100 Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

(1)

(2)

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity

Herausgeber / Editor:

Christoph Markschies (Berlin) Martin Wallraff (München) Christian Wildberg (Princeton)

Beirat / Advisory Board

Peter Brown (Princeton) · Susanna Elm (Berkeley) Johannes Hahn (Münster) · Emanuela Prinzivalli (Rom)

Jörg Rüpke (Erfurt)

100

(3)

(4)

Manolis Papoutsakis

Vicarious Kingship

A Theme in Syriac Political Theology in Late Antiquity

Mohr Siebeck

(5)

ISBN 978-3-16-153929-9 eISBN 978-3-16-154002-8

ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;

detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

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 reproduc- tions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Minion typeface, printed by Laupp + Goebel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany.

Manolis Papoutsakis, born 1966; studied Classics (1990 BA, Athens), Hebrew (1994 BA, Lon- don) and Syriac (2000 DPhil, Oxford); 2002, 2003–2008 Lecturer, and 2009–2016 Assistant Professor in Syriac and Classical Armenian, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University; 2002–2003 Fellow, Dumbarton Oaks; 2008–2009 Member, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.

(6)

for Stavros Zoumboulakis ἐμοὶ μύριοι

(7)

(8)

Acknowledgments

I started working on this monograph in 2008, when I was holding a research membership at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and continued in- tensively during my sabbatical year (2010–2011) in Athens, Greece. This was a subsidiary piece of research, while I was making progress on two other long-term projects, a book on Jacob of Serugh and a monograph on the syrianité of Roma- nos the Melode. My gratitude to my teacher, Sebastian Brock, is immense and my debt to his scholarship will be obvious to anyone who might take the trouble to read this study. I am grateful to Peter Brown for his generosity and support during my years of teaching Syriac at Princeton (2002–2015). Michael Cook read an early draft of the whole manuscript, and Luke van Rompay read an early version of the first chapter and a part of the second: I thank them both for their many helpful suggestions. Finally, I wish to thank Christoph Markschies, Martin Wallraff and Christian Wildberg for accepting this monograph for publication in the STAC, and Henning Ziebritzki, Philipp Henkys and Daniela Zeiler at Mohr Siebeck for their patience and efficiency.

(9)

(10)

Introduction

The idea that the ruler on earth functions as the administrative representative of God in heaven is hardly an invention of Syriac writers in Late Antiquity. It appears, however, that, within the Christian tradition, Syriac poets and homilists between the fourth and sixth centuries – the period covered in this study – are the first to introduce the concept of “vicarious kingship” into a carefully thought-out and consistent eschatological pattern.

I begin my exploration from the latter end of the designated period. Jacob of Serugh (died 521) introduces the theme of the vicarious kingship of Adam when he elaborates on Gen 1:26–27 in his verse-homily On Tamar (Gen 38), ll. 41–46. Why should this fifth / sixth-century homilist dwell upon the creation and appointment of Adam specifically as “vicarious king” in a composition on a distinctly messianic theme? In this monograph, I attempt to answer this basic question, working my way back to the fourth-century masters Ephrem (died 373) and Aphrahat (mid fourth century), and even to the Peshitta Old Testament.

The argument is presented in three chapters: the first (“The vicarious kingship of David”) is divided into eight sections, the second (“Towards a historicization of biblical exegesis”) into five, while the third and last chapter (“The vicarious kingship of Adam”), which is the shortest of the three, consists also of five blocks.

In Chapter I (“The vicarious kingship of David”), section 1, my aim is to demonstrate that Ephrem’s interpretation of Gen 49:10a–b, a key segment of the eschatological oracle concerning Judah (Gen 49:8–12), provides the basic framework according to which JSTamar 45–46 is formulated. In this couplet, Jacob carefully models the motif of the creation of Adam that he might serve as a vicarious king until Christ the King comes on the sharp contrast between David (and the Davidic kings), on the one hand, and Christ the King, on the other, which Ephrem reads into Gen 49:10a–b.¹ Indeed, the Jacobean conception is satisfactorily explained only against the backdrop of a set of ideas regarding the Davidic kingship as developed in the 360s with continual reference to Gen 49:10a–b.

1 Throughout this study, I use the Christianizing rendering “Christ the King” for the phrase malkā mšiḥā, discussed in Chapter I, section 1. However, one should not lose sight of the Jew- ish background of this title (“The King Messiah”); see Sebastian Brock, “Two Editions of a New Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel: A Review Article,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 48/49 (2005/2006), pp. 7–18, at 16.

(13)

Once the sharp polarity which Ephrem reads into Gen 49:10a–b is clearly brought out in section 1, the contrast between David (and the Davidic kings), on the one hand, and Christ the King, on the other, is illuminated through comparison with Peshitta Jer 33:14–26, where a similar tension, already present in the Hebrew text, is heightened by the Syriac translator (section 2). This comparison becomes all the more relevant, seeing that, as is explained in section 3, Jer 33:14–

26 is systematically piled upon Gen 49:10a–b both in Jewish and in Christian exegesis. Moreover, comparing the two passages proves especially fruitful for, in the process, Peshitta Gen 49:10a–b emerges as a covenantal statement whose unconditionality Ephrem tries to mitigate (sections 2, 3 and 4).

The language in which Ephrem couches his contrast within the framework of Gen 49:10a–b involves the construct chain nāṭar dukktā (pl. nāṭray dukktā), a calque on τοποτηρητής, by which the Latin administrative term vicarius is rendered into Greek. The technical background of nāṭar dukktā, as exploited by Ephrem, is discussed in Chapter II, section 1. In this study, I contextualize this term by rendering it, on the one hand, as “vicarious king,” when the person to whom it is ascribed is juxtaposed and antithetically compared to Christ the King (malkā mšiḥā), the true Emperor and “Lord of Kingship” (mārāh dmalkutā), and, on the other hand (in Chapter III, sections 3, 3.1 and 3.2), as “vicarious priest,” when the person to whom it is ascribed, within the interpretative framework of Gen 49:10a–b now transferred from the discourse of kingship to that of priesthood, is juxtaposed and antithetically compared to Christ the eternal High Priest and “Lord of Priesthood” (mārāh dkumrutā). In Ephrem’s thinking, the

“vicarious kings” (nāṭray dukktā) who made up the dynasty which God prom

ised to David (cf. Peshitta Gen 49:10a) relate to Christ the King, according to the exegetically augmented form of Peshitta Gen 49:10b, in exactly the same manner as that in which the “promised land” (cf. Hebrews 11:9) relates to “heavenly Jerusalem” (cf. Hebrews 11:16 and 12:22). In both well-balanced and contrastive pairs, i. e. the one of “promised land” versus “heavenly Jerusalem” and the other of “vicarious kings” versus “Christ the King,” we are dealing, in Ephrem’s own words, with the relationship between an “image,” or “likeness” (dumyā), and its

“prototype,” or “reality” (quštā). In order that I clearly bring out the iconology of the latter pair, I explore, in sections 5 and 6, the iconology of the former. In doing so, I explain how Ephrem weaves Hebrews 11:8–16 into his interpretation of Gen 15. The Abrahamic covenant regarding “land” is of the same type as the Davidic covenant regarding “dynasty,” and Ephrem meticulously brings out its promissory character in his exposition of Gen 15 in CommGen.

In Chapter I, section 7, in preparation for the discussion of the technical term nāṭar dukktā in Chapter II, I translate, annotate and discuss Demonstration V (“On the Wars”), 23–24, a notoriously difficult text, where Aphrahat uses the term nāṭar malkutā (“keeper of the Kingdom”) and related diction as he weaves Gen 49:10 into his argument about the invincibility of the Constantinian empire

Introduction

2

(14)

in the face of an impending Sassasian assault. It is my contention that Ephrem is aware of the argument in Dem V, 23–24 and that he ingeniously adapts details of it so that they might fit his own purpose. In Dem V, 23–24, Aphrahat presupposes a tradition of apologetics which goes back to the second century and discovers, in the narrative of the census (cf. Luke 2:1–7), the beginning of a harmonious co-existence between the Roman empire and the Kingdom of God. However, he does not present that relationship with reference to iconology, surely implicit in the apologetics built on the Lukan account. Rather than working with the prototype–versus–image schema, which Ephrem adopts in HNat XVIII, 1–3, Aphrahat seeks to describe the polarity between the Kingdom of God and the Roman empire in terms of contemporary international relations, which would have made perfect sense to his immediate readership (in Dem V, it is the impending military confrontation between the Romans and the Sassanians that the controversialist attempts to place in salvation history). The shift from the representation of that polarity as attested in Dem V to an advanced iconology in the writings of Ephrem leads to the sharpening and adaptation of nāṭar malkutā (“keeper of the Kingdom”), a quasi-mythological conception, to nāṭar dukktā (cf.

τοποτηρητής), surely evoking technical administrative language, in elaborations on Gen 49:10a–b. Again, this development is linked to the change of meaning which malkutā apparently undergoes in those contexts which Gen 49:10b, especially in its expanded version (“until there comes He to whom malkutā belongs”), determines exegetically. In such contexts, malkutā for Aphrahat appears primarily to mean “kingdom,” the actual realm, be it heavenly or earthly. For Ephrem, by contrast, it primarily denotes “kingship,” the imperial office, either that of Christ the King or that of the Roman emperors, His vicarii. Although I do not deny the occasional ambiguity of malkutā, there is, I believe, a difference in the manner in which these two authors use the term in this particular context.

Thus, in Chapter I, sections 1–7, it is established: a) that the Jacobean motif of Adam’s creation and appointment as “vicarious king” is satisfactorily explained only against the background of Ephrem’s thinking on the Davidic kingship with reference to Gen 49:10a–b; b) that the piling of Jer 33:14–26 upon Gen 49:10a–b has not only sharpened the contrast inherent in the oracular formulation of the latter passage, but it has also revealed its character, in the Peshitta, as a statement of “grant” ideology; c) that the “vicarious kings” (nāṭray dukktā) who made up the dynasty which God promised to David (cf. Gen 49:10a) relate to Christ the King (cf. Gen 49:10b) in exactly the same manner as that in which the “promised land” (cf. Hebrews 11:9) relates to “heavenly Jerusalem” (cf. Hebrews 12:22); and d) that Dem V, 23–24 is at the back of Ephrem’s mind as he works out his own pattern according to which human kingship relates to the Kingship of Christ. In the eighth and last section of the first chapter, I return to a major source with reference to which the argument has been shaped in the previous sections, that is, Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis 111:29–114:11 on Gen 49:8–11, here trans-

3

Introduction

(15)

lated in full, annotated and discussed. What interests me most is the manner in which Ephrem segments the Blessing of Judah in such a way as to create a sense of “historical” depth, or development, which should prove useful when ultimately he proceeds to invest Peshitta Gen 49:10a–b with the tension present at Peshitta Jer 33:14–21.

In Chapter II (“Towards a historicization of biblical exegesis”), I try to explain how in the 360s, during and after the short reign of emperor Julian “the Apos- tate” (died 363), Ephrem piles the Davidic dynasty upon the Constantinids and systematically reinforces the covenantal character of Peshitta Gen 49:10a–b at the same time as he mitigates its unconditionality. He does so by recourse to: a) language of “succession” (yubbālā = διαδοχή), by which the implications of the formula lā ne‘nad (“[the sceptre] will not depart”) at Gen 49:10a are reaffirmed;

b) the concept of vicarious kingship (cf. nāṭar dukktā, a calque on τοποτηρητής

= vicarius), already discussed in Chapter I, but here explored in greater detail;

c) the theme of the fealty of the “vassal” to the “suzerain,” who contracts the promissory covenant with him in reward for that proven virtue, as well as the concurrent theme of the contrast between fealty (characteristic of the exemplary

“vassal”) and lack thereof (characteristic of an adversary of that “vassal”). I sug- gest that Ephrem puts together such an enriched version of Gen 49:10a–b for highly polemical purposes, exploiting it in his writings against Julian “the Apos- tate,” an epithet, first used by Gregory of Nazianzus, which has been only vaguely understood and which is here clarified.

Building on my discussion in the first two chapters, in the third and final chapter I return to the passage with which I open this study and try to explain how, in his verse-homily On Tamar (Gen 38), a composition on a distinctly messianic theme, Jacob of Serugh comes to adopt fourth-century use of the technical administrative term nāṭar dukktā, incorporated by Ephrem into multiple recastings of Gen 49:10a–b and long treated as a close synonym of dumyā (// dmutā, “likeness” = ṣalmā, “image”), in order to describe Adam upon his creation in the “im- age” and “likeness” of God (Jacob subscribes to a long tradition of interpreting the phrase “in our image, according to our likeness” as a case of hendiadys). In JSTamar 45–46, two separate exegetical patterns, each constituting a distinct attempt at dealing with Gen 1:26–27, are ingeniously interwoven. The one pattern centers on the glossing of “image” (ṣalmā) // “likeness” (dmutā) at Gen 1:26–27 specifically as an “imperial image” (yuqnā < [θεία] εἰκών) and presupposes the broadly assumed vicarious function of the imperial images in the Roman period.

By virtue of the semantic parallelism between nāṭar dukktā (cf. τοποτηρητής = vicarius) and “imperial image” (ṣalmā // dmutā = yuqnā, reflecting [θεία] εἰκών), Adam, the “image” and “likeness” of God, the King of kings, was created in order vicariously to reign for Him. The other exegetical pattern, elaborated upon by Jacob of Serugh in Letter 23, 199:17–29, involves the subsuming of Gen 1:26–27 under the category of Peshitta Gen 49:10a–b, which Ephrem recasts as a promis-

Introduction

4

(16)

sory formulation of mitigated unconditionality. Now, given that Ephrem contex- tualizes Gen 49:10a–b with reference to the Incarnation (cf. HNat VI, 19–20 and CommGen 113:17ff), it comes as no surprise that, in his verse-homily On Tamar (Gen 38), Jacob should, moreover, read Gen 1:26–27, retrojectively interpreted as a covenantal statement analogous to those addressed to Abraham and David, into the Lukan genealogy of Jesus into which, in a harmonizing fashion, he introduces Tamar, mentioned only by Matthew (1:3). At JSTamar 45–46, within a framework where the two genealogies of Christ are carefully blended, Peshitta Gen 49:10a–b and Gen 1:26–27 come to be exegetically interlaced; in Jacob’s verse-homily On Tamar, messianic, that is, eschatological considerations come to be introduced into an exposition of the Creation of Man, a protological theme.

The separate origins and independent development of the two imperial themes as well as their subsequent interpretative concurrency in JSTamar 45–46 are discussed, in Chapter III, sections 3, 3.1 and 3.2, in the light of the ascription of nāṭar dukktā – this time, a priestly title (thus, “vicarious priest”) – both to the Levite John the Baptist and to the ἀγενεαλόγητος Melchizedek. We are dealing with two distinct and competing traditions according to which the priesthood of Christ is approached in early Syriac: the one involves the theme of “vicariousness” within “succession,” the other involves that of “vicariousness” without

“succession.” In formulating both, Jacob of Serugh resorts to the single pattern of Gen 49:10a–b (regarding kingship) as it is expounded by Ephrem. This study of kingship ends at a point where another monograph on priesthood may well begin. In Chapter III, section 5, a first step is taken towards exploring the Jaco- bean contrast between kingly Adam, who lacked fidelity to Christ, and priestly Noah, “the second Adam” and the progenitor’s “replacement” and “successor,”

who remained loyal to Him.

In this study, I did not refrain from discussing Narsai, whose work is a compo- nent of the tradition upon which I have worked, because I felt that justice to his treatment of Gen 1:26–27 has already been done.² On the contrary, it was exactly because I felt that so much in his exegesis remains unsatisfactorily discussed that I decided to treat his memre separately. A fruitful way to approach that cerebral and lesser poet would be by studying his exegesis and compositional technique with continual reference to the rivalry with his brilliant younger contemporary, Jacob of Serugh. To the extent that their rivalry can be charted through the detailed study of texts, these two homilists retrospectively emerge “united in the strife that divided them.” Exploring that antagonism should contribute something to our understanding of Syriac poetry and exegesis of the late fifth century. This is an area of great possibilities for scholars who are willing to dig

2 For an overview, see Colette Pasquet, L’homme, image de Dieu, Seigneur de l’univers. L’inter

prétation de Gn 1, 26 dans la tradition syriaque orientale. Thèse présentée pour l’obtention du Doctorat conjoint en Histoire des religions et Anthropologie religieuse (Universite de Paris- Sorbonne) et en Théologie (Institut Catholique de Paris), 2006, pp. 147–189.

5

Introduction

(17)

deep into the literary traditions of Late Antiquity.³ Finally, here, I did not explore an important theme with which vicariousness becomes inextricably connected in the context of Gen 1:26–27, that is, the theme of the unity of God. Seeing that the complexity of this aspect of the interpretation of Gen 1:26–27 would have required yet another long chapter in order that its various emphases might be adequately brought out, I have chosen to discuss it in a separate article.

3 For a recent contribution in this direction, see Lucas van Rompay, “Humanity’s Sin in Para- dise. Ephrem, Jacob of Serugh and Narsai in Conversation,” in George Kiraz, ed., Jacob of Serugh and his Times. Studies in SixthCentury Syriac Christianity, Piscataway, N. J., 2010, pp. 199–217.

My detailed article “United in the strife that divided them: Jacob of Serugh and Narsai on Themes from Genesis” is forthcoming in Δελτίο Βιβλικῶν Μελετῶν 32.1 (June 2017).

Introduction

6

(18)

Chapter I

The vicarious kingship of David

1. Messianic language in JSTamar 45–46

Jacob of Serugh introduces the theme of the vicarious kingship of Adam when he elaborates on Gen 1:26–27 in his verse-homily On Tamar (Gen 38), ll. 41–46.

Why should this fifth / sixth-century homilist dwell upon the creation of Adam specifically as a “vicarious king” (nāṭar dukktā) in a composition on a distinctly messianic theme? In this study, I shall attempt to answer this basic question. In doing so, I shall necessarily limit myself only to some of the problems involved in the study of JSTamar 41–46:

܇ܡܕܠܐ ܗܡܠܨܒ ܗܠ ܠܒܓ ܕܟ ܐܢܡܚܪ ܟܘܒܐ

܀ܒܪܝܐܕ ܐܪܦܥ ܬܒܛܨܢ ܟܒܕ ܗܒ ܐܘܗ ܪܨ ܟܠ

܇ܗܠ ܐܪܒ ܕܟ ܫܒܠܢܕ ܡܕܠܐ ܗܠ ܒܗܝ ܟܬܘܡܕ

܀ܢ̈ܝܢܐ ܐܢܩܢܘ ܐܬܝ̈ܖܒ ܠܥ ܐܘܗ ܟܠܡܢ ܿܗܒܕ

܇ܗܠ ܕܒܥ ܕܟ ܗܕܒܥ ܐܚܝܫܡ ܐܬܝܚܘܦܡܒ

܀ܬܢܐ ܐܬܐ ܕܥ ܐܬܟܘܕ ܪܛܢ ܐܡܠܥܒ ܐܘܗܢܕ When Your compassionate Father fashioned Adam in His image,

it was You He formed in him, so that in You the (lowly) dust, which was elevated to the state of majesty, might be adorned.

When He created him, it was Your likeness He gave Adam that he might put it on, so that in it he might reign [namlek] over (all) created things and make them his own.

When He made him, it was by (an act of) breathing [mappuḥitā] that He anointed him [mšiḥā ‘abdeh, lit. “He made him anointed”],

so that he might be a vicarious king [nāṭar dukktā] in the world until You come [‘ad ’āte

’att].¹

Sebastian Brock noted that the title malkā mšiḥā, one of the features which links early Syriac literary tradition with the milieu that produced the Palestinian targumim and, thus, points to the Jewish Palestinian origins of at least one strand of Syriac Christianity, is primarily used in early writings and is revived, for good reasons, in the seventh century.² Moreover, he demonstrated that, from among

1 Unless otherwise stated, the translations in this monograph are mine.

2 S. P. Brock, “Syria and Mesopotamia: The Shared Term Malka Mshiḥa,” in M. Bockmuehl and J. C. Paget, eds, Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, London and New York, 2007, pp. 171–182; id., “The Use of the Syriac Version in the

(19)

the passages where this messianic title crops up in the Palestinian targumim, in Syriac it becomes associated primarily with the Blessing of Judah at Gen 49:8–12. According to Brock, although the Jewish Palestinian attestations of the title focus on Gen 49:10, on the Syriac side the emphasis is placed on Gen 49:9 instead, indicating, thus, separate developments in the two traditions.³ Upon closer consideration, however, it would seem that this last point is not so and that, on the contrary, there is continuity over this detail as well between the Jewish and Christian Aramaic traditions. Seeing that my interpretation of Jacob’s lines hinges upon the fact that malkā mšiḥā relates specifically to Gen 49:10b, I should start by explaining why I believe this to be the case. Although my conclusion bolsters the link with Palestinian Judaism, I am not concerned with the problem of continuity per se.

Peshitta Gen 49:8–10 reads as follows:

.ܟܘܒܐܕ ܝܗ ̈ܘܢܒ ܟܠ ܢܘܕܓܣܢ .ܟܝܒ ̈ܒܕܠܥܒܕ ܠܐܕܩ ܠܥ ܟܕܝܐ .ܟܝ ̈ܚܐ ܢܘܕܘܢ ܟܠ ܐܕܘܗܝ ܐܝܪܘܓ ܟܝܐܘ .ܐܝܪܐ ܟܝܐ ܥܒܪܘ ܟܪܒ .ܬܩܠܣ ܝܪܒ ܠܐܛܩ ܢܡ .ܐܕܘܗܝ ܐܝܪܐܕ ܐܝܪܘܓ

ܝܗܘܝܡܝܩܢ ܘܢܡܘ .ܐܝܪܐܕ ܗܠܘ .ܝܗ ܗܠܝܕܕ ܢ ̇ܡ ܐܬܐܢܕ ܐܡܕܥ .ܝܗܘܠܓ̈ܖ ܬܝܒ ܢܡ ܐܢܩܕܒܡܘ .ܐܕܘܗܝ ܢܡ ܐܛܒܫ ܕܢܥܢ ܠܐ

ܐܡ ̈ܡܥ ܢܘܟ ̇ܣܢ Judah, it is you your brothers will praise; your hand will be on the neck of your enemies;

the sons of your father will bow down before you.

Judah is the whelp of the lion; from murder, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down and crouched like a lion, and like the whelp of the lion, and who will rouse him up?

The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the expositor from between his feet, until there comes he to whom it belongs: it is him the peoples will expect.

As is well known, already in the fourth century Gen 49:10b appears in the expanded form “until there comes He to whom malkutā belongs” (‘dammā dnite

Liturgy,” in B. ter Haar Romeny, ed., The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy, Leiden, 2006, pp. 3–25, at 18–19; id., “Some Distinctive Features in Syriac Liturgical Texts,” in R. R. Ervine, ed., Worship Traditions in Armenian and the Neighboring Christian East, Crestwood, New York, 2006, pp. 141–160, at 145; and id., “Divine Titles and Epithets in Syriac Writings: Some Ap- proaches,” Parole de l’Orient 38 (2013), pp. 35–48, at 43–44. For Brock’s thesis regarding the Jewish Palestinian origins of a robust strand of early Syriac Christianity, see his “A Palestinian Targum Feature in Syriac,” Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995), pp. 271–288, especially 279–281;

id., “An Early Interpretation of pāsaḥ: ’aggēn in the Palestinian Targum,” in J. A. Emerton and S. C. Reif, eds, Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal, Cambridge, U. K., 1982, pp. 27–34; id., “Passover, Annunciation and Epiclesis: Some Remarks on the Term

’aggēn in the Syriac Versions of Lk. 1:35,” Novum Testamentum 24:3 (1982), pp. 222–233; id.,

“The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1:35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation,” in W. L. Pe- tersen, ed., Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text and Transmission, pp. 117–131, Indiana, 1989; and id., “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources,” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979), pp. 212–232.

3 Brock, “Syria and Mesopotamia: The Shared Term Malka Mshiḥa,” p. 177; id., “Divine Titles and Epithets in Syriac Writings,” p. 44, n. 44.

8 Chapter I: The vicarious kingship of David

(20)

man ddileh [h]i malkutā), a reading which also provides a link with Palestinian Judaism.⁴ A witness to that form of the verse (cf. CommGen 113:20 and 114:7–8), Ephrem interprets Gen 49:10b christologically by strictly limiting the Judahite and Davidic interpretations to what precedes that segment of the prophetic ut- terance, i. e. to Gen 49:8–10a, cf. CommGen 113:25–30:

Indeed, although the passage (which begins) from “Judah, it is you your brothers will praise” [Gen 49:8a] and includes “the sceptre and the expositor will not depart” [Gen 49:10a] should be understood with reference to Judah and to the kingship of David and the sons of David, who (descended) from Judah, the passage, however, (which begins) from

“until there comes He to whom it belongs [Gen 49:10b], etc.” should be understood with reference to the Son of God in truth [šarrirā’it], and not by any means with reference to David and the sons of David, who (descended) from Judah.⁵

Here, the concern of Ephrem is not so much to restrict the christological interpretation to Gen 49:10b as to prevent the Davidic interpretation from being extended beyond Gen 49:10a.⁶ Elsewhere in his œuvre Ephrem does not hesitate to retroject the christological interpretation upon “the whelp of the lion” at Gen 49:9.⁷ A case in point is HNat VI, 19, where “the Whelp of the Lion” (guryā daryā), new-born Jesus, is antagonized by “the paltry Fox” (ta‘lā šiṭā), Herod the Great, in accordance with a traditional reading of Matthew 2 in light of the Blessing of Judah.⁸ In agreement with this reading of the Blessing, Jacob of Se- rugh does not extend the Davidic interpretation beyond Gen 49:10a and always interprets Gen 49:10b christologically. However, he also often reads “the whelp of the lion” at Gen 49:9 in the light of Gen 49:10b. Thus, in JSTamar 251–2, guryā daryā is taken in its Judahite context of Gen 49:9:

4 For the forms in which Gen 49:10b is attested in the Demonstrations, see T. Baarda, The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (I. Aphrahat’s Text of the Fourth Gospel), Am- sterdam, 1975, pp. 293 and 295–296, and R. J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage, Leiden, 1983, pp. 172–175. For Ephrem, see T. Jansma, “Ephraem on Genesis XLIX, 10. An Enquiry into the Syriac Text Forms as Presented in his Commentary on Genesis,” Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), pp. 247–256 (on Jansma’s interpretation of the expanded reading, see further Brock, “The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1:35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation,” p. 130). See also Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources,” p. 218; R. Mur- ray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge, U. K., 1975 (second edition: Piscataway, N. J., 2004), pp. 282–284; M. Weitzman, Introduction to the Syriac Version of the Old Testament, Cambridge, U. K., 1999, p. 137; J. F. Coakley, “Mushe bar Kepha and a Lost Treatise of Henana on Palm Sunday,” Le Muséon 120 (2007), pp. 301–325. Jacob of Serugh himself often works with that form of the verset, cf., e. g., Prose Homily IV (“On Palm Sunday”), 14 and 28, ed. F. Rilliet.

5 For an annotated translation and a discussion of CommGen 112:29–114:11, see section 8 below.

6 On hypotheses regarding the identity of the exegete(s) against whom Ephrem’s polemic in CommGen 113:21–25 is addressed, see section 8 below.

7 This retrojection is attested already at Revelation 5:5. It should be recalled, however, that Revelation was translated into Syriac only in the sixth century.

8 On the temporal adaptability of Gen 49:10b, taken to allude now to the Epiphaneia, now to the Parousia, see sections 7 and 8 below. HNat VI, 19–20 is discussed in Chapter II, section 5.1.

9

1. Messianic language in JSTamar 45–46

(21)

܇ ̇ܗܕܝܕܪܐ ܢܡ ̇ܗܪܦܘܫ ܐܘܗ ܩܝܕܡ ܐܝܦܚܬܡ ܕܟܘ

܀ ̇ܗܒ ܠܩܪܥܬܢܕ ܐܝܪܐܕ ܐܝܪܘܓܠ ܐܚܦ ܐܘܗܢܕ And, while (Tamar) was covered up, her beauty was peeping out through her veil that it might become a snare for the whelp of the lion [guryā daryā] to get entangled in it.

(tr. S. P. Brock, adapted)

By contrast, in the homily On the Massacre of the Babes, at JSB 1:141:14–15, Jacob identifies “the Whelp of the Lion” with new-born Jesus, closely following HNat VI, which he knows in depth:⁹

܇ܐܘܗ ܐܐܓܬܡ ܢܝܪܨܡ ܝܒ̈ܥܒ ܐܝܪܐܕ ܐܝܪܘܓ

܀ܗܬܘܕܒܘܡܠ ܐܘܗ ܠܟܪܕܙܡ ܐܛܝܫ ܠܐܥܬܘ The Whelp of the Lion [guryā daryā] was revelling in the forests of Egypt

and the paltry Fox was strutting up and down, (seeking) to destroy Him.

Finally, it is the strict boundary between Gen 49:8–10a and Gen 49:10b that Dem IV (“On Prayer”), 6, PS I, 148:7–9 presupposes: wabḥaṣṣeh ’itaw[hy] [h]wā guryā daryā Ihudā dbeh ṭmir [h]wā malkā mšiḥā (“And in his [i. e. Jacob’s] loins was the whelp of the lion, Judah, in whom malkā mšiḥā was hidden”). Pace Brock, here, Aphrahat does not “refer to malkā mšiḥā in connection with Gen 49:9,”

in contradistinction to Targum Neofiti, which reserves the messianic title for Gen 49:10b.¹⁰ In Syriac, no less than in Jewish Aramaic, malkā mšiḥā gravitates towards Gen 49:10b, not towards Gen 49:9. The question regarding the segment of the Blessing to which this messianic title pertains will ultimately prove important for our understanding of JSTamar 45–46. As CommGen 113:25–30, quoted above, manifests, a clear line is drawn between, on the one hand, the Davidic kings, spoken about at Gen 49:10a, and, on the other hand, Christ (the King), spoken about at Gen 49:10b. This sharp contrast will become all the more evident, when it is further emphasized with reference to Jer 33:14–26 in section 2 and when its implications are brought out in section 4 below.

Before I take the first step towards interpreting JSTamar 45–46 in the light of the Blessing of Judah, I shall focus on a detail of Gen 49:10b which firmly ties the title malkā mšiḥā to that verset. Upon examination of the passages which Brock amassed in order to contextualize it, it transpires that malkā mšiḥā markedly tends to appear in connection with the verb “to come,” which, as is well known, has strongly messianic connotations. Here, I only need to present a couple of examples:¹¹

9 On JSB 1:141:14–15, see my article “The Making of a Syriac Fable: From Ephrem to Roma- nos,” Le Muséon 120 (2007), pp. 29–75, at 49–60.

10 Brock, “Syria and Mesopotamia: The Shared Term Malka Mshiḥa,” pp. 176–177.

11 They are drawn from Brock, “Syria and Mesopotamia: The Shared Term Malka Mshiḥa,”

pp. 178–180.

10 Chapter I: The vicarious kingship of David

(22)

Index of Biblical References

Genesis

1–2 36

1:26–27 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 23, 74, 77, 139, 141, 142, 146, 150, 152, 155, 173, 174, 175, 1:26–28 18513

1:26 131, 140, 151

1:28 139, 185

2:7 13, 23, 131, 142, 146, 151

2:9 188

2:17 132, 180

3:17 30, 182

3:24 137

5:3 32

5:22 108

5:24 95, 108

5:29 165, 180

6:1–4 197

6:6 109, 181, 184

6:9 108, 183

6:22 183

7:5 183

7:9 183

7:16 183

9:16 185

10:21 170 (n. 93) 13:14–15 29 14:14–16 94, 95, 115

14:14 115

14:18 163, 164

14:22–24 94, 95, 104 15 2, 24, 34, 94, 96

15:1 94, 95

15:3 19

15:5 27, 28, 97, 98 15:6 96, 97, 98, 100, 105

15:11 182

15:13 27

15:8 19, 28, 29

15:9 111, 114

15:13 19

15:18 19

15:18–21 20 15:19–21 19

17 114

17:6 114

18:1–6 98

18:11–15 25

18:11 145

22 98, 100, 101, 102, 111, 22:1 14597, 100

22:9 102

22:12 100, 101

22:18 98, 104

24:40 95, 108

26:5 104

27:39a 40

27:40 39, 49

37 58

37:26–27 56 (n. 144, n. 151), 58, 59 38 1, 4, 7, 13, 77, 193 38:26–27 59

41:43b 78

48 56 (n. 145)

49:8–10 8, 9, 10, 20, 117 49:8–11 3, 55

49:8–12 1, 8

49:8 9, 12, 18, 19, 20, 56, 58, 59 49: 9 8, 9, 10, 42, 56, 59, 60, 63,

86, 122, 123, 132

49:10 passim

49:11 57

Exodus

6:23 68

(23)

Leviticus

26:44 17

Numbers

1:10 56

4 156

25:12–13 155 Deuteronomy

17:15 69 (n. 197), 72, 73, 126, 17:14–20 15373, 126

32:21 37 (n. 78) Judges

2:1 17

2:18 115 (n. 132)

3:9 115 (n. 132)

3:15 115 (n. 132)

1 Samuel

1:5 27 (n. 64 n.)

2:35 106

13:14 105, 106

15:1 104, 180, 181

15:9 180

15:11 109, 184

15:19 104

15:23 104, 180

15:24 182

15:27–28 89 (n. 55)

15:28 105

16:1 104, 180

16:1–13 106

16:11 119

16:12 107, 108

16:14 180

17:8 (LXX) 61

17:15 119

17:32 144, 160 (n. 60), 180 18:30 89 (n. 55)

24:5 89

26 104

2 Samuel

5:2 88

1 Kings

1:47 117

2:4 22

4:21 19

8:25 22

9:2 108

9:5 22

11:29–32 89 (n. 55) 2 Kings

2:9–10 31 (n. 72)

2:11 31 (n. 72)

23:11 118

3:27 144

1 Chronicles

5:2 82 (n. 38)

6:13 68 (n. 191)

11:2 88, 119

23:3 156

29:23 89 (n. 55) 2 Chronicles

6:16 22, 117

7:18 22

13:4–5 91

13:5 91, 92

26:16–23 174 Nehemiah

9:7–8 96, 97, 98 Job14:7 186, 189

26:13 134

36:7 22

Psalms

8:5 175

8:6 174

68(67):14 59 (n. 170)

68:1–2 126–129

68:31 49 (n. 129)

69:26 33

72:10–11 117

80:8ff 57

88:21 (LXX) 105

91:13b 117

110:4 160, 162, 163 (n. 67) Index of Biblical References

222

(24)

Proverbs

30:29–31 60 (n. 172), 122 30:30 56, 59, 60 Isaiah

7:14 34

41:8 100, 101

42:3 (LXX) 127

42:13 40

47:1 164 (n. 71)

51:2 27, 28 (n. 65) 53:12 51 (n. 133) Jeremiah

6:2 164 (n. 71)

23:5–6 14, 16, 21, 22, 23 33:14–26 2, 3, 4, 10, 13–23, 30, 34,

59, 69, 91, 114, 193

35 22

35:18–19 22

37:1 16

Ezekiel

16:60 17

33:24 27, 28

34:23 88, 119

34:24 73

37:16 112

37:22 73

37:24–25 73

37:24 88, 112, 119 Daniel

3:20–21 102

3:23–24 102

4 132, 146, 174, 198

4:12 200

4:14 199

4:23 200

6:8 91

7 38 (n. 82), 41

7:5 42

7:6 41

7:7 41, 42 (n. 102) 7:13–14 38, 39 (n. 83), 46

7:13 38 (n. 82)

7:14 39

7:17–18 43

7:18 38, 44, 45, 46

7:25 129

7:27 38, 44, 45, 46

8:3–8 41, 42

8:7 42

9:15–19 30

9:26 32, 33, 34, 39

9:27 133

Hosea

8:10 38

Zechariah

3:8 16

4:12–14 15

6:12 16

9:9 11

13:9 144

Malachi

2:4–7 155

4:2 179

Wisdom

14:17 148

Ben Sira

6:31 174

44:15 (LXX) 31

44:17 109, 184, 185 (n. 137), 186, 187, 189 (n. 149)

44:20 97, 98

45:24–25 155

45:25 15

1 Maccabees

2:52 96, 97, 98

2:54 155

14:41 106 (n. 100) 2 Maccabees

9:9 124

Matthew

1:1–16 150

1:3 5, 152

2 9, 72, 92

2:1 153

223

Index of Biblical References

(25)

3:15 169, 170

5:13 91

12:20 127

19:12 111

20:1–16 49

20:16 49

21:43 40 (n. 89) 22:15–22 52, 54

22:17 52

22:19 52

Mark9:5 91

Luke1:78 16

2:1 50 (n. 133)

2:1–7 3, 43, 52, 54

2:2 40, 50, 52

2:10 151

3:2 153

3:23–38 150, 152

10:20 52

13:32 121

14:34 91

John3:27 167

1:14 146

11:51 153

19:34 137

Acts1:18 135, 136

5:37 40, 52

12:23 124

13:22 104, 105, 106, 115 26:24–25 90

27:14 126

Romans

4:18–19 27

4:19 27

5:14 132

10:19 37 (n. 78) 1 Corinthians

4 117

4:1–2 78

4:2 79, 98, 99

4:3 79

4:4–5 79

4:5 99

6:14 115 (n. 132)

13:10–12 32

15:24 32, 39, 48 (n. 121)

15:28 40

16:22 179

Galatians

3:16 91

Philippians

3:20 30 (n. 72)

Colossians

1:15 53

2 Thessalonians

2:3 72, 133, 134, 140, 192, 193 2:3–8 120, 133, 134

2:3–10 88

2:7 47

2:8 47, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 179

Hebrews

1:3 53, 128

5:12–14 32

7:3 160, 161, 162, 163

7:11 160, 169

7:15 160 (n. 60)

7:17 160, 161, 162, 163

9:19 162

11:8–16 2, 24, 29, 34

11:8 30

11:9 2, 3, 23, 24, 29, 30 11:10 23, 24, 29, 30 11:11–12 28, 29 11:11 24, 25, 26

11:12 27, 28

11:13–16 30

11:14 30 (n. 72), 35 11:16 2, 23, 24, 34 12:18–24 30

12:22 2, 3, 23, 24

13:14 30

224

(26)

James

1:8 144

2:21–23 99, 100, 101, 103

Revelation

5:5 9 (n. 7)

11:2 129

13:5 129

225

(27)

Index of Modern Authors

Allison, Dale C. 99 Alter, Robert 89 (n. 55) Altmann, Alexander 173

Amar, Joseph 112 (n. 122), 154 (n. 41) Ashbrook-Harvey, Susan 194 (n. 7) Attridge, Harold W. 35, 56 (n. 148), 162 Barnes, Timothy D. 54 (n. 143) Beck, Edmund 30 (n. 72), 53, 88, 91,

102, 112, 119, 125, 128, 143, 181, 186 (n. 142)

Bert, Georg 37 (n. 78), 38 (n. 79) Beskow, Per 81 (n. 36), 184

Blenkinsopp, Joseph 14 (n. 17), 16 (n. 33), 107 (n. 105)

Brayford, Susan 97 (n. 75)

Brock, Sebastian P. 7, 8, 26 (n. 62), 40 (n. 95), 50 (n. 132), 100, 102 (n. 87), 103 (n. 93), 110 (n. 118), 117, 118, 132 (n. 178), 143, 165 (n. 75), 168 (n. 90), 174, 176, 179, 188

Brockelmann, Carl 17 (n. 34), 89 (n. 55), 183 (n. 132)

Brooke, George J. 21

Brown, Peter 129 (n. 167), 191, 192 (n. 5), 195 (n. 12, n. 13, n. 14)

Bruns, Peter 37 (n. 78), 38 (n. 79, n. 83), 51 (n. 135), 86 (n. 46)

Buchheit, Vinzenz 43 (n. 103) Burnyeat, Michael 191 Calderone, Salvatore 46, 71, 75 Cassingena-Trévedy, Francois 91 Coakley, J. F. 60, 65

Collins, John J. 80 (n. 33)

Dagron, Gilbert 122 (n. 50), 179 (n. 121) Dölger, Franz Joseph 129, 130, 131 Drake, H. A. 46, 75 (n. 16)

Elm, Susanna 134 (n. 189) Ewig, Eugen 71

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 96

Fowden, Elizabeth Key 194 (n. 7) Frishman, Judith 28 (n. 65) Gordon, Robert P. 106 Griffith, Sidney 88 (n. 53)

Harl, Marguerite 94 (n. 66), 96, 97, 108 Harnack, Adolf von 74

Hayward, Robert 164 (n. 74) Hengel, Martin 189 (n. 149) Henze, Matthias 198 (n. 4) Hollerich, Michael J. 14, 154 Horbury, William 126

Inglebert, Hervé 41 (n. 97), 88 (n. 53), 135

Jansma, Taeke 57 (n. 160), 65, 163 (n. 66) Joosten, Jan 38 (n. 80)

Kantorowicz, Ernst 35 (n. 73), 170 (n. 92), 176 (n. 110), 179 (n. 119)

Koder, Johannes 114, 115, 116, 173 Kugel, James 94 (n. 67), 96, 97 (n. 75), 100

(n. 79), 102 (n. 87) Kurmann, Alois 134 Lestienne, M. 107

Levenson, Jon D. 18, 22, 23 (n. 55) Lunn-Rockliffe, Sophie 77 (n. 24) Lust, Johan 15 (n. 27), 16 (n. 32) Maccarrone, Michele 74 (n. 14) MacCormack, Sabine 148 (n. 26), 176

(n. 110), 179 (n. 118)

(28)

McCarthy, Carmel 32, 33 McIvor, J. S. 92

McVey, Kathleen E. 91, 137 (n. 192) Matthews, Edward 24 (n. 58), 27 (n. 64),

28 (n. 65), 29 (n. 66), 29 (n. 67), 37 (n. 77), 56 (n. 148), 61, 62, 64 Menze, Volker 72 (n. 6) Meyendorff, John 88 (n. 53) Milik, J. T. 132

Mitsakis, Konstantinos 116 (n. 136) Murray, Robert 36, 38 (n. 79, n. 82, n. 83, n. 85), 40 (n. 94, n. 95), 45 (n. 109), 51 (n. 137), 57 (n. 162), 81 (n. 36), 102 (n. 90), 112 (n. 123), 157, 170, 191

Nock, Arthur D. 53

Noetlichs, Karl-Leo 74 (n. 14)

Nöldeke, Theodor 57 (n. 158), 102 (n. 87), 112 (n. 122)

Owens, Robert J. 11, 12, 39 (n. 88) Peterson, Erik 51 (n. 135, n. 136), 76, 78,

99, 156, 164 (n. 73)

Pierre, Marie-Joseph 38 (n. 79, n. 83), 48, 50, 51 (n. 133)

Pomykala, Kenneth E. 21, 22 Price, Simon R. F. 141 (n. 7)

Rapp, Claudia 71 Reeves, John C. 187

Ridolfini, Francesco Pericoli 37 (n. 78), 38 (n. 79), 39 (n. 83)

Robert, Louis 141 (n. 6)

Romeny, R. B. ter Haar 181 (n. 125) van Rompay, Lucas 36 (n. 75), 60, 65, 161

(n. 64)

Rubin, Uri 194 (n. 11) Schwartz, Daniel R. 21 Segal, Alan F. 65, 66,

Segal, J. B. 110 (n. 112, n. 113, n. 117) Simelidis, Christos 135 (n. 189), 145, 146 Stichel, Rainer 106 (n. 99)

Swetnam, James 96 (n. 75) Thome, Felix 67 (n. 188)

Thraede, Klaus 90 (n. 57), 131 (n. 174) Vergani, Epidio 37 (n. 78), 38 (n. 79), 48,

51 (n. 133)

Wood, Philip 89 (n. 55) Weinfeld, Moshe 18, 24 (n. 57) Weitzman, Michael 22 Wevers, John W. 73 Witztum, Joseph 194 (n. 8) Wohlenberg, Gustav 133, 134

227

Index of Modern Authors

100 Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

100

Manolis Papoutsakis

Vicarious Kingship

A Theme in Syriac Political Theology in Late Antiquity

Mohr Siebeck

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

Introduction

The vicarious kingship of David

Index of Biblical References

Index of Modern Authors