J.N. Bremmer, F. Garcia Martinez Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 1992.pdf

8/10/2019 J.N. Bremmer, F. Garcia Martinez Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism A Symposium in Honour of A.S.

1/183


2/183

CONTRIBUTIONS TO B I B L I C A L EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

5

Edited by Tj.

Baarda

(Amsterdam), A. van der K o o i j (Leiden), and A.S.

van der Woude (Groningen)

Advisory Board: C. Breytenbach

( B e r l i n ) ,

R. Collins (Louvain), M. A.

Knibb

(London), P. van Boxel (Utrecht)

1.

J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old

Testament, early Jewish and early Christian Traditions, Kampen, 1990.

2. P.W, van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An introductory survey

of a millennium of Jewish funerary epigraphy (300 BCE - 700 CE),

Kampen, 1991.

3. E, Talstra,

Solomon's Prayer Synchrony and Diachrony in the Compo

sition

of I Kings 8, 14 - 61

(in preparation).

4. R. Stahl,

Von Weltengagement zu

Wettberwindung.

Theotogische Po

sitionen im Danielbuch

(in preparation).

5. J.N. Bremmer, F. Garcia Martinez (eds.),

Sacred History and Sacred

Texts

in Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour

of A.S.

van der Woude,

Kampen, 1992.


3/183

J.N.

Bremmer

F.

Garcia Martinez

(editors)

Sacred

History and

Sacred

Texts

inEarly Judaism

A

Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude

K ok PharosPublishing House - Kampen - The Netherlands


4/183

CIP-GEGEVENS

K O N I N K L I J K E B I B L I O T H E E K , D E N H A A G

1992, Kok Pharos Pub li sh ing House, P.O. Box 130; 8260 A C Kampen , The

Netherlands

Cover by Karel van Laan

I S B N

90 390 0015 8

N U G I 632

Wboek

A l l rightsreserved. N o part o f this pu bl ic at io n may be reproduced, stored in a re

trieval system, or transmitted in any

f o r m

or by any means, electronic, photocopy

i n g ,

recording, or otherwise, without the prior

written

permission f r o m the pub

lisher.


5/183

CONTENTS

Preface 7

Noteson contributors 9

1.

T. Baarda, The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi:

A Comparison with Other Traditions

11

2. J. N . Bremmer, TheAtonement in the Interaction ofJews,

Greeks,and Chiislians

75

3. P. W. van der Horst,

"Laws

that

were not Good": Ezekiel 20:25

in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

94

4. M. A. Wes, Mourning

becomes

Jeiusalem. Josephus, Jesus the

Son ofAnanias, and the BookofBaruch (I Bamch) 119

5. A. S. van der Woude, Pturiformity and Uniformity: Reflections

on the Transmission of the Text of the Old

Testament 151

Indices 171


6/183


7/183

Preface

Alter a long and distinguished

career

Adam S. van der Woude

w i l l retire on Reformation Day (October 31)

f r o m

the Chair of O ld

Testament

Studies

and Intertestamental Literature of the Faculty of

Theology of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

1

In order not to let

this occasion go unnoticed, the Center of Religious

Studies

decided to organise a symposium in honour of one of its best

known

members

on the very day that he himself

gave

his vale

dictory lecture. In view of Adam's

academic

interests, it seemed

therefore an obvious choice to focus the lectures on Jewish and

Christian

traditions in the Intertestamental period. In addit ion to

devoting so much of his own time and energy to this subject, he

has also prom ot ed the interest o f the scholarly w o r l d in this

central pe ri od in the history of Judaism and Christ ianity by the

foundation and ed it ing of the Journal

for the Study

of

Judaism

in the

Persian,

Hellenistic and Roman Period.

A t

the symposium, four friends and

colleagues

f r o m Amster

dam, Groningen and Utrecht discussed various features of the

history and literature of the Second Temple period. T. Baarda

compares

several tradi tions of the Shechcm

episode

in the

Testament oj UwL

J.N. Bremmer enters into a

recent

debate

on the

o r i g i n of the Christian idea of the

atonement.

P.W. van der Horst

analyses the recept ion of L/.ckicl 's words 'Laws that were no t

good

1

in early Judaism and Christiani ty, and M.A. VVes

studies

a

fascinating

episode

f r o m FlaviusJosephus in the l i g h t of the Book

of

Bamch.

1

For a bi og rap hi ca l sketch oi Van der Woude see

A . K . J .

K l i j n , in 1

;

.

Garcia Marl ine /., (.1.11.J. de

Gens,

A .F J. K l i j n (eds.), Pro/elm en profetische

geschriften,

K a r r ipen and N i j k e r k ]985, 9-13; for the bi bl io graph y see, F.

Garcia Martinez , in I

Gare

fa Mar

Line/.,

A. I I

i

1

horst, C.

Labuschagnc

(eds.),

The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the

Occasion

of lis 6.5thBirthday,

Leiden 1992, 228-268.


8/183

8 P R E F A C E

When we decided to publish the lectures, it seemed only

natural to add to these contributions the valedictory lecture of

Adam

van der Woude himself. So we are very

pleased

that after

some i n i t i a l

hesitation on his part we were able to overcome his

objections to our idea.

We would l i k e to thank the contributors to the symposium for

their enthusiasm to participate in this homage, the Faculty o f

Theology for its support, and last but not

least

the publishinghouse

K o k

Pharosand

in particular K r i s t i n de Troyerfor its ready

response to our initiative and the speed

w i t h which

it has

produced this volume.

Groningcn, Center for Religious Studies

Jan Bremmcr

Florcntino

Garcia Martinez


9/183

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

T j i T Z E B A A R D A

, b. 1932, is Professor of New

Testament

Studies at

the

V r i j e

Univcrsi teit , Amsterdam. His books and many articles

include The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahaf the Persian Sage, 2 vis

(1975) and

Early

Transmission of Words

ofJesus:

Thomas, Tatian and

the Text of the

Nezu

Testament

(1983), He is the co-editor of,

most

recently, God met ons: over de aard van het Schriftgezag (1986);

Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (1988) and Jodendom en

vroegChristendom: continuteit en discontinueit (1991 ).

J A N

N .

B R E M M E R

, b. 1944, is Professor of History of Rel igion at the

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. He is the

author

of

The

Early

Greek

Concept of the Soul (1983); co-author of Roman Myth and Mythography

(1987) and Marlelaren van deoudekei'k (1988); editor of Interpretations

ojGreek Mythology

(1987) and

Erom Sappho to De Sade

(1989) and co-

editor of A Cultural Histoiy ofGesture( 1991 ).

P I E T E R W. VAN DE R H O R S T ,

b. 1946, is Professor of New

Testament

Studies

and of the Jewish and Hel leni st ic

M i l i e u

of Early

Christianity at the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, His books and many

articles include Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher

(1

9 87

2

) ;

De onhekende God: essays over de Joodse en Hellenistische

achtergond van het vroege Christendom (1988); Essays on the Jewish

World of

Early

Christianity (1990); Ancient Jetoish Epitaphs (1991);

Studies overhetJodendom in de oudheid (1992). He is the co-author of

Studies on the Hellenistic Background oj the Neiv Testament

(1990).

M A R I N U S

A.

W E S

,

b. 1939, is Professor of Anc ient History at the

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. His

most

recent books include

Michael Rosiovtzejf Historian in Exile: Russian Roots in an American

Context

(1990);

Classics in Russia 1700- 1855

(1992). He isalso the co-


10/183

N O T E S

ON

C O N T R I B U T O R S

author of a

Dutch

translation of FlaviusJoscphus'

](?wish

War and

Vila

(1992).

A D A M S.

VAN DE R

W O U D E

,

b.

1927,

was Professor o f O l d

Testament Studies and In te rte st amen tal Li te rat ur e at the

Rijksuniversitci t Gron ingen f r o m

1 9 6 0

to

1992 ,

For his

bibliography

sec the Preface, note

1,


11/183

The Shechem Episode in the

Testament of Levi

A

comparison

w i t h

other traditions

T J I T Z E

B A A R D A

The Background of this contribution

The intriguing phrase of Paul, 'but the wrath has come upon them

finally' (1 Thess.2:16c)

1

tempted me to examine the

episode

of the

Shechem

slaughter as it is found in the Testament of

L e v i .

And,

indeed, I could not resist this enticement. The

reason

is obvious:

this document

presents

us

w i t h

a similar

phrase

as is found in

Paul ( T L 6:11). The

resemblance

is so

striking

that it is easily

understood why most

scholars

are convinced that

'there

must be a

literary relationship between these verses'

2

. Wh et he r Paul

borrowed these words f r o m the Testament o f L e v i or whether a

Christian

editor, c.q. interpolator, has introduced the phrase of

Paul into the Testament, is

s t i l l

a matter ofdebate, to

which

I can

hardly contribute anything new. However, in studying this

problem I

became

increasingly interested into the context of the

pert inent phrase in the descripti on of Levi's

revenge

on the

Shechcmi tes for thei r cri me against Din ah. What mainl y struck

me was the

change

o f perspective in this re te ll ing of the O l d

Testament story, by

which

the author apparently wished to

exonerate his hero f r o m every blame. Since I am an amateur in

1

Cf. my conLribuLion 'Maar de toorn is over hen gekome n,. ,' to the volume

Paulus en de andere Joden, cd. T, Baarda,

I I . Jansen,

S. J. N oord a, J. S. Vos,

Delft 1984, 15-74, esp. 72, n.276.

2

Cf. M . de Jonge (ed.), Studies in the Testaments of the Twelve

Patriarchs,

Leid en 1975, 247-260, 260, cf. n . l l ; I . Broer, "Antisemit ismus" un d Juden

polemik

im Neuen Testament, Ein Beitrag zum besseren Verstndnis von 1

Thess. 2,14-16, B.N. 20 (19 83), 59-91, 68 ('p rakti sch wrtlich identischer

Formul i e rung ' ) .


12/183

12

T . I i A A R D A

this

area

of research, I hope that my friend and colleague Adam

van

der Wou de

w i l l

no t blame me for this rather extensive

contribution to a volume that is dedicated to him in honour of his

professional

scholarship demonstrated in his long

career

study of

the Old Testament and of the Qumranic texts, both ofwhich play

a role in this

contribution.

I

1. Theaiiival at Shechem

T,

L e v i ,

was conceived at Haran, and was born there, and after that

I came w i t h my father in Shechem' (2:1 is the first biographical

notice in this document. The first part reminds of Gen. 29:34a, the

pregnancy of Leah (avve\i]


13/183

I

I I K

S H K C H K M K P I S O D E

IN T H E

T E S T A M E N T

OF L E V I

13

was in the land of Canaan, which Demetrius

6

,

Josephus

7

and

Pseudo-Philo

8

repeat in their descriptions of the travels of Jacob.

The identification of Shechem as a Canaanite c i t y is, however,

present in a second biographical sketch, T L 12:5, where

L e v i

says:

f|\0ov

ei

yfjv

Xavav. Moreover, he ident ifies the inhabitants as

Canaanitcs , in T L 7:1, when he explains to his father that his

attack on Shechem was part of God's design to destroy the

Canaanites

9

.

2. The age ofLevi al the day of his revenge

T

was

s t i l l

a young man, about twenty

years

ol d, when I per-

formedwith Simeonvengeance on He mo r' (2:2).

L e v i

claims

to

have been s t i l l a minor (vewTepoc),which may have an apolo-

getic tone. The approximate date (0)061 eToi/ eLVocnf) has been

stated more precisely as eighteen years in his second bibliographi-

cal description (12:5): T was eight years old, when I came into the

land

of Canaan

1 0

, and eighteen years

(KTaJKatSeKa rtiv),

when I

k i l l e d Shechem. It

seems

quite certain that the Aramaic fragment

)

) may have given the same age

1 1

. This dating

6

Demetrius, On Jacob, in Kusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX,21:1-19 (ed. K.

Mras, Eusebius Werke

V I I L l

(GCS 43:1 ), Berlin 1953, 508-512, 509:14 f.) ; N .

Walter, Demetrius, in Fragmente jdisch-hellenistischerExegeten (JSIIRZ H I : 2 ) ,

Gters loh

1975, 280-293, 286 n.8a,

rightly understands

S (K|1CJ I as a place

name, but

wrongly

attribut es it to a mis und ers tand ing of Demetr ius on the

part o f Al ex ande r Polyhis tor. See for Demetri us a.o.: P. W. van der Horst ,

The Int erpret ation of the

Bible

by the

Minor

Hel lenis tic Jewish authors, in

M . J .

Mulder

(Ed.),

Mikra

(CRINT

I I / l ) ,

Assen/Maastncht-Philadelphia

1988, 519-540, esp. 52811

/

Josephus, Antiquitates

I , 337 ( x x i : l ) , ed. I L St. J. Thackeray,

Josephus

IV,

Cambridge MA -Lo ndo n 160

251967: f

eL S C K L J J L O V TTapr

orlv

1$ \

6 \

8

Pseudo-Philo ,

Lib. Ant.

Eibl., 8:7, ed. G. Kisch,

Pseudo-Philo's

Liber

Antiquitatum

Biblicaruvi, N oi re Dame 1949, 134:4:

et habitavit

Jacob

in terra

Ghana an,

omitt ing

the

name

of the place.

9

J.32:61.

^ovSevaei

KupL0

T O U S *

Xavavalov.

1 0

Cf. T L 2:1 A rm. yet owP amac\

4

after eight years' instead of [ir ravja,

an ant ic ipati on of 12:5; M. Stone,

The Testament of

Levi, Jerusal em 1969, 54,

2 nd

app.

1 1

Ch.254 (B od le ian Fragrn. co l.d:16) ; cf. the Syriac fragmen t,

ibid.:

the

Aramaic

text is not qu it e clear here, since some scholars guess

instead

o f .


14/183

14

T . I 3 A A R D A

differs f r o m that of Demetrius : when L e v i entered

Canaan

he was

ten years and six months

(er&v

T 1 1> ),Jacob has l i v e d for

ten years near

Shechem (lit. uapa

'E^JLuip),

which

means that L e v i

was twenty

years

and six months

{T v

aicoai

|JT|1


15/183

T H E S i l E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H ET E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

15

honoured . . .Dinah '

1 8

. The same generalization is made in Jud i th

9:2, where the Sichemites are designated as 'the strangers who

loosened the girdle of a v i r g i n to defile her'

1 9

. The

c o l l e c t i v i t y

of

the crime is again emphasized in

Joseph

and Aseneth

(23:13),

where mention is made of 'the outrage

2 0

,..which the Sichemites

performed

w i t h respect to our sister Dinah*, although the author

adds, 'whom Shechem the Son of He mo r had defi led '

2 1

. The

crime of one man is significant for the attitude of all Sichemites,

as has been stated in the Aramaic fragment of T L , T k i l l e d

Shechem, and finished off theworkers

ofviolence

{ôm

22

) .

The verb used in T L 7:3 to describe the

f o o l

act of Shechem is

[liavai (v.L: \11avavres)

which

reflects the b i b l i c a l text, *and

Jacob

heard that the son of He mo r had defiled Dinah\

Gen.34:5.

The

verb is rendered w i t h i\1iavev in the L X X (cf. i[1Lavav in

34:13.27). The same term is used inJoseph and Aseneth,r\v [1lave

Zuxefi 6 ui69

r

E^0)p (23:13)

2

ând in Philo's reference,[11aive1v...Kai

4>0etpett/ 6TTexe(âa1>, De Mig7\Ab7\224

iM

. Among the other a l l u -

sions

2

^the strongest is undoubtedly the word pSeXiryîa (cf. 24),

an abhorrent act.

1 8

Charles, Jubilees, 179 (1913, 58); Berger,

o.e.,

470.

1 9

R. Il anhart ,

Judith

(Septuaginta V I I I : 4 )

t

G t t i n g e n 1979, 104.

2 0

Th e term upiS" for the rape is found in Theodotus,

On

Jacob (?), in

Eusebius,

Praeparatio Evangelica

I X . 2 2 , 1-11, ed. K. Mras,

o.e.,

512-516, 515:8,

\

pLu

Tfj9

dSeXcjifjs* ( in the

paraphrase

of Alexande r Polyh istor); cf. for

Theodotus , R. J. B u l l , A Not e on Theodotus' Descrip tion of Shechem,

IIThR

00 (1967), 221-227; J. J. Collins, The Epic of The odot us and the Hel len ism of

the

TIasmonaeans,

IIThR 73 (1982) 9 M 0 4 ; R. Pummcr,

Genesis

34 in Jewish

Writings

of the Hel lenis ti c and R oman Periods,

IIThR

75 (1982) 177-188;

P. W. van der Horst , Joods-Hellenistische

Pozie,

Kampe n 1987, 58-67; id em ,

Inte rpretation of the

Bible,

526; G. W. K. Niekel sburg , The

Bible

Rewritten

and Exp ande d, in M . E. Stone, Jewish

Writings of the Second Temple Period

(CRINT I I / 2 ) ,

Assen-Philadelphia 1984, 89-156,' 121ff.

2 1

M . Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth, Leiden 1968, 204:6-8 (23:13).

2 2

Ch.254 (B od lT rag m. co l. d: l7 L) , cf. 245 ( Cambr.Eragm., col.b: 19); the

Syriac reads 'all doers of e v i l ' , cf. the d a e e i s of Theodotus (Mras, o.e.,

515:15).

2

*'

Philonenko, o.e., 204:7f.

2 1

Philo, De Migratione Abrahami, 224, E. TL Colson-G. H. Whi taker, Philo

I V , London-Cambridge MA 1932, 121-267, 264:8T, cf. 265 n. The gist of 'they

tried'

is that they did not succeed.

2 : )

T L 2:2 and 5:3 me nt ion only ihe name of the g i r l to refer to the crime

done

to her.


16/183

16

.

B A A R D A

Another allusion to the

rape

is found in TL 6:8, where Levi tells

his children that he knew that God was ill-favoured towards

Shcchcm,

since

they wanted to do to Sarah, what they actually

did to Dinah ( ).

From the comparison w i t h Sarah it is clear that they

stole

the

wives of strangers,

*

(6:10). The idea of ravishing occurs in several texts. Joscphus

writes that

Shechem

ravished her and injured her,

81

-

2 6

. Theodotus tells us that he ravished her and took her

home and injured her,

2 7

.

We may compare

here

Philo's allegorical

paraphrase, (plur. ) *

2 8

.

The background of this terminology is Gen.34:2, ,

1

a n d he took her', which in Targum PsJonathan is para-

phrased as

,

'and he took her by force (or\..by

robbery')

29

. Pseudo-Phi

l o , 'et Dinam

i i l i a m

eius rapnit Sychcm...et

humiliavit

:

expresses

the idea of robbery, but also of humi liat ion

which

has been suggested by the L X X reading,

(=

,(

Gen.34:2, which is

also

reflected in Philo's text,

^

1

,

4.

The age of Dinah

a

he

time

of

the

Rape

Can something be said concerning the age of Dinah during the

rape

on the

basis

of the data in Testament of Levi? We know that

according to Jub. 30:2 she was

supposed

to be a l i t t l e g i r l , 'a

child

of

twelve

years

1

*'

2

.

Demetrius, however,

assumes

that she was a good

sixteen

years

old, ^. In his

view, Dinah and Levi differed in age exactly

four years

and

two

l b

Joscphus, Antiquitates I , 337 ( x x i . l ) , ed. Thackeray, o.c, 162:3f.

2 /

Theodotus, ed. Mras, o.c, 5 14:1 3f.; the verb

is found in Dome-

trius

( /aL,

Mras, o.c, 509:20;

,

510:3), Philo, Migr.Abr., 225

( ,

CoLson-Whitaker, o.c, IV. 266:6), I)e Mutatione Nominum 195

( ,

Colson-Whiiaker,

o.c,

V.242:9).

2 8

Philo, Migr.Abr., 224, ed. Colson-Whitaker, o.c, IV.

264:15.

2 9

M. Gmsbur^er, Pseudo-Jonathan,

Berlin

1903, 63.

3 0

Ps.-Philo, Antiquitates 8:7, ed. Kisch, o.c, 134:4f.

S l

Philo, Mut.Som., ed. Colson-Whitaker, o.c., V.242:2f.

v z

Charles, Jubilees. 179.

Demetrius, ed. Mras, o.c, 509:21, 510:1.


17/183

T H E S I I E C H E M E P I S O D E

IN

T H E T E S T A M E N T

OF L E V I

17

months, which is

less

than in the Book of

Jubilees,

where L e v i

was born 'in the new moon of the first month, in the sixthyear of

this (=third) week', Anno IVlundi 2127, and Dinah, *in the seventh

o f the seventh month, in the sixth

year

of the fourth week', A. M.

2134. This implies that

there

is a difference of seven years and six

m on t hs

3 4

. A difference of

eight

years has been assumed in a l i s t

preserved by Syncellus

3 5

.

Remarkably enough, T L 12:5 has

been

adduced as proof for a

similar chronology as found in Jubilees. In his first translation

(1902)

3 6

,

Charles comments on the twelve years of

Jub.30:2

in the

f o l l o w i n g

way:

4

This

agrees

w i t h

the reckoning in Test.

L e v i

12.

There

L e v i ,

who was six years older than Dinah, slew

Shechem

at the age of eighteen', but in 1913, he corrects himself when deal

ing w i t h the same passage:

4

Cf. Test.Levi

x i i . 5

and

J u b . x x v i i i .

14.23,

which together make her eleven'

3 7

. Borger annotates his render

i n g , 'ein K i n d von

zwlf

Jahren', w i t h the f o l l o w i n g remark: 'Vgl.

Test X I I . L e v i 12,5'

3 8

.

Does

the Testament of L e v i contribute to fixing a date for the

rape?

It is obvious that the author of

Jubilees makes

L e v i

(born

a.M.2127) and Dinah (born a.M.2134) arrive at

Shechem

in 2143,

L e v i being 16 years old, Dinah 9 years of age. The fact that she

was raped in her t w e l f t h

year

(a.M.2146) implies that they had

only

l i v e d

there

for three years before the inc ident

happened.

These

numbers differ both

f r o m

T L 12:5 and

f r o m

Demetrius:

L e v i

comes to Shechem, when he was 8 years ol d (Demetrius:

10), and l i v e d there for 10years before the rape of Dinah. So one

may assume that according to this tradition Dinah was eleven

( T L ) or thirteen (Demetrius).

M

Charles,

Jubilees, I72f.

3 5

Cf.

Charles,Jubilees,

170 nota ad 28:11-24: L x v i is horn in the 82th year of

Jacob,

Dinah in his 90th. The

list

agrees

w i t h Jub.28:23,

in making Zebulon

and Dinah twins.

Charles

offers

also

a

list

of

dates

collected by Dodwell

(p.172, = 17(), n.) wh ich was presumably based on the Testaments (?): L e v i

was born in the 81th vear of Jacob and seven

years

older than Di nah , born

i n the 88th year.

3 6

Charles, Jubilees, l79n.

D

' Charles,

Jubilees,

f)8.

3 8

Berger, Jubilen, 470.


18/183

18 T . B A A R D A

I I

5. The

inilialive

of Levi

1.

L e v i is credited w i t h having taken the inititativc in avenging

the rape of his sister, although he was the younger of the twosons

that made the assault at Shcchem. The biblical text, Gen.34:5, tells

us that

Jacob

was at home and his sons in the field w i t h the flocks,

when the report of the rape came to Jacob, His sons heard it only

afterwards. They were wrathful and furious, when they heard

about i t, 34:7 (cf. Jub. 30:3). This

might suggest

that

Jacob

and all

his

sons

were

involved

in making a deceitful plan

(

3 9

(

against the Sichemites, although the sequel of the narrative does

n o t i m p l y thatJacob was aware of the ruse of the circumcision as

a means to destroy the Sichemites. As a matter of fact,Jacob was

shocked by the action of his

sons:

they were

g u i l t y ,

and

espe-

c i a l l y Simeon and L e v i . This is, at least, the thrust of Gen. 49:6.

Jacob did not wish to have anything to do w i t h their plans and

their assembly. The Targums, therefore, make i t clear that Jacob

was not even present

in their secret

council,

changing

into

1 0

.

Asimilar idea has been developed in

the epic poem of Theodotus: here it is

Jacob

who wanted to settle

the problem in a c iv i l way. The Sichemites should become Jews

through circ umci sio n, before Shcchem could marry Dinah'

1 1

.

The initiative for the

raid

did not come f r o m Jacob.

2.

Theodotus, however, did not entrust

L e v i

w i t h the initiative,

b u t

Simeon.

1

One of the

sons

of Jacob, whose name was Simeon,

decides to k i l l Hemor and Shechem, since he refused to accept

the raj:>e of his sister by a c iv i l arrangement (or: in a courteous

^

Th e ethi cal prob le m was fe l t by many early commentators, cf. e.g.

Mid-

rash Rahbah 80:8 on Gen .34:i 4, ' w i t h

guile':

R. Samuel b. Nachm an denies

that this was a cause of deceit, for the

H o l y

Spirit declares 'because he had

defiled

Dinah

thei r sister', Freed man,

o.c,

740

f.

'

I 0

A. Sperber,

The Bible in Aramaic,

I , Leiden

2

19 92 , 85; M. Aberbach -B.

Grossfeld, Targum

Qjikelos

to

Genesis, New

Y o r k

1982, 283; cf. M . Ginsburger ,

P

s eu

do-Jonathan, 92: The fragment Targ um even says that he was not pleased

w i t h their plans,

,

B D J n\snrVK

1

7

j i n r u m ,

M . A. K l e i n , The Fragment-Tar gum s of

the Pentateuch I , Rome 1980, 157.

1 1

The odotus , in Kusebius, o.c, IX.22:5-7, ed. Mras, o.c, 514:14-21, 515:1-5.


19/183

T H E S H K C I I E M E P I S O D E

IN T H E

T E S T A M E N T

OF L E V I

19

way)"

1 2

.

Once he had

made

his decision, he consulted his brother

L e v i about it and got him involved; so it was he who incit ed L e v i to

proceed into act ion

4 3

. The prayer o fJudith, in Judi th 9, although it

mentions the fact that all brothers (

1

your

dear

children

1

) were

involved

in the action, expressly mentions Judith's ancestor,

Simeon, as the principal person in the attack: *O

L o r d ,

God of my

father Simeon, in whose hand You

gave

a sword to take ven

geance

of the

strangers'

4 4

.

3. It is a remarkable thing that Jubilees, in spite of its high

esteem for L e v i , makes bothmen, Simeon and

L e v i

(in this order),

responsible for the action. 'And Simeon and

L e v i

mocked at them

( c f . T L

7:2) in guile, and Simeon and

L e v i

were determined in

their

heart to destroy them', Jub.30:4 La t

4 5

. A common decision

has

also been

emphasized by Philo's

exegesis,

De Mut.Nom. 200, in

which

he

relates

that

those

who were prepared to repel the profane

and impure ways were two in number, Simeon and

L e v i ,

but one

i n

w i l l (yvb)[Lr\

8e

e l ^ )

4 6

.

Philo argues this on the basis of Gen.

49:6f., where

Jacob

in his

blessings

counted them as one: they

were one in harmony of

mind

in their impetus for one and the

same purpose. Moses went even so farDt.33:8that he men

tioned only

L e v i

in his blessings, i ncl uding Simeon under the

name of L e v i , blending the two natures by maki ng them one,

after having united hearing (that is, Simeon

4 7

) and doing

( L e v i )

4 8

,

'

v2

Thcodotus, ibid.

IX.22:8,

cd. Mras, o.c, 515:7-9, esp. 6

eveyKeiv.

'

T h c o d o t u s , ibid., ed. Mras, o.c, 515:9-11.

4 4

Ju di th 9:2, ed. Hanhart, o.c, 104:71'.; cf. 105:6.

4

Charles, jubilees, 179, n.3: et posuerunt in corde suo Symeon el Levi exierminare

eos,

4 0

Philo,

De Mutalione Nominum,

200, ed. Colson-Whitaker,

Philo

V, 244:30-

37; 246:1

i

4 7

Cf. De Ebnelaie 94, Golson-Whitaker, Philo

I I I ,

366:18,

,

-

.

4 8

Th e ordinal*)' etymology is

*

=

> ,

cf.

De Plantatione,

64,

ed. Colson-Whitaker, Philo I I I , 224:25,28. Does Philo present us here w i t h

ano ther etymology? Cf. , or be weary', hy having

done

too much.

Another etymology is found in Migr. Abr. 224, ed. Colson-Whitaker, o.c,

264, where Simeon and L e v i are called 01 / *

0,

- being a play on , * , a f e l l o w , someone

familiar,

being a pun on


20/183

20

T . B A A R D A

6. The Vision

of Levi

1.

Wc spoke of Levi's initiative as a particular element in the

retelling

of the Shechem episode in the Testament of

L e v i .

How

ever, we have to

qualify

this, since his

initiative

was motivated by

a divine decision. As a matter of fact, he received a visionary

revelation

that not only

deals w i t h

his investiture as a priest

4 9

, but

also w i t h a divine command to avenge Dinah (5:3). The

vision

as

a whole is embedded in the story of the raid on the Sichemitcs,

since TL 2:If. is continued in 6:If. The revelation occurred to L e v i ,

when he and his brothers were tending

5 0

the flocks in Abel-Maul

( T L

2:3a).

Jacob

was then not

w i t h

them (cf. 6:1). A

spirit

of under

standing came over him, so that he could clearly perceive the

sinful state of manki nd (2 :3b)

5 1

. When in distress he prayed for

salvation, he was caught by a sleep,

'

...

( 2 : 4 f . ) . This was the beginning of long visonary

state

5 2

,

f r o m

which he awakened three chapters later,

* . . . ( 5 : 7 ) . His earlier distress gave way to f u l l

praise of the Highest and of the guardian angel, 'who stands at the

side oflsrael and ofall righteous people'(5:6)

5 3

.

7. The mountain oftheVision

The vision begins w i t h the disclosure of a high mountain,

*

( 2 :5 ) .

L e v i immediately interrupts his de

scription

of the

vision

to t e l l his children,which mountain it was.

I n

doing so he anticipates an observation that was to be t o l d later

4 9

Cf. T L 2-5, cf. esp. 2:10, 4:2, 5:2 (12:5); for an analysis of these chapters, cf.

M . de

Jonge,

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Assen 1953, 46-51, Studies,

24 7-2C>0

;

]. Becker, Un t ersuchu nge n zur

En

ts te h

u

ngsgeschichte der Testame n te der

zwlf Patriarchen, 257-269.

: A )

J.24:9; TTOiu.aiuou.ei>, the plural is rendered by Schnapp, Ricssler;

Ch.28:7, T T o t j i aL PW, the singular is rendered by Kee, Becker, a.o; see for the

textual problem, I - I . J. de Jonge, Die

T e x t b e r l i e f e r u n

g der Testamente der

zwlf

Patri archen, in M. de Jonge (ed.),

Studies,

45-62, 59.

: > ]

Cf. M. de Jonge,

Testaments

(1953), 50;

idem,

Notes on Testament of

L e v i

I I -

V I I ,

in Travels

in the

World

of the Old Testament,

Festschrift M. A. Beek, Assen

1974, 132-145, 139 (=

idem, Studies,

247-260, 254).

5 2

M . de jo ng e,

Testaments

(1953) , 4ff., Notes, 141, 144f. (=

Studies,

256,

2591*.);

llcckcr,

Unte?suchu?igen,

257-270.

: ) 6

For the identification of the ange l, cf. Charles, Tes taments, 308; M. de

Jonge, Testaments (1953), 93; Haupt, Testament, 19f.


21/183

T H E

SH

E C

HE M

E P I S O D E

IN T H E

T E S T A M E N T

OF L E V I

21

on in his report , namely an incident that happened after the reve

lation,

when he was on his way home. This observation, which

has been omitted in a group of manuscripts, c-h-i-j

5 4

, has in this

very context the air of a gloss

5 5

. Nevertheless it may have been

part of the Greek text of the author, who wanted to convey to his

readers that

L e v i

saw a real mountain, although he saw it in a

visionary dream. The words in question are:

*' * ' ,

1

this

was the mountain Aspis (or: of the Aspis) in

Abel-Maul'

5 6

.

It is

the

same

mountain where he afterwards found a shield (.),

so it was

f r o m

this

1

shield

1

that the mountain got its name. For we

read in 6:1b:

1

\

*

^

1

,

These two verses 2:5 and 6:1b f o r m an inclusio for the visionary

experience of L e v i

5 7

.

This mountain is the place where

L e v i

enters the

heavens

( 2 : 6 f . ) .

The Greek text would be clearer, i f we were allowed to read

as part of the

original

text

,

a reading preserved

only in the so-called

- recension

5 8

instead of the identification of

j l

Cf. Ch.29:3 and app.; i t has not been rendered by Charles, Becker and

Kee.

5 5

J. T.

M i l i k ,

Le Testament de L e v i en Aramcen, RR 62 (1955) 398-406, 404,

speaks of a 'glose propre

l 'archtype

de ce groupe de mss.\ So Becker,

Untersuchungen,

259, n,2

( 'sekundres

Int erpret ament*) . M. de

Jonge,

Testa

ments,

50 ascribed the 'gloss' to the cornpil ator (i.e. the Christi an au tho r) . He

acknowledges that Lhis ant ic ipati on is 'obviously awkward ' (Notes, 250) , bu t

this

is exactly Lhe

reason

why it has

been

omitted in the oLher

f a m i l y

of

texts. In my view, De jonge is correc t here in suggesting Lhat it was part of

the original Greek text ; i t may have been also part of a tradition that was

used by the Greek au thor, for it turns out that also the Aramaic tex t has a

geographical notice at this point

3 0

De Jonge,

Testaments

(cd. Sparks), 526 renders 'the mount Aspis in

Abel-Meholah'; Hollandcr-De Jonge,

Testaments,

132 'the mo un ta in of the

Shield in Abei-Maul', cf. 8-9

5 7

M . de

Jonge,

Testaments

(1953), 50; for the

view

that this

vision

is an

interpolat ion, cf. J. Thomas , Aktuel le s im Zeugnis der

zwlf

Vter,

in C.

Burchard, J. Jcrvcll, J. Thomas,

Studien zu den Testamenten der

zwlf Patriarchen,

B e r l i n

1969, 62-150, 78; Becker, Untersuchungen, 257ff.

5 8

Ch.29:3f., on the basis of c-h-i-j. The Armenian is divided: the a-text

reads: ev es kayi i weray lerinn, 'and I was standing on the mo unt ai n' . De

Jonge, Notes, 251, follows the

-recension,

because it is the lectio

durior,


22/183

99

. B A A R D A

the mountain. These words could easily have been omitted by

parablepsis

5 9

. L e v i experienced that he was placed upon the top of

the mount ai n, where earth and heaven meet each other, so that

when the

heavens

were opened

6 0

he could enter them (,..etaeXGe.

K a l etafjX9oi>.,.2:6f.). Later on, w i t h i n the narrative of the vision, he

is brought back to earth, TOT 6 ayyeXos f\yaye \ie enl TT\V

yf jv ,

5:3. The mountain of the vision is the same moun tain as the one

f r o m which

he went back to his father (6:1), so that vision and

reality

seem to have been mingled in Levi's repor t

6 1

.

8.

The

hcalion

oj the mount

Aspis.

1. The location of the mountain Aspis is s t i l l an unsettled

problem, in spite of the fact that the text is rather precise in its

geographical description. It is a high mountain located in

A b e l -

Maul (2:5), near Gebal on the

right

side

6 2

of A b i l a (6:1b). The

author of the tradition underlying our document must have had

i n

mind a specific location

which

is no longer clear to us:

,

Dcr

Berg ist geographisch nicht best immbar

1 6 3

. Is it possible that the

Greek author merely took over names that he had no notion of?

6 4

A n d is it possible that the latter was not very

lucky

in his choice

o f

Greek equivalents?

2.

The

f i rs t

problem is that the author locates the mountain in

the region ofAhel-Alaitl, which suggests the Hebrew name A b e l -

Meholah, ten miles south of* Beth

Sean,

about twenty miles nort h

east of Shechem

6 5

. This could be a place which is apt for tending

whereas

the a reccnsion

would

have been an attempt to avoid a d i f f i c u l t y of

the text. Since one mi gh t

have

in the Qumran fragment,

col.ii:14,

a possible

equivalent (

a n d

I sat o( n the mou nt ain ') ,con tra

Testamen t, 400, 404, who surprisi ngly finds the words 'et j' y de me urai ' i n

(he lacuna after

line

17one might consider the possibility that the author of

the Greek text wrote both the

identification

of the mou nt ain en

parenthese

and the notice on Levi's being on the mou nt ain as the

entrance

to heaven.

: > t J

\ . .

...

6 0

See for this motive, Becker,

Testamente,

47 n.Oa.

6 1

Cf. also ll au pt , Testament, 17 (esp.n.7).

Dc Jonge (1984) renders w i t h in the south o f , but this impl ie s that we

know the perspective from which the author gives this di rect io n.

^

Becker, Testamente, 51 , n . la, cf. 47, n.3a.

6 1

So e.g. I Io llander-De

Jonge,

Testaments, 133.

6 5

Cf. Judg. 7:22; 1 Kgdms . 4:11, 19:16; l lau pt, Testament, 11 assumes that the


23/183

T H E S I 1 E C H E M E P I S O D E

IN T HET E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

23

flocks, cf. 2:3, and being not too far from Shechem. However, the

Aramaic

fragments contain the name , cf.

1

AfteX^aLv for ,

2

, Chr. 16:4

which

seems to be another name for Abel Bet

Maacha, a location south east of the Hermon in the north of the

country

6 6

.

3. T he second pr ob le m is that the aut ho r

says

that the

mountain was near Gebal Th is usually denotes the city of Byblos

(cf, Ezek.27:9), which in Josh. 13:5 is

found

combined

w i t h

the

Libanon and H erm on. This is, however, too far off from

1

Abel-

M a u l '

6 7

to be said eyybs Ye$a\. So one can unders tand that scho

lars have declined such an

identification

6 8

.

Scholars who

seek

the

mountain

Aspis in the Shechem district

suggest

that one should

read

here

TepdX =

r a t

3dX as the moun tain Ebal

6 9

.

4.

The

third

problem is

Ahila.

It reminds us o f the capi tal o f

Abilene on the north-east slope of the Hermon. But this identi-

fication has met

w i t h

more than hesitation

7 0

. Another proposal is

that it

could

have been Abel, as distinguished from Beth Maacha

i n

some

texts

7 1

. The problem, however, is the different spellings of

the name in the manuscripts.

'A3 Xd

is

found

in the

crown

witness

for the family I text, Ms. The variations

w i t h i n

family I I present

us

w i t h

the spellings

,

ApLjJtd [ge

a

f)

or 'A|at

3d {Id

m)

7 2

,

whereas

the

words

'on the

right

side of

Abila'

are omi tt ed in

c-h-i-j

7 3

One

might

ask, whether the name was a misinterpretation for

Abel-

M a u l

7 4

,

e.g. because this name was

written

as an abbreviation,

aud i or t i loug ht of the vicinity of Sichern.

6 0

Cf. 2 Kgdms. 15:20; 2 Sam.20:15.

This is even valid, i f one would prefer the re ading of the Aramaic text

4

A be l -m ayy in

.

6 8

Becker, Testamente, 51, n. l c , 'diese Ident i f i z ierung muss geographisch

ausschieden';

M i l i k , Testament, 403, n.6, assumes that TeX

K

Se

La51

was

a mi sre pre sentati on o f ,

which

he read as , but M i l i k does not

ex lain how

1

AiA is to be underst ood in that

case.

6 9

Cf. DeJunge, Testaments (1953), 143, n.68.

7 0

Becker, Testamente, 51 , n . l d , 'geographisch abwegig'.

7 1

Cf.

Abel

Beth Maacha, 2 Sam.20:15,

Abel

and Beth Maacha, 20:14,

Abel,

20:18.

7 2

See for the differences in spel ling IT. J. de Jonge, The earliest traceable

stage of the Textual Tradition of the

Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs, in

M . DeJonge (Ld.), Studies, 63-86, 7lf.

Haupt, Testament, 13, rejects it as a gloss.

7 4

M . deJonge, Testaments {1953), 143, n.68.


24/183

24

T . B A A R D A

namely , rendered as ' 'AfitpxL A further problem is that we do

n o t know f r o m which perspective 'to the right side of A.' is

thought

of, so the reader is

lef t w i t h

mere

guesses

75

.

9. Once again Aspis

1.

The mountai n Aspis cannot be traced on our maps, as we

have

seen

in the preceding observations. The author

himself says

that

the mountain Aspis got its name

f r o m

damCs,

because

a shield

(dantcr)

was found there (6:1), This is the more remarkable, since

i n the

vision L e v i

has been presented w i t h *shield and sword'

(5:3).

The Greek

word

for

shield

is here O T T

X

O V

,

which can mean

weapon in general, but in this combination must be shield.

W h y

does the author use here the

word

dai u?? O ne can

understand that some scholars have sought for an explanation in

the Hebrew or Aramaic

L e v i

tradition. Sayce

7 6

identified the

mountain

as Hcrmon, since

could

be named (Dcut.3:9).

T h e

latter

word might

be interpreted as

1

armour* or

1

cuirass*,

which

the translator

wrongly

understood as

dons.

A

similar

identification (

4

Hermon

1

) was brought forward by

Pedes

7 7

,

who

posited

that dam? was

originally

meant to denote a

serpent,

which

i n

the original

tradition

was

written

as

.

These ingenuous

solutions did not convince everyone.

4

Both explanations arc

unconvincing ' is the general j u d g m e n t

7 8

. The finding of a

possible original Aramaic as the name o f the location

which has been rendered as

Abel-Maul

in Greek, has revived the

interest in the

solution

of Sayce

79

.

2.

Although I do not want to revive the solution of Perles, I

think that it

would

be worthwhile to consider the possibility that

doni$ was int erpret ed as shield by the author of the Greek text,

/ D

Becker, Testamente, 51 , n . l d ,

4

eine

Identifizierung

nicht

m g l i c h ' .

7 6

Cf. Charles, Tes taments, 308; M . de Jonge, Testaments (1953) , 143, n.68;

Haupt, Testament, 1 1f.

7 7

Cf. M. de Jonge,

Testaments

(1953), 143, n.68; Haupt,

Testament,

12.

7 8

Cf. e.g. M . de Jonge, i.e., who adds, 'M oreo ve r the H e rm o n is too far

f r o m

Shc chern' . The latter argume nt, however, is no t convincing for those

w h o f o l l o w

the Aramaic me nt io ni ng of

Abel-Mayyin

here and

f i n d

in the

Hermon

a place where revelations are not uncommon, cf. Henoch 13:9f.,

M i l i k ,

Testament, 404.

7 9

M i l i k ,

Testament, 404f.


25/183

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

25

whereas

in his

source

it

meant

serpent.The

6po?

'AcmlSos in 2:5 is

the 'mount Aspis', or the *mount of the Aspis', the 'mountain of

the Shield*. But was itoriginally

meant

to denote 'the mountain of

the Serpent'? In

Pirqede Rabbi

Eliezerlhe text of Amos 5:19,

4

or went

into the house and leaned his hand on the w a l l , and the

serpent

()

bit him' is explained as a

reference

to the

Shechem episode.

When Jacob went into his house, in the land of Canaan, the

serpent bit him. And who was the Serpent? This was

Shechem,

the son of Hcmor.

8 0

This explanation is based on the fact that

Hemor is called the

Hevite which

allows the pun w i t h the

serpent:

the word has

been

rendered in Aramaic Targums

w i t h . One may

also

compare

bShabb.

85a: 'And Hevite ) )

Said R. Papa: (It

teaches)

that they tasted the earth

l i k e

a serpent

(

8 1

) .

Such traditions

8 2

connecting the Shechem episode w i t h

the

serpent

could have led to a pun on the name of

Shechem,

the

Son of Hemor, the Hevi te, in Aramaic or Hebrew tradi ti on , and

consequently have given rise to the name Aspis. I f

there

is a

connection of this k i n d it mightsuggest a connection not w i t h the

Hermon, but

w i t h

the locality of

Shechem.

The idea that

there

may

have been

a paronomasia in a Semitic document or tradi ti on

cannot totally

been

ruled out

8 3

. I t is, however, clear that the Greek

author wished to refer to a shield.

10.

The divine command of vengeance upon Shechem

1. The heavenly vision incl uded besides the investiture as a

priest (2-5) a divine command to

L e v i

to

avenge

Dinah (5:3)

8 4

.

This reminds us of Jub. 30:18, where the execution of vengeance

upon Israel's enemies is likewise connected w i t h the priesthood of

L e v i and his descendants

8 5

. In T L the appoin tment as a priest is

8 0

G.

Friedlnder , Pirke

de Rabbi

Eliezer,

London 1916, 287.

8 1

I I . Freedman, Shabbat (The Babylonian Ta lm ud , Seder Moed I), London

1938,404.

^

Bereshit Rabba

I x x x i x : 6

also

introduces Amos 5:19 in the context of

Jacob's

dealing

w i t h

Hcmor, the father of Shechem, however connected

w i t h

other

persons.

8 3

Cf. Haupt,

Testament,

23, esp. n.47.

8 4

Cf. Haupt ,

Testament,

28L, 31 .

8 5

Charles, Jubilees, 182f.; Jubilees, 59; Becker, Jubilen, 473n.; M . Heng el,

Die Zeloten, Leiden-Koln 1961, 164, .4; 182f.


26/183

26

given in heaven (2:10, 4:2 and 5:2), then the angel leads L e v i back

to earthwhich s t i l l

happens

w i t h i n the visionand

presents

h i m

w i t h shield and sword, and charges him w i t h the task of

avenging the offence to Dinah. Apparently, the author wished to

distinguish between the heavenly invest iture as a priest and the

earthly order of vengeance: al though connected, they are distin

guished in character. The words w i t h

which

the command is

given

are:

;

,

'Execute ven

geance

on Shechem for the

sake

of Dinah'. Shechcm ishere not

the citythatwould require

but

the son of Hemo r

()

who had seduced

Dinah.

This is exactly what

L e v i

does

in

T L . For, contrary to the biblical narrative, L e v i k i l l s here only

Shechem, not the other men of the

c i t y

8 6

.

2. However, L e v i docs not stand alone. The angel not only

charges him w i t h the task, but also promises his assistance (5:3c):

,

, * A n d I shall be

w i t h you, for the

L o r d

has sent me'. The angel, who reveals

himself as the guardian angel of Israel and of all righteous men

( 5 : 6 f ) ,

wi l l

be of

assistance

in the day of

t r i a l

( ): L e v i

needed

to know his name to be able to

call

upon him (

)

i n

the battle, just asin Judi th 9:4the sons ofJacob

called

upon

God (

* )

for heavenly assistance

87

.

3. This

enhances

the idea that God did not

only

order the

raid

on

the Sichemites, but is also

involved

in the war. The

view

that

God himself was the ul timate avenger of the rape of Dinah is

expressed in several other texts. In Jub.30:5 we read, Judgment is

ordained in heaven against them, that they should destroy w i t h

the sword all the men of the Shechcmites

1

(cf. 30:23)

8 8

. Again, in

Judith 9:2-4, it is God who gave the sword ofvengeance to Simeon

and delivered the Sichemites into the handsof the sons

o f

Jacob

8 9

.

When

L e v i

and Simeon show their swords to the son of Pharao

Joseph and Aseneth 23:13they say about these weapons that God

has avenged w i t h them the outrage of the Sichemites (

6

1

. )

9 0

.

Most

explicit

in this

8 0

Sec below 28f.

8 7

Ilanhart, Judith, 104.

8 8

Charles, Jubilees, 180; Jubilees, 58; cf. also 30:6.9.17.

8 9

Hanharl , Judith, 103.

9 0

Philonenko, Joseph

and Aseneth,

204:6.


27/183

T H E S H E C H E M

E P I S O D E

IN T H ET E S T A M E N T OF

L E V I

27

regard is Theodotus, when he relates how Simeon persuaded

Lev i

to share his act ion against Shechem by ref er ring to a divine

oracle

9 1

:

- *

'

'

,

.

Tor I have heard a

word

of God -namely, that once (He said) He

would

give ten nations to Abraham's children'.

11. The divine reasonsfor the vengeance

I n his defense, afterwards, against his angry father L e v i did not

mention

the fact that he was commissioned by God in a heavenly

vision, but he doesrefer to it in his words to his chi ldren (6:8):'

9 2

.

The

hea

venly

vision had made hi m understand that God's sentence was

for

evil

upon the Sichemites. In speaking of the vision he had only

mentioned

the fact that he had received the order to execute

vengeance

(5:3),

but in this connection he also mentions the

considerations that led to thisdivine order,

12.

The

typical

misconduct towards

Dinah,

The firstconsideration is mentioned in TL 6:8b:

.

The text apparently hints at the incident of Gem20:3f.,

which

took

place at Gerar in the land of the Philistines. TL 6:9b relates that the

L o r d

had prevented them (

*

) , which is

an echo of Gen 20:6,

4

and it was I who prevented

9 3

them

f r o m

sinning'. This story was clearly in the mind o f the 'author ' of the

so-called -recension, for he combines it w i t h the parallel story of

a similar inc ident at Gerar (Gen.26:1-11), by adding

,

9

One might adduce as an argument against such a

connection

that the Sichemites themselves were not

involved

in

9 1

Theodo tus, in Eusebius,

o.e.,

IX . 22,8f;

ras,

o.e.,

515:6^10 and 13-14; cf.

C heparaphrasc ibid.,

ras,

o.e.,

515:10-12.

9 2

For CL9 , cf. 18:9; TB 4:3 ( 1:9, 2:4) = , , cf. 2 Chron. 18:7;

Jcr.21:I0; 39:16.

9 3

L X X ^ for

9 4

So Ch.40:8-10

(=c-h-i-j).


28/183

28

T .

B A A R D A

either incident

9 5

, but for the author of the Testaments the inhabi-

tants of Shechem were representatives of the Canaanites, to which

the Philistines belonged

9 6

.

13.

The persecution of

Abraham

The

secondconsideration is formulated in TL 6:9a:

*

, . . .

Abraham was a , cf. Gen.23:4 a.o., a st rangernot a nomad, so

Keein

the sense of a guest in a foreign country. On e shou ld

render the

phrase w i t h

'although he was a stranger'

9 7

, since

f r o m

the perspective of the author the gist of the

phrase

is, that they did

not

treat Abraham according to the rules of hospitality, cf, e.g.

Exod.22:21, Deut.l0:18f, The story of a persecution of Abraham is

not found

in Genesis. Abraham is mentioned among the

perse-

cuted in Lev.Rabba

X X V I I :5

) ) , but this refers to

a period before his entrance in Canaan

9 8

.

14. The attacks on

theflocks

of Abraham

The

third considerat ion (6:9b) is fo rmul ated in a way that may

puzzle

the reader. The text is different in the manuscripts and

editions:

Dejonge

9 9

Charles

1 0 0

'

. . .

. .

The

decision between

these

two readings is a

d i f f i c u l t

one, the

more so

because

the

wording

offers

difficulties

in both textual

forms.

a) The first problem is that we do not know to which incident the

9 : >

Cf.ecker, Testamente,

51 n.8a; Charles, Testaments, 308n.

9 6

Cf. Sirach 50:26f. (below 36) . T he Si chemil cs are me nt io ne d

here

along

w i t h

Phili stines and Edomites ( L X X : Samaritans).

9 7

Ot her interpret ations of the participle clause:

4

when' (Charles), 'while'

( IIollander-De J onge) , 'because' ('weil ' , Ricsslcr, Becker), 'who' ('der ',

Schnapp),

,

as' (Dejonge).

9 8

Cf. Pscudo-Philo, Lib.Ant.

Bibl., 6:4-18

(ed.

Kisch

t

o.e., 127-130).

9 9

So J. 32:

I f .

(=b + I), dm e a f read eu*

avrv w i t h

b,but KctTeTT

6

vr\(iau

w i t h

c-h-i-j.

Dejonge ,

Testaments

(1978) , 183,

does

not want to make a choice as to

the verb.

1 0 0

So Ch. 40:12f. (=

chij)


29/183

T U E SHE C H E M

E P I S O D E

IN T H E T E S T A M E N T OF

L E V I

29

author refers, since it is *also not in Genesis' (Charles) . He must

have had in mind a tradition o f struggles about the

flocks

of

A b r a h a m

1 0 1

, in which the animals were trampled down ( I )

1 0 2

or

maltreated

( I I )

1 0 3

by the inhabitants of Shechem or the Canaanites

i n general.

b) A second question is the meaning of

.

Charles

apparently understood the verb (,

pass,

to be swollen) in

the

sense

of pregnancy:

4

when they were pregnant'

1 0 4

. The verb

may have this meaning, cf.

* ^

(Euripides, Ion, 15).

One might also

think

of

in the

sense

of

1

endow w i t h

bulk',

so as to mean that the

flocks

had become large. In both meanings

the words

4

to him' seem to be redundant . Schnapp rendered the

word w i t h ' d i e . s c h r i e n \ apparently taking it as a f o r m of

,

1

to bray'(used of an ass

1 0 5

),cf. the reading

ina d e

1 0 6

.

I n

adopting this interpretation he could make

sense

of the words

'

,

'being

crying

to him (Schnapp: 'zu

i h m ' )

1 0 7

,

that is,

to/for Abraham. Since the words '

seem

redundant, if

taken w i t h the interpretation 'being pregnant', they are suppressed

i n

the translations of

those

scholars who adopted them in their

text, such as Hollander-De

Jonge

and De Jonge. The textual

situation is so complicated here that one has to consider the

possibility of a very early error in the text that has been solved in

different

ways in the tradition.

c)

The t h i r d problem is that there is no incident of this k i n d in

the history of Abraham. So one might be tempted whether the

1 0 1

So

e x p l i c i t l y

in

d m, ja

Tro(.u.wia

avrov.

1 0 2

Hol lande r-De Jonge: 't rample d' , De Jonge: *trampled on ' ; cf. Schnapp:

1

zertraten \

1 0 3

Charles: Vexed' ; Kee:

*harassed*;

Riessler: *plagten'; Becker:

,

fg t en

...

Schaden zu\

1

'*

So De Jonge, Ree; Charles, 'when they were big w i t h young '

[ w h i c h

seems to have been misunders tood by Riessler, 'd ie

A l t e n

samt den Jungen'

sie], cf. I Io ll and er- De Jonge; Becker: 'als sie schwanger gi nge n ' .

U ) : )

The

word 6yKUT]06s

is used of the braying of an ass and of the

lowing

of

an ox.

1 0 6

Charles (40 app. ) registratcs the readi ng y K f i e f c i for b f g, but there is

no ment io n of it in J.32 app.

1 0 7

The words are found both in f a m . I (b) and I I (d m e a j) and were

apparently in their ancestor. The d i f f i c u l t y of interpretation may have

caused

their

suppression in the so-called

a r e c e n s i o n .


30/183

30

T . B A A R D A

author muddled things here and had in mind another story in

Genesis dealing w i t h Jacob. Strife between herdsmen could easily

arise (cf. Ge n. l3: 7f. ) , especially in the

case

of jealousy (cf. Gen.

26:12ff.).

There is ment ion of such a strife i n Jub.34:l-9 , where the

kings

o f the Amorit es pl un de red the herds of

Jacob

and his

sons

1 0 8

, w i t h as the ultimate result that

Jacob

slew them w i t h the

edge

of the sword. The author o f the Testaments knew this

tradition, cf. TJ 3-7. Now the o r i g i n of a confusion may lie in Gen.

48:22,

4

Moreover, I have given to you (i.e.Joseph) rather than to

your brothers one mountain slope ( ) ,

which

I took f r o m the

hands

of the Amorites

w i t h

my sword and my bow\ in

which

was understood as the c i ty of Shechem, cf.

Midrash Rabba

on

Genesis, X C V I I : 6 and earlier L X X X : 1 0 : 'And where do we

find

that

ou r

father Jacob took up his sword and bow?In Shechem'

1 0 9

.

15 . The strange name

Jeblae'

Even more complicated is the

fourth

consideration for the vcn-

geancc

of the L o r d . It tells us that someone who was born in the

house of Abraham had been severely malt reated (6:9c):

I n Gen. 15:2 the Damascene

is called the son of

,

the

houseborn

(*

) female slave of Abraham, which

implies that Eliezer himself was a houseborn slave (cf. 15:3,

4

) . The fact that there seemsno con-

nection between the name Eliezcr and Jcblae

seems

to exclude the

possibility

of an

identification;

but even i f they were one and the

same person, we do not know to what incident, in which Eliezer

was involved, the author referred. Now we have to consider that

the name Jcblae is no t certain. It is the name in Ms.6,

which

was

the basis for the most recent edi t ion

1 1 0

. Gharles

1 1 1

, on the other

hand, had adopted the name

which

is found in Ms.c.

1 0 8

Charles, Jubilees, 64n.

1 0 9

Freedman, Genesis I I , 742f., 944.

1 1 0

It was also adopted by Schnapp (

1

Jebiae

1

); it is found in the translations

o f

De Jonge, I Iol lander-De Jonge.

1 1 1

Ch.40:13; it is

found

in the transla tions of Charles, Riesslcr and Kce;

Becker

reads

'Kblaem'

which

is not

found

in any manuscript, but cf.

Armenian T.mblaem'

( A r r n - ) .


31/183

T H E

S H K C H E M

E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T OF

L E V I

31

2. The variety in spelling is qui te enormous in the manuscripts

o f f a m . I I . I f we use the stcmma of H . J . de Jongc

1 1 2

the situation

may be visualized as follows:

3. There are a few elements that

I I I

have in agreement,

namely -B-,which is

found

in

nine

manuscripts , and -A,which is

present in ten manuscripts. In I I the

f ina l

-N isfound in eight texts,

but

one has to consider the

possibility

that i t was added to create an

accusative ending, so that the real endings were

- A E , - A H , - A I ,

which may be variations

o f - A I = E .

The -M - in the subgroup

h-i-j

may have been par t of the name in f a m . I I , since the Armenian

has preserved this letter in bot h recensions. I f we would assume

that

M , B, A, E were

found

in the original Greek text as elements

o f the name, one

might

consider the

f o l l o w i n g

solution: the

Greek author

found

in some Hebrew or Aramaic source which

he had at his disposal the

f o l l o w i n g

abbreviation * ' *, that is

either

orpm , 'Eliezer, son of Mascq'. This

means

that the original Greek text was nothing

else

than a back-

2

H . J . dc Jongc, Th e earliest traceable stage, 64.


32/183

32 B A A R D A

ward

transliteration

.

One may compare the retrograd w r i t -

ing of

as

Now this

f o r m

of the

name,

MBAE,was d i f f i -

cult

to understand, and therefore

asked

for new spellings of the

name,

by adding vowels. I take for a starting-point that the

name

was spelled either by the author or by an early copyist as

M E .

4.

In the course of tradition the f o l l o w i n g miss-spellings

occurred:

a) - - (so

s t i l l

in

g-h-j)

became - - ,

which

is found in a b c d e f i

and m.

b)

The

was read as , so that

M E -became

HE (e g

h-i-j)

,

which

in its

turn

became

lE-(b

fa)

or

(d

>

,

m)

or even E

(c).

c)

The final N ind m ef c-h-i-jis an addit ion to create an accusative

f o r m of the

name.

d)

The

original

ending -E was written

as-AI (ag),Al

was changed

in -AH

(e cj)

orwritten as -H

(d e

h-z-j).

c)

Somewhere in the tradit ion K- crept into the texts

(-KAI,g; -KHN,

h-if).

The problem, however, remains that the biblical narrative does

not men ti on any attack on Eliezer, In bSanh 108b the question is

posed,

4

When the kings of the

east

and the west attacked (lit.: came

upon) you, what did you do?

M l 4

. Docs this mean that Eliezer was

held

to be a v i c t i m of this raid? In the Midrash he is

once

identified

w i t h Lot,

once

w i t h a person who helped Abraham in

his attack on the intruders mentioned in Gen.14

1 1 5

. Anyhow,

there

may

have been

a tradition of an attack on Eliezer to

which

the author of T L alluded.

1 1 3

Mrs. A l i c e bij de Vaate

(lcUcr

22-06-92) gave me some examples of

mirrorwise written

names in inscriptions, e.g. Dl^tO

written

as

tD^IQ, M A P I A M

a s M A I P A M , possibly

w i t h

apotropaic purposes. See

also

F. Dornseiff,

Das

Alphabet im Mystik und Magie,

B e r l i n

2

1925, 56, 63, 176.

1 1 4

Cf. I I . Freedman,

Sanhednn VU-Xl,

in : I . Epstein,

The Babylonian Talmud,

Seder

Nezikin

I I I ,

L on do n (repr. 1978), 747 (the reference is to Gen .

14);

again,

acc ord ing to bSanh 109b, Eliezer was attacked, apparently by Sodomites, ibid.

7 5 1 .

1 l r >

H. Frccdman,

Midrash Rabbah Genesis

I , 366f. T he

f i r s t

identification

based

on a specific inte rpre tat ion o f Ben Mesheq, the second o n the nu meri

cal

value of the

name, which

is alike the num be r o f trai ned men that

helped Abraham.


33/183

T H E

S H E C I I E M

E P I S O D E

IN T H E

T E S T A M E N T

OF L E V I

33

16.

The misbehaviour of the Sichemiles in general

The preceding description of their misbehaviour towards Abra

ham and his

f a m i l y

is significant for their general at ti tude

towards foreigners, 'and

this,

indeed, was the way they usually treated all foreigners*

(6:10a).

The laws of hospitality were usually violated by t hem

1 1 6

.

This more general statement has been illustrated by two

parti

cipial clauses.

(1)

, 'by force

robbing their wives'(6:10b), of which the case of Dinah was a

clear

illustration.

The recent text is

based

upon Mss.

b

and

d,

whereas Charles

followed

c-h-i-j a f ... , *die fremden

Frauen'

1 1 7

.

(2) ,'and banishing them' (6:10c). This

clauseomitted in Ms.dawkwardly follows the preceding one,

since

implies again male strangers (cf. vs.6a). This may

have been the reason for the reading

in c-h-i-jand /,

which

Charles followed. However, this is apparently wrong, since one

does not banish

1 1 8

women that one

first

carries

o f f

1 1 9

.

I would

suggest

that one should consider the possibility that the original

reading is found \n a

e

J g m,where the object has been omitted

( in i tself meaning

1

to banish foreigners

1

). Thisgave rise

to

the complements and in other manuscripts

1 2 0

.

1 1

M. dc Jonge, Notes, 260, finds here a reference to future atrociti es;

whether the difference between (9) and (10)

*

is a

sufficient argument (ibid.nAS), I am not sure of.

1 1 7

J.32:3f, which reading is followed by Charles in his translation, also

by Schnapp and Kcc; Riessler renders w i t h 'die Weiber' ( > omitted in

g I e); contra C h. 41 : lf , whose reading is followed by Becker (51) who finds

i n the

-tcxt

a clarification of the -tcxt. Most translat ions are ambiv alent

here.

1 1

^

I do not understand Kee's rende ring 'and murdered them' , that is, the

wives.

1 1 9

Charles is aware of the

d i f f i c u l t y :

he

suggests

that there is

here

a

misinterpretation

of ],p m \ which is ambivalent: 'they banished th em' or

1

they seduced t hem' , that is, to idololatry.

1 2 0

M. de Jonge (letter 19-05-92) objected to this solution on the basts of the

stemma, suggesting that the omission was due to an attempt to solve the

awkwardness of the text in f a m . I I ( ) . I do not think tha i the stemma

really denies my solution.


34/183

34

A R D

I I I

17.

The finding

of

theshield

After

the visionary experience

L e v i

went home:

, evpou

. . ,

and

while

I was

going

1 2 1

to my father, I found a

brass

shield'(6:1 a )

1 2 2

. The

finding

o f the shield is, in fact, a conf irmat ion of what happened in the

vision. There he was brought

f r o m

the mountain back to earth

and was

presented

w i t h

1

armour and sword\ before he got the

command to avenge Dinah (5:3)that is,

s t i l l w i t h i n

the vision,

which

ends

in 5:7. The wording is the

f o l l o w i n g :

/

l i t t .

1

and he

gave

me armour

?aid

sword'. The

general word

usually denotes the protecting armour, or

cuirass. However, the expression

is found in

Ps.75(76):3 LX X for Hebrew

1

s h i e l d

and sword'.

' /

is a

not unusual rendering of , cf. 3 Kgdms 10:17, 14:26f. a.o., and

even in the expression

,

|er.26(46) :3

)

),

renders exactly this word

1 2 3

. Since the author apparently

wished to distinguish between / and

,

but at the same

time wanted to make a connection between the finding of the

and the

of the vision, one might differentiate

between

1

shield' and *buckler'

1 2 4

, rather than w i t h 'armour' and

' s h i e ld '

1 2 5

.

The author

used

the

finding

of the shield as a con-

firmation and remi nder of the reality of the task w i t h

which L e v i

was charged in the vision. It was a clear sign that God had

chosen

h i m

for this task and that God, through his guardian angel,

would

protect him. God

gave

hi m a shield, just as in the story of Judi th

1 2 1

Not

1

ich...kam', so

Schnapp,

Becker, cf. Kee; the idea is that he was

s t i l l

on

his way (imperfect

tense ),

possibly in the mountain area,

not

after having

come to his father.

1 2 2

For a

,,

brass shield' cf. 1 Kgdms, 10:27; 2 Chron . l2 :10.

1 2 3

This int erpr eta ti on of the

word

as *shield' (so Charles,

Schnapp,

Riessler, Kee, Hol lander-De Jongc) is already fou nd in the Ar me ni an ( M.

Stone, Testament, 70:9, 138:5i.).

1 2 4

M. De Jonge and I Iollander-De Jongc: twice

4

shield

1

.

1 2 : J

Cf.

1

R s t u n g un d Schwert', J. Thomas, Aktu ell es, 80; M. de Jonge,

Testaments (1953) 51 , renders V:3 'an armo ur and a sword ' (cf. Notes ,259) ,

and did so w i t h purpose, cf. 143 n.68, 'No te that in V;3 L e v i docs not receive a

sh ie ld ' .


35/183


36/183

36

.

B A A R D A

19.

Levi s

advice in thefamily s council

After coming home, L e v i spoke w i t h

Jacob

and Ruben (TL 6:3a):

'

. . ,

gave advice to my father and to Ruben, my br ot he r . . . '

1 3 1

,

suggests a

f a m i l y

council w i t h Jacob as the

chief

of the

f a m i l y

and Ruben as the eldest brother

1 3 2

.

L e v i

( ) takes the initiative

by

giving

advice

1 3 3

. There is, however, a problem as to what his

suggestion included. The int roduc ti on of his proposal is that he

should

t e l l the

sons

of Hemor (

T O L ?

) . . . \

followed

by the contents of the advice. It seems l i k e l y , that the

author wanted to say that

Jacob

should t e l l them. In the text of

Gen.34:13fL, however, it is the sons of

Jacob

that negotiate w i t h

Shechem and Hemor, at least in the Massoretic text; the Septua-

ginta f o l l o w the M.T. in

vs.

13, but i n 14 Simeon and L e v i are intro

duced as the persons that deal w i t h the Sichemites. I f our inter

pretation of

is correct , T L agrees w i t h Theodotus who also

makes Jacob the negotiator. Remarkably enough, Kee renders

4

that they should

te l l* ,

which

agrees

w i t h

Ms.a,

,

a

reading apparently

caused

by the fact that L e v i gave his counsel to

both

Jacob

and Ruben. Charles (*tobid

T

) avoided the

d i f f i c u l t y

that

one might feel

here

by using an i n f i n i t i v e ,

20.

Two readingsa

lexlcriticaI

problem

I f we ask, what

Jacob t o l d

to the

sons

of Hemor, we are l e f t

w i t h

a

d i f f i c u l t choice between two completely different texts, which in

their turn offer two different interpretations.

1. The

first

interpretation starts

f r o m

the text in 6:3b:

,

'that they must be circumcised

7

. This is the

text

of all manuscripts (except for c), adopted by Schnapp and

Becker ('sie sol lten sich beschneiden lassen') , De

Jonge

and

1 3 1

J.31:3;

the transition without is somewhat harsh, which may

have

caused

the reading

instead o f i n

c-h-i-j,

followed

by

Ch.39:6f.

1 3 2

Cf. an

analogous

text in TJ 13:4; in our text Ch.39:7 adds

ante,

omits

post ' ,

followed

by Kee, not by Charles,

Schnapp,

Riessler, Becker, De Jonge a.o.

1 3 3

Rather than

1

Ich beriet mi t ' (Schnapp, Riessler) or 'i ch hiel t Rat mi t '

(Becker).


37/183

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H ET E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

37

Hollander-DeJonge. I t closely f o l l o w s the b i b l i c a l narrative (Gen.

34:13-17), where the sons of

Jacob

planned their stratagem w i t h

the ul timate purpose to destroy the Sichemites, as appears f r o m

vs.25f.

Al l men of the c i ty should have to receive circumcision.

As *reason' was mentioned to Hemor the fact that it was no t

allowed to give their sister into marriage w i t h someone who was

not circumcised (vs.15). From the context we may

deduce

that

Jacob agreed about the idea ofcircumcision, but did not

share

the

design of his sons (vs.30). This b i b l i c a l story is f o l l o w e d by the

Targums, although they replace

ruse ( )

by wisdom (O 8cJ:

& )

or even

much wisdom

(N:

34

)

.

The necessity of

circumcision

is also expressed by Theodotus, when he relates that

Jacobnot his sonssaid that he could not give his daughter in

marriage w i t h Shechem before all the inhabi tants of the c i ty had

become Jews by circumcision (

)

1 3 5

.The idea ishere also that

Jacob really wanted to negotiate, but that the sons abused the

situation.

2.

The second interpretation is

based

upon the reading of Ms.c,

which is accepted by Charles, namely

, 'that they should not be circumcised'

1 3 6

. The idea is here

that L e v i , as a

consequence

of the heavenly

vision,

had planned to

attack the Sichemites. He knew that God was on his side and

w o u l d give v i c t o r y . So he wished not to become involved in the

stratagem of his brothers of whom Ruben was the representative,

nor

did he j o i n the plans of Jacob to Judaize the people of

Shechem, which w o u l d exclude the possibility of war against

them. So he gave his advice to both Ruben and Jacob that they

should not be circumcized for two different reasons.Afterwards it

turns out that the fact that the k i l l i n g took place after the

1 3 4

Cf. Sperber, Pentateuch, 56; Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan, 63; A. Diez

Macho,

Neophyti , Targum Palestiniense I , Genesis, Madrid-Barcelona 1968,

227; for the use of this other

word

one might

think

o f the natural hesi tation

w i t h respect to gu il e, cf. 5 above. O n the other hand, the

Documents

J.N. Bremmer, F. Garcia Martinez Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 1992.pdf