2:16 29n40 Proverbs
20:22 55n48
Psalms 24:17–18 56
1:1 112 24:29 55n48
2 124n69 25:21–22 56
2:1 196n42
2:1–2 112, 122, 123, 124 Song of Songs
2:2 113 1:3 65
2:12 112 3:3 64
15:10 121
16:8–11 117 Lamentations
22:2 202 1:2 67n81
31:6 202 2:5 39, 45, 53, 63
31:24 87n40 3:27,30 55n48
34:22[21] (LXX) 39
37:31 215 Daniel
40:8 215 3:6 199
44:23 65 11:32 113
48:15 65n78 12:10 113
51:12 152
56:10 38 Ezra
68:19 121n61 39:27 38
89:20–23 39
89:20–23 (LXX) 39 Nehemiah
103:14 (Targum) 154 9:26–37 183
110:1 118, 120, 121n60
110:4 120 2 Chronicles
129:5 39 24:15–33 183–184
129:5 (LXX) 39 24:20–22 183
Qumran
1QS 11 233 1:6, 9–11 44n20

1:9–11 91
1QpHab 1:10–11 93
2 101, 187n21, 1:11–12 84, 85
233n48 2:1–8 96
2:1–9 221–2 2:3 85n35
7 101, 187n21 2:25–3:12 113n37
7:1–8 222 3:2 84, 85
7:2 225 3:15–26 174
4:1–20 174n71
1QS (Community Rule) 4:7–8 200
1:1–12 131 5:25–6:11 97n63
1:1–17 82–3 6:9–10 85
1:1–8, 11–13 90 8:23 85
1:3 93–4 9 44n21, 81, 221n17
1:3–4 91 9:8–11, 22–25 80
9:10–11 18, 101 CD-A 3:14–17 220n16

9:21 91 CD-A 4:14–21 132
9:21ff 44n22, 93n57 CD-A 4:15–18 23, 30–1
12:5–6, 27–29 228n38 CD-A 4:15–19 133
CD-A 4:15–5:2 131, 145
1QS a (1Q28a) 2:11–22 101 CD-A 4:20–21 139
1QS b (1Q28b) 4:24–28 228n38 CD-A 4:21 136, 143, 144,
146
CD-A 4–6 187n21
1QM (War Scroll) CD-A 5:1 140
9:11 93 CD-A 5:1–5 137
16:13 200 CD-A 5:1–8 29n42
17:1–3 200 CD-A 5:20–6:1 101
CD-A 5:21–6:21 232
1QH (Hodayot) CD-A 6 3, 217
4:17–27 113n37 CD-A 6:11–16 136
5:8 44n21 CD-A 6:11–19 (1) 220
6:25–27 81 CD-A 7:6–9 23n25, 133
7:12–15 81 CD-A 7:14–19 109n26
8:1–21 113n37 CD-A 9:1–5 91
12 187n21 CD-A 9:2–8 43, 92–3
12:29–34 113n37 CD-A 14:11–17 84n33
17:10, 24–26 200 CD-A 16:10–12 23n25, 133
4Q266 2 ii 1:9–10 220–1
4Q266 3 ii 136n9
4Q161 (4QpIsa) 105n14, 4Q266 3 iii 109n26
106n15, 4Q266 3 iii 1:3 221
108n20 4Q266 ii 2:12 217
a frags. 8–10, 11–18 104–5 4Q266 iii 1:4 220
4Q266 iii 2:9 217
4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) 4Q266 iii 2:9–11 221
1 233n48 4Q266 iii 2:17–25 220
1:1–13 107 4Q267 2 136n9
1:1–19 187n21 4Q267 2, 6 217
1:2 108 4Q269 4 ii 136n9
1:3 109 4Q269 iv 1:2 217
1:3–4 111 4Q270 frag. 2, 14 113n37, 217
1:6 108 4Q270 frag. 6, 3:16–21 43
1:7 108 4Q270 9 101
1:8–9 108 6Q15 1 132
1:10–13 131 6Q15 3,4 136n9
1:11–13 110
1:12–13 109 4Q285 frag. 5 1–4 105n13,
1:14, 18–19 112 106n15
1:16 113
1:18–19 113, 123 4Q397 (4QMMT) 3
2:3 113 d, frags. 14–21, 10 224n26
2:7 110n28,
233n47 4Q448 113n38
4Q177 112n36 4Q491c frag. 1 208
Damascus Document 4Q521 (4QMessianic Apocalypse)

CD-A 1:45 220n16 frag. 8, 9 113n37
frag. 8 187n21 11QPs 117, 210n78

frag. 2 ii 1 218 11QTemple 57:15–19 139
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Apocalypse of Moses 7:36–37 201

13 161n40 8:2–5 201
16–32 160–1
4 Maccabees
Ben Sira 6:29 199
15:14 154n17 17:21 199
17:14 50n38
18:13 50n38 Testament of Benjamin
21:11 154n17 3.6 167n53
27:33–28:9 40, 41 4.2f 42, 49n36
5.1 42, 49n36
1 Enoch 6 167
6 167n53 6.5f 42–43
10:7 167n53
89:51–53 183 Testament of Dan
89:51–57 184 5.3 43n18, 62, 87
2 Enoch Testament of Issachar

61:2 41 3 167n53
5.2 43n18, 62, 87
Jubilees 7.6 43n18, 62, 87
1:12 183
7:2–21 36n4 Testament of Judah
20:2 87 13 166n53
20:7 87
36 43n18 Testament of Reuben
36:4 42, 46 2 167n53
36:4–8 87 5 166n53
36:7 62
Testament of Simeon
2 Maccabees 3.1 167, 174n72
7 63n69, 64, 199, 200,
202, 206n66 Testament of Zebulun
7:6 202 5.1 43n18, 62
7:13–18 55n49 9 157, 168
7:10–36 202–3
7:19 206n66 Tobit
7:32–33 201 4:14–15 41n14
Hellenistic Jewish Authors
Letter of Aristeas I.259 158n35

193–194 48 II.2 20n21
207 48, 49, 51 II.63 88
227–228 49, 59 II.251 158n35
II.314 158n35
Philo III.30 27n37
Spec. Leg. III.37–42 24n27
I.150 159n36 III.86,89 158n35
III.152 51 III.114 159n36

III.155 45
IV.183 45n24 Quaest. in Gen.
IV.187–188 157n30 I.31 159n36
I.48 159, 167n55
Decal. II.22 157
132 15 II.54 155n22, 157n29
168–9 24n27 II.61 13
170 15
on Exod 20:7 20 Ebr. 22 159n36
Mos. Hypothetica 7.8 45

II.2–3, 292 103
II.188–191 29n39, 137n13 Josephus
J.W.
Opif. II.8.6 20
1–3, 17–20, 143–147 156n28 III.8.5 157
157–163 158–9 VII.8.7 157
165 157n29
Ag. Ap.
Leg. All. 2:207 45n24
I.70 159n36
II.38 157
New Testament
Matthew 5:36 22
2:23 105 5:37 20
4:1–10 79n24 5:39 59
5 11, 12, 17n13, 5:43–44 38n8, 58n57
18, 19, 32, 33, 5:43–48 55, 56, 57, 58, 69, 97
34, 57 5:44 35, 53, 54, 59
5:11–12 63n68 5:44–47 46
5:12 61 5:45 60
5:17 17, 33 5:46 61
5:18 28–29, 137 5:46–47 58, 59, 60, 61
5:20 18 5:47 61
5:21 13, 15, 17, 33 5:48 59
5:21–22 15, 16, 17, 22 6:12 59
5:21–26 12 6:13 63n70
5:21–37 34 6:14–15 41, 59
5:22 149 7:1–3 46
5:27 23 7:12 41, 46, 58
5:27–32 22, 26, 132 8:2–15 171
5:27–30 23, 25 8:16–17 171
5:28 23 8:17 207
5:28–30 25 10:34–37 47
5:29–30 149, 150, 169, 12:43–45 171
170 15:4 150n4
5:31 23, 28 15:17–19 149, 169
5:31–32 26, 28, 34, 136 16:13–14 102n4
5:32 132, 138 17:1–3 102n4
5:33 33 18:3 134
5:33–37 19, 21, 22 18:8 149n2, 170
18:6–7 171 10:17–31 133

18:9 150n5 10:45 207
18:11 170 11:1–10 3n5
18:20 170 11:15–17 197
19 8, 11, 23, 30, 31, 32, 34, 12:18–27 94, 203
131, 133, 134, 139, 142 12:28–31 72, 131
19:1–15 135 12:28–34 11n1, 54n47, 62, 118
19:3 27, 28, 146 12:30 81
19:3–6 140 12:35–37 119
19:3–9 11n1, 28, 29n41, 132, 145, 14:3–9 187n18
146 14:23–25 220
19:4–6 30, 31, 32, 138 14:25 202
19:7–8 29, 137 14:32–36 69
19:8–9 145 14:38 169n59
19:9 138, 139 14:49 207
19:12 134 14:55–64 195
19:13–15 134 14:62 118
19:16–20 34 15:27 207, 208n72
19:16–30 133 15:27–32 196–7
20:15 155n24 15:34 202
20:28 207 16:19 118
21:12–13 197
22:7 187n20 Luke
22:16–22 12 1:2 18
22:23–33 12, 94, 118, 203 1:5–10 199n48
22:34–40 11n1, 12, 54n47, 62, 72, 2:21–24 199n48
118, 131 2:25–32 127n81
22:36 88, 73n8 2:31 123n65
22:37 81 2:32 128n81
22:41–45 118 2:39 199n48
22:41–46 12n3, 119, 129 2:41–49 199n48
23:32–36 187n20 4:14–29 185
23:33 185 4:40–41 171, 207n68
23:33–35 186 6:22–23 63n68
23:36–39 185 6:27–36 69, 97
26:6–13 187n18 6:31 42, 46, 57, 58, 59
26:27–29 220 6:31–38 55, 56, 58
26:29 202 6:32–34 58, 61
26:36–39 69 6:32–35 61
26:41 118 6:33 59, 60
26:59–66 195 6:33–34 61n63
26:64 169n59 6:35 35, 53, 54, 59, 61
27:12 207 6:35–36 59
27:38 207, 208n72 6:36 59n58
27:38–43 196–7 6:37 59
27:46 202 6:37–38 41
7:36–50 187n18
Mark 10:25–28 72, 118, 131
1:32–34 171, 207n68 10:25–37 11n1, 95
9:42 171n66 10:25–38 54n47, 62, 69
9:43 149n2 10:27 81, 84
9:43–47 150 10:29–37 97
10 133, 134, 139n17 11:4 59, 63n70
10:2 146 11:24–26 171
10:2–12 11n1, 28, 132 11:49–51 186
13:33 185 1:11 192n33

13:33–35 185 2 117, 120, 121
16:12–18 133 2:1–4 218n11
16:14–18 23 2:1–36 181
16:19–31 204 2:7 218
16:22 204 2:14–21 189n25
17:1 149n2 2:14–24 218n11
17:1–2 171n66 2:19–21 191
19:45–46 197 2:22 185
19:47 197 2:22–23 206
20:5–36 196 2:22–24 188, 189
20:27–39 95n61 2:22–35 116
20:27–40 203 2:23 191
20:41–44 119 2:24 201
21:28 196 2:24–35 120, 121n61
21:37–38 197 2:25–28 117
22:18 202 2:27 121
22:20 220 2:29–32 118
22:36–38 208 2:32–36 205
22:39–42 69 2:34–35 118
22:46 169n59 2:35–36 218n11
22:53 197 2:36 185, 191
22:66–71 195 2:36–41 192
22:69 118 2:41–47 190
23:6–12 206 2:46–47 192, 197
23:32 208n72 4 79, 123, 124
23:33 186 4:1–21 123
23:35–38 196–7 4:1–31 189n26
23:43 201 4:24–28 206
23:46 202 4:24–31 189
23:56 199n48 4:25–26 122
24 206, 209, 212, 228 4:25–27 196n42
24:17–21 179 4:25–28 122
24:19 185 4:29–33 123
24:19–21 182 4:32 78, 79, 85
24:19–27 2n3 5:39 206n66
24:25–27 181, 233n49 6:1–7 190
24:26 188, 201 6:12–14 194
24:32 233n49 7 193, 194
24:36–43 204 7:37 185
24:44–46 2n3, 181, 233n49 7:51–56 189n25
24:46–47 201 8:14–17 189n25, 218n11
24:53 197 8:26–35 208
8:34 208n73
John 9:15 191n29
1:18 204n61 9:23–31 191n29
1:29 207 10:44–48 189n25, 218n11
2:13–17 197 13:14–34 121
13:30–34 121
Acts 15 128, 190
1–2 209 15:1–12 125
1:6–7 114 15:7–9 189n25
1:6–8 121, 180 15:8 218n11
1:6–11 188 15:13–21 125, 127, 131
1:9–11 180 15:14–21 110
15:15–21 125 12:19 55, 198n47

15:16–21 126 12:19–21 44n22
15:21 224 12:20 55
21 190, 192 12:21 55
21:18–25 125 13:4–5 198n47
21:20 191
21:20–26 197 1 Corinthians
22:17–21 191 1:23 179
2 119
Romans 2:6–13 179n1
1–2 174n73 6 23, 133n3, 146
1:1–5 114 6:15 142, 172n67
1:18 198n47 6:15–20 141
1:24 175n74 7 143, 144, 146
2:5 172, 198n47 7:1 135
2:8 198n47 7:25 135n7, 231n45
3:5 198n47 7:26 135
4:6 115 7:29 135
4:15 198n47 7:32–35 135
4:19 175n74 7:39 144n31
5:9 198n47 7:40 135n7, 231n45
6:6 175n74 11:23–26 233
6:9–13 177n78 11:25 222, 223n20
6:12 175n74 11:25–26 220
6:13 172n68 12–14 234n52
6:19 172n68 12:12–27 172n67
7 23, 133n3, 143, 149, 13 119
175 15:3 207n68–69
7–8 172–3, 174 15:25 118
7:1 145
7:1–3 145, 174 2 Corinthians
7:1–4 143, 145, 149 1:17 20n20
7:1–6 146 3 216, 227, 228, 229,
7:2–3 144 231, 233, 235, 236
7:14 172, 175n74 3–4 227n36
7:17 150 3:1–6 223, 228n40
7:20 150 3:1–4:4 231n46
7:22–23 175n75 3:1–4:6 226, 234n50
7:25 173 3:3 223n24, 230, 234
8:1–2 177n78 3:6 222, 223n20, 230
8:3 69 3:12–18 224, 226
8:11 177 3:13 225, 226n33
8:32 69 3:13–14 227n35
8:34 118 3:17 230n44
9–11 198 3:17–18 230
9:22 198n47 4:1–4 224n25
11 187n22, 190 4:4 224
11:9 115
11:26 220 Galatians
12 56 1 144
12:4–5 172n67 1–2 190
12:5 56n52 1:13–16 190
12:9–20 55 1:15–16 233
12:10 55 4:22–31 115n42
12:16 55 4:24–26 190
5:18–23 225n30 8:1 118

5:17–26 234 8:6–9:20 222
9:28 207n69
Ephesians 10:12 118
1:20 118 10:16–29 222
12:24 222
Colossians 13:20 222
3:1 118
James
1 Thessalonians 5:12 20n20
2:14–16 198
3:13–18 115 1 Peter
4 23, 133n3 2:21–25 207n68
2:24 207n69
Hebrews
1:3 118 1 John
1:13 118 2:20 219
7:14 102 2:20–27 234–5
Rabbinic Literature
Mishnah Talmud Yerushalmi

m. Avot y. B. Qam. 9.4 [6d ] 62n67
1:3 61 y. Ber.
1:5 47 1.4 [3c] 155n25
1:7 47 3.5 [6d] 154n19
2:1 71n1 4.1 [7d] 83, 153n13
2:3 46 4.2 [7d] 155n24
2:9 155n24 3.1 [6b] 154n21
2:11 155n24 9.5 [14b] 62, 64
3:1 158 y. Hor. 1.8 [46b] 137n13
5:19 155n24 y. Sheb. 3.8 [34d ] 20
m. Ber. 9:5 63, 65, 78, 84, 153 y. Ta{an. 4.9 [69a–b] 185n13, 187n19,
m. Git. 205n64
4:5 28, 29, 138n16,
139, 141 Talmud Bavli
8:4–5 28 b. Ab. Zar.
8:8 28 24b 137n13
9:9 28 27b 158
9:10 26 b. Ber.
m. Mak. 3:15 71n1 10a 112, 120, 123
m. Nid. 2:1 25 20a 155n24, 170n62
m. Ohol. 1:8 163n45 44a–45b 163n43
m. Par. 7:6,7 137n13 61a 25, 166n51
m. Sanh. 61b 64, 153n14
3:5 40 b. B. Mez. 58b 14–15
6:5 51 b. B. Bath. 16a 166
10:1–2 94 b. Erub. 18a 166n51
b. Git. 57b 185n13, 187n19
Tosefta b. Hag. 16a 158n32
t. B. Qam. 9:29–30 62n67 b. Hor. 6a 137n13
t. Nid. 1:9 137n13 b. Mak.
23b 163n44
23b–24a 71n3 Sifre Numbers

b. Meg. 14a 153n15 115 155
b. Ned. 32b 119n52, 153, 164
b. Nid. Sifre Deuteronomy
13b 25 32 63, 65, 78
16b 157n31 35 153n14
31a 157 43.16 185
b. Qid. 72b 204n61 323 165–6
b. Sanh.
45a 51 Sifre Zuta 65n77, 78n22
48a 155n24
52a 51n41 Amoraic and Later Midrashim
58a 30 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan
75b 137n13 A 31 204n61
80b 137n13 B2 155n23
91a–b 158, 154n19 B 27 71n2
96b 185n13, 187n19 B 53 41
b. Shab. 5.1 61n62
31a 37n6, 46, 71 10.1–2 61n62
118a 16 15b 156n27
119b 154n20 32a 164
146a 166 32d 154n16
151a–b 163 47a 153n14
b. Sukk.
52a 153n13 Canticles Rabbah
52b 123, 162, 164n48 1.2 153n13
b. Ta{an. on Cant 2:5 66
7a 46
11a 164n48 Genesis Rabbah
b. Yeb. 63a 30 8.1 30n43, 139n17
b. Zev. 8.11 158n32
118b 155n24 14.3 158n32
119b 137n13 18.2 162
18.24 142n25
Tannaitic Midrashim 20.5 160, 161n40
Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael 24 71
Ithro 8 11–12 34.10 154n19
on Exod 15 63 48.11 153n15
on Exod 15:2 51n42
(Horovitz), 232 13, 23 Leviticus Rabbah
14.1 30n43, 139n17
Mekhilta de-R. Shimon b. Yohai
Ithro 20 24, 170 Numbers Rabbah
(Epstein and Melamed), 16 155n24
152 14
(Epstein and Melamed), Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana
152–153 24 124a–b 153n13
Sifra Pesiqta Rabbati 19, 20

91a 20 24 170n61
Qedoshim 2 21n22 28,30,34–37 230
Qedoshim 2.4 46n27, 71 43 204n61
Metsora 5, 12 18
on Lev 15:29 18n16 Pesiqta Hadta 14, 15
Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer Tanhuma, Beresh. 7 154n19

12 160n39 Tanhuma (Warsaw),
13 161n40 Shelah 15 170n62
14 160n39
Early Christian Literature
Letter of Barnabas Tertullian

16 210–211n81 On Repentance
3 167n56
Justin Martyr 3.11 177n80
Dialogue with Trypho
80 204n62 On the Resurrection of the Flesh
16 210n80 11,14,15,17 177n80
Aphrahat
Demonstrations 18.10 142n26
JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN
PERSPECTIVES
Judaism and Christianity share a common heritage. Recently, there has been a great
deal of interest in this fact: there have been investigations into the shared aspects of
this heritage as well as the elements unique to each religion. However, there has not yet
been a systematic attempt to present findings relative to both the Jewish and the Chris-
tian tradition to a broad audience of scholars. The purpose of this series, Jewish and
Christian Perspectives (JCP), is to fill that void and bring to light studies that are relevant
to Christianity and Judaism. To this end, the series includes works pertaining to the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the Second Temple period, the Judaeo-Chris-
tian polemic (from ancient until modern times), Rabbinical literature relevant to
Christianity, Patristics, Medieval Studies and the modern period. Special interest is
paid to the interaction between the two religions throughout the ages and, therefore,
related historical, exegetical, philosophcial and theological studies fall within the scope
of this series. Moreover, scholarly studies focussing on sociological and anthropo-
logical issues – this includes archaeological studies – in the form of monographs and
congress volumes, appear in the JCP book series.
1. Houtman, A., M.J.H.M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.). Sancti-

ty of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. 1998.
ISBN 90 04 11233 2
2. Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. and J. Schwartz (eds.). Purity and Holiness.
The Heritage of Leviticus. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11418 1
3. Kofsky, A. Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism. 2000.
ISBN 90 04 11642 7
4. Teugels, L.M. Aggadat Bereshit. Translated from the Hebrew with
an Introduction and Notes. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12173 0
5. Rokéah, D. Justin Martyr and the Jews. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12310 5
6. den Hollander, A., U. Schmid and W. Smelik (eds.). Paratext and
Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual
Markers of Contextualization. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12882 4
7. Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. and J. Schwartz (eds.). Saints and Role Models
in Judaism and Christianity. 2004. ISBN 90 04 12614 7
8. Frishman, J., W. Otten and G. Rouwhorst (eds.). Religious Identity
and the Problem of Historical Foundation. The Foundational Character
of Authoritative Sources in the History of Christianity and
Judaism. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13021 7
9. Notley, R.S. and Z. Safrai. Eusebius, Onomasticon. A Triglott Edi-
tion with Notes and Commentary. 2005. ISBN 0 391 04217 3
10.Reuling H. After Eden. Church Fathers and Rabbis on Genesis
3:16-21. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14638 5
11.Notley, R.S., M. Turnage and B. Becker (eds.). Jesus’ Last Week. Jerusa-
lem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels — Volume One. 2006.
ISBN 90 04 14790 X
12.Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. and J. Schwartz (eds.). A Holy People. Jewish and
Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity. 2006.
ISBN 90 04 15052 8
13.Ruzer, S. Mapping the New Testament. Early Christian Writings as a Witness
for Jewish Biblical Exegesis. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15892 4
14.Van Asselt, W., P. van Geest, D. Müller and Th. Salemink (eds.). Icono-
clasm and Iconoclash. Struggle for Religious Identity. 2007.
ISBN 978 90 04 16195 5
ISSN 1388-2074

Document 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Document 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Mapping the New Testament

Jewish and Christian

University of Tilburg: Faculty of Catholic Theology Utrecht,

Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel

Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Israel

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

© Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

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

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

printed in the netherlands

Introduction: The New Testament as Witness for Early Jewish

Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................... 243

It is a great pleasure for me to acknowledge the help of my friends

I am glad to publish the book in the Jewish and Christian Perspectives

Chapter 1 is a revised version of an article previously published in:

Chapter 2 is based on two separate studies published in: Revue Biblique

Chapter 3 is a thoroughly revised version of an article rst published

Chapter 4 is a revised version of an article rst published in: Cristiane-

Chapter 6 is a thoroughly revised version of an article previously

Judaism and Christianity share much of a heritage. There has been a

Detailed information can be obtained at:

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS WITNESS FOR

When it comes to the dilemmas of self-denition in the Judaeo-Chris-

competing claims to be the true representatives of the Jewish religion.4

witness, at least in some instances, to those broader tendencies. It is

Scripture. In a sense it builds upon the insights reached through the

arrive at peculiarly bold and far-reaching conclusions unintelligible to

An emphasis on instances of closeness and similarity on the one

ing to the basic hermeneutical syntax of the wider contemporaneous

This opening chapter addresses the exegetical techniques applied in a

While instances of Jesus’ separate treatment of some of the issues involved

The rst antithesis is introduced in Matthew 5:21 with the formula:

58b): “If one offends his fellow man in public, it is as if he sheds a

This transition corresponds to the changes in the nature of the trans-

technique followed his lead or invented the method independently. The

It turns out that the particular midrashic technique outlined above—a

oath concerning an olive tree that it is an olive tree . . . it constitutes a

Pseudo-Jonathan, quoted above), “my name” from Leviticus 19:12 cov-

 ' ' "  

1. In Matthew 5:33 and 5:37 he moves from “false” through “empty”

Let us turn now to Matthew 5:27–32—a passage that contains the

observed. This trend, however, resurfaces in a later talmudic source

On divorce: Matthew 5:31–32

It has been observed in the research that Jesus in Matthew 5:31–32

On divorce: Matthew 19:3–9 (cf. Mark 10:2–12)

from the Torah (law) until all is accomplished”.), Deuteronomy 24:1

attitude toward an additional marriage union. Although the specic

Five pericopes from the Gospel of Matthew were examined in this

exegetical passages, as well as on the techniques applied. Juxtaposing two

in this case also, the conclusions regarding basic exegetical patterns

FROM “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR” TO “LOVE YOUR ENEMY”

of additional, previously overlooked, evidence will be addressed. Special

Tensions in the biblical text

We should relate rst to the biblical ordinance “love your neighbor

there as “a dynamic concept” that “breaks apart” the static picture of

Between “your enemy” and “one who hates you”

Although, as was remarked in the previous paragraph, the question of

also quite a few instances where God himself is presented as a party to

Early witnesses for the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18

as if detached from its exegetical context—“love your fellow man” is

Here Leviticus 19:17–18, considered as a unit, is being applied to the

It may be clearly seen that although vengeance is suspended, there is

Early rabbinic Midrash

There is, however, a distinctive development in early rabbinic tradi-

' ' "

An interpretation of in Deuteronomy 6:5 as “your wealth” or

The Community Rule was intended for the

(1QS

case, the absence of reference to in this Synoptic tradition may be

:" . . .

is noteworthy that also in the Community Rule the word (life) (