The New Testament Moses

zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe

Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofius • Hans-Josef Klauck

173

ARTI BUS

The New Testament Moses

Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion

Mohr Siebeck

Adjunct Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary Southwest and Adjunct Professor of Bible Studies, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, Ariziona.

ISBN3-16-148202-6

ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe)

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

© 2004 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was printed by Druckpartner Rübelmann GmbH in Hemsbach on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Schaumann in Darmstadt.

Printed in Germany.

978-3-16-157157-2 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019

This book is a significantly revised and rewritten version of a dissertation accepted by the Faculty of Divinity and the Board of Graduate Studies of Cambridge University in 2002 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Thanks are in order first of all to my Doktorvater, Professor William Horbury, to whom I express the most profound and heartfelt gratitude for the skillful supervision, inexhaustible patience, and unflagging encourage- ment he gave me while the thesis that underlies this book was in prepara- tion. His thorough acquaintance with source material and his scholarly acumen in fields of study so far flung that among persons of merely great erudition they lie in entirely separate areas of expertise were an inspiration to me throughout my enjoyable time under his supervision.

For numerous thoughtful comments and suggestions over the whole of the thesis I am also deeply grateful to Professor Christopher Rowland, Dr.

Andrew Chester, and Professor Martin Hengel. Dr. Peter Head provided helpful criticism of selected portions as well. Their kind assistance greatly aided the revision of the study to its present form.

For helping to meet not only my own financial needs, but also those of Corpus Christi College and Cambridge University, I owe a debt of thanks to many.

I am grateful to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom for a three-year Overseas Research Students Award, to the Cambridge Overseas Trust for the award of a three-year Bursary, and to the Master and the Tutor for Advanced Stu- dents of Corpus Christi College for the award of a Purvis Scholarship. The Tutor for Advanced Students at my matriculation was Dr. Paul Hewett, to whom I am grateful not only for the financial support he was instrumental in providing, but also for inviting me to matriculate at a college which pro- vides such a supportive environment in which to do postgraduate research.

Special thanks in this respect go also to the Master Professor Haroon Ahmed, the Warden of Leckhampton Dr. Chris Howe, and the Graduate Secretary Mrs. Margaret Cathie. Also, when my studies were interrupted by a lengthy period of illness Dr. C. J. B. Brookes, then the Tutor for Advanced Students at Corpus, saw that I was provided College Hardship funding. I remain grateful to Dr. Allan C. Carlson and Dr. Harold O. J.

Brown of The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society for taking me on as an Associate of the Center on Religion and Society, and to Dr.

Steven Dilsaver for providing a one-year stipend for that position. I am

grateful to the Trustees of the Crosse Fund and to the Managers of the Theological Studies Fund of the University of Cambridge for awarding me further support in the latter part of my research. Mr. Paul Riddington generously paid for private medical care for tendonitis, brought on in the line of (research) duty. My parents have provided for many needs as they have arisen and, as usual for parents, have received only a fraction of the thanks they deserve. Two other patrons who wish to remain anonymous also have my sincere thanks.

I have benefited from the support and assistance of many friends and colleagues in ways that are sometimes hard to quantify. Professor Horbury and his wife Katharine provided me with months of gracious hospitality in their home during the preparation of this book, chiefly asking in return only that I chop down a number of trees in their back garden, something I would have relished doing anyway. Dr. David Chapman was an encoura- ging friend and fellow researcher at the thesis stage, and he and his wife Tasha lavished delicious meals on me regularly, as if feeding me was some sort of privilege. Marko Jauhiainen gave me the computer on which nearly all my writing has been done since my own met its demise, and the rest of the Tyndale House community also provided camaraderie and support in all kinds of ways, especially the Warden, Dr. Bruce Winter, who undertook selfless and thoughtful pastoral care, the librarian Dr. Elizabeth Magba, research fellows Dr. David Instone-Brewer and Dr. Peter Williams, and the administrator, Mrs. Fiona Craig. For the work done in Phoenix, Jason and Jennifer Schumann gave me the use of their office and the freedom of their house, including the pantry and the refrigerator. A great many people seem to have fed me while I wrote this book. Not all can be named here, but I think warmly of each one.

I am grateful to Dr. Kris Burroughs for her (painfully) insightful com- ments on style, and for volunteering, as the last deadline neared, to share in the unrelenting tedium of indexing. Miss Helen Dalgleish ferreted out many "strange sentences!" and malapropisms throughout the whole of this study. No doubt a residue of errors persists, and responsibility for it, as well as for any persisting errors of fact or interpretation, can be laid at my door.

Phoenix, Arizona John Lierman 28 September 2003

ad maiorem Dei gloriam

Preface VII Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Scope and Method 1 1.1.1 Focus 1 1.1.2 Arrangement 2 1.1.3 Sources 4 1.2 Need and Prospects for This Study 9

1.3 Recent Study of Moses in the New Testament 10 1.4 Recent Study of Moses in Ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman Writings . . 22

1.4.1 The Alexandrians: Artapanus, Aristobulus, and Ezekiel Tragicus . . . 22

1.4.2 The Alexandrians: Philo 23 1.4.3 The Palestinians: Josephus and Pseudo-Philo 25

1.4.4 Qumran 26 1.4.5 The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 26

1.4.6 Rabbinic and Other Jewish Literature 27 1.4.7 Study of Moses in Greek and Roman Writings 27

1.5 Plan 29 Chapter 2

Moses as Prophet

2.1 Introduction 32 2.2 Moses as Prophet in the Old Testament 32

2.3 Moses as Prophet in Writings of the Second Temple Period 34

2.3.1 Jubilees 34 2.3.2 Ben Sira 34 2.3.3 Wisdom of Solomon 36

2.3.4 Aristobulus 36 2.3.5 The Exagoge 36 2.3.6 Views of Moses as Prophet Attested by Non-Jews 37

2.3.7 The Assumption of Moses 38 Excursus: The Scope of Moses' Prophetic Mission in the Assumption of Moses 39

and Jewish Thought of the First Century

2.3.8 Moses as Prophet in Other Biblical Pseudepigrapha 43

2.3.9 Philo 43 2.3.10 Josephus 45 2.4 Moses as Prophet in Samaritan Literature 45

2.5 Moses as Prophet in the Targums 46 2.6 Moses as Prophet in Rabbinic Literature 48 2.7 Moses as Prophet in the New Testament 49

2.7.1 Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 8:5-6; 9:15, 19; and 12:21, 24 49

2.7.2 Acts 3:21-26 51 2.7.3 Acts 7:20-39 52

2.7.3.1 Miracles as Prophetic Authentication in Second Temple 52 Judaism

2.7.3.2 Miracles as Prophetic Authentication in the New Testament... 53

2.7.3.3 The "Wonders and Signs" of Moses 55 2.7.3.4 "Signs" as Specifically the Authenticating Miracles of Prophets 56

2.7.3.5 Conclusion 62

2.8 Conclusion 63 Chapter 3

Moses as Priest and Apostle

3.1 Introduction 65 3.2 The Priesthood of Moses 66

3.2.1 The Bible and Biblical Tradition 66

3.2.2 Graeco-Roman Writers 67

3.2.3 Philo 67 3.2.4 Josephus 68 3.2.5 Pseudo-Philo 68 3.2.6 Samaritan Literature 69 3.2.7 Rabbinic Literature 70 3 .3 The Apostleship of Moses 71

3.3.1 The Biblical Background 71 3.3.2 Literature of Second Temple Judaism 71

3.3.3 Samaritan Literature 71 3.3.4 Rabbinic Literature 72 3.4 The Priesthood and Apostleship of Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6 73

3.5 Conclusion 76 Chapter 4

Moses as King

4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 Moses as King in Biblical Traditions 79

4.2.1 Exodus 4:20 79 4.2.2 Deuteronomy 33:5 80

4.2.2.1 The Masoretic Tradition 80

4.2.2.2 Targums 81 4.2.2.3 Greek Translations 82

4.2.2.4 Conclusion 83 4.2.3 Deuteronomy 18:15 84

4.2.3.1 Prophets as Kings 84 4.2.3.2 A Prophet-King in Deuteronomy 18:15 85

4.2.3.2.1 Jewish Traditions of a Mosaic Prophet-King 86 4.2.3.2.2 Samaritan Traditions of a Mosaic Prophet-King 88

4.2.3.2.3 Conclusion 89 4.3 Moses as King in Second Temple Period Literature 90

4.3.1 The Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian 90 4.3.1.1 Divine Moses or Royal Moses? 91

4.3.1.2 The Ascent of Moses 94 4.3.1.3 Divinity and Divinization 97

4.3.1.3.1 Criteria for Ascription ofDivinity: R. Bauckham 97 4.3.1.3.2 Criteria for Ascription ofDivinity: C. A. Gieschen 99

4.3.1.4 Raguel's Interpretation of the Dream 100

4.3.1.5 Conclusion 102 4.3.2 The Eleventh Sibylline Oracle 102

4.3.3 Views of Moses as King Attested by Non-Jews 103

4.3.4 Philo 103 4.3.5 Josephus 104 4.3.6 Justus of Tiberias 106 4.4 Moses as King in Rabbinic Literature 106

4.5 Moses as King in the New Testament 107 4.5.1 Mark 6:34-44 and John 6:1-15 107

4.5.1.1 Mark 6:34-44 108 4.5.1.1.1 Sheep without a Shepherd 108

4.5.1.1.2 A Mosaic King 110 4.5.1.2 John 6:1-15 110 4.5.1.3 Conclusion 112 4.5.2 Titles of Moses in Acts 7:35 113

4.5.2.1 1 1 3

4.5.2.2 Avn-pornic 117 4.5.2.3 Conclusion 118 4.5.3 Moses as a King in God's House in Hebrews 3:1-6 118

4.5.3.1 Moses as Servant 119 4.5.3.2 God's House 119

4.5.3.2.1 Kingdom as Locality 120 4.5.3.2.2 God's House as Kingdom and Temple 120

4.5.3.3 Conclusion 122

4.6 Conclusion 122 Chapter 5

Moses as Lawgiver

5.1 Introduction 124 5.2 Old Testament Traditions of Moses as Lawgiver 125

5.2.1 Deuteronomy 125 5.2.2 Other Old Testament Texts 127

5.2.3 A Law of Moses and a Law of God 128 5.3 Moses as Lawgiver in Literature of Second Temple Judaism 128

5.3.1 Ben Sira 128 5.3.2 The Letter of Aristeas 129

5.3.3 Views of Moses as Lawgiver Attested in Non-Jewish Literature . . . . 130

5.3.4 Qumran 131 5.3.5 Philo 132 5.3.6 Josephus 136 5.3.7 Th z Assumption of Moses 139

5.3.8 Conclusion 139 5.4 Moses as Lawgiver in the Targums 140

5.5 Moses as Lawgiver in Samaritan Literature 141

5.6 Moses as Lawgiver in Rabbinic Literature 143 5.6.1 Notable Relics of Earlier Usage 143 5.6.2 General Rabbinic Usage 144 5.7 Moses as Lawgiver in the New Testament 149

5.7.1 The Synoptic Gospels 149 5.7.1.1 The Law of Divorce 149 5.7.1.2 The Fifth Commandment 150 5.7.1.3 The Law of Levirate Marriage 151 5.7.1.4 The Leper's Offering 152 5.7.1.5 The Seat of Moses 153 5.7.1.6 Conclusion 155 5.7.2 Luke-Acts 156 5.7.3 The Fourth Gospel 158

5.7.3.1 John 7:16-24 and 5:45-47 159

5.7.3.2 John 8:2-6 161 5.7.3.3 John 1:17a 161 5.7.3.4 Conclusion 161

5.7.4 Paul 162 5.7.4.1 Paul on the Law 162

5.7.4.1.1 Citations of the Law 162 5.7.4.1.2 Hypostasis of the Law 164 5.7.4.2 Paul's Citations of Moses 165 5.7.4.3 Second Corinthians 3 167

5.7.4.3.1 Moses the Mediator of the Law 168 5.7.4.3.2 Moses the 5IDKOUOC of the Old Covenant 171

5.7.4.4 Conclusion 172

5.8 Conclusion 172 Chapter 6

Baptism into Moses

6.1 Introduction 175 6.2 Background Provided by Concepts of Baptism 178

6.2.1 Jewish Proselyte Baptism 178 6.2.1.1 Antiquity of Jewish Proselyte Baptism 178

6.2.1.2 Biblical Basis for Jewish Proselyte Baptism 182

6.2.1.3 Conclusion 184 6.2.2 Baptism into Christ 185

6.2.2.1 The Idiom of "Baptism into" 185 6.2.2.2 Parallel between Baptism into Moses and Baptism into Christ . 186

6.2.2.3 Conclusion 187 6.3 Background Provided by First-Century Conceptions of Moses 187

6.3.1 The Assumption of Moses 188

6.3.2 Pseudo-Philo 190 6.3.3 Philo 191

6.3.3.1 The Mortality of Moses 191 6.3.3.2 The Divinity of Moses 193

6.3.3.3 Conclusion 194 6.3.4 The Transfiguration 194

6.3.4.1 The Availability of Moses 195

6.3.4.2 The Ascent of Moses 196 6.3.4.3 The Glorious Death of Moses 199

6.3.4.3.1 Josephus 200 6.3.4.3.2 Philo 201 6.3.4.3.3 The Similitudes of Enoch 202

6.3.4.3.4 Pseudo-Philo 203 6.3.4.3.5 The Assumption of Moses 204

6.3.4.3.6 Targumic and Rabbinic Tradition 205

6.3.4.3.7 Conclusion 205 6.3.5 The Corinthian Conception of Moses 206

6.4 Conclusion 207 Chapter 7

Moses the Focus of Jewish Loyalty

7.1 Introduction 209 7.1.1 The Greatness of Moses 210

7.1.2 The Centrality of Moses Illustrated at Dura-Europos 215

7.2 Jews as Disciples of Moses 217

7.2.1 John 9:28 217 7.2.2 Philo 219 7.2.3 Conclusion 220 7 .3 Moses as a Personal Focus of Loyalty 221

7.3.1 The Custom of Moses in Acts 15:1 221 7.3.2 Preaching Moses in Acts 15:21 222 7.3.3 Oversight by Moses in Josephus 223 7.3.4 Oversight by Moses in the Fourth Gospel 224

7.3.5 Conclusion 225 7.4 Blasphemy of Moses 226

7.4.1 Joint Sins against Moses and God 226 7.4.2 Blasphemy of Moses in Acts 6:11 227 7.4.3 Blasphemy of Moses in Josephus 228

7.4.4 Conclusion 229 7.5 Moses as a Divine Being 229

7.5.1 Moses as God 230 7.5.1.1 Moses as "God" in Philo 230

7.5.1.2 Moses as "God" in a Qumran Text 232 7.5.1.3 Moses as "God" in Pseudo-Orpheus 233 7.5.1.4 Moses as "God" in Rabbinic Literature 236 7.5.1.5 Moses as "God" in Samaritan Literature 236 7.5.2 Divine Beings Denominated as Both "Gods" and "Angels" 237

7.5.3 Great Men as Angels in Jewish Literature especially at Qumran . . . . 238

7.5.4 Moses as an Angelic Being 244

7.5.5 Conclusion 245 7.6 Jewish Faith in Moses 247

7.6.1 Moses and Jesus as Objects of Faith 247

7.6.2 Biblical Background 248 7.6.3 The Targums 248 7.6.4 The Greek Old Testament 249

7.6.5 Josephus 250

7.6.6 Rabbinic Literature 250 7.6.7 Samaritan Thought 250 7.6.8 Christian Thought 252 7.6.9 Conclusion 252 7.7 Acts 21:21 and Apostasy from Moses 253

7.8 Conclusion 256 Chapter 8

Points of Contact with Christology

8.1 Introduction 258 8.2 Mosaic Christology in Modern Research 258

8.3 Implications of This Study for New Testament Christology 270

8.4 Moses and Christ in the New Testament 271 8.4.1 Moses and Christ as Prophet 271 8.4.2 Moses and Christ as Apostle and Priest 272

8.4.3 Moses and Christ as King 273 8.4.4 Moses and Christ as Lawgiver 275 8.4.5 Baptism into Moses and Baptism into Christ 277

8.4.6 Conclusion 279 8.5 Jesus as a Mosaic Messiah 279

8.5.1 Implications of This Study 279 8.5.2 Further Mosaic Antecedents for Christology 283

8.5.2.1 Pre-Existence 283 8.5.2.2 Afterlife 284 8.5.2.3 Session 285 8.6 Mosaic Ecclesiology 286 8.7 Conclusion 287 Chapter 9

Conclusion

9.1 Review 289 9.2 Contributions to Research 291

9.2.1 Ancient Jewish Thought and Belief 291 9.2.2 New Testament Studies and Early Christian Hermeneutics 292

9.2.3 Christology 292 9.2.4 Ecclesiology 293 9.3 Summation 293 Bibliography 295 Citation Index 327 Author Index 354 Subject Index 360

Introduction

1.1 Scope and Method

This is a study of the NT witness to how Jews and Jewish Christians perceived the relationship of Moses with Israel and with the Jewish people. This is a narrowly tailored study, focusing specifically on that relationship without treating Moses in the New Testament comprehensively. The study consults ancient writings and historical material to situate the NT Moses in a larger milieu of Jewish thought. It contributes both to the knowledge of ancient Judaism and to the illumination of NT religion and theology, especially Chris- tology.

1.1.1 Focus

The basic plan of the study derives from the New Testament. The words

"in the New Testament" could appropriately be appended in parentheses to each chapter title and each chapter aims to preserve and highlight the NT witness to Jewish perceptions of Moses.

The chapters divide along lines that throw the various NT presentations of Moses into sharpest relief. Sometimes those divisions may not accord with what might be expected from a study of Jewish literature generally.

For example, the decision to separate treatment of Moses as Prophet from discussion of Moses as Priest could seem artificial given the intertwining of such roles in ancient Jewish (and non-Jewish) thought. The NT texts that prompt consideration of these motifs here, however, seem to treat them separately from one another; the key text on Moses' priesthood actually links it with a third role, that of an apostle. So in this case it seemed better to highlight the somewhat unusual NT treatment of Moses as a priest and keep it separate from ascriptions to Moses of the prophetic office, which by contrast is so typically associated with him.

At the same time, while commonly noticed, the prophetic office of Mo-

ses does not seem always to have been adequately appreciated, and sepa-

rate treatment here facilitated a closer inspection in light of what the New

Testament says on the subject. Since the New Testament seems to treat

the themes separately with no obvious overlap it seemed both valuable and

warranted to treat them separately here as well. The other chapters are

similarly focused to achieve the clearest possible impression of the way Moses is presented in the New Testament.

Guided principally by that NT presentation, the chapters of this study focus on the roles and relations of Moses to Israel. This happens not because of any special interest in doing mosesology by titles or in "func- tional mosesology" but because of this study's special focus on the relation of Moses to Israel, as opposed to Moses as a static entity or Moses as the subject of Jewish lore (though both come in for some consideration). It seemed most effective to deal with some NT evidence by recourse to pro- saic headings like "Moses as King" or "Moses as Lawgiver," but in those cases it was not taken for granted what those titles mean. Part of the func- tion of the chapters so named is to work out how NT (and other Jewish writers) saw Moses in those roles, without relying too heavily simply on the use of a given title or the naming of a given function. On the other hand, in a chapter like "The Baptism into Moses" the best procedure seemed to be to work outward from the basic datum to what it might imply about Moses, whether or not that involved the affixing to him of a specific title.

1.1.2 Arrangement

With the intent to arrange all the evidence in such a way as to throw the strongest light possible on the New Testament, the most basic decision has been to focus the chapters on aspects of the NT Moses, rather than devote each chapter to one corpus of literature, to one Jewish community or au- thor, or to one period of history. Thus, for example, there is not a chapter on the Samaritan view of Moses and another on the rabbinic view of Mo- ses, but rather there are chapters on Moses as King and on Moses as Lawgiver in the New Testament, with rabbinic and Samaritan discussion relevant to each theme distributed in each chapter accordingly.

The obvious weakness of the approach taken is that the study does not present in one place the complete portrait of Moses from any one era.

Even the overall impression of Moses gained from the New Testament does not finally emerge until the Conclusion.

Nonetheless, despite its weaknesses the chosen strategy seemed the best way to proceed. It became apparent as work progressed that the NT evi- dence for Jewish estimation of Moses has not always been adequately appreciated. This seemed to be the case not with just one aspect of Moses, but with every theme considered. In some cases this malappreciation was also true of extra-NT evidence that did not match academically accepted paradigms of ancient Judaism.

Therefore, the chapter divisions here consciously underscore the ways

the New Testament presents Moses. Each chapter brings in the Jewish

literary context for its theme, drawing on all segments of Jewish tradition

from before, during, and after the period when the New Testament was authored.

This does not mean that all the Jewish evidence is forced into a single plane, as if no movement occurred in Jewish thought between the inter- testamental period and the Talmudic era, or between Palestine and Alexan- dria. To the contrary, the study highlights differences in the appreciation of Moses, particularly when a New Testament author looks to be the odd man out. Still, the position here is that the literature inherited by the Jews of the first century and the literature authored by them, along with later texts containing traditions that they passed on, can all, properly handled, be of assistance in understanding and interpreting the evidence of the New Testament.

A secondary concern reflected in the layout of this study is that some Mosaic motifs detected in the sources would threaten almost to disappear if the evidence for them were scattered across several chapters dealing with several different Jewish authors or epochs of Jewish history. This might be the case for example, for the priesthood and the apostleship of Moses; the former has tenuous support reaching right back into the Old Testament, while the latter seems first to arise in the New Testament itself. Proper appreciation of either seems in part to require gathering all the evidence for Jewish treatment of these ideas together in one place for consideration.

Given the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the evidence for Judaism in the first century A.D., any evidence is worthy of close consideration.

Here, with that in mind, the NT evidence for the Jewish conceptions of Moses was prioritized, with other evidence set in relation to it.

Of course, inspection of even plainly established motifs, such as the role of Moses as Lawgiver, may be facilitated by a diachronic approach that attempts to bring all the available evidence on the subject into focus at once. Again, this need not imply insensitivity to genre or to provenance.

The intent rather is simply to highlight the conceptions of Moses evident in the New Testament, in part by locating them, when possible, in the stream of Jewish tradition.

A third consideration is that the usefulness of presenting Jewish atti-

tudes toward Moses community by community or period by period, instead

of theme by theme, is at least potentially illusory. In the case of tightly

unified (or unifiable) corpora such as the works of Philo (perhaps com-

bined with other Alexandrians), or the Palestinian Targums, Samaritan lite-

rature, or possibly even rabbinic literature, such an approach may yield

meaningful results. More fragmentary evidence from late Second Temple

Judaism, however, as well as evidence from Greco-Roman authors and

other literature not easily bracketed within postulated Jewish communities,

is harder to work up into chapter-length presentations. (Witness scholarly

attempts to characterize "intertestamental Judaism" on the basis of

scattered apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.) Where a single author is under consideration, such as Philo or Josephus, it is certainly reasonable to look for a single coherent impression of Moses or of any other figure. Rabbinic literature, by contrast, is the work of scores or perhaps hundreds of individuals, some named and some not. Rabbinic literature is also con- servative by design and may be expected to harbor multifarious views carried forward by different traditions across hundreds of years. (Witness the extraordinary mélange of material accumulated by L. Ginzberg.) Lite- rature of this kind may not yield the best results when treated like unified presentations of single authors.

Whatever approach is taken presents a risk of methodological forcing of the evidence. The appearance of homogeneity in a given presentation may arise as much from the selective and interpretive grid imposed by the scholar as from the data itself. The arrangement of the present study is not immune from this risk, but neither are the alternatives.

In sum, while the weaknesses of the plan chosen for this study are freely recognized, the strengths the plan offers are substantial and important enough to justify the approach taken here. Doubtless, at some point fresh appraisals of The Rabbinic Moses, or The Philonic Moses might comple- ment this study. Here the focus is on The New Testament Moses.

1.1.3 Sources

The most important sources for this study are the New Testament texts themselves. Most NT passages that speak of Moses come in for at least some consideration, but those texts which say something directly con- cerned with the relation Moses was deemed to have to the Jewish people receive the closest attention. Other texts, for example those adding hagio- graphical color to the portrait of Moses, provide important background and context for the conclusions drawn from the more central passages.

The value of extra-NT and extrabiblical sources for illuminating NT

concepts of Moses can hardly be doubted. If we lacked all other sources

for Moses legends and the varied haggadic embellishments of his biblical

biography we would both know of their existence and be able to make a

fair reconstruction of their contents from the New Testament, so richly

does it incorporate Jewish Moses lore. Above all other NT instances of

Moses, the richly adorned account of Moses in the speech of Stephen

shows how familiar early Christians were with Jewish embroideries of the

Moses tale, embroideries more fully known from apocryphal, pseudepi-

graphal, and rabbinic literature. The casual reference to Jannes and Jam-

bres in 2 Tim. 3:8 similarly indicates that early Christian writers were fami- liar with hagiographical expansions of the biography of Moses.

Outside the New Testament, a number of ancient, often rather full, Jewish treatments of Moses survive, which, while widely separated chrono- logically, provide reliable guides to at least a selection of Jewish opinion about Moses at about the time of the origin of the New Testament. These include, above all, Philo's lengthy De Vita Mosis (along with numerous references to Moses in his other works) and the recasting of the Exodus- Deuteronomy narrative in the Antiquities of Josephus; also important are the account of Artapanus (preserved in fragments), the more highly-drama- tized but still informative Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian (also pre- served in fragments), The Assumption of Moses (incomplete in places) and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities. Ecclesiasticus and some instances of biblical interpretation from Qumran also include interesting material.

Additionally, non-Jewish treatments of Moses sometimes at least partly reflect contemporary, Jewish ideas and therefore ought to be included in discussion.

Of all of these, perhaps the writings of Josephus, Pseudo-Philo, and the

three are generally held to stem from Palestine, and from about the period when the New Testament was forming. The traditions they report are more likely than those of any other Jewish writers to have been known in the milieu of the first Christians. Their perspectives on Moses quite likely share something with the conceptions of Moses circulating among those who first converted to Christianity. Their value for illuminating the New Testament on that subject is therefore undoubted.

Undoubtedly, Philo stands in a different part of the stream of Jewish tradition than, say, the Palestinian rabbis. This, however, only adds to his

1 On introduction to these two figures and the book named for them see Emil Schü- rer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, vol. 3.2 (Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1987), 781. Hebrews 11:23-28 appears not to be much influenced by extra-bib- lical legend, though the length of that pericope shows the importance of Moses in the early Church.

2 Johannes Tromp, ed. and trans., The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, ed. A.-M. Denis and M. de Jonge, vol. 10 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 116-17 dates the Assumption of Moses to the first quarter of the first century A.D. Tromp, 93-111, 114-116, 120-23 presents a tho- rough review of the relevant scholarship, but see also especially the exchange between John J. Collins, "The Date and Provenance of the Testament of Moses," in Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jr., Septuagint and Cognate Studies, no. 4 (Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 15-32, and George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jr., "An Antiochan Date for the Testament of Moses," in the same volume, 33-37.

importance as a witness to a non-Palestinian, though not necessarily aber- rant, Jewish tradition.

In fact, Philo claims to draw for material on Moses not only on the Bible but also on the oral tradition of the Jewish elders (Mos. 1.4), and there are signs of contact between his treatment of Moses and the rabbinic midrash. His expressed dependence on Jewish tradition, combined with his representation of an educated and philosophically sophi- sticated sort of Jewish belief, mean that elements of the portrait of Moses which appear both in Philo and in the more obviously Palestinian sources should be regarded as very well-attested indeed. The Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, as well as the writings of other Alexandrian Jews, such as Artapanus and Aristobulus, are similarly valuable.

This study makes use of the Targums, as well as Samaritan and rabbinic literature. Although their final, edited form is relatively late, these corpora undoubtedly preserve material that is much earlier. The Targums in parti- cular, though suspected of reflecting Talmudic Judaism, can point the way toward how the Hebrew Bible was understood in an earlier day.

The value of the Targums as witnesses to Jewish thought from long before their final redaction stems from their role in transmitting vernacular traditions conserved by regular liturgical use. (To the extent that a text comes in for regular use in public services it is protected from the "drift" to which texts that only see light in scribal halls and private studies may be subject, a phenomenon seen at its most pronounced in congregational reactions to

3 See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, ed. W. C. van Unnik, et al.? vol. 14 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), 100-102 on Philo as "Greek and Jew," and Erwin R.

Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1935; reprint, Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969), 180- 81.

4 Now we have manuscript evidence for written Targums from well before the turn of the era, which further indicates the value of the Targums for NT study. "Targums have long been recognised as part of the ancient literature of Judaism, but over the last century scholars have been reluctant to draw on these for NT background, reckoning that they reflect Talmudic Judaism. More recently there has been a renewed willing- ness to regard much targumic material as earlier, in some parts predating the destruc- tion of the Temple. The discovery of targumic material at Qumran [4QtgJob,

llQtgJob, 4QtgLev] and an increased appreciation of the operation of synagogues at the end of the Second Temple era have contributed to this new assessment," p. 424 from David Powys, "Appendix A: The Relevance of the Palestinian Targums," in

"Hell": A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testa- ment Thought (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 424-432, which contains a thorough and detailed discussion of the utility of the Targums for the study of the NT world. Powys, 424-25 also points out the lack of evidence for rabbinic redaction of the Palestinian Targums (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, the Cairo Genizah Targum fragments, and the Fragment Targum) apart from clearly interpolated passages, and urges the relevance of these Targums especially for the study of late Second Temple Judaism.

even slight alterations in much-loved hymns.) Much the same can be said for the rabbinic writings as well since, although they are academic produc- tions and did not have the same popular exposure enjoyed by the Targums, they self-consciously serve as preservers and repeaters of older tradition.

The profile of the Samaritans in the period of the New Testament may have been much higher, and more meaningful among Jews, than might now be guessed. In the first century they constituted a significant, expanding population in Palestine.

Josephus describes their territory as one of its three major divisions.

They had their own council (|3ouAii), which was of sufficient standing both to send an embassy to the governor of Syria, and thus to bring about the recall of Pilate to Rome.

Samaritans had extensive intercourse with Jews, much of it, evidently, along theological lines, and the ties between Jewish and Samaritan commu- nities were closer than usually supposed.

Of course, these links also became the sources of great tension, as is well known. Ben Sira already describes the Samaritans as a "perfidious people" (50:26), and other inter- testamental writings are similarly vituperative, demonstrating the bad blood between the communities, but also their continued contact and interaction.

Josephus reports a Samaritan desecration of the Temple under the gover- norship of Coponius (A.D. 6-9), again demonstrating ongoing contact and controversy between the two groups.

Even outside their homelands Samaritans and Jews were simultaneously both distinct and linked together:

the Samaritan and Jewish communities of Alexandria maintained a running theological dispute that at one point led to a public debate under the patro- nage of Ptolemy Philometor.

Undoubtedly the Jewish attitude toward Samaritans varied. In some earlier rabbinic traditions they could be seen as "almost Jewish," or at least more like Jews than Gentiles.

For example, m. Dem. 3.4 brackets Sama- ritans (DTHD) with common Jews (flKH D17), and not with non-Jews

5 Nathan Schur, History of the Samaritans, Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testamentes und des antiken Judentums, ed. Matthias Augustin and Michael Mach, no.

18 (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1989), 44, 51.

6 B.J. 3.48-50, the other two are Galilee and Judaea. In Ant. 13.50 he lists Samaria (with Peraea and Galilee) as one of three toparchies adjoining Judaea.

7 Josephus, Ant. 18.88-89.

8 Schur, History of the Samaritans, 43.

9 Ant. 18.29-30. The Samaritans preserved memories of the incident. The destruc- tion of the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in 128 B.C. was pos- sibly the greatest source of bitterness between the two groups, see Schur, History of the Samaritans, 43.

1 0 Josephus, Ant. 12.10; 13.74-81 (including some possibly fabulous embroidery).

11 See Schnur, History of the Samaritans, 47-49.

(•"HD]) for purposes of purity.

This once again demonstrates the (per- haps unwilling and distasteful) close community that existed between the two groups. Samaritans are certainly prominent in the New Testament, leading some scholars to think that the influence of Samaritan religion and thought is especially pronounced among the early Christians.

All this counts as more evidence for the relevance of Samaritan traditions for un- derstanding Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament.

Problems of dating and provenance that attend study of Samaritan lite- rature can be severe. Nonetheless, the paramount importance given to Moses in Samaritan thought combined with the close links between Jews and Samaritans in the Second Temple period suggests that Samaritan literature stands to make an important contribution to this study. This is particularly the case when the evidence gleaned from Samaritan sources can be seen to ratify the apparent thrust of Jewish evidence more clearly linked with the NT setting.

The targumic, rabbinic, and Samaritan corpora all attest, from roughly the second century A.D. onwards, the continuing propagation among Jews who used Aramaic and Hebrew (and among Samaritans) of traditions about Moses apparently originating in earlier periods. Owing to the relatively late dates at which such material was finally edited, its employment often becomes entangled with difficulties regarding the date and provenance of the specific tradition being considered at any one time. In nearly every case, however, material from collections edited subsequent to the NT era is of interest here not primarily because an early date can be confidently assigned to a given line of thinking, but rather because even positions for- mulated at relatively late dates can attest the persistence of an idea or theme arising at a much earlier time down to a later period. Naturally, wri- tings generally considered to be relatively early, such as the Mishnah and the halakhic midrashim, are given a measure of priority over those which are widely acknowledged to be late, such as the later homiletic midrashim.

Likewise, both rabbinic and targumic traditions, generally speaking, are of less moment than texts and traditions more certainly stemming from near or within the first century itself.

12 See also m. Nid. 4.1-2; 7.3, with Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2002), 111, 122-23. Josephus, Ant. 11.340-41 relates, with irritation, that the Samaritans themselves claimed connection with the Jews.

13 Further on the high profile of the Samaritans among the Jews in John Bowman,

"Samaritan Studies," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40 (1957-58): 298-99, who argues, 298-308, that the Fourth Gospel was written with Samaritan theology clearly in mind.

1.2 Need and Prospects for This Study

The figure of Moses has always been important in NT and Jewish studies alike, but some important opportunities for further investigation remain.

First, examination of the NT depiction of Moses often takes place solely as an adjunct to the study of NT Christology. The NT material on Moses, how- ever, urgently needs to be considered for its contribution to the understanding of contemporary Judaism as well. While a variety of Jewish literatirre from the first century A.D. has been preserved, in many respects the New Testament contains the best of those sources. As M. Hengel puts it:

Denn daß das Neue Testament ohne die Kenntnis der zeitgenössischen jüdischen Geschichte und Religion historisch weithin unverständlich bleibt, wird heute kaum mehr bestritten.

Daß es jedoch umgekehrt selbst eine wichtige Quelle für die Erforschung des Judentums seiner Zeit darstellt, wird erst allmählich erkannt.14

This study will seek to broaden and refine modern understanding of ancient Judaism by elucidating the (first of all Jewish) portrait of Moses found in the New Testament.

Second, the special theme of this study, the relation of Moses to Israel and to the Jewish people, seems particularly underexplored. The ancient con- ception of Moses' relationship to Israel, however, including his functions within that relationship and Israel's resultant disposition vis-à-vis Moses, is one of critical importance for understanding Jewish "ecclesiology." The same conception, especially as it stood in the Herodian age and the early Christian period, has significant bearing on the study of early Christian ecclesiology, and of the functions Christ was held to have in the Christian Church. On this score this study holds out the prospect of illuminating both ancient Judaism and early Christianity.

Third, when studies of Moses in the New Testament are undertaken, they usually look only at a single book or corpus of material (particularly the Fourth Gospel, where Moses has attracted special attention). At some stage, how- ever, the NT material really requires treatment as a whole. This study exa- mines the figure of Moses across the whole New Testament, while still respec- ting the distinctiveness of the various NT sources.

14 Martin Hengel, "Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle für die Geschichte des anti- ken Judentums," in Judaica, Hellenistica, et Christiana: Kleine Schriften 11, ed. Martin Hengel with Jörg Frey and Dorothea Betz, WUNT, ed. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius, no. 109 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1999), 294-95. See also A. F.

Segal, "Conversion and Messianism: Outline for a New Approach," in The Messiah:

Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth, et al.

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 299.

15 Josef M. Kastner, "Moses im Neuen Testament" (Th.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximi- lians-Universität Munich, 1967) must be given his due here, as another effort to view Moses across the whole of the New Testament; others have made briefer attempts, such

Fourth, NT scholars have not been mistaken in supposing Moses to be important for early Christology — no doubt it is here that the figure of Moses has its chief importance for early Christianity. The significance of Moses for early christology, therefore, is clearly an important fourth arena of inquiry to which this study contributes. This is particularly so because the christological relevance of Moses can only be adequately assessed in light of the witness of the whole New Testament to the figure of Moses himself^ properly contextu- alized within contemporary Judaism. The expectation of better understanding of first-century A.D. Christianity through this study has already been ex- pressed. In particular, a fuller appreciation of the NT portrait of Moses will allow a better-informed assessment of the role of Moses in NT, and pre-NT, Christology.

1.3 Recent Study of Moses in the New Testament

Recent study of the figure of Moses in the New Testament and in ancient Judaism will now be surveyed. Research on the place Moses had in NT Chris- tology is reviewed separately at the beginning of Chapter Eight.

J. Jeremias

A particularly influential effort to describe the figure of Moses in the New Testament is the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament article by J.

Jeremias (1942).

Jeremias summarizes Jewish thought about Moses in rab- binic writings and in the New Testament, though his treatment of individual NT books or corpora is limited to the assessment of Moses/Christ typology.

That is, in the New Testament his interest lies in Christology.

For Jeremias, Moses is everywhere in the New Testament essentially the lawgiver. Jeremias alludes to the special, personal authority of Moses, im- plying a distinction between Moses merely mediating law and Moses creating law himself a distinction that this study will take up in Chapter Five.

In addition to his role as lawgiver, Jeremias also views Moses in the New Testa- ment as a prophet (principally of Christ).

Jeremias calls attention both to what he identifies as the essentially Pales- tinian character of the NT portrait of Moses, as well as to what he considers

as J. Jeremias and his TWNT article (see next note). These studies, however, all have their shortcomings from the point of view of the present study, and clearly stand in a complementary position. See the review of past scholarship, below.

16 J. Jeremias, "Mcouofic," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.

Gerhard Kittel, trans, and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4, A -N (Grand Rapids: Wm.

B. Eerdmans, 1967), 848-73.

17 Ibid., 864-65.

1 8 Ibid., 865.

Contents: 1. Old Testament; 2. Apocrypha; 3. New Testament; 4. Pseudepigrapha; 5.

Philo; 6. Josephus; 7. Secular Authors; 8. Ecclesiastical Authors; 9. Qumran; 10.

Targums; 11. Mishnah; 12. Tosefta; 13. Babylonian Talmud; 14. Jerusalem Talmud;

15. Midrash; 16. Samaritan Literature; 17. Piyyut; 18. Papyri and Manuscripts

1. Old Testament _{8:12(16) 55 n 109}

Genesis 9:16 164

1:2 LXX 191 n 73 9:22 55 n 109

3:16 163 n 159 10:16 226

4:7 134 n 48 14:16 55 n 109

6:7 136 14:21 55 n 109

11:5 136 14:31 33 n 5; 226; 248; 249;

12:3 164 251; 252

17:6 LXX 114 n 163 16:4 107 n 132

17:16 LXX 114 n 163 16:19-20 107 n 132

21:10 164 16:25 107 n 132

23:36 LXX 114n 163 17:1-7 226; 248

35:11 LXX 114n 163 17:2 226

36:31 LXX 114n 163 18:14 107

37:9 101 18:21 108

49:10 LXX 114 18:25 108

19:5 117 n 178

Exodus 20:2 117 n 178

2:14 117 20:21 94

3:1-4 33 n 4 22:19 145 n 103

3:4-9 33 n 4 22:20 LXX 184 n 31

3:10-12 33 n 4 24:6 66 n 2

3:13 71 25:22 66

3:15 71 25:40 158

3:20 58 31:2-3 LXX 191

4:1-9 63; 249; 252 31:18 170

4:9 58 32:7 117 n 178

4:16 92; 93; 230; 246-47; 32:11 117 n 178

257 32:14 117 n 178

4:20 79; 80 32:15-16 170

4:24-26 221 33:11 34, 35, 38; 284

4:28 71 33:19 166 n 174

4:30-31 52 n 98 34:1 170

6:16 117 n 178 34:6 145 n. 103

7:1 92; 93; 94; 97; 98; 34:27 145 n 103

107; 230-33; 236; 246- 34:29-35 49; 96; 167; 169 n 182

47; 257 37:27 166 n 174

7:20 55 n 109

8:1(5) 55 n 109

Leviticus 17:9 87

8:29 70 n 26 17:14-20 83

10:16-20 66 n 2 17:14-20 LXX 114

12:1-3 221 n 66 17:17 115

16:2 66 18:15 33 n 5; 51; 63 n 136;

18:2 165 84-90; 111

18:5 165 18:15-16 51

18:1-3 132 18:15-18 259 n 3

18:13 131 18:15-19 15; 18; 49; 50; 63;

18:30-9:24 66 n 2 259; 264 n 40; 268

23:29 51 18:18 89

24:3-8 66 n 2 18:19 51

26:11 166 n 174 25:4 166

26:8 73

Numbers 28:20 126

1:4 286 28:36 LXX 114

1:16-17 286 32:15 164 n 165

11 47 32:20 131

11:17 192 32:21 165

11:25 47 32:33 131; 132

11:28 141 n 80 33 38; 201

12:3 282 n 122 33:1 33 n 5; 46; 236;

12:6-8 32; 33; 89 282 n 122

12:7 120 33:3-4 275 n 104

12:7-8 33 n 5; 35, 38; 119 33:3-4 LXX 127

14:9 164 n 165 33:5 80-84; 106; 107; 114;

14:44 254 116

20:1-15 248 33:5 LXX 128

21:5 226 33:5 Symm 83

21:7 227 33:5 Theod 83

21:18 131 33:8 64 n 137

23:21 114 33:11 245 n 168

24:17 89; 115 33:15 33 n 5

27:16-20 109 33:21 131

27:17 108 n 134; 116; 274 34 199

28:2 134 34:5 33 n 5; 200

33:12-34:8 235 34:6 200

34:9 34

Deuteronomy 34:10 32, 33 n 5; 34, 35, 38

1:6-4:40 125 34:10-12 34

4:13-14 125-27; 140; 141

5:1-28:68 125 Joshua

5:6-21 126 1:1 33 n 5

5:31 193 1:2 33 n 5

7:4 126 1:7 33 n 5; 127 n 11

7:8 131 1:15 33 n 5

9:5 131 8:31 33 n 5; 127 n 11

11:13-15 126 8:33 33 n 5; 127 n 11

12:1 125-26 8:35 127 n 11

13:2-12 62 9:2b LXX 127 n 11

9:2d LXX 127 n 11 5 -14 52 n 98

9:2f LXX 127 n 11 18:12 33 n 5; 127 n 11

9:24 33 n 5 20:7 52 n 98

11:12 33 n 5 20:8 52 n 98

11:15 33 n 5 20:11 52 n 98

12:6 33 n 5 21 8 33 n 5; 127 n 11

13:8 33 n 5

14:7 33 n 5 1 Chronicles

18:7 33 n 5 6:49 33 n 5

22:2 33 n 5 11:2 109 n 137

22:4 33 n 5 17 122

22:5 33 n 5 17 4-5 120 n 192

17 4-14 120

Judges 17 10 120 n 92; 121

2:18 117 n 178 17 12 120 n 1 9 2 ; 121

3:9 117 n 1 7 8 17 12-14 121; 122

3:15 117 n 178 17 13 121

3:31 117 n 178 17 14 120; 121

6:8 71 n 31 21 17 109 n 137

6:14 117 n 178 23 13-14 70 n 28

10:1 117 n 178 23 14 33 n 5; 282 n 122

13:5 117 n 178

18:30 66 2 Chronicles

1:3 33 n 5

1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 17:7-9 77 n 57

2:30-35 122 n 2 0 1 18:16 108

2:35 121 24:6 33 n 5

10:9-11 85 n 2 4 24:9 33 n 5

11:6 85 n 2 4 30:16 33 n 5; 282 n 122

12:6-15 87 35:6 127

16:13-14 85 n 24

19:23-24 85 n 2 4 Ezra (2 Esdras 1-10 LXX)

28:12-19 195 n 88 3:2 33 n 5; 282 n 122

2 Samuel (2 Kingdoms LXX) Nehemiah (2 Esdras 11-23 LXX)

5:2 109 n 137 1 7 127 n 12

7:5-16 120 n 1 9 1 1 7-8 33 n 5

7:14 120 n 191 1 8 127 n 12

23:2 85 n 2 4 8 1 127 n 12

24:17 109 n 137 8 14 127

9 14 33 n 5; 127 n 12 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 10:29 33 n 5; 127 n 12 8:56 33 n 5; 127 n 11

10:19 107 n 131; 154 Job

14:6 LXX 71 n 32 42:17 LXX 195 n 88

17:17-24 52 n 98

22:17 108 Psalms

1 8 15 LXX 117 n 178

2 Kings (4 Kingdoms LXX) 23:2 108 n 134

4:32-37 52 n 98 30(31) 219

31(21): 1 166 n 1 7 4 Jeremiah

36 219 1:5 38; 41; 213 n 21; 284

45(44): 7 80 n 2 1:7 71 n 31

65(64) 219 2:1-7 176 n 5

68:19 146 31:10 109 n 1 3 7

68:23 166 n 174

73(72): 12 42 Ezekiel

77:20[21] 109 n 1 3 7 2:3 71 n 31

77:35 LXX 117 n 178 7:27 113

78:24 158 n 148 12:10 113

78:52 109 n 137 19:11 79 n 2

78:71-72 109 n 137 19:14 79 n 2

81:5-6(4-5) 153 n 127 20:34-38 57 n 118

82:1 238 21:17 LXX 113 n 160

82:6 238; 246 21:30 LXX 113 n 1 6 0

90:1 33 n 5; 46; 282 n 122 22:6 LXX 113 n 160

99:6 66; 69; 70 n 28 26:16 LXX 113 n 1 6 0

104:15 LXX 114 n 163 27:21 LXX 113 n 160

105:15 114 n 1 6 3 28:2 113

105(104):26-27 33; 33 n 5 28:12 113

105:27 55 n 110 30:13 LXX 113 n 160

109:2 LXX 80 n 2 32:29 LXX 113 n 160

110:1 92 34 109 n 1 3 7 ; 110 n 1 4 8

110:1-3 92 n 59 34:8 108 n 1 3 5

110:2 80 n 2 34:13-14 111

34:14 111

Ecclesiastes 34:23-34 108; 110n 148

9:6 42 34:24 113

34:31 110 n 144

Isaiah 37:22 113

6:8 71 n 31 37:24-25 113

11:1-2 85 38:2-3 LXX 113 n 160

19:20 117 n 178 39:1 LXX 113 n 160

26:19 195 n 88 39:18 LXX 113 n 160

28:11 162

38:7 52 n 98 Daniel

38:8 52 n 98 1:8 229 n 95

38:21 52 n 98 9:6 LXX 40

48:21 57 n 118 9:10 LXX 127

51:10 57 n 118 9:11 33 n 5

52:11 166 n 174 12:2 195 n 88

52:13 264 n 40 12:13 195 n 88

53:11 264 n 49

53:12 198 n 102 Hosea

59:20 117 n 178 2:1 166 n 174

61:1 71 n 31 2:25 166 n 174

62:11 117 n 178 12:14(13) 32; 48

63:11 109; 110

63:11-12 192 n 76 Joel

2:28-32 54

Obadiah Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira)

21 117 n 178 24:23 128

43:5 35 n 14

Micah 44-50 215

7:15 57 n 118 44:23-45:5 34

45:2 232; 242; 244

Haggai 45:3 35

1:12 71 n 31 45:5 35

45:6 242

Zechariah 46:1 34, 53

2:12 71 n 31 46:4 53

10:2 108 n 135;109 n 137 46:4-5 35 n 11

13:7 108 n 135 46:9 53

46:17 53

Malachi 48:2-5 53

2:7 75; 243 48:2-6 35 n 11

3:22(4:4) 33 n 5; 127 48:4 53

3:23 198 48:9 198 n 100

48:12 12, 53

2. Apocrypha 48:12-14 35 n 11

1 Esdras 48:14 53

1:6 127 n 12 48:23 53

9:39 127 n 12 49:10 195 n 88

2 Esdras Baruch

7:89 229 n 94 2:28 33 n 5

19:9-20 175 n 1

Susannah

Tobit 45 Theod 189 n 57

6:13 144 n 93

7:12 144 n 93 1 Maccabees

1:48 229 n 95

Judith 1:62-63 229 n 95

11:19 108 n 135 2:51-60 215

2:58 198 n 100

Wisdom of Solomon 4:44-46 61 n 131

7:22 184 n 33 9:27 61 n 131

7.27 45 n 65 14:41 61 n 131

8:19-20 193

9:4 193 2 Maccabees

9:6 193 6 18-26 229 n 95

9:17 184 n 33 7 1-9 229 n 95

10:15-16 36 7 9 195 n 88

10:16 33 n 5; 35 n 12 7 11 195 n 88

10:20-21 184 n 33 7 14 195 n 88

11:1 36 7 23 195 n 88

18:22-25 243 7 42 229 n 95

14:46 195 n 88

15:14 190 n 63

3. New Testament Matthew

7:29 276 n 107 8:4 152 8:20 284 n 128 9:1-8 59 9:6 59 9:36 274

10:1-7 77 n 57 11:13 156 12:2 59 n 123 12:9 59 n 123 12:14 59 n 123 12:24 59 n 123 12:38 59 n 123 13:57-58 54 14:2 195 n 88 15:3-11 275 n 105 15:4 150 15:29-16:1 59 n 123 17:9-13 212 17:10 198 n 100 19:3-6 150 19:3-9 150 19:3-11 275 n 105 19:28 286 21:23 61 22:24 151 22:30 243 22:31 152 22:43 85

23:2 154; 155; 218;

276 n 107

23:2-3 153; 155 n 138; 160 23:3 155

23:34-46 284 n 128 23:37-39 284 n 128 24:24 59 24:24-26 110 n 147 27:47 196 n 91 27:54 248 n 185 Mark

1:44 152 2:1-12 59 2:10 59 3:11 188 n 53 3:28 227 n 88 6:4-5 54

6:14-15 198 n 100 6:14-16 195 n 88 6:30-47 110 n 147 6:31 108 6:32 108 6:34 108; 274 6:34-44 79; 108 6:35 108 6:39 108 n 134 7:6-13 151 7:9 151 7:10 150 7:10-15 275 n 105 8:1-11 59 n 123 8:28 195 n 88 8:33 188 n 53 9:9-13 212 9:11 198 n 100 10:2-12 149; 275 n 105 10:3 149; 150 10:4 149 10:5 149 10:6-9 149 10:30 42 11:27 61 12:19 151 12:26 152; 157 13:22 59 Luke

2:22 157 n 141 4:16-30 271 5:14 152; 156 n 140 5:17-26 59 5:21 227 5:24 59 7:11-16 54 n 107 7:16 54; 272 7:17 54 n 107 7:18-23 54 n 107 7:39 54 n 107; 272 9:1-6 77 n 57 9:9 272 9:10 77 n 57 9:18-19 272 9:19 195 n 88 9:30 212 9:31 212; 262 n 23 9:58 284 n 128

11:14-16 59 n 123 7:16-18 159

13:31-35 271 7:16-24 159

13:34-35 284 n 1 2 8 7:18 159

16:16 156 7:19 159; 161

16:29 156 7:22 157; 159; 160; 161

16:31 156 7:22-23 221 n 65; 222

18:30 42 7:23 159; 161

20:2 61 7:31 61 n 128

20:28 151 8:2-6 159; 161

20:37 152; 156 n 140 9:28 217-18; 220; 256; 278

20:42-43 272 9:28-29 220

22:65 227 n 88 10:34 162 n 157

23:39 227 n 88 10:41 53 n 102; 60

24:19 54; 55; 271; 272 n 93; 11:47-48 61

2 8 1 n 1 2 0 11:47-57 64 n 137

24:21 228; 281 n 120 11:51 64

24:27 16; 156 12:37 61 n 129

24:44 163 n 158 17:8 275 n 104

24:44-45 16

Acts

John 1:9 200 n 109

1:1-17 266 n 63 2:18-19 54

1:3-4 237 2:22 55; 272 n 93;

1:17 159; 161 2 8 1 n 1 2 0

1:45 49 2:30 85

2:18 60 2:36 148 n 114

3:2 61 n 128 2:43 62

4:25 88 3 264 n 40; 268

4:48 59 3:12-26 264 n 40

5:18 224 3:15 281 n 120

5:32 247 n 181 3:21 51

5:39 224 3:22 268

5:45 224 3:22-23 268; 272

5:45-47 159; 249 n 189; 252; 3:22-26 49; 50; 51-52; 63

257 4:30 62

5:46 49 5:21 257

5:46-47 159; 247 5:31 228; 281 n 120

6:1-24 112 n 157 5:36 57 n 117

6:1-14 60 6:11 157; 158; 226; 228;

6:1-15 79; 110 229; 247; 248 n 185; 253;

6:14 54; 61 n 128; 111; 254; 256

262 n 28; 272; 274 6:11-14 254

6:14-15 20; 113; 274 6:13 158

6:15 111 6:13-14 254

6:25 112 n 155 6:14 157; 158; 226 n 84

6:26-59 111 7 63; 116; 268

6:30 60 7:17-44 210

6:31-32 158 n 1 4 8 7:20 211

6:34 112 n 155 7:20-39 49; 50; 52-62

6:70 188 n 53 7:22 210

7:27 117 n 177 7:22 166 n 175

7:35 79; 113; 117 n 177; 7:25 166n 175

118; 123; 228; 229; 255-56; 8:7 166n 175

281 n 120 9:15 166; 166 n 1 7 4

7:35-38 116 n 176; 268 9:17 164; 166 n 1 7 4

7:35-40 188 9:25-27 166 n 174

7:36 55; 63; 272 n 93; 9:27 166 n 174

2 8 1 n 120 9:29 166 n 174

7:38 132 9:31 199 n 104

7:39 255 10:5 165-66; 167

7:42 255 10:5-8 166 n 172

7:44 158 10:11 164

7:51-52 52 n 97 10:16 166 n 174

8:5 222 n 73 10:19 165-66; 167

9:20 222 n 73 10:20 166

10:38-39 272 10:21-22 166 n 174

10:45 222 n 67 11:25 177 n 7

11:2 222 n 67 15:8 171 n 193

13:38-39 163 n 1 5 8 15:18-19 62

13:39 157 n 1 4 1

13:45 227 n 89 1 Corinthians

15:1 157; 161; 221; 222; 1:22 59

225; 253; 256 2:4 62 n 132

15:5 157 n 141; 222 n 68; 3:5 171

253 3:18 42

15:10 157 8-10 185 n 34

15:12 62 9:9 166

15:21 157; 158; 167 n 177; 10 14; 177; 184

222; 225; 256 10:1-2 177

16:3 222 n 69 10:1-4 175; 176; 177; 178;

18:6 227 nn 88 89 188; 207 n 129

19:13 222 n 73 10:1-11 12; 175; 182

19:37 227 n 90 10:2 14; 30; 176; 177; 178;

20:37 157 183; 184; 185 n 37;

21:21 157; 222 n 69; 253-54; 186-88; 207-208; 220;

256 290

21:27 253 12:1 177 n 7

21:28 254 12:13 185

21:38 57 n 117; 110 n 147 14:14-15 188 n 53

26:22-23 156 14:21 162

28:23 157 n 141; 163 n 158 14:32 188 n 53

14:34 162; 163n 159 Romans

1:13 177 n 7 2 Corinthians

3:19 162 n 157; 164 1:8 177 n 7

4:6 166 n 174 3 14; 167; 168; 171;

5:13-14 166 n 174 172; 173

6:3 185; 186 3:1-3 169

7:7 164 3:2 170

7:9-10 167 n 179 3:3 167

3:4-5 3:6 3:7 3:7-11 3:7-18 3:8-9 3:9 3:12-16 3:12-18 3:14 3:14-15 3:15 3:16 6:16-17 12:12 Galatians 1:15 2:3 2:7 2:9 2 : 1 2 3:6-4:7 3:8 3:10 3:17 3:19 3:19-20 3:22-23 3:26-27 3:27 4:4-6 4:30 5:2-3 Ephesians 1:17 1:21 2:11 2:20 3:6-7 Philippians 2:6

Colossians 1:13-20 3:11 4:11

170

167; 170; 171 167; 170 168

12; 169 n 182 170

167 175 n 1 169 n 182; 170 167; 257 167; 171; 172 190

168 n 180 166n 174 62

213 n 2 1 ; 284 222 n 68 222 n 67 222 n 67 222 n 67 12 164; 168 167 n 179 160 n 153 12, 15, 39, 49-50;

168; 171; 173 284 n 129 164 186 185 284 164 222 n 69

184 n 33 42 222 n 67 77 171 n 193

284

116 n 176 222 n 67 222 n 67

1 Thessalonians 1:5

4:13

62 n 132 177 n 7

132;

Titus 1:10

2:12

1 Timothy 2:5 2 Timothy 3:8 Hebrews 1:5 2:3-4 3:1 3:1-6

3:2 3:3 3:3-4 3:5 3:16 4:13 6:9-10 7:1 8:1 8:2 8:5

8:6

9:15 9:19 11 12:19 12:21 12:24 13:20 2 Peter

1:15 1 John 1:21 Jude 9

222 n 67 42

50

210

120 n 191 62 65

30; 65-66; 69; 73-77;

79; 118-122; 272; 273;

289

119; 120; 121 121

121 119; 121 117 n 178 73 176 n 5 118 118; 119 119 50; 158 50 50 50 215 50 50 50 109

199 n 104

225

189; 210

Revelation 59:4-8 43

11:1-6 197 66:6 195 n 88

11:3-12 54 76:2 198 n 100

13:11-17 59 84:5 43

13:13-14 60

16:13 59 1 Enoch

19:20 59 89:36 203; 244

20:10 60 89:38 203

90:31 198 n 100

4. Pseudepigrapha _{90:33 195 n 88}

Letter of Aristeas

15 129 1 Enoch 37-71 (Similitudes)

130-71 129 41:1-2 120 n 190

48:2-7 283 n 125

Assumption of Moses, 26 51:3 95

1:5 38 n 27 51:4 101 n 99

1:14 38 n 27, 38, 39, 55:4 101

39 n 35, 40; 139; 213; 61:8 95; 101

283 62:5 95

1:15 38 n 2 7 ; 189 69:29 95

2:1-10:10 38 n 27 70:4 195 n 88

3:11-12 38

3:12 38; 139 3 Enoch

6:6 39 n 31 9:1-5 95

6:7-8 39 n 31 9:2 243 n 156

10:2 71 n 34; 75 10:2 95 n 76

10:12 204 10:3-4 95 n 76

10:14 189; 204 12:5 95 n 76

11:2 204 15:1-2 243 n 156

11:5-8 204-205 48C:5-7 95

11:14 39 n 29; 40 48C:7 95 n 76

11:16 38; 38 n 2 7 ; 39-43; 48C:8 95 n 76

189; 205 48D: 1.90 95 n 76

11:16-17 41; 43

11:16-19 41; 188-89 4 Esdras

11:17 38; 39; 39 n 29; 40; 4(6).26 198 n 100

71; 77; 189

12:4 213 n 21 4 Ezra 26

12:6 39 n 2 9 ; 189 4:41-42 195 n 88

12:6-7 213 n 2 1 7:28 195 n 88; 198 n 1 0 0

7:89 229 n 94

2 Baruch 26 13:52 195 n 88; 198 n 100

13:3 198 n 100 14:5 43

21:23-24 195 n 88 14:9 198 n 100

21:24 195 n 88 14:19-48 147 n 109

25:1 198 n 100 14:50 198 n 100

29:8 107 n 132

48:30 198 n 100 Ezekiel Tragi cus, Exagoge, 95

59:1 198 n 102 68 90

68-89 90

83-89 36-37 84 124 n 2; 128 n 14;

84-86 100-101 134 n 43

120-151 56 85 214 n 32

86 124 n 2; 128 n 14;

Jubilees 26 134 n 43

1:4 34 131 165 n 169

1:26 34 144 124 n 2

4:17 210 n 9 145 134 n 43

31:21-23 276 n 110 172 128 n 14; 134 n 43

Martyrdom of Isaiah De Cherubim

3:8 43 45 214 n 32

48 219

Paraleipomena Jeremiou. 49 194; 220

9.2p 276 n 110 53 135

55 135

Pseudo-Orpheus 87 134 n 43;135

Orphica 124 44 n 62

21-46 233-35

De Confusione Linguarum

Sibylline Oracles 29 43 n 50

4.165 179 n 13 39 44 n 54; 219 n 52 11.35-40 102-103 62 44 n 54; 219 n 55

98 118 n 181 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 134-35 136

—Testament of Benjamin 135 124 n 2; 219 n 50 10:6-7 195 n 88 192-93 134 nn 43 48

—Testament of Judah

25 195 n 88 De Congressu Erudìtionis gratia

25:4 195 n 88 25 136

—Testament of Levi 40 44 n 58

8.14-15 85 43 136

—Testament of Simeon 44 124 n 2

6.7 195 n 88 89-90 134 n 43; 135 n 56

—Testament ofZebulun 92 134 n 43; 135 n 56

10 195 n 88 94 134 n 43; 135 n 56

103 134 n 43

5. Philo 120 134 nn 43 47

De Abraham o 132 133

70 118 n 181 137 143 n 89

181 2 1 4 n 3 2 170 44 n 58

262 44 n 64 177 219 n 51

De Aeternitate Mundi De Decalogo

19 124 n 2 18 44 n 53; 133

20 133

De Agricultura 46 133

2 136 60 118 n 181

27 124 n 2 155 118 n 181

175 43 n 50; 44 n 54; 1<

(Quod) Deterius Potiori insidiari soleat 56 43 n 50; 44 n 56

86 219

105 124 n 2; 136 n 58 Hypothetica

132 214 n 30 6.8 163 n 1 5 9

135 214 n 32 6.8-9 133; 134 n 43; 151

138 214 n 33 6.9 125

159 165 n 170 7.3 163 n 159

160 75 7.11 134

161-62 231 11.1 220

De Ebrietate De Josepho

1 124 n 2 2-3 1 0 9 n 1 3 9

85 43 n 50 149 118 n 181

94 214 n 30 189 133 n 40

143 87

210 214 n 31 De Legatione ad Gaium

22 118

In Flaccum 353 133 n 40

74 118

126 118 Legum Allegon arum

1.40 230 n 101

De Fuga et Inventione 2.1 43 n 50

53-54 134 n 43 2.14 124 n 2

65 134 2.15-16 136 n 58

66 135 n 55 2.56 118

83-84 134 n 43 3.22 134 n 43

120 124 n 2 3.32 135

138 43 n 50 3.32-33 134 n 43

140 43 n 50 3.43 44 n 57

147 44 n 59 3.96 136 n 58

185 135 n 56 3.100-102 219 n 58

185-86 134 n 43 3.151 44 n 52; 219 nn 56 57

186 192 n 74 3.173 44 n 53

193 134 3.185 214 n 32

De Gigantibus De Migratione Abrahami

19 124 n 2 14 44 n 52

19-20 192 15 57 n 117

19-23 191 23 134 n 45

23 191; 192 23-24 135

24 192 67 214 n 34

26-27 192 69 230 n 101

32 134 73 133 n 40

32-33 134 n 43 84 230 n 101

34 188 n 53 130 127 n 10

47 43 n 50; 44 n 62; 192 151 44 n 58

53 192 202-203 135 n 56

54 44 n 52; 219 n 57;

220 n 60 De Vita Mosis

55 192 1.1 125; 215 n 36

1.2 135 2.69 43 n 50, 44 n 62;

1.22 193 192 n 76

1.23 235 2.71 67 nn 12 13

1.24 235 2.75 67 n 13

1.25 235 2.76 43 n 50; 45 n 67;

1.27 193 67 n 11

1.29 214 n 29 2.84 133 n 39

1.45 135 2.141 67 n 14

1.47-48 135 2.142 104 n 1 1 6

1.48 104 n 116; 135 2.153 67 n 14

1.51 104 n 114 2.166 68

1.57 43 n 5 0 2.187 43 n 50, 44 n 55;

1.60 110 67 n 11; 104; 214

1.61-62 109 n 139 2.188 43 n 50; 133

1.63 135 n 52 2.188-90 43 n 50, 44 n 62

1.76 59 2.188-91 146

1.82 59 n 122 2.190 133

1.90-91 59 2.191 43 n 50; 133

1.95 59 2.205 219 n 50

1.97 55 n 113 2.209 43 n 50

1.99 55 n 113 2.211 214 n 28

1.103 55 n 113 2.213 43 n 50

1.107 55 n 113 2.246 43 n 50

1.113-14 55 n 113 2.250 43 n 50

1.120 55 n 113 2.257 43 n 50

1.126-27 55 n 113 2.258 43 n 50

1.128 68 n 17; 124 n 2 2.259 43 n 50

1.130 55 n 113 2.259-60 44 n 62

1.334 104 2.262 43 n 50

1.148-49 104 n 116 2.263 43 n 50; 44 n 64

1.155-58 97; 230 n 101 2.264-65 45 n 65; 192 n 76

1.158 93; 94; 230; 246 2.268 43 n 50

1.162 124 n 2 2.269 43 n 50; 44 n 60

1.175 43 n 50; 44 n 62 2.270 43 n 50

1.201 43 n 50; 44 n 62 2.275 43 n 50; 45 n 67

1.210 43 n 50 2.278 43 n 50

1.334 67 n 11 2.280 43 n 50

2.1 104 2.284 43 n 50

2.2 104 2.288 193; 201

2.2-7 67 n 11 2.290 192; 193 n 78

2.3 104 n 116; 214; 2.291 201

215 n 37 2.292 67 n 11; 192; 202:

2.6 43 n 50; 214

2.11 133 n 40 De Mutatione Nominum

2.12 133 n 40; 135 n 53 7-8 192

2.15 133 n 39 11 43 n 50

2.16 45 n 67; 67 n 11 13 192

2.40 193 19-22 231

2.50 45 n 67 22 232

2.67 104 n 116; 192 n 76 30 214 n 32