[Draft May 16, 1998; 3rd revision Dec/2000.....Intro/Menu]
Literary References
Section
................................................................................................................
2. Do we have any literary references or clear allusions to the Book in other
pre-Maccabean extra-biblical literature?
We have a couple of obvious problems here:
1.
where is the pre-167 BC
literature?
2.
how would we identify references or 'clear allusions'?
3.
how will we determine the direction of borrowing (if it is
not obvious from other factors)?
........................................................................................................................................
Problem One: Where is
the pre-167 BC literature?
The obvious
places to look first are in the
Pseudepigrapha and the Apocrypha, but how much of this will be in the early 2nd
century?
A glance at the
table of contents of the Pseudepigrapha
in Charlesworth's OTP yields the following list:
OTP: Volume One
o
1
Enoch (2nd BC - 1st AD)
o
2 Enoch (late
1st AD)
o
3 Enoch (5-6th
AD)
o
Sibylline
Oracles (2nd BC - 7th AD)
o
Treatise of Shem
(1st BC)
o
Apocryphon of
Ezekiel (1st BC - 1st AD)
o
Apocalypse
of Zephaniah (1st BC - 1st AD)
o
4th Ezra (late
1st AD)
o
Greek Apocalypse
of Ezra (2-9th AD)
o
Vision of Ezra
(4-7th AD)
o
Questions of
Ezra (date unk.)
o
Revelation of Ezra
(prior to 9th AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Sedrach (2-5th AD)
o
2 Baruch (early
2nd AD)
o
3 Baruch (1-3rd
AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Abraham (1-2nd AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Adam (4-5th AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Elijah (1-4th AD)
o
Apocalypse of
Daniel (9th AD)
o
Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs (2nd BC)
o
Testament of Job
(1st BC - 1 AD)
o
Testament of
Abraham (1-2nd AD)
o
Testament of
Isaac (2nd AD)
o
Testament of
Jacob (2-3 AD)
o
Testament of
Moses (1st AD)
o
Testament of
Solomon (1-3rd AD)
o
Testament of
Adam (2-5th AD)
OTP: Volume Two:
o
Letter
of Aristeas (3rd BC - 1st AD)
o
Jubilees (2nd
BC)
o
Martyrdom and
Ascension of Isaiah (2nd BC - 4th AD)
o
Joseph and
Aseneth (1st BC - 2nd AD)
o
Life of Adam and
Eve (1st AD)
o
Pseudo-Philo
(1st AD)
o
The Lives of the
Prophets (1st AD)
o
Ladder of Jacob
(1st AD)
o
4 Baruch (1-2nd
AD)
o
Jannes and
Jambres (1-3rd AD)
o
History of the
Rechabites (1-4th AD)
o
Eldad and Modad
(prior to 2nd AD)
o
History of
Joseph (prior to 4th AD)
o
Ahiqar (7-6 BC)
[Not a Jewish work; would pre-date Daniel anyway]
o
3 Maccabees (1st
BC)
o
4 Maccabees (1st
AD)
o
Pseudo-Phocylides
(1st BC - 1st AD)
o
The Sentences of
the Syriac Menander (3rd AD)
o
More Psalms of
David (3rd BC - 1st AD)
o
Prayer of
Manasseh (2nd BC - 1st AD)
o
Psalms of
Solomon (1st BC)
o
Hellenistic
Synagogal Prayers (2-3rd AD)
o
Prayer of Joseph
(1st AD)
o
Prayer of Jacob
(1-4th AD)
o
Odes of Solomon
(late 1-2nd AD)
OTP: Supplement: Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works:
o
Philo the Epic
Poet (3-2nd BC)
o
Theodotus (2-1st
BC)
o
Orphica (2nd BC
- 1st AD)
o
Ezekiel
the Tragedian (2nd BC)
o
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek
Poets (3-2nd BC)
o
Aristobulus (2nd
BC)
o
Demetrius the
Chronographer (3rd BC)
o
Aristeas the
Exegete (prior to 1st BC)
o
Eupolemus (prior
to 1st BC)
o
Pseudo-Eupolemus
(prior to 1st BC)
o
Cleodemus
Malchus (prior to 1st BC)
o
Artapanus (3-2nd
BC)
o
Pseudo-Hecataeus
(2nd BC - 1 AD)
Apocrypha (dating from NWNTI:9-19; HCSB):
o
1 Esdras (2nd
BC)
o
2 Esdras = 4th
Ezra (1-3 AD)
o
Tobit (2nd BC)
o
Judith (2nd BC)
o
Additions to
Esther (2-1st BC)
o
Wisdom of
Solomon (1st BC)
o
Sirach/Ecclesiasticus (Hebrew 180 BC; Greek xlate 132 BC)
o
Baruch = 1 Baruch (200-60 BC)
o
Letter of
Jeremiah (3rd BC)
o
Prayer of
Azariah and the Song of the Three Children (2-1st BC) [Additions to Daniel]
o
Susanna (3-1st BC)[Additions to
Daniel]
o
Bel and the
Dragon (3-1st BC)[Additions to Daniel]
o
1
Maccabees (late 2nd BC)
o
2
Maccabees (mid 2nd BC)
As you can probably tell, there is not a lot of literature that falls into the pre-Maccabean
period in the above lists. However, scholars have isolated sections from many
of these larger works, which are considered to be within our period. It is these that we
will try to examine.
Problem Two: how will be identify literary
references and/or clear allusions?
This area can be notoriously difficult and
subjective, but lack of specificity in criteria cannot stop us from at least
trying. In philosophy, there is a type of fallacy called "the fallacy of
the beard". This fallacy deals with situations in which we cannot specify exactly when (and how we
will therefore know) facial hair 'stubble' becomes 'a beard'. We can recognize obvious beards and obvious stubble, and our inability to
articulate precisely the difference between two does not impair (or
"de-justify") our ability to spot/admit OBVIOUS cases of each.
As applied to allusion and quotation, we will
try to identify "plausibly obvious" cases (I will confine myself to
those recognized by scholars in print, so that my personal subjectivity will be
minimized). We will first note some of the approaches offered and concerns
voiced, by those who work in this area.
"First of all, 'verbal
parallels' is a term that will be used in this work to designate the occurrence
of two or more passages of distinctive
content, ranging in length from a few significant words to several sentences, which display
identical or minimally divergent wording.
The word 'verbal' distinguishes these passages from those which treat similar
themes or topoi but whose wording does not correspond.: [OT:SQVP:19]
"Allusions are identified
primarily on the basis of rare but
significant repeated words which often use the terms in a different
manner or for a different purpose." [OT:SQVP:49]
"More recently, another
case of inner-scriptural interpretation was examined by John Day who sought to
demonstrate the dependence of Isa. 26.13-27.11 on Hos. 13.4-14.10." Day
used a cumulative argument, noting that, of eight parallels, all but one occur in the same order in both
sources. He also considered it significant that both passages came at the end
of their respective compositions. Of the
eight parallels, only one consists of verbal similarities, the
others exhibiting thematic similarities, such as identical images (birth pangs,
east wind, dew, vineyard), or motifs (deliverance from Sheol, idolatry, need
for discernment). Day made a strong case for some type of dependence involving
Hosea and Isaiah, though he simply assumed that Isaiah is the borrower. Although one might
question the evidential value of some of his thematic parallels, one must agree
with him that verbal parallels are not
essential in order to claim literary borrowing." [OT:SQVP:93]
"Other than the
Jerusalem elders' citation of Micah in Jeremiah's day (Jer. 26.17-19), Daniel's
reference to Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years (Dan. 9.2), and some oblique
references to the words of earlier prophets in Ezekiel (Ezek. 38.17) and
Zechariah (Zech. 1.4), verbal parallels offer the only evidence that oracles were known to contemporary or later
prophets, or to the general populace-which is
also essential, since most scholars seem to imply that the employment of
quotation must be apparent to the audience in order for it to function as
intended. "
[OT:SQVP:109]
"Frequently the
resemblances are better to be explained as due either to dependence upon a common tradition or to the use of set phrases found in religious
compositions of almost any period of Old Testament History" (Ackroyd,
cited in [OT:SQVP:111]
"Because verbal and not
thematic parallels are his primary concern, he
sets down some minimum standards for the passages to be considered:
the texts must share at least two key words
(though one may suffice if it is particularly striking and central to the
phrase) and 'there must be some relationship between the development
of thought in the two texts.'"
[OT:SQVP:121]
"What is more
important, however, and much more difficult to determine, is how close and
extensive the verbal correspondence had to be for ancient readers to recognize
a quotation. Remarkably, the exact quotation
is virtually non-existent in Egyptian literature. Orthographic
changes, syntactical simplification, substitution of near synonyms, variations
in word order, grammatical updating, necessary adjustments in person, number
and verbal form, as well as extensive paraphrasing and expansions frequently
occur. Helck may be correct when he suggests that certain elements of a sentence (Brunner's 'catchwords'?) must remain basically intact in a quotation, but if
this requirement is met, a rather
extensive revision of the remaining elements can be tolerated." [OT:SQVP:123]
"In fact, a quotation may, through repeated usage, gradually
attain the currency of a popular proverb, whose historical or
literary origin becomes forgotten and even irrelevant to its proper
understanding." [OT:SQVP:196]
"the absence of introductory formulae in
prophetic quotation cannot mean that its
detection is not intended" [OT:SQVP:228:236]
"These passages
illustrate the problem of trying to distinguish between quotation and topos. In
quotation one is looking for the repetition
of significant words and syntactical structures; with topos one
simply seeks the repetition of various terms conceptually
related to a theme or topic. The topos of the highway in the
wilderness is an oft-repeated theme within Isaiah...and, as a result, several
of the Hebrew terms used to describe the highway, its construction and
maintenance, and travel upon it necessarily will be repeated several times.
This is, however, a se of reuse of
imagery, not of verbal dependence or quotation." [OT:SQVP:228:273]
"Yet the comparative material suggests that minimal
marking generally is the practice in literature contemporary to the
Old Testament and even later Jewish literature...One is forced to draw one of
two conclusions: either the readers or listeners are not expected to identify
the verbal parallel or they are
considered competent to recognize it despite
only minimal marking." [OT:SQVP:331]
"It is all too easy to
run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under
a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must have similar ideas
underlying them and, second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed,
with a similar conceptual usage and, ideally, that they should point to a
specific myth or group of related myths in Mesopotamia." [HI:GMM:7]
"In other words,
allusion consists not only in the echoing of an earlier text but in the utilization of the marked material for some
rhetorical or strategic end." [OT:PRSA:15]
"allusions are distinct
from mere echo. The meaning of an alluding text is affected by the content of
the source text, while echoes do not suggest any altered understanding of the
passage in which they appear. Formally, however echoes resemble allusions in that
both borrow vocabulary, images, or other elements from the older text,
and many of the purpose or reasons for allusion apply equally well to
echo." [OT:PRSA:31]
"Markers (usually borrowed vocabulary) point the
reader to the older text, though only if the reader is familiar with them....In
this formal category, the new text reuses vocabulary
or imagery from the source...Probably the largest number of cases of
what scholars have generally called 'inner-biblical exegesis' belongs to this
category. For example, Mal 1.6-2.9 and Psalms 4 and 67 contain many vocabulary
items found in the ancient priestly benedictions known to us from Num 6.23-27. The abundance of markers point
back to the older text makes clear that Malachi and the psalmists borrow from
that text, even though none of these authors cites the older text by name"
[OT:PRSA:21]
"Another circumstantial
criterion would be the number of parallels from the same source fond in the
same author or in the same period."
[Tigay, in TS:250]
So, these observations might yield the
following guidelines for us:
It may be instructive to see how
"numerous, complex, and detailed" these parallels should be, for comparing with our
examples. Let's use the example of Psalm 4, given by Sommer and Fishbane:
"Ps. 4 contributes
another example of the impact of the Priestly Blessing on the liturgical life
of ancient Israel, as reflected in the Psalter. It is particularly significant
since it provides a literary form manifestly different from that found in Ps.
67. In the later, Num. 6:24-26 is first (partially) cited and only then applied
(cf. v.3). By contrast, in Ps. 4 the key terms of the Priestly Blessing are
spread throughout the piece, serving simultaneously as its theological
touchstone and its ideological matrix. The psalmist first calls upon YHWH to
'favour me' and hear his prayer (v. 2); then, after citing those disbelievers
'who say: 'who will show us any good?'", the psalmist calls upon YHWH to
'raise over us the light of your presence' (v.7). The psalmist concludes with a
reference to Shalom, peace or well-being (v.9)...." [BIAI:303-331]
Here are the passages, with the common words (in the underlying Hebrew)
in bold:
The Lord
bless you and keep you; 25 the Lord make his
face to shine upon you, and be
gracious to you; 26 the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and
give you peace. 27 So they shall
put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them. [NRSV]
Answer me
when I call to you, O my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress; be merciful to me and hear my prayer. 2 How long, O men, will you turn my
glory into shame? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods? Selah 3 Know that the LORD has set
apart the godly for himself; the LORD will hear when I call to him. 4 In your anger do not sin; when you
are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent. Selah 5 Offer right sacrifices and trust in the LORD. 6 Many are asking, “Who can show us any
good?” Let the light of your face shine upon
us, O LORD. 7 You have filled my heart with greater joy than when
their grain and new wine abound. 8 I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell
in safety. [NIV]
Now, these are not very technical terms, but
they do show up in a highly used liturgical formula, which would have been very
familiar to the people. The original saying would have become part of the
liturgical 'background', against which Psalm 4 would have sounded. This would
have evoked the liturgical tradition and situated the psalmist in that stream
of memory and tradition. So Sommer,
"The presence of the
familiar vocabulary does, however, affect the reader, who experiences the
pleasure of recognition and realizes that the psalm is part of a particular
liturgical tradition. Further, the reuse of the vocabulary may represent a
claim to authority by the psalms or an attempt by them to reinforce the
authority of the ancient benediction." [OT:PRSA:31]
This is a an example of what I personally
would consider 'borderline', since these terms are used widely in the culture,
but it will function as a 'test case' by which we can compare any cases of
possible verbal parallels below.]--just to see if I am being too 'generous' or
speculative...(smile)
.............................................................................................................
Pushback:
"Why would we look for a specific document, Glenn, for a source, when
'common tradition' would always be a safer bet? To go beyond assuming a writer
used phrases and images from some
common stock of 'now anonymous'
religious phrases or images, to assuming a writer used phrases from a specific source seems inherently more
risky."
Excellent question...I personally don't find
the notion of a large body of
'anonymous authoritative common tradition' (as opposed to, say, folklore
and fable) to be very meaningful for ancient cultures, especially Israel.
Phrases, images, and concepts enter some common literary
parlance in a society only via
extraordinary events (with a linguistic aspect). These outstanding events may
be speeches of highly visible leaders (e.g. "I have a dream...",
"ask not what your country can do for you..."), highly visible
"news events" (e.g., "He ain't heavy, he's my brother...",
"sputnik"), or highly visible and provocative literary works (e.g.
the KJV bible and Shakespeare in Western Culture). In the case of specialized and technical phraseology, there
literally has to be argumentation of force
and influence creating/using these terms in this "new
way", for the subject-matter audience to begin using it in this way. These
don't just 'pop up'--they look more like micro-sized paradigm shifts. In
technical areas, we can (and do) trace the origination of key phrases and
terms, and in the 'review of the literature' section of monographs, discuss the
originating author(s).
In other words, you don't get technical
phrases and "re-usable" images, useful to the literary 'producers' of a culture, without some generative event [we will talk
about the non-literary 'consumers' in a moment]. In the ancient world, this
event could be a war speech, famous legal brief, literary composition, or
foreign messenger report. But it always started somewhere, and 'somewhere' was always known at first.
In these cultures, though, 'known at first'
meant 'known forever'...
In traditional cultures such as in the ANE,
there was tremendous solidarity with the past. Tradition was supremely valued,
and especially in Israel, the closer one could stay to the 'traditions of the
elders' the safer and more authoritative one's own works were. This can be seen
even in the OT/Tanakh, where prophetic oracles are repeated over and over, from
one generation of prophets to the next. Authority in the ANE was always tied to
either antiquity (e.g. dynastic leaders always tried to show their 'genealogy')
or to power (e.g., conquest, sorcery, access to the gods). Literature was
constantly re-used, and as Schultz notes:
"Finally, if most of the
passages examined above constitute genuine quotations, then literary borrowing was an acknowledged and relatively
widespread rhetorical device in the ancient New East. It indicates
both a continued knowledge of literature for
as long as one to two millennia and its continued authority." [OT:SQVP:143]
And yet, we have already noted that the
comparative literature in the ANE only
infrequently marked this author-conscious literary borrowing by
authorial reference.
In these cultures, too, we must recognize the
relative [to media-rich, modern cultures] scarcity of 'formative' literary
works. Although literacy among the common Israelite might have been better than
among other peoples of the same period, there would still have only been a
relative few who could read the literary 'canon' (in the sense of culturally
'important' books) and even fewer who could generate literary works. The value
placed on these works (due to rarity, connections with authority, potential
usefulness--especially in the case of religious/magical texts--and often,
brilliance and vividness) would guarantee frequent copying and protection, and
hence, increase dramatically our chances of finding these in our 'digs'. They,
of course, also generated hours of 'discussion and argument' among the
leadership, and tons of literary references (and even explicit citation), from
which we know about these as well (see [OT:SQVP] and [BTM] for numerous
examples).
Indeed, the very process of learning how to read and write (for these later literary 'producers') was one of constant immersion in these author-noted texts! The process of scribal education was one of tedious and incessant copying of these formative texts, and often involved complete