Erkki Koskenniemi Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism 2005 PDF

ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI
The Old Testament

Miracle-Workers
in Early Judaism
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe
206
Mohr Siebeck
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe
Herausgeber / Editor
Jorg Frey
Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors
Friedrich Avemarie Judith Gundry-Volf
Martin Hengel Otfried Hofius Hans-Josef Klauck
206
Erkki Koskenniemi
The Old Testament

Miracle-Workers in
Early Judaism
Mohr Siebeck
ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI, born 1956; Classical studies at the University of Turku; 1979 Mag. phil.;
1984 Mag. theol.; 1992 PhD at Abo Akademi; Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki,
Joensuu and of at Abo Akademi; teacher of biblical theology in Lutheran Evangelical Asso
ciation in Finland.
ISBN 3 - 1 6 - 1 4 8 6 0 4 - 8
ISSN 0 3 4 0 - 9 5 7 0 (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.
2 0 0 5 by Mohr Siebeck Tubingen, 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 Gulde-Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper and bound by
Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg.
Printed in Germany.
Preface
I did not know where the path would lead me in 1983/84, when I prepared
to leave Finland to study classical philology in Tubingen with the gentle
help of the DAAD. After my master's thesis on Apollonius, which luckily
was written only in Finnish and never printed, I was anxious about the
theme of my further study. I could not find a way to approach Apollonius
of Tyana, the primary target of my interest, and not Philostratus, who
wrote about Apollonius in about A.D. 220. Shortly before leaving Finland
I thought I had found a solution: I abandoned Apollonius and started to
investigate Philostratus and his intentions. It took time before I - a young
student of classical philology - realised that I had reinvented redaction
criticism and done a lot of needless work seeking the method. Yet, I finally
felt that I had advanced, and my time in Tubingen was a good one, during
which I enjoyed and benefited from the deep knowledge of the philologists
at the university. After my work was almost ready, I posted it to, among
others, Professor Jukka Thuren (Abo Akademi), who had been my teacher
during the slow progress of my theological studies. Typically for him, he
reacted immediately, realising that my ideas had direct consequences for
New Testament scholars: If Apollonius in Vita Apollonii Tyanensis was
mainly a product of the third and not of the first century A.D., he was to be
used only cautiously as a parallel figure to Jesus, although this had been
common.
After two enthusiastic weeks of work I could clarify my view on Apollo
nius in the New Testament exegesis to my teacher, and also present it to
Professor Martin Hengel, who had kindly invited me to his Oberseminar,
and now strongly encouraged me to continue on the course I had chosen. I
then published my work on Philostratus (Der philostrateische Apollonius,
1991), and wrote my theological dissertation on how Apollonius had been
used in New Testament exegesis {Apollonius von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterfilhrung der Diskussion, 1994). I challenged the view that Gentile miracle-workers were a
common phenomenon among the Greeks and Romans and that they were a
model for Jesus as he was presented in the Gospels. Scholars were never
able to name these many alleged men, but uncritically used Apollonius
when constructing the famous concept of "divine man". I wondered why
Jewish miracle-workers were so sorely overlooked by the scholars.
VI
Preface
The present book investigates the way the biblical miracles of the Old
Testament figures, such as Moses, Joshua and Elijah, are retold in early
Judaism. Some stories appear often and they share common nonbiblical
details, which leads to the supposition of a strong written and oral tradi
tion. I hope to still publish a book on historical Jewish miracle-workers in
Jesus' times, but even if that book is published someday, I still have no
solutions to several fascinating questions on the miracles of Jesus in the
Gospels, especially concerning the historical Jesus. This, then, is the third
book by the anxious man who found a sudden solution to an impossible
problem, and I do not know how many there will still be. It took about ten
years before the first two were finished, and more than ten before the ap
pearance of this volume. If anything, this process has taught me patience.
I owe my warm thanks to several scholars. Prof. Antti Laato generously
gave of his time to help me, and Prof. Martin Hengel's advice has been of
great value during the decade this book was written. The learned recom
mendations of Prof. Jorg Frey have improved this book. The warden of the
Tyndale House in Cambridge, Dr. Bruce Winter, and Dr. David InstoneBrewer helped me during the most difficult phases of the work. Timo Nisula, M.A., M.Th. always combines friendship with a strong indicium. The
scholars at the Centre of Excellence of the Finnish Academy, especially
professors Lars Aejmelaeus, Karl Gustaf Sandelin and Timo Veijola, have
helped me greatly. My father, Prof. Heikki Koskenniemi, and brother, the
Rev. Olli Koskenniemi, have offered many opportunities to discuss my
views. Nancy Seidel, M.A. has corrected the language.
During the writing of my book on Apollonius and New Testament exege
sis, our family grew by five sons. During the last ten years, Tuomas, Jo
hannes, Antti, Jaakko and Pietari have grown up to be eager partners in
discussions, and their love has given me strength and joy. My wife Marja
has not only allowed me to work but also supported and encouraged me.
"A wife of noble character who can find?" (Prov 31:10).
For a professor to lead an impatient young student of classical antiquity
into the rich world of the New Testament and to become his Doktorvater
should have been enough. However, during the most difficult phases of the
writing of this book, Professor Jukka Thuren still guided a slightly older
student into the world of early Judaism. It is a pleasure to dedicate this
book to him, although, as with all my works intended for his desk, it comes
terribly late.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
a. Preliminary definition of the task

b. What is a "miracle"?
c. Competing miracle-workers and a story about a modern category
d. Jewish miracle-workers in religious-historical study
e. A more precise definition of the task and method
1
1
3
5
11
2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira
17
a. Introduction
b. Moses
c. Joshua
d. Elijah
e. Elisha
f. Isaiah
g. Conclusion
17
19
26
31
37
39
41
3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

a. Introduction
b. Abraham
c. Moses
d. Conclusion
44
46
54
62
4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian
64
a. Introduction
b. The dialogue at the burning bush
c. The plagues told in advance
d. The miracle at the Red Sea
e. A miracle-worker - but how much more?
f. Conclusion
64
66
69
73
81
86
5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus

a. Introduction
b. The leader is called
c. The return, plagues and
d. The Red Sea and the desert
e. Conclusion
44
freedom
89
89
92
96
103
105
VIII
Table of Contents
6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

a. Introduction
b. The literal interpretation of the miracle stories
c. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle stories
d. Miracles explained rationally?
e. Miracles of the prophet
f. God or Moses?
g. Miracles and legitimisation
h. Conclusion
7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

a. Introduction
b. Isaiah
c. Jeremiah
d. Ezekiel
e. Daniel
f. Elijah
g. Elisha
h. Conclusion
8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

a. Introduction
b. Moses
c. Joshua
d. Kenaz
Excursus: Magical practices in L.A.B
e. Samson
f. David
g. Elijah /Phinehas
h. Conclusion
9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

a. Introduction
b. Moses
c. Joshua
d. Samson
e. Solomon
f. Elijah
g. Elisha
h. Conclusion
108
108
110
129
146
148
151
155
156
160
160
163
165
169
177
184
186
187
189
189
192
203
206
214
216
219
224
225
228
228
231
249
255
259
264
271
278
Table of Contents
10. Conclusion
a. LXX
b. The texts retold
c. The themes
d. The Greek influence
e. Biases and functions of the miracle stories
f. The audience
g. The roles of God and man and Moses' extraordinary position
h. Geography and chronology
IX
281
281
282
290
292
293
297
297
299
Bibliography
301
Index of References
321
Index of Subjects and Scholars
346
1. Introduction
a. Preliminary
definition of the task
The task of this book is to study how the Old Testament stories about He
brew miracle-workers were used in early Jewish literature. Everyone retell
ing a biblical story left his trace, making it possible to study what he re
tained, what he left, what he added and what he changed. The study also
reveals the early Jewish tradition, as well as various biases reshaping the
stories through nonbiblical details circulating in the oral and literary folk
lore of different eras.
b. What is a
"miracle"?
Neither the Old nor the New Testament contains anything that could be
characterised as a definition of a miracle, and the early Jewish texts do not
help either. Moreover, the Old Testament uses a variety of terms. God's
miracles are riVm, mK*?Q3, mn or D T I D I Q : All these words have been used
in different ways during the long history of the Jewish tradition and they
may include things not usually covered by modern definitions of miracle.
A definition can thus not be based on an ancient term. David Hume formu
lated possibly the most famous modern definition, which is very close to
Aristotle's words: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But even
1
nt>iy in the sense of God's 'mighty deeds' occurs in Deut 10:21; Jer 33:3; 45:5; Ps
71:19; 106:21; Job 5:9; 9:10; 37:5. 2 Kgs 8:4 uses it for Elisha's mighty deeds. On the
word see Jenni 1984, 402-409.
m*?S3 (from K*?s) points mostly to God's saving deeds in the past (Exod 3:20; Job
37:14). It does not necessarily mean a breaking of what we call the laws of nature, but
that God helps in a hopeless situation, perhaps in a very "natural" way; see Albertz 1984,
416-420.
rriR occurs 79 times in the Old Testament in all historical layers. On rm in the Old
Testament see Stolz 1984, 91-95.
irriDiD occurs in Exod 4:21 when God speaks to Moses about the miracles he should
make in Egypt. In Joel 3:3 it points to phenomena in the skies.
Aristotle said that a miracle was n a p a (|>uaiv (GA 770b). The similarity is, of course,
not a coincidence, since Aristotle's philosophy deeply influenced the medieval learned
world. Spinoza symbolized a milestone on the road to the modern concept. He dealt with
the possibility of miracles in 1670: God has created the world and its harmony and a
2
1. Introduction
that is very problematic in the study of the early Jewish material. The idea
of the laws of nature as separate from God's almighty power is seldom
even alluded to in the Jewish texts. Generally there are no laws to be bro
ken by an unusual event. God's help may come in a very natural way and
still be praised as his "miracle". Since Jewish texts thus do not give a basis
for a definition, and the modern view differs greatly from the world view
of the writers, the use of the term "miracle" is difficult. Further, it is not
always obvious whether, for instance, physical strength should be consid
ered a miracle or not: David's unexpected triumph over Goliath may not
have been supernatural in 1 Sam (although obviously in L.A.B. 61), but
Samson indeed had superhuman powers in Judges and certainly in L.A.B.
Some miracles are perhaps interpreted "rationalistically" in part of the tra
dition, but does a natural explanation mean that the writer has not believed
in miracles? It is impossible to find an unambiguous definition covering
the Jewish as well as the modern perspectives. It is understandable that
most studies dealing with miracles define the miracle very briefly or even
omit the definition altogether, as Barry Blackburn and Werner Kahl do.
Actually, Eric Eve suggests a new terminology, reserving the word "mira
cle" for the biblical phenomenon and using the concept "anomaly" for a
supposed exception to the laws of nature. Nevertheless, a sufficient defi
nition is possible. Bernd Kollmann studies the New Testament terminology
and observes that a modern view is incompatible with it. He uses a short
definition:
6
"In dieser Untersuchung wird der Begriff Wunder im uberkommenen Sinne als Sammelbezeichnung fur auBergewdhnliche, aufsehenerregende Taten Jesu wie anderer Gestalten
der Antike verwendet."
8
It may be considered problematic that a modern category including dispa

rate material is applied to the ancient texts, but Kollmann's formulation
provides a basis for the definition: A miracle is a fortuitous breaking of
what we (although not the writers) call the laws of nature and which God
9
miracle breaking the good order is not only a positive thing. A miracle is against nature
and against reason (see G. Maier 1986, 50-51).
On these works see below p. 4, 9, and 15.
Eve 2002, 1-2.
Kollmann 1996, 53-54.
John P. Meier (1994, 512-515) also uses a short definition: "A miracle is (1) an un
usual, startling, or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by any interested
and fair-minded observer, (2) an event that finds no reasonable explanation in human
abilities or in other known forces that operate in our world of time and space, and (3) an
event that is the result of a special act of God, doing what no human power can do."
However, it should be emphasized that also this definition results in a modern, collecting
category.
6
1. Introduction
or his agent allegedly causes.

several times in this study.
The theme, of necessity, must be discussed
c. Competing miracle-workers and a story

about a modern category
The study of the biblical miracles has held a central position in the New
Testament exegesis from at least the early 20 century. Richard Reitzenstein (1906, 1910) and Gillis Wetter (1916) considered that the first
Christians lived in an atmosphere of tough competition. This view is ex
pressed in the work of Helmut Koster (1982):
th
11
12
"Miracles were performed not only by Christian missionaries, as described in the Acts of
the Apostles and as Paul encounters them in the opponents of 2 Corinthians, but also by
Jewish preachers, Neopythagorean philosophers, and by many other teachers, physicians,
and magicians. The entire scale of miraculous deeds of power was commonly used, from
magical tricks to predictions of the future, from horoscopes to the healing of diseases and
maladies, even the raising of dead people. In those circles which were addressed by these
philosophers of the marketplace, the power of speech and the greatness of miracle would
have more profound effects than the depth and dignity of rational, moral, and religious
insight."
13
14
The competition with the "mob of divine or deified men" allegedly led
the first Christians to remodel their image of Jesus according to a pagan
pattern, and make him a Hellenistic divine man (0e?os avrjp). The ac
commodation to this model or the reaction against it allegedly colours all
canonical Gospels, the pre-Pauline tradition, Second Corinthians, First
Thessalonians and Philippians.
15
10
There are several borderline cases, such as the exceptional military strength men
tioned above. One of them is divination, either in dreams or through different particles or
astrological skills. They are excluded from the present study, but if a text retelling the
Old Testament miracles deals with these techniques with the aim of accepting (as Artapanus) or rejecting them (as Liber antiquitatum biblicarum), they are briefly men
tioned.
Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (1906) and Die hellenistischen
Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen (1910).
"Der Sohn Gottes". Eine Untersuchung iiber den Charakter und die Tendenz des
Johannes-Evangeliums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Heilandsgestalten
der
Antike.
Helmut Koster, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age 1-2, (1982, 1,
357).
"Mob of divine or deified man", Morton Smith 1970, 184.
A survey of the history of the research is found in Koskenniemi 1994, 114-168.
11
12
13
14
15
L Introduction
The concept of divine men was rarely motivated by ancient sources and
it is widely criticised today. The Graeco-Roman world knew famous fig
ures with a reputation for being miracle-workers, but both the heroes such
as Hercules and men from the past such as Pythagoras should be compared
to the Old Testament figures rather than to historical Jewish miracleworkers. Scholars have been able to name very few pagan miracle-workers
from the time of Jesus, although it has been somewhat easier to name
miracle-working gods, rulers and anonymous magicians. Moreover, the
concept is ambiguous in many ways. For example, Reitzenstein, Gillis
Wetter, Otto Weinreich and Ludwig Bieler differed greatly from each
other, and were all heavily influenced by the ideologies current in the late
16
17
16
The most important critique of the hypothesis of divine men comes from Klaus Berger, Otto Betz, Martin Hengel and Barry L. Blackburn (see Koskenniemi 1994, 232-233);
my book Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (1994) is also very
critical. David du Toit (1997) showed later in a detailed analysis that the words 6e?os
avrjp (av8pco7TOs) were not a fixed terminus technicus. See also the critical article of
Aage Pilgaard (1995) and the review in Hans-Josef Klauck's The Religious Context of
Early Christianity. A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (2000, 174-177). On Bernd
Kollmann's book see below p. 9.
See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. The last pre-Christian pagan miracle-worker known
to us is Menecrates, who lived about 300 BC. Alexander of Abonuteichos is the first
pagan miracle-worker known to us from contemporary sources after the time of Jesus.
His floruit was in about 150 AD. The man mentioned in most studies is Apollonius of
Tyana, who lived in the first century AD. However, the main source is Vita Apollonii
Tyanensis of Lucius Flavius Philostratus, which was written in the religious world of the
early 3 century (see Bowie 1978, Dzielska 1986 and Koskenniemi 1991). The main
lines of my dissertation (1994) have received mostly positive reviews so far (November
2003); see Peres 1995, 447-448; Thummel 1995, 801-802; Ziegenaus 1995, 154-155;
Danker 1996, 757-758. Jaap-Jan Flinterman, however, criticised them in a long review
(1996). He relies more on the sources on Apollonius than I do and considers it possible to
deal with the historical Apollonius. Moreover, he claims that there were more miracleworkers in Jesus' time, especially since it is not easy to draw the line between miracleworkers and magicians. I fully agree with Flinterman that Apollonius was considered a
magician before Philostratus (see Koskenniemi 1994, 211). However, although some
prominent scholars have tried to define here the historical nucleus, the historical figure
escapes us (Koskenniemi 1991, 58-69; I returned to the theme in an article, which is in
print). Also, neither Flinterman nor other scholars (Werner Kahl was not yet aware of my
book; see Kahl 1994, 58-61) have added many new figures to my list. Although it is not
easy to differentiate between magicians and miracle-workers, I considered it important,
after all the confusing discussion, to collect the names of the historical persons who acted
as miracle-workers and to study the common magical practices separately. The 0e?os
ocvrjp-hypothesis was constructed with very few sources and great ideological fervour,
moreover, with no respect for Jewish sourcees. It now seems reasonable to study the
religious-historical parallels carefully, step by step. Flinterman's article plays an impor
tant part in this work. On the discussion and open questions see also Klauck 2000, 168177.
17
rd
1. Introduction
th
th
19 and early 20 centuries. Some recent scholars have regarded the

model as a Hellenistic concept, while others have seen it as a modern
concept. It is thus not possible to speak about the divine man model; it
includes several different models, partly mutually exclusive. 0e?os ccvrip
should no longer be considered as a fixed and Hellenistic but as a modern
concept. The best solution is to realise that the whole concept is rather part
of the western history of ideas and to investigate the Graeco-Roman paral
lels to Jesus' miracles without this modern pattern, which has clearly hin
dered rather than helped scholarship.
18
19
d. Jewish miracle-workers
in religious-historical
study
The fact that we know of very few pagan miracle-workers makes Jewish
men with such a reputation more significant than ever. They have been
investigated, but often through the perspective of the BeTos avrjphypothesis. It is obvious that the old History of the Religions school did
not show enough interest in them, but sought more parallels from the "Hel
lenistic" world. Although there is no reason to return to the old opposi20
21
18
H.D. Betz (1983, 235) considers 0e?os avrjp to be an ancient pattern, which is
treated by the ancient writers in many ways and in many phrases and which could be
interpreted in several ways (1983, 364). Kollmann agrees and cites H.D. Betz (1996, 5859). It is rather problematic that the archetype of these interpretations seems to remain a
platonic idea. H.D. Betz cannot convincingly show that 0e?os avrjp was an ancient cate
gory.
Unlike most supporters of the hypothesis, Corrington regards "the divine man" as a
modern, hypothetical category (The "Divine man His Origin and Function in Hellenis
tic Popular Religion, 1986; for a review see Koskenniemi 1994, 95-98).
E.g. Willi Schottroff characterises Moses in Eupolemus, Philo, Josephus and Artapanus as 0e?os avrjp (1983, 229-233). Most scholars suppose that the Jews had learned
the concept from the Greeks and then mediated it to the first Christians (the view of Fer
dinand Hahn 1963; see Koskenniemi 1994, 121). Precisely this view is studied and criti
cised by Holladay in an early and important study of the 0s?os avrjp -hypothesis. Ac
cording to Holladay, the Jewish writers did not remove the line between God and man,
but drew it very clearly (Theios aner in Hellenistic Judaism: a Critique of the Use of This
Category in New Testament Christology, 1977; reviewed in Koskenniemi 1994, 88-90).
Corrington criticises Holladay's work severely and claims that Holladay has overlooked
the social factors in early Judaism (Corrington 1986, esp. 46-47). Louis Feldman's new
and undoubtedly correct approach is to list the general virtues of the heroes in the pagan
literature without constructing a fixed pattern (1998a, 82-131).
Bultmann offers a representative example in his famous Geschichte der synoptischen
Tradition (1921, 147). According to him, scholars earlier considered the Old Testament
the source of Christian miracle stories. Bultmann sees this as no longer credible, because
the similarities are limited. Bultmann speaks now about a genealogy, but uses analogy to
deal with the pagan stories (see Koskenniemi 1994, 45). Some scholars have always ob19
2 0
21
1. Introduction
tion between "Hellenistic" and "Jewish", it is strange how small a role the
Jewish miracle-workers have had in the discussion about divine men. Si
multaneously, characteristic Jewish features in the concept of miracle have
been overlooked. The last decades have shown signs of better times, as the
"new History of the Religions school" seeks the roots of Christianity in
Judaism. However, neither the Jewish sources, which today are much
wider than in the heyday of the 0 E T O S avrjp-hypothesis, nor the rich secon
dary literature is given enough attention even to date.
The pagan miracle-workers have thus won the interest of scholarship
during the last century and provided most of the background for the New
Testament study of Jesus' miracles. Yet, there have always been scholars
who have observed the Jewish parallels. Two of them in particular pro
vided an impulse to scholarship and deserve to be mentioned.
Paul Fiebig (Judische Wundergeschichten im Zeitalter Jesu etc., 1911)
argued that many Rabbis made miracles in Jesus' time, and that it was part
of the Rabbi's image. Only the echoes of the vivid discussion between
Fiebig and his opponent Schlatter, which related to the miracles of the his
torical Jesus, can be heard today, but this debate was one of the most sig
nificant in this area. These scholars opened the door for a study of the
Jewish background of the New Testament miracles, but there were few
who stepped in.
Vivid research followed the first edition of Die Zeloten by Martin Hengel
(1961), in which he investigates the movements, which revolted against the
Romans and their religious background. Hengel's work has been subject to
a discussion and severe criticism. Horsley and Hanson, for example, regard
the zealots in his works as historical fiction. According to them there was not
a unified movement before the Jewish war, in which armed revolt and the Jew
ish religion were combined. Hengel responds to his opponents in the preface
22
23
24
25
26
served the Old Testament material. Berger, a critic of the 0e7os ccvrip-concept, empha
sized the stories about Elijah and Elisha (Berger 1984, 305-306).
Hengel was the first to use the phrase when introducing a book written by Larry W.
Hurtado (1988). The programme of the school is formulated in Jarl Fossum's article "The
New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology" (1991). See also
below, p. 82.
Charlesworth (1995, 72) characterises the situation as follows: "In the sixties, when
we considered the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha we usually meant 17 documents, but
now we frequently mean at least 65. Then we examined about 12 Dead Sea Scrolls, but
now well over 400."
See Becker 2002, 16-21.
Horsley and Hanson 1985, xiii-xvii.
Horsley (1994, ix-xi) underlines the political relevance of New Testament scholar
ship and openly expresses the political relevance of his own study: Observing the Jewish
agrarian people and their problems leads to a better understanding of the South American
theology of freedom.
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
1. Introduction
and appendix of the English translation of his work. The unanimity of the
scholars is obvious in the articles in the Cambridge History of Judaism III.
However, Smith, who considers the concept of Horsley and Hanson absurd,
attacks Hengel even more strongly. In contrast, Gabba is sympathetic to
Hengel's position. Schaper characterises the zealots as "the left wing of Phari
saism." The present book, which must often deal with the combination of
religion and politics, certainly illuminates the question.
During the discussion on the zealots, the research advanced in many
ways. P.W. Barnett introduced the term "sign prophets", referring to men
who tried to legitimate themselves as leaders by repeating Old Testament
miracles (1981). Recently Rebecca Gray collected the evidence in
Josephus (1993), and many figures have now been studied in detail.
However, because, for instance, Atomus (Jos. Ant. 20,141-143) cannot be
labelled either as a zealot or a "sign-prophet", he, as most men of his type,
is usually not mentioned. The phenomenon of the historical figures has
still not been studied thoroughly enough.
The Jewish miracle-workers were again drawn to the centre of New Tes
tament scholarship by Geza Vermes (Jesus the Jew, 1973; The Gospel of
Jesus the Jew, 1981), who could combine his studies with the newly awak
ened quest of the historical Jesus. Vermes underlined the Old Testament
miracle-workers, especially Elijah and Elisha, and named many Jewish
healers, exorcists and miracle-workers from the times of Jesus. He re
garded the historical Jesus as one of the holy miracle-workers of Galilee.
This view can either be accepted or rejected, but Vermes' studies are cited
even today in discussions about the historical Jesus. Fiebig, as well as
Vermes, dealt with historical, non-biblical Jewish miracle-workers, and
several scholars have subsequently studied these figures. New Testament
scholars can justly be criticised for what the Germans call Steinbruchsmentalitat: historical Jewish miracle-workers have all too often been studied
because of the needs of New Testament scholarship; and the passages on
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2 7
Hengel 1989b, xiii-xvii; 380-404.

Smith 1999, 542-544, 566.
"We cannot say with certainty exactly when this name (sc. Zealot) was first used, not
least because the term was pregnant with religious and political significance the roots of
which went back a long time", Gabba 1999, 154.
Schaper 1999, 422.
Prophetic figures in late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The evidence from Jose
phus. New York / Oxford 1993.
Vermes 1973,58-85.
Vermes 1973, 223. Goodman studied the differences between Judaism in Galilee and
in Judea in the Cambridge History of Judaism 3 (1999, 569-617), but he did not deal with
the miracles.
See Becker 2002, 291. 337-340.
2 8
2 9
3 0
31
3 2
3 3
3 4
1. Introduction
Honi the Circle-drawer in Crossan's and Meier's books, for instance, lack
the depth present in Green's and Becker's studies. However, these fig
ures are studied vigorously.
A further step was taken with Michael Becker's recently published dis
sertation on rabbinical miracle-workers. According to Becker, the early
rabbis were unwilling to tell about miracles made by men. This included
biblical figures, as well as extra-biblical persons. Some miracles, however,
were intimately connected to the history forming the Jewish identity, and
were retold without reservation. That does not mean that they did not have
to deal with miracles, but Becker's study reveals that the early rabbis wres
tled long and hard with the problem. Statistics show the indisputable fact
that the early collections contain fewer miracle stories, whereas the num
ber grows markedly in the later texts. Becker's study confirms that the
development in the Jewish world corresponds with the Graeco-Roman
world, where miracle-workers were numerous from the late second century
AD.
35
36
37
38
Just as the Graeco-Roman miracle-workers known to us were either his

torical figures known from contemporary sources or great men of the dis
tant past, their Jewish counterparts were either contemporaries of the early
Jewish writers or figures known from the Old Testament. Much research
must still be done on the historical, non-biblical figures for a clearer pic
ture of the background of New Testament Christology. It is surprising,
however, how little even the later traditions concerning the figures men
tioned in the Old Testament have been studied. They are often noted sim
ply in passing. On the other hand, scholars such as Martin Dibelius (1919)
and Rudolf Bultmann (1921) tried to note the Jewish as well as the
Graeco-Roman parallels, although their intention was to underline the
"Hellenistic" world. Otto Bocher (1970, 1972) and Gerd Theissen (1974)
have continued this kind of work. Some scholars have always pointed to
the Old Testament and some very recent works attest that the Old Testa39
3 5
See Green 1979, 621-647; Crossan 1991, 142-148; Meier 1994, 581-584; Becker
2002, 291-337.
"Wunder" und "Wundertdter" im fruhrabbinischen Judentum. Studien zum literarischen und historischen Phdnomen im paganen und fruhjiidischen Kontext und seine Bedeutung fur das Verstandnis Jesu (2002).
See the summary in Becker 2002, 406-414.
See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219.
In 1978, Michael Goulder, in investigating the Gospels, made cautious observations
on Elijah's and Elisha's miracles; see 1978, 266-281 and also 1989, 304-305. Richard
Glockner studied the connections between the Psalms and New Testament miracle stories
(Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den
Psalmen. Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen,
36
3 7
3 8
3 9
1. Introduction
ment miracle-workers are being given more attention today than some dec
ades ago. However, Kollmann's book, mentioned above is a good exam
ple of an unbalanced way to deal with the texts: He closely studies the
traditions about Pythagoras, but not the traditions about Moses, Elijah or
Elisha, which were certainly very close to the early Christians. Moreover,
here as so often, the characteristic feature of the Jewish area, the combina
tion of miracles of the past with the hope of future miracles, is mainly
overlooked. It is now time to pay attention to the traditions about the Old
Testament miracle-workers.
40
41
Many studies contain valuable material on the Old Testament heroes in

later Jewish literature, but the timeline between the Old Testament and
rabbinic literature is long and includes a great number of sources. Some
special studies and works cover some parts of this vast material, some
more or less all of it. Some figures have always been eagerly studied.
Moses offers a good example: The early parts of the tradition have been
thoroughly investigated, but descriptions given by later writers, such as
Ezekiel the Tragedian, Artapanus or Pseudo-Philo in Liber antiquitatum
biblicarum, still offer extensive work for scholars. Other figures, such as
David and Solomon, have received less attention.
Much of the research covers a part of this rich material. Some studies
follow traditions about heroes. Willy Schottroff, for example, investigated
the images of the Old Testament miracle-workers in his RAC article
1983). Klaus Berger noted the Old Testament stories in his Formgeschichte des Neuen
Testaments, 1984, 305-306.
Kahl is well aware that the Jewish side is neglected (see 1994, 21-22), and Craig
Evans closely studies the Jewish miracle tradition (1995, 213-244).
Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater. Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum (1996). Kollmann criticises some scholars, espe
cially O. Betz and Glockner, because they one-sidedly observe the Old Testament and
Jewish traditions and forget the Hellenistic parallels (1996, 26-27). He tries himself to
observe both sides when studying the miracles of Jesus and the first Christians. Neverthe
less, he overlooks several Graeco-Roman parallels, such as Eunus (about 136/135-132
BC, Liv. perioch. 56; Flor. epit. 2,7; Diod. 34); Damigeron (second century BC, Apul.
apol. 90; Arnob. nat. 1, 52; we have only fragments of his own work de lapidibus), Publius Nigidius Figulus (about 100-45 BC; for the sources see Koskenniemi 1994, 209); the
eremite in Plutarch (first century AD, Plut. mor. 421a-b); Peregrinus Proteus (died 165
AD, Lukian Peregr.; Gell. 8,3. 12,11; Athenag. suppl. 26,3-5) Arnuphis (about 174 AD,
Dio Cass. 71,8-9, Hist. Aug. M. Aur. 24,4); Julianus (in the time of Marcus Aurelius,
Prokl. Krat. 72, 10; rep. 2, 123, 12; Arnob. nat. 1, 52; Iul. epist. 12), Apsethus (before
Hippolytus' haer. [222 AD], Hippol. haer. 6,7-8); and Neryllinus (about 177 AD,
Athenag. suppl. 26,3-5). I give a list of the known pagan miracle-workers in my book;
see Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. On the other hand, Kollmann carefully notes such his
torical figures as Theudas and the Egyptian, but shows no interest in the tradition of re
telling new variants of the Old Testament miracles.
4 0
41
10
/. Introduction
(1983). However, he only observes the "divine men" (^GottmenscherT) of

the Old Testament (Moses, Elijah, Elisha) and leaves aside even many
later traditions about them. He also overlooks the Old Testament figures,
such as David and Solomon, mentioned as miracle-workers only in the
later tradition and not in the Old Testament. David L. Tiede (1972) and Carl
L. Holladay (1977), two early critics of the 0 E T O S avrjp theory, studied many
of the most important texts, and made observations still valuable today.
Some studies do not follow the tradition of an individual miracle-worker
through different texts, but instead concentrate on a certain text and all its
heroes. In his monumental work, Louis Feldman studied the way in which
Josephus treated the Old Testament figures, including all the miracleworkers. This does not mean that the work is complete because Feldman's
work has been heavily criticised by Mark Roncace, who scrutinised his
depictions of Deborah and Gideon, and Christopher Begg challenges
Feldman's view in his study of Josephus' description of Elisha. Never
theless, Feldman has collected and discussed a huge amount of material,
which has been helpful in this study. Although there are no such works on,
for example, the Lives of the Prophets or Liber antiquitatum biblicarum,
the commentaries of Anna Maria Schwemer and Howard Jacobson are an
equal contribution to the study of these texts. Eric Eve's book (Jewish con
text of Jesus' miracles, 2002), in which the writer studies the role of the
miracles in almost all relevant Jewish texts, deserves special attention. Eve
has taken upon himself a huge task, because his work not only deals with
the human miracle-workers, but also with the views on miracles, whether
they be done by men or God, and he expands his investigation to historical
figures such as Honi and the "sign prophets" in Josephus. The wide scope
of the study necessarily means that he cannot investigate all the texts thor
oughly enough.
Scholars are now eagerly investigating the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and many studies and articles are of valuable help to the present
work. Becker covers the rabbinical literature in his dissertation mentioned
42
43
44
45
4 2
Schottroff 1983, 220-233. He does not deal with the passages in Ben Sira, Ezekiel
the Tragedian and L.A.B.
Deborah and Gideon are not presented as miracle-workers in Josephus, and they are
not treated in the present work, but Roncace's article may also affect other figures stud
ied by Feldman. Roncace investigates Josephus' passages, but notes none of the strong
redactional biases found by Feldman, and concludes in his article: "A close reading of
the stories does not produce the results that Feldman claims. ... If the stories of Deborah
and Gideon are any indication, then it appears that much of this work remains to be
done" (2000, 247-274). Feldman promptly responded (2001, 193-220), but did not re
move all doubts concerning his work.
See below p. 271-278.
See below e.g. p. 19, 109 and 162.
4 3
4 4
4 5
1. Introduction
11
above. However, there is still much to do before the Jewish tradition is

observed as well as it deserves to be.
e. A more precise definition of the task and method

The present work concentrates on the early Jewish interpretations of the
miracles made by Israelites mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Tes
tament tells about many men who saved the nation with their great deeds,
or manifested with their miracles that Israel's God was with them. They
could be saviours of the nation, as Moses, or its great leaders, as Joshua, or
miracle-working prophets, as Elijah and Elisha. They also could be strange
figures, as Samson, the fighter with superhuman powers. It is interesting to
note how their stories were retold in the Jewish texts. Some things may be
omitted, intentionally or not, some things may be emphasized, and some
totally new traits may appear in the picture. Moreover, it is interesting to
discover which figures still play a role in the later traditions and which are
largely forgotten in the sources we have. Certain elements were apparently
crucial in different periods of Jewish history. Miracles could be connected
with deep wisdom, with physical strength, great leadership or even with
entertainment. In Judaism, unlike in Greek thought, they also could be
linked with the glorious past of the nation and with an eschatological hope.
The Jewish writers do not only retell new variations of the Old Testament
miracles (possibly adding totally new features such as the prince of de
mons, Mastema, in the events of Egypt in The Book of Jubilees). They also
tell totally new stories about the Old Testament heroes. The Lives of the
Prophets tells about Ezekiel, and some texts about men hardly mentioned
in the Old Testament, such as Kenaz in L.A.B. The study of these stories
and the traditions behind them is important, because they reveal the current
values and hopes of the writers and their circles.
This study aims to cover all Jewish literature, from the Old Testament to
Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and Josephus. The early rabbinic literature
is covered in Becker's book. The vast amount of material includes very
disparate elements, as well stories and shorter passages. There are two
ways to structure the material. One way would be to study all the tradi
tions, for example, about Abraham; to collect every miracle-story we have
about him and in so doing, track the history of the tradition. Some good
studies of this kind have been done. I do not know of a study about Abra
ham as a miracle-worker, and the traditions about Moses have been col
lected only superficially. Elijah, however, has been investigated more
46
4 6
Many scholars have done valuable work. Willy Schottroff deals with Moses in his
article "Gottmensch" in RAC (1983). Oberhansli-Widmer has collected abundant mate-
12
7. Introduction
thoroughly. An alternative, which has been chosen here, is to study the

most important texts containing miracle stories about the biblical figures.
It seems to offer better opportunities to investigate the role of the miracles
and the biases of the different writers, and to trace the historical develop
ment in Israel. It also enhances the collection of details that the tradition
added to the biblical stories, and clarifies which stories passed into extinc
tion in early Judaism. The shorter passages outside these writings, in which
the miracles are mentioned or even briefly retold, will be observed to illus
trate the texts receiving greater attention.
In the study of recounted passages from the Old Testament, a series of
questions is asked concerning every text.
The writer has used either the Hebrew or the Greek text as the original.
The first problem is the role of the Septuagint. Firstly, many books of LXX
differ considerably from the Hebrew text, revealing the complicated his
tory of the latter. In the texts studied below, the numerous deviations in the
versions of the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27) make clear that the He
brew original the translators used differed from the Masoretic text. The
study of the Greek translation is thus useful even if it is compared with
texts written originally in Hebrew (such as The Wisdom of Ben Sira and
Jub.). Secondly, the Septuagint is not merely a translation; it is the first
stage in the midrashic tradition of contextualizing and applying the He
brew original, and the question is whether the intention of those translat
ing the miracles-stories can be traced. Regardless of whether the devia
tion is based on a different original or on an intentional change in the text,
it may reveal a traditional, Hebrew interpretation. LXX is analysed in sev
eral chapters dealing with writers who used the biblical stories, and the
results are collected and evaluated in chapter 10.
The task of identifying the biblical passages referred to is often easy and
is part of the basic work of the editor or translator of the text (e.g. the Loeb
editions of Philo and Josephus), but the passage that is paraphrased may
48
49
50
rial in her article in TRE (1994), but the material is too vast to be studied thoroughly in
an article.
On Elijah see especially Ohler 1997.
See Hengel 2002, 84-85.
See Hengel 2002, 85-90.
Karl Ludwig Schimdt, for example, once expressed the common view that the Septu
agint, in dealing with the fundamentals of the Jewish religion, was also strongly influen
ced by the Hellenistic spirit ("Und gerade durch die genannte Septuagintabibel, die ja
mehr als eine blofie Ubersetzung aus dem Hebraischen ins Griechische, namlich auf weite Strecken hin eine Hellenisierung sogar des herben semitischen Monotheismus bedeutet, ist das Judentum eine der selbstsichersten und werbekraftigsten Religionen des romischen Reiches geworden" (1927, 48).
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
13
1. Introduction
not be the only biblical text influencing the retold passage. It is a difficult
task to identify the passages in Pseudo-Philo, for instance, because Liber
antiquitatum biblicarum often links several other texts (the Psalms, for
example) with the narration. A careful study is needed to find all the
texts used or referred to. The subject has been extensively discussed, but
the discussion should be continued. How the writers used the biblical ma
terial, especially in the miracle stories, is always interesting.
A thorough study is also needed to reveal the new traits in the stories and
the biases of the writers. They may include omissions, additions, clarifica
tions or alterations, with some details occurring repeatedly in different
texts and revealing a common tradition. In dealing with all major versions
of the retold stories about the biblical miracle-workers, the present study
should throw more light on these common and traditional traits, which are
collected in chapter 10.
One important question involves the influence of Jewish and Gentile
traditions. De Sampsone 23-24, for example, attests the obvious fact that
the biblical stories were recounted in Jewish meetings and reveals that
there were different oral traditions. Philo also considered the stories told
by the elders as a source to be used alongside the Scriptures:
51
"[I will] tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the
wonderful moments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the
elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus
believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life's history" (Mos. 1,4).
We thus know that there was an oral tradition, that we have only fragments
of the written, and part of all that was merged with the later traditions and
written down in the texts dating after the scope of this study. As a result,
dating the tradition is often very difficult. Some scholars intend to empha
size the chain of the tradition and have often supposed that the traditions
written down later were already known to writers such as Ezekiel, Philo
and Josephus. Others have been more sceptical. On the other hand, some
trait may resemble a Greek or Roman story. The versions of Moses' death
are similar to the stories about the end of some Graeco-Roman famous
men. The question is, did the writer himself borrow from the Gentile tradi
tion, did he know it at all, or had the Jewish and Graeco-Roman traditions
merged at an earlier stage? Although we may not be able to decide conclu
sively whether a writer introduced a new trait to the biblical story or bor
rowed it from an oral or written tradition, the question should be dealt
with.
52
51
See below e.g. p. 195.

Feldman generally supposes that the traditions were early and influenced the way
Josephus deals with his material; see below, for example, p. 263. Jacobson is more cau
tious and is well aware of the problems; see p. 75.
5 2
14
1. Introduction
The writers did not live in a vacuum. They were writing for a certain
audience. Some Jewish authors wrote their works almost exclusively for
the Jews, as the writer of The Book of Jubilees or Pseudo-Philo in his
L.A.B. On the other hand, Philo and Josephus also intended their works for
Gentiles. Differentiation between Jews and Gentiles, however, is not
enough. Both audiences should be further analysed. What kind of Gentiles
or what kind of Jews were supposed to read the story? Did many Jews, as
often supposed, rationalise the miracle stories because of sceptical Gentile
readers? It would be important to know more about each audience, and
how it influenced the work. Moreover, since writers lived both in and out
side Palestine, the geographical factor has to be observed, and finally,
when all the texts are studied, some chronological lines can certainly be
drawn in the final chapter.
Many Jewish texts were written during crucial periods in the history of
Israel, but the writers rarely if ever considered the Scripture as belonging
only to the past. Everyone retelling the biblical original could adapt the
holy past to his own situation. We could ask how much this was done consciously or not - in retelling the stories about the plagues in Egypt, the
great exodus, the way in the desert and the conquest of the land in the
times before and after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
Miracles are, of course, always only one piece of the picture a writer
draws of a biblical hero. While some writers do not mention, for example,
Moses' miracles at all, in Philo's and Josephus' texts he is a philosopher,
general, statesman and miracle-worker. Although it is unnecessary to deal
with all these features in this study, we should ask what role the miracles
play in the picture and what their function is. It is not always easy to treat
them separately. Do mighty deeds make somebody a divine being, as many
supporters of the 0e7os avrjp hypothesis have supposed? What other fea
tures are linked with the miracles? It is important to ask these questions,
especially if the stories are heavily remodelled on the biblical original.
Why are the stories remodelled and what is the result?
It is clear that usually, if not always, in the Old Testament God performs
miracles, but may use a man as his agent. Also, the later Jewish writers
followed the same method of retelling Old Testament miracles. It is often
questionable whether a man can be called a "miracle-worker" at all. God
may not use any human agent in the Old Testament, as for example, when
destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, but Moses' person is very closely con
nected with the plagues in Exodus. It is understandable that the roles of
God and his possible agent strongly vary in such retold versions as the
events in Egypt, at the Red Sea and in the desert. In some Jewish texts
Moses' role is reduced to the point of no longer being mentioned (The
53
On Artapanus see p. 104, on Philo see p. 109-110, on Josephus see p. 228.
15
1. Introduction
Book of Wisdom highlights divine wisdom and not Moses), but sometimes
(as in Artapanus or Josephus) he may appear as a more independent actor.
The texts that characterise a man as a miracle-worker, as well as the roles
of God and his agent in these texts, are studied here. Kahl developed a use
ful tool for this work (1994): He tried to separate the different roles in the
stories by identifying the "Bearer of the Numinous Power" (= BNP) actu
ally causing the miracle, the "Mediator of the Numinous Power" (=MNP)
used as the agent of the BNP, and the "Petitioner of the Numinous Power"
(=PNP) asking the BNP to make the miracle. Eve asked the question
studying many Jewish texts in his book (2002), but there is certainly still
work to be done.
54
As seen above it is not easy to define a miracle, and even the genre "mira
cle-story" is a subject under dispute. Scholars have long taken the exis
tence of the genre for granted. In 1919, Martin Dibelius concluded (Formgeschichte des Evangeliums) that the early Christian stories were either
short accounts ("Paradigmas") or longer narratives ("Novellen"), and that
the latter were close relatives of Hellenistic stories. The birth of the Chris
tian miracle stories has been based on either an extension of a paradigm
from the Christian or non-Christian tradition, or on a non-Christian novel
adopted and applied to Jesus. Rudolf Bultmann went on in his Geschichte
der synoptischen Tradition to characterize the style of the miracle stories
and give a list of stories similar to ones included in the New Testament.
Gerd Theissen developed the methodology in his
Urchristliche
Wundergeschichten (191 A, transl. 1983) connecting the study of the mira
cle stories with sociological aspects. Although all these scholars assumed
the existence of the genre "miracle-story", this view has been justly chal
lenged. Glockner pointed to the Psalms as the background of the New Tes
tament miracle stories (Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob
der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen, 1983), abandoning the link be
tween a miracle and a story. Fundamental criticism against the former
scholarship came with Klaus Berger's two studies, "Hellenistische Gattungen und Neues Testament" (=1984b) and Formgeschichte (= 1984a), and
radically new definitions of the central terms of form-criticism. They also
concern the "miracle stories": Berger flatly denies the existence of such a
genre, claiming that it is not a classical genre but a modern description
defining the material poorly. According to him the "miracle stories" of the
55
56
57
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
Kahl 1994, 62-65.

Dibelius 1919, 36-56, esp. 54-55.
Bultmann 1921, 135-136.
Bultmann 1921, 142-146.
16
I. Introduction
New Testament belong to several narrative genres. Recently, Kahl (1994)

has also emphasized the variety of the genres in which the Gospel writers
presented Jesus as a BNP. The criticism is also justified concerning the
material studied in the present work: Ben Sira, for example, may describe
the miracles of the ancient heroes in Laus patrum, Philo uses them in his
ethical discourses and Josephus retells the history of Israel. It is very diffi
cult to include them all in a single genre. The genre of a "miracle-story" is
thus not an assumption here. Miracles of an Israelite could occur in very
different kinds of texts, and they are all important. However, it is useful to
study what kind of miracles occur in early Judaism, when the mighty deeds
of the Old Testament figures were retold. A summary of "themes", follow
ing mainly Theissen's catalogue, is given in chapter 10.
59
60
61
58
Berger 1984a, 305-307.

Kahl 1994, 237.
The Old Testament also tells about miracles made by non-Israelites, but Balaam, for
example, is not included in this study.
See below, p. 290.
5 9
6 0
61
2. Miracles and the Glorious Past:

The Wisdom of Ben Sira
a. Introduction
As many other Jewish texts, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, written in Hebrew in
about 180-190 and translated into Greek in approximately 130, has be
come newly current. While not even a fresh commentary had existed some
decades earlier, by the 1970s intensive research and even strong dis
agreement had arisen on the main lines and goals of the work. Since then
many detailed studies have revealed interesting new features of the work
and about 600 publications regarding it were published between 1980 and
1997. Nevertheless, many questions are still open, and although many of
them are part of the background of the present study, some may be clearly
significant. In particular, the impact of politics and the writer's attitude
toward Hellenism, both of which are discussed vividly, are relevant prob
lems when investigating the role of the miracles, and the question that
should be asked is how much Ben Sira contemporized the biblical stories.
Although many important themes in the text have been studied, the role of
the miracles in the work has not. While the main target of this study is the
Hebrew original, the Greek translation is an interesting reworking of it and
may reveal some independent tendencies. However, for most parts of the
1
Scholars agree almost unanimously on this date; for the older view, that the translator
came to Egypt not in the 38 year of Euergetes II, i.e. 132, but already in the 3 century,
see Stadelmann 1980, 1-3 and Reiterer 1997, 37.
We have now the commentaries of Snaith (1974), di Leila and Skehan (1987) and
Sauer (2000).
Beentjes 1997, V.
Did Ben Sira belong to the upper or lower echelons of society? Some scholars, such
as Smend (1906, 345-346) have considered Ben Sira a member of the wealthy class, but
Reiterer (1997, 35-37), as Tcherikover before him, assumes that he came from the poorer
class and then rose in status. The question of his profession is closely connected with this
problem. Stadelmann considers him a priest and scholar (1980, 14-26) and follows the
line of Schlatter: "Gelehrte, die nichts als Gelehrte waren, kamen fur Jerusalem zuerst bei
Sirach vor" (Stadelmann 1980, 17; cited also by Hengel 1991, 132 and Kieweler 1992,
53). Wright (1997, 189-222) underlines his support for the priests: "Ben Sira is a scribe,
perhaps even a priest" (1997, 219).
See below p. 31-36.
th
rd
18
text we have only the Greek version and are thus unable to compare it with
the original.
The miracles of the Old Testament heroes are alluded to very briefly in
some passages. Most of them are connected to the circle of exodus, the
desert traditions and the conquest of the land (Sir 16:10; 38:5; 43:15-16).
There was no need to retell or explain the stories, since it was assumed that
the audience was familiar with the texts. The brief references are by no
means uninteresting; on the contrary, they show how prominent the Old
Testament miracles were in Israel. Moreover, the example in Sir 38:5 gives
information about the writer's view. Nevertheless, although the miracles
play a major role in only one part of the work, they are of notable signifi
cance. Laus patrum, Sir 44-50, is an important section that has been given
a variety of interpretations, and in which Ben Sira apparently discloses
the influence that both the Jewish and Greek traditions had in helping him
shape the hymn, although many literary models were written in prose and
not in verse.
On the other hand, the writer had many examples to follow in the holy
writings. The Old Testament contains short presentations of Israel's his
tory, such as Deut 26:5-11; Jos 24:2-25; Ps 78:105-106 and 135-136, Neh
9 and Ezek 20. Von Rad, however, already recognised the difference be
tween Laus patrum and the earlier presentations: It was no longer God and
his hidden or open presence but the famous men of the past that were the
subject of praise.
The Greek tradition also offered a model for short biographies, explain
ing why Sir differed from the traditional Hebrew way of dealing with his
tory. The most famous example of such biographies is Cornelius Nepos'
6
10
11
12
13
14
It is interesting that Ben Sira rejects divination in Sir 34:5 and prays for new miracles
in Sir 36:5 (see below p. 31-36). In Laus patrum he refers to the deeds of David (Sir
47:3) and mentions that Enoch was taken to heaven (Sir 49:14).
The passages, together with passages dealing with Moses and Joshua, are disputed
below.
The numeration follows Ziegler's edition of Septuagint, which is concordant with
Beentjes' Hebrew text (1997).
See below p. 20.
Mack could still easily count the number of works on the hymn in 1985, 3, but since
then the research has been prolific. On a history of the research see Reiterer 1997, 55-57.
See Kieweler 1992, 59; Coggins 1998, 78-83.
See von Rad 1989 (1962), 367-369; Mack 1985, 7. 217.
Von Rad 1970, 330-331; see also Lee 1986, 23-31. It is strange that Whybray seems
to be unaware of the long discussion. He denies the influence of Greek historiography
and Greek and Hellenistic models (1999, 139). Whybray cites several Old Testament
texts which touched on the history of Israel, but fails to see (as von Rad did) that the
view is now different.
On the historiographical and encomiastic influence see Mack 1985, 120-137.
7
10
11
12
13
14
19
De viris illustribus, although long before Nepos the philosophical tradition

had created a way to briefly present a man and his deeds. Diogenes Laertius gives a good (although late) example of this genre in his work on the
most famous philosophers. This type could be encomiastic, as Nepos'
work was, but not necessarily. In the public and private libraries, espe
cially, there was a need for works that briefly presented writers and his
torical figures to the broader, superficially educated population. Given the
transition from prose to Hebrew verse, Ben Sira was - as far as we know the first Jew who used the form of the Hellenistic short biographies to ful
fil his task.
Laus patrum is thus generally considered an important part of the work.
Mack's analysis shows that it is carefully formulated and that the charac
terisation of the fathers follows a well-planned pattern. He names their
office, election, covenant, virtues, deeds, historical setting and rewards.
The pattern works well but is not used mechanically. As far as I know, the
role of the biblical miracles in Laus patrum has never been thoroughly in
vestigated, although von Rad, and subsequently Stadelmann noted impor
tant details. Eve deals with miracles in Ben Sira and makes many impor
tant observations, but he writes quite briefly and without reference to sev
eral important works.
15
16
17
18
b. Moses
19
Ben Sira is not the first early Jewish writer to write about Moses, but the
first known to us to discuss the role of Moses' miracles. Moses occurs in
20
1 5
It is clear that the hymn shows encomiastic features, but, as he tries to show in his
book (1986), it can hardly be labelled an encomium. The transition from prose to Hebrew
verse means that the writer could not directly use any of the Greek genres.
Von Rad inquired about the Hellenistic genre helping Ben Sira to shape the picture of
Elijah, but could not find the answer (1970, 331). Later, the problem was solved when
the study advanced to the Greek short biographies; see Mack 1985, 124-128; Mack Murphy 1986, 376-377 and Schwemer 1995, 43-50.
Mack 1985, 17-26.
Eve (2002, 106-114) does not refer to von Rad (1970), Tiede (1972), Middendorp
(1972), Hengel (1974), Stadelmann (1980) or Beentjes (1989). Sauer's commentary
(2000) and Ska's (1999), Whybry's (1999) and Hoffken's (2000) important articles ap
parently came too late to be observed by him.
Many Jewish writers deal with Moses, but not necessarily with his miracles. We, for
example, have only a few fragments of Demetrius' work, written about 221-204 B.C. (see
Walter 1989, 387; Collins 2000a,33-35). Alexander Polyhistor, who included these
fragments in his lost work, has not cited the title (see Walter 1975,280-283; Holladay
1983,51-54). The method was Aporiai kai lyseis, common in the exegesis of Homer's
works, in which the different passages were explained. Fragments F4 and F5 point to
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
Laus patrum, but also elsewhere in some passages which will be treated
here.
The writer mentions the 600,000 soldiers only briefly (Sir 16:10). More
interesting for the present study is how Sir cites a miracle performed by
Moses. It is part of the famous praise of the physician (Sir 38:4-7):
21
"God makes the earth yield healing herbs,

which the prudent should not neglect.
Was not the water sweetened by a twig
that people might learn his power?
He endows humans with the knowledge
to glory in his mighty works,
through which the doctor eases pain
and the druggist prepares his medicines."
Ben Sira clearly alludes to the story told in Exod 15:22-27, retold by several Jewish
writers studied in the present book. Does the Septuagint already reveal some tendency in
rendering the passage? The LXX translates the name m o / Meppcc (TTiKpi'cc) in v. 23. p
is translated as iiAov
25. God's words in v. 26 are given in the participle and not in
the substantive 'iccxpds (l^sn m.T '* o / eyed y a p E'IUI Kiipios 6 'icouevds as. Some of
these details may be of some importance in the texts studied in the present book, al
though hardly in Ben Sira.
22
The role of the physician in early Judaism is certainly obscure, but the
Graeco-Roman point of view is not easy to define either. A simplified
view sometimes suggested is that the traditional Old Testament belief
banned the medicine used by the Greeks. It is easy to quote many critical
passages from the Old Testament to show that it may have been considered
a sin to seek help from physicians. According to Snaith and Sauer, Ben
Sira is influenced by the Hellenistic view. The question is, however,
23
Moses' miracles, but contain no new interpretations. Appparently comparing Demetrius

with Artapanus, Alexander Polyhistor claimed that the former wrote in accordance with
the holy writings. Collins also includes Demetrius in the "faithful chroniclers" (Collins
2000a, 33). Aristobulus deals briefly with the miracles in Exodus in Fr. 2,8, rejecting all
anthropomorphic interpretations. Moses' miracles are mentioned in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, sometimes briefly (as in 4Q226, 4Q422, 4Q434 and 4Q491), sometimes more
extensively, but the text follows very faithfully the biblical original (4Q365). It is possi
ble that even the mutilated 4Q377, which calls him "anointed", mentions his miracles
(Zimmermann 1998,332-342).
On Moses in Sir see Tiede 1972, 181-182; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 509. 510-511;
Sauer 2000, 306-307.
See Snaith 1974, 183-185; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 438-444; Sauer 2000, 260-263.
The English translations given are by di Leila and Skehan (1987).
Sauer (2000, 260-263) quotes the biblical passages in which the Lord is called
healer: Gen 20:17; Exod 15:26; Deut 32:39; Ps 30:3; Isa 57:18. In 2 Chr 16:12 Asa seeks
help from the physicians and not from God. Only the last of these texts unequivocally
criticises the physician as such, while the others have different targets in addition to the
physicians.
2 0
21
2 2
2 3
21
clearly more complicated. We know that medical treatment could be com

bined with religious ideas in very different ways in classical antiquity as
well as in early Judaism.
Classical antiquity knew several medical traditions: Some were the first
steps in empirical science, and medicine advanced strongly in Ptolemaic
Egypt. Some traditions were related to religion, and healing gods were
very popular. These two branches of traditions could easily be combined.
The temples of Asclepius, for example, were centres offering a variety of
medicaments and even longer cures. When magical treatments are added
to the list of traditions it should be obvious that there is no "Hellenistic"
view on the role of the physician, but many different views and their com
binations.
Also the view that medicine was banned in early Judaism is hardly cor
rect. Admittedly Asa is criticised in 2 Chr 16:12 for seeking help from the
physicians and not from God, and 1 En. 7:1 considers magical medicine as
something taught to men by the Watchers. Common sense, however, tells
us that these passages are not the entire truth: Men were ill and also
treated in the Old Testament times. According to Exod 21:18-19, a man
hitting another has to pay the costs ( K S T asm p TOSD p-i) and "Elijahu, the
physician" is mentioned in a seal from the late seventh or early sixth cen
tury. The Deuteronomistic belief explicitly rejected several arts of magi
cal techniques (e.g., Deut 18:9-12), but Isa 1:4-9, Jer 8:22 and Jer 46:11
attest that a medical treatment was not always banned in Israel. Even Isa
38:21-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11 link God's help with a medical cure when a poul
tice of figs is used to heal Hezekiah's boil. We know of different ways in
which God's help and medical treatment were later integrated. Philo (Alleg. Interp. 2,6; Ios. 11,63) or Josephus (Vita 404, 421) never found it
problematic. The community in Qumran, despite its awareness of 1 En.
7:1, seems to have used healing herbs and exorcistic techniques and repre
sented a view close to the one in Jub.
The most obvious parallel to Sir
38:1-15 is the book of Tobit, in which God's angel, who is ominously
named Raphael, teaches the young Tobias to heal his old father (Tob 3:1624
25
26
27
2S
2 4
On the medicine of classical antiquity see Kollmann 1994, 61-72; Nutton 1999,
1107-1117.
See van Cangh 1982, 264-269; Koskenniemi 1994, 220-221.
Asclepius' cult cannot be regarded as a monolithic ideology. Chronological and pos
sibly even geographical factors meant that the combination of religion and treatment was
seen in different ways. Aelius Aristides writes that people stayed in sanctuaries for long
periods (see LiDonnici 1995, 48-49).
See Kaiser 2001, 12-19, who gives clear evidence of a positive attitude to medical
cures.
See below p. 51.
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
22
17; 11:7-8). In this book the apotropaic technique and medical cure are
combined with the idea that God is the healer. Becker observes that the
early rabbis often mention physicians in the Mishna and Tosefta. It is
hardly a coincidence that Ben Sira, writing about the role of the physician,
quotes Moses' miracle, because immediately after Moses casts the twig
and makes the water sweet, God says to him: "If you listen carefully to the
voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay at
tention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you
any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who
heals you" ("|s"i mrr o ) .
Ben Sira thus reads Exod 15:25 very carefully, linking the miracle with
verse 15:26: Moses acts skilfully, and this is precisely the way in which
God acts as healer through his agent. But does Ben Sira rationalise the
event? Sauer interprets the passage as displaying a marked rationalistic
tendency, but offers no argument. Eve approaches the question briefly.
It is obvious, though, that the term is problematic. Ben Sira hardly tries to
rationalise the miracle. His concept of miracle differed from the modern
one. According to Ben Sira, God helps his people in many ways. Philo
later attests the view that the wood Moses cast naturally had such an ef
fect, and apparently Ben Sira was also aware of the explanation that the
water miracle was analogous to a physician's treatment: According to him,
God has created everything and is able to let his people know how to treat
others. The methods God uses to help his people may differ, but it is al
ways God the Creator who should be praised. The combination of medi
cal treatment and God's help differs somewhat from Tob or Jub., but all of
these texts link the two in some manner.
Ben Sira also retells other biblical stories without reservation. His link
ing of a biblical story with the work of a physician does not indicate ra
tionalisation, but the merging of different views into one. Labelling this
view as Hellenistic or Jewish is problematic, since both cultures clearly
30
31
32
33
34
2 9
See Kottek 2000, 9.

See Becker 2002, 385-388.
"Eine bemerkenswert rationalistische Einstellung verrat Ben Sira dadurch", Sauer
2000, 262.
According to Eve (2002, 108) Ben Sira does not make the work of the physicians
more miraculous by association with the Mosaic story; he makes the Mosaic story less
miraculous. However, the question is apparently not put properly, because neither of the
two seems to be Ben Sira's intention.
Philo mentions this as a possible explanation; see below p. 122.
The Hebrew and the Greek texts differ markedly in Sir 38:15. The Hebrew reads im
KSTI 'as ? naarr inenr â ? oin, but the Greek 6 ccuapTccvcov evavri TOU noirjaavoTOs
auTOV euTTeooi sis X ^P S 'taTpou. Eve (2002, 108) does not consider the text to be
contradictory to a positive attitude towards the physician.
3 0
31
32
3 3
3 4
23
included several positions, most of which combined medical cures with

religious beliefs.
Ben Sira's way of alluding to the biblical stories makes it generally diffi
cult to speak about a "numinous power." Consequently, Moses is not a
BNP ("Bearer of Numinous Power") or a MNP ("Mediator of Numinous
Power") in Kahl's terminology; instead, he could be considered a PNP
("Petitioner of the Numinous Power"). The function presupposed in the
story has changed: When Moses in Exodus rescues his people by mediat
ing God's help, the goal of the narrative is to connect the work of the phy
sicians with God's helping hand.
Ben Sira tells more about Moses' miracles in Laus patrum (Sir 44:2345:5):
"From him he had spring the man,
who should win the favour of all the living;
Dear to God and humans,
Moses, whose memory is a boon.
God made him like the angels in honour
and strengthened him with fearful powers,
wrought swift miracles at his words
and sustained him in the king's presence.
He gave him the commandments for his people,
and revealed to him his glory.
For his trustworthiness and meekness
God selected him from all humankind.
He permitted him to hear his voice,
and led him into the cloud,
where he gave into his hand the commandments,
the law of life and understanding,
that he might teach his precepts to Jacob
his covenant decrees to Israel."
Ben Sira's brief summary of Moses' life does not allow a deeper study of its relation to
the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Pentateuch (for a detailed comparison see pp. 20, 57,
66, 70, 74, 92, 99 and 123). However, one verse has played an important role in the
scholarly debate, namely, Exod 7:1. In this verse (nvish crn^K -pnn] ntn) a man is appar
ently honoured more highly than anywhere in the Old Testament, and Moses is called a
god. Both Exod 7:1 and Exod 4:16 are highlighted in the studies investigating early Juda
ism. Scholars supporting the OeTos avrjp hypothesis believed that the Jews were led to
reinterpret their heroes as divine beings and half-gods. Exod 7:1 opened the door to this
kind of reinterpretation, and it is interesting to examine whether or not it was used. In
any case, the L X X preserves the sense of the Hebrew text (SESCOKO: oe 0e6v Qccpccco)
without any trace that the words were problematic to the translators. However, here the
Hebrew and Greek texts of Ben Sira differ (see below).
35
3 5
This view occurred sporadically earlier but was formulated by Hahn in his Chistologische Hoheitstitel (1963, 292-308).
24
Ben Sira mentions Moses more briefly than Aaron or many other persons
after him. As usual Ben Sira shows less interest in certain periods of his
tory or events than in persons. It is not easy to say which miracles pre
cisely are referred to, especially because the Hebrew text is mutilated in
45,2-3:
: t r a r m insotn
Dvfr[
]
b'l (in margin)
: -pn *Efr inptm
nna [
]-n
rwn (in margin)
36
]-n
[...] %] irri2n
The Greek text reads

E V Aoyois auTou OTjjjeTa KccTerrauaev
eSoâaev a u x o v KaTa rrpoacoTrov {JaaiAecov.
Skehan translates the Greek as "wrought swift miracles at his words",

which seems to be correct. According to Eve, Ben Sira only refers to the
miracles that Moses performed in the presence of the Pharaoh, "that is, the
signs with rod and hand and the plagues", and he wonders why the mira
cles of the Red Sea crossing and wandering in the wilderness are passed
over in silence. However, it seems impossible to restrict the miracles re
ferred to so precisely. The Pharaoh was of course present at the Red Sea,
and unless the plural (3aaiAecov is a mistake it may even include the battle
against Amalek or other nations. The fact remains, however, that although
the water at Marah is mentioned in another context, Moses' miracles are
reported only briefly. According to Skehan - di Leila and Eve, the reason
is Ben Sira's desire to emphasise Aaron as the source of the Levitical
priesthood. Still, the brief mention of Moses does not mean that he is
relegated to a minor role in the hymn. On the contrary, in Sir 45:1-5, Ben
Sira calls attention to two of his accomplishments: i.e., the miraculous
leadership and the Law. These two aspects of his mission raise him above
every other human being. Aaron may be the privileged heir, but Moses is
the pioneer in Ben Sira. The hymn usually mentions the office of the fa
ther, but it is now absent. This may indicate that Moses' mission was not
easy to characterise: He was teacher, prophet and ruler, and his office was,
as Mack says, certainly sui generis. Neither the events in Exodus nor the
37
38
39
40
41
36
See Mack 1985, 49.

Eve 2002, 109.
Di Leila - Skehan 1987, 510-511; Eve 2002, 110-111.
Aaron is clearly given a larger role (Sir 45:6-26). The story about Dathan and Abiram and the "band of Korah" (cf. Num 16:1-17:31) is mentioned in this passage (Sir
45:18).
Ska 1999, 186-187.
See Mack 1985, 30.
37
3 8
3 9
4 0
41
25
journey in the wilderness is reported extensively: An allusion is enough,

here as well as in Sir 43:16.
Moses' miracles ( O T H J E T O C , Sir 45:3; the Hebrew text is mutilated) are
alluded to very briefly, obviously because they were so well-known to the
audience that they did not need to be retold. His role is summarised in
words apparently essentially different in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The
Hebrew text in Sir 45:2 is fragmentary. MS B reads crn^
] with
'D*n in the margin.
Vattioni reads Errf?[K IZPK ira]i, Tiede wrt7N2 irrcri (his
translation: "he made him [Moses] as glorious as God"), but di Leila
reads DTfrto m r o n . The Greek translation reads copoicooEv auxov 5ol;r)
42
4 3
44
45
46
47
4 8
t /
49
ayicov.
Alan Lowe, who is working on the manuscripts of Ben Sira, kindly

checked the reading in manuscript B (Oxford). In his view, more letters
can be read than Beentjes indicates in his edition:
: D'orion insom
"'n^n* in3[ D ]i
(2a in margin),
nmon (2b in margin)
: -pn "izb inpmn
ino m m "Q-Q
mm (3a in margin)
: TTQD
n[K ip *rm
DOT
imsn
Although the exact Hebrew words are uncertain, they apparently followed
the thought in Exod 7:1 (runs ? d'IYtk jam). The LXX still follows the
sense of the Hebrew text, but Philo as well as the Samaritan tradition and
,
50
51
42
onn *)T irom in Sir 43:16 seems to point to Ps 114:4 and p'n *pnn mm in Sir
43:17a to Exod 14:21. A very similar allusion to Ps 114 is seen in Pseudo-Philo's L.A.B.;
see below p. 195.
On the word, see below p. 67-67.
According to Mack, Ben Sira "recognised (the Pentateuch) as an epic and regarded it
as significant mainly as an epic." The model is assumed to be the study of the Homeric
epic in the Hellenistic schools "and especially among the Stoics" (1985, 114. 228-229).
However, the view is hardly correct. Ben Sira shows very little signs of an allegorisation.
Beentjes 1997, 78.
Tiede 1972, 181-182.
Di Leila - Skehan 1987, 509.
Snaith (1974, 220-221) gives no Hebrew text, but according to him the Hebrew text
compared Moses to a god, echoing Exod 7:1; the Greek translator misunderstood god to
be angels. Sauer cites the manuscripts and gives a translation ("Gott lieB ihn hintreten",
2000, 306).
The Vulgate reads similem ilium fecit in gloria sanctorum.
Ben Sira apparently wrote in3[D]i, but, as in 44:23b the scribe has confused the rare
verb H3D with the familiar pD.
The small circles, which are in the manuscript, denote a variant reading. In ina[ D ] i
(2a) n is not sure, and both the initial i and 3 are still more uncertain. In 3a the second i in
mrriK is not sure, and the n in - m a is still more uncertain. In 3c uvn is uncertain, but fits
the ink marks well. In 3d kti is definite and the b is fairly certain; all the following let
ters are very uncertain but do fit the remaining ink.
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
51
, ,
26
the rabbinic texts found it problematic. The Greek text of the Wisdom of
Ben Sira seems to share the problem, rendering the text in a changed form,
in which copoicoaev auxov 5OT] ayicov apparently indicates angels.
Ben Sira himself seemed to have a problem with the Hebrew words. In
neither Exodus nor in Sir do they mean deification, but a legitimisation
by miracles: Moses' nature is not divine; he is a messenger of God. The
Jewish tradition was, as Holladay noted, very careful not to mix the roles
of God and man, and the Greek text is evidence of this view.
The miracles certainly make clear in the Wisdom of Ben Sira that Moses
is God's agent, but his miracles can be treated briefly, because he no
longer needs legitimisation in a work written for Jews. In the passage dea
ling with Joshua (Sir 46:1) Ben Sira refers to Moses as r w o n rwn m m .
That he was a prophet (Deut 18:18) did not even need to be mentioned to
the Jewish audience.
53
54
55
56
5 7
c. Joshua
58
After Aaron and Phinehas, Ben Sira summarises the miracles of Joshua:
"Valiant conqueror was Joshua, son of Nun,
aide to Moses in the prophetic office.
Formed to be, as his name implies,
the great saviour of God's chosen ones,
wreaking vengeance on the enemy
and giving to Israel their inheritance.
What glory was his when he raised his hand
to brandish his sword against the city!
Who could withstand him
5 2
See below p. 153 and Holladay 1977, 124-125.

Di Leila and Skehan cite Exod 4:16; 7:1 but also Ps 8:6 and interpret the Hebrew text
to mean angels (1987, 509). For Abraham, Philo uses the words Tooe, CXYYeAoie,
YCYOVWC, (Sacr. 5).
Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354-355) regards Sir 45:1-2 as the first example of
Moses' divinisation in Jewish literature (1994, 354-355). However, she completely over
looks Exod 7:1 as the source of the verses as well as the difference between the Hebrew
and Greek texts.
See Tiede 1972, 181-182; Holladay 1977, 124-125.
Holladay summarises his study as follows: "As to the question of whether in Helle
nistic-Judaism it became easier for Jews to conceive of a divine man because the line of
demarcation between man and God had become blurred, we have seen evidence that sug
gests that Hellenization among Jews, rather than bridging the gap, only widened it"
(1977, 235).
See below p. 27.
On Joshua in Sir see Snaith 1974, 227-230; Stadelmann 1980, 189-192; di Leila Skehan 1989, 517, 518-520; Sauer 2000, 313-316.
53
5 4
55
5 6
57
58
27
when he fought the battles of the Lord?

Was it not at his same hand the sun stopped,
so that one day became like two?
He called upon the Most High God
when he was hard pressed, with enemies on every side;
And God Most High gave answer to him
with the driving force of glistening hail.
Which he rained down upon the hostile army
till on the slope he destroyed the foe;
That all the doomed nations might know
the Lord was watching over his people's battles.
And because he was a devoted follower of God
and in Moses' times showed himself loyal,
he and Caleb, son of Jephunneh,
when they opposed the rebel assembly,
averted God's anger from the people
and suppressed the wicked complaint because of this, those two alone were spared
of the six hundred thousand infantry,
to lead the people into their inheritance,
the land flowing with milk and honey" (Sir 46:1-8).
The book of Joshua tells four stories about Joshua, which are clearly mira
cles: the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1), the conquest of Jericho (Jos
5:13-6:27), the hailstones (Jos 10:8-14) and the stopped sun at Gibeon (Jos
10:12-13).
Ben Sira heavily condenses the extensive biblical material. The LXX does not attest to
any clear redactional tendencies in these passages. On a detailed comparison between the
Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 249.
The last two events alone, which in Joshua are mostly miracles of God, are
directly mentioned in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, and possibly with some
inaccuracies. The omission of the first two, however, does not detract
from the miraculousness of Joshua's leadership, especially because the
hailstones are also mentioned in Sir 43:15. The Hebrew text uses the bibli
cal words TODm m to characterise Joshua, but adds rwon (G: SidSoxos
59
60
61
5 9
Joshua's mission, of course, was "to lead the people into their inheritance" (Sir
46:8). Yet, the crossing of the Jordan is not retold in detail.
According to Snaith, Ben Sira erringly connects Joshua's prayer with the hailstorm,
whereas Jos 10:14 links it with the halting of the sun and moon (Snaith 1974, 229). The
note is correct, but apparently Ben Sira has presumed that Joshua prayed prior to God's
words "Do not be afraid of them" (Jos 10:8). Di Leila and Skehan (1987, 517) observe
another possible inaccuracy, when Ben Sira links the miracle of halting the sun with
Joshua's hand and not with his voice (Sir 46:4). However, it is also possible that Ben Sira
supposed that Joshua was praying with raised hands. On similar questions, see below p.
36.
Jos 1:1; Num 11:28.
6 0
61
28

62
Mcouafj ev TTpo^riTEiais). Joshua is not only a helping hand, but also

Moses' successor, and so Joshua is included among the prophets, not be
cause of his words but because of his deeds. Moreover, this was the only
time he was called a prophet: Josephus also calls him by this name
(5id5oxos . . . E T T I . . . T O C ? S Trpo(|>r|TEiais, Ant. 4,165). If Josephus follows
a tradition, it may have antedated Ben Sira's work.
In Ben Sira, the miracles of Joshua are not only an isolated event in
Joshua's life but clearly the main part of his mighty deeds. From the vast
material included in Josh, the writer picked two of the four miracles for his
short summary, and they thus play a prominent role. In contrast to Josh,
the miracles now belong to the heart of Joshua's mission. They show that
"the Lord was watching over his people's battles", and are now tightly
bound with Joshua's militant leadership. Did Ben Sira believe that
Joshua's miracles were important for his own time? This question, a sub
ject of vivid discussion in the last 30 years, needs to be asked again. It is a
wide issue that also has consequences for an interpretation of the miracles
in the work.
In 1972, Th. Middendorp published a book on the Wisdom of Ben Sira.
He defended the view already presented long before, that the original
work was not at all anti-Hellenistic. On the contrary, he identified some
one hundred alleged quotations from Greek literature, about half of them
from Theognis. Although the work was originally written in Hebrew, Mid
dendorp assumed that Ben Sira had used a Greek florilegium and that his
work was intended to be a schoolbook in the Greek manner. Some impor
tant passages were now regarded as interpolations from the Maccabean
63
64
65
66
Sauer (2000, 313-316) correctly underlines Joshua's militant nature in The Wisdom
of Ben Sira, but fails to see his prophetical mission. He is not only the servant of the
prophet Moses, but also - as the Greek translation understandably puts it - his 5td5oxos
in this mission. Ska (1999, 183.184) observes the innovation.
See Snaith 1974, 228-229.
Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (1972).
Particularly Pautrel tried already in 1963 to establish a connection between Ben Sira
and the Stoics (Ben Sira et le Stoicisme).
Middendorp 1972, 7-34. Middendorp supposed that the writer knew Greek literature
better than the translator, who could no longer find the original Greek expressions (1972,
8). The contacts between Ben Sira and Greek writers have been studied and discussed
long before and after Middendorp. Most scholars agree that Ben Sira was under Hellenis
tic influence, but some deny the proposed direct literary contacts. On this question see
Mack 1985, 91. 222-223; Hengel 1991, 149-150; Reiterer 1997, 41-43. Kieweler (1992)
scrutinised the evidence presented by Middendorp and found it very weak. Indeed, Mid
dendorp fails to give exact citations but works with the similarity of the ideas. However,
many ideas were common to the Greek as well as to the Hebrew literature and it is diffi
cult to prove Middendorp's assertion that Ben Sira used a Greek florilegium.
6 3
64
6 5
6 6
29
period. Middendorp's book was immediately and severely criticised in a

review (1974) by Hengel, who had represented a totally different view in
Judaism and Hellenism (the first German edition in 1969 and the second in
1973). Since these studies the alleged anti-Hellenism - aggressive or not
- in the work has divided scholars. Some of them underline the national
colouring of the work and Ben Sira's connection of all universal wisdom
with Israel. Other scholars emphasize Ben Sira's contacts with Greek
thought and deny any contradiction with it. The study of heroes' miracles
may shed light on the question.
Joshua's mighty deeds clearly belong to the history shaping the identity
of Israel, and he is not called a prophet by coincidence; he guarantees the
continuity of the covenant. Ben Sira considers him to be the bridge be
tween Moses and the judges (especially Samuel). The promise in Deut
18:18 is applied to Joshua, who gave his people their heritage in the Prom
ised Land.
Sir 46:1-8 is undoubtedly marked by pride in the leader's militant power.
Joshua attacks "all doomed nations" (mn na, G has only eBvn, Sir 46:6).
Here the miracles have become a significant part of his image. Neither ad68
69
70
71
72
6 7
See below p. 34-36.

Hengel 1974, 83-87, reprinted with an epilogue in Kleine Schriften 1 1996, 252-257.
Hengel calls Middendorp's book "eine typische Anfangerarbeit." In his view, Midden
dorp failed to demonstrate the alleged literary relations between The Wisdom of Ben Sira
and many Greek sources, overlooked the fact that in Ben Sira's work, wisdom dwells
exclusively in Zion, and excluded everything that did not fit his view, considering them
as later additions.
The German edition of Schurer considers Ben Sira a traditionalist. "Es ist die Zeit
des hereinbrechenden Hellenismus. Der Vertreter gehort zu den Altglaubigen und beklagt
es tief, dafi die gottlose Manner das Gesetz des Hochsten verlassen haben (41,8)" (4. ed.
3 [1909], 3, 215). R. Smend claims that Ben Sira had a deep hatred of the Greeks (1906,
xxiv) and expressed a Jewish declaration of war against Hellenism (1907, 33). See also
Hengel 1974, 83-85; repr. 1996, 252-257. These scholars may not deny that Ben Sira was
a cultured man of his time and familiar with Greek literature, but consider his book to be
a reaction against the wholesale acceptance of Greek ideas to the detriment of their faith.
Recently the national colouring has been stressed by Whybray 1999, 138, Sauer 2000,
30-31 and VanderKam 2001, 117: "Ben Sira's purpose seems to have been to convince
his audience, presumably Jewish, that the true wisdom was not to be sought in the books
and teachings of the Greeks but in the writings and instruction of the Jewish tradition."
Pautrel (1939, 545) stressed Ben Sira's contacts with Greek thought. In Mack's view
Ben Sira's book reveals "the marks of an erudite cosmopolitan" and "openness to Helle
nistic thought" (1985, 85; similarly also Mack - Murphy 1986, 374-375). Eve considers
Ben Sira opposed "not to Hellenism as such, but to any form of modernization that
threatened what he saw as the ancestral faith" (2002, 106-107). On the history of research
see Marbock 1997, 42-43. On his own view see Marbock 1999, 170-173.
See Becker 2002,211.
Stadelmann 1980, 191.
6 8
6 9
7 0
71
7 2
30
ditions nor alterations to the biblical original were needed; the picture is
now radically changed. The biblical material opens the door for a reinterpretation, but only after a careful selection of the material. Miracles and
politics are combined in an aggressive way. With the exception of Laus
patrum the work admittedly contains very few verses showing Ben Sira's
political activity. He may advise the reader not to get mixed up in political
matters, but he also reveals his interest in the life of his people. Appar
ently Ben Sira thought that God's covenant with David as it once was
belonged to history and that it was the High Priest who represented conti
nuity. If that is true, one theocracy had made room for another, although
the latter was less militant and possible satisfied to control only a narrow
segment of society. Nevertheless, Israel's past offered enough fuel for
political zeal. The word cnn, admittedly omitted in the Greek translation,
shows that this fuel is by no means absent in Sir, although the target of the
aggression is not yet clear. Even so, or possibly for that reason, later inter
pretations of Joshua as a hero were controversial and he caused a moderate
writer such as Josephus many problems. This kind of leader could be and
indeed was used for political purposes during turning points in Israel's
history. Some scholars (especially Stadelmann and Hengel) have seen a
line leading from Ben Sira to the later Jewish movements such as the later
apocalyptic prophets and even John the Baptist. Ben Sira's description of
the great conqueror certainly gave enough evidence to those who desired a
politically-minded Joshua. His miracles were emphasized and adapted to
new situations. The German slogan, Die Endzeit entspricht der Urzeit, re
veals a specific Jewish trait, which did not belong to Greek concepts of
miracles.
It is easy to quote Ben Sira and label Joshua as a PNP ("He called upon
the Most High God ... and God Most High gave answer to him with the
73
74
75
76
77
78
7 3
Middendorp (1972, 163-164), as well as Hengel, underlines the writer's caution, but
Hengel also attributes a clear political view to him (1991, 134). According to Midden
dorp and Mack (1985, 58-59) he followed the politics of Simon the High Priest.
Ben Sira does not forget David but, interestingly enough, mentions him in a strange
place in the hymn, which otherwise follows a chronological order. He is mentioned in
connection with Phinehas, after Aaron and before Joshua. Priest suggests that Ben Sira
represented a belief in two Messiahs attested already in Zech 6 and common in Qumran
(Priest 1964-66, 111-118). Also, the passage on Elijah shows that a sort of "Messianism"
cannot be ruled out in Sir (see Martin 1986, 107-123).
See Stadelmann 1980, 157. Mack, too, considers Simon's ministry to be the climax
of the sacred history in Sir (1985, 49-52).
According to Mack (1985, 84-85), Ben Sira was, as were the High Priests, happy
with the Temple and cult and did not try to expand the power of the priests to the eco
nomic or political world.
Stadelmann 1980, 179-184; Hengel 1991, 135-136.
7 4
75
7 6
7 7
7 8
31
driving force of glistening hail"), and indeed he can serve as a good exam
ple of this label. Joshua's role is, however, not merely that of a man in
prayer. He also acts as a leader sent by God. In fact, the comments on the
sun in Sir could be interpreted to mean that none other than Joshua himself
is the BNP, and that he alone makes the miracle ("Was it not at his same
hand the sun stopped"). This tension between two passages so close to
each other demonstrates that Kahl's terminology cannot be used without a
framework within which to interpret the text. Jewish texts at times may
depict someone as an independent miracle-worker without any mention of
God. The question is how much interpretation between the lines there was.
The audience is a crucial factor influencing the interpretation. Artapanus'
text was obviously intended for both Jews and Gentiles, and different read
ers undoubtedly understood Moses' role in different ways. This is not a
problem in Ben Sira, and there is not even the need to be concerned about
"a certain amount of poetical licence", because the passage on the glis
tening hail already provides a more conventional view of Joshua's role:
God is obviously the BNP initiating the miracles, but Joshua is clearly his
tool, the mediator of God's help (MNP).
Miracles play an interesting role in this passage. They do more than
merely legitimate Joshua. The writer goes one step further to show how a
legitimated leader takes his people to war without any hesitation or fear.
His prophetical leadership (rwoaa n$ft rrwti) proves that God watched over
his people. In the view of Ben Sira, this obviously did not only refer to the
distant past.
79
80
d. Elijah
The words about Elijah, again in Laus patrum, form a passage important in
many ways (Sir 47:25-48:11):
81
"Their sinfulness grew more and more,

and they lent themselves to every evil
till a like there appeared a prophet
whose words were as a flaming furnace.
Their staff of bread he shattered,
in his zeal he reduced them to straits;
By God's word he shut up the heavens
and three times brought down fire.
7 9
See below p. 105.

Eve 2002, 111.
On Elijah in Sir see Snaith 1974, 238-240; Stadelmann 1980, 197-200; di Leila Skehan 1987, 532-534; 1992, 931-945; Ohler 1997, 6-12; Sauer 2000, 325-327 and Eve
2002, 109-110.
8 0
81
32
How awesome are you, Elijah!

Whose glory is equal to yours?
You brought a dead child back to life
from netherworld, by the will of the Lord.
You sent kings down to destruction,
and nobles, from their beds of sickness.
You heard threats at Sinai;
at Horeb avenging judgements.
You anointed the bearer of these punishments,
the prophet to succeed to your place.
You were taken aloft in a whirlwind,
by fiery captors, heavenward.
You are destined, it is written, in time to come
to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord,
to turn back the hearts of parents toward their children,
and to re-establish the tribes of Israel.
Blessed is he who have seen you before he dies!
.
(Sir 48:1-11).
82
The wide biblical material on Elijah offered many aspects to be summa

rised. Early on, von Rad wondered why Ben Sira had selected the miracles
of the prophet. As in Joshua's case they are strongly underlined and form
the essence of Elijah's character. This is emphasized by the context:
David's rule is an ideal period followed by an age of decadence and sin.
Elijah, the prophet of fire, the bearer of punishment and the miracleworker appears in this situation.
The biblical Elijah makes and witnesses many miracles. He closes the
heavens with his prayer and is fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17:1-6). The widow
who gave him a room and bread miraculously receives food every day (1
Kgs 17:7-16) and gets her son back from death (1 Kgs 17:17-24). The
Spirit of the Lord takes Elijah and carries him long distances (1 Kgs 17:12.
49). God answers his prayer with fire on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 17:16-39)
and delivers the long expected rain (1 Kgs 18:41-45). Elijah prophesies the
death of King Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:1-8). The fire from heaven twice con
sumes the men sent for him (2 Kgs 1:9-15). He is taken to heaven miracu
lously (2 Kgs 2:1-18).
83
84
Ben Sira again strongly abridges long biblical passages, and a comparison between the
Hebrew and the very faithful translation does not facilitate an understanding of his text.
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 265.
8 2
The Hebrew text is corrupt in l i b , the Greek reads Kai oi ev ayocTrrjoei KEKoaurmevoi (ms. KEKOiurjuEvoi) / Kai y a p f|us?s corj na6ue0a. Sauer considers the
verse an interpolation (2000, 325-327). On the reading and the verse, see also di Leila Skehan 1987, 531-532.
"Er sieht die Propheten fast nur noch als Wundermanner", von Rad 1970, 331.
Stadelmann 1980, 197-198.
8 3
8 4
33
Although briefly, Ben Sira chooses a great deal from the biblical material:
Elijah closes the heavens, calls for the fire from heaven three times, raises
the son from the dead, prophesies Ahaziah's death and is taken to heaven.
In the short summary, of course, most of the details are omitted, opening
the door to speculations. In any case I do not believe that Jezebel and Baal
were left out because the writer was afraid of the pagan rulers. Because
the whole biblical story is condensed (as Snaith notes, "three times brought
down fire" includes the events at Mount Carmel), there is no reason for
guesswork. Elisha is very militant against the pagans in Sir.
Ben Sira's short passage does not reveal any clear changes compared
with the biblical stories. He neither retells Elijah's miracles nor even lists
them, but only alludes to the material he clearly supposes to be known to
everybody. The implied audience consists of Jews who had learned their
lessons well. Yet, something is left out. Neither the food brought by the
ravens nor the widow are mentioned, nor the long distance the Spirit car
ried Elijah. The stories alluded to help us to understand why these parts of
the tradition are omitted: The miracles of the past were also important
when Ben Sira wrote his work. The miracles that he chose to retell did not
concern the daily lives of individuals, but the nation as a whole.
The miracles Ben Sira selected were of political importance. Elijah sent
kings to destruction (cf. 2 Kgs 1:1-8) and "anointed the bearer of these
punishments" (cf. 1 Kgs 19:16). The second part of the verse suggests that
it is not Jehu, who killed Baal's prophets, who is referred to, but Elisha.
The kings of the Northern Kingdom play no role in the glorious past of
Israel. The real leadership belongs to a few figures who preserved the
continuity of the covenant between God and Israel. One of them is Elijah,
whose mighty deeds are not just isolated phenomena, but an essential part
of his prophetical mission. This idea of mission would answer von Rad's
apt question as to why Ben Sira makes the prophets "almost exclusively
miracle-workers." Joshua is Moses' successor nwnn and Elijah the suc
cessor of Joshua as leader of the nation. The covenant and continuity is a
central theme in Laus patrum and it is here that Elijah's miracles find
their place. Other material - the widow, the son and the ravens - is omit
ted. For Elijah as well as for Joshua the hero's miracles are emphasized.
85
86
87
88
89
90
8 5
Middendorp 1972, 65; followed by Stadelmann 1980, 198

Snaith 1974,239.
The Greek text has 6 X P
(3aoiAs7s e'S avTaTroSouo: (v. 8), which indicates
obo. However, the Hebrew text has moi^n tfro rrenian. Snaith (1974, 239-240) and Sauer
(2000, 325) follow the Greek text, but see di Leila - Skehan 1987, 531.
See Stadelmann 1980, 199-200.
See above p. 31.
Stadelmann 1980, 158.
8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
, C 0 V
34
The miracles are essential parts of the holy history at decisive moments.
This history shaped the identity of the nation.
The biblical Elijah, the man without compromises, offers many opportu
nities to show how miracles could change the world. The militant prayer
in chapter 36 has sometimes been considered an interpolation, but it per
fectly matches the bias described above:
91
92
93
"Come to our aid, God of the universe,

and put all the nations in the dread of you!
Raise your hand against the foreign folk,
that they may see your mighty deeds.
As you have used us to show them your holiness,
so now use them to show us your glory.
Thus they will know, as we know,
that there is no God but you.
Give new signs and work new wonders;
show forth the splendour of your right hand and arm;
rouse your anger, pour out wrath,
humble the enemy, scatter the foe.
Hasten the ending, appoint the time
when your mighty deeds are to be proclaimed:
Let raging fire consume the fugitive,
and your people's oppressors meet destruction;
smash the heads of the hostile rulers,
who say: 'There is no one besides me!'" (Sir 36:1-12).
94
95
The age in which Ben Sira lived was not a peaceful one, but a time of con
tinuous struggle between the Ptolemaic and Seleucidic rulers over the rule
91
It is difficult to share Whybray's view that Ben Sira's work lacks a view on history:
"There is no continuity here, no sense of cause and effect, no feeling of a history moving
towards a recognisable goal" (1999, 139). The continuity is formed from covenant and
the goal of the history described is that the High Priests take over the role of the great
kings.
See Schurer 2 (1979), 498: "It is clear, that the author not only pleads, but really
hopes, for the destruction of Israel's enemies and a glorious future for the nation corre
sponding to God's promises." On the prayer see di Leila - Skehan 1987, 420-423, Hengel
1991, 152-153 and Sauer 2000, 247-251.
See Middendorp 1972, 125-132; Mack - Murphy 1986, 374-377; Eve 2002, 113-114.
However, even these scholars consider the interpolation very old, from the Maccabean
period. The theory about an interpolation is not accepted in the commentaries; see Snaith
1974, 174; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 420-423; Sauer 2000, 251.
Snaith (1974, 174-175), di Leila - Skehan (1987, 421-422) and Sauer (2000, 250)
connect these works with the miracles of the exodus. This is probable but by no means
certain.
The Hebrew text reads -nîr y* "iDiKn naiD T I K D mi roan. The verse has led scholars to
various speculations. Middendorp (1972, 129) interprets this to mean Antiochus' bust in
the temple. Di Leila - Skehan (1987, 422) and Sauer (2000, 250) understand it to refer to
the Seleucids.
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
35
of Palestine. He himself knows that "dominion is transferred from one

people to another because of the violence of the arrogant" (Sir 10:8), and
the prayer cited above reflects the harsh reality of his own age. The words
enn
imt pom T Tmn nsia ran ma / eyKcuvioov armeia Kai aAAoicoaov 6au|jaaia, Soâaov x ^ P
*ai Ppaxiova 5eiov (Sir 36:6) link
miracles with the help of God. It is no coincidence that Ben Sira, treating
Elijah in Sir 48:10, adds a new feature to Maleachi's verses (Mai 4:5-6),
the restoration of the tribes of Israel (cf. Isa 49:6). The restoration, men
tioned also in Sir 48:10, is the goal and the task of the returning
prophet. Elijah not only belongs to the past; he is also a future prophet.
The miracles of the past were part of the present in Israel, and they formed
an important part of the Jewish eschatology. The concept of Elia redivivus
is attested to in Mai 3:23-24, in the New Testament (Luke 1:17 and Matt
11:10; 11:14; 17:10-13), apparently in a text from Qumran (4Q558), and
it is commonplace in Mishna. Even if these few words do not allow a
study of the eschatology of the work here, Sir 48:1-11 is an early passage
indicating this expectation.
Subsequent to Middendorp's book cited above there have been two alter
natives to choose from: Middendorp also considers the verse Sir 48:10 an
early interpolation, and regards the whole association between the miracles
and politics as post-Maccabean enthusiasm. However, it is easy to rec97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
9 6
Middendorp characterises the period: "Die Zeit der Makkabaer unterschied sich tatsachlich grundlegend von den ruhigen Jahren ptolemaischer Herrschaft" (1972, 113). He
is by no means alone in considering the age peaceful, but the view is challenged by some,
such as Martin (1986, 118-119). In 198-180, when the work was written, the "dominion"
had recently been "transferred from one people to another", i. e. from the Egyptians to
the Seleucids. Hengel's summary of the period after the death of Alexander is totally
different from Middendorp's: "The struggle for Phoenicia and Palestine was for the next
150 years a decisive factor in the policies of both kingdoms" (Hengel 1989a, 49).
According to Stadelmann (1980, 165) Ben Sira has identified Elijah with the suffer
ing servant in Isaiah, but the few words we have do not allow such a judgement.
See di Leila - Skehan 1987, 534.
See Stadelmann 1980, 200. Middendorp (1972, 134-135) attributes the words to a
glossator.
Martin (1986, 111-113) correctly connects Sir 36 with the passage dealing with
Elijah and sees in him some kind of Messianic light.
The view is also implied in 4Q521.
See Zimmermann 1998, 314-316; Schreiber 2002, 529-534 and below p. 224. The
view is also confirmed in Sib. Or. 2:187-202. On the Lives of the Prophets, see below p.
184.
Cf. Lee 1986, 211-212: "Restoration of the tribes by Elijah may be Sirach's attempt
to attribute a future 'political' deed to the prophet to go along with those he has already
accomplished."
Middendorp 1972, 134-135. He recognises the miracles and writes: "Die Erneuerung
von Zeichen und Wundern durch ein neuerliches Eingreifen Gottes in die Geschichte
97
9 8
9 9
100
101
102
103
104
36
ognise a link between the miracle-working and politically active prophet

and the other nationalistic passages in the work, and it leads one to con
clude that the writer had a consistent view of the past and present of his
people.
The biblical Elijah, a strong, zealous and powerful politician, would be
problematic for some Jewish writers trying to tone down his political activ
ity. Ben Sira was still free to go in the opposite direction and identify
God's power with the political miracles of the prophet. Elijah's most re
markable miracles are reported briefly but clearly with pride and joy.
Elijah may not have been an independent miracle-worker who could be
termed a BNP, but he certainly mediated God's power among his people.
105
106
Some scholars have claimed that Ben Sira erred here, as in Joshua. The
Old Testament does not say that Elisha was anointed, and if Sir 48:8
originally contained the kings, it is another inaccuracy: Elijah did not
anoint Jehu but Elisha's pupil, and Hazazel is not anointed in the Old Tes
tament at all.
The words in Sir 48:6 (nra
D O ^ O imon / o KOCTO:yaycov PaaiXeTs e'is arrcoAeiav apparently point to Ahaziah, but the plu
ral C P D ^ D / (3ocaiAe7s is difficult in any case, if the harsh sentence against
Ahab is not meant (1 Kgs 21:21-29). These details may be called mistakes,
yet since God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha and the kings (1 Kgs 19:15-16)
Ben Sira may have deemed this as sufficient. As in the passage dealing
with Joshua, all inaccuracies are small and they can quite easily be ex
plained. They also show how eager Ben Sira is to relate miracles dealing
with rulers. The miracles are at the heart of Elijah's mission and their role
is clear. They are part of his mission and manifest the presence of God's
power. The eschatological hope of Israel was intimately connected with the
glorious past.
107
108
seines Volkes (Verse 6, 7), gar noch im Sinne von Zorngerichten, entspricht in keiner
Weise dem an der Stoa geschulten Gottesbild Ben Siras" (1972, 131; see also 1972, 127).
In any case, the miracles play an important role in Laus patrum and are in agreement
with the view in the prayer.
See below p. 269.
See above p. 27.
Sauer 2000, 326.
As Sauer (2000, 326) notes, it was not Elijah but Elisha who anointed the kings,
Hazael, king of Aram and Jehu, king of Israel. Ben Sira may be inaccurate, but Sauer is
equally "inaccurate", because it was not Elisha but his anonymous pupil who anointed
Jehu (2 Kgs 9:6), and Hazael is not anointed at all in the Old Testament (however, see 2
Kgs 8:13).
105
106
107
108
37
e. Elisha
Elisha is also one of the chosen fathers in Laus patrum, immediately after
his master:
109
"When Elijah was enveloped in the whirlwind,

Elisha was filled with his spirit.
Twice as many signs he wrought,
and marvels with every utterance of his mouth.
His life long he feared no one,
nor was any able to intimidate his will.
Nothing was beyond his power;
from where he laid buried, his dead body prophesied.
In life he performed wonders,
and after death, marvellous deeds.
Despite all this the people did not repent,
nor did they cease their sinning
until they were rooted out of their land
and scattered all over the earth
But Judah remained, a tiny people,
with its ruler from the house of David.
Some of them did what was right
but others were extremely wicked" (Sir 48:12-16).
110
Among the Old Testament figures, Elisha most certainly can be called a
miracle-worker. His mighty deeds are reported in 2 Kgs 2-13. The great
number and nature of his biblical miracles have led some scholars to re
gard this part of 2 Kgs as a model of collections that allegedly preceded
the Gospels. Elisha's miracles in the Bible differ slightly from Elijah's:
A great part of them happened in the daily life of his kinsmen. The biblical
Elisha hits the water of the Jordan with Elijah's cloak and crosses the Jor
dan (2 Kgs 2:1-18), heals the water in Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19-22) and curses
the children, who were soon eaten by bears (2 Kgs 2:23-25). He saves the
troops of the kings (2 Kgs 3:1-27), fills the jars of a widow with oil (2 Kgs
4:1-7), foretells the birth of a son to a woman who gives him a room and
bread (2 Kgs 4:8-17) and raises him from the dead (2 Kgs 4:18-37). Elisha
makes a poisonous food edible (2 Kgs 4:38-41), feeds hundred of men with
twenty loaves (2 Kgs 4:42-44) and heals Naaman the Syrian (2 Kgs 5:1111
109
On Elisha in Sir see Snaith 1974, 241-242; Stadelmann 1980, 200-204; di Leila Skehan 1987, 534-535; Sauer 2000, 327-328; Eve 2002, 109-110.
Actually the Old Testament tells of only one miracle after Elisha's death, namely the
story mentioned by Ben Sira. This may be considered another small error.
Achtemaier (1972a, 175-179) supposed the existence of "miracle-catenae", which
were modelled on the stories about Moses, Elijah and Elisha. This view has become more
common recently; see Moore 1990, 151-152. Goulder already observed the stories care
fully in 1978, 266-281.
1 1 0
111
38
18). He severely punishes Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:19-27), takes an axhead from

the Jordan (2 Kgs 6:1-7) and helps kings and mighty men in various ways
(2 Kgs 6:8-23; 6:24-7:20; 8:7-15; 13:14-19). Even after his death his bones
bring a murdered man back to life (2 Kgs 13:20-21). Clearly, most of the
biblical material consists of miracles.
Ben Sira gives a brief summary of Elisha's miracles. The Septuagint follows the Hebrew
original very faithfully and does not help to clarify Ben Sira's passage. On a detailed
comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX see below p. 272.
Ben Sira's summary of Elisha's life is interesting. As in 2 Kgs the mira

cles form the main part of his depiction. The words in 2 Kgs 2:9 are inter
preted to mean that Elisha doubled the miracles his forerunner made ( w r n
^ "jrrna o^bmb / Yevvrj0r)Tco 5rj SiirAd ev m/euijcm oou ett' e|je). Elisha's role is by no means diminished here. He can justly be called an
MNP; it is only the contexts that preclude him from being considered an
independent BNP. Although the short passage identifies only one story,
namely the dead man returning to life in 2 Kgs 13:20-21, Ben Sira makes it
clear that the miraculously found axhead was not the essence of Elisha's
mission. Mundane miracles seem to have been rather uninteresting to Ben
Sira. They are included in the summary, but another type of miracle clearly
interests him more. Similarly to Elijah and others, Elisha formed a link
between the good kings and the high priests who inherited the covenant
God made with David. Elisha's mighty deeds were an essential part of
his mission to convert Israel. Nonetheless, in spite of his miracles the peo
ple did not return to the Lord, leading to the exile of the Israelis, with only
a small number remaining in Judah. Ben Sira deals rather light-heartedly
with the centuries. The political role of the prophet at this decisive mo
ment of Israel's history is now clearly emphasized; as a matter of fact it is
his only role. Ben Sira hardly wrote this passage because of an antiquarian
interest; the passage on Elijah and chapter 36 reveal the adaptation of the
biblical stories, the hope of new miracles.
Joshua's and Elijah's miracles were a decisive part of their mission, a
manifestation of God's power and presence. Moses did not need a legitimi
sation in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, but the function of his miracles is simi
lar to that of the mighty deeds of Joshua and Elijah. The miracles and the
prophecy build a unity: VWOL K : U vnnnoi "ODD K^D] vb 121
(Sir 48:13).
112
113
114
1 1 5
112

Stadelmann 1980, 203-204.215.
Snaith observes that Ben Sira ignores Amos and Hosea, apparently because he used
the books of Kings (Snaith 1974, 242).
Snaith (1974, 241) and di Leila - Skehan (1987, 532) correct the Hebrew text (iroa
to K33) and follow the Greek (Kai sv Koiurjaei eTrpo<J>rJTeuaev TO acouo: auxou). Sauer's
translation shows that he seems to retain the reading ("... und noch nach seinem Tode
113
114
115
39
The miracles are not isolated phenomena in the passages on Elijah and
Elisha; they are intimately linked to the mission to convert Israel. How
ever, Elisha's mission failed. The people did not repent, and were scattered
all over the earth, a rare example of a legitimisation rejected by God's peo
ple. It is interesting that Ben Sira, waiting for the restoration of Israel (Sir
36:13; Sir 48:10), mentions the "scattered" tribes. Elijah's and Elisha's
miracles should have been enough to convert the people, but they were not.
This is not the only occurrence of the hymn giving to a father a place on
the dark side of Israel's history, but rather seems to belong to the general
pattern of the characterisation. In Sir 36:1-12 the writer prays for new
miracles and waits for Elijah's return in Sir 48:10. We cannot say with
certainty whether he linked these two hopes, but it seems probable.
116
117
/ Isaiah
Ben Sira attributes a remarkable passage to Hezekiah and the dramatic
events during his reign, and the king is treated positively. Nevertheless, the
most important person in the passage is not Hezekiah but Isaiah the
prophet:
118
"But they called upon the Most High God

and lifted up their hands to him.
He heard the prayer they uttered,
and saved them through Isaiah.
God struck the camp of the Assyrians
and routed them with a plague.
For Hezekiah did what is right
and held fast to the paths of David,
as ordered by the illustrious prophet
Isaiah, who saw the truth in visions.
In his lifetime he turned back the sun
and prolonged the life of the king.
By his dauntless spirit he looked into the future
and consoled the mourners of Zion.
He foretold what should be till the end of time,
hidden things that were yet to be fulfilled" (Sir 48:20-25).
wurde Leben erschaffen durch sein Fleisch", 2000, 327).

See Mack 1985,23.
On Isaiah in Ben Sira see Snaith 1974, 242-244; Stadelmann 1980, 204-208; di Leila
- Skehan 1987, 536-539; Beentjes 1989, 77-88; Sauer 2000, 328-330; Eve 2002, 109-110
and especially Hoffken's detailed analysis (2000, 162-175).
116
1 , 7
118
40
Isaiah's miraculous deeds are reported in a very similar way in 2 Kgs

18:13-20:11 and Isa 36:1-38:22. In the passages treated here (Isa 37:1420; 36-37 / 2 Kgs 19:14-20; 35-37 and Isa 38:1-8; 21-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11)
the major difference between the texts is the different location of the words
on the poultice of figs (Isa 38:21-22 / 2 Kgs 19:7-8). It is not certain which
of the texts is the original or whether both texts are from a common
source, and the divergence of the texts reveals its complex history.
We cannot determine whether Ben Sira followed 2 Kgs or Isaiah or both,
but his view is definitely different from 2 Chr 32, where the prophet's role
has been almost totally forgotten. The Greek version of Sir seems slightly
more faithful to the biblical originals than the Hebrew.
119
120
121
122
It is certainly useful to ask again whether LXX reveals any significant alterations in
translating the biblical stories of Isaiah. LXX follows the Hebrew text in Isa 37:14-20;
36-38 very accurately. In 37:14 it omits mm rra
ironpn. In v. 38 LXX has n a x a x p o v
(sic; MT viTro, cf. 2 Kgs 19:37 0sou auxou) and in e'.s ' Apurjviav (MT em p ; cf. 2
Kgs 19:37 s\s yr\v Apapccr).
In 2 Kgs 19:14-20; 35-37 LXX omits
impm ^ s r n
mm in v. 15.
In Isa 38:1-9; 21-22 LXX replaces m with TOU naxpds oou in v. 8 and adds b fjAios
in the same verse. Isaiah's advice after Hezekiah's hymn (21-22) differs rom the Hebrew
text: :mm ma nbim o rm no impm -ram :'rm ymn'bv vnD-i D^DWI rbyi iwzr imi>er nam /
Kai EITTEV Hoaias rrpos EÊKiav Aa(3E TTaXd0r)V 'EK CUKCOV Kai xpTv|/ov Kai
KaxcJ-rrXaaai Kai uyiris Eorj. Kai STTTEV EÊKias Touxo TO OTJUETOV oxi avaprjoouai
sis xov OTKOV Kupiou xou 0EOU. In 2 Kgs 20:1-11 m is rendered with cjtimeTOV in v. 9-10
(as in Isa 38:7; 22). In v. 11 LXX omits rm rnuoa mm im.
All in all, it is very difficult to find any traces of conscious redactional biases of the
translators concerning the miraculous, although the translators have slightly diminished
the difficulties the location of Isa 38:21-22 causes.
123
124
Stadelmann already noted that Ben Sira diminished Hezekiah's role: It is

not he (as in Isa 37:4-19 / 2 Kgs 19:14-20) but the people who pray to the
Lord for help (Sir 48:20). Isa 38:1-6 / 2 Kgs 20:1-6 tells how the sick
king's prayer resulted in help from the Lord, but this is omitted in The
Wisdom of Ben Sira. Although the king is also presented in a positive light,
Isaiah has a more prominent role. As in Isa 36-39 and 2 Kgs 18-20, the
prophet is Hezekiah's teacher, and it is now the prophet who prolongs the
119
See Laato 1988, 271-296.

See Laato 1988, 277-278.
Isa 61:1-3 was certainly in Ben Sira's mind. On the reminiscences from Isaiah see
Hoffken 2000, 170.
See Hoffken 2000, 163-171.
The Septuagint often modernizes names of biblical places and peoples; see Siegert
2000,214.
120
121
122
123
124
41
king's life, and God redeems his people "by his hand" (Tn ojr&m Truer
/ eAuTpcoaaxo C C U T O U S ev x* P Haaiou, Sir 48:20).
Moreover, his person is underlined in the miracle. While in 2 Kgs 20:811 Isaiah prays and God makes the miracle, it is now Isaiah who "turns
back the sun." The role of the prophet has grown: he certainly can be
called an MNP, and since God is not mentioned at all it is only the wider
context that prevents the miracle from being solely attributed to the
prophet.
Similarly to Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah is also presented as a man of politi
cal significance. Although he is already a politically powerful man in the
Old Testament it is interesting that the miracles are now the device under
lining his significance.
If the writer saw God's covenant with David broken, it is understandable
that he did not emphasize the role of the Davidic king. It was Isaiah the
prophet and not the king who represented the continuity of the covenant
between God and Israel, and the miracles manifested which line in history
was the correct one.
{
126
127
128
g. Conclusion
The biblical miracles play a major role in Laus patrum. Ben Sira uses the
biblical material to reveal his strong pride in the history of Israel. The glo
rious past formed the identity of the nation, and the biblical miracles were
an essential part of it. There is no need to repeat the miracles; the audience
consisted of Jews and short allusions were enough to remind them of the
stories. Moreover, the manner of alluding to miracles is already very so
phisticated in Sir. He may combine the wood cast into the water by Moses
with the work of a physician, because the following verse in Exodus
speaks about God as healer, or refers briefly to a psalm alluding to a story
told in Pentateuch. Ben Sira was the first known writer to retell the biblical
miracles and it is difficult to distinguish tradition from something of his
own invention. There is no clear evidence of Greek influence in the stories
except for the form, but some details may already have belonged to the
Jewish heritage in Ben Sira's time. At least Philo followed him in specula-
125
TrpooE0r|Kev cor|v PccoiAe? (Sir 48:23). The mutilated Hebrew text cannot be read.
See Hoffken 2000, 171-172.
Hoffken plausibly points to the similar miracle made by Joshua, Sir 46:4 as a back
ground.
A certain caution is necessary: David's position in Laus patrum does not fit the
chronological order, but underlines his significance; see above p. 30.
126
127
128
42
tions concerning the twig cast into the water and Josephus calling Joshua a
prophet.
The short passages do not allow a detailed study of the roles of God and
man. Moses' casting of the twig into the water has a smaller role than in
Exod 15:22-27, but apparently the Hebrew text of Sir rendered the thought
in Exod 7:1 faithfully, while the Greek text is different. Joshua seems to be
more than a PNP, and it is only the larger context that prevents him as well
as Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah from being called independent miracle-wor
kers, some kind of BNPs. However, although God is not necessarily even
mentioned, as in the passage dealing with Elisha, the verses cannot be iso
lated. The miracles of these men were not absorbed by wisdom, as in Wis
dom, and they did not become mere messengers as in Chronicles, but their
great deeds were retold with pride.
The central question concerns the interesting mixture between miracles and
politics. Did Ben Sira draw attention to the miracles, because he thought
they were actually important? As seen, some scholars have underlined Ben
Sira's political activity in this context, while others have been rather scep
tical.
There are very few passages in the work that can be interpreted from a
political point of view, and it is generally lacking in material that could be
used for a political programme. The conclusion, however, that the writer
has little or no interest in political life is only partially true. Laus patrum,
but also Sir 36, which is an original part of the work and not an interpola
tion, contain material worth noting. Moreover, Ben Sira's method of using
the biblical miracle stories shows that they were not merely Trapd5oa,
but that the mighty deeds had a political and prophetic significance. He
clearly chose miracles that were significant for the history of Israel, while
others were of no interest to him. It is strange that the crossing of the Jor
dan did not interest him, either in the age of Joshua or in the times of El
isha.
Did Ben Sira have a political programme? Did he think that the mighty
deeds told in the Scripture belonged solely to the past of the nation? The
writer certainly had a view of the past and present of Israel, but there is not
enough evidence that he had a political programme. Perhaps he was satis
fied as long as the Temple stood and the Law was taught. Von Rad
doubted whether Ben Sira himself understood how much he had developed
the heritage, which he believed he was mediating. Here we may have the
129
129
"Als deren (Vater) Treuhander betrachtet er sich; man kann sogar fragen, ob er sich
der Tatsache iiberhaupt bewuBt was, daB und wie er selbst diese uberkommende Traditi
on nicht unerheblich weiter gebildet hat" (von Rad 1970, 307).
43
answer to the question of how Ben Sira treated the biblical miracles. He
was eager to retell them and emphasize their political significance. They
were part of the great past shaping the identity of the nation, but they did
belong solely to the past, and the writer hoped that they could be repeated,
moreover, in a militant context (Sir 36:6). Elia redivivus is expected to
restore the nation, and the biblical miracles certainly influenced the view
of contemporary times. Ben Sira obviously linked the eschatological future
of Israel with its glorious past. Even so, the miracles were not part of a
consistent political programme. Ben Sira considers himself to be rather the
last of the wise men, not the first with a new political view. However, the
militant Joshua and Elijah described by Ben Sira were especially open to
an interpretation that called for revolts. This possibility was realised later.
Although it was not Ben Sira's intention, he was, also here, an important
link to the later prophets and movements.
3. Miracles and the War between Powers:

The Book of Jubilees
a. Introduction
Many Jewish texts studied in this work have been found in modern times.
One very central early Jewish text was already well known in the early
Church, but modern scholars first became aware of it in the mid-nineteenth
century. In the text, The Book of Jubilees, God speaks to Moses and lets
the "Angel of Presence" tell him about the creation and the history of the
world up until Moses' own time. Some parts of the story follow quite accu
rately the biblical original, but the anonymous writer also allows himself a
great deal of freedom.
R.H. Charles once dated the work between 135 and 105 BC and consid
ered the writer a Pharisee, but the work is now generally considered to
antedate this period today. According to VanderKam the latest historical
event alluded to in the work is Judas Maccabeus' battle in 161 BC, and it
is written before the break between the Essenes and Jerusalem. Since
VanderKam's study the work has generally been dated to about between
161 and 140, with smaller variations.
The provenance of the work is usually supposed to be in the antiHellenistic, religious circles opposing the new spirit of the times in Seleucidic Jerusalem, and more precisely the writer saw himself as belonging to
1
Charles (1902, Ixxiii-lxxxiii) gives a list in Jewish, Samaritan and Christian writers
quoting or referring to the work. The Ethiopian version was edited in 1859 and translated
into English by Charles in 1902 (VanderKam 1977, v; van Ruiten 2000, 1-2).
"The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the
accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees
some years before his death in 105 BC" (Charles 1902, 1). A still later date was com
monly supposed in the 19 century (see VanderKam 1977, 208-211).
VanderKam 1977, 283.
See Frey 1997, 324-325.
Wintermute (1985, 44) gives precisely these years, Berger (1981, 300) the years 145140; Nickelsburg (1984b, 101-103); Halpern-Amaru (1999, 2) 160-150 and VanderKam
161-152 (1989, v; 2000, 448).
Charles considered that the writer's objective was to defend Judaism against the at
tacks of the Hellenistic spirit (1902, xiii). See also Berger 1981, 298 and Endres 1987,
237-238; Knibb 1989, 17; VanderKam 1997, 19-22.
2
th
45
the line of priestly writers going back to Levi. I Mace 1:11 tells about the
Jewish renegades ending the separation between the Jews and the Gentiles.
These people were obviously the opponents of the writer and his circles.
The nation was divided, and while the reformers tried to establish contact
with the Gentiles, the writer and his circles argued for the separation, and
found hope in the nation's past. The work was very popular in Qumran.
8
10
The work is written in Palestine, and since Charles (1913), Hebrew is gen
erally supposed to be its original language. Although some doubts have
been raised the fragments found in Qumran confirm this opinion. The work
was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic, which forms the
basis for the scholarship.
11
Endres noted the great liberties the writer allowed himself with the text.
The text was holy, but it did not prevent a free rendering of the stories. On
the other hand, the writer only rarely adds a passage freely, and even then
it is usually linked in some way to tradition.
The subject of the work is biblical history up until Moses, which led the
Church fathers to give the work the name Little Genesis (x\ AsTrrrj
yeveots).
It means that there are not many human miracle-workers in
12
13
See Frey 1997, 324; VanderKam 1997, 19.

VanderKam 1997, 19-22.
See Berger 1981, 298-299; Wintermute 1985, 45-46. Van Ruiten notes that the work
speaks negatively of the actual Temple, but positively about the former sanctuaries (e.g.
Eden) and about the future Temple. The reason is that the actual Temple was deficient
and had to be restored (van Ruiten 1999, 215-227).
The numerous fragments and the theological character led Delcor in the Cambridge
History of Judaism II to suppose that the work was not only copied but also written by
the Essenes, perhaps by several hands and not before 153 (Delcor 1989, 435-436). This
view is by no means a new one but was represented, for example, by Jellinek (1855).
Schiirer (German ed. 3 [1909], 375) rejected it with arguments that are still valid: There
is no doubt that Jub. and the Essenes had much in common, but the work lacks some
features, such as ritual washings, which were important in Qumran. The opposite view,
that Jub. is written outside the society and before its origins, is held by scholars as Noack
(1957-58, 191-207) and Wintermute 1985, 44. VanderKam correctly concludes: "Theo
logically, Jub. and the Qumran texts are intimately related and are the product of a com
mon and distinctive tradition; and the author of Jub. was not a member of the exiled
Qumran society" (VanderKam 1977, 280-282).
About one fourth of the Latin text, also translated from Greek, is preserved, and we
also have Syriac fragments (Wintermute 1985, 42). On the history of the text see Berger
1981, 285-294; Wintermute 1985, 41-43 and VanderKam 1989, vi-xxxi. VanderKam
edited the critical text (1989a), and his translation is used in the present work.
Endres 1987, 249-259.
Charles (1902, xv-xvi) supposed that the name goes back to the Hebrew title, be
cause the form fj MiKpoyeveots also occurs. According to him the epithet "little" points
8
10
11
12
13
46
the Old Testament either to be studied or excluded. Nevertheless, the work

tells about the miracles of two Old Testament heroes, Abraham and Moses,
in both cases with new, interesting details. As far as I know, only Eve has
studied thoroughly the role of miracles in the work, and his general con
clusion is that they are not given much attention. However, there is still
scope for further study, especially because he overlooks essential features
in the passages concerning Abraham.
14
b. Abraham
The angel tells Moses about Abraham's conversion and youth. Abraham
was only a boy of 14 when he saved the fields in Chaldea. His opponent
was no human being, but Mastema, the prince of the demons. In Jub.
11:11-24 Mastema sends ravens and other birds to eat the seed:
"Then Prince Mastema sent ravens and birds to eat the seed which would be planted in
the ground and to destroy the land in order to rob mankind of their labors. Before they
plowed in the seed, the ravens would pick (it) from the surface of the ground. For this
reason he named him Terah: because the ravens and bird reduced them to poverty and ate
their seed. The years began to be unfruited due to the birds. They would eat all the fruit
of the trees from the orchards. During this time, if they were able to save little of all the
fruit of the earth, it was a great effort" (Jub. 11:11-13).
The young Abraham realised that the idols and impurity led people astray
and began to pray to the Creator. His prayer brought results:
"When the time for planting seed in the ground arrived, all of them went out together to
guard the seed from the ravens. Abram - a child of 14 years - went out with those who
were going out. As a cloud of ravens came to eat the seed, Abram would run at them
before they could settle on the ground. He would shout at them before they could settle
on the ground to eat the seed and would say: 'Do not come down; return to the place
from which you came'! And they returned. That day he did (this) to the cloud of ravens
70 times. Not a single raven remained in any of the fields where Abram was. All who
were with him in any of the fields would see him shouting: then all of the ravens returned
(to their place). His reputation grew large throughout the entire land of the Chaldeans.
All who were planting seed came to him in this year, and he kept going with them until
the seedtime came to an end. They planted their land and that year brought in enough
food. So they ate and were filled" (Jub. 11:18-22).
Compared with Genesis, with the Hebrew text and LXX, everything is ei
ther taken from tradition or freely invented. Because the writer only sel
dom adds anything not based on tradition (although he often allows himto the many details in the book. Also, Schiirer (German edition, 3 [1909], 375) notes that
Jub. is more extensive than Genesis, but is of the opinion that the words emphasize the
canonical value of the biblical book.
Eve 2002, 155-172.
14
47
self a great deal of freedom), there is cause to look for biblical passages
that may have influenced the text. Gen 15:11 may have served as a back
ground, as it tells about Abraham and the birds disturbing his sacrifice.
LXX does not give any direct evidence of the view that the birds were
demons, translating Gen 15:11: Keener) 5 ' opvecc S T T I TOC ocopaTo; T C C
5ixoTO|JT]MC<Ta O C U T C O V Kai auvEKaStaev auToTs Appap. However, the
"thick and dreadful darkness" in v. 15:12 may illuminate why Abraham
now and in other texts has to fight against the demons. Actually, LXX
translates norm e ^ o T a o i s and rfru rot^n TOT* <|>6(3OS O K O T S I V O S payees
psyaq (cf. Ps 92:5). It is thus understandable that the ravens and birds in
Jub. are reinterpreted as demons and the young Abraham knows how to
expel them. The story can be called an exorcism, although the sober
words of the lad hardly meet the definition of opKOs. The demonology of
the work offers the framework in which the miracle-story is placed. Abra
ham has to fight against the evil powers. This is the most interesting fea
ture of the miracle stories in Jub.
The Book of Jubilees follows a strong tradition of presenting Abraham's
life very freely. Legendary material on him was common in early Judaism
and it is also present in Philo and Josephus, for example, in L.A.B. 6-8 and
Apoc. Ab. 1-12. But how strong was the tradition of Abraham as a man
making miracles? The texts presented by S.T. Brock are a special case:
the late Syrian tradition may reveal a very close parallel to the story quoted
and it is hard to exclude the possibility that it even antedates Jub. Brock
cites two Syrian texts, the writing of Jacob of Edessa (died 708) and Ca
tena Severi (compiled by a monk named Severus in 861). It is unclear
whether Severus used Jacob's text or whether they used a common source,
but Brock supposes that the tradition followed by these writers was very
old and even older than the tradition cited in Jubilees.
The story presented and translated by Brock relates the history of the
young Abraham. Because of its broad concordance with The Book of Jubi
lees it is easy to consider it only a secondary version. It contains, however,
some very interesting details, especially in the story about the ravens. Ac
cording to the Syrian texts, it is not Mastema but God who sends the ra16
17
18
19
20
11
15
Endres 1987, 249-259.

Wintermute 1985,40.
Eve does not deal with this story, although he studies the stories about Abraham
(2002, 160-163).
Kollmann 1996, 60 correctly differentiates between exorcism and other apotropaic
techniques.
Charles quotes other Christian writers who were aware of the story; see Charles
1902, 88; however, they clearly depend on Jub.
See Brock 1978, 135-152.
Brock 1978, 142.
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
48
vens as punishment for idolatry. In Jub. Abraham is fourteen years old,

works with his family and drives off the ravens easily. In the Syrian tradi
tion he is fifteen years old, is sent by his father and exhausted in the long
encounter with the birds before God helps him. The Syrian tradition does
not use the story to show how Abraham invented the plough.
Whether or not the Syrian tradition is an independent variant of the story
told in Jub. is difficult to determine. Jacob of Edessa mentions "the Jewish
histories", and we cannot exclude the possibility that both texts used a
common source. It would be tempting to assume that Jub. has resolved the
problem by making Mastema the source of evil. If that is correct, and the
texts have a common tradition, we have proof that Abraham had to fight
against demons more often in the early midrashic tradition.
Also, other texts written after Jub. certainly depict Abraham as a mira
cle-worker. The most important texts are Genesis Apocryphon and, in some
sense, The Apocalypse of Abraham. It is significant that both texts deal
with demons, revealing a common tradition with Jubilees.
Genesis Apocryphon, an Aramaic text from Qumran, was written at the
turn of the era. The whole work, which shows no specific Essene traits,
and was perhaps written outside of the community, is a paraphrase of
Genesis. Theologically, the text is considered to be the closest work to
Jub. and possibly even dependent on it. It paraphrases Gen 12, supple
menting it with Gen 2 0 and adding new elements: The Pharaoh takes
Sarah from Abraham, who prays for the ruler to be punished so that every
body will see who the Lord on earth is. God sends a spirit (EHDD mi) that
torments the ruler for two years and that no Egyptian physician or magi
cian can exorcize. Abraham is asked to pray for the Pharaoh and to lay
his healing hands on him. He refuses to do it before the king gives Sarah
back. Only then is Abraham willing to help:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"I prayed for [...] and laid my hands upon his head. The plague was removed from him;
[the evil spirit] was banished [from him] and he lived" (IQAp Gen" 20,28-29).
The background of the story is in Gen 12:10-20, but Gen 20:1-18 also has to be studied
to determine whether LXX includes significant alterations, and possibly attests a tradition
of interpretation. In Gen 12:10-20 LXX gives in 12:15 the responsibility to the officials
2 2
See Brock 1978, 140-141.

See Brock 1978, 137.
For a similar version of a story, see below p. 58.
On Genesis Apocryphon see Nickelsburg 1984b, 104-107; Maier 1995, 1, 211-212;
Eve 2002, 177-182.
Wintermute 1985, 43-44.
Abraham's prayer (Osswald 1960, 20-23), as well as the illness, are taken from Gen
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
20.
2 8
Eve (2002, 160) justly notes that Jub. shows no interest in developing the story (Jub.
13:13).
49
of the Pharaoh (npm / e'larjyayov). In 12:17 the Hebrew text has cr'na oâa and LXX
eTaouoTs ueyaAois, but it adds Kai novripoTs as in 12:19 EVCCVTIOV oou.
In Gen 20:1-18 LXX adds in 20:2 ec|>opri0r| y a p s'lireiv O T I Tuvrj uou e a x i v , urjiroTE
aTTOKTEivcoatv auTOV o'l avSpss TTJS TTOAECOS 5t' auxriv and in 20:4 e'Svos ayvouv
Kai. In 20:5 the Hebrew text has romaa-trm, but LXX Kai auxr|v. In 20:11 crrr nT is
translated with Seooepeia and in 20:16 WYV moD with S'IS xiurjv x o u npoocoirou aou.
Although some details are interesting, LXX shows no clear bias in the translation of the
passages.
It is problematic to use the younger text to shed light on The Book of Jubi
lees, especially because the writer of Genesis Apocryphon may have
known The Book of Jubilees. In any case, the text is influenced not only by
Jubilees, but is part of a broader midrashic tradition. Gen 12, comple
mented by Gen 20, is reinterpreted as an exorcism, and the way to the
exorcism was not far to go. However, clear changes were necessary be
fore Abraham could, as in Jubilees, fight against evil spirits. Abraham
prays to God for punishment, but when the Pharaoh is helped, God is no
longer mentioned. It is Abraham who is sought after to help and he helps.
It is true that he prays to God and acts, in Kahl's words, as a PNP, but his
role is now different from what it was in the beginning of the story. The
apotropaic technique is clear and interesting. That the healer or exorcist
lays his hands on the tormented is said to be unique in early Judaism, but
Eve plausibly points out 2 Kgs 5:11 LXX (67n0rjoei xrjv X P c<utou) as
evidence for the healing gesture.
Another text to be mentioned is clearly younger than The Book of Jubi
lees, but undoubtedly worth noting. The Apocalypse of Abraham was writ
ten in Hebrew, in Palestine soon after 70 AD. It does not attribute mira
cles to Abraham, but it retells Gen 15:11 in an interesting way, and intro
duces a new figure, Azazel, the prince of demons, who takes the form of a
bird. The unclean bird tries to persuade Abraham to leave Iaoel, the angel
accompanying him, and flee.
29
30
31
32
By
33
34
The word 'exorcism' is used here very cautiously. There is no clear opKOs expelling
the demon. However, the father prays in Gen 20:12-16 for the punishment - the man acts
as an "eisorcist."
Some scholars have supposed that Gen 12 has lost the element (a dream or a sooth
sayer) making Pharaoh aware that Abraham had not told the whole truth; see Osswald
1960, 9. Also, Philo (Abr. 96-98) describes the punishment of the king and his household
vividly, but mentions no spirit.
Eve 2002, 177.
Beyer 1984, 176. It does not occur in the early rabbinic sources, but has parallels in
Mesopotamian texts (see Becker 2002, 147).
Eve 2002, 179.
See Philonenko-Sayar - Philonenko 1982, 417-419. Rubinkiewicz also considers a
later date possible, up until the middle of the second century AD (1983, 682-683).
2 9
3 0
31
3 2
3 3
3 4
50

4
"And it came to pass when I saw the bird speaking I said this to the angel. What is this,
my lord?' And he said, this is disgrace, this is Azazel!' And he said to him: 'Shame on
you, Azazel! For Abraham's portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have
selected here, (and) become enamoured of the dwelling place of your blemish. Therefore
the Eternal Ruler, the Mighty One, has given you a dwelling on earth. Through you the
all-evil spirit (is) a liar, and through you (are) wrath and trials on the generations of men
who lived impiously. For the Eternal, Mighty One did not allow the bodies of the right
eous to be in your hand, so through them the righteous life is affirmed and the destruction
of ungodliness. Hear, counsellor, be shamed by me! You have no permission to tempt all
the righteous. Depart from this man! You cannot deceive him, because he is the enemy of
you and of those who follow you and who love what you wish. For behold, the garment
which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which
was on him has gone over to you" (Apoc. Ab. 13:4-14).
In this text Abraham also has to fight against an evil spirit and again the
demon takes the form of a bird. Although it is the angel and not the father
who expels the spirit, Abraham is honoured and elevated to a higher posi
tion than in Jubilees. In Apoc. Ab. Abraham is not yet, but is becoming the
master of spirits, even of Azazel, the prince of demons, whose former
garment has been set aside for him.
Abraham is thus reinterpreted as the lord over demons in the early Jew
ish texts at least three times. Although the two texts cited are markedly
younger than Jubilees they certainly help us to understand it. Apparently a
broad tradition had given Abraham control over the demons; in fact Jub.
12:19-20 is part of this tradition: Abraham burns the house of idols and, as
Lange correctly observes, rejects astrology, immediately seeking God's
help against evil spirits in his hymn. It is noteworthy that even the com
munity in Qumran used hymns to expel demons.
When the attention is focused on a new figure introduced in Jubilees,
Abraham's new role becomes clear. Abraham's real opponent is not a hu
man being but Mastema, the prince of demons. According to Alexander, he
seems identical to Belial, Satan, Melciresha, and possibly also to Beelze
bub and Abaddon. He appears in Jubilees, first in the stories about
Noah's time {Jub. 10:8; 11:5.11; 17:16; 18:9.12; 19:28; 48:2. 9; 12:15;
49:2). When the demons have led astray, blinded and killed his grandchil35
36
37
38
3 5
The biblical story is extensively retold and reinterpreted also in L.A.B. 33:5-7, but the
demon is absent.
Lange 1997, 383-384. Abraham prays: "Save me from the hands of evil spirits which
rule over the thought of the heart of man, and do not let them lead me astray from follow
ing you, O my God; but establish me and my seed forever, and let us not go astray hence
forth and forever."
nnotOD occurs in Hos 9:7. Belial is called "the Angel of Enmity" (HOBBD ybti) in 1QM
13,10-12. On Mastema see Endres 1987, 27-28, Olyan 1993, 66-67 and Alexander 1999,
334. 341-344. On his mission given by God see below p. 58.
3 6
3 7
3 8
51
dren, Noah prays for help before God, who tells his angels to bind all of
the demons. Mastema, however, prays that they should not all be bound:
"Lord creator, leave some of them before me; let them listen to me and do everything that
I tell them, because if none of them is left for me I shall not be able to exercise the au
thority of my will among mankind. For they are meant for (the purpose of) destroying
and misleading before my punishment because the evil of mankind is great" (Jub. l O ^ ) .
40
God instructs the angels to leave a tenth of the demons for Mastema / Sa
tan (both names occur in the story), but also tells an angel to teach Noah
the method of how to control the deeds of Mastema (Jub. 10:10). The
methods taught by the angel show that common Mediterranean magic had
become a part of the Jewish belief. As in Tob 11:7-8 the good powers tell
how to control the evil. The name and role of the angel Raphael demon
strate the common tradition: The angel heals and teaches to heal, because
the Lord is the healer of Israel ("]Ksn mrr ^
Exod 15:26). The view is
contrary to the texts (as in 2 En. 7:1; 8:3) in which the use of these meth
ods means that the man follows the fallen angels.
The origin of evil is a theme discussed vividly in apocalyptic literature.
Some writers consider evil primordial, some as part of the original crea
tion. The texts may even suppose a revolt in Heaven or that God's angels
originally had a positive mission, but rebelled on the Earth. Sometimes
mankind is the origin of evil. Jub. 4:15 tells that the angels mentioned in
41
42
43
44
3 9
Lange considers this prayer a hymnic exorcism (Lange 1997, 383), and Abraham
certainly fights the evil spirits, but there is no opKos (see above p. 47).
On the story see Alexander 1999, 347 and van Ruiten 2000, 338-340. Van Ruiten
considers 1 En. 15-16 a possible background for this passage, although the view on de
mons and their power is different in the two texts. The note apparently is correct, because
Jub. only rarely adds a passage without any basis in the biblical text (see van Ruiten
2000, 370).
See Kottek 2000, 87-88.
See above p. 20. Lange (1997, 384-385) considers the text an attempt to integrate
Greek medicine into Jewish monotheistic thought, and he compares the text with Tob 11
and Sir 38:1-15 quoting Snaith's words on Greek medicine. However, as seen above (p.
20-22), neither the Jewish nor the Greek view was monolithic.
Kollmann 1994, 297-299.
See Collins 1995. On the explanation that evil is primordial and not created, see
Collins 1995, 34-35. 1 En. 6-13 tells that the angels rebelled and that their descent to
Earth was already a part of their sin (1 En. 15:11-16:1). Jub, possibly aware of the Enochic version (see VanderKam 1999, 169-170), presents another version: The angels had a
mission from God and they were not yet evil in heaven. Man is the origin of evil, esp. in
4 Ezr. 7:1; 2. Bar. 48:42; 2 En. 18:3 (see Collins 1995, 35-37). The origin of the demons
is also explained in different ways. In 1 En. they emerged from the slain bodies of the
rebelling Giants (1. En. 15:9-16:1). 1QS 3,17-4,1 regards the demons as part of the
original creation and likens them to figures in Persian mythology, (see Collins 1995, 3133). The texts in Qumran may call mi angels as well as demons, but differentiate be
tween them (Alexander 1999, 331).
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
52
Gen 6 had been sent on a mission by God but sinned (Jub. 5:1-11). Jub.
7:21-27 describes how evil they were and also mentions the demons. The
most important passage in the work is undoubtedly the one quoted above
(Jub. 10), showing that the demons were on God's mission.
The story about Mastema and his demons is crucial to the interpretation
of Abraham's new features in Jub. His work in the fields does not form a
separate detail of his life but shows his place in the war against Mastema
and his troops. As in the two latter texts cited above, he is compelled to
fight against demons. Jubilees also ascribes his temptation in Gen 22 to
Mastema (Jub. 17:5-17). The lad expelling the demons acts as an exor
cist, or more exactly, uses an apotropaic technique.
But why did the writer reshape Abraham's image and make him a master
over the demons? If we ask for the Sitz im Leben for this story, two an
swers are possible, and both may be correct. Firstly, it is conceivable that
the father of the nation acted as a model and shield for the later exorcists:
The controversial art of wisdom needed to be defended, and what Abraham
himself did could not be wrong. The second possibility may be the more
plausible: The war between the good and evil powers is a central theme in
the belief represented by the writer and his movement. Although it is not
present in as many of the retold stories as might be expected (as in Gen 3)
and the dualism is not as developed as later in Qumran, the story about
Abraham serves as a model for a good Jew of how to obey God and be
protected by the good powers; the view can thus be classified as ethical
dualism. This tradition is attested in the apotropaic hymns in Qumran
(esp. 11Q11) and occurs in the New Testament (Matt 4; Luke 4). It is ap
parent in Jub. 12:19-20 and consequently in the whole work.
The miracles are thus connected with the war between good and evil
powers in Jub. There is no reason to believe that this was his own innova
tion; he certainly formulated the belief of his circles. As seen, he also had
several followers. This feature was not and could not be common in the
Graeco-Roman world. Admittedly, the Greek world knew bad spirits also
before Xenocrates, Plato's follower in the Academy, formulated his three
categories and attributed rrdOrj to Saijjoves, and the contacts between the
Greeks and the East increased soon. However, the fight between God and
45
46
47
48
49
4 5
See below p. 58-59.

The jealousy of angels / Saltan is also attested e.g. in 2 En. 31 and the Life of Adam
and Eve 14, L.A.B. 32:1-3 and Gen. R. 55:4. On Mastema's God-given mission, see be
low p. 58-59.
See e.g. VanderKam 1977, 264-267; Berger 1981, 282; Wintermute 1985, 47-48;
Hengel 1991, 221. On the different patterns of dualistic thought, see Frey 1997, 275-335.
See Frey 1997, 284.
See below, p. 180.
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
53
Satan is not a Western, but an Eastern tradition. Consequently, the inter

pretation of miracles like that in Jub. was strange in the Graeco-Roman
world.
The Book of Jubilees was written in Palestine in Hebrew, and, moreover,
apparently in anti-Hellenistic circles. It is thus interesting that the story
about the young Abraham reveals a typical Greek topos. As the miracleworking Abraham teaches the people to handle a plough and to hide the
seed in the earth, he is presented as irpcoTOs EuprjTrjs of a useful tech
nique. The inventor of a new knowledge or technique was never forgot
ten in classical antiquity. It is a topos that was common in Greek literature,
and it is easy to find, especially in the writings of the Egyptian Jews. It
was a part of the interpretatio Graeca in the Jewish belief, helping the
Jews to find their place in the Graeco-Roman society as a learned and wise
nation. The Jews could not accept the claim that they had never produced
wise men such as Socrates, Zeno and Cleanthes or the fact that they were
not even mentioned by the masters of classical Greek literature. Their
response was that all wisdom was derived from the Jews. In Artapanus's
fragments Abraham and Moses are praised for teaching the Egyptians not
only astrology but also the letters and agriculture, and Aristobulus and
Philo derived the wisdom of the Greek philosophers from Moses. Even
The Book of Jubilees adopted a traditional Greek element and presented
Abraham as i r p c o T o s euprjTrjs of how to plant seed so that the ravens
could not eat it. In Jub., agricultural knowledge is combined unhesitatingly
with the wisdom Noah learned from the good angels in order to control
Mastema and his demons. A distinction between the different types of wis
dom is not made. It is enough to know that Abraham, as Solomon in the
later texts, mastered them all. A Greek topos had found its place in the
anti-Hellenistic text.
50
51
52
53
54
55
A traditional Greek topos is thus accepted, but a common Mediterranean

and Jewish element is interestingly enough disregarded. Abraham is re
garded in many texts as an expert in astrology. The only passage in Gene
sis that could be the starting point of this tradition is that in which he is
told to look at the stars (Gen 15:5). Siker's collection of evidence on
5 0
On TrpcoTOS eupnTrjs see Kleingunther 1933, 1-55, Vhraede 1962, 1191-1278 and
Holladay 1977, 220-229.
See Josephus c. Ap. 2,135.
See Chapter 5.
See/r. 3-4 (= Euseb. hist. eccl. 13,12,1-8).
E.g. Heracleitus (Alleg. Interp 1,108); Socrates (QG 2,6); Zeno (Prob. 53-57).
51
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
54
Abraham in Graeco-Roman writings shows that the father of the nation

was often presented as a master of astrology, at least since the time of
Berossus. This view divided the Jews. Some accepted it with pride, while
others rejected it. In the writings of Pseudo-Eupolemus (FGrHist 3,724,
Fr. 1) and Artapanus (Artap. 1) Abraham taught astrology to the Egyp
tians, but there is nothing in Jubilees about this. Astrology is rejected in
Deut 18:10-11 and also in Isa 44:24-25, and even more radically in 1 En.
8:3, although it does not mean a rejection of all kinds of divination. Jubi
lees implicitly condemns astrology, when Cainan discovers astrological
lore engraved in stone:
56
57
58
"He read what was in it, copied it, and sinned on the basis of what was in it, since it was
the Watcher's teaching by which they used to observe the omens of the sun, moon, and
stars and every heavenly sign" {Jub. 8:3).
It is thus not surprising that Abraham watches the stars from evening until
daybreak, but understands that they did not help him achieve real wisdom:
"All the signs of the stars and signs of the moon and the sun - all are under Lord's con
trol. Why should I be investigating (them)? If he wishes he will make it rain in the morn
ing and evening; and if he wishes, he will not make it fall. Everything is under his con
trol" (Jub. 12:17-18).
Astrology, magic and divination are strongly rejected in many early Jewish
texts, but as Lange notes, the same texts also show that the writers were
well aware of the practices rejected and sought ways to block the evil spir
its. Jub. rejects astrology but even though the writer has abridged them, it
does not omit biblical dreams altogether. Astrology is not rejected be
cause it is useless but because it means contact with evil spirits.
59
c. Moses
A second passage in which the Old Testament miracles are retold by the
angel deals with Moses and his times. The writer briefly retells the sto
ries of Moses' birth and youth, making some understandable additions and
alterations (Jub. 47:1-12). The miracles first gain importance when
Moses returns to Egypt.
60
61
56
Siker 1987, 193-197.

On astrology in early Judaism, see Lange 1997, 397-408.
See Lange 1997, 401-403.
See Lange 1997, 394.
On Moses in Jub. see Charles 1902, 248-253; Tiede 1972, 188-190; Wintermute
1985, 139-140 and VanderKam 1989b, 309-315.
The calendar is, of course, important to the writer, but he also adds the sentence
"Amram, your father taught you writing" (Jub. 47:9). Egyptian or Graeco-Roman educa5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
61
55
The plagues are recounted briefly, but it is possible to examine the redac
tion and details:
"You performed the signs and miracles which you were sent to perform in Egypt against
the pharaoh, all his house, his servants and his nation. The Lord effected a great revenge
against them on account of Israel. He struck them and killed them with blood, frogs,
gnats, dog flies, bad sores which break out in blisters; (and he struck) their cattle with
death; and with hailstones, with these he annihilated everything that was growing for
them; with locusts which ate whatever was left for them from the hail; with darkness;
(and with the death of) their firstborn of men and cattle. The Lord took revenge on all
their gods and burned them up. Everything was sent through you, before it was done, so
that you should do (it). You were speaking with the king of Egypt and in front of all his
servants and his people. Everything happened by your word. Ten great and severe pun
ishments came to the land of Egypt so that you could take revenge on it for Israel. The
Lord did everything for the sake of Israel and in accord with his covenant which he made
with Abraham to take revenge on them just as they were enslaving them with force" (Jub.
48:4-8).
Jub. retells briefly Exod 7:14-12:36. If some early Jewish traditions influenced the trans
lation in LXX, it is very difficult to link them with Jub. On a detailed comparison be
tween the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 70 and 99.
The events in Egypt are retold in an interesting way. The preceding mira
cles are omitted in the heavily abridged account (but see Jub. 48:9-12). He
fixes the number of plagues at ten, unlike, for example, in Artapanus and
the order is only slightly changed (boils and hail are listed in reverse order,
cf. Exod 9:14-35). The writer returns to the death of the firstborn in telling
about Passover (Jub. 49:1-16). The dialogues between Pharaoh and Moses
are only briefly summarised, but the words attest the character of a mani
festation: Moses speaks in public and everything happens by his word (cf.
m m in Sir 45:3).
The dialogues between God and Moses are omitted, which is not a coin
cidence in Jub. God is sovereign while the angels act as his agents: It is the
Angel of Presence who talks with Moses in Jub. and retells everything to a
man who was present all the time and an important part of the events. God
does not speak with Moses, and Aaron is not even mentioned.
The roots of the development can be traced to the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament, where the roles of God and his angels are unclear enough to
open the door to different interpretations. Exodus tells how God revealed
himself to Moses at Horeb: while Exod 3:4 tells expressis verbis about
God speaking to Moses; Exod 33:11 has DÊrta era, but Exod 3:2 has yba
62
63
tion or competition with the teachers was not necessary in an anti-Hellenistic work! On
Moses' early years in LXX, see below p. 92.
See below p. 99.
The dialogues between God and Moses are often removed in the retold versions; see
Artapanus below p. 105, Philo p. 112, Josephus p. 234.
6 2
6 3
56
In Exod 14 God is active, but Dvr^Kn ybn also occurs in Exod 14:19.
LXX replaces God with ayyeAos Kupi'ou in Exod 4:23, which is not un
usual (see Job 20:15).
mm.
65
The substitution o f angels for God in LXX provided a context for Jub's
version of the stories. The main school of thought in Jewish theology, al
ready attested in the fragments of Aristobulus, considered God's anthro
pomorphic features increasingly difficult and distanced him from the hu
man world, letting angels take the role as communicators with men.
Various functions were attributed to different angels - such as Iaoel,
Raphael or Zervihel. It is thus understandable that all of God's dialogues
with Moses are removed in Jub. as most Jewish writers - but not all! either diminished or removed the dialogues between God and men in the
miracle stories. The "Angel of Presence" is a good example of early Jew
ish angelology as a device to reduce God's anthropomorphic features and
to distance him from the human spheres, which, in addition to the drastic
reshaping of the roles of God and man, necessitated extensive changes in
the retold stories.
67
68
69
70
Mastema, who attacked Abraham, could not, of course, leave Moses alone:
"The prince of Mastema would stand up against you and wish to make you fall into the
pharaoh's power. He would help the Egyptian magicians and they would oppose (you)
and perform in front of you. We permitted them to do evil things, but we would not allow
healings to be performed by them. When the Lord struck them with bad sores, they were
unable to oppose (you) because we deprived them of (their) ability to perform a single
sign" (Jub. 48:9-10).
Mastema was also active in the last events of the exodus:

"On the fourteenth day, the fifteenth, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth
the prince Mastema was bound and locked up behind the Israelites so that he could not
accuse them. On the nineteenth day we released them so that they could help the Egyp
tians and pursue the Israelites. He stiffened their resolve and made them stubborn. They
were made stubborn by the Lord our God so that he could strike the Egyptians and throw
them into the sea. On the fourteenth day we bound him so that he could not accuse the
Israelites on the day when they were requesting utensils and clothing from the Egyptians
- utensils of silver, utensils of gold, and utensils of bronze; and so that they could plun-
6 4
On m,T -jtfra. see Michl 1962, 61-68.

See below p. 57.
See Birnbaum 2003, 315-317.
See Hengel 1991,231-233.
On the different angels, see Michl 1962, 65-68.
L.A.B. interestingly enough adds such dialogues; see below p. 196.
On Ezekiel, see p. 66, on Artapanus, see p. 105, on Philo, see p.l 12, on Josephus, see
p. 234.
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
69
7 0
57
der the Egyptians in return for the fact that they were made to work when they enslaved
them by force. We did not bring the Israelites out of Egypt empty-handed" (Jub. 48:1519).
It was thus Mastema who was Moses' real opponent in Egypt and the mov
ing power behind the Egyptian sorcerers. Moses and the sorcerers were
only servants who were supported by their masters. The war between pow
ers is thus present again. Although Moses did not act as a BNP in Exodus,
his role is now reduced. He is no longer an MNP and hardly even a PNP.
The angels ("we") have absorbed his role almost completely.
71
72
Mastema takes on an interesting role in the stories about Moses and Is

rael. He has to be bound while the Israelites take the booty; otherwise his
accusations would apparently prevent the plunder. When he is bound, Is
rael can leave Egypt; on the other hand, he and his demons have to be
freed so the Egyptians can be punished. God is almighty, but Mastema is
necessary; yet, his accusations are dangerous and the good angels must
both bind and free him. Mastema already has a similar role in the stories
about Abraham: When Gen 22 tells how God tested Abraham, Jub. makes
it Mastema's plot. What Abraham does he does before an angel and
Mastema, who feel shame at seeing Abraham's faith (Jub. 17:15-18:19).
His role is still more irrational in the stories about Moses: It was not
rrnra who was sent by God (as in Exod 12:23), to kill the firstborn in
Egypt, but Mastema (Jub. 49:2). On the other hand, Mastema calls the
Egyptians to pursue Israel (Jub. 48:12). According to Exod 4:24-26 God
was about to kill Moses, who was saved by Zipporah. LXX replaces God
with dc'yyeAos xupiou in Exod 4:24 mm vnwsn / auvrjvTrjaev auxco
ayyeAos Kupiou The Book of Jubilees attributes this attempt to Mastema:
73
74
75
76
71
77
Moses' opponents are mentioned only briefly. On their role in Philo, see above p.
113 and 134; in Artapanus p. 100, and in Josephus p. 236. It is understandable that the
stories about Jannes and Jambres serving evil powers were told according to traditions
similar to Jub., where the real opponent was Mastema.
See Eve 2002, 157-159.
See also Bonneau - Duhaine 1996, 346-348.
"Them" in Jub. 48:16 points to demons (Berger 1981, 545; VanderKam 1989b, 314).
JTITOD is mentioned in 2 Sam 24:15-17 and 1 Chr 21:14-17 and also in 4Q511. A list
shedding light on the demonic world in Qumran is in 11Q11,2, 3-4 (see Alexander 1999,
332). On notDOD see above p. 50.
E.g. Ezekiel the Tragedian follows the biblical presentation faithfully and sees here
God's angel (Ezek. Trag. 159).
"You were eating the Passover in Egypt when all the forces of Mastema were sent to
kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt - from the pharaoh's firstborn to the firstborn of
the captive slave-girl at the millstone and to the cattle as well" (Jub. 49:2).
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
58
"You know who spoke to you at Mount Sinai and what the prince of Mastema wanted to
do to you while you were returning to Egypt - on the way at the shady fir tree. Did he not
wish with all his strength to kill you and to save the Egyptians from your power because
he saw that you were sent to carry his power" (Jub. 48:2-3).
Although Jub. was originally written in Hebrew, it is tempting to see a

historical development: the Hebrew Scripture could already occasionally
use God and God's angel interchangeably. LXX takes the next step by re
placing God with God's angel in order to reduce God's anthropomorphic
features: Aristobulus' fragments show that this kind of theology existed in
the early second century. It also opened the way for Jub.'s interpretation
that it was neither God nor his good angel but Mastema, a bad spirit. An
interesting parallel attesting the theological wrestling with evil even earlier
is that the Chronicler reinterpreted 2 Sam 24:1 in an analogous way and
replaced God with Satan in 1 Chr 21:1.
Mastema / Satan is thus clearly a factor used to explain the difficulties in
the text of the Old Testament or to remove the elements that could be in
terpreted as the dark parts of God. Mastema is a controversial and irra
tional figure, but Israel's God is not.
It is typical of Jewish demonology that the war between good and evil
may be severe, but it does not detract from God's sovereignty. In the old
est texts of the Old Testament Satan plays the role of the heavenly accuser.
The Booh of Jubilees has preserved the thought that Mastema / Satan
serves God the Almighty and is on a mission from him. Some early Jewish
texts have made things easier by denying this mission, a feature distin
guishing Jub. from the developed cosmic dualism present in Qumran. It is
also the answer to the question of why the fallen angels and demons are
mentioned so rarely in Jub. VanderKam justly notes that the fallen angels
are absent, for instance, in Gen 3, retold in Jub. 3, and considers the theme
much less dominant in Jub. than in 1 En} Yet, Mastema and his troops do
exist to lead the people astray according to God's plan, and this is why
they cannot be totally rooted out (Jub. 10:7-9; 15:31-32). They have, how
ever, no right to torment the righteous, only the "sons of Beliar" (Jub.
15:33). The miracles are now part of this strange type of war.
God has allowed Mastema / Beliar to rule the Gentiles, who have no pro
tection against being misled to idolatry and sinfulness by the demons (see
78
79
80
81
7 8
Berger 1981, 282; Wintermute 1985, 47-48; Steudel 2000, 339-340; VanderKam
2001,99-100.
The early rabbinic tradition gives Satan a less prominent role; see Becker 2002, 172175.
On this topic, see Alexander 1999, 341-344; Steudel 2000, 336-339.
See above p. 51.
VanderKam 1999, 153-154.
7 9
8 0
81
8 2
59
Jub. 7:27; 11:4-5). Mastema's mission is to lead astray the Egyptians at the
Red Sea (Jub. 15:31; 48:12). Israel, on the contrary, is ruled by God and
his angels and is protected from the evil spirits (Jub. 15:32). Abraham
gives up idolatry and is saved from evil spirits (Jub. 12:19-20). Joseph's
rule means that there was no Satan or evil in Egypt (Jub. 40:10; 46:2), and
that will also be the destiny of the purified Israel (Jub. 50:5). The holy
spirit will once purify Israel (Jub. 1:23). In the present, however, Beliar is
a constant threat in his attempts to seduce Israel (see Jub. 1:20; 1:19;
1:28). The Israelites are thus in continual danger and need protection.
The Book of Jubilees' reinterpretation of the biblical miracles is clear and
interesting. What the work tells us about Abraham and his battle is not
totally new, but it is a reinterpretation. The entire story of Moses and his
work in Egypt is heavily revised and put into a new framework. Pharaoh
and his troops are no longer Moses' real opponents; now it is Mastema.
Moses' role is now changed, although already in Exod he was only God's
servant and not an independent actor. Some Jewish texts (Artapanus,
Pseudo-Philo and Josephus) give Moses a more independent role, but not
The Book of Jubilees. In the reinterpretation in Jub. both struggling sides
have a powerful master behind them. God supports Moses and Israel while
Mastema supports the Egyptians, resulting in a war between the good and
evil powers. This war is the theological framework for the biblical mira
cles.
The theology we meet in The Book of Jubilees is also well known else
where, especially in the early Dead Sea scrolls, which go further. Frey in
particular emphasizes that it is "crude oversimplification to conflate the
dualisms of the War Rule and of the instruction on the two spirits into a
single type of 'Qumran dualism'." A further definition is needed, and he
differentiates between ten different kinds of dualism. According to Frey
the early Jewish form was a multidimensional pattern consisting of cosmic,
ethical and psychological elements; however, the later texts in Qumran
attest that the ethical and especially psychological elements were weak
ened or totally removed and all that was important was to belong to the
correct group, i.e. to the Community. But how does this pattern fit Jub.,
especially its miracle stories?
83
84
85
8 3
See Hengel 1991,218-224.

Frey 1997, 280-284. The main kinds occurring here are 1) cosmological dualism
supposing the cosmic division of the world and of humanity into two opposing forces of
good and evil, darkness and light 2) ethical dualism supposing two mutually exclusive
groups according to virtues and vices and 3) psychological dualism internalising the
contrast between good and evil.
Frey 1997, 275-335.
8 4
8 5
60
It is difficult to find traces of psychological dualism in the miracle sto

ries elsewhere in Jub. Admittedly, Abraham faces a hard struggle in the
crucial moment he leaves the false gods (Jub. 12:16-21), but the miracleworking Abraham and Moses do not fight the evil or weakness in their
hearts, although the biblical version of the reluctant Moses would have
offered support for this interpretation. The ethical side is present in Jub.
10, where spirits under Mastema's rule lead foreign peoples astray and
Noah learns how to block them, or even when Abraham is tested. The
miracle stories, however, attest only cosmic dualism: Mastema uses his
angels, but expands his rule also to the Pharaoh, Egyptian sorcerers and
soldiers. It is not difficult to draw the line between the good and bad sides,
be they spirits or men.
Although the idea of a multidimensional pattern of dualistic views works
well in Jub., the cosmic side is strongly emphasized in the miracle stories.
The war between good and evil powers is present, although not as force
fully as in the later texts of Qumran, which also occasionally deal with the
biblical miracle stories. CD, quoting and approving Jub.} shows that the
war was applied to Moses:
6
"For in ancient times there arose Moses and Aaron, by the hand of the prince of lights
and Belial, with his cunning, raised up Jannes and his brother during the first deliverance
of Israel" (CD 5,17-19).
87
We do not have numerous examples of the way that the community in

Qumran used the biblical miracle stories, but what we have shows that
Jub. 's reinterpretation of the stories about Abraham and Moses was, of
course, not alien to the community. It is understandable, that i) many
looked to the past, beyond the present evil leaders of their people to the
glorious history which defined the nation and ii) they looked upon the he
roes of the nation anew as forerunners of the war between the powers.
Some smaller details were certainly already traditional in the times of Jub.
An interesting nonbiblical detail is that God took revenge on all Egyptian
gods and burned them (apparently their statues). Artapanus relates a
similar fact, namely that because of the plague of hail and earthquakes
most of the temples collapsed (Artap. 3,33). It is a common feature in early
Judaism that the disasters in Egypt were God's justified punishment for all
that the Egyptians had done to his people and it occurs repeatedly in Jub}
88
8 6
See VanderKam 1977, 255-258.

On the dualism in CD, see Frey 1997, 303-306.
Wintermute 1985, 139. Charles translates "all their idols the Lord took vengeance
and burned them with fire" (1902, 251).
The idea occurs again in Jub. 48:14 and Jub. 48:15-18. Ius talionis is very common
in L.A.B. (see below p. 194).
8 7
8 8
8 9
61
This time God's promise to Abraham in Gen 15:14 offers a solid biblical
background.
The angels permitted Moses' opponents to do "evil things", i.e. repeat
some of the plagues, but prevented their attempt to heal the bad sores Exod 9:11 only says that "they could not stand before Moses". The heavily
abridged story suggests that the Egyptian magicians not only tried to emu
late the plagues, as in Exod, but also to stop them. Actually, Jannes was
sought to help the Egyptians resist Moses in Jan. Jam. 26 and T. Sol. 25,
and the Neoplatonist Numenius wrote that Jannes and Jambres could ob
struct all of Moses' miracles in Egypt (Eus. praep. ev. 9,8). Thus the men
were also well known among the Gentiles (see Plin. nat. 30,11 and Apul.
apol. 90,5). The tradition behind Jub. is obviously broader than the few
references in the story would lead one to believe, and the midrashic fea
tures attested in the texts quoted were clearly known to the writer.
90
The events at the Red Sea are retold briefly, but the story contains some
important details.
"Despite all the signs and miracles, the prince of Mastema was not put to shame until he
gained strength and cried out to the Egyptians to pursue you with all the Egyptian army with their chariots, their horses - and with all the throng of the Egyptian people. I stood
between you, the Egyptians, and the Israelites. We rescued the Israelites from his power
and from the power of the people. The Lord brought them out through the middle of the
sea as if on dry ground. All of the people whom he brought out to pursue the Israelites
the Lord our God threw into the sea - to the depths of the abyss - in place of the Israel
ites, just as the Egyptians had thrown their sons into the river. He took revenge on
1,000,000 of them. 1,000 men (who were) strong and also very brave perished for one
infant of your people whom they had thrown into the river" (Jub. 48:12-14).
Jub. summarises Exod 13:17-14:31. On a detailed comparison of the biblical story in the
Hebrew text and in LXX, see below p. 74.
Mastema, of course, is again scheming and calls the Egyptians to war.

God's angel mentioned in Exod 14:19-20 is now identified as the Angel of
Presence, who is talking with Moses ("I stood"). The roles are not easy to
distinguish: The angel says "we rescued the Israelites", but implied that it
was the Lord who brought them out of Egypt and threw the Egyptians into
the sea. While it is unclear what God had done directly, and what he had
done indirectly through his angels, it is clear that Moses' role is heavily
reduced: he now listens to the angel's report on what really happened at
the Red Sea. There are no desperate people crying to Moses, no Moses
dividing the sea and no reaction of the Egyptians. It is God and his angels
who are fighting against evil powers; human beings are the less important
9 0
In L.A.B. 47,1 some manuscripts read Jambres, but apparently Zambri in manuscript
M is correct, see Dietzfelbinger 1979, 227; Jacobson 1996, 1045.
62
actors. The numbers of Egyptians are a nonbiblical detail common with

Ezekiel the Tragedian (Ezek. Trag. 203).
d. Conclusion
The Book of Jubilees tells about the miracles of Abraham and Moses, the
two most important figures of Israel. Although the stories are not extensive
compared with the entire work, the miracles are by no means unimportant
in Jub. The biblical stories are reinterpreted and put into the new frame
work of a battle between good and evil powers. This is worth a closer look,
and other Jewish texts also connect miracles and this war in a similar man
ner. It is a typical Jewish feature, which did not originate from Greek
thought, in which the necessary elements did not exist. There was no God
and Satan, as in the Jewish religion in its many variants. This is a crucial
difference with regard to Greek thought, and its background should be
sought from the East, not from the West.
The war between good and evil powers is an important element in Jub.,
but the writer has not followed the characteristic course for the developed
forms of dualism in the Qumran. Mastema and the fallen angels are absent
in the retold Gen 3, and, above all, Mastema is on a mission from God,
which was often denied in the Qumran. However, Jub. is an important step
towards a theology in which a man is a target of attacks by the evil powers.
Mastema's accusations are a constant threat to Abraham, Moses and the
people they lead, and the war goes on: Healing is permitted or prohibited,
the vessels are given or not given, the Egyptians are led to war against Is
rael but blocked by the good powers.
The function of the miracle is thus multifaceted in the story in the Jubilees.
Apparently the contemporization of the miracle stories concerns the in
dividual as well as the entire people. Moses even more than Abraham is
the model of a good Jew who obeys God's voice when in difficulty and is
consequently attacked by evil but protected by good powers. The way of
Abraham and Moses should also be the way of the readers of Jub. The test
may be hard, but the righteous is not left alone, not even in the turbulent
times of the second century BC.
The traditional thought of legitimisation through miracles can also be
discerned clearly: Moses' miracles are a manifestation of God's power, but
the idea of legitimisation is even more emphatic with Abraham. Through
his rejection of idols and his prayers to the Creator, the new religion is
legitimised by his marvellous power to control the demons and to help
mankind. The location of the story of Abraham's conversion is not fortui-
63
tous. When Terah, Abraham's father, was born, Mastema sent ravens to
devastate the country (Jub. 11:9-13). Then Abraham is born and he begins
to pray to the Creator, soon after which he expels the ravens sent by
Mastema (Jub. 11:18-24). The miracle manifests the truth of the new relig
ion.
The story, however, may also have another function. Abraham, the fa
ther, was not the only man who was willing to control the demons. He was
one link in the long chain of history. The legend was told not simply be
cause of an antiquarian interest, or for entertainment, but because the chain
was still in effect during the times in which Jub. was written. There were
clearly Jews in the early second century who were thought to be able to
control demons. It is conceivable, even probable, that the reinterpreted
father of the nation served as their patron.
Our only regret is that because of their brevity, the short stories in Jub. do
not tell more. Yet they contain many details later common in Jewish texts.
Firstly, the Angel of Presence indicates that God is now at a distance and
the angels have taken the role of communicators between God and men.
Secondly, this figure is early evidence of different angels being given dif
ferent tasks in God's kingdom. Thirdly, Abraham acts as an exorcist in
Jub., but also in IQAp Gen and in The Apocalypse of Abraham. An inter
esting feature is that Jub., a text critical of the Hellenistic reforms, makes
use of the classical rrpcoTOS 6upr|Trjs-motif.

a. Introduction
1
The miraculous departure from Egypt was treated by Ezekiel in the form
of a drama named Exagoge. The exact date of the work cannot be deter
mined with certainty. Ezekiel uses the Septuagint, which roughly sets the
terminus post quern. His 269 verses known to us are quoted by Eusebius
(praep. ev. 9,28-29) and partly (verses 7-40) also by Clement of Alexan
dria (strom. 1,23,155-156) and Pseudo-Eustathius (v. 256-269 in Commentarius in Hexaemeron PG 18,729), who used the lost work of Alexander
Polyhistor (about 50 BC). Scholars have proposed several dates for vari
ous reasons, but no general agreement has been found. Irina Wandrey and
John J. Collins, for example, see no possibility for a more exact dating
than those presented above.
The work does not only interest theologians. No other Hellenistic trag
edy is preserved so extensively, which means that Ezekiel also is an aid
2
The play apparently was not the only one written by Ezekiel, because Clement o f
Alexandria calls him ' ErjKif]Aos o TCOV ' IOUSOUKCOV TpaycoSicSv Troir)Trjs (Clem.
Alex, strom. 1,23,153). On Ezekiel and his work see Snell 1971, 170-193; Jacobson
1983, 5-13; Vogt 1983, 115-118; Nickelsburg 1984b, 125-130, Holladay 1989, 329;
Gauly et al. 1991, 217-218; Barclay 1992, 34-37; Barclay 1996, 132-138; Collins 2000a,
224-230.
Many Jewish texts treated in the present study were long forgotten by scholars, but
not many were as sorely neglected as Exagoge. His verses were edited and commented
on by L.M. Philippson in 1830 and by Joseph Wieneke in 1931. However, the play never
played a great role in scholarship. August Nauck (1889) excluded Ezekiel in his famous
edition of Greek tragic fragments; see Vogt 1983, 118-120 and Jacobson 1983, 1-2.
The evidence is clear and it was well known already in the first half of 19 century;
see Jacobson 1983, 40-41.
On Alexander Polyhistor see Montanari 1996, 478-479.
Wandrey 1998, 354; Collins 2000a, 225. Fraser argues for the latter part of the third
century in his famous Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972, 707). Vogt mentions the alleged visi
tation of the phoenix during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes and considers it a possible
help for dating the tragedy (1983, 117). Robertson dates it to the first half of the second
century (1985, 803-804) and Jacobson to the second (1983, 5-13). Holladay leaves the
problem open within the period mentioned (1989, 308-312).
Vogt, strangely enough, doubts whether the drama can be called a tragedy ("... kann
freilich kaum als eine Tragodie im engeren Sinne des Wortes gelten, auch wenn es bei
Eusebios einmal als solche bezeichnet wird", Vogt 1983, 115). Nevertheless, very few
have doubted that Aeschylus' Persians, clearly a model for Ezekiel (see below p. 79-80)
2
th
65
to understanding the tradition of Greek tragedy. That the work happens to

be written by a Jew apparently living in Alexandria makes the situation
very complicated and challenging. No one has found a convincing answer
to the questions of the intended audience of this play, or whether it was
ever performed. Some passages led Collins to suppose that Ezekiel repre
sented a less exclusive form of the Jewish religion. According to him, Eze
kiel dropped the obligation of circumcision when speaking about the Pass
over (v. 175-192), and he also mentions that Zipporah was given to a
"stranger", i.e. Moses (v. 67). The present study may provide material for
a further discussion.
Traditionally Exagoge is considered a rather clumsy work, but recent
scholarship has revised this judgement. Bruno Snell, an expert in Greek
poetry and metrics, investigated the play and considered it to be much bet
ter than its reputation. The most important studies are the commentaries
written by Howard Jacobson (1983), and Holladay (1989), comple
mented by a review of Jacobson's study by Pieter W. van der Horst. The
main disagreement between Jacobson and van der Horst concerns the in9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
is a tragedy, although it, like Exogoge, describes the triumph over a hostile army.
Van der Horst does not totally rule out the possibility that the work is a pseudonym,
because he considers vv. 68-69 evidently based upon the first chapter of the Book of
Ezekiel (1984b, 355-356).
Ezekiel is often studied by scholars with a strong Judaistic background, although
often even by those with a solid classical education, such as Jacobson. However, e.g. the
studies of Snell (1971, 170-193) and Gauly et al. (1991, 216-219) give a fresh view of
people usually dealing with classical drama.
Neither Vogt (1983, 117) nor van der Horst (1984b, 357) will exclude Kuiper's old
suggestion from 1900 that the writer was a Samaritan. There may be some similarities
between Exagoge and Memar Marqa, but why should a Samaritan have chosen the name
of the famous prophet from Judah?
Although the view is mostly accepted, it is not unproblematic, because we have no
direct evidence for it and Ezekiel seems to make some mistakes in Egyptian geography.
See Jacobson 1983, 13-17; Holladay 1989, 312-313; van der Horst 1984, 357; Robertson
1985, 804.
Collins 2000a, 225-226; see also Gruen 1998, 129.
Schiirer was not as merciless as some others: "Sprache und Verse (jambische Trime
ter) sind leidlich flieBend" (3 [1909], 502). Ezekiel's tragedy was at one time almost
ridiculed in the research, and echoes of this are still audible in e.g. Fraser 1972, 708, but
in more recent times his skill has received recognition; see Jacobson 1983, 2-3.
Snell sees another difficulty in almost all verses with a metrical problem, and doubts
if the text is correct. "Also ist die Metrik Ezechiels besser als ihr Ruf und wir konnen
getrost manche Anomalien wegkonjizieren" (Snell 1967, 31-32). A similar judgement in
Strugnell 1967, 449-457.
The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 1983. Jacobson's translation is used in the present study.
Pages 301-529 in Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors 2 (1989).
"Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel", 1984.
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
66
terpretation of Moses' vision, now very current among the scholarship

investigating early Christology.
The drama is named' Eâycoyrj, not "Eo5os, and although it is obvious
that Ezekiel made use of the Septuagint, it is not clear whether the title was
intentionally changed or not. If it was intentional, the idea of people at
taining freedom would be replaced with the idea of God or Moses, or both,
giving them freedom. It is thus not surprising that the miracles have a sig
nificant role in the extant verses.
18
b. The dialogue at the burning bush

Ezekiel lets Moses briefly tell about his childhood and early years (Exod
1:1-2:25 / Ezek. Trag. 1-58). The first passage dealing with miracles shows
Moses in a dialogue with God, who reveals himself in the burning bush
(Exod 3:1-4:17). The passage also contains the biblical miracles of the
rod as snake and the leprous hand.
19
21
"God: What is that in your hands? Speak quickly.

Moses: A rod wherewith to chastise beasts and men.
God: Throw it on the ground and withdraw quickly.
For it shall turn into a fearsome snake and you will marvel at it.
Moses: There, I have thrown it. Oh, Master, be merciful.
How dreadful, how monstrous. Have pity on me.
I shudder at the sight, my limbs tremble.
God: Have no fear. Reach out your hand and seize its tail. It shall turn back into a rod.
Now put your hand into your bosom and withdraw it.
Moses: There, I've done it. It's become like snow.
God: Put it back into your bosom and it shall be as it was before" (Ezek. Trag. 120-131).
The Septuagint renders the text in Exod 3:1-4:17 quite faithfully, however, with several
interesting details and even with some important deviations.
Some smaller deviations may reveal the complicated history of the Hebrew text, but
they are of no importance to the present theme. LXX omits 'n'wn "in in 3:1 and renders
17
See below p. 81-86.

Both'Eayeoyrj, and"Eo6os occur as titles of the biblical book. Philo uses
Eaycoyrj in Migr. 14, Her. 14 and Somn. 1,117.
The divine voice of Dionysos appears in Euripides' Bacchae 576 sqq, and the early
comedies, such as Aristophanes' Frogs, put him on the stage, (on gods in classical plays,
see Snell 1971, 179). Some scholars have considered it impossible for a Jew to insert the
voice of Israel's God into a drama. On this discussion, see Jacobson 1983, 19-20 and
below, p. 77-79.
On the theophany at the burning bush, see Jacobson 1983, 97-112; Holladay 1989,
451-478.
On the leprous hand, see below p. 72.
18
19
2 0
21
67

22
-En in 3:4 with T! EOXIV, and the names of the peoples are changed (3:8). It is certainly
a contextualization that 'wier "op? is consistently rendered with yepouoia (3:16; 3:18;
even 4:30). LXX does not use <t>oPeTv but has EuAa(3E?xo in 3:6.
Some details common to both versions must also be noted. LXX has preserved some
anthropomorphic traits of God, which were later problematic for Philo: God utters the
word TIK / KccTePnv to help the oppressed people (3:8) and his wrath is mentioned (4:14).
The rather strange 4:8 nan b^-> is rendered with xfjs (t>covf]s xou a n u s i o u : Rengstorf
thought that the words might point to the wider range of Moses' miracles, but also Exod
20:18 has rftpn n D'tn nvn
(LXX ecopa xrjv ^covrjv), and these odd wordings were
noted in early Judaism.
The words the Hebrew text uses for miracles are translated quite consistently here, as
well as in the other parts of Exodus analysed in the present study. arjueTov (3:12; 4:30),
common already in profane Greek, is the standard translation of nu* in LXX. rm I
arjUEiov is not only an extraordinary event, but it points in the correct direction. mtfjsa
(from tfra) is translated into S a u u d a i a (Exod 3:20). The Hebrew word refers mainly to
God's saving deeds in the past (also in Job 37:14). It does not necessarily mean a break
ing of what we term the laws of nature; it indicates that God helps in a hopeless situation,
in a very "natural" way. nsiD does not occur in this passage, but in Exod 4:21, where it
is translated as x s p a s . It is common in profane Greek as the adjective X E p d c x i o v . In
23
24
25
26
27
28
LXX, Tepas is a translation of nsiQ in 34 of 38 occurrences in LXX a translation of nsia,

29
but a derivation offcâlies behind it on t w o occasions (Exod 15:11; Jos 28:29). In ex

tra-biblical Greek x l p a s means 'sign', 'wonder', 'marvel' or 'portent', something which
is TTcepd <|>uoiv. LXX uses the word in peculiar way: XEpas, as the original Hebrew
nsia, is given by God. The words orjueTa Kai XEpaxa may also occur in extra-biblical
Greek (Polyb. 3,112,18; Plut. Alex. 75,1 706 a-b), but are used in an interesting way in
LXX. D^riDiDi mrm appears in Israel's credo in Deut 26:5-11: "So the Lord brought us out
of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miracu
lous signs and wonders" (LXX: ev orjueiots Kai EV XEpaaiv, Deut 26:8). In LXX the
phrase onus? a Kai x l p a x a is reserved for Moses and his miracles.
30
31
32
A detail worth noting is the translation in 4:6 and 4:7. In the first verse LXX has omit
ted the word runxo and has only EyEvrjBn f| xsip auxoG cooei xicov. Consequently 4:7
has i\s xrjv xpocxv xf]s aapKos auxou. Jacobson noted the deviation and regarded it as
a well-considered alteration: Many pagan authors attested the anti-Jewish version of

exodus, according to which the Hebrews were expelled from the country because of the
pestilence in Egypt. It is no wonder that the translators avoided the words AETrpa and
2 2
The Septuagint often modernizes names of biblical places and peoples; see Siegert
2000,21.
Rengstorf 1964, 210. See also Deut 5:24.
See Jacobson 1983, 99-100.
See Liddell - Scott s.v. arjUETov.
See Rengstorf 1964, 199-268. mK is almost always translated into oriUE?ov. On the
other hand, in about 80% of the occurrences, ma lies behind criUE?ov.
See Albertz 1984, 416-420.
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
See Liddell - Scott s.v. X E p a s , XEpdoxtov.
2 9
Rengstorf 1969, 117-118.

Aristot. gen. an 770b; Rengstorf 1969, 115.
See Rengstorf 1969, 113-127.
Rengstorf 1964,219-220.
3 0
31
3 2
68

33
34
Aoiuos. In the same manner ~a~i ("bubonic plague") is in 9:3 rendered as 8dvaTos.
Jacobson is apparently right, because the distorted version of the exodus is well attested
among the Jews as well as the Gentiles. However, the Jews who retold the Scripture did
not necessarily avoid the word Aoiuos, although one would except them to have done
35
In retelling the miracles, Ezekiel follows LXX: However, he has SpccKcov

instead of 6$\s used in Exod 4:3: Both words fit the iambic trimetre, but
the writer has preferred the word used in Exod 7:9-12. Instead of a leprous
hand, Ezekiel has the hand coorrEpei xcov. Whether Ezekiel intentionally
avoided Aeirpa and A O I M O S or only followed LXX (cooei X ^ )
chose
eooTrepsi because of the metre is another question.
The fragment breaks off and there is no evidence of the third miracle,
namely, when God tells Moses to take water from the Nile and throw it on
the ground (Exod 4:9). This miracle may have been included in the origi
nal play, but we cannot be sure. In his introductory comment on 120-131
Polyhistor said: "And concerning the rod and other wonders, he speaks
thus in dialogue." Jacobson takes the word Kai TCOV a'AAeov TepaTcov as
evidence of a third miracle, presuming that the water Moses threw on the
ground turned to blood. This is possible, and Josephus includes this de
tail (Ant 2,273), but it is speculative, because Polyhistor may also have in
mind the list of miracles later referred to by God.
Although precisely these verses do not tell about the reluctant, biblical
Moses willing to reject the call, and about Aaron being needed as his
helper, both elements are included in the previous verses (Ezek. Trag. 114119); Moses even says that he is not eloquent (v. 113-115). Aaron is often
omitted from the retold stories, but Ezekiel is remarkably faithful to the
biblical original, although neither Aaron's miracles nor his rod are men
tioned in the verses we have.
In Ezekiel, Moses is not concerned with how to make the Hebrews be
lieve, but with how to convince the Pharaoh (cf. Exod 4:29-5 A). Jacobson
sees here as well as in Exod. R. 3,16 a bias to exonerate Israel, but al
though this possibility cannot be excluded, there is also another and per
haps more plausible explanation. In Exodus the miracles serve to legiti,c
a n a <
37
38
39
40
3 3
See Jacobson 1983, 106-107; Holladay 1989, 468-469, and below p. 231.
On the word "n~i see below p. 71.
See below p. 231.
See below pp. I l l and 239.
See below p. 72.
Jacobson 1983, 102-104.
See p. 55, 128 and 235.
Jacobson 1983, 101. However, he offers a reconstruction of the tragedy and supposes
that Moses has met with the elders of the people (1983, 35). I do not see how it is thus
possible to exclude the difficulties with the Hebrews.
3 4
35
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
69
mate Moses to his own people. Such a legitimisation was generally no

longer needed in the Jewish texts studied in the present work, and espe
cially not before Moses' own people. His position was strong and needed
no justification. Simultaneously it means that the miracles have lost their
original function and perhaps have found new ones, or are simply omitted
as here. This is an argument, although perhaps a weak one, for the view
that the play was not intended for a Gentile audience.
It is interesting that Moses is not presented as in Artapanus: a calm man
untouched by the events; instead, as in Exodus, he is described as being
afraid of the snake and trembling. Apparently one reason is that Ezekiel
wants to enhance the dramatic quality of the scene; yet he has also pre
served Moses' words about not being a good speaker. The human traits of
the leader are significant. Here he is by no means a BNP, or even an MNP
or PNP; he is only a terrified man - as in Exod 4.
Thus, although many Jewish writers avoided it, Ezekiel, following the
biblical Exodus, presents God in a dialogue with Moses. Jub. introduces
the "Angel of Presence" to tell Moses of the events, Artapanus reduces
God to a "divine voice", Philo rejects God's anthropomorphic features and
sees an angel in the burning bush, and even Josephus is rather restricted.
Ezekiel is different, but not the only one following the biblical original.
L.A.B., a Palestinian text written in Hebrew, also does not hesitate to add
this kind of material. There are two explanations for the path Ezekiel
took. Philo acted from deep theological convictions as did apparently
L.A.B. in the opposite direction. Can such reasons be Ezekiel's as well?
The second possibility is obviously the more probable: Ezekiel merely
faithfully followed the biblical original.
41
42
43
44
c. The plagues told in advance

Unhappily we do not know how many verses there were before the frag
ment containing verses 132-174 in the original play. In any case, God is
speaking again to Moses and foretelling everything that shall happen be
fore the freedom:
45
"With this rod you shall work all kinds of plagues.
41
On Ben Sira, see p. 26, on Artapanus, see p. 95, on L.A.B. p. 199. In Philo the theme
is more complicated; see p. 155-156.
Jacobson 1983,98.
On Jub. see above p. 61, on Artapanus below p. 105, on Philo p. 112 and Josephus p.
234.
See below p. 196.
On the plagues, see Jacobson 1983, 112-121; Holladay 1989, 471-478.
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
70
First, the river, all the springs and pools will flow blood.
I shall bring a multitude of frogs and lice upon the land
Thereafter, I will sprinkle on them ashes from a furnace
and fierce sores will erupt on their bodies.
Flies will come and torment many of the Egyptians.
Afterwards there will come in its turn
a pestilence and all who possess hard hearts will die.
Then I will make the heavens violent: hail mixed
with fire will descend and lay men dead.
Crops and animals will be destroyed.
I will bring darkness for three whole days
and will send locusts which will destroy
all the remaining crops and the young shoots.
And after all this I shall slay the firstborn children.
Thus, I shall bring to an end the arrogance of this evil people.
And king Pharaoh will not be persuaded by anything I say
until he sees his firstborn son a corpse.
Then in fear he will quickly send forth the people" (Ezek. Trag. 132-151).
46
Ezekiel summarises the plagues very briefly, but it is possible to follow up on the word
ing in LXX in Exod 7:14-12:36. In the first plague (pi I cnua, Exod 7:14-24) the oppo
nents (CTDtnn / ettcxoiSoi, 7:22) are mentioned as well as their means (n D ?3 / <|)apuccKEiais), similarly in 8:3; 8:14; 9:12. Both the Masoretic text and LXX (7:15) refer to
the rod which had once changed into a snake (c?m / 6c|>iv, not pn / 5pc(Kcov as in 7:10).
LXX adds in 7:19 too ocSeX^co oou. In the plague of o-jmas / (BaTpocxoi (Exod 7:268:11). LXX has omitted o n s o fixrhv in v. 8:1, and a further alteration is rendering of
WTfon mrro as ouk eotiv d'AAos TrAr|V Kupi'ou (8:6). The development is from monolatry
to monotheism (cf. 9:14, where the translation follows the Hebrew text). The third plague
( / okv?<|>es, Exod 8:12-15) is a faithful translation of the text we have. In the plague
of 3iv I kuvouuioc (Exod 8:16-28) the Masoretic text is uncertain in 8:19 (ma or rfra /
StaoToArjv); in 8:24 LXX adds irpos tov Kiipiov. In the fifth plague, in regard to live
stock (Exod 9:1-11), ill is translated 0dvccTOs UEyas ac|>65pa (9:3). In the sixth plague
(pro /eAiai, Exod 9:8-12) LXX adds the servants in v. 9:8. In the plague of nVTip /<t>covai,
ill I xdAaa and m I nup (|>Aoy(ov (Exod 9:13-35) LXX is concordant with MT. In
the eighth plague (nma / ccKpi's, Exod 10:1-20) v. 10 is as unclear in LXX as in the He
brew text, crip rrn is translated ofvsuos votos in 10:13. In the ninth plague (Exod 10:2129) the kind of darkness ("jon mi I vpTiAa(|)TiT6s okotos) is interesting. In the final
plague (Exod 11:1-12:36) the most interesting detail is the subject of the plague, which
is definitely God himself (11:4
/ syco; 12:13 wrmtb *p - TTAriyr) tou EKTpipfivai).
47
48
49
The translation of Ezek. Trag. 149 given by Jacobson is apparently incorrect and I
have replaced it with the line rendered by Holladay (1989, 379). ttei'oetou can be derived
either from irdoxco, as Jacobson takes it, or from tte(0co, as he is well aware of (1983,
119-121). Exod relates that Pharaoh was personally struck by several plagues (8:4; 8:21;
9:14). Nevertheless, Jacobson chooses the first alternative, because it is supported by the
later Jewish texts. On this question, see also Holladay 1989, 477.
See also Propp 1998, 292-310.
On the darkness, see Durham 1987, 141-143.
Jub. attributes the deed to Mastema (see above p. 57).
4 7
4 8
49
71
All in all, the plagues are rendered very faithfully but with some interesting details, the
most important being the word ion / 0dvaTos [liycxs o(|)65pa in 9:3. LXX consequently
translates the Hebrew word 0dvccTos, and apparently Jer 15:2 already attests this inter
pretation, non denotes a fatal pestilence, which comes upon men and domestic animals,
but it is not possible to identify the precise disease.
50
Ezekiel summarises the plagues very briefly, but it is possible to follow up

on the wording in LXX. di|ja, Exod 7:14-24, occurs in v. 133, p d r p a XOi in LXX Exod 7:26-8:11 is PaTpdxcov T E TTAf}0os (v. 135) and O K V T CJ>BS, Exod 8:12-15 OKVITTCXS EMPCXACO x 9 O V ( ( V . 135). Kuvofjuia is used as
in LXX (Exod 8:16-28 / v. 138); the word A O I J J O S is used for the plague on
livestock (Exod 9:1-11 LXX: 0dvccros uiycxs ac|>6Spa, v. 139-140). EAKTI,
a w i t h
LXX Exod 9:8-12 / v. 137 is EAKTJ TTiKpd. LXX x^C
p
Âoyiôv (Exod 9:13-35) is in Ezekiel x ^ a ^ a ... G U V Ttupt in v. 141142. aKp(5a TTOAATIV (Exod 10:1-20) is rendered ccKpi'Sas T E TTEJJ^CO
(145-146), and ^TlAa^rjTos O K O T O S (Exod 10:21-29) is now only O K O T O S
(v. 144). In the last plague (Exod 11:1-12:36) TrpcoxoxoKOs is changed to
diroKTEvco ... TTpcoToyova (v. 147-148). Ezekiel thus adheres to the
words of LXX very closely.
The order of the plagues is slightly changed, but their number (ten) is
preserved, although Fraser strangely refers to "the seven plagues". The
order is changed: the boils plague, the sixth plague in Exodus, is fourth in
Ezekiel and consequently KUVOJJUICX is the fifth and pestilence the sixth.
The locusts and darkness have changed position. Unlike Philo, Ezekiel
does not explain his new order. Jacobson tries to explain the changed order
by referring to Philo, and indeed TTiKpdvco 5' oupccvov may indicate the
intention to divide different plagues into different elements as Philo did.
Yet, another and perhaps better explanation is also available: it was not
easy to briefly render the plagues in metre. A good parallel example is
Prudence, the Christian poet, who attempted to write the story of 18 Chris
tian martyrs in verse, and realized that the names would not fit the metre.
He elegantly apologised for his action (carminis leges amor aureorum /
51
52
53
54
nominum
parvi
facit,
et loquendi
/ cura
de Sanctis
vitiosa
non
est /
nec
4,165-168) and broke the metric rules. Similarly, Eze

kiel had to change some words and their order if he was to retain the iam
bic trimetre. Nevertheless, he followed the biblical original very closely,
far more closely than many other Jewish writers included in the present
study. However, some deviations may be important.
rudis
5 0
51
5 2
53
5 4
umquam,
per.
Mayer 1978, 125-127.

See also Holladay 1989, 471-480.
Fraser 1972, 707.
See below p. 114.
Jacobson 1983, 115-117; see also Holladay 1989, 473-474.
72
The first plague is retold very briefly, and it is unnecessary to ask (as Jacobson does) why the fish do not die in Ezekiel. The entire story of Exo
dus (Exod 7:14-24) is given only two lines and the frogs aiouês and boils
together only three: B A K T ] TTiKpcx is now limited only to men. K U V O M U I O C
does not awaken interest, but when describing xÂaa ... auv n u p i Eze
kiel adds the words TriKpdvco 5' oupavov. The phrase might possibly be
connected with Philo's speculations on the different roles of the ele
ments. Several Jewish writers, but not Ezekiel, describe the darkness as
unconventional, being full of demonic beings. The final plague is limited
only to men.
The only really significant deviations are in the fifth biblical plague
(Exod 9:1-11). Firstly, this plague, as well as two others, is limited to men.
But secondly, it is strange that 0dvocTos
a(|)65pa is rendered with
A O I J J O S . Many scholars have observed that LXX has removed n i n ^ D in
Exod 4:7 and periphrased pestilence with EyevTi0T) f] x^P C X U T O U coaei
Xicov because of the anti-Jewish version of the exodus. It may be true,
but it apparently does not mean that all early Jews considered the topic
difficult. Although Ezekiel follows the words in Exod 4:7, he now goes in
the opposite direction and freely adds A O I J J O S to his text. Why did Ezekiel
choose this word? Gruen claims that the supposed negative version of
Exodus is the result of the distorting lens of Josephus, and although this
view is more than problematic, it seems that scholars have exaggerated
the impact of anti-Jewish propaganda on the Jewish writers. Ezekiel does
not avoid the key word that is supposed to have been problematic to the
Jews, but Ezekiel has limited the plague to human victims (SavouvTon 5'
ols evecrn KapSta O K A T I P C X ) . Jacobson cites Ps 78:50 LXX and some later
Rabbinic texts allegedly harmonising two traditions, that the plague struck
only humans or possibly animals, and suggests that Ezekiel was following
a tradition. However, one cannot go beyond speculations.
55
56
57
58
59
60
Miracles are generally not easy to put into a drama, especially not the
miracles described in Exodus, and Ezekiel understandably chose simple
technical methods. That God enumerates the plagues in advance is a way
to avoid the problems connected with dramatizing them. The transforma
tion of events into speech is understandable and necessary. This transfor
mation and the heavy abridgement necessarily lead to substantial changes,
61
Jacobson 1983, 114.

See below p. 114.
See below p. 238.
See above p. 231-232.
Jacobson 1983, 117; see also Holladay 1989, 474.
Jacobson 1983, 112-113; van der Horst 1984, 359.
73
especially in the roles of God, Moses and Aaron. It is no wonder that

Aaron is absent (as in many Jewish texts), although he is mentioned ear
lier, but the role of Moses is also greatly diminished. It is God who tells in
advance what he is going to do. However, it is unnecessary to ask what
Moses is in Kahl's terminology: The reduction of Moses' role is a literary
device, which has resulted in a slight lack of consistency. Although God
speaks to Moses of the plagues as his own deeds, the passage opens with
God's words to him: sv TTJ5E pdpSco TrdvTa Troirjcreis KCXKCX ( V . 132).
We do not have enough material at our disposal to be certain whether the
supposed Jewish traditions already existed in Ezekiel's times, or whether
they ever existed at all. One thing is certain: Ezekiel follows the Bible as
faithfully as is possible for a tragedian, and with greater exactness than
many others who retold the biblical events. The writer of Jub.,for example,
takes more liberties with the text, as does Artapanus (see chapters 3 and 5).
Jacobson rightly points out that there was no tradition preventing one from
freely retelling Old Testament events, and that the beginnings of the
midrashic tradition are already attested in LXX.
62
d. The miracle at the Red Sea

In the two fragments mentioned above, God thus tells about the miracles in
advance. However, an Egyptian messenger relates the great miracle at the
Red Sea (cf. Exod 13:17-14:31) afterwards in the fragment containing
verses 193-242. The messenger tells how the Egyptians pitched camp and
awaited the coming battle eagerly:
63
"Then, divine wonders and portents began to occur. A large pillar,

looking like a cloud, suddenly appeared and took up a
position between our camp and that of the Hebrews.
Then their leader Moses took the staff of God with which he had previously wrought the
prodigies and plagues against Egypt
and striking the surface of the Red Sea he split it
in two. All of them rushed energetically and
swiftly through the sea's pathway.
We entered the path quickly,
on their track. We hastened forward, but encountered night.
Suddenly, the wheels of the chariots
would not turn, as if they were bound fast.
From the heavens came a great flash, as if
of a fire. It seemed that
God was helping them. When they had reached
6 2
6 3
Jacobson 1983, 18.

74
the other side, a large wave surged

around us. One man, on seeing this, cried out:
'Let us run back home and flee the power of the Supreme One.
For He is helping them, but is wreaking
our destruction.' Then the path was washed away
and the army perished" (Ezek. Trag. 204-219).
LXX has preserved in Exod 13:17-14:31 the very anthropomorphic view of God in v.
13:17. In v. 13:18 the Hebrew text has moom, but LXX nspnTrj 5e yeved. The literal
translation of rrcn T D in 14:8 has led to the strange ev xeipi uv|;r)Arj. In 14:19 both texts
have the angel ("ja^D / d'yyeAos). The Hebrew text in 14:20 is apparently corrupt
(rr^rrriK
-je?nm / Kai eyevexo OKOTOS Kai yvoc|>os, Kai SifjA0ev fj vu ). unp rrra
nTtf is rendered ev dveuco VOTCO Piai'co in v. 21.
The words Ezekiel lets the messenger use for the miracles occur in 220221.
eneiTa 0ei'eov dpxexai x e p a a x t c o v
0auudaT 'i5ea0ai
A short while later (224-226) Ezekiel tells about the rod of Moses
XaPcov
pdpSov 0eou TTJ 5rj irpiv A'lyuTrrcp KOKO
ar|ue?a Kai x e p a T a eêMrjoaTo.
64
The words used are not surprising at all. As seen above, the word
orjijeTov is the standard translation of m in LXX and T e p a s that of nsia.
LXX translates DTiaiQi mniK as ar\[is\a Kai x e p a r a (Deut 26:8) and with
these words refers to Moses' miracles. This is the language Ezekiel fol
lows in his drama, both here and in the description of the burning bush,
which is O T U J E T O V , xspaoTtov and a m o T i a (v. 90-93).
65
66
Although it may not be obvious at first, a closer study reveals that almost
everything in Ezekiel has been told in Exod. The Egyptian troops could not
pursue the Israelites because the cloud brought darkness (Exod 14:20), the
Lord made their wheels stop, he looked down from the pillar of fire at the
Egyptian army and the Egyptians cried out in fear (Exod 14:25-26). All is
admittedly expressed now in a dramatic fashion, but only some details are
additions or alterations. The question is, which of them are traditional and
which are new.
The speaker and the whole situation are already additions to the biblical
narrative. Ezekiel, of course, again uses a device to dramatize the miracle,
but does he represent a tradition? Philo and Josephus emphasize that there
6 4
6 5
6 6
See above p. 67.

See Rengstorf 1969, 113-127.
Rengstorf 1964,219-220.
75

67
was not a single survivor, as if to rebuke a contradictory tradition. Jacobson supposes that both of them are critical of Ezekiel's play, but they
apparently only repeat Exod 14:28, saying that there was no survivor (ou
K(XTeAsi(|>0r| e C C U T C O V O U 5 E els).
The number of Egyptians (a million in Ezekiel, v. 203) is a common,
nonbiblical detail, but the Jewish writers disagree on the number. Josephus
has a detailed account of the troops, but Jub. agrees with Ezekiel (Jub.
48:14). It is understandable that a number was given in the midrashic tradi
tion, but the number reveals here a tradition common to the two texts, the
other of which was written in Palestine and the other in Egypt.
Ezekiel adds a detail that the Israelites were unarmed (v. 210). This de
tail is common in early Judaism and shared by Philo and Josephus, al
though L.A.B. has a different view. The reason is obvious: Although the
Hebrew text has moom in Exod 13:18, LXX has T T E M T T T T I 5 E ysved. Eze
kiel, Philo and Josephus obviously follow a midrashic tradition exaggerat
ing the miraculous event, but L.A.B. adheres to the line giving crtDom pre
dominance over the view that the people had no weapons. Demetrius the
Chronographer shows that the problem was discussed among Egyptian
Jews: The nation was certainly armed in the battle against Amalek. It is
interesting that Josephus here complies with LXX, and apparently the Septuagint again reveals the problematic history of the Hebrew text.
A more significant difference between Exodus and Exagoge seems to be
that in Ezekiel the water is split immediately after it is struck by Moses
(laxioev) and not during the following night (Exod 14:21). However, it is
not only an understandable dramatic effect in the tragedy but also a widely
known tradition in the Jewish texts (Philo, L.A.B., Josephus). Actually,
Exodus allows for both inter pretations, although neither the Hebrew nor
the Greek text says expressis verbis that Moses strikes the sea with his rod.
The Hebrew text has inapm urr^v jv rm rrem "|tDD"n cnn nrwi in Exod
14:16; LXX K C U ou Eirapov *rrj pdpSco aou K C U E K T E I V O V TrjV x ^ p a u
'sin xr|v 0dAaaoav K C U pfjov auxrjv. On the other hand, rro crnp n r a is
68
69
70
71
72
73
6 7
See below p. 121 and 241.

Jacobson 1983, 151-152.
See below p. 240.
See Philo (p. 119), Josephus (p. 240), L.A.B. (p. 194) and Holladay 1989, 499-500.
"Some asked how the Israelites had weapons, since they came out unarmed. For they
said that after they had gone out on a three-day journey, and offered a sacrifice, they
would return again. It appears, therefore, that those who had not been drowned made use
of the other arms" (Dcm.fr. 5).
Philo uses the word (paysTaa) for the sea (see below p. 119). On L.A.B. see below p.
194, on Josephus see p. 241.
The Vulgate reads tu autem eleva virgam tuam et extende manum super mare et di
vide ilium.
6 8
6 9
7 0
71
7 2
73
76
translated ev CCVSJJCO VOTCO (3iaico in Exod 14:21, suggesting a slow divi

sion of the sea. It is no surprise that the story was developed in the later
tradition and that the rod of Moses became an important element. Exod
4:17 mentions the powerful rod (nnarrna rrncwn im "]T3 npn ntn ntDDrrmi)
and Exod 4:20 tells that Moses took the rod (D'rfwn nm'm I xr)V pd(35ov
xrjv i r a p a T O U 0EOU) with him when he left Midian. Moses and Aaron
both use their rods, Moses to hit the earth (Exod 7:20) and Aaron the Nile
(Exod 8:17). Moses' rod is mentioned again when he hits the rock with it
(Exod 16:5). When he lifts his hand to help Israel's fight against Amalek,
he does not raise his rod; Exod 16:9 says, however, that it was in his hand.
The rod had a special role in early Judaism: Ezekiel mentions the rod al
ready in v. 132 (EV TTJ5E pccBSco TrdvTcc TROIRJAEIS KCCKCX) and Artapanus
gives it a prominent position. Deut.R. 3,8 connects God's holy name with
the power of the rod: "It (the sea) saw the Tetragrammaton engraved upon
the staff and parted." Jacobson even considers the possibility that Ezekiel
in v. 121 knew and criticised the tradition according to which Moses' rod
was not an ordinary one but a magical rod given by God to Adam. How
ever, the texts Jacobson cites as parallels are late, and there is no reason to
believe that Ezekiel knew the tradition. Early on, the Old Testament ex
plains the origin of the rich tradition.
Many Jewish writers included the event of Moses' striking the sea, tak
ing for granted that he divided the sea with his rod. Jacobson's close stud
ies of the Jewish texts show that some texts underline the role of Moses'
rod while others minimize it. In addition to Ezekiel, the hitting of the sea is
mentioned in Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and Josephus. Jacobson correctly
notes that Isa 11:15 and Zech 10:11 also suppose that the sea was hit, al
though in these cases it was God who did it.
Jacobson considers the detail important. His answer to why Ezekiel pre
ferred one tradition to another is that, contrary to the Hebrew tradition and
similarly to most Jewish Hellenists, Ezekiel wanted to emphasize Moses'
role in the miracle. This is undoubtedly partly true: Moses at the Red Sea
is clearly an important MNP in Ezekiel's text.Nevertheless, the view
should not be accepted without reservations. Early on, Exodus describes
the event of Moses dividing the sea with his rod. When Moses raises his
hands to support Israel's fight against Amalek in Exod 17:8-16 the rod is
not raised, but clearly mentioned. Moreover, Jewish writers, cited by Ja
cobson himself, might at times stress God's role more, at times Moses'
75
76
77
78
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
See below p. 105.

Jacobson 1983, 105-106.
See pp. 105, 119, 194 and 241.
Jacobson 1983, 141-144.
Holladay correctly traces Ezekiel's verse to LXX (1989, 504-505).
11
role, but Moses was never forgotten. We have texts in which Moses disap
pears almost totally, but also texts in which God's role seems to be
greatly reduced. While this is especially true of Artapanus, some Jewish
texts written originally in Hebrew also attribute a considerable role to
Moses; particularly the writer of L.A.B. cannot be labelled a "Jewish Hel
lenist." Ezekiel's passage is more well-balanced than the biblical origi
nal: On the one hand, Moses' action is important, but on the other hand, in
v. 230-242 it is God's power that destroys the hostile army. Obviously, the
tragedian was fond of dramatic effects and he emphasized Moses' role.
However, he was following a rich tradition, and can well be described as
taking the middle course.
79
81
The detailed presentation of the Egyptian troops and strategy leads us to

a more important theme: knowledge of the Greek culture. It was not unproblematic for a Jew to present the events of Exodus on stage. Josephus
(as the Letter of Aristeas* ) criticises Greek tragedians who tried to use
biblical material in their dramas. Philo cites all the masters of tragedy.
He also enjoyed the theatre, which some scholars take as a sign of his "unorthodoxy", but we do not know enough about Judaism in this period to
determine whether he broke the rules or whether they even existed. We
do not know how many Jews wrote tragedies: Nicolaus of Damascus, who
2
83
84
7 9
Jacobson (1983, 142-143) justly points e.g. to Ps 114 and Wis 19:7-9. However, Ps
77:17-21, which he mentions, is not the only text that does not diminish Moses' role.
See p. 192-202.
The strategic order described in the verses was first used in 217 BC; see Jacobson
1983, 149-150; 215-216; Gauly et al. 219. Josephus also gives a detailed account of the
troops; see below p. 240.
See Arist. 312-316. According to Robertson (1985, 804) Arist. criticizes writers such
as Ezekiel.
Theodectes had tried to use parts of the holy writings in his tragedy, but gave up the
task after becoming blind, and Theopompus lost his mind for 30 days for similar reasons
(Ant. 12,113). Josephus' aim was not to criticize Ezekiel or other Jews who followed
him, but to respond to the question of why the Jews were so rarely mentioned in the mas
terpieces of Greek literature. However, Josephus never names Aeschylus, Sophocles or
Euripides. On the view that Philo and Josephus criticized Ezekiel, see above p. 75.
In his article (1960) Feldman investigates how the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt main
tained "their orthodoxy while assimilating the secular knowledge of their day" and "the
degree to which Egyptian Hellenistic Jewry deviated from orthodoxy" (1961, 215). A
deviation is that Philo often went to the theatre. Ezekiel's play is "still further evidence
of deviation from orthodoxy", because God or his voice was on stage (1961, 226-227).
Feldman thus presupposes that i) a kind of orthodoxy existed in the beginning and ii) that
the theatre was a deviation from it. Both points are difficult to defend, although it admit
tedly was not unproblematic to use tragedy and dramatic effects to retell the sacred his
tory. Jacobson (1983, 19-20) correctly observes that we cannot draw conclusions on the
rules for the Second Temple Jews from the Rabbinic evidence.
8 0
81
8 2
83
8 4
78
at least had connections to Judaism, may have, and those who forged the
verses of the great masters certainly had some knowledge of the art of
tragedy, but we do not know the names of Ezekiel's predecessors, and we
do not know how extensive this knowledge was. Nevertheless, Greek trag
edy was based on pagan mythology and could not be understood without a
deeper knowledge of it. There are signs of a hostile attitude towards Greek
tragedy among the Jews, but others were fond of it. Not only did they go to
the theatre but they also forged verses in which Aeschylus, Sophocles and
Euripides were made spokesmen for the Jewish religion. But what was
Ezekiel's attitude towards the Hellenistic culture?
Ezekiel uses the form of Greek drama very skilfully. His language is
influenced by Euripides, and his themes, above all, by Aeschylus. The
vivid interest in the best preserved Hellenistic tragedy has prompted many
difficult questions concerning the possible chorus and technical de
vices. A question by far more important to our theme is whether the work
was ever intended to be performed on the stage at all, or whether it was
simply meant to be publicly recited: Many scholars have doubted that Eze
kiel would have put God and his miracles on the stage. It is also not easy
to define the audience. Jacobson supposes that it consisted of Jews as well
86
87
88
89
90
91
85
A drama written by AapocaKrivos is mentioned by Eustathius, but it is not clear

whether he is Nicolaus of Damascus or not; see Jacobson 1983, 4. On Nicolaus of Da
mascus, see Spoerri 1979, 109-111.
See Attridge in OTP 2 (1985, 824-829). On the question, see Jacobson 1983, 19-20.
See above p. 65 sq.
Jacobson 1983, 23-31; van der Horst 1984, 358.
On the question about the chorus and proposed alternatives, see Jacobson 1983, 3133. 88. He can find no convincing evidence that there was a chorus in the play, but does
not exclude the possibility. In his opinion the obvious choice is Raguel's daughters
(1983, 32). V. 65 (TOUTCOV TrocTfjp) seems to attest that they were present, and hardly for
any other role than to form a chorus. On the other hand, Raguel's daughters could hardly
be present in the dialogue between God and Moses in the desert and even less in Egypt or
in the desert on the way to Canaan. It is tempting to speculate that the Egyptian messen
ger talked to a chorus, which consisted of Egyptian women or sorcerers, as the chorus in
Aeschylus' Persians consisted of Persian wise men. The Roman tragedies had a chorus,
and it is conceivable that Ezekiel's play had several choruses. This would solve the prob
lem that the place and audience change between acts, but the fact is that we do not have
any evidence of lyrical parts of the tragedy.
Jacobson cites Euripides' Bacchae 576 sqq as a model: Dionysus is heard but not
seen and the actor speaks offstage (1983, 99). Technically it was not difficult, but it may
have been problematic theologically.
The question is an old one: Schiirer rejected these doubts, which were known to him
(3 [1909], 502). On the question, see Vogt 1983, 117-118, Robertson 1983, 804-806 and
Holladay 1989, 315. It is interesting that classical scholars remain uncertain (Snell 1971,
175-176; Gauly et al. 1991, 219).
8 6
8 7
88
8 9
9 0
91
79
as Gentiles. But is Jacobson's supposition true, and where and in what

situation would the tragedy have been performed? Furthermore, what was
its function? Hengel presumes that Exagoge was performed in Jerusalem,
but if that is true it was apparently not the original location Ezekiel had
intended. It is very difficult to find a Sitz im Leben for the play. Moreover,
Ezekiel also broke two important rules of a tragedy when he changed the
location between scenes and allowed for a long intermission between them.
These problems have led some scholars to assume that the tragedy was
never performed on stage. Yet, according to many scholars, Ezekiel re
vised his material enough to perform it on stage.
We do not know
enough about Hellenistic tragedy or early Judaism to give the final answer
to the question, but a tentative proposal may not be too audacious. But
first, it is important to yet take a closer look at the function of Aeschlylus'
Persians.
Technically, Exodus was not easy to put on stage, but neither was the
defeat of the Persians in Salamis. Aeschylus lets a Persian messenger tell
about the catastrophe in Susa before the old Persian wise men, who form
the chorus. He lets the man give a detailed account of how "the enemy",
i.e. the Athenian audience of the tragedy, destroyed the unbeaten navy in
Salamis. Aeschylus' Persians had ingeniously shown how a decisive mili
tary victory could not only be treated on stage but also transformed into a
tragedy. The chorus mourns the loss of the army, which, as the audience
knew very well, has recently burned Acropolis.
As mentioned above, we know little about other Jewish tragedians, but it
is clear that no one writing a tragedy like Exagoge could have conformed
to Aeschylus' style by chance. The messenger, the detailed description of
the overwhelming troops and the catastrophic end of the speaker's own
side are not a coincidence. The greatest of the Old Testament miracles
has found a new form resembling a masterpiece of the Athenian tragedy.
Aeschylus' intention was to praise Athens, namely, the people who formed
his audience. Besides the form and content, did Ezekiel also borrow the
function and Sitz im Leben of his model? In Ezekiel's play it is not Israel
but God who is praised, and with him, of course, Moses, the Jewish relig
ion and the sacred history of the people. The ideal time to perform this
tragedy would have been during the Passover in Egypt. Philo tells about
the choirs singing in praise of the events {Spec. 2,217-219). Admittedly we
93
94
95
96
9 2
Jacobson 1983, 17-18.

Hengel 1996, 296-297.
On other historical tragedies, see Jacobson 1983, 3-4.
The parallels have been collected by Jacobson, who considers Ezekiel to have been
influenced also by Herodotus. See Jacobson 1983, 136-140.
9 3
9 4
9 5
9 6
80
do not know anything about Jewish tragedies performed in Egypt, but if

Exagoge was ever performed on stage, I would suggest that it was to an
intellectual Jewish audience celebrating the Passover in Alexandria.
Exagoge means an original kind of interpretatio Graeca: Jewish history
and the Jewish religion proudly take the form once used in the cult of Dio
nysus. Although the form of the miracle stories is completely new, the con
tent is mainly left untouched. Ezekiel allows himself some liberties, as
noted above, but fewer than many Jewish writers treated in the present
study, such as the writer of Jub. Ezekiel's work, written and perhaps also
performed on the stage, reveals his dual heritage. He knows Greek drama
well enough to be able to compose his own, and he is sufficiently bound
by his Jewish heritage to faithfully follow the presentation in Exodus.
As noted above, particularly Collins supposes that Ezekiel represents a
less exclusive form of Judaism. The present study, however, has shown
that Ezekiel follows the biblical original very closely and that he is more
faithful than most of the Jewish writers treated in this study. Collins' view
is thus based on two passages cited above. That Zipporah was given to a
"stranger" (v. 67) means that mixed marriages are tolerated, and that Eze
kiel does not mention circumcision when speaking about the Passover (v.
175-192) means that he avoids the most well known feature of Judaism.
However, both arguments have their weaknesses. The "stranger", Moses, is
a figure sui generis and it is not surprising that Zipporah is given to him.
Many figures of the Old Testament took wives from foreign peoples, as
Moses did in Exodus. Some texts, such as Joseph and Aseneth, deal with
the problem, but the fact that Ezekiel does not is by no means a strong ar
gument for Collins' view. Also, although the subject of circumcision is
dropped in the 18 trimetres of the summarised Exod 12, it does not neces
sarily mean that he intentionally avoided it and wanted to present a more
open religion to the Gentiles. Such an attitude can justly be associated with
a man who writes a tragedy according to the Greek model, but such con
clusions should be made with caution. Jub. for example, does not mention
circumcision in connection with the Passover (Jub. 49), although the theme
is crucial in the work (see Jub. 15:25-32). Ezekiel, although a dramatist, is
more like "faithful chroniclers" than Jub. or Pseudo-Philo.
97
98
99
Ezekiel did not end his drama with the death of the Egyptians. Some verses
(243-269) apparently contain only a part of the speech a messenger, per
haps a scout, held before Moses. He describes with enthusiasm the wonEzekiel's Moses does not, as Artapanus', teach writing to the Egyptians, but he re
ceives a royal education (Ezek. Trag. 36-38; see Jacobson 1983, 78).
Barclay 1992, 35; 1996, 134-135.
Collins 2000a, 225-226, see also Gruen 1998, 129.
9 8
9 9
81
derful nature of Elim, which is briefly mentioned in Exod 1 5 : 2 7 . Ezekiel

was not the only one, but perhaps the first to praise Elim, and thus he
seems to follow the model of Greek Utopias. It is interesting that he
mentions a rock from which the twelve springs flow:
100
r r r i y a s a < | ) u a a c o v SCOSEK
SK
yias
TTETpas
(v.
250).
Obviously, Ezekiel has combined the wonders of nature with the rock giv
ing water in the desert. Although these few words do not allow for a de
tailed study, he seems to have known the tradition attested in Pseudo-Philo
and Rabbinic sources, according to which the rock giving water followed
Israel in the desert. This is more evidence showing that although Ezekiel
knew the Greek culture well, he was also well aware of his Jewish roots.
101
e. A miracle-worker - but how much more?

Ezekiel's only intention in the cited passages is to present the great events
of the past. One passage, however, must be noted, because it reveals the
function of Moses' mission and also of his miracles. The passage concerns
Moses' dream of a great throne touching the clouds of heaven:
"I [i.e. Moses] had a vision of a great throne on the top of mount Sinai
and it reached till the folds of heaven
A noble man was sitting on it,
with a crown and a large sceptre in his
left hand. He beckoned to me with his right hand,
so I approached and stood before the throne.
He gave me the sceptre and instructed me to sit
on the great throne. Then he gave me the royal crown
and got up from the throne.
I beheld the whole earth all around and saw
beneath the earth and above the heavens.
A multitude of stars befell before my knees
and I counted them all.
They paraded past me like a battalion of men.
Then I awoke my sleep in fear" (Ezek. Trag. 68-82).
Moses' father-in-law interprets the dream: God has given a good sign to
Moses, who will get a great throne, become a judge and leader of men and
know "what is, what has been and what shall be" (v. 8 3 - 8 9 ) .
1 0 2
1 0 0

Jacobson 1983, 154. On Pseudo-Philo, see below p. 197.
On Moses' dream, see Jacobson 1983, 89-97; Holladay 1976, 89-97; Runia 1988,
48-75; Holladay 1989, 438-451; Hengel 1995, 190.191; Collins 2000a, 226-228; Eskola
2001, 86-90; Lierman 2004, 95-102.
101
1 0 2
82
The dream seems to be an addition to Exodus. However, Ezekiel, as the

writer of Jub., was apparently rather reluctant to add to the text something
without any background in the Scripture. Scholars have pointed out several
theophanies in the Old Testament, and Jacobson and recently Eskola plau
sibly suggest Exod 24:9-10 as a possible starting point for the tradition:
103
"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw
the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear
as the sky itself."
It is impossible to separate Moses' miracles from the rest of his mission

and from this passage in Ezekiel. It is clear that Moses is honoured in a
very special way, but what does this dream mean? Who is the one who
gives him the throne, and what is the position Moses is given in the dream?
Is there a discrepancy between the dream and Raguel's interpretation?
Ezekiel tells that Moses awakes from sleep (e U T T V O U ) , and Polyhistor
definitely treats the passage as a dream ( T O V oveipov occurs twice, Euseb.
praep. ev. 9,29,6-7); should it be regarded as exclusively a dream, or as a
vision as well? This important passage has many interpretations. Jacobson studies it as Moses' dream and excludes any mystical interpretation. It
is interpreted as only a dream, an imaginary event, even an attack against
mystical interpretations. On the other hand, van der Horst characterises
Jacobson's interpretation as "diametrically opposite" to his own. He
connects the vision with merkabah-mysticism. Moreover, the passage is a
key point in the current scholarship investigating early Christology. Some
scholars have already had the courage to speak about a new Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, and the passage in Ezekiel is often mentioned. A
correct reading of this passage is thus of great importance.
104
105
106
103
Jacobson 1981, 276-277; Eskola 2001, 87.

In his paper in 1976, Holladay tried to show that Moses was presented as a Greek
pocvxis and thus competes at Sinai with Apollo of Delphi for the position of God's
spokesman (1976, 447-452). However, the Jewish background is much closer to Eze
kiel's passage than the Greek. Holladay seems to have rejected his own proposal in his
commentary (1989, 438-451), and it is also rejected by Collins (2000, 226).
Jacobson has dealt with the passage in his commentary, as well as in the article
"Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel the Tragedian" (1981); in addition to his review,
van der Horst has written on Jacobson's book in "Moses' Throne-Vision in Ezekiel the
Dramatist" (1984a).
On the phrase, see above p. 6. The crucial difference is that the "new" school, repre
sented, for instance, by Fossum and Hengel, traces the roots of early Christology to Jew
ish sources and to the exaltation of several figures (see Fossum 1991, 645-666, and also
Zeller 2001, 312-313). Fossum does not cite sources in his article, but Ezek. Trag. is
certainly among them. Hengel (1995, 190-191) and Eskola (2001, 86-90) use Ezekiel's
passage in their studies. The lively investigation of Christology has led to several vigor
ous attempts to accurately define divinization; see Lierman 2004, 97-100.
104
105
106
83
The man on the throne is described with archaic words (<|>eoTa yEVVcaov
Tiva). <J>cos is the archaic word for man, either in the general sense, in
stead of avrjp (//. 17,377), or as the opposite of woman (Od. 6,129; Soph.
Ant. 910) or the gods (upos Saipova (|>COTI jjdxeoSai, //. 17,98). But who
is this c|>cos? Is he a human figure or God? Both explanations occur, and
both include difficulties.
If <|>cos, as is generally the case, refers to a man and not to God, it is not
easy to decide who this human figure might be. Ezekiel is obviously not
speaking about the Pharaoh. The Egyptian ruler never had a position
such as the one now given to Moses. Moreover, Moses definitely does not
take his new position by force (5EI<5 5E \xo\ EVEUOE), either in the vision or
in Raguel's interpretation. Moses himself is Ejj(t>o(3r|8is when he has
the vision, as well as when the miracles fill him with fear (v. 124-125).
Could <))cos be an angelic or human figure, such as Abraham, Enoch or the
Son of Man, who gives the throne to Moses of his own free will and in
response to God's commandment? In this case, competition with other
figures is not ruled out.
Most scholars have taken c|>cos to mean God, which is not unproblematic, because this means that Israel's God is described as a man. Robertson
chooses this alternative, and sees precisely here the significance of the pas
sage. The most recent commentary by Holladay suggests a human
figure, but Holladay, like Collins, is uncertain. However, Ezekiel uses a
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
107
Against Holladay 1989, 442; however, he is very uncertain.

Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 355) deals with the passage in her TRE-article and sees
in the dream an underlined deification of Moses, but not in Raguel's interpretation of the
dream, an underlined deification of Moses. Vogts translates v. 85 dpd ye [liyav xiv
eâvaoTrjoeis Spdvov "Wahrlich, einen GroBen wirst du vom Thron vertreiben" (1983,
125) and takes eavioTr||Ji to mean "expel" and not "raise up" or "erect". The text
should be corrected (Spovou / Spdvov). On the history of the research see Holladay 1983,
447-448. Oberhansli-Widmer follows Vogt's translation and interprets Moses in the vi
sion as God, but he interprets Raguel's words as referring to the Pharaoh and as a con
cession to Ezekiel's Jewish audience (1994, 355). Even Holladay saw in his earlier arti
cle a discrepancy between the dream and its interpretation by Raguel: Moses is presented
in the vision as a king, but in the interpretation as a prophet (1976, 447-449).
Jacobson (1981, 278-279) rejects Gutman's old view that <|>cds refers to Enoch.
"What Ezekiel describes is simply a 4>cos, yet this <()cds is in some sense divine, most
probably a surrogate for the Deity himself." In his commentary he is very careful and
speaks only about the figure" (1983, 89-97).
Hengel emphasizes that a competition between different figures cannot be demon
strated (1995, 190-191).
Meeks 1967, 148; van der Horst 1984, 363-365; Hengel 1995, 190-191; Borgen
1997, 39; Gruen 1998, 131; Eskola 2001, 87.
Robertson 1985,812.
Holladay 1989, 442. On Jacobson's view, see above n. 109.
Collins 2002, 226.
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
84
very archaic formulation, and it may be related to the "The Ancient of

Days", (ya* p, Dan 7:9). This leads to the conclusion that the figure is
indeed God himself giving Moses a new position. It is equal to the position
God himself has in Aristobulus' Fr. 4,5.
Scholars have collected abundant material paralleling this passage, both
from Jewish and Greek sources, from dreams and visions. As noted above,
Jacobson mainly deals with dreams and suggests that Ezekiel deliberately
chose to present the passage as a dream, in refutation of the stories about
Moses' deification, cosmic kingship and throne-mysticism. Van der
Horst, on the contrary, concentrates precisely on the parallels in merkabah
mysticism and on the biblical Ezekiel, and expands his study even to vi
sions.
A parallel is drawn between the dreams and the passage, especially as it
is interpreted by Jacobson. Both the Jewish and the Greek traditions
contain many important dreams, which may form the background to the
play. On the other hand, many Jewish visions also offer close parallels to
Ezekiel's passage. Ezek 1:1-28 is certainly a vision, and it has undoubtedly
influenced Ezekiel's text. Jacobson's commentary, though, has juxtaposed
the wrong alternatives. There is no need to separate dreams and visions
as sharply as Jacobson does: The main point is the position of the figure
before God, not the way in which the information is given to the narrator.
Ps 110 is neither a dream nor a vision, but Jacobson also justifiably ob115
116
117
118
119
115
The first target of Jacobson's article (1981) is Goodenough's view that Ezekiel owes
much to Orphic sources. However, he expands his criticism and also tries to separate
Ezekiel's text from the "mysticism" presented in e.g. Philo and 1 En. (1981, 272-277).
See van der Horst 1984, 363-369. Moreover, van der Horst does not rule out that the
work is a pseudonym, used to conceal Ezekiel's interest in mysticism: "The fact that vv.
68-89 are so evidently based upon the first chapter of the biblical Ezekiel ... might raise
the suspicion that the author has assumed this name as a pseudonym" (1984, 355-356).
Lierman (2004, 91) pays rather much attention to the question of whether Moses should
be considered divine or royal, but this distinction may miss the point; on the enthroned
figures, who were neither royal nor divine, see below p. 85.
Above all, Joseph's dream (Gen 36:7-11) is to be mentioned. Daniel sees in his
dream / vision how "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat",
and how e?3K "H approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was
given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every lan
guage worshiped him" (Dan 7:9; 13-14). Dreams in early Judaism are collected in Lange
(1997, 30-35).
Dreams were not only common in Greek drama; precisely in Persians Queen Atossa
is informed of the catastrophic defeat (Pers. 184). The interpretation given by Raguel
resembles, as Jacobson notes, the Greek tradition more than the Jewish point-by-point
interpretations. Jacobson also cites some dreams in Herodotus (1,107-108; 1,209; 5,56;
7,12; 7,19; Jacobson 1983, 92-96).
This seems to have too great an influence on Gruen; see Gruen 1998, 128-135.
1 1 6
117
118
119
85
serves it. The main question is the position given to Moses in Ezekiel
the Tragedian, not the device Ezekiel used to tell the story to his audience.
What is thus the role of Moses in Ezekiel's passage? In Jacobson's inter
pretation it seems to be purely immanent: The passage is a dream since the
Old Testament and the Greek models included dreams to announce asuccession. The view is hardly correct. Since Jacobson's commentary, religiohistorical study has advanced considerably regarding all the angelic and
human beings with a special status before God and his throne in early Ju
daism. Ezekiel is not the only source in which a man is allowed to see
God's throne. The Old Testament provides a strong basis for the later tra
dition (Exod 19:16-18; Isa 6; Ezek 1, ZXTDan 3:54-55). The theme was
topical in early Jewish literature: God's throne was often seen in visions
and several figures were connected with it. Enoch saw God enthroned in
the Book of Watchers (1 En. 4:18-20) and he lived with God's angels dur
ing six jubilees (Jub. 4:19). Many Old Testament heroes have their own
thrones in heaven. The Messiah or messianic figures exalted are pre
sented in the Dead Sea scrolls as well as in other texts.
Moses, of
course, is one of the exalted figures in early Judaism.
Moses' role is thus purely immanent according to Jacobson's position,
but other scholars have seen here a divine kingship or even divinization. Moses admittedly becomes a ruler with all the power given by God,
but does Ezekiel present him as a godly figure? It was once common to
suppose that the Greeks had taught the Jews to reinterpret their heroes as
divine men, a blend of God and men. However, as Holladay in particular
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
120
Jacobson 1983, 90-91.

On recent developments, see Eskola 2001, 1-15.
See Eskola 2001,65-71.
Not only human beings, but also angels such as Jaoel in Apoc. Ab. 10:8 may have a
special status.
Enoch sits in 2 En. closer to God than Gabriel (J 24, 1) and is called the "lesser
JHWH" later in 3 En., where he is transformed into "Metatron" (on Metatron, see
Hengel 1995, 191-194).
Adam and Abel have a throne (T. Abr. 11:9; 12:4; 13:2) as well as Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob (T Isaac 2:7) and Job (T. Job 33). On David's position, see Hengel 1995, 194196. The enigmatic "Elected One" in 1 En. 45:3; 51:1-3 is apparently a figure likened to
the exalted patriarchs; see Eskola 2001, 91-96.
The Scrolls often present God's throne and may give an extraordinary position to
other figures; see 4Q491 fr. 11, col. I, 12-13 or lQSb 4, 25sqq (see Hengel 1995, 201203; Eskola 2001, 79-86). A Davidic Messiah sits on the throne in 4 Ezr. 12:32-33.
See, for example, below on Philo p. 151-155 and on L.A.B p. 199-202. Moses has a
throne only in Ezek. Trag. (see Hengel 1995, 196-201), but has perhaps a similar position
in L.A.B. (see below p. 199-202).
Borgen 1997, 38-39, Collins 2000a, 227.
Van Horst 1984a, 27.
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
86
has pointed out, the Jewish texts are extremely cautious and do not deify
any man. It was assumed by scholars that Pentateuch opens the door for
a reinterpretation, but this door, as far as we know, has never been used.
Moses is called God in Exod 7 : 1 , but this idea is never developed in the
Jewish literature. The Septuagint still translates literally ( 5 E 5 C G K C X O E 0 E 6 V
Oapccco), but the Greek version of Ben Sira has changed the sense, and
Philo has to explain the verse. Caution can also be discerned in
Exagoge. The exalted figures, such as the Son of Man in Dan 7 , have a
special status and "his dominion [becomes] identical to God's domin
ion." Ezekiel's Moses has a high status, but there is no reason to speak
about divinization. Moses' miracles, as retold in the play, do not empha
size the role of the hero. It is Israel's God who is active and Moses is his
agent. Admittedly, God gives his throne to Moses in Exagoge, but there is
no sign of God withdrawing, and God's miracles and the dream fill Moses
with the terror of God. Moreover, as Holladay notes, Moses is expressis verbis called B V T J T O S ( V . 1 0 2 ) . God is and remains the Lord in the
world. Although it is not enough to characterize the Moses in Ezekiel's
passage a king, an enthronization does not mean divinization. The later
writers could describe several heavenly figures and still remain monotheists. The human features of the leader are apparent in the tragedy and they
should not be overlooked. Ezekiel goes far but not as far as 3 En. calling
Enoch "the lesser YHWH".
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
Conclusion
Miracles play a notable role in Ezekiel's drama. The most surprising fea
ture in Exagoge is that the drama very closely follows the biblical original.
There was no tradition of quoting the holy texts exactly, as the rabbis did,
and many devoted Jews allowed themselves a great deal of freedom. Eze
kiel remains faithful to Exodus, although he has to write in iambic trimetres and not in prose. He is one of the few Jewish writers to put God in a
dialogue with Moses as Exodus does. Many miracles were not suitable for
dramatization, whether on the stage or only read. Ezekiel had to find a new
1 3 0
Holladay 1977,235-236.
See above p. 25.
Hengel 1995, 185.
Contrary to van der Horst 1984, 26-29. See Hengel's reservations, 1995, 191. Lierman (2004, 97-100) presents the recent attempts to define divinization in early Judaism.
The terror after the dream is a common feature; see Holladay 1989, 446.
Holladay 1989, 438.
See Hengel 1995, 190-191; Eskola 2001, 89.
131
132
1 3 3
1 3 4
135
1 3 6
137
87
way of presenting the plagues and the miracle at the Red Sea. He tells of
each one of the plagues through God's speech, and when he imitates Aes
chylus and lets an Egyptian describe the catastrophe, he adds very few to
tally new traits to the story. That a Hellenistic Jew followed so faithfully
the original was perhaps a way to anticipate criticism against the holy his
tory being put on the stage.
Some details attest Ezekiel's acquaintance with the tradition. The
Graeco-Roman world must have been well-known to him, and the descrip
tion of Elim seems to be influenced by Greek Utopias. The Jewish tradi
tion is strongly present. Although the details of Moses hitting the Red Sea
and the importance of his rod have their roots in Exodus, Ezekiel owes to
his predecessors the number of Egyptians (one million) and says that the
Jews were unarmed. LXX allows such an interpretation, but the Hebrew
text does not. It is interesting that although he follows LXX, avoiding the
word nmsD in the theophany at Horeb, he freely chooses this word to de
scribe the plagues. The pestilence does not seem to have been a sensitive
theme for Ezekiel.
Moses' role in the miracles is different from that of Exodus, and actually
it varies in different fragments of the tragedy. As a whole, it is difficult to
use Kahl's terminology, because the transformation from verse to tragedy
has strongly influenced Ezekiel: Moses' role is reduced in the plagues told
about in advance by God, but his role becomes more significant at the Red
Sea. If we look over the technical devices that a tragedy required, we rec
ognize an interesting duality. On the one hand, in his dream, Moses attains
a position in heaven similar to what he and, for instance, Enoch, Abraham,
Melchisedek and the Son of Man are given in some other texts; on the
other hand, his human qualities are strongly underlined: Moses, for exam
ple, is afraid of the snake at the burning bush and he is called S V T J T O S .
God's role is generally emphasized slightly more than in the biblical origi
nal, although Moses and God are both mentioned at the Red Sea and
Moses hits the water with his rod.
Ezekiel borrowed Aeschylus' device for turning a glorious siege into a
tragedy. As the Athenians watched a Persian messenger tell about the ca
tastrophe at Salamis, the Jews could watch an Egyptian messenger tell
about the Pharaoh and his troops. Aeschylus glorified Athens, Ezekiel the
Jews and their sacred history. It is an original form of interpretatio
Graeca: Ezekiel knew the Gentile tradition well enough to be capable of
using the form and language originally belonging to the cult of Dionysus.
However, his main intention, which is also the function of the miracles
told, is to retell the sacred history and glorify God's own people - possibly
to a Jewish audience during the Passover in Alexandria.
Unlike Ben Sira, Ezekiel does not directly connect miracles with an eschatological hope. There is no trace of a political adaptation of biblical
88
miracles. However, the greatest miracles of the glorious past and Moses on
the godly throne imply that also in his view God's miracles and protective
power did not only belong to the past.

a. Introduction
Many Jewish writers have been overlooked in the biblical exegesis
Artapanus has won a special position in the studies of the History of the
religions school. As an example of a "Hellenistic" or even "polytheistic"
Jew, scholars have vividly discussed him and his texts. From the very be
ginning, his Moses served as one of the best examples of a 0e7os avrjp in
Hellenistic Jewish texts.
Artapanus lived in Egypt, and according to some scholars, in the coun
tryside rather than in Alexandria; but the arguments are not strong enough
to exclude the capital. It is not easy to accurately define the time in which
he wrote his work TTepi' louScucov or' louSa.Kc! , although the limits are
easily drawn. In the same way as Ezekiel the Tragedian he uses the Septuagint and antedates Alexander Polyhistor, whose work is summarized
by Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria.
1
The first to use Artapanus' fragments to this end was Otto Weinreich, a very influen
tial early advocate of the theory. Weinreich labels Moses in Artapanus a 0eTos avrjp
("sein Moses is dem hellenistischen Ideal des 0eTos avrip, des philosophischen Kulturbringers und Thaumaturgen, weitgehend angenahert", 1929, 299). Moreover, the typical
evolutionistic features of the early form of the theory, such as mana, are clearly present
in Weinreich's study ("... paBt aber ebensowohl zu judischen wie gemein-antiken Vorstellungen von der Macht des Namens bzw. der Manabegabten 0e?oi avSpcoiroi und
Propheten", 1929, 304). On the 0s?os avrjp-theory and mana see Koskenniemi (1998,
458-459). Georgi (1964, 148-151) and Walter (1980, 122) also use the concept. A critical
survey of the studies using the 0e?os avrjp concept for Artapanus' text is found in Holla
day 1977, 199-232.
See Fraser 1972, 1.704; Holladay 1983, 189; Collins 2000a, 39. The main argument is
that Artapanus' text does not look like other Jewish texts that we know from Alexandria.
However, we have only a small selection of the rich literature produced by the Alexan
drian Jews and it is not easy to determine what kind of text the diverse community could
or could not produce.
Eusebius mentions once the title' louSaiKoi (praep. ev. 9,18,1) and twice (praep. ev.
9,23; 9,27), as Clement (strom. 1,154,2), the title TTepi' louSaicov. There is no reason to
suppose that there are two separate works; see Collins 1985, 889.
See Collins 1985, 890.
On Alexander Polyhistor see Montanari 1996, 478-479.
2
90
5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:
Artapanus
While some scholars have abandoned any attempts to date him more ac
curately, others have proposed different decades. It is generally supposed
that Artapanus wrote after the Maccabean revolt had provoked a propagandistic counter-attack by the Seleucids, and the growing anti-Judaism had
allegedly led Artapanus to use his Moses as a shield to protect his people.
It seems obvious that the anti-Jewish propaganda was generally known
among the cultured Greeks soon after the Maccabean revolt, although
Gruen recently questioned it, but it is not certain whether this struggle
played a role in Artapanus' fragments or not. The role of Manetho, an
Egyptian priest who wrote his work in the 3 century, has been confusing
in modern research.
The question of genre is exceptionally important, and it is not enough to
merely use the phrase "rewritten Bible." The most extensive fragment
deals with Moses, and has led some scholars to speak about a "Mosesromance". Moses, however, is not the only biblical hero in Artapanus.
The work can hardly be labelled as a romance at all, since the first two
6
r d
10
11
12
Barclay (1992, 31) sees no possibility for a more accurate dating, nor does Schurer
3.1. (1973), 521-525. Holladay suggests the period about 180-145 (1983, 189-193) and
Walter (1976, 124-125; 1989, 401-402) and Weber (2000, 60) about 100 BC.
See, for example, Holladay 1977, 215-217; Charlesworth 1981, 283; Collins 1985,
892; Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 353.
See below p. 231.
In his thorough analysis Tiede sees no signs of an attack against anti-Judaism in Ar
tapanus' work. He is a rare exception among the scholars (Tiede 1972, 174-176), but his
view is based on a solid study; see Koskenniemi 2002, 23.
Manetho is mostly considered the first anti-Jewish writer to write a distorted version
of the Exodus. According to Jacoby his criticism was not directed to the Jews, but the
later anti-Jewish writers made use of his text in their propaganda. This view is rejected
by Kasher (1985, 6.327-332), but Gruen justly says that applying the concept of antiJudaism to Manetho, whose story we only know through Josephus, grossly oversimplifies
the matter (1998, 55-64). Although Manetho possibly identified Hyksos with Jews, he
perhaps did not know the biblical story nor distort it (Collins 2000b, 61-62). According
to Collins (2000b, 52-62), Artapanus refuted Manetho's account, but simultaneously used
Manetho's story and Gentile legends, sometimes to invert and refute them.
Among them, Walter 1980, 121; Schottroff 1983, 232. Fraser, strangely enough,
calls it a "Life of Moses" (1972, 704), perhaps following Weinreich ("Artapanos gibt
nicht so sehr einen 'Roman', obwohl er auch eine Liebesgeschichte hat, als vielmehr den
erbaulichen (Bios eines 8e?os avrjp ..." 1929, 307). All the same Fraser concludes later:
".. it seems probable that the complete text contained a fairly full account of the story of
the residence of the Children of Israel in Egypt with a few embellishments" (1972, 706).
A romantic aretalogy is suggested by Hengel (1991,2.62), but the existence of the whole
genre "aretalogy" is questionable today (Berger 1984b, esp. 1218-1231; on the discus
sion, see Koskenniemi 1994, 103-114).
The work is classified as a romance by Schwartz in his article in PRE (1895, 1306);
Walter 1980, 120-123; and Holladay 1983, 190-191 (Holladay preferred 1977, 215 the
characterisation "national romantic history").
7
10
11
12
Artapanus
91
fragments deal with Abraham and Joseph, and it is difficult to find a model
for a romance dealing with several heroes living in different centuries.
The theme of the work apparently was "Jews in Egypt", because Abra
ham's and Joseph's lives are studied from the Egyptian perspective, and
that is precisely what the title ( louSatKcc) known to us implies. Given the
romantic colouring the genre is thus historiography. We do not know
how much the most extant third fragment dealing with Moses has been
abridged by Polyhistor and Eusebius, but in oratio obliqua it gives a con
tinuous description of Moses' life from his birth up until his being in the
desert with the people, telling nothing about his death. Apparently it was
one part of the nation's history and the first two fragments belonged to the
earlier phase. Holladay is right in saying that the work is not the serious
history of Herodotus or Thucydides, and Collins' words characterise the
work well:
13
14
15
16
"... Artapanus is engaged in what might be called competitive historiography (with the
understanding that historiography here can include a liberal component of legend and
romance)."
17
No scholar denies nor can deny the syncretistic elements in Artapanus.

Nevertheless the views of scholars differ essentially. Consequently, also
the miracle-making Moses is understood in different ways. I have tried to
deal with the theme in an article, which is also an attempt to study the so
cial setting of Artapanus. The fragments are commented on by Holladay
(1983), who already treated them extensively in 1977. Eve's remarks,
18
19
20
13
Walter supposes that the passages on Abraham and Josephus were rather a preface to
Moses' life, which was told extensively (1980, 121-122). However, all we have of Ar
tapanus is the six pages in Jacoby's edition. The work undoubtedly was larger, the pas
sage on Moses as well as these on Abraham and Josephus.
Artapanus' text is traditionally classified as history, as, for instance, in Schurer
(German ed. 3 [1909], 477-480), and his fragments are edited in FrGrHist.
Walter speculates on the possibility that Artapanus has given a report on Moses'
death and assumption (1980, 136).
Holladay 1983, 190.
Collins 2000a, 39-40.
Schurer 3.1.(1971), 521-525, Walter (1976, 123) and Holladay do not emphasize the
syncretistic elements in Artapanus' fragments. Barclay (1992, 31), on the contrary, con
siders him "a polytheistic Jew", and repeats this view still more strongly in 1996 ("Even
as a Jew his is both a monotheist and a polytheist"). A good overview of the question and
the older scholarship is in Holladay 1977, 199-205.
"Greeks, Egyptians and Jews in the fragments of Artapanus."
Theios aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: a Critique of the Use of this Category in New
Testament Christology (1977); Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors vol 1 (1983).
Holladay's translation is used in the present study. Other important studies are Tiede
1972, 146-177; Collins 1985, 889-903; Barclay 1992, 28-46; Mittmann-Richert 2001,
156-171; van Uytfanghe 2001, 144-145. See also my article mentioned above.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
92
Artapanus
especially on the agent of the miracles, mean that many important ques
tions have been asked recently, but the details and flow of the tradition
have not been thoroughly investigated.
21
The first two fragments are short and do not ascribe miracles to Abraham
or Joseph. Yet it is interesting that Abraham taught astrology to the Egyp
tian king (Artap. 1,1). As mentioned above, even among the Gentiles Jews
had a reputation for being great astrologers. The Jewish writers, however,
had different opinions about these skills: Some of them excluded astrology
from their portrayal of Abraham, but others proudly emphasized the fa
ther's knowledge in this area. Artapanus saw no reason to exclude astrol
ogy as one of Abraham's skills.
Both Abraham and Joseph are presented as TTpcoxoi euprjTai of different
things. This is a major tendency in Artapanus and will be treated in con
nection with the third fragment. The passage dealing with Moses is of
crucial importance regarding the miracles.
22
23
24
b. The leader is called

Moses' early years (Exod 1:1-2:25) were often retold in early Judaism, and
like many other writers, Artapanus adds an abundance of extra-biblical
material presenting Moses' early years. Although he adds no miracles,
some features essentially belong to the picture of the Lawgiver.
In the Hebrew text God makes the houses for the midwives, while LXX has 'eTTOirjoav
(Exod 1:21). cooyove?T6 a u T o in Exod 1:22 is perhaps slightly more active than the
Hebrew )vnn mrr^Di and allows the interpretation that the girls were intentionally raised
to serve as concubines of the Egyptians (see p. 192-193). LXX thus does not seem to
open new doors for new interpretations, when it renders Moses' early years up until he
meets God at Horeb, but translates the passage quite literally.
Exodus treats Moses' early years with silence, but Artapanus has filled the
gap with new material, elaborating the story with many new details. He
partly follows a broad midrashic tradition, which is also present in Jub.,
Philo and L.A.B. Artapanus gives names to the persons in the biblical
story: Merris, the Pharaoh's barren daughter, was betrothed to Chenephres.
25
2 1
2 2
2 3
See Eve 2002, 232-241.

On Jub., see above p. 53.
Ps. Eup. Fr. 1 and 2 (Euseb. praep.ev.
9,17,3-4 and 8; 9,18,2) and Siker 1987, 193197.

Artap. 1-2. See below p. 93-94.
On Jubilees, see Jub. 47, on Philo, below p. 110-111, on L.A.B., p. 192-193, and on
Josephus, below p. 232-234.
2 4
2 5
93
Artapanus
The Greeks called Moses Musaeus, the teacher of Orpheus. The priests
called him Hermes, because he interpreted (5ia T T I V . . . sppTiveiav, Artap.
3,6) their holy writings. He taught the Egyptians many useful skills, in
cluding the making of ships and weapons and the study of philosophy. He
divided the country into 36 nomes and apparently even founded pagan
cults (Artap. 3,4). Artapanus even makes Moses a good Egyptian general
and leader of the people. Chenephres envies Moses and sends a man
named Chanethothes to kill him; however, warned by Aaron, Moses kills
him in self-defence and flees to Arabia (Artap. 3,5-19).
In Artapanus, the life of Moses is Hellenized from the very beginning.
Sesostris, an Egyptian hero traditionally mentioned in the studies on Ar
tapanus, is said to have divided the country into 36 nomes (Diod. 1,54,3),
and even to have been a military genius. As in the short fragments deal
ing with Abraham and Joseph, the entire civilisation is based on Jewish
wisdom. The topos of irpcoxos euprjTrjs already present in Jub., is rarely
as clear as here: Moses, like Abraham and Joseph, is the great wise one,
the source of a very different kind of wisdom. Many Jewish texts claim
that the wisdom of the great Greek philosophers was derived from
Moses, and Philo proudly sets the Torah above all the wisdom in the
world. According to him, God created the world and gave the Torah: that
is the reason why the world is in harmony with the Torah and the Torah is
in harmony with the world (Op. 1-3); consequently, he could respect all
good philosophers. Artapanus, who wrote some time before Philo, clearly
emphasizes Moses' person, but the attitude is the same. All real wisdom in
the world springs from Judaism. Orpheus, Musaios and Hermes may all
serve to this end. Eve considers the topos to be Artapanus' answer to the
anti-Jewish propaganda, and that he was willing to show that the Jews
were a blessing rather than a burden to Egypt. This is possible and even
probable, but the common topos and the competitive character of Ar
tapanus' work are sufficient explanations for his text.
It is obvious that Artapanus generally tried to contemporize the biblical
stories. As the Egyptian Jews were generally anxious to identify with the
Greeks rather than the native Egyptians, Artapanus did not find fault with
26
27
28
19
30
31
32
2 6
See below p. 98.

On Sesostris and Artapanus, see Tiede 1972, 153-155.167. Artapanus certainly was
familiar with this kind of legendary material. However, Holladay points out that many
features were commonplace and that only two of them are known to us solely through the
Sesostris-legend and Artapanus (Holladay 1977, 210).
See Diod. 1,53-56; Herodot 2,102-106 and Tiede 1972, 153
See above p. 53.
On the topos in Artapanus, see Holladay 1977, 220-229.
See e.g. Aristobulus,/r. 3-4; Jos. c. Ap 1,162-165; c. Ap. 2,257.
Eve 2002, 233.
2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
31
3 2
94
Artapanus
the Greeks. He did, however, criticize the Egyptians, especially their lead
ers. The ordinary Egyptian people might be characterised as friendly,
also in the miracle stories, but their leaders, who had Egyptian names,
were not.
Artapanus' version also reveals contacts with the Jewish midrashic tradi
tions, which hardly started with him. Philo also knew the extra-biblical
detail that the Pharaoh's daughter had been married for a long time and
that the lack of an heir was a threat to the Pharaoh. Also, according to
Josephus, Thermuthis (as he calls the Pharaoh's daughter) had no children
of her own and was worried about the succession. These texts imply a
strong tradition, in Egypt as well as in Palestine, although Artapanus calls
the daughter Merris not Tharmuth / Thermuthis as the two Palestinian texts
do (Jub. 47:5 and J o s e p h u s ^ . 2,219-213).
Both Artapanus and Josephus make Moses an Egyptian general before
his escape from Egypt (Ant. 2,238-253), and emphasize his military gen
ius. It is understandable that Moses' military skills were generally high
lighted, following the model of Hellenistic historiography, but the tradition
of Moses as an Egyptian general is worth noting, especially because this
detail also occurs in texts written in the Palestinian and Egyptian context.
Everything shows that the Jewish tradition - Palestinian and Egyptian regarding the early years of Moses was merged with the Greco-Roman.
33
34
35
The theophany in Exod 3:1-4:17 is retold very briefly in the fragment we

have from Artapanus. In Artapanus' account God does not call to Moses in
the burning bush, but Moses prays to God for his oppressed people:
"While he was making his appeal to God, suddenly, he says, fire appeared out of the
earth, and it blazed even though there was neither wood nor any other kindling in the
vicinity. Frightened at what happened, Moses fled but a divine voice spoke to him and
told him to wage war against Egypt, and as soon as he had rescued the Jews, to return
them to their ancient fatherland. Taking courage from this, he resolved to lead a fighting
force against the Egyptians, but first he went to Aaron his brother" (Artap. 3,21-22).
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 3:1-4:17, see p. 66.
We have Artapanus' text in oratio obliqua, summarised by Alexander

Polyhistor and after him Eusebius, which means that caution is necessary.
Nevertheless, some comments are possible.
In its present form the fragment does not tell about the dialogue between
God and Moses. The burning bush and even the angel are absent, and
God's answer to his prayer is only a "fire from the earth" (at<|)Vi5tcos
3 3
3 4
3 5
See Koskenniemi 2002.

See below p. 111.
On Josephus, see below p. 233.
4>rjaiv
Artapanus
95
yfjs nup avaêfjvcn, Kai T O U T O KaeoBai,

{iXris \IT[TS
ûAetas ouarjs B V T C O T O T T C O , Artap. 3,21). The fragment
tells nothing about the miracles, only about a divine voice. However,
Moses throws his rod and it becomes a snake, as in the biblical original,
but this happens only later in Egypt.
It is virtually certain that Artapanus himself omitted the dialogues and
the miracles, because God generally does not take part in the dialogues in
Artapanus' fragments. God is also reduced to a divine voice in Artap. 3,36.
The miracle is not rationalised; on the contrary, it is possibly greater than
in Exod} and the tenor of the story, especially, must be observed. God
does not try to persuade Moses, but he is the Lord, and Moses is frightened
and flees. Artapanus offers only one variant of the bias to reduce God's
anthropomorphic features and avoid putting him in a dialogue with men.
The story has lost several important features because of the missing dia
logues. There is no reluctant leader and there are no miracles persuading
him to go to Egypt. Moses does not mention his lack of eloquence, he
does not fear the mission and does not need miracles to legitimate himself
in the presence of his own people. All these features are understandable,
because Artapanus is keen to reduce Moses' human weaknesses, and his
Moses needed no legitimation. However, Artapanus does not completely
remove these weaknesses; he has preserved the central element of the
theophany, namely that Moses was frightened and he describes how Moses
flees the strange phenomenon.
The journey to Egypt is changed into a military campaign (aTpocTeueiv
E T T ' ATyuTTTov ... S U V C C J J I V T T O A E M I C C V ETrayEiv). Gruen takes Artapanus'
text as a "direct testimony" of a Jewish tradition on mobilisation against
Egypt, and even Holladay considers such a tradition possible. However,
Artapanus lacks consistency, and instead of leading an army, Moses goes
to the Pharaoh alone. It is true that Josephus also presents the military side
of Moses' character, but his account is logical and consistent, while Ar
tapanus has totally reshaped this sacred history. The journey to Egypt is a
military campaign here but not later in the fragments. Artapanus allows
himself great liberties, not only in the biblical text but also in terms of a
logical plot. He apparently knew the tradition of Moses as an Egyptian
general, but the campaign against Egypt is his own invention.
EK TTJS
aXKr\s
Ttvos
36
38
39
40
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
See below p. 99.

Walter 1980, 133.
On Jub., see p. 61; on Philo, see p 112.
Holladay 1977, 69-71; Gruen 1998, 65.
On Josephus, see below p. 233.
96
Some early Jewish texts clearly reduce Aaron's role and may not even
mention him. He appears in Artapanus' text, and is given a new role in
warning his brother; Moses is also sent to him as in the biblical original.
Still Aaron and his miracles are left out in the latter parts of the story. Ar
tapanus' Moses needs no help.
41
c. The return, plagues and freedom

Moses thus is on a mission to aTpccxeueiv sir At'yuirTOV, but he goes to
the ruler alone. When the Pharaoh hears Moses' claim he immediately im
prisons the hero, but at night the doors of the prison open of their own ac
cord, some of the guards die and others are overcome with sleep. Moses
goes to the palace and wakens the Pharaoh:
42
"Startled at what happened, the king ordered Moses to declare the name of the god who
had sent him. He did this scofmgly. Moses bent over and spoke into the king's ear, but
when the king heard it, he fell over speechless. But Moses picked him up and he came
back to life again. He wrote the name on a tablet and sealed it securely, but one of the
priests who showed contempt for what was written on the tablet died in a convulsion"
(Artap. 3,24-26).
The imprisonment of Moses is a nonbiblical but also an understandable

addition: According to Exodus he had killed a man and escaped. This
might be the reason Artapanus adds the story and consequently also the
passage about the miraculous escape from prison. Josephus also says that
the Pharaoh called Moses a criminal, which is apparently only an under
standable midrashic feature giving no reason to suppose dependence on a
written source.
The escape from prison was once taken as a common motif in GraecoRoman literature. In Weinreich's view there are no parallels to the story in
early Judaism, but there are in Greek literature, and he cites Euripides'
Bacchae and Philostratus' VA 7,38; 8,30. However, Philostratus' work is
late and when Holladay examines Weinreich's evidence for the view that
Artapanus used Euripides' play he finds differences as well as similarities,
and, justly, is not convinced. The passage is hardly borrowed from Eurip43
44
45
41
Jub. (see p. 55) and Philo (see below p. 128) reduce Aaron's role. On Josephus, see
p. 235.
As Collins noted (1985, 889), Clement's text seems to be a little less miraculous.
However his summary is much shorter than that of Eusebius and there is no possibility
for conclusions.
See below p. 236.
On the story, see Tiede 1972, 165-170.
Weinreich 1929, 298-309.
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
97
Artapanus
ides.
A closer parallel is Sesostris, who is saved; however, not from
prison but from fire (Herod. 2,107, Diod. 1,57,7-8). Given Artapanus' fa
miliarity with the Greek spirit, the Jewish tradition also offered parallels
to the story. Isa 45:2 and Ps 107:10-14 should be noted as possible starting
points of the tradition, although Weinreich did not observe them. Abra
ham and his friends are freed in an extrabiblical addition effracto ostio
carceris in L.A.B. 6,9. The History of the Rechabites, too, tells how the
angel led the Rechabites out of prison:
47
48
"On the first night, a brilliant light shone upon us; and angels of God in glorious form
appeared to us. And they led all of us out from prison and placed us in the air that is
above the land" (Hist. Rech. 10:5).
Joseph and Aseneth explain that the Lord heard Aseneth's prayer when
she was threatened by Dan, Gad, Naphtali and Asher, and "at once their
swords fell from their hands on the ground and were reduced to ashes"
(Jos. Asen. 27:11).
A dislike of the native Egyptians is present here as it often is in Ar
tapanus' fragments. The Pharaoh falling over speechless and the mocking
priest punished severely are good examples of wicked men leading the
simple people. The Egyptian names of the leaders generally helped Ar
tapanus' readers to identify the opponents with the lower layers of the
population in Ptolemaic Egypt, and when Artapanus mentions a priest
showing contempt for Israel's religion he is able to attack the Egyptian
religion with the help of the miracle stories.
The two extra-biblical miracles in the Pharaoh's house, the death and re
suscitation of the Pharaoh and the punishment of the priest (Artap. 3,2426) are interesting in many ways.
We do not have many stories about the resuscitation of dead people in
Graeco-Roman sources before 200 AD. Diogenes Laertius attributes such
a miracle to Empedocles, quoting Heraclides Ponticus from the 4 century
as his source (Diog. Laert. 8,67). Pliny (nat. 7,124; 26,12-15;, Aulus Cor
nelius Celsus (2,6) and Apuleius (flor. 19) relate a miracle performed by
the physician Asclepiades, but the man revived was apparently not dead.
Apuleius tells another story about the prophet Zatchlas (metam. 2,28-29)
and Lucian tells two (Alex. 24; Philops. 26). With the exception of the
story about Empedocles all are from a markedly later period than those
told by Artapanus. The Jewish texts, on the other hand, contain many,
49
th
50
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
See Holladay 1977, 205-209 and 1983, 240. See also Walter 1976, 122.
See also the Christian stories in Acts 5:17-26; 12:6-17; 16:23-30.
Weinreich 1929, 303; Holladay 1977, 205.
On Asclepiades, see Koskenniemi 1994, 210-215.
98
Artapanus
clearly older parallels. The stories about Elijah and Elisha, with all the
later versions studied in the present work, offer material clearly closer to
Artapanus than to the pagan literature.
It is not surprising that precisely the name of Israel's God produces the
great miracles. The holy name was perhaps the most important contribu
tion of the Jews to the Mediterranean world and it was widely used in
magic. Moses' magical skills were known to Pompeius Trogus (32,2,11),
Pliny the Elder (nat. 30,2,11) and Numenius {fir. 18). Jews in general had a
reputation for such skills in the view of Juvenalis (sat. 6,546-547) and
Lucian (Alex. 32,13) and often in PGM. Josephus also connects the holy
name with Moses' miracles in Egypt (Ant. 2,275-276). It obviously has
magical power in Artapanus' extra-biblical additions.
It is also worth noting that Israel's God is proudly placed above all other
gods. Artapanus was not a strict monotheist, but his Moses serves "the
Lord of the universe." Other peoples may serve other gods, and Artapanus
may follow a tradition originating from Deut 4:19-20 and Deut 32:8, in
which Moses seems to say that God has given to the Gentiles gods to
serve. Israel, however, must serve only God and this religion is supreme.
Artapanus' Judaism is by no means "fully compatible" with pagan relig
ions, but the correct word to characterise his view is monolatry.
It is important to note Moses' role in the miracles. A man is rarely an
independent miracle-worker in the Jewish texts we have, but Artapanus'
Moses is not merely a PNP, but an MNP - or should he be called a BNP?
He neither prays to God nor uses a gesture, but acts alone. It means that the
difficult question of context is raised again: Ben Sira could say that Joshua
stopped the sun with his hand, but the immediate context as well as the
entire book directed to a Jewish audience precludes any interpretation that
Joshua acted alone. However, now the situation was drastically different,
especially if Artapanus could find non-Jewish readers, as he clearly in
tended, and also reach his goal. There was thus no Jewish analogia fidei
to prevent interpretations not compatible with the Old Testament belief.
Eve correctly notes that Artapanus does not say that God opens the doors
or kills the mocking priest, but that the doors open auxopdxcos and the
51
52
53
54
56
57
58
51
On Elijah and Elisha in Ben Sira, see above p. 31-39; in the Lives of the Prophets,
see p. 184-186; in Josephus, see p. 264-278.
Tiede 1972, 169-170. The pivotal study is Gager's Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism (\972) 134-161.
See Holladay 1983, 240. On other magical features, see below p. 102.
Barclay 1992, 31.
On this question, see Tiede 1972, 165; Eve 2002, 234-235.
See above p. 30.
See below p. 105.
5 2
53
5 4
55
5 6
5 7
5 8
99
Artapanus
holy name kills the priest. Different readers certainly interpreted the
events in different ways, but what was Artapanus' own intention? Appar
ently he, contrary to the translator of Ben Sira or even Philo, was not afraid
that Moses would attain too high a position through his miracles. Eve is
certainly right in calling it a hopeless task to try to extract from his frag
ments a clearly defined theology of miracles or a reflected division of the
roles of God and human agents. In any case, Artapanus does not com
pletely remove Moses' human traits, as seen above: God is distant, but
present with his power.
60
61
Artapanus returns to the biblical original after the story. Although the legitimisation before Israel's elders is left out (see Exod 4:27-4:31), Moses
makes miracles at the Pharaoh's court. Artapanus omits the first failed visit
(Exod. 5:1-23) or possibly replaces it with the story about imprisonement.
Although this story immediately continues, it is obviously Artapanus' ver
sion of the second visit (Exod. 6:28-7:13):
"The king then told Moses to perform some sign for him. So Moses threw out the rod,
which he held and made it a snake (pdpSov EKpaAovxcc 6<J>iv iroifjsai). Since everyone
was terrified, he seized it by the tail, picked it up, and made it a rod again" (Artap. 3,27).
Artapanus thus retells Exod 6:28-7:13. LXX translates O'na
Wxvctycovos in v. 6:30.
The important words in v. 7:1 are translated literally runs ? crrfra ynru mo / ' l6ou Ss'ScoKCX oe 0E6V Oapaco). In v. 7:3 the words TinirnK are translated with TOC GX]\IB\(X \IOM and
n3iD"n'i with rd T S p a T a . In v. 7:9 the Hebrew text does not use the word on: as in 4:3,
but has prfr, and even LXX has changed the word (not 6<(>is, but SpccKcov). Moses' op
ponents are DDn, D'DCDD and nacnn, and in LXX ooîOTai and <|>ap|jaKoi and ETTOCOISOI
(7:11).
1
,,
As seen above, LXX uses two different words for the snake: it is 6<|>is at
Horeb and again on the river (Exod 7:15), but Spccxcov at the Pharaoh's
court (Exod 7:9-10). Artapanus chooses the word oc|>is, although he omits
all miracles in the theophany at Horeb. Another interesting feature is that
the opponents are absent, although they soon appear.
Artapanus does not differentiate between the second visit and the plagues
(Exod 7:14- 2:36), but goes directly to the set of catastrophes:
"He then stepped forward a few steps, struck the Nile with his rod, and the river flooded,
inundating all of Egypt. It was from that time that the flooding of the Nile began. When
the stagnant water began to smell, the animals in the river perished and the peoples as
well began to die of thirst. Once these mighty wonders were accomplished, the king said
Eve 2002, 236.

On Ben Sira see above p.23-26, on Philo see below p. 151-155.
Eve 2002, 240.
100
Artapanus
that he would release the people after a month if Moses would restore the river to its
banks. So Moses again struck the water with his rod and the waters subsided.
When this had been done, the king summoned the priests who were over Memphis and
threatened to kill them and destroy their temple unless they too performed some marvel
lous act. Then, using charms and incantations, they made a serpent and changed the col
our of the river. The king became arrogant as a result of such performances as this and
consequently mistreated the Jews with every kind of vindictive chastisement" (Artap.
3,28-31).
On a detailed comparison of plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) in the Hebrew text and LXX, see
p. 70.
62
The plague on the river is drastically changed in several ways. When

Moses (not Aaron as in Exod 7 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) struck the Nile, the river flooded the
first time and from that moment yearly. The stagnant water began to smell
and the fish died, but the water did not become blood. That it changed col
our when the Egyptians imitated Moses seems to be only a sign of Ar
tapanus' inconsistency. When Artapanus says that this was the first time
the river flooded, it is not "a rationalising touch", but a form of the topos
mentioned above. Artapanus is eager to make all his heroes TrpcoTOi
EuprjTCCt of various things. Now he also interprets the biblical miraclestory to serve the same end: Moses was the greatest of all and his ministry
was a blessing to everyone who lived in Egypt. Artapanus may exaggerate
the miraculous, but, when needed, he can also give a natural explanation if
it shows Moses in a good light.
The Pharaoh (unlike in Exodus) asks Moses to restore the river, which
causes Moses to hit the river again. Artapanus thus freely elaborates on the
biblical original, which tells nothing about the end of the plague.
The opponents, previously absent, now appear, but it is not easy to de
fine what kind of people they are. It is impossible to define the precise
original sense of the Hebrew words, and although LXX translates faith
fully the Hebrew text in Exod 7 : 1 1 , both of these versions may have dif
ferent connotations and open to door for different interpretations, crcon is
neutral and used in a positive sense, for example, in Gen 4 4 : 3 3 . ^ E D and its
derivations are always pejorative and point to sorcery (for example, Exod
2 2 : 1 7 ) . Dftcnn is a loan word and used when speaking of Egyptian (also in
Gen 4 1 : 8 ; 2 4 ) or Babylonian (Dan 1 : 2 0 ) soothsayer-priests and also of
Daniel (Dan 4 : 6 ) . The words used in LXX are OO$\OT<X'\ and (|>ccp|JC(Kot
and E T T C X O I S O I ; the first impression is a negative one, although Dan 4 : 9
63
64
65
66
6 2
See Holladay 1983,241.

Collins notes the problem and suggests that Alexander Polyhistor has omitted the
blood (1985, 902); however, Artapanus gives a totally new explanation for the plague.
Eve 2002, 238.
See above p. 93.
See Houtman 1995, 372-373.
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
Artapanus
101
LXX uses the latter for Daniel. Dcnn, as used in the Hebrew text, can be
understood to mean "priest", as Artapanus does, and Josephus agrees with
him. Still, the "priests" were able to repeat Moses' miracles only by "us
ing charms and incantations" - even that a nonbiblical addition. Appar
ently, Artapanus had no clear idea of the opponents. He soon calls them
physicians (Taxpoi), and he only uses the story to revile the Egyptian re
ligion.
A major difference in Artapanus - at least in our fragment - is that
Aaron is absent and does not throw his rod before the Pharaoh. Moses
alone performs the miracles, as he does in Ezekiel's verses. Although
Aaron is mentioned earlier, as noted above, he no longer plays a role.
Moses needs no helping hand and does not engage in dialogue with God,
who is not even mentioned. The problem regarding the different interpreta
tions is present again. A reader who is not aware of the biblical original
undoubtedly considers Moses a powerful miracle-worker acting alone, in
Kahl's terminology a BNP, but a Jew, knowing the biblical original in
Exodus, had a more comprehensive view.
67
68
69
The success of the Egyptian priests leads the Pharaoh to use brutal vio
lence against the Hebrews, and Artapanus goes on retelling the plagues:
"When Moses saw this, he performed more signs and struck the ground with his rod and
raised up a certain species of winged creatures to scourge the Egyptians. As a result of
his actions, they all broke out in body sores. Even the physicians were unable to cure
those who were suffering with the sores. Thus once again relief came to the Jews. Once
again, Moses used his rod to raise up frogs as well as locusts and fleas. It was for this
reason that the Egyptians set up a rod in every temple. They do the same with Isis be
cause the earth is Isis and it produced these wonders when it was struck with the rod.
Since the king persisted in playing the fool, Moses produced hail and earthquakes
throughout the night so that those who fled the earthquakes perished in the hail and those
who tried to avoid the hail were destroyed by the earthquakes. Also at that time all the
houses and most of the temples collapsed. Finally, after enduring such calamities, the
king released the Jews. After they had procured from the Egyptians many drinking ves
sels as well as not a little clothing and numerous other treasures, they crossed the river
towards Arabia. They covered a considerable distance and then came to the Red Sea in
three days" (Artap. 3,28-33).
The extraordinarily interesting report shows several omissions, alterations

and additions when compared with the text of Exodus.
The order of the plagues is changed. The darkness and the death of the
firstborn are totally omitted and replaced with new catastrophes. Artapanus
6 7
On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Philo, below p. 113 and 134; in
Josephus, below p. 236.
On Artapanus and the Egyptian religion, see Koskenniemi 2002, 26-31.
See above p. 96.
6 8
6 9
102
obviously did not consider the plagues a fixed set of ten calamities. In any
case, he links the plague of the river closely with the meeting in which
Moses' rod is changed into a snake and calls both TspaTcx.
Unlike in Exodus, there is no opportunity for the Pharaoh to free the
people between the plagues, for which Artapanus uses the usual term
oripeTa (Artap. 3,31). The next plague, "a certain species of winged crea
tures" (codv T I TTTrjvov), seems to be part of a broader tradition. Although
Holladay is uncertain, this certainly is the fourth biblical plague, flies
( K U V O M U I C X , Exod 8:16-28). Philo also describes the flies in a manner that
may help to understand Artapanus' words: They were not ordinary flies,
and Artapanus tries to describe them. Moses' rod, carefully mentioned here
as well, then calls forth the frogs (pccTpccxoi, as in Exod 7:27), locusts
( a K p i 5 a s , as in Exod 10:12) and fleas ( G K V ( ( | > E S , as in Exod 8:13). They
seem to form a unity, but we do not know whether this is a result of epitomization. The hardened attitude of the Pharaoh is mentioned again before
the following catastrophes, of hail (xcxAaâ, as in Exod 9:22) and earth
quakes ( O E I O I J O U S ) . The earthquakes destroy "all the houses and most of
the temples" and replace the firstborn's death as the final and decisive
plague that ends the slavery (cf. Exod 11:1-2:36). The earthquakes might
not be totally nonbiblical: they may be only an exaggeration of hail; or
possibly Isa 25:2 and especially Ps 77:17-19 and Num 33:4 LXX form the
background. Also, according to Jub., God took revenge on the Egyptian
gods by burning them. Nonetheless, it is obvious that omitting the death of
the firstborn (which according to speculation, is due to the redaction of
Polyhistor) has not made the story much friendlier.
That the physicians were unable to cure the people struck with the sores
might be commonplace in the miracle stories, but it is evidence of what
Jub. seemed to presume: the Egyptians tried to heal the people but they
could not, and now Artapanus calls the opponents IccTpoi.The LXX
<|>dp|jaKOi (Exod 7:11) may have been a bridge leading from the Hebrew
D'SBDD to the common physicians. Although $dpMCCKOs in our sources is
always a pejorative word, (|)dp(jaKov is ambiguous and means a 'poison'
as well as a 'medicine'.
It is still more interesting that several passages again show the influence
of magic. Moses uses his rod to call forth and to end the flood (Artap.
70
71
72
73
74
75
7 0
TepccTcc occurs earlier, in Artap. 3,29. On the words, see above p. 74.
Holladay 1983, 242.
On Philo's interpretation, see below p. 117.
See Walter 1980, 135; Holladay 1983, 242.
Freudental (1875, 216) and Holladay (1983, 242) consider that Polyhistor has omit
ted the death of the firstborn; however, it is by no means certain.
See Holladay 1983,242.
71
72
73
7 4
75
Artapanus
103
3,28-30), to call "the winged creatures" (Artap. 3,31), frogs, locusts and
fleas (Artap. 3,32), as well as to later open the way through the sea and to
close it (Artap. 3,36-37). Much of the story is based on Exodus, but Ar
tapanus has added magical elements. Moses' rod is not an ordinary rod in
Exod either (Exod 4:17), and it already plays a role in Ezekiel's Exagoge.
It is interesting to note that one of the features of the Egyptian religion that
Artapanus disparaged was that they worshipped the rod in every temple,
including the temple of Isis (Artap. 3,32). Yet, the instrument that struck
Israel's enemies has even more magical power in Artapanus than in Eze
kiel and gives the whole story a new tone. Magic is also present in other
additions, i.e. that God's name whispered into the king's ear kills him
immediately and that the priest who showed contempt for the name written
on a tablet meets a painful death. On the other hand, Artapanus reveals his
dual attitude to the power of magic: The priests, under Pharaoh's threat,
had no other choice than to repeat Moses' miracles with their charms and
incantations. Although it is true that Artapanus does not distinguish the
arts of the priests from Moses' skills, it is obvious from Artapanus that
Moses did not use the same methods - "my miracles and your magic" is
Artapanus' maxim. It was not only the lower echelons of the population
that were unable to draw the line between magic that was acceptable and
that which was not; the same difficulty could be found at the top of
Graeco-Roman society, and it was by no means a strange feature in early
Judaism.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
d. The Red Sea and the desert

We have only a few lines summarising the rest of Artapanus' work. There
is a short narrative of the miracle at the Red Sea and a still shorter one on
the journey in the desert.
See above p. 75.
It is not obvious how Artapanus' passage should be understood: Does he attribute a
role to Isis, i.e. the earth, which produces the marvels (see Eve 2002, 239-240)? Appar
ently this is only one of several comical misinterpretations of the Egyptians. The sacred
animals, which occur also in Artap. 3,35 and which are ridiculed by the Jews as well as
by the Romans, belong to this context; see Koskenniemi 2002, 28.
On Moses' rod in Artapanus, see Tiede 1972, 170-174.
Tiede 1972, 172; Eve 2002, 238.
It is possible that Artapanus here makes a counter-attack on people who considered
Moses a sorcerer (see Holladay 1983, 241).
Josephus proudly presents Solomon as a master of these arts and reveals a broader
tradition; see below p. 259.
7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
81
8 2
8 3
104
Artapanus
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 74.
Artapanus presents two different traditions regarding the miraculous es

cape:
"Now the Memphians claim that Moses, being familiar with the countryside, watched
for the ebb tide, then led the multitudes through the dry part of the sea. The Heliopolitans, on the other hand, claim that the king rushed down on them with full force, carrying
with them all the sacred animals because the Jews were crossing the sea, having taken the
possessions of the Egyptians" (Artap. 3,35).
A superficial reading could give reason to think that Artapanus wanted to

rationalise the biblical miracle-story and was trying to remove an obstacle.
Many scholars have explained the stories of several Jewish writers in this
way, but, to my knowledge, this explanation has been used very rarely
for Artapanus, who served as an example of a Jew who loved "Hellenistic"
miracles. Nevertheless, the passage in Artapanus is a good example of
how inadequate such an explanation can be. As most of the Jewish writers,
he retold many biblical miracles and even exaggerated them, and there is
no reason to think that he would want to make the miracle at the Red Sea
more credible through rationalisation. He hardly uses the literary technique
of distancing himself from the miraculous story, but rather makes a su
perficial attempt to transform Exodus into a sort of romantic history. One
example of this is that the booty taken from Egypt is now the reason why
the Pharaoh pursued the Hebrews. It also explains why the way to Egypt
is changed in Artap. 3,22 into a military campaign, although the reinterpre
tation contradicts itself later in the fragment. Artapanus allows himself
plenty of freedom and is not always consistent.
Artapanus goes on with the "Heliopolitan" tradition:
84
85
86
87
"The divine voice came to Moses instructing him to strike the sea with his rod and divide
it. When Moses heard this, he touched the water lightly with his rod and the stream di
vided, and the multitude passed through the dry channel. When the Egyptians went in
together in hot pursuit, he says that a fire blazed in front of them, and the sea again
flooded their path. All the Egyptians were consumed by fire and the flood" (Artap. 3,3637).
Georgi (1964, 155) however, considers the passage a rationalisation. According to

him, Hellenistic Jewish writers connected the miracle and its rationalisation "in gleichem
Atemzug." The view is hardly correct concerning Artapanus.
On Philo, see below p. 110; on Josephus p. 228.
The technique was admittedly common as of Herodotus (hist. 2,3-4); see Tiede 1972,
135, Walter 1976, 135 and Holladay 1983, 243.
There might be echoes of several traditions here. On the one hand, the booty taken
from Egypt (Exod 11:2-3) was very important for the writer of Jub. (see Jub. 48:19). On
the other hand, the anti-Jewish tradition that labelled the Jews as thieves may have influ
enced the story (Fraser 1972, 705; see also below p. 231-232).
8 5
8 6
8 7
Artapanus
105
The passage epitomises quite faithfully the biblical original. In any case,
some features are hardly fortuitous. It is not surprising that the rod is men
tioned again. Unlike the story in Exod 14, Moses hits the sea with the rod
and the water is divided immediately. Yet, Artapanus does not stray far
from the biblical story and the changes are traditional. The flood com
bined with fire is a further step away from Exod 14:24. It is understandable
that there is no desperation of the people as in Exod. 14:10-14, no quarrel
against the leader and no dialogue between God and Moses. God is re
duced to a "divine voice", as already in the theophany in Artap. 3,21. Ar
tapanus cannot be characterised as a strict monotheist. He could retell
freely the sacred history, but he was deeply rooted in the early Jewish tra
dition of honourably reducing the anthropomorphic features of Israel's
88
The way in the desert is described in only a few words in our fragments.
90
"After the Jews had escaped the danger, they spent forty years in the desert. Mean
while, God showered upon them meal similar in texture to rolled millet resembling the
colour of snow" (Artap. 3,38).
There are few words, allowing only a few conclusions; nevertheless the
key passage reveals Artapanus' intended audience. He did not assume that
his readers knew the miracle of manna (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36) but
tried to describe it in his own words ((SpEXOvros C C U T O ? S T O U 0 E O U
Kpipvov opoiov E X U J J C O X
TrccpociTArjcHov Tr]v x p o a v ) . It is evidently
an attempt to find a broad audience in addition to those who had learned
their lessons well. He also reached his goal, because his fragments are
summarised by Alexander Polyhistor, a pagan author.
I
e. Conclusion
Artapanus took great liberties in his retelling of the biblical stories. He (as
well as many later Jewish writers) did not hesitate to give a new shape to
the stories of exodus and Moses. This gives us an opportunity to study Ar
tapanus' own views on miracles and to inquire the function of the miracles.
8 8
8 9
On Ezekiel, see above p. 75, on Philo, see below p. 119, on Josephus, see p. 241
On Jub., see above p. 61, on Philo, see p. 112, on L.A.B., see p. 194, on Josephus, p.
234.
9 0
A manuscript reads TpiaKOVxa and was preferred by Freudenthal as lectio difficilior;

see Holladay 1983, 243. If the reading is correct it would be evidence that Artapanus
could make mistakes in retelling the biblical story.
106
Artapanus
A feature which should not be overlooked is Moses' role in the miracles,

and, moreover, on two levels.
Aaron's role is almost omitted, and even God is only rarely mentioned.
In the biblical Exodus it is God who is in control. Moses and Aaron are
only his servants, and sometimes totally bewildered. Artapanus has re
duced God to a "divine voice" (Artap. 3 , 2 1 ; 3 , 3 6 ) . But although Artapa
nus' Moses is more assured as to what to do than the occasionally helpless
leader in Exodus, the fact that God's role as a speaking and guiding agent
has been reduced to a minimum has not reduced his power and sover
eignty, but rather increased it. God does not discuss things with men, but
wields authority through his sovereign power. He is 6 rfjs o'lKouMewis
S E O T T O T T I S ( 3 , 2 2 ) , who (apparently) opens the doors of the prison ( 3 , 2 3 )
and whose name, whispered into an ear, is enough to kill the Pharaoh
( 3 , 2 5 ) . Artapanus, thus, added magical features to the stories, hardly re
flecting on the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of magic.
God is now at distance and, as noted in the previous chapter, it has neces
sarily led to a redistribution of the roles in the stories. The question is, who
was Artapanus' intended audience, and how did it understand his work? A
reader well aware of the biblical stories certainly saw the new version in
the perspective of the biblical original, but Artapanus obviously wrote his
work for people not knowing the original stories. These readers undoubt
edly interpreted Moses as a powerful, independent miracle-worker, in
Kahl's terminology a BNP, occasionally led by a divine voice. It is not
easy to evaluate the impact Artapanus had on the Gentile audience, but the
fact that the stories about Moses were well-known among the cultivated
pagans implies that he and the writers of his art did have readers, and we
owe the fragments of his work to Alexander Polyhistor.
Some details attest that Artapanus was also aware of both the GraecoRoman and the Jewish traditions.
At times he seems to follow the stories of Sesostris, the Egyptian hero,
but the most important feature is that the topos of Trpcoros euprjTrjs has a
marked role in Artapanus' texts. What his work shows is an attempt to pre
sent men who were wiser, greater and mightier than the Greek heroes.
Unlike Philo, the field on which he tried to compete with the pagans was
not that of deep philosophy. He was familiar with popular belief and daily
Egyptian life. It is understandable that the yearly flood in his view is a
miracle made by Moses.
Some details attest that Artapanus was also familiar with the Jewish tra
dition. The name of Tharmuth is traditional, and Moses' rod has a special
position in his work as elsewhere in early Judaism. The opponents are
characterised as Egyptian priests, as in Josephus, and because they are
Artapanus
107
called physicians, Artapanus apparently shared with Jub. the view that they
tried to heal the victims of the plagues.
It is not easy to find specific contemporizations in the miracle stories, but
a general view presents itself. As most of the Jewish writers in Egypt, Ar
tapanus did not appreciate native Egyptians and their culture and religion,
but sought rather the favour of the Greeks. The way in which Artapanus
writes about the Egyptians struck by plagues and killed at the Red Sea is
compatible with this view.
As mentioned, many scholars have assumed that Artapanus tried to use
Moses as a shield against anti-Jewish attacks. Some degree of scepticism
towards this view is only reasonable. Certainly the work attests the Jewish
tendency to identify more with the Greeks than the Egyptians, and this can
be regarded as an apology. However, the main function accorded to the
miracles in this work of "competitive historiography" is simple to discern.
A free and proud retelling of Israel's history, in which one's hero beats
every opponent, can be entertaining.
6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo
a. Introduction
We know Ezekiel and Artapanus only from scarce fragments of their
works, but happily we need not study every Jew from some few scant
pages nor has every Jewish writer been forgotten. Philo's works give us
the opportunity to study his thoughts on the role of the biblical miracleworkers, the problem being the wide scope of his production.
No Jewish writer knew the Greek culture as Philo did. Born about 20-10
BC he received an excellent education in Alexandria, the centre of the
learned world. He saw the pogroms in the Egyptian city and took part in a
delegation to Caligula in 40 AD. The latest date of his life, mentioned in
his works, seems to be the year 47.
1
Philo's way of dealing with the biblical texts both literally and allegorically has often been investigated. Dawson formulates well the function
of Philo's work:
2
"In contrast to modern historical-critical exegesis of scripture, which begins with the
assumption that the ancient communities that produced the text were radically different
from our own, for Philo exegesis of the Pentateuch was first of all commentary on the
actual history of the community to which he belonged."
3
Similarly, Peder Borgen named his important book Philo of Alexandria. An

exegete for his time, expressing the growing interest in the way Philo
adapts the biblical stories for his contemporary readers. This question is
asked concerning the literal as well as the allegorical interpretation.
Although Philo's exegetical method is well researched, his method of
retelling the biblical miracles is usually only discussed in passing by
scholars. Some details, however, have been investigated thoroughly, as
Borgen has done in his study of manna, and some individual miracle sto4
He may be pointing to the horse race mentioned by Pliny (nat. 8,160) in the year 47
(Borgen 1997, 14-26; Mondesert 1999, 878-879).
On Philo's exegetical tradition, see esp. Alexandre 1986, 13-17 and Borgen 1997. On
the allegorical method, see below p. 129-131.
Dawson 1992, 116.
Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 1965.
2
109
ries, but not necessarily Moses' miracles, are included in studies concern
ing other themes that have been the subject of intensive investigation.
Since Meeks (1976), some scholars have suggested that Philo may have
also used these stories to illuminate his own times. In his chapter dealing
with Philo, Eve does not present a detailed study of the stories about
Moses, nor does he inquire whether Philo tried to adapt the stories. He also
does not investigate the tradition and the details known to Philo, and
chooses to almost completely leave out the allegorical interpretation.
Philo's production nearly totally lacks the biblical miracle-workers, the
main reason being that the production known to us is basically a commen
tary on the Pentateuch, and there were not many biblical miracle-workers
to leave out. He deals almost exclusively with the stories about Moses, as
well as those about Aaron, but Joshua's role is markedly diminished, and
includes no miracles. Is the Pentateuch, however, the sole reason for the
lack of miracle stories in Philo's works? He does not, as does Pseudo-Philo
in L.A.B., select new stories from the tradition about completely new mira
cle-workers. He may retell the life of Abraham quite freely and in new
details, but in retelling Gen 12, the role he gives to Abraham is not the
same as in Genesis Apocryphon. He tells no new stories about miracles,
either Abraham's or the prophets'. Rare exceptions may occur. A story
about Elijah is interpreted allegorically: The woman was a widow, which
means that she was free from "passions which corrupt and maltreat the
mind" and she remembers her sins (cf. 1 Kgs 17:8) as every mind that is on
the way to be widowed and empty of evil (1 Kgs 17, Deus 136-138). The
prophet had a higher revelation and was taken to Heaven as Enoch (QG
1,86). Otherwise the miracles of the biblical heroes are not retold or rein
terpreted, only left out. Did he find the miracles problematic? Actually,
with only a few exceptions, the early rabbis were also reluctant to tell
about man-made miracles, or even the biblical miracles. According to
many scholars, the Jews were not keen to retell miracles, because they
feared the pagans would mock them for being too credulous. This is a
5
10
11
12
13
On Moses as "divine man", see below p. 151-155.

Eve 2002, 53-85.
On Moses in Philo, see Meeks 1967, 100-131; Tiede 1972, 101-137; Holladay 1977,
103-198; Schottroff 1983, 229-231; Beegle 1992, 916; Barclay 1992, 37-40; OberhansliWidmer 1994, 350.
See Feldman 2003, 165-178.
See e.g. Abr. 70-71; 95-96.
On astrology in Philo, see below p. 111.
Cf. QE 2,3, where Philo interprets Exod 22:22 in this way.
A special case for Philo, as for some other Jewish writers, is Balaam and his proph
ecy; see p. 146 sq.
See Becker 2002, 271-289.
6
10
11
12
13
110
Philo
common way to interpret Josephus, but it also occurs in the studies con
cerning Philo. Nevertheless, Philo retells the biblical stories about Moses
so often and extensively, interpreting them sometimes literally, sometimes
allegorically, that they offer the opportunity to study the role of miracles in
Philo's thought.
15
b. The literal interpretation of the miracle stories

Philo is famous for his allegorical interpretation, but it is interesting to see
that he also can treat the biblical miracle stories very literally, especially,
but not exclusively, in Vita Mosis, where he retells the life of the hero.
Vita Mosis belongs to the wide category of "rewritten Bible", and can be
likened to Hellenistic biographies. Who its supposed readers were has long
been debated, but it seems to be addressed partly to sympathetic Gentiles,
and the work is conceived by the author as a sort of introduction to Juda
ism. Borgen points to Mos. 2,43-44, and supposes that the work was writ
ten before the pogroms and that Philo expected the Gentiles to accept the
Torah as their Law. It does not mean that the work was not directed to
the Jews; on the contrary, his own nation was meant to be the main audi
ence, but Philo apparently used a doubled strategy. Philo is keen to pre
sent Egypt to his readers as though the country and its climate were unfa
miliar (for example, Mos. 1,5-7). It may demonstrate that he also intended
this work to be read outside of Egypt.
16
17
18
19
20
21
The events of Moses' birth (Exod 1:1-2:25) are embellished with some
new details: Philo clearly knows more than he tells.
22
14
See p. 228. Georgi applies the interpretation to Artapanus' fragments; see above p.
104.
See below p. 110.
The way out of Egypt is briefly summarised in Hypoth. 6,2-4. The details of the bib
lical original often occur and they are mentioned below.
See Tiede 1972, 106.
Mondesert 1999, 880.
Borgen 1987, 19.
"Moses may be praised by Philo as much to encourage the cultured Jew who tends to
be embarrassed of his tradition as to win respect from the non-Jew" (Tiede 1972, 107);
see also Dawson 1992, 122.
David M. Hay (1991, 52) plausibly supposes that Philo, knowing that Plato, among
others, had been read for centuries, expected or at least hoped for a wide and continuing
audience.
Philo characterises only briefly Moses' parents and family (Mos. 1,7-12).
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
2 2
111
An extra-biblical miraculous detail in Philo is that the girl is Pharaoh's

"only, cherished daughter", who had been married for a considerable time
but had never borne a child, and her father's kingdom was under threat of
falling into the hands of strangers (Mos. 1,13). Also, Artapanus and
Josephus say that the princess was barren. She had artificially enlarged
the shape of her womb to make Moses pass as her real child and not a
foundling (Mos. 1,19). Moses is, of course, a gifted child and soon exceeds
his teachers from Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea and Greece (Mos. l,19-33). It
is interesting that Moses is a master in Chaldean as well as in Egyptian
astrology (Mos. l,23-24). When he kills the cruel Egyptian he is not a
vile criminal, but a ruler-to-be and a political threat allegedly seeking the
kingship (Mos. 1,45-46). Moses is a master in everything, also in manag
ing flocks, which, under him, increase even in difficult regions (Mos. 1,6364). All this is told to glorify the legislator, sometimes straining the lim
its of human power.
23
24
25
26
27
The meeting with God at Horeb (Exod 3:1-4:17) is presented extensively

Mos. 1,65-84).
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 3:1-4:17, see above
p. 66.
Philo describes the theophany in the bush, which is called T O TepdoTiov

and TE0au|jaToupyr|(j8Vov (Mos. 1,71) and interprets it allegorically.
He paraphrases the miracles God showed to Moses (arj|je?a, Mos. 1,77;
6au|jaTOUpyrj|jaTa, Mos. 1,71; 1,82), telling all three slightly more ex
tensively than in Exodus, but without any significant alterations other than
dramatisation (Mos. 1,77-81). Unlike Josephus, Philo does not tell about
28
23
29
See above p. 92 and below p. 233.

Artapanus gives Moses teachers from different nations and lets him be a master of all
of them; see p. 93.
Philo does not completely reject astrology, but has strong reservations; see esp. Op.
58-60, Mig. 178-179; Abr. 82-83. According to Philo, Abraham could only see the stars
and the rest of the visible world, but he realised the error: things created have no capacity
to control the future. It is the invisible world that is real; the visible is not (see Sandmel
1984, 18).
On CnXos in Philo, see Seland 2002, 460.
Meeks (1976, 50) notes the topos that the king is shepherd of his people (esp. in Mos.
1,62).
"In the midst of the flame was a form of the fairest beauty, unlike any visible object,
an image supremely divine in appearance, refulgent with a light brighter than the light of
fire. It might be supposed that this was the image of him that is; but let us rather call it an
angel or herald, since, with a silence that spoke more clearly than speech, it employed as
it were the miracle of sight to herald future events" (Mos. 1,66).
See below p. 133.
24
25
26
27
28
29
112
the water-miracle at the theophany, but that God only promises the mira
cle. Moses' hand is not leprous but AeuKOTepcc xovos (Mos 1,79): Philo
either avoids the word Aoipos, or more probably only follows LXX. The
snake-miracle (Philo uses the word SpbcKcov, Mos. 1,77) is repeated a little
later when Moses starts his mission, but now God and Moses are alone
together "like pupil and master", and during the lesson Moses learns to
make the miracle by putting his hand to his bosom not once but twice to
learn how to make the miracle.
It is important to note that Philo does not say that Moses saw God, but a
light, r\v av T I S uTTETOTTrioev e'iKova T O U O V T O S el veer KaAs(a0co 5e
ayyeAos, and God speaks to Moses 5ia XP^l^M^Sv. In Exod 33:11 God
speaks with Moses D'ErtK cms, and in Exod 3:4 it is God himself in both
the Hebrew text and the LXX. Philo's version, however, is different. In
Exod 3:2 it is, admittedly, God's angel and not God himself that calls
Moses, but Philo has chosen the angel and removed God. Jub. introduces
the Angel of Presence and Artapanus reduces God to a "divine voice." In
Philo's theology God is not anthropomorphic and he is not susceptible to
passion in any form. He denies categorically in QG 2,62 that man was
created in the image of the Father of Universe, but of his logos. Since it
is impossible for a man to see God, he sends the powers which are indica
tive of his essence (QE 2,37; 2,47). The device is different, but the theol
ogy is the same as in Jub. and Artapanus. The first known representative of
the idea is Aristobulus: The anthropomorphic features of the Old Testa
ment God are honourably reduced.
Moses is reluctant, as in Exodus, but the reasons for the missing elo
quence are new and Philo relates many of them: Firstly, the reason is given
in Mos. 1,83-84: all human eloquence is, of course, dumbness compared
with God's, and "the brother" (Aaron is not named, either here or in the
rest of stories) is thus not more eloquent than Moses but his interpreter,
ep|jr|V6\JS (Mos. 1,83-84). Secondly, Philo identifies eloquence with skills
not suitable for a righteous man, which is clear when he deals with Moses'
opponents. The third reason stems from Philo's way to deal with the
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30
See above p. 235.

On Ezek. Trag., see p. 72; on Josephus, see p. 235. On Philo and the pestilence in
Egypt, see below p. 117.
Philo briefly mentions the three miracles also in Det. 177, when speaking about the
orjiJeTov God set to Cain. Usually God shows the nature of each object by means of signs
(5id OTjpeiou) as in the case of Egypt. Philo thus plays with two different senses of
31
32
cmjjetov.
33
34
35
36
See especially Deus 51-68 and the comments of Williamson 1989, 74-85.
See Helleman 1990, 60.
On Aristobulus and the tradition preceding Philo, see Borgen 1987, 13-14.
See below p. 134.
113
story allegorically. Whatever the explanation, it is obvious that the liter

ate Philo could not consider Moses' lack of eloquence as comparable to
human beings, especially when presenting him to a Gentile audience.
38
Philo omits the problematic story about Sippora and God willing to kill
Moses (Exod 4:24-26). The miracles in the presence of the elders of Israel
(Exod 4:30) are retold, but transferred to the phase after the growing op
pression (Mos. 1,90). Philo obviously does not exonerate his people, be
cause the elders' disbelief is told in Mos. 1,74.
The snake-miracle is retold in Moses' encounter with the Egyptians (Exod
6:28-7:13; Mos. 1,91-94).
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 6:28-7:13, see
above p. 99.
In Philo's text the short notes in Exodus have grown into stories: The event
of "Moses' brother" waving his staff conspicuously ( K C C T a a e i o a s [id\a
ETTiSeiKTiKcos) and flinging it on the ground is described dramatically. The
most interesting detail, however, is not the dramatisation but the way Philo
uses the story to berate his philosophical opponents. Philo calls the sorcer
ers oofyiOTCXi and M^yoi, simultaneously attacking both the "sophists"
and magicians: Aaron's miracle illustrates that it was not an effect of
a v 8 p c o T r c o v ao<|>ia|jaTa KCCI Te'xvas (Mos. 1,94), as the tricks of the sor
cerers were. Philo often equates the magicians with his philosophical op
ponents (as in Migr. 82-85), using the biblical story either literally or alle
gorically to do so. He also equates "the sins of the Amorites" with sophis
tical arguments (Her. 304). The "ways of the Amorites" referred later to
magic and Philo already seems to make the connection here.
As seen above, Moses' Egyptian opponents played very different roles in
early Judaism, and Exod 7:11 is open to several interpretations: craDn /
ao(]>iaTai, C P S E D D / 4>ap|jaKo{ and crDcnn / 6 T T C C O I 5 O I can evoke various
connotations. Philo does not consider the men priests, but chooses the
worst alternative he knows, and likens them to his philosophical oppo
nents, ao<t>iaTai, and the magicians he despised. The philosophical oppo
nents are often attacked in the allegorical interpretation. Philo's view on
magic is ambiguous, as so often in classical antiquity, and he differentiates
39
40
41
42
See above p. 133.

On Philo's view on rhetorics, see Alexandre 1986, 13-27.
See below p. 134.
On "the ways of the Amorites", see below p. 214.
On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Artapanus, below p. 100; in
Josephus, below p. 236.
On the allegorical interpretation of the opponents, see above p. 134.
3 8
3 9
4 0
41
4 2
114
Philo
between two forms of magic: The "true magic" (x\ ocATi0r|s ijayiKrj), which
is acceptable, studies nature scientifically and is practised by the kings of
Persia. Another art of magic, KCCKOTEXVICC, the way of charlatans and lower
people, deals with charms and incantations. This is rejected by Philo (Spec.
3,100-103; Prob. 74), who actually considers it a religious duty to kill
those who practice it.
43
Philo retells the ten plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) with many new details.
44
above p. 70.
Philo gives two different principles so important to him that they change
the biblical order of the plagues. These are the idea of the four elements
and different agents performing the miracles. Firstly, the Greek theory of
the elements is readily adopted to interpret the holy writings. Philo sees the
four elements in the war against the Egyptians and divides the plagues to
correspond to each of them. The second reason for changing the order is
the division between the different agents and their interaction with the dif
ferent elements. The first three plagues belonged to the denser elements,
earth and water, and were committed to "the brother of Moses"; the second
set of three belonged to air and fire, and were given to Moses alone; the
seventh belonged to both Moses and Aaron, and the last three God re
served for himself. All the plagues have new features.
According to Philo, water (Exod 7:14-24; Mos. 1,98-101) is the first tar
get, because the Egyptians believe it to be the original source of All. The
Pharaoh and the Egyptian magicians are removed from the exaggerated
story. The river is afflicted immediately "from Ethiopia to the sea". Not
only the fishes but also a great multitude of men die, and the new wells
dug by the Egyptians along the Nile (Exod 7:24), are filled with blood
(CUMCC, as in LXX). Like Artapanus, Philo completes the story by ending
the plague. The Egyptians (not the Pharaoh as in Artapanus) ask Moses
45
46
4 3
See Seland 2002, 460

On the plagues, see Tiede 1972, 134-135. They are mentioned briefly in Mut. 125.
Philo gives the division in Mos. 1,96-97 and repeats it often in Mos. 1,96-146.
The theory of the elements (OTOIXETCX) was originally created by the Jonian monists.
a x o i x s T a was "That out which everything is made, that from which the things first
came" (Arist. metaph. 983b,7). Thales gave this status to water, Anaximenes to air,
Anaximander to TO aireipov. The theory of four elements (pi^couaTa) comes from
Empedocles. It had become the standard view, accepted by monistic, as well as dualistic,
philosophers prior to Philo (on the theory see Kraft 1997, 978-980). The theory was
commonplace in early Judaism and occurs, for example, in Wis 16:16-17, in which the
plagues in Egypt are described. Philo uses the theory often (e.g. Op. 52; 131, Her. 152153), but is also critical and warns of deifying the elements (see Decal. 52-55; Cont. 3-6;
Det. 8; Plant. 10).
4 4
4 5
4 6
Philo
115
and "his brother" to end the disaster. Philo does not say here that the water
was good to the Hebrews, but he mentions it a little later (Mos. 1,144), and
the same idea also occurs in Josephus andDeut. R. 3:8.
The plague of frogs (PccTpocxoi, as in Exod 7:26-8:11; Mos. 1,103-105)
has been rewritten. There is no dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh, but
Pharaoh promises that they can "leave the land" (the biblical original says
that they wanted to sacrifice for God). The plague is dramatized, but it is
mainly paraphrased faithfully according to the biblical original. However,
the Egyptian magicians are absent again and it is not Pharaoh but the
Egyptian people who ask Moses to free them from the frogs. Moreover, the
war against the elements is present when the aquatic animals colonise the
opposite region.
The biblical story about gnats (OKV?(|>SS, Exod 8:12-15; aKvTrres Mos.
1,107-112) especially interested Philo, and not only because it was the first
in which God used the earth to afflict the Egyptians. He asks why God
chose gnats to punish the Egyptians and gives the answer himself:God
does not want to destroy the Egyptians; he wants to teach them a lesson:
God does not choose the strongest and greatest, but the smallest to carry
out his punishment. Philo then makes a smooth transition to the allegorical
interpretation. It is worth noting that "God's finger" is mentioned (Mos.
1,112), not by the Egyptian magicians, who are absent again (Exod 8:19),
but by "all Egypt." The mention about the offending practice of sacrifice
(Exod 8:21-25) is omitted here, like the whole dialogue between Moses
and Pharaoh, but mentioned in Mos. 1,87.
The plague of hail (xAaâ as in Exod 9:22-35, Mos. 1,118-119) leads
to the three punishments mediated by Moses and dealing with the higher
elements, air and fire. The rage of the elements is present again. The
natural antagonists, thunderbolts and hail, offer a strange scene, and some
animals (slaves are not mentioned) survive half-burnt, serving as a warning
to the beholders. The plague is preceded by a learned introduction to the
Egyptian climate, but as usual not through God's dialogue with Moses
(Mos. 1,113-117). In Philo, Moses neither meets Pharaoh nor warns him;
consequently Philo does not say that God intentionally raised the Pharaoh
to show his power (Exod 9:13-16).
47
48
49
50
4 7
See below p. 237.

In Mig. 85 God's finger points to the holy writings.
In Sacr. 51 Philo interprets the passage allegorically: Exodus points to virtues, which
were abominations in Egypt.
The story is the subject of pride in Wis 16:15-23, where the miracle is attributed
solely to God. Like Philo, the writer seems to allude to the roles of the different ele
ments.
4 8
4 9
5 0
116
Philo
The fifth plague in Philo (ccKp(5es, eighth in Exodus, Exod 10:1-20;

Mos. 1,120-122) has been remodelled. Again, Moses does not meet Phar
aoh as in Exodus, and Philo does not include the statement that the He
brews wanted to feast e o p T r j in honour of the Lord. Moreover, the wind
( V O T O S PtcnoTccTos, LXX ave|jos V O T O S , Hebrew text nnp rrn) causes
many problems, and in addition to the locusts, plays a big part in the disas
ter. Philo himself lived in Egypt, and was keen to describe the climate in
the country, as if writing to people not aware of it. The Pharaoh is men
tioned, but only in dialogue with the Egyptian authorities, and the long
discussion between Pharaoh and Moses is omitted, as are God's words pre
ceding the plague.
The sixth plague in Philo ( G K O T O S , ninth in Exodus, Exod 10:21-29;
Mos. 1,123-125) is heavily dramatized. The dialogues with the Pharaoh
are again omitted, and in fact it is only Moses who feels pity and prays to
God for help without any contact from the Egyptians. The will to sacrifice
is omitted, as is the entire dialogue, and so are Moses' words that not even
the Hebrews yet knew what they were going to sacrifice. The darkness is
partly described "rationalistically", but some exaggeration is involved.
Philo considers the possibility of an extraordinary eclipse of the sun and
the presence of unusual clouds. However, the darkness was unnatural
(Mos. 1,126 o Trccaocv 'i5eav <|)COT6S O U Trapa5exTo): Even the light of
fire could not dispel it and it not only hampered the sight but the other
senses as well. Philo, as later L.A.B., Josephus and Melito of Sardes, thus
adds the detail that the darkness was not of a conventional kind. This is
based on LXX (vpr|Aa(j)rjT6s O K O T O S ) , and it has a significant parallel in
Wis 17, where the plagues are generally attributed to God, and the role of
human agents is drastically reduced. The darkness is described vividly and
extensively. The large number of ghosts cannot be expelled by the light of
stars or candles. Philo is aware of the tradition and also interprets the
darkness allegorically.
The seventh plague in Philo is the sixth in Exodus (LXX BXKT\ in Exod
9:8-12, Philo EAKT) and E'AKCOOIS in Mos. 1,127-129). It is now obvious that
the war between the elements and the Egyptians defines the order. Aaron
and Moses now govern the earth and air, and work together: Together they
take the ashes from the furnace, but only Moses scatters them in the air.
Thus the lower elements governed by Aaron and the higher governed by
51
52
53
54
51
Also Wis 17:1-21 retells the story extensively and with new details.
See below p. 110.
See below p. 193 and p. 238. According to T. Simeon 8 the Egyptians had predicted
that an unnatural darkness would follow, when Joseph's bones would be exported from
the country (see also T. Joseph 20).
See below p. 135.
5 2
5 3
5 4
Philo
117
Moses strike Egypt together. The sores are exaggerated, but the sorcerers
are absent again, and Philo says nothing about the presence of the Pharaoh.
The plague of flies, the fourth in Exodus, is the eighth plague in Philo's
version, and leads to punishments without a human agent (Exod 8:16-28;
Mos. 1,130-132). Exodus uses the word ma, but Philo, like LXX, calls
them KUVOMUICC ("dog-fly"), considering them a combination of the two
most shameless animals of land and air, the dog and the fly. Artapanus
called them coov T I irrrivov (Artap. 3,31) and seems to agree with Philo
that they were not flies of an ordinary kind. L.A.B. (L.A.B. 10,1) and
Josephus (Ant. 2,303) share this view. Again, all dialogue with Pharaoh is
omitted from the story, but even more interesting, the offending manner of
sacrifice (Exod 8:22) has again disappeared along with the dialogue.
The ninth plague in Philo, the death of livestock, is the fifth in Exodus
(LXX 0avccTOs M^yas ad>65pa in Exod 9:1-11; POTTOKTIMCXTCOV 0dvaTos
in Mos. 1,133). It is mentioned very briefly, and the lack of a dialogue with
Pharaoh is no longer surprising. What is interesting is that Philo does not
avoid the word, which is considered to be difficult for the Jews; on the
contrary, he mentions that the death of lower animals often precedes XoijjiKa appcoaTT]|jaTa.
As seen above, Jacobson explains the LXX trans
lation of n m s D as a result of anti-Jewish propaganda current at the time,
which led the translators to avoid words with negative connotations, such
as XeiTpa or Xoi|j6s. Philo's word offers contrary evidence. He seems to
have no problem with the disease bad enough in the same context, and he
speaks of it, although the original did not have the pestilence.
The final punishment, the death of the firstborn (TrpcoxoTOKos as in
Exod 11:1-12:36; Mos. 1,134-139), is not interwoven with the Passover
in Vita Mosis. Consequently, there is no blood on doorframes and no
punishing angel. The mourning and fear of the Egyptians is presented dra
matically, with the help of an allusion to Euripides. The first to call par
ents father and mother had died. There is no preceding or succeeding dis
cussion between Moses and Pharaoh, but it is the Egyptian people who
now consider the king to be the reason for the plagues and drive the He
brews out of the country. The Hebrews collect their booty and start their
journey unarmed.
55
56
57
5S
59
5 5
See above p. 72 and p. 235.

On the question, see below p. 66.
The Book of Wisdom also retells this plague, attributing the miracle to God's wisdom
(Wis 18:10-19).
Passover often occurs, as in Alleg. Interp. 2,34; 3,165, but it is interpreted allegorically.
As Colson notes (1934, 346) the words are very close to TrpcoTrj 6 EKCcAeacc Traxepa
Kai au TraTS EME (Iph. Aul. 122). Philo was very fond of Euripides and quotes him often,
e.g. Alleg. Interp. 3,202; Prob. 99-103; Spec. 4,47.
5 6
57
5 8
5 9
118
Philo
In a concluding passage (Mos. 1,143-146) Philo expands the biblical

statement in Exod 9:4; 9:26, saying that all the chastisements applied to the
Egyptians, none of them to the Hebrews. The Hebrews - and this is obvi
ously Philo's fabula docet - were not only spectators,
"but learn thereby of the finest and most profitable of lessons - piety. For never was
judgement so clearly passed on good and bad, a judgement which brought perdition to
the latter and salvation to the former" (Mos. 1,146).
Philo is thus clearly fond of the miracles preceding Israel's freedom. He

retells them extensively and vividly and often exaggerates the plagues in a
work that was obviously also intended for a Gentile audience. A strong
oral and written tradition stands behind his text, which shares many details
in common with other writings. Although generally faithful to the biblical
original, Philo has made some alterations. It is interesting that he has con
sistently removed some elements occurring repeatedly in the biblical origi
nal.
Firstly, although he briefly mentions the sacrifice of the Hebrews in Mos.
1,87, he does not say anything about the will to offer a sacrifice when de
scribing the plagues and even omits the Passover. The reason is unclear.
Did Philo only smooth over the difficulties in the story, because it was not
the true intention of the Hebrews to offer a sacrifice in the desert? Or did
he think about his non-Jewish readers, who could not take part in sacri
fices? The description of Egypt's climate shows that he sought readers
other than Alexandrine Jews. According to Borgen, Philo wrote Vita Mosis
for Gentile readers who were expected to accept the Law (Mos. 2,43-44),
and for the Jews to prepare them for their universal role; this is in accord
with the situation in Alexandria before Gaius. This may explain why
Philo omitted the references to a strange type of sacrifice. Or did the sacri
fices simply not play a role in his thought? The most plausible reason,
however, is that anti-Jewish propaganda claimed that the Jews practised
human sacrifices. The strange type of sacrifice was dangerous enough to
be omitted.
Secondly, even the sorcerers are consistently omitted. Whatever the rea
son - perhaps he was careful not to equate Moses with the sorcerers - it is
clear that Philo was not willing to develop the theme of competition. Philo
disliked magicians and sorcerers and considered it a religious duty to kill
them.
Admittedly, Philo's style of writing did not favour dialogues. He has also
remodelled or removed the dialogues between human figures, as well as all
60
61
62
Borgen 1987, 18-19.

See Jos. c. Ap. 2,89-102 and Rokeah 1995, 286-287.
See above p. 114.
Philo
119
dialogues between God and men in the plagues. The reason is the same
that led him to reshape the theophany at Horeb: Philo avoided anthropo
morphism and anthropopathism. Thus he is not keen to describe the dia
logues between God and Moses as they are written in Exodus.
A feature very strongly present is the Greek theory of the four elements.
It is so important to Philo that he changes the order of the plagues to clar
ify the reason for the events: God has created the world and given the Law,
which is the reason why God's commandments are in harmony with the
universe (Op. 3). Since Pharaoh broke this harmony it meant a war of the
elements (Mos. 2,52-53). Moses, on the other hand, was sent by God, the
reason why "each element obeyed him as its master" (Mos. 1,156). The
theory of the elements was common property in Philo's times, and a Jew
ish Platonist could very well cite them when retelling the holy writings,
especially when he could join a broad midrashic tradition admiring the
miracles of manna and water in the desert, which interchanged the usual
roles of heaven and earth.
In the first book of De vita Mosis Philo also paraphrases the miracle at the
Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31; Mos. 1,167-180) and returns to it in the sec
ond book, adding important material.
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 13:17-14:31,
see above p. 74.
Philo has removed God's words to Moses (Exod 13:1-3) and, of course,
even his soliloquy in Exod 13:17, and generally emphasizes Moses' role as
the leader of the people; however, he does not forget T E p d a x i o v , the cloud
that was like a tall pillar (Mos. 1,163-166). Pharaoh's army has the look of
an army of Philo's own time (Mos. 1,168), and the whole story is told
dramatically. Unlike in some Jewish texts, the entire unarmed nation is in a
state of panic. Moses uses his mind and speech simultaneously, his mind to
pray to God and his speech to speak calmly to the people. Then, in an
interesting new detail, he becomes IvGous and prophesies that the enemy
will disappear into the depths (Mos. 1,173-174). There is again no dialogue
between God and Moses in Philo, and the pillar and angel are transferred
to the moment the Egyptians try to catch the Hebrews crossing the sea. A
tremendous south wind ( V O T O S , as in LXX; cf. Hebrew nri? wip n n , east
wind) drives the sea back; the tide is partly but not the real reason for the
event (Mos. 1,176). Moses is then commanded (rrpoaTaxBeis) to strike
63
64
6 3
On Ezek. Trag. also describing the army, see above p. 77-78.

This is actually a result of a very exact reading of Exod 14:13-15: Moses is very
calm when speaking to his people, but God asks "Why are you crying out to me?"
Philo's answer is that Moses simultaneously spoke silently to God and aloud to the peo
ple.
6 4
120
Philo
the sea with his rod and the sea is suddenly divided (payE?oa). The sea
rolls down upon the Egyptians, leaving no survivors. Philo follows Exod
15 and mentions the songs of victory.
Although Philo is anxious to use the story allegorically he does not
reject its literal sense, but many alterations must be noted. Philo has under
stood the narrative problems of the story and he has tried to resolve them.
The Egyptian troops appear early in the morning, but do not attack, and the
only activity during the daytime is Moses' speech. The wind comes at sun
set, then Moses' striking of the sea - a very traditional element - and the
sudden division of the sea. Unlike in Exodus the pillar now stands between
the Hebrews and Egyptians, preventing the attack. Exodus has both inupT /
pf]ov and the wind. Apparently Philo understands pfjov to mean 'strike',
because here he has paysTacc and in Mos 2,253 pocysv when retelling the
events. Philo has thus inverted the order and apparently tried to retain both
elements.
In Philo's texts God does not stand in dialogue with men, and as we have
seen, this view has led him to edit the miracle stories. The words on the
pillar are interesting. Philo considers the pillar to be "one of the lieutenants
( T C O V U T r d p x c o v T I S ) of the great King, an unseen angel, a forerunner on
whom the eyes of the body were not permitted to look". Exod 14:19-20
mentions God's angel, and Jub. identifies him with the Angel of Pres
ence. Philo is also very careful and retains the gap between the visible
and invisible worlds.
It is significant that Philo not only considers Moses' words to Israel a
prophesy, but also writes that he was V 0 o u s . This feature was so impor
tant to Philo that he returned to it in the second book and wrote extensively
on it. It also leads to important questions, which are treated later.
The rejoicing choruses after the defeat of the enemy play an important
role. They not only occur repeatedly in Vita Mosis {Mos 1,180; 2,256), but
according to Philo, the song of the choruses was always on the lips of the
Jews. Spec. 2,216-219 and Cont. 83-85 especially attest how the great
exodus was an important part of the glorious past.
It is a source of
strength for Ben Sira and the writer of Jub., and Ezekiel may have written
his play to glorify it during the Passover. The past was obviously used to
interpret the presence, and apparently also the future. In Spec. 2,217-219,
65
66
67
68
69
70
6 5
See below p. 136.

On Ezek. Trag., see above p. 75, on Artapanus 105, and on Josephus below p. 241.
See above p. 61.
See p. 148-151.
Mishna presupposes that the miracle at the Red Sea is remembered daily (m. Ber 1:5;
cf. /. Ber 1:10; 2:1).
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
121
Philo describes extensively the Jewish way to remember the Passover, and
gives the content of the canticles sung in the feast. In Cont. 83-87 he tells
how the Essenes in Egypt (apparently in their daily prayers) form choirs of
men and woman, and after both have made their own contribution, they
form a single choir as a copy of the choir set up at the Red Sea. But the
passages on the Passover are not the only biblical passage, which attest the
role of the past for Philo. Although he understandably often writes
obliquely as a result of living in a society controlled by the Romans, his
writings clearly attest his eschatological hopes. This is obvious, above all,
in the blessing of Balaam (Praem. 93-97; Mos. 1,288-291). Philo shared
the hope for the central role of the Jewish nation and for a Hebrew emperor
ruling all nations.
Some details reveal a Hebrew tradition, which is either accepted or re
jected, and now we must expand our study to cover the entire production
of Philo. That Moses strikes the sea is commonplace, and Philo on several
occasions emphasizes that the Hebrews were unarmed (Mos 1,170; 172;
174). The same is related in Ezekiel and Josephus, but not in L.A.B.; the
disagreement seems to be based on the difference between the Hebrew text
and LXX.
A new feature is the drying of the sea to such an extent that the sand was
completely dry. This is emphasized in Mos. 2,254 (sKpaupeoffr] y a p f)
vpaMMOS), although it apparently is implied in Mos
(avar)pccv0EV
656s eupeTa KCCI AecocjxDpos): The detail occurs perhaps in Jub. 48:8-12,
and apparently even in L.A.B.
Some Jewish writers maintained that not all the Hebrews panicked, and
that some wanted to fight. Philo does not have this detail, but he also states
that the nation was divided. According to the second book, some were
ready to suffer the most miserable death while others wanted to throw
themselves into the sea (Mos. 2,249-255).
In Ezekiel's drama an Egyptian soldier survives to tell about the catas
trophe, but Philo considers otherwise, and he seems to emphasize the
fact. Was it his intention to criticise Ezekiel, or a common tradition, or
did he simply repeat the biblical detail? According to Jacobson he re
buked a competing tradition, as did Josephus, but this is only guesswork.
71
72
74
75
71
See Borgen 1997, 261-281, esp. 265-268; Mondesert 1999, 898-901.

See above p. 74. On the same view in Ezek. Trag., see p. 75, in Josephus p. 240, on
L.A.B. p. 194.
On these details, see below p. 194.
"The two sections of the sea rolled upon them from either side, united and sub
merged them, horses, chariots and all, with not even a torchbearer (TTUp<|>6pov) left to
announce to the people of Egypt the sudden disaster" (Mos. 1,179).
See Jacobson 1983, 152. On Ezekiel, see above p. 77.
7 2
73
7 4
7 5
122
Philo
In Vita Mosis Philo retells the miracles in desert.

The people find water as in Exod 15:22-27 (Mos. 1,181-187), but before
and not after Elim.
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 15:22-27, see
above p. 20.
The story is greatly expanded and dramatized. "Knowing the weakness of

his creatures, and particularly of mankind" Moses prayed and God helped
him. He sent in advance the power of his grace (TTJV '(AECOV CCUTOU
5UVCX|JIV) and
"opening the vigilant eye of the suppliant's soul, bade him lift and throw into the spring a
tree which he showed him, possibly formed by nature to exercise a virtue which had
hitherto remained unknown, or possibly created on this occasion for the service which it
was destined to perform. Moses did as he was bid, whereupon the springs became sweet,
and were converted into drinkable water, so that no one could even guess that they had
originally been bitter, since no trace of tang remained to remind one of its former bad
ness" (Mos. 1,185-187).
Philo exaggerates the effect of the miraculous event. The Hebrews felt as
though they had risen from a banquet: cooTrep euro Soivrjs KCU 'lAapas
e u c o o x i a s 6 O T i a 0 e v T e s KCU MEQUOVTES O U TT]V EV OTVCO \JSQT\V aAAa TTJV
vrj(|>dAiov f ] V f j K p c c T i a a v x o TCXS TTPOTTOCJEIS A a p d v T E s
n a p d TT\S
EUOEPETCCS T O U TrpoEOTcoTOs d p x o v T O s ("feeling as though they had
risen from a banquet and merry-making, and elated, with the intoxication
not of wine, but of a sober carousal which the piety of the ruler who led
them had invited them to enjoy"). The wonderful water is reminiscent of
the Utopia of Elim in Artapanus' fragment, and there is an obvious con
nection with Ben Sira's interpretation in which the twig is linked with the
work of the physician.
The story raises two questions: 1) Is it adequate to say that Philo has tried
to rationalise the biblical original when he says that the tree was possibly
unknown until Moses needed it? 2) What is meant by God sending "the
power of his grace to Moses"? Both questions are important and are treated
later in this study.
77
78
79
The wasps sent by God are mentioned in QE 2, 24 and treated briefly both literally
and allegorically. On the hornets (cf. Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20; Jos 24:12), see Bietenhard
1986, 190-191.
See above p. 50.
On the interpretation of the water-miracle in Ben Sira, see p. 20. Philo had no prob
lem with the work of the physicians, but mentions them often (see e.g. Prov. 2,60; Cher
15; Sacr. 121; QE 2, 25) and names also Hippocrates several times (Op. 105; 124; Mut
10).
See below p. 146-148 and p. 148-151.
7 7
7 8
7 9
Philo
123
The Pentateuch contains two versions of the story about manna, in Exod
16:1-36 and inNum 11:4-35.
In Exod 16:1-36 some minor details only again prove that the Hebrew original the trans
lators used differed from the Masoretic text: In 16:6 the Masoretic text has ^tner'-'n, but
LXX ouvccycoyrjv uicov lapar|X; in 16:8 MT v^v, but LXX Ka0' f|Ucov, and in 16:8-9
mrr is twice rendered 0eou (also in 16:33). In v. 16:23 the Hebrew text has only Kin, but
LXX TOUTO TO pfj|ja ecrnv, and in 16:29 LXX adds Tr|V f||jepcxv TCXUTTIV. In v. 16:31
the Hebrew text is 'PiOcrTPn, but LXX utoi lopanA. In 16:33 nna rasas is rendered
axdJJVOV xpvjoouv.
Only a few details are of some significance to the content: In 16:13 LXX does not
have opxu, which would be equal to "frtD (Coturnix coturnix), but 6pTuyourJTpa. Liddell
- Scott - Jones suppose (s.v.) it to be Rallus grex, 'a bird which migrates with quails',
but the erroneous identification is based only loosely on Aristoteles' ornithological wis
dom (!). Moreover, the end of the verse in LXX does not yet mention manna at all. In
v. 16:14 p i o s o n o is rendered cooet KOpiov AEUKOV. In v. 16:32 the agent has changed:
... DDriK w j n r a ... DDna TfoKn but ov 'e^dyeTe upeTs ... cos eriycxyev u p a s Kupios.
80
The second version of the story (Num 11:4-36) tells more extensively about quails, and
about the spirit which rested on the seventy elders and Eldad and Medad. Some details
lead us back to the Hebrew original the translators used: In v. 11:4
is translated KCCI
KcxSiocxvTes, in 11:5 LXX adds Scopedv, in 11:14 LXX adds TO pfj|Jo: TOUTO, and in
11:28 the Hebrew text has virnQ, but LXX 6 EKXEKTOS. Moreover, in v. 11:28 "aner ^pi
is not rendered yepouoicx, but Trpea|3uTEpoi TOU Aaou A a o u (11:30), unlike, for exam
ple, in Exod 3:16; 3:18 and 4:30, and why is again translated opTuyoprJTpcx (11:32).
Philo retells the story about manna in extenso, but not twice, and follows
mainly the version of Exodus; the short mention of quails in Exodus, how
ever, is expanded in Mos. 1,209.
Philo takes the story from Numbers, nevertheless omitting almost all the
essential features of the version, including God's dialogue with Moses, the
epiphany, the spirit resting on the elders and the severe punishment follow
ing the quails. These omissions generally relate to his bias to eliminate
God's anthropomorphic features. Philo returns to the story in Spec. 4,126130, dealing now with the punishment: Moses censures those who suppose
that luxurious living is the greatest happiness. The story is thus used as a
tool for ethical and philosophical teaching.
Philo tells about manna more extensively than about the quails, although
not as extensively as in Exodus (Mos. 1,191-209). That Moses is possessed
of divine inspiration ( 6 5E K a T a T T v e u a 0 e i s I v S e o u s yiveTai KCCI BeaTriêi
81
8 0
Liddell - Scott - Jones call the bird Rallus grex, apparently denoting Rallus aquaticus, 'water rail'. The bird is not common in Palestine, even less in the desert, because it
dwells in humid districts. It does not migrate long ways as quails (Coturnix coturnix),
and does not associate with them. Aristotle (Arist. hist. anim. 7,16 597b) apparently
means that the birds appear and disappear simultaneously with the quails.
On the allegorical interpretation, see below p. 141.
81
124
Philo
82
Mos. 1,200) may be an echo of the spirit in Numbers. Philo's ex

planation is that mortals provide the yearly fruits from the earth, but God
can allow the air to produce food instead of water, as the earth produces
water, i.e. the river of Egypt waters the fields (Mos. l,201-202). The
story about manna shows close familiarity with both the Jewish and the
Greek traditions. The bread from heaven is a miracle praised in several
early rabbinic sources (Exod. R. 25:2; 6; Mek. 16:4), as well as in the New
Testament. Although it is difficult to date the midrashic features, the simi
larities are so obvious that they certainly are based on the same traditions
as Philo. God allows both heaven and earth to be the source of bread and
water, and the people admire the interchange of heaven's and earth's func
tions. There is no reason to think that the latter texts are directly dependent
on Philo; they are part of a common tradition. On the other hand, also
the Greek theory of the four elements serves again as a device for inter
preting the biblical story, although the word OTOixeTa or the elder
pi^cojjaTa is not used. Philo apparently saw no problem in combining
these two traditions and does not hesitate to present the latter in Moses'
speech, possessed by the divine rrveuMCc.
Here as well as in Mos. 2,258-267 Philo uses the story about manna to
emphasize the importance of the Sabbath: that manna had not decayed on
the seventh day was an irrefutable answer to the unresolved question
passed down from generation to generation; namely, the question of when
the world was born (Mos. 1,207). This or)|je?ov led Moses to announce the
Sabbath. Philo directs the words to his Gentile audience. The Sabbath is
not only a Jewish custom, but a universal festival, and Gentiles observing
it attest the superiority of the Torah.
Tcc5e,
83
84
86
87
The people get water from a rock as in the biblical original (Exod 17:1-7;
Num 20:1-13 I Mos. 1,210-213).
Septuagint follows the Hebrew original faithfully in Exod 17:1-7. In v. 17:6 the Hebrew
text has nun, but LXX 6 Accds uou. The names are translated in v. 17:7 ( n m o and HOD,
TTeipaouos and AoiSopnois).

The deviations are small, also in the second version of the story (Num 20:1-13). In v.
20:4 the Hebrew text has "orttR DO? ma ?, but LXX airoKTeTvai f|uas. In v. 20:5 LXX adds
4
82
Philo repeats the event in Mos. 2,258, where Moses speaks eTnGsiccaas to the peo
ple.
83
On the allegorical interpretation of manna, see below p. 124.

See Borgen 1965, 9-20.
See Weiss 1991, 99-100. Aristobulus had already connected the holy number seven
with the Sabbath, and Philo follows his example to make the Jewish feast universal (see
Borgen 1997, 68).
The well which "the princes dug" (Num 21:16-18) is presented in Mos. 1,255-257).
8 4
85
8 6
87
Philo
125
xouxo. In 20:8, LXX uses the plural, indicating that Aaron is included (nKsm and rrpcam,
but EOIOETE and TroxieTxe).
Philo's version is definitely the first of the two biblical versions, although
he has, of course, removed the dialogue between God and Moses. He says
nothing about the theophany or God's words to the effect that Moses and
Aaron will not lead the people to their heritage. Other features are also of
interest. The rod, so important in Ezekiel and Artapanus, is also here f]
*iepd (3aKTr]pia, and the miracle happens when Moses is 0EO(|>opr)0eis.
88
"... whereupon Moses, taking that sacred staff with which he accomplished the signs in
Egypt, under inspiration smote the steep rock with it. It may be that the rock contained
originally a spring and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first
time a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by the im
pact" (Mos. 1,211).
Philo seems to give a rationalistic explanation for the event, but continues
with the theme in a crucial passage, which illustrates that the term "ration
alistic" is not easy to use. Nevertheless, the problem has to be noted and it
is treated below.
89
Philo also tells about the miraculous battle against Amalek (according to
Philo, Phoenicians) and about Moses' prayer and hands, which were deci
sive in the battle (Exod 17:8-16; Mos. 1,214-219).
LXX renders CTGMK with avSpas Suvaaxous in 17:9 and adds Kai i5ou in the same
verse. In 17:10 the Hebrew text has orftn'?, but LXX KOU eeA0cov Trapexdaxo. In 17:15
LXX adds Kupi'co, and in 17:16 rr od- ?!) T D is translated ev xeipi Kpuc|>a(a.
1
_ ,
The whole story in Philo emphasizes the tactical situation more than the
biblical original. Moreover, Philo contemporizes the story by changing the
enemy from Amalekites to Phoenicians and embellishes it with new de
tails. He writes about Moses' hands and prayer as follows:
"But, when they were about to engage the fight, his hands were affected in the most mar
vellous way (xepccxcoSeaxccxov TI aunPafvei TTCC0OS nepi x d s X^? S auxou). They
became very light and very heavy in turns, and, whenever they were in the former condi
tion and rose aloft, his side of the combatants was strong and distinguished itself the
more by its valour, but whenever his hands were weighed down the enemy prevailed.
Thus, by symbols, God showed that earth and the lowest regions of the universe were the
portion assigned as their own to the one party, and the ethereal, the holiest region, to the
other; and that, just as heaven holds kingship in the universe and is superior to earth, so
this nation should be victorious over its opponents in war. While, then, his hands became
successively lighter and weightier, like scales in the balance, the fight, too, continued to
be doubtful; but, when they suddenly lost all weight, the fingers serving them as pinions,
a
See above p. 75 and 102.

126
Philo
they were lifted on high like the tribe that wings its ways through the air, and remained
thus soaring until the Hebrews won and undisputed victory ..." (Mos. 1,217-218).
The Greek theory of four elements is again part of Philo's biblical exege
sis, although the word OTOixeTa does not occur. The higher part of the
universe belongs to God's people, the lower, the earth, to their enemies.
The Greek theory did not remain unchanged during the centuries between
Thales and the first century AD, but was represented in different forms.
The passage shows a close relationship with the Aristotelian view, which
formed the basis for the philosophical tradition in the Hellenistic period.
Philo has omitted the rod of Moses (Exod 17:8), but added that Moses pu
rifies himself T O ? S e'lcoBoai KaOappoTs (Mos. 1,216), obviously reducing
the magical character of the story. A parallel in Mishna is to be noted.
90
91
All Jewish writers who retold the revolt of Korah and his supporters also
remodelled it; Philo does the same (Num 16:1-17:31; Mos. 2,278-287).
92
93
In v. 16:1 the Hebrew text has npn, but LXX Kai EAa'AnaEV, and in v. 16:8 K] ij?OIO is ren
dered eWaKouaocTE uou, which indicates W Q E . In 16:5 and 16:11 the Septuagint has 6
Beds and rrpos TOV 0E6V (mrr, m r r " ^ ) . In 16:14 the Hebrew text has *b
but the Sep
tuagint e'i Kai In v. 16:15 ETTtSuiinua shows that the translators had man and not -nan in
their original. In 16:16 *]rnir ?pi nriK is translated' Ayiaaov Trjv auvaycoyrjv aou, and in
l
16:24 and 16:27 LXX omits DTQR nro ]m. In v. 16:29 m p a is translated kcct 'ETTIGKEÎV
and in v. 16:30 mrr k i t rmniraKi ccAX fj ev <(>dauaTi 5eiei Kupios. A clear deviation is
in v. 17:2-3, where the Hebrew text is wwsnn mnna n nanp *o nK^rrmT 0rrmi nsnian p o
Dntos]n n ^ n , but the Greek Kai TO irup TO aAAoTpiov TOUTO cnrsTpov 'EKE?, OTI
fryiaaav TCX TrupeTa TCOV auapTcoAcov TOUTCOV 'EV TOIS vpuxaTs auTcov. In verses
17:23 and 17:26 LXX adds K a i ' Aapcov, and has in the latter plural ETroinaav instead of
the Hebrew singular. In spite of some deviations there is no trace of a theological redac
tion of the miracle-story.
In Num the claim of the rebels is that the whole community is holy and,
thus, the priesthood should be accessible to them (Num 16:3; 10). Philo,
too, speaks about the sacrifice, but emphasizes other points. First of all, it
is the statesman Moses who is challenged, as rulers often are ("This is
what happens when subjects attack their rulers to confound that most ex
cellent promoter of the common weal, order", Mos. 2,277). But secondly,
the main target of Korah and his allies is Moses' prophecy. The rebels
94
9 0
See Kraft 1997, 980.

According to Mishna, Moses' hands did not decide the battle; the decisive factor was
that the thoughts of the Hebrews were either good or bad (m. Rosh HaSh. 3:8a-b). See
Becker 2002,133-134.
On L.A.B., see below p. 198-199, on Josephus see p. 244-246. On Korah in early
Judaism, see also Derrett 1993, 59-78; Feldman 1998b, 91-109.
Philo mentions the event briefly in Fug. 145 and retells it extensively in Praem. 7578; however, the story breaks off and there is an obvious lacuna in the text.
All dialogue between God and Moses is removed again.
91
9 2
9 3
9 4
Philo
127
claim that the priesthood was not ordered under divine direction but by a
false account (Mos. 2,278). This charge results in a new prophesy. Philo
uses the words pETafiaAcov E I S irpocj>TiTr|v, "transformed into a prophet",
as Colson translates (Mos. 2,280). Moses prophesies the earth opening and
"living men descending into Hades." The prophecy replaces the theophany: mm--QD and God's dialogues with Moses are totally omitted. And,
of course, the elements are again involved in the punishment: The earth
swallowed them up and the ether added the rainstorm (an extrabiblical de
tail unless the plague given by God in the cloud is not meant, Num 16:3250). Philo cuts out the story and does not mention the quarrels following
Korah's death.
The connection between prophecy and miracle is interesting and it will
be studied more closely below.
95
Philo treats the biblical account (Deut 34:1-8) of Moses' death in two pas
sages.
LXX translates the report on Moses' death very literally. The only point in which the
texts differ is v. 34:4: the Hebrew text has rbv, but the Septuagint n p o s MCOUOT|V. Thus,
the Septuagint gives no evidence of any speculations on Moses' death.
Mos 2,288-291 tells that Moses' twofold nature of soul and body was re
solved by God into a single unity, v o u s . When he was being exalted the
divine spirit fell upon him and he prophesied his own end ( c o s 'ETEAEUTTIGE
urjuco TEAEUTTJOCXS* MOS. 2,291). This is only an explanation of why the
Pentateuch, attributed to Moses, contains an account of Moses' death. The
parallel story in Virt. 72-79 does not add much to the material, but QG
1,86 gives a more detailed account of Moses' destiny. Generally death is
not the end for worthy and holy men; it is a translation and approach to
another place. Moses, however, was a special case:
"For he seemed to be rapt away and become invisible. For then he was not found. And
this is shown by the fact that when he was sought, he was invisible, not merely rapt from
their eyes. For the translation to another place is nothing else than another position; but
he is said (to have moved) from a sensible and visible place to an incorporeal and intelli
gible form. This gift the protoprophet also obtained, for no one knew his burial-place.
And still another, Elijah, followed him on high from earth to heaven at the appearance of
the divine countenance, or, it would be more proper and correct to say, he ascended" (QG
1,86).
We have several versions of Moses' death, some of them included in this

study. The story in the Pentateuch presented, above all, two points, which
offered an opportunity for speculations, which could be closely related
with Gentile views. First of all, "Moses" tells about his own death, and
96
On prophecy, see below p. 148

On L.A.B., see below p. 199; on Josephus and the possible Greek models, see p. 245.
128
Philo
secondly, Deut 34:1-8 first tells about the death and burial of Moses and
then says that he was "a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet
his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone". These two details allowed
different speculations about the end of his earthly life, namely that he pre
served his appearance after his death. In Philo's version Moses does not
die, but his end is paralleled by Elijah's ascension. What Philo says about
Moses' end must be viewed against his ideas about anthropology and the
destiny of man generally. The soul is pre-existent, a visitor in this world,
residing in the body (Deus 1-2), while death is the soul's separation from
the body (Alleg. Interp. 1,105-108). However, although death generally
means the freeing of the soul, a holy man's death is always something spe
cial, as was Abraham's:
97
98
"So too, when Abraham left this mortal life, 'he is added to the people of God' (Gen
25:8), in that he inherited incorruption and became equal to the angels" (Sacr. 5).
The texts quoted attest that Philo had no problem in reconciling Moses'
death with his philosophy. Moses, although the best and wisest of all, went
the way every man, especially the wise man, goes.
To summarise, we can recognise some clear lines of direction in Philo's
paraphrase of the miracles in Egypt.
Philo is generally very exact in retelling the biblical stories. He stands,
of course, in the midrashic tradition and consequently can add and empha
size what he deems important. He often exaggerates the miracles, al
though he sometimes even diminishes the miraculous. Still, he is quite
faithful in rendering the biblical original. He gives Aaron a role almost
equal to that given in the Pentateuch, although he seems to be unwilling to
call him by name. He omits very few biblical miracles and treats most of
them literally. The punishment of Miriam (Num 12:1-16), however, and
the story about the bronze snake (Num 21:4-9) are interpreted only allegorically. In any case, a literal interpretation of the biblical miracle sto
ries was by no means strange to Philo.
99
100
9 7
For this observation I thank Prof. Ruairidh Boid (Melbourne), who was kind enough
to send me his unpublished manuscript (A Pair of Ancient Samaritan Eschatologies). He
investigates the rich traditions of Moses' death among the Samaritans.
Borgen (1984, 125) cites also Mark 9:2-8 par attesting the thought that Moses did not
die.
Philo himself tells about this tradition in Mos. 1,4: "(I will) tell the story of Moses as
I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful moments of his wisdom
which he has left behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always
interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer
knowledge than others of his life's history" (see Borgen 1984, 124).
See below p.l42and 141.
9 8
9 9
1 0 0
129
Philo
Philo tends to remove all human weakness from Moses' image. Exodus
presents him as a reluctant leader, not eloquent enough, and occasionally
anxious about his own rebellious people. In one way or another Philo
has reduced or removed these features, and it is important to observe the
passages exalting Moses above other human beings (see below p.151-155).
Whether a Palestinian midrashic tradition can be separated from the Al
exandrian is an old problem, and Philo's large production is perhaps the
best source for an answer to the question. However, it does not seem
possible to trace separate traditions in the details of Exodus. What we have
in Philo we may have also in Sir, Jub. or in Ezekiel / Artapanus, or in both.
But did Philo adapt the biblical stories to shed light on his own times?
Some stories denote that he did, but we also need to study the allegorical
stories before coming to a conclusion.
Two interesting features give reason for a closer examination. On the one
hand, Philo combines Moses' miracles with prophecy. On the other
hand, he seems to treat some miracles "rationalistically." Both problems
are treated in more detail below.
101
102
103
c. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle stories

Philo is famous for his allegorical interpretation of the Bible, so it is not
surprising that he also interprets the miracle stories in this way. It is impor
tant, firstly, to understand his exegetical method and, secondly, to study
whether he used the method to adapt the stories to his own world: Some
scholars have questioned whether Philo used the allegorical interpretation
as a commentary on life in his contemporary Alexandria. Borgen has stud
ied Philo's words on Hagar and Sarah, i.e. on the Greek and Jewish educa
tion, observing that Philo was worried about the possibility of Jewish
youth being led astray from the Jewish belief. Whether Philo contempo
rized the miracle stories to teach his fellow Jews (as especially Meeks and
Birnbaum have assumed concerning some details) is worth asking.
The pivotal study of Irmgard Christiansen (Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegunswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien, 1969) on the
method Philo used is still an important tool for an analysis of the pas
sages, although it can justifiably be called too schematic. She showed
104
105
106
107
See also Holladay 1977, 174-177.

On the history of the question see Borgen 1984, 124-125.
Borgen 1997, 163-164; Birnbaum 2003, 322-323.
See below p. 132.
On Philo's allegorical method and its roots in general, see also Sandmel 1984, 13-
130
Philo
that Philo did not merely borrow the method from Homeric interpretation,
applying it arbitrarily to the Scriptures, but that he used a well-reflected
tool filling all scientific requirements of his own time. The method fol
lowed the Platonic doctrine of ideas: Plato considered the world of ideas
real and tried to find it behind individual beings. His followers tried to sys
tematise the world with the dialectic, diaeretic technique of disposing real
ity, often with the help of the ten Aristotelian categories. A good exam
ple is Speusippus' use of the method to define animals and plants. In the
dialectic, diaeretic technique, an individual plant was defined by contrast
ing it with other plants to find its 6 v with help of its |jr| 6 v , but the func
tion of the system was to find the One including everything (TrdvTa
Trepiex )Philo shared the concept, but in his view the world of ideas
was hidden in the words of the Scripture, and the diaeretic technique
was used to carefully define the individual truths in the Scripture, the
result being to find their relationship with other phenomena or concepts
( T O 6Tepov), mostly outside the Scripture, but defined in the same way and
presented as symbolic of the biblical word. This relationship between
two concepts defined similarly and diaretically is the core of the allegori
cal method, and the intention was to find the general truth behind individ
ual truths. Christiansen's book is complemented by Dawson's chapter on
Philo in his Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexan
dria (1992).
Philo never defines his allegorical method and often only briefly justifies
his interpretation. In fact, he may not always have a systematic analysis in
mind: Yet, Philo is often treated too systematically. Nevertheless, he some
times gives a full argumentation for his view. The pattern is then as fol108
109
o v
1 1 0
111
112
113
114
22; Borgen 1984, 128-132 and especially Dawson 1992, 23 (non-Jews) and 74-82 (Jew
ish writers). On Philo's allegory of the miracle stories, see also Tiede 1972, 132,
Schottroff 1983, 229-231. Eve almost totally excludes the allegorical interpretation
(2002, 53; but see 2002, 81-82).
Borgen 1997, 149.
The Stoics are usually considered eager allegorists, but the evidence for this tradi
tional view is surprisingly meagre; see Long 1997, 198-210.
Booth (1994, 160-161) quotes several interesting passages showing how important
the dialectic between the opposite concepts was to Philo.
Christiansen 1969,30-35.
A reason why the truth was hidden in Philo's view was that Moses had to use human
language in spite of its limitations; he used many words referring to the same objects and
Philo is eager to find the synonyms (Dawson 1992, 91-97).
Christiansen 1969, 29-46. On the way the eternal truths ended up in the Septuagint;
see Dawson 1992, 85-90.
Christiansen 1969, 47-98.
Christiansen 1969, 53-74 studies the passages in Somn 1,102-104 / Exod 22:25;
Somn. 1,33-156/Gen 3:1; Alleg. Interp. 2,72-76 /Gen 48:19 and Alleg. Interp. 3,90-93.
107
108
1 0 9
1 1 0
111
1 1 3
1 1 4
131
Philo
lows: 1) Philo quotes a biblical verse 2) he claims that a concept is T O

ETepov, a symbol of another concept, 3) he shows the similarity between
the definitions of the two concepts using either diaeresis or the etymology
of the biblical name. Concerning the miracle stories interpreted allegorically, Philo sometimes gives an extensive argumentation, but often we
only have to guess his line of thinking.
The stories are very often interpreted with the help of a single, important
pattern: Egypt represents everything bad and the escape from there is a
spiritual emigration.
Philo lived in Egypt, but he tried to find points of contact with Greeks,
and did not hide his general dislike of the Egyptians (see e.g. Legat. 162173) and especially of their religion (Post. 165, Contempt. 7-8).
Allegorically "Egypt" means TTCX0OS (Congr. 85-88) or land of the passions
(Alleg. Interp. 3,38; 3,81; 3,94). This allegory is obvious outside and in
side the retold miracle stories. The golden bull represents Egyptian vanity
(Mos. 2, 270), Egypt is the land of sophists (for example, Migr. 83-85),
and even the offensive Hebrew way to sacrifice (Exod 8:26) refers to vir
tues, which were abomination in Egypt (Sacr. 51). The king of Egypt, "that
is of the body", is 6 a v T i 0 E O s vous (Conf. 88) or "the mind which usurps
the place of God" (Somn. 2,182-183).
Since Egypt is the land representing everything bad, the way out repre
sents the righteous man's own development. The whole Book of Exodus
derives its name from the fact that the holy law means Eâycoyr] of the
soul from the body. Philo formulates it very clearly in Migr. 14 (cf. even
Migr. 151-155):
115
116
117
"Right well, then, did the Sacred Guide inscribe one entire sacred book of the Law
giving 'Exagoge' or 'Leading out', for the name thus found was appropriate to the ora
cles contained in it. For being well qualified to train men and fully furnished for the ad
monition and correction, he contemplates the task of taking out all the population of the
soul right away from Egypt, the body, and away from its inhabitants."
This thought is repeated again and again in Philo. Post. 155-156 uses the
same theme: The whole way from "Egypt" means a battle against the bod
ily passions and sexual lust, whose appeals to turn back are constantly
heard. In the same way as Moses withdrew from Egypt, the soul flees
the passions (Alleg. Interp. 3,12-13). These passages show that Philo
118
119
1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
1 1 9
This was a common attitude among the Jews; see Koskenniemi 2002, 20-23.
On sophists, see below p. 134.
Philo, as Ezekiel (see p. 66), calls the biblical book' EâycoyrJ.
See also Agr. 88-89.
See also Alleg. Interp. 3,37-39; 3,81; 3,175; Cher. 74-77; Sacr. 135.
132
considers the way from Egypt a spiritual emigration, and Philo uses the
whole of the exodus as a lesson in ethics, i.e., the soul must be free from
bodily passions. Abraham's departure from Chaldea was a similar spiritual
121
emigration.
The pattern of spiritual emigration is a good example of Philo's use of
the allegorical method. He tries to advance from details in the Scripture to
universalities and to find the similarities between two concepts. In this
pattern Egypt easily finds its STEpov namely rrdSos, and all the details,
repeated again and again, find their correct place in his interpretation.
On the other hand, Philo is, as shown by Helleman, heavily and openly
dependent on Plato's Theaetetus. In Fug. 60-64 he quotes this text, and
considers it man's mission to flee this earthly sphere and return home in
ouoicoais 0ec3 (cj>uyr| 5e O M O I C O O I S 8eco KaTa S U V C C T O V ) . According to
the Platonists and Stoics, the invisible world, Koajjos vorjxds, is real, but
the visible, K O O I J O S cnaSrjTtKOs, is unreal, and Philo shares this basic
view. This is undoubtedly the sense of the entire spiritual exodus in
Philo. Moses' miracles are often interpreted similarly. Philo uses the sto
ries on exodus to universalise the Jewish religion and to link it with Greek
wisdom. Exodus was not, as Dawson notes, celebrated once a year; it now
became ever-present.
An important - and difficult - question is whether Philo used the pattern
to contemporize the stories, using the past to elucidate life in contemporary
Alexandria, as especially Meeks and Birnbaum have generally sug
gested. As seen above, Philo generally disliked the native Egyptians, but
the Greek population was also active in the pogroms in the years of Ca
ligula. But although Philo does not hide his views in Legatio, he never un
ambiguously uses the pattern to support his fellow Jews, who were under
political pressure. If this was his intention, he writes with extreme caution.
Moreover, as seen above, we cannot date Philo's treatises exactly. Borgen
supposes that Vita Mosis was written before the pogroms and that Philo
still had hope that the Gentiles would accept the Law, but Meeks considers
this text to be a part of Philo's defence against attacks. The most obvi122
123
124
125
126
127
Symbolically, the entry into the country was an entry into the right philosophy; see
0*2,13.
SeeAbr. 66-69; Migr. 9-10; 195 and Sandmel 1984, 17-18. Cf. also the way through
Edom, Deus 148-161; Agr. 65.
Helleman 1990, 51-71; see also the parallel work of Runia 1988, 48-75.
See Helleman 1990, 51-54.
See also Deus 31-32 and Migr. 9-10.
Dawson 1992, 98-99.
Meeks 1976, 45-54; Birnbaum 2003, 323-324.
Borgen 1986, 19; Meeks 1976, 45-54.
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
133
Philo
ous adaptation seems to be the words o C C V T O E O S vous in Conf. 88, which

Birnbaum plausibly connects with Gaius.
128
The story about the burning bush could be interpreted allegorically (Mos.
1,67-70) as a symbol of people suffering wrongs:
"Yet that which burned was not burnt up, and this was a sign that the sufferers would not
be destroyed by their aggressors, who would find that the aggression was vain and prof
itless while the victims of malice escaped unharmed" (Mos. 1,67).
Some scholars have plausibly seen here an adaptation of the story. The
Jews were oppressed in Alexandria, but they would never be defeated.
The problem is again the date of the work. The question is asked again,
when all evidence is collected.
The rod of Moses, so important to Artapanus and possibly to Ezekiel,
also awakens Philo's interest in the theophany (Exod 4:1-4:17). However,
Philo's interpretation is totally different, although he also calls it f) 'lepa
(3aKTr]pia (Mos 1,211). This is a part of a wide and important treatise
dealing with Gen 2:18-3:1, according to which the creation of Eve must
not be taken literally. God created first the mind, and then the senses and
passions to be its servants (Alleg. Interp. 2,1-11). The treatise tells how the
mind must be able to control pleasure. Passions and senses are thus T O
ETEpov for Eve. Biblical miracle stories are often used to clarify this pat
tern. Philo finds here a |JE0IS between the rod and education. The rod
is a symbol of T r a i S E i a , and a good education, like a rod, supports a virtu
ous man. If the soul throws it away, it seeks more lust than virtue (just as
Moses' rod became a snake) until the man again takes control over the
passions (Alleg. Interp. 2,90-93). A good education was an important
theme for Philo, and here, too, he adapts the biblical story to elucidate its
significance.
Exodus tells us that Moses lacked eloquence (Exod 4:10), and the literal,
but especially the allegorical, interpretation gave Philo the opportunity to
explain the Lawgiver's words. In Det. 38-40 he briefly deals with the
theme, which he treats more extensively in Mig. 78-85, describing how
God promised Abraham Aoyos - Philo's interpretation of the word
EuAoyrjaco (Mig. 70-117). He uses Moses' lacking eloquence as part of his
argumentation. The pairs of concepts are now Moses / Aaron and vous /
Aoyos. Moses is vous and Aaron Aoyos. vous does not need help in deal129
130
131
132
133
Birnbaum 2003, 324-325.

Meeks 1976, 48-49; Birnbaum 2003, 323-324.
See below p. 157.
On Moses' rod in Artapanus, see p. 102, on Ezekiel, see p. 102.
See Christiansen 1969, 47.
See Goulet 1994,357.
134
Philo
ing with God, but only dealing with alaSrjais, TTCCOOS and oco(ja, which
are represented by Egypt and the "sophists." Aaron, i. e. speech, is needed
to defeat the Egyptian magicians, i.e. wrong philosophers ridiculing God's
miracles.
The opponents are connected with the rod and snakes in the allegorical
interpretation. When Aaron's rod becomes a snake and eats the snakes of
the Egyptian magicians, it has a deeper sense:
134
"For all the arguments of sophists are devoured and done away with by Natures manysided skill, and the acknowledgement is made that these events are the 'Finger of God',
and the word 'finger' is equivalent to a divine rescript, declaring that sophistry is ever
defeated by wisdom, for Holy writ, speaking of the tables on which the oracles were
engraved, says that they were written by the 'finger of God' wherefore the sorcerers can
no longer stand before Moses but fall as in a wrestling-bout vanquished by the sturdy
strength of the opponent" (Migr. 83-85).
The pairs of concepts are now Moses / ydyos and true philosophers /
It is by no means the only passage in which Philo regards the
sorcerers as both sophists and sorcerers. Philo calls the sorcerers ooc|)iG T O U (as LXX, Exod 7:11; Exod 7:26 oi enaoiSoi) and [idyox in Mos.
1,92-94 and equalises them also in Det. 38-40 and Migr. 76-85. "Sophist"
is generally one of the worst words Philo can use to characterise a man. He
not only means Protagoras (Post. 35), but generally his followers, too (e.g.
Det. 1; 72). Philo thus uses the words in LXX to interpret the sorcerers as
false philosophers. After Socrates, it was common to criticise the rhetori
cians and sophists for using speech and words for the purpose of seduc
tion, and for Philo this was one, although not the only reason, why
Moses lacked eloquence. Philo uses the biblical miracle-story to fight
his contemporary philosophical opponents, partly supported by Platonic
criticism.
ao<|>iOTai.
135
136
137
138
The plagues are sometimes interpreted allegorically and the symbols are
usually easily found.
The plague which turns the Nile into blood is part of a larger context
(Somn. 2,237-260). In Joseph's dream of standing on the edge of the river
(Gen 41:17), Philo considers the river a symbol of speech. Both river and
speech flow outward and both can be either beneficial or harmful. Philo
does not deal with earthly rivers, but connects the passage with ethical in-
Also in QE 2,27, Moses is the most pure and God-loving mind and Aaron his word
and the unlying interpreter of the truth (see QE 2,44).
On the literal interpretation of the opponents, see above p. 113-114.
See de Romilly 1975, 91; 69-88.
See Winter 1997, 92; 104-105, and above p. 134.
See Winter 1994,91-94.
1 3 5
1 3 6
1 3 7
1 3 8
135
struction. The two rivers, Euphrat and the river of Egypt (Gen 15:18),
mean soul and body (Somn. 2,255-258). The river of Egypt changed into
blood represents speech that calls for censure: it is ill-trained, ignorant and
practically soulless, and cannot provide nourishment, for none can drink
the speech of indiscipline. A good river produces fish (=thoughts), but a
bad one kills the thoughts as the Nile kills the fish; moreover, it produces
only frogs. Christiansen's pattern works perfectly: Philo 1) quotes a bibli
cal verse, 2) says that speech is T O eTepov to the river, and 3) defines both
concepts to show the similarity.
The frogs mean "soulless opinions and conjectures, which produce
noise and sound destitute and devoid of all reality." Pharaoh wanted to put
off being free of them until "tomorrow", just as evil people want to main
tain the unchanging level of their godlessness (Sacr. 69-71). The plague
is only one link in a long chain of evidence against Cain's offering. The
evidence consists of two parts: he offered "after some days" instead of at
once, and he did not offer the first-fruits (Sacr. 52). The frogs belong to
the former part. Good deeds should be done eagerly and without delay;
Pharaoh is presented as a typical man acting as Cain and not seeking help
from God, as 8Trajj(|>opiaTai generally do, seeking help from every other
direction but only reluctantly from God.
The uncommon darkness (vpTiAa^rjTOs . . . O K O T O S ) is understandably
contrasted with God's light: The children of Israel had light in all their
dwellings, which means that the darkness did not touch the body but the
soul (Somn. 1,114; 117). This is a detail in a long passage (Somn. 1,72119), in which Philo interprets the words "for the sun was set" (Gen 28:11)
as meaning several things, including human beings, sense-perception,
God's word or God himself. The darkness in Egypt is part of the argumen
tation for the last alternative (Somn. 1,87-119). Exod 22:25-27 tells man to
give back the garment to the poor before the sunset. Philo takes the gar
ment for reason (Aoyos), which is the only thing man really needs before
the sun sets, i.e. before God leaves men in terrible darkness, as once hap
pened to the Egyptians. The darkness, interpreted metaphorically as in Wis
17-18, is here only a small detail in the argumentation in which God is T O
139
140
ETepov to the sun.
The firstborn of the Egyptians are interpreted as lust, desire and other
vices in Somn. 2,266. The context is the passage mentioned above about
speech as a good or bad river, but now Philo gives human lips (xeTAos)
two possibilities, citing the words about the bank (yjf\\os) of the river
(Gen 41:17): either be silent or talk wisely. An argument encouraging si139
The frogs and the hail are briefly mentioned in Mut. 20-21.
The passage is closely related to the interpretation of Gen 37, where "all the sophists
of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers" etc. sprang up from the Nile (Somn. 1,220).
140
136
Philo
lence is Moses' message to the Israelites: "The Lord will fight for you; you
need only to be still" (Exod 14:14). As God's power once subdued the
Egyptians, so his aid destroys "lust, pleasure, grief and fear, and injustice,
folly, licentiousness with all their brethren and kin" and helps a man learn
ing to be quiet and waiting for God's help. The pairs of concepts is thus
river / speech and xÂos = bank / xôs = human lips.
The Passover and the destroyer, omitted in Mos. 1, occur in Alleg. Interp.
2,34, in the treatise dealing with the mind's mission to control the senses
and passions. In this passage the context is Adam's sleep, sent by God,
which means the mind's trance when it ceases to be engaged with the ob
jects appropriate to it. Every soul meets this change, but God's people,
unlike those who do not know him, do not sleep until they die. The de
stroyer blocked from Israel's houses is destruction threatening the soul.
Sacr. 62-63 also interprets the Passover as a fight against the passions.
141
142
143
144
The details in the final struggle between the Egyptians and the Hebrews
(Exod 13:17-14:31) are often interpreted allegorically, as seen from the
examples above.
In Conf. 60-82 Philo explains Gen 11:2. Philo tells about a people who
moved eastward and found a plain in Shinar, which he interprets "shaking
out." According to Philo they actually moved away from virtues and shook
them out. This is again applied to individuals, and the Egyptians, shaken
and disordered in Exod 14:25, represent those who love the body, "who are
shewn to us as flying not from the water but under the water, that is under
the stream of passions" (Conf. 70). The events at the Red Sea thus serve as
a small detail in the argumentation that moving to Shinar allegorically
means moving away from virtues.
In Philo, the king of Egypt was not an ordinary king, but "the boastful
mind with his six hundred chariots, that is the six movements of the or
ganic body" and the soldier did not ride a horse against Israel, but a soul
with passion (Ebr. 111). This is only a part of a larger context and is of
minor importance. Philo deals with several views on wine in Moses and
sees it, among other things, as a symbol of foolishness or foolish talking
(11-153). An example is a disobedient son, who is compared to the Israel
ites' noisiness and worshipping of the golden calf; the opposite of this
See also Sacr. 134, where Philo deals with Num 3:13, comparing the firstborn of
Egypt to "the most dominant elements of blind passion" and the firstborn of Israel to
virtue.
See also Alleg. Interp. 3, 165, Migr. 25 and Her. 255
See above p. 133.
The context is presented above; see p. 135.
142
143
144
Philo
137
noise is the victorious song after the events at the Red Sea. Also here the
smaller detail is used in ethical instruction.
The cloud between the two peoples was A o y o s , which separates the
good people from the evil.
145
"For on minds of rich soil that could send in gentle showers the drops of wisdom, whose
very nature exempts it from all harm, but on the sour of soil, that are barren of knowl
edge, it pours the blizzards of vengeance, flooding them with a deluge of destruction
most miserable" (Her. 203-204).
Logos or wisdom is also identified with the cloud in Wis 10:17-19 and
Philo obviously borrows from the same tradition, in which wisdom is pre
sented as a widely independent being.
Philo also deals with Moses' prayer at the Red Sea in Her. 14-19, eluci
dating Abraham's bold way of speaking to the Lord (Gen 15:2-3). Exodus
does not tell about Moses' prayer, but God asks why Moses is shouting at
him, showing, according to Philo, that man is not in contact with God with
his body but with his soul.
In Conf. 36 the death of the Egyptians did not mean the separation of the
soul from the body, but the end of godless teaching and thoughts. In this
treatise Philo again plays with the word x ^ o s , now in Gen 11:1, and
takes it to mean both human lips and a river bank: It allows him to link the
events on the bank of the river with his moral instruction. A "symphony of
evil" not only lives in multitudes, but also inside an individual. As Moses
met Pharaoh on the "lip" of the river, so too were the Egyptians destroyed
on the "lip" of the sea. Somn. 2,279-282 has mainly the same content.
It is not only the Egyptian army but also, and especially, the wrong phi
losophy that wars against virtue and is beaten. The context here is also
XeTAos, although the aspect is different.
146
147
148
149
150
145
The horse is a symbol for passion, and the Egyptian rider is a mind in control of the
passions - both are four-legged, because Philo adopts the view of four passions. The
wider context is the main instruction in the treatise described above (see p. 133). The
same interpretation occurs in Agr. 82-83.
See Sandelin 1986, 106-107.
"For Israel, it says, saw the Egyptians dead on the edge of the sea - not elsewhere.
And when he says 'dead' he does not mean the death which is the separation of soul and
body, but the destruction of unholy doctrines and of the words which their mouth and
tongue and the other vocal organs gave them to use" (Conf. 36).
Somn. 2,269-270 identifies briefly the rider cast into the sea with passion.
On the one hand, the event meant a requital of all evil done by Pharaoh, but the
story had a deeper sense: "Three messages, the best of tidings, does this text proclaim to
the soul, one that the passions of Egypt have perished, a second that the scene of their
death is none other than the lips of that fountain bitter and briny as the sea, those very
lips through which poured forth the sophist-talk which wars against virtue, and finally
that their ruin was seen" (Somn. 2,279-280).
See above p. 134.
146
147
148
149
150
138
Philo
The praise after God's miracle is reinterpreted. Miriam (aTa0r)ais) led

women, Moses ( v o u s ) men, "for it is right with both mind and sense to
render hymns and sing blessings to the Godhead without delay" (Agr. 7983). Although briefly, cuo0r)ois is thus established as T O ETEpov for
Miriam and v o u s for Moses.
The events in Egypt were not the only subject that could be interpreted
allegorically. The way in the desert was another. The entire journey was,
of course, the way out of Egypt, the country of the body, and it took more
than three days because of the "mixed and roughed multitudes" (Migr.
154). Spiritual emigration is a crucial theme in Philo's works.
The water miracle at Marah (Exod 15:22-27) offers a possibility for sev
eral interpretations, although the main pattern remains the same: That the
water at Marah was bitter denotes that pleasure still harasses the wise man
and tries to tempt him back to Egypt, i. e., to his earlier manner of life, but
God produces the love of labour instead of the hatred of labour. In the passage in Post. 155-157 quoted above it is easy to define Philo's train of
thought. In the wider context (Post. 124-157) the key word is water. Philo
uses etymology as his tool, claiming that Seth means TroTiajJos, and the
way is open for establishing water as T O ETEpov for wisdom: As water
gives life to seeds and plants, so wisdom shoots up and improves (Post.
125). In this context the water at Marah is applied to an individual willing
to return to "Egypt", but God prevents it with his food for the soul. Philo
makes use of a broad tradition originating in the Old Testament (Prov
16:22 LXX).
The interpretation in Congr. 163-167 is similar, but now the context is a
proper education, which is an obvious contemporization. Philo was afraid
that his fellow Jews would seek a Greek education only to get a good posi
tion. He points to the right path: Although Hagar, the Greek education,
151
153
154
151
Cf. Mos. 1,147. Philo clearly uses the topic as an exhortation against intermarriage
in his times: He uses hard words about the mixed people. They were accompanied by a
"promiscuous, nondescript and menial crowd, a bastard host, so to speak, associated with
the true-born. These were children of Egyptian women by Hebrew fathers, into whose
families they had been adopted." On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994,
266.
See above p. 131.
The question was a burning one in Alexandria. Philo, worried about the motives of
his fellow Jews, applied a well-known Hellenistic allegory to the suitors of Penelope: a
man may seek education because of bad motives (Alleg. Interp. 3,167). Philo applies this
view to sacred history and to the relation between Abraham and Sarah / Hagar; see
Borgen 1984, 116-117; Borgen 1997, 125; 162-165.
152
153
1 5 4
Philo
139
155
is needed, it is definitely subordinated to Sarah, the real philosophy. It

means that a student is tested as Israel was in the desert, with the bitter
water at Marah. Some people fail, but others let neither hunger nor thirst
enslave them, and they will finally find their way.
Also, in Migr. 36-38 the bitter water is combined with an exodus, but it
is the spiritual wandering of Abraham that is used as model for everyone.
This context contains Philo's famous words on inspiration given by God
(Migr. 34-35) and immediately afterwards the passage telling how God
makes everything sweet:
156
"Now the thing shewn is the thing worthy to be seen, contemplated, loved, the perfect
good, whose nature it is to change all that is bitter in the soul and make it sweet, fairest
seasoning of all spices, turning into salutary nourishment even foods that do not nourish.
So we read: 'The Lord showed him a tree and he cast it into the water', that is, into the
flabby, flaccid mind teeming with bitterness, that its savagery might be sweetened away.
This tree offers not nourishment only but immortality also, for we are told that the Tree
of Life has been planted in the midst of the Garden, even Goodness with the particular
virtues, which accord with them to be its bodyguard. For it is Virtue that has obtained as
it own the central and most honourable place in the soul. Such is that which is shown,
and he that sees it is the wise man, for fools are blind or dim-sighted."
It is not surprising that Philo uses the story to teach ethical discipline and
spiritual emigration out of the visible world. However, it is interesting that
the tree is not an ordinary piece of wood, but a part of the Tree of Life.
The same interpretation occurs in L.A.B 11,15. This interpretation leads
Philo to the speculations quoted above.
157
158
159
The water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13) can also be inter
preted allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 2,86), and the context in the treatise is
155
The water in Elim meant an entrance to virtue "for just as gateways are the begin
nings of a house, so are the preliminary exercises of the schools the beginning of virtue"
(Fug. 183).
"But this result is brought about not by toil unaided, but by toil with sweetening. He
says 'the water was sweetened', and another name for the toil that is sweet and pleasant
is love of labour. For what is sweet in toil is the yearning, the desire, the fervour, in fact
the love of good", Congr. 166.
See Sandelin 1986,91-92.
See below p. 242. Philo had no problem accepting the physicians. He mentions ap
proving of Hippocrates (e.g. Op. 105; 124) and physicians generally (e.g. Alleg. Interp.
2,6; Cher. 15).
The well dug by princes, mentioned in Num 21:16-18, occurs in Ebr. 112-113, and
is interpreted similarly to the water of Marah. The well is wisdom, which lies deep below
the surface and gives forth a sweet stream of true nobility for thirsty souls. In Fug. 183
the water in Elim means a gateway to virtue (see Sandelin 1986, 94-96).
156
157
158
159
140
Philo
described above: mind must have control over the senses and pleasures.
The Hebrews tortured by the drought of passions are helped by God,
"for the flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which he marked of highest and chiefest from
his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God".
Although Philo expresses this only in a few words, he seems to be aware

of both the Jewish and non-Jewish traditions concerning the wisdom as a
spring or well, which he now (and in Somn. 2,221-222) applies to bibli
cal events.
The passages on water from the rock are always connected with those on
the food given by God. The following three passages illustrate Philo's
fondness for this theme:
161
"And when they have been given water to drink, they are filled also with the manna, the
most generic of substances, for the manna is called 'somewhat', and that suggests the
summum genus. But the primal existence is God, and next to him is the word of God, but
all other things subsist in word only, but in their active effects they are in some cases as
good as non-subsisting" (Alleg. Interp. 2,86).
"And indeed it says 'Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven'. Of what food he can
rightly say that it is rained from heaven, save of heavenly wisdom which is sent from
above on souls which yearn for virtue by him who sheds the gift of prudence in rich
abundance, whose grace waters the universe, and chiefly so in the holy seventh (year),
which he calls Sabbath (Mut. 259-260).
"You see of what sort the soul's food is. It is a word of God, continuous, resembling
dew, embracing all the soul and leaving no portion without part in itself* (Alleg. Interp.
3,169, see even 162-172).
162
The same thought appears with small variations: Manna is the heavenly
food God gives to the soul (Fug. 138; Mut. 259-260; Deus 155), and the
erring people, of course, prefer "the onions and the garlic, which give great
pain and trouble to their eyes and make them close, or the other illsmelling things" of Egypt to it (Her. 79-80). Manna means the heavenly
wisdom that God gives to people who seek virtue, and as seen above, Philo
is clearly aware of a broad tradition interpreting the biblical story about
manna. As Sandelin notes, Deut 8:3 LXX links manna with God's
163
164
160
165
See above p. 133.

Philo uses manna to show that God does not let those who feed on the divine words
live in misery and suffering; the common people believe that God lets them suffer, be
cause they have never tasted wisdom (Congr. 173-174). Det. 118 uses manna to teach the
nature of the proper education.
Philo contrasts manna / wisdom with encyclical studies in Mut. 259-260 (see Borgen
1997, 164).
See above p. 123 and Borgen 1965, 9-20.
Sandelin 1986, 104.
161
162
163
164
165
141
Philo
166
also Wis 16:20 says that manna was the food of angels. Thus al
though this interpretation is not Philo's own, he eagerly adopts it.
pfjua;
Philo also gives a slightly allegorical interpretation to the story of quails

(Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36): Desire was victorious over the Hebrews,
who could not fight against it (Spec. 4,128-130). The literal and allegorical
interpretations overlap here, and it is easy to understand: The biblical story
not only deals with lack of food, but also with lack of spiritual strength,
and it opens the door for Philo to interpret the punishment in Num 11:4-36
as punishment for gluttony and an uncontrolled life.
167
Exod 17:8-16 tells how Moses prayed for Israel when watching the battle
between Israel and Amalek and how Aaron and Hur had to hold his hands
up. Philo deals with the story twice in the third book of Legum allegoriae.
In Alleg. Interp. 3,45 the context is that a soul finds in God the spring and
aim of its own doings. Moses did find it, and consequently his hands were
heavy unlike those of evil men, and he was steadied by "Aaron, the Word,
and Hur, which is 'Light.'" Another view is offered later in the same
book (Alleg. Interp. 3,186). Now he pays attention to the fighting nations
and compares the battle to ethical life. Philo explains Gen 3:15, interpret
ing the war between the snake's seed and the woman's seed as the war be
tween passion's seed (pleasure) and the mind's seed (sense). The story
about Amalek follows this pattern; the combatants are no longer two peo
ples, but mind and passion. The diaeresis in Alleg. Interp. 3,185 follows
the pattern described by Christiansen, and the war between the two peoples
is only a detail in Philo's interpretations, although this time he also defines
Amalek etymologically.
168
"...'Whenever Moses lifted up his hands, Israel prevailed, but when he dropped them,
Amalek prevailed', showing that when the mind lifts itself up away from mortal things
and is borne aloft, that which sees God, which is Israel, gains strength, but when it has
lowered its special powers and grown weak, immediately passion, named 'Amalek',
which means 'a people licking out', will become strong: for in very deed it eats up the
whole soul and licks it out, leaving behind in it no seed or spark or virtue."
Philo does not use the story about Miriam's punishment (Num 12:1-16) in
a literal sense in Vita Mosis, and the story is seldom mentioned in early
Judaism.
166
See Sandelin 1986, 73-81. On Philo's way to use the material and parallels to the
Christian writers and midrashic tradition, see the detailed exegesis in Borgen 1965, 2858.
See above p. 123.
168 On the interpretation in Mishna, see above p. 126.
1 6 7
142
Philo
LXX calls the women A'iSioTnaaa (cf. rrBDrr) thus placing ID on the m a p . In v. 1 2 : 4
LXX inverts the order of Aaron and Miriam, and in v. 1 2 : 6 Kuptco would imply mrr ? in
the translator's original, although our Hebrew text has mrr. In v. 1 2 : 8 mrr nJDn is ren
dered TT)V 5 6 a v Kupiou, which may be a slight theological reworking of the original. In
1 2 : 1 0 frwD runxD is translated Xenpcoaa eoaei
showing no traces of finding nmxD
difficult. In v. 1 2 : 1 2 LXX adds coosi eKxpcoucc; in v. 1 2 : 1 5 the Hebrew text has *pRmi?,
but the Septuagint has scos EKaOapioBn.
1 6 9
Philo, however, uses this story, but only allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 2,6567), and the wider context is the mind's control over the senses and pleas
ures described above. The mind has three alternatives, a v c u o x u v T i a ,
aiScos and the lack of both (=bad, good and indifferent). Miriam repre
sents vous under the power of a v c c i o x u v T i a , attacking Moses when he
deserved praise. Philo does not, of course, interpret the Ethiopian woman
literally, because he rejects intermarriage, but takes her to mean the unal
terable steadiness of his soul. Philo does not seem to find the story prob
lematic, since he mentions it only briefly, and it does not trigger, as of
ten, an allegorical interpretation showing how impossible a literal read
ing of the biblical passage would be.
170
171
172
Num 21:4-9 tells how the Israelites were punished with the venomous
snakes and healed with a bronze snake. Philo deals with the story twice, in
both passages with a widely similar view. The story teaches the control of
pleasure.
173
LXX translates in v. 2 1 : 4 DtfrrosD sprn as Kai coXiyovpiixriaev b Xaos. In v. 2 1 : 5 the

Hebrew text has w r ^ n , but LXX e^rjyayes, and the difficult bpbpn nn^n is rendered ev
TCO dfpTco TOO SictKevco. In v. 2 1 : 6 the snakes, crsitDn O'rcmn, are rendered TOUS 6<J>EIS
TOUS SavocTOiivTas. In v. 2 1 : 6 the words TCOV uieov laparjA implies that the translators
had 'ptner ^nn in their original and not ^tnETQ, as in our Hebrew text. The translation is
thus very literal.
Alleg. Interp. 2,76-84; 87, a treatise which generally deals with the
mind's control over the senses and pleasures, naturally considers snakes
to be symbols of various pleasures, and Philo happens to give an excep
tionally thorough argumentation for the view a little earlier (Alleg. Interp.
2,74-75). Pleasure brings death - not separation of the soul from the
174
175
1 7 0
171
1 7 2
1 7 3
1 7 4
1 7 5
On the geographical names in the Septuagint, see Siegert 2 0 0 0 , 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 .

See above p. 1 3 3 .
On Philo and intermarriage, see Spec. 3 , 2 9 ; Virt. 3 5 - 3 6 .
See Dawson 1 9 9 2 , 1 0 4 .
The story is also alluded to in Wis 1 6 : 5 - 1 4 .
See above p. 1 3 3 .
Christiansen uses the passage to illuminate Philo's method; see Christiansen 1 9 6 9 ,
67-71.
Philo
143
body, but ruination of the soul through vice. The situation, however, is not
hopeless:
"Everyone, then, 'whom a serpent shall have bitten, when he looks on it shall live.' This
is quite true. For if the mind, when bitten by pleasure, the serpent of Eve shall have suc
ceeded in beholding in soul the beauty of self-mastery (O0)(|)poauvn), the serpent of
Moses, and through beholding this, beholds God himself, he shall live; only let him look
and mark well (povov 'ISETCO KCCI KaTavonaccTco)" (Alleg. Interp. 2 , 8 1 ) .
The pairs of terms are thus poisonous serpent / pleasure and Moses' ser
pent / aco(|>pocnjvri. Here, as in Agr. 95-98, Philo sees a deeper meaning in
the material of the healing snake: The firm metal shows that a man, al
though once bitten by pleasure, can with self-mastery resist temptation and
be saved.
Philo shows in Agr. 95-98 his way to connect the literal interpretation
with the allegorical. He first retells the biblical story literally, and the tran
sition to the allegorical is interesting:
"Told in this way these things are like prodigies and marvels (<|>o:a|jo:cnv E'OIKE KCCI
TEpccai), the serpent emitting a human voice and using quibbling arguments to an utterly
guileless character, and cheating a woman with seductive plausibilities; and another
proving the author of complete deliverance to those who beheld it. But when we interpret
words by the meanings that lie beneath the surface, all that mythical is removed out of
our way, and the real sense becomes as clear as daylight" (Agr. 9 6 - 9 7 ) .
The "real sense", which is "as clear as daylight" is that the story attacks
the wrong philosophy: In both passages the snake undoubtedly has the
voice of the Epicureans; in addition, the phrases "pleasure" and "selfmastery" let us conclude that the snake, which has bitten the mind with
pleasure, then uses the arguments of philosophers airo TCOV KrjiTcov to
charm its victims. Philo teaches that a man can return to the right path
and stop listening to the beguiling voices. The literal sense is never re
jected in the miracle stories, but the allegorical sense is the real and higher
interpretation of the holy text.
176
It is a communis opinio that for Philo the allegorical method was not a de
vice to destroy the literal. This view is also confirmed in this study of
the miracle stories. There are very few passages in which Philo tries to
avoid the literal sense with the help of the allegorical method.
177
176
On Epicurus in Philo, see Aet. 8 and on Epicureans Post. 2 . Although Philo men
tions the Epicureans only twice, it is clear that their views are often his target; see Booth
1 9 9 4 , 1 5 9 - 1 7 2 . Frey ( 1 9 9 4 , 1 6 4 ) correctly identifies the snakes in Alleg. Interp. 2 , 8 1 with
the snake in Paradise; however, he does not see the obvious link to the Epicureans.
Wolfson: 1 9 4 7 , 1 . 1 2 2 - 1 2 6 ; Mondesert 1 9 9 9 , 8 8 7 - 8 8 8 . See however, e.g. Alleg. In
terp. 2 , 1 9 , where Philo rejects the literal sense of woman's creation.
177
144
Philo
As seen above, some scholars have taken some features of the miracle
stories as clear adaptations. Meeks tried to link the Egyptians with the
opponents of the Jews in Philo's own time, more specifically with
Gaius. Meeks undoubtedly asked an important question, but direct evi
dence is scarce. If Philo wanted to covertly attack Gaius or Roman rule, he
has hidden his message very skillfully. On the other hand, Philo had a
well-thought-out view on statesmen, rulers and kings, which he could not
help expressing when retelling the biblical events. The Alexandrian offi
cials and Roman rulers of his own times formed the context in which Philo
presents a Furstenspiegel to his reader, although Gaius is not directly men
tioned and may not even be meant. As seen, the glorious past of Israel
meant more to Philo than is often understood, and he had a developed, eschatological view. That we are not able to date precisely Philo's treatises
makes investigating the details very difficult. Borgen's opinion that Vita
Mosis was written before the pogroms fits the analysis presented above.
Hay inquires about the implied readers of Philo and finds good answers;
but unhappily, he does not focus his study on Vita Mosis, and the general
answers are undoubtedly different from those concerning this work. The
miracle stories imply that he indeed included Gentiles in his audience.
It is easier to find other features in the stories that were relevant to the
Gentile audience in Philo's time. It is interesting to compare Philo's literal
interpretation with the anti-Jewish propaganda known to him. He almost
consistently omitted all biblical verses pointing to the strange or offending
manner of sacrifice, and he even dropped the whole story about Passover.
Apparently he definitely wanted to present Moses to Gentile sympathisers,
knowing that the Israelite manner of sacrifice was heavily attacked in antiJewish propaganda. On the other hand, although he does not mention
pestilence at the burning bush, and says that Moses' hand was AeuKOTepa
Xiovos, he adds of his own will the words AOIJJIKCX ccppcooTripaTa, when
retelling the biblical plague. He also tells that the Egyptians expelled the
Israelites from their country. Apparently Philo did not consistently remove
everything, which was criticised by anti-Jewish writers. Generally, Philo
pays very little attention to anti-Jewish writers. He seldom mentions them
(but see Conf. 2 and of course Hypoth.), and when introducing Moses he
does not, as Josephus, attack anti-Jewish writers, but regrets that the
Greeks do not mention him (Mos. 1,1-3).
178
179
180
181
182
Meeks 1976, 48-49.

On the literal interpretation and possible adaptations, see below p. 132.
See above, p. 121.
See Hay 1991,20-52.
Philo
145
What Philo wrote on the Sabbath was an attempt to universalise the Jew
ish feast, and he seems really to have believed that the Gentiles could
adopt one of the most eminent features of Judaism. He was not writing to
an imaginary audience: the annual celebration of the LXX translation had
attracted a number of non-Jewish sympathisers, and it is conceivable that
eschatological hope was especially alive before the pogroms.
But Philo also uses the miracle stories - both literally and allegorically to attack his philosophical opponents or to adopt a view taken from the
Greek tradition. Few can hear the voice of the Epicureans in the snake's
voice, but it was not a problem for Philo. He also attacked people who
used their education for selfish ends. The warning not to follow the way of
the Egyptian sorcerers, i.e. "sophists", was also meant for those among his
own people needing a good Greek education. Understandably, the dan
gers of the non-Jewish culture were always present in Alexandria.
The allegorical method is generally considered to be a way to make the
biblical figures and God's commandments universal and to link Jewish
belief with Greek philosophy. This bias is very clear in the miracle sto
ries, when interpreted allegorically. Exodus not only means freedom for a
single nation; it was a universal spiritual emigration, and Philo uses its
details to include and exclude Greek philosophy in and from his teaching.
More precisely, the method is used to serve as the main function of the
allegorical interpretation. The author of Jub. wrote about the fathers of the
nation, and adapted the stories to the entire nation. Philo's exegetical
method was different: he wrote about peoples and great events, and
adapted the stories to the life of an individual. The way from Egypt with
all its details was a treasure for the Jewish philosopher, who could adapt
the Platonic model to his own religion. The great Alexandrian scholar and
moralist, semper talis, repeatedly attacked human desire and pleasure
through his reinterpreted stories. Their main role is to integrate Jewish
ethical teaching with contemporary Greek philosophy.
183
184
185
183
See Borgen 1997, 140-144.

Dawson presents the situation in Alexandria well (1992, 126), but his description of
the internal-Jewish divisions is not convincing (1992, 114-115). We have very little evi
dence of these divisions and are consequently easily led to speculations.
See e.g. Sandmel 1984, 14.
184
185
146
d. Miracles explained
Philo
rationally?
Some modern scholars claim that Jews were strongly criticised by the
Greeks and Romans because of their belief in miracles. This is an impor
tant issue in the study of Josephus' works, and it emerges briefly in the
study of Artapanus' fragments as well. However, the religio-historical
background is widely similar for Josephus and Philo at this point, espe
cially because both hoped to reach Gentile audiences. Both supposedly
were well aware of anti-Jewish propaganda, and both certainly felt the
pressure if it existed. Moreover, the view common in the studies concern
ing Josephus is by no means unknown in Philonic studies. We have en
countered several stories in which such an explanation seems to be reason
able. Now it is time to investigate them more closely.
Philo is aware of potentially difficult objections that could be raised: for
example, the Jews laughed at myths, yet told biblical stories that resembled
them (Conf. 2-3). Sometimes one cannot help asking if Philo really did
rationalise the biblical stories. He may have interpreted the story of Ba
laam allegorically (Cher. 32-36) and may even have said that the literal
meaning was merely "prodigies and marvels" (Agr. 96-97) or omitted the
feature of the ass speaking (Mos. 1,269-275). Sometimes he revised a bib
lical story: The darkness may have been caused by an unordinary eclipse
of the sun or by unusual clouds (Mos. 1,123-125), and the tide was a par
tial reason for the way opened to the Hebrews (Mos. 1,176). The tree cast
in the water was "possibly formed by nature to exercise a virtue which had
hitherto remained unknown" (Mos. 1,185-187), and a possible explanation
for the water from the rock was that "the rock contained originally a spring
and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first time
a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by
the impact" (Mos. 1,211). Thus, much of what he says supports the view
that the Jews tried to give a natural explanation for the miracles.
However, in his production, Philo sometimes deals with the question of
whether a miracle is possible. In QE 1,32 he considers the question of how
it was possible that the snake spoke in paradise, and finds an answer:
186
187
188
"Second, when some miraculous deed is prepared, God changes the inner nature
(secundo, quando mira quaedam patranda sunt, subiectas naturas commutat Deus)".
On Artapanus, see above p. 104, on Josephus, see below p. 228-229.

Wolfson presents a detailed view. On the one hand, he recognises a rationalising
element; on the other hand, he is of the opinion that Philo really took all biblical miracles
as historical events (1947,1.122-126; 1.350-356). According to Georgi, Philo connected
the miracles and their rationalisation "in gleichem Atemzug" (1964, 155); see also Moehring 1973, 377-381 and Feldman 2000, 231.
On the question, see Eve 2002, 54-55; 83-84.
187
188
147
In Mos. 1,201-202 he deals with the same theme. Moses speaks to his peo
ple:
"But God has subject to him not one portion of the universe, but the whole world and its
part to minister as slaves to their master for every that he wills. So now it has seemed
good to him that the air should bring food instead of water ..."
The talking snake or the bread from heaven were thus not overwhelming
obstacles to Philo's faith. There is little or no evidence for the view that
the stories about Moses' miracles would have been problematic for Philo,
even though he may give a natural explanation for them. On the contrary,
he clearly states his belief that God makes miracles:
"If anyone disbelieves these things, he neither knows God nor has ever sought to know
him; for if he did he would at once have perceived - aye, perceived with an firm appre
hension - that these extraordinary and seemingly incredible events are but child's-play to
God ( c m TCC TrapcfSoâ 5r| TOCUTO: KCCI TrapdXoya 0sou Traiyvicc ecrnv). He has but to
turn his eyes to things which are really great and worthy of his earnest contemplation, the
creation of heaven and the rhythmic movements of the planets and fixed stars, the light
that shines upon us from the sun by day and from the moon by night... But these things,
though truly marvellous, are held in little account, because they are familiar. Not so with
the unfamiliar; though they be but small matters, we give way before what happens so
strange, and drawn by their novelty, regard them with amazement" (Mos. 1, 212-213).
Philo clearly combines the miracles with the omnipotence of God, the
Creator. He does not play down the miracles, but argues a fortiori that a
God capable of creation is also capable of working any other miracle.
An ancient writer may present a less miraculous version of a story, but it
does not necessarily mean that he is trying to rationalise it. As long as
Philo tells similar stories in his production and treats the possibility of
miracles positively, there is no reason to consider the miracle stories diffi
cult for him. Philo uses these stories as simple illustrations, both literally
and allegorically, and the latter is not a mean to exclude the former. There
is no bias to consistently tone down miraculous elements. There seems to
be no evidence that he uncritically linked the miracles with their rationali
sation "in gleichem Atemzug", as Georgi claimed. On the contrary,
Philo obviously had a well-thought view of the miracles. On the other
hand, while this is true concerning the biblical miracles, we can only guess
what he thought about contemporary miracle-workers, if he was aware of
them. If he ever felt pressure from the Greeks and Romans concerning the
biblical miracles, his answer was that miracles were easy for God, the
189
190
191
189
Tiede formulates it correctly: "Philo's starting point is that everything is possible for
God, including those things that are impossible and insuperable for men" (Tiede 1972,
133-134); similarly also Sandmel 1984, 27.
Eve 2002, 53.
Georgi 1964, 155.
1 9 0
191
148
Philo
Creator. It is not due to inconsistency that he explains his texts. The Jewish
heritage and the modern world have different concepts of a "miracle." A
"miracle" meant something different to Philo than to David Hume. The
biblical miracles were not a violation of the laws of nature; nfrra impos
sible for men were possible for God. That he apparently found the biblical
miracles unproblematic to deal with has direct consequences on the study
of Josephus.
192
e. Miracles of the prophet

Philo is by no means the only Jewish writer who considers Moses a
prophet. Deut 18:18 led to the expectation of a "prophet like Moses", and
Ben Sira takes it for granted that Moses was a prophet. Yet it is very
interesting to see how Philo combines prophecy and miracles.
Moses speaks with the people at the Red Sea in a very interesting pas
sage (Mos. 1,173-175). According to Philo, he uses his mind and speech
simultaneously for different purposes. He silently intercedes with God with
his mind, but with his body he acts as a good, calm leader. Then every
thing changes:
193
194
"But, after a little, he came possessed, and filled with the spirit which was wont to visit
him, uttered these oracular words of prophecy ..."
Philo thus clearly differentiates between Moses' usual speech and proph
ecy. In this passage the prophecy precedes the death of the Egyptians.
Interestingly enough, the prophecy is one of the four adjuncts to the truly
perfect ruler, and of course, Moses was a prophet of the highest quality
(Mos. 2,187-188). Philo writes a long passage about the theme and differ
entiates between three kinds of prophecy. In the first, God speaks in his
own person with his prophet as interpreter; in the second, the revelation
comes through questions and answers. The most interesting is the third
kind of prophecy, which is "spoken by Moses in his own person, when
possessed by God and carried away out of himself'
(xal e auTOu
195
196
KccTaaxeBevTOs).
Philo does not discuss the first kind of prophecy ("They are too great to
be lauded by human lips", Mos. 2,191). Four examples are given of the
197
192
See above p. 1-2.

See above p. 27.
On Moses as a prophet, see Meeks 1967, 125-131; Tiede 1972, 113-119.
This is the kind supposed in Spec. 1,64-65.
On ecstasy, see also Her. 249-259.
Meeks noted (1967, 127) that elsewhere Philo uses ep|jr|veus and Trpo<|>rJTT}s almost
interchangeably (see e.g. Praem. 55; Her. 260; Spec. 3,6). However, he overlooks the
193
1 9 4
195
196
197
149
second; two contain a punishment prophecy (the case of a blasphemer, Lev

24:10-16; Mos. 2,192-212; the punishment of a Sabbath-breaker, Num
15:32-36; Mos. 2,213-220). In the third types of prophecy the prophet him
self speaks under divine inspiration (Mos. 2,246), and it is precisely the
third type that Philo seems to combine with miracles. Philo returns to the
events at the Red Sea, already told in the first book. Now he retells how
Moses "was taken out of himself by divine possession ( O U K E T ' COV EV
ECXUTCO 0eo<|>opE?TCu) and uttered these inspired words" (Mos. 2,250), and
then describes the miracle (Mos. 2,253-257). This was the way Moses "be
gan and opened his work as a prophet possessed by God's spirit" (Mos.
2,258). The next example, too, combines prophecy and miracle, namely
manna (Mos. 2,258-263). The third concerns manna on the Sabbath (Mos.
2,263-269), and also here Philo uses the word or)|JE?ov (MOS. 2,264). The
fourth example is the only one without a miracle. It is the story of the
golden calf, in which Moses acts as prophet (Mos. 2,270-274):
"He therefore became another man (OUKETI [ISVCAV b CCUTOS), changed both in outward
appearance and mind, and filled with the spirit, he cried
(Mos. 2,272).
Philo tells how the prophet kills three thousand of his own people. The last
example, the story about Korah, deals again with a miracle (Mos. 2,275287), in which Moses is "transformed into a prophet" (|JETa|3aAcov E'IS
198
TTpoc|>rJTr]v).
Philo presents many interesting details concerning prophecy, such as

linking a clean life and freedom from passion with the life of a prophet
(Mos. 2,68-69). This is not unique in Philo. He considers every good man a
prophet. This may again be a device to universalise Jewish wisdom and
integrate it with the Greek world. The most interesting features here are 1)
the ecstasy of the prophet, 2) the connection between prophecy and other
miracles and 3) the brutal violence of the prophet.
1) Religious ecstasy was a well known phenomenon in classical antiq
uity, as Plato, Aelius Aristeides and Vergil (to mention only few) clearly
attest. Levison's comparison of Philo's view on inspiration with Plu
tarch's writings show that their views are widely compatible. However,
Philo's concept can easily be traced to his Jewish heritage. Saul was
"changed into a different person" and prophesied (1 Sam 10:6). Another
199
200
201
importance of the miracles for the third kind of prophecy.

"While his heart was still hot within him, burning with lawful indignation, inspira
tion came upon him, and, transformed into a prophet, he pronounced these words
(Mos. 2,280).
See Her. 259-260.
See below p. 209.
Levison 1995, 189-207.
198
199
2 0 0
2 0 1
150
Philo
very close parallel is Samson and his spirit-filled and violent leadership.
This is a major theme in L.A.B., which owes much to this tradition.
2) Philo closely connects the miracles with Moses' prophecy. Almost all
examples of the third art of prophecy contain a miracle. Prophecy is a
many-sided phenomenon in Philo's works, a prophet being a righteous
man and a righteous man a prophet. Miracles are not necessarily part of the
picture of a prophet, but the analysis shows clearly that they can be.
Moses is thus also a model for a miracle-working prophet. It means that
the miracle-working "sign-prophets" are closer to Philo's view than is usu
ally understood, especially if his eschatological hope is not overlooked.
3) Philo chooses very violent examples of the deeds of the prophet. No
less than three out of five examples are very aggressive (the miracle at the
Red Sea, the stories about the golden calf and the story about Korah). Philo
could have presented many biblical prophets who performed miracles with
vehemence. Several of the prophets used violence. The first of them is, of
course, Elijah, who killed the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal (1
Kgs 18). Elisha cursed the boys mocking him (2 Kgs 2:22-24) as well as
Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:24-27). Even if the biblical prophets did not make mira
cles other than prophecy, most of them were critical of their audience,
even furious at them. In any case, many biblical prophets could serve as
models of the new traits of the miracle-working Moses. The link between
violence and miracles is seen in the stories about Elijah and Elisha already
mentioned. An interesting parallel is again L.A.B., written a little after
Philo, with several violent and miracle-working figures. It is no wonder
that such persons occur in a text roughly contemporary with the fall of Je
rusalem. Torrey Seland has studied Philo's view on CfjAos and found ma
terial rich in information. In his view, ^nXcoTrjs is in Philo an individual
religious man and does not represent a movement. At any rate, the fact
202
203
204
205
206
2 0 2
See chapter 8.
Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Abraham were true prophets, even if they did not
make miracles {Her. 260-266); see Tiede 1972, 113-115). Tiede supposes that Philo pur
posely omitted Abraham's prayer in Gen 20 (Her. 258), because the prophet had no need
to prove himself divine through miracles (Tiede 1972, 115-116). However, although it is
true that the story is not told in extenso, Philo quotes Gen 20:7: "restore the woman to the
man, because he is a prophet and shall pray for you, and you shall live" (Her. 258). On
the biblical story, see also Abr. 92-98, where the prayer is presumed (Her. 95), but not
highlighted.
See above p. 121. According to Barraclough (1984, 480) Philo "dehistorizes the
coming event to the level of the individual soul", and Mondesert (1999, 898-900) also
emphasizes the non-violent character of Philo's eschatology. However, this is only one
side of the truth. Precisely the spiritual side of the eschatology also could include hopes,
which were not necessarily non-violent, as the violent miracles attest.
See below chapter 8.
Seland 2002, esp. 459-461.
2 0 3
2 0 4
2 0 5
2 0 6
Philo
151
that Philo could add violent traits to his prophet Moses means that the
roots of the movements, which were violent and religious, can be traced
back to a broader tradition of interpretation. Ben Sira and his violent pas
sages attest this tradition in the early second century BC. Josephus tried his
all to show that the "zealotic" prophets had nothing to do with real Juda
ism, but they resembled Philo's Moses more than is usually recognised.
/ God or Moses?
Thus for Philo, Moses was a great miracle-worker. But was it God or
Moses who made these miracles? Moreover, is the Moses in Philo's text a
divine being or a human being? The early advocates of the divine man the
ory considered Philo's Moses a 9eTos avrjp - actually Philo is one of
the few writers who used the phrase (Virt. 177)
- and he has always
been a part of the puzzling question. Tiede's book was an important cri
tique of the divine man hypothesis. He argued that Philo's Moses is 0 e 7 o s
because he is an ideal oo<J>6s and has got ocpnTrj, not because of his mira
cles. However, the decisive turn came with Holladay's book (1977), al
though it has taken a long time for his results to gain the appreciation they
deserve. Runia's (1988) and Hellemans's (1990) studies recently con
firmed Holladay's main results, but it is certainly useful to treat the theme
briefly, especially because Borgen disagrees with Runia.
207
208
209
210
211
The easier of the two questions above is Moses' role in the miracles. Ac
cording to Tiede, Moses' prophecies do not produce miracles but merely
anticipate God's action. Philo seems to avoid describing Moses as a
212
2 0 7
Philo's Moses was already 0e?os avrjp in e.g. Reitzenstein, Windisch and Bieler.
On a history of the research, see Holladay 1977, 101-106 and du Toit 1998, 349-361.
The use of this and related phrases has been studied by Du Toit (1997). A short list
can be found in Koskenniemi 1994, 99-100.
See Meeks 1967, 103-106; Georgi 1964, 152-167. According to Koster 1971 (1970),
201-204 Philo made his Moses a Hellenistic divine man for propagandistic reasons; see
also 173-179. Apparently Tiede's book led Schweizer to doubt the presence of the pattern
in Philo (Schweizer 1973, 534). According to Schottroff "ist Wundertun gerade kein
charakteristisches Merkmal" in Moses' picture (however, he considers him GeTos avrjp
in Philo, 1983,229-230).
Cf. Beegle 1992, 916 "As a 'divine man' Moses is superhuman." According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354-355) Philo makes Moses divine. Holladay's work means a
fundamental turn in the research according to Helleman (1990, 51-52) and du Toit (1997,
361-363); see also the short summary in Koskenniemi 1994, 88-90.
Borgen (1997, 197-205) does not refer to Helleman.
Tiede 1972, 129.
2 0 8
2 0 9
2 1 0
2 1 1
2 1 2
152
Philo
miracle-working hero, and it is true that Moses is generally not the inde
pendent miracle-worker as presented, for example, in Artapanus. However,
Philo is one of the few Jewish writers who scrupulously tries to distinguish
the roles of God and Moses. According to Philo, some of the plagues were
caused by Moses (and Aaron), but some had no human agent. Some texts
reduced Moses' role in the stories or mentioned only God or his wis
dom. Philo, however, gives Moses a significant role. It should not be
overlooked that Philo, like, for example, Jub., distances God from men and
does not put him in dialogues with men. It necessarily means a change of
roles and it gave more room for Moses to act as God's agent. In Kahl's
terminology, the oscillation is marked: Although Philo expressis verbis
attributes some miracles to Moses (or Aaron), he hardly presents Moses as
a BNP. At times he is certainly an MNP, as at the burning bush, or when
mediating the plagues attributed to him in Egypt. Sometimes he is a PNP,
at the Red Sea or in making the water sweet, but it is very difficult to find
any consistent line of thought. Although Moses' human weakness is re
duced and he is no longer the reluctant leader, Philo's rewriting of Exodus
is more motivated by his desire to reduce God's anthropomorphic features
and to remove dialogues between him and Moses than by reflection on
the roles of God and Moses.
214
215
216
But do the miracles raise Moses above other human beings? Philo can say
very surprising things about Moses. As seen above, Philo tends to dissoci
ate all human weakness from Moses. He is not only called 0e?os avrjp
(Virt. 1,777), but Philo clearly says that he is neither a man nor a god but
something between these two: "on the border." The legislator of the
Jews seems to have passed from a man into a god. His partnership with
217
218
2 1 3
Tiede's (1972, 115-117) view is that Philo ignores the possibility of attributing the
miracle to Abraham in Gen 20 when retelling the story in Abr. 93-106. Tiede notes that
the Old Testament passages, in which Moses' role culminates, do not link him with mira
cles and gave no model for Philo to do it (Deut 33:1; Jos 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Ps 90:1; see
Tiede 1972, 102.
See above p. 77.
So also Eve 2002, 66-74, who considers Moses and Aaron as PNPs.
Eve deals thoroughly with some passages in which Philo's words seem to contradict
his basic view that God is the real subject of the miracle; Eve analyses what he said and
what he must have meant (2002, 71-74). It is easier to say that Philo did not have a con
sistent line of thought.
ueBopiov Trjs ccyevrixou Kai <|>0apTf]s <j>uaecos (Somn. 2,234). Philo links the
words with Deut 5:5 ("I stood between the Lord and you"). Cf. the words on the High
Priest, Spec. 1,116 and on parents Spec. 2,225.
"The legislator of the Jews in a bolder spirit went to a further extreme and in the
practice of his 'naked' philosophy, as they call it, ventured to speak of him who was
possessed by love of the divine and worshipped the Self-existent only, as having passed
2 1 4
2 1 5
2 1 6
2 1 7
2 1 8
153
God was of a very special kind. He was deemed worthy to bear the same
title; he was named god and king of the whole nation, and entered into
darkness where God was (Mos. 1,158). Philo seems to believe that
Moses was pre-existent:
219
"And even when God sent him as a loan to the earthly sphere and suffered him to dwell
herein, he gifted him with no ordinary excellence, such that which kings and rulers
have..."
220
Moses' death means that God "resolved his twofold unity, transforming
his whole being into mind, pure as the sunlight" (Mos. 2,288). It is un
derstandable that the passages referred to fuelled the modern discussion
about divine men. As a matter of fact, they were observed surprisingly sel
dom, and Borgen justly emphasizes them.
However, the idea of calling Moses a god did not originate with Philo,
but in Exod 4:16 and 7 : 1 , verses which offered an opportunity to ap
ply the Hellenistic model - if it ever existed. Philo clearly qualifies Moses'
person and status. He is a mortal man (Mos. 2,5), and he is not god for all
parts of the world but only for men (Prob. 42). Actually, he is not a real
god, but only a god for foolish people, and \xi\ irpos aArjBeiccv, 5ofj Se
J J O V O V . Philo also writes that it is impossible for a man to change into a
god, and he considers this claim aor]PTi|jdTcov ... x a t a ^ T a T o v ; a god
could sooner become a man (Legat. 118). Moreover, it is worth noting that
Philo never supports Moses' extraordinary position with miracles.
Prob.
221
222
223
224
225
from a man into a god, though, indeed, a god to men, not to the different parts of the
nature, thus leaving to the Father of all the place of King and God of gods" (Prob. 42).
The passages in which Moses is called a god are Alleg. Interp. 1,40; Det. 161-162;
Mos. 1,158; Mut. 19; 125-129; Prob. 42 and Sacr. 8-10.
Sacr. 9, see Tiede 1972, 125.
On Moses' death, see above p. 127-128.
As noted by Runia the Hebrew text and LXX differ (1988, 53): LXX reads ou Se
auTco lot) TOC Trpos TOV 0s6v. However, Exod 7:1 is translated literally (5e5coKa oe
0e6v Occpaco; see above p. 99.
See Tiede 1972, 123-126; Helleman 1990, 67-70; Goulet 1987, 361-362.
"It follows as a consequence of this that, when Moses is appointed a god unto Phar
aoh', he did not become such in reality, but only by a convention is supposed to be such;
for I do indeed know God as granting favours and giving, but I am unable to conceive of
him as being given; yet it is said in the sacred books, 'I give you as a god to Pharaoh',
that which is given being passive not active; but he that really is must needs be active not
passive. What then do we gather from these words? That the wise man is said to be a god
to the foolish man, but that in reality he is not God, just as the counterfeit four-drachma
piece is not a tetradrachm. But when the wise man is compared with him that is, he will
be found to be a man of God; but when with a foolish man, he will turn out to be one
conceived of as a god, in men's ideas and imagination, not in view of truth and actuality"
(Det. 161-162).
See Tiede 1972, 111-117.
2 1 9
220
221
2 2 2
2 2 3
2 2 4
2 2 5
154
Philo
42 does not mention Pharaoh or the plagues at all. Consequently, it is clear

that it is not the miracle-working Moses who is divine. Moses is 0 e 7 o s be
cause he is c r o w d s , and every ao<|>ds is holy. Philo universalises the
Jewish religion and links it with Greek wisdom and with famous philoso
phers. Of course none o f the pagan philosophers was ao<|)os or 6 e 7 o s as
Moses was.
Plato's idea, as expressed in Theaetetus 176a-b, significantly influenced
Philo's way of dealing with Moses.
Philo not only mentions and hon
ours Plato several times, but even refers to Theaetetus, and precisely to the
passage mentioned above (Fug. 60-64). Philo quotes Plato's words to
the effect that man's task is to "flee this world and become a god as much
as one can" ((JHjyrj 5E O J J O I C O O I S 0eco K a r a T O SuvctTov); this is the model
for the spiritual emigration of Abraham and the Hebrews. Philo uses the
word eo|joicoais (Spec. 4,188, Op. 144). This transformation means a
process of following the godly idea, although Philo does not use the Pla
tonic word METExeiv to illustrate the relationship. In Alleg. Interp. 2,4-5
he uses Gen 2:18 to support this concept: Man made after God's image
does not want to be alone, but seeks God. Moses saw God, who is
TTapa5eiy|jaTiKrj ouaia, which is the reason Moses was T r c c p d 5 e i y | j a
T O T S sBeXouoi ptneToSai and called a god (Mos. 1,158). A human mind is
divine, but as noted by Holladay, Philo makes a sharp distinction between
God and his followers. The transformation has limited possibilities. To
apprehend God a man should become God, but this is impossible (QE Fr.
1 Marcus p. 258). It was not Philo's innovation that Moses was a god, but
because Exod 7:1 called him a god it had to be defined. Instead o f empha
sizing Moses' divinity he reduces it.
227
2 2 6
228
229
230
231
232
233
Philo thus calls Moses a g o d , but there is no reason to apply the problem
atic modern device of divine men to interpret his picture o f Moses. Philo's
2 2 6
0e?os is a word often used of philosophers; see Tiede 1972, 120-124.

The concept is also used in QE 2,40 and although the context is Moses' ascension to
the mountain, it is obviously universalised.
Philo appreciates above all Pythagoreans (TCOV TTuBayopsicov 'lepcoTCCTOv Ofaaov,
Prob. 2-3; see also Moehring 1979, 205-208) and Plato (KCCTOC TOV 'lepeoTOCTOV TTAccxcova, Prob. 13; see also Aet. 52).
Helleman 1990, 52-55. See also Runia 1988, 64-73 highlighting Timaeus 90c, which
calls man's divine part his 5a(|Jcov, and Arist. Protr.fr. 10c.
Philo mentions and praises Plato several times (Prob. 13, see also Aet. 52; Op. 119
and QG 3,3). Timaeus is cited remarkably often (Aet. 13 Timaeus 4\;Aet. 27 Timaeus 32;
Aet. 38 Timaeus 33; 141 Timaeus 24-25). Philo is aware of several views of Plato (Aet
14-16). Theaetetus 176 is also quoted in Fug 82.
See Helleman 1990, 62-63.
Holladay 1977, 235-236; see also Helleman 1990, 66-67.
2 2 7
2 2 8
2 2 9
2 3 0
2 3 1
2 3 2
2 3 3
155
Philo
235
236
Moses is above all an ideal philosopher,

lawgiver, prophet and
ruler, and his main goal is to glorify the Jewish religion by glorifying its
Law-giver. Yet, Philo ascribes to his Moses traits that other human be
ings do not possess. Thus, if consistency was his goal, the task was over
whelming. In the Platonic model he followed, man's mind was divine and
Moses was an excellent Trapd5Eiy|ja, but Philo clearly separated God
from man. This resulted in a dilemma. While Philo attributed excep
tional features to Moses, several Hellenist and Palestinian Jewish writers
treated in the present work emphasized his uniqueness even more than
Philo. The miracles are only one, and not a decisive side, of Moses'
multifaceted picture. They are not denied; on the contrary, they are retold
and used in teaching, but it is hard to isolate the role of miracles in this
picture, because Moses' wisdom and role as God's messenger and prophet
also give him a special status. However, he is 0e?os rather as a philosopher
than as a miracle-worker.
237
238
239
g. Miracles and legitimisation

In Exodus Moses is repeatedly legitimated by the miracles (Exod 4:8-9).
God himself shows that he supports the oppressed when Moses meets his
opponents (Exod 6:12; 6:30). Even the Egyptian sorcerers must recognise
"God's finger" (Exod 8:15). The miracles also legitimate God himself as
Lord of all (Exod 14:17-18). Philo sometimes maintains this function of
the miracles, but in an original way. His paraphrase of Exod 4 especially
reveals Philo's stand on miracles. Moses knows that his own nation will
not believe him and God replies to him:
240
"First tell them that I am He Who Is, that they may learn the difference between what is
and what is not, and also the further lesson that no name at all can properly be used of
me, to whom alone existence belongs. And, if in their natural weakness, they seek some
title to use, tell them not only that I am God, but also the God of the three men whose
2 3 4
Like many Jewish writers, Philo presents Moses as the great teacher of the world.
The young Moses had teachers from Greece, Egypt and Syria, but quickly became wiser
than they (Mos. 1,21-24). Zeno learned his wisdom (Prob. 53-57), possibly Socrates, too
(QG 2,6). Barclay 1992, 39: "In Philo's hands, Moses is the ultimate philosopher in the
Cynic-Stoic tradition."
Moses is presented as a lawgiver also when Philo writes about the creation (Op. 1-2)
and he is proudly paralleled with Lycurgus and Solon (Spec. 3,22-23).
Eve 2002, 65.
See Runia 1988, 73-74.
On Ezek. Trag. see p.81-86 on L.A.B. see 199-205.
See Eve 2002, 59-61.75-84.
2 3 5
2 3 6
2 3 7
2 3 8
2 3 9
2 4 0
156
Philo
names express their virtue, each of them the exemplar of the wisdom they have gained Abraham by teaching, Isaac by nature, Jacob by practice. And, if they still disbelieve,
three signs which no man has ever before seen or heard of will be sufficient lesson to
convert them" (Mos. 1,75-76).
The miracles thus legitimate Moses, but they are not the most significant
means of showing that God has sent Moses. The main means is God him
self and the second that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Philo
follows the order of Exodus - chronologically the miracles follow God's
speech - but the emphasis is new. Moses, however, makes miracles before
his own people "thinking that the sight would convert them from the pre
vailing unbelief to belief in his words" (Mos. 1,90). The miracles manifest
the truth of the Decalogue (Decal. 15-18) and Moses' mission is confirmed
by God's mighty deeds (Mos. 1,95; 2,262).
It is not Philo's own invention that a man should not need miracles to be
lieve God's message; this view is present in several biblical passages.
Philo has preserved the view and even put it in God's words to Moses
quoted above. Because of the "natural weakness" of the Israelites they
need a name for God and miracles to see (Mos. 1,76). Philo does not doubt
that they were effective: the marvellous spectacle "refuted the scepticism
in every ill-disposed person's soul" (Mos. 1,94). The miracles thus should
not be a decisive argument to convince men, but sometimes they were
needed.
241
A legitimisation is thus not a strong function of the miracle stories, al

though it is sometimes preserved. It is clear that Philo's Jewish audience
needed legitimisation for Moses less than the Gentiles, and generally in
Philo this function is only an echo of the biblical texts.
242
243
h. Conclusion
Philo uses the biblical miracle stories in many ways. Although Moses is
almost the only biblical miracle-worker mentioned, his miracles are
treated extensively and vividly. Philo simply retells them freely and even
with enthusiasm, as he generally retells Moses' life including legendary
244
According to Tiede the less prominent role of Aaron shows that the miracles do not
legitimate the divinity of a man (Tiede 1972, 134).
On Philo's audience, see above p. 110.
243 j j j
j phenomena verify God's power, but are only secondary documentation
of Moses' peculiar status" (Tiede 1972, 137).
On the few exceptions concerning Elijah, see above p. 109.
2 4 2
US
2 4 4
s u c
Philo
157
material. Philo is aware of several common details and mentions their

source, the oral Jewish tradition in Alexandria. His general views have
influenced the stories. He has omitted everything that could be interpreted
as God's anthropomorphic or anthropopathic features and consequently
generally reduced Moses' dialogues with God. But above all, the stories
are retold from the perspective of a learned man. Philo is well aware of the
Jewish tradition as, for instance, the story about manna attests, but he
openly applies the Greek theory of the four elements when retelling the
plagues in Egypt.
Although Philo may offer a natural explanation for a biblical story, there
are very few signs of "rationalisation". Such an interpretation was inap
propriate for an ancient Jew. Philo himself says that everything is possible
for God, including the marvellous stories told in the Scripture. He often
exaggerates the miraculous features, as in the plague on the river, the
parched sand under the feet of the Hebrews, or the effects of the bitter wa
ter becoming sweet. If he ever felt the same pressure that allegedly influ
enced Josephus, it did not prevent him retelling the biblical stories. For
Philo, God's great deeds formed a unity, and the biblical miracles were no
problem to him. Nonetheless, it is obvious that man should not need mira
cles to be convinced that he must obey God. Only human weakness, which
is unable to understand God's wisdom, needs miracles.
Moses is often legitimated by miracles in the Scripture. Philo, however,
does not mention this function often. Another function is by far of greater
importance for him. The miracle stories are used for ethical instruction,
which is why they play an important part in Philo's texts. He is particularly
fond of allegorical interpretations of the miracle stories and redacts his
material strongly to bring out his favourite themes: Men must have control
over desire, pleasure and sin, and seek virtue, wisdom and purity. The bib
lical exodus meant above all a spiritual emigration, the path to freedom
from desire and pleasure. The rod of Moses/Aaron, the Egyptian firstborn,
the manna and the quails, and the bronze snake are used to help the audi
ence fight against desire, and to seek virtue, and in so doing avoid the dan
ger of losing self-control and the "return to Egypt", i.e. the power of desire
and pleasures. Philo generally used his exegetical methods to adapt the
biblical material on nations and great events to the life of an individual;
this is also obvious in the miracle stories.
Many passages show that Philo was able to adapt and contemporize the
miracle stories. Although it is difficult to find convincing evidence for the
view that Philo covertly attacked Gaius, his reflections on good and bad
rulers are present in his production. He did not like native Egyptians,
which undoubtedly made it easier to use Egypt as the representative of
everything bad in the stories in Exodus. But he also used the stories to em-
158
phasize the importance and the role o f a good education or the significance
of the Sabbath. Surprisingly, however, the anti-Jewish propaganda cer
tainly known to him influenced his rewriting very little. His mission was to
universalise the Jewish religion, and he sought Gentile readers, especially
in Vita Mosis, which led him to omit the biblical words on the strange
manner of sacrifice in the desert. In his view, God created the world and
gave the Law. Consequently, all real wisdom is compatible with the bibli
cal stories and the biblical stories with all real wisdom, and Philo does not
hesitate to use the stories to reject and to accept the Greek philosophical
traditions. The Egyptian sorcerers were a o ^ i o x a i , i.e. false and seductive
philosophers. That Moses lacked eloquence meant that he did not use his
skills as they did. Although the Epicureans are seldom mentioned, their
views are constantly attacked. On the other hand, the entire spiritual emi
gration described above is compatible with the Platonic model, and Philo
himself quotes Theaetetus and its key passages.
Early Judaism described Moses as both a prophet and a miracle-worker.
Philo does too. However, the combination of these two elements is ex
tremely interesting in his works. Although the background for his works is
not fervent Palestine, life in Alexandria was not always peaceful in the
Jewish TToXiTEU|ja. As a new element, Philo introduces religious ecstasy to
several biblical stories. Moreover, on several occasions he highlights the
violent miracles of the prophet Moses. This means that he stood closer to
the later, violent charismatic figures than is usually understood.
Philo, who had a developed eschatological hope of the future of Israel,
himself witnesses an important function of the biblical miracles, especially
the miracles of Moses. These miracles played an important role in Judaism
and were part of the history shaping the identity of the nation. The ten
dency to define the nation on the basis of the past is strongly attested in
Psalms and in the later literature. Ben Sira is a link in a long chain. Philo
attests that the tradition continued, and was very strong in Hellenistic
Egypt. The great miracles of Exodus were the reason why the Jewish
choirs continually praised God in their hymns (Spec. 2,217-219; Cont. 8587). Exodus was part of the glorious past always present in Judaism. Philo
had no need to highlight the tendency, which was current in his time.
Moses and his miracles were a cornerstone of the Jewish national identity.
No wonder that the Jewish war had an epilogue in Cyrene, when Jonathan
led people to the desert to show them orjiJeTa Kai (|>da|jaTa (B.J. 7,437450; Vita 432-435).
Although Philo's Moses was once an important piece of evidence for the
BeTos dvrjp theory, he cannot be used for this purpose. Philo admittedly
159
honours Moses in an exceptional manner, but he is not responsible for

Moses being called a god. He quotes Exod 7:1 and defines the context in
which a wise man can be called divine, using the Platonic model as the
basis of his interpretation. Moses, of course, is the best example of a wise
man and bpoicoais 8EC3, but Philo her uses the biblical miracle stories
sparingly and favours other ways to emphasize Moses' special status. Philo
generally distances God honourably from dialogues with men, which led
him to edit the stories. Consequently, it is difficult to find a consistent role
for Moses in the stories. Sometimes he appears as an MNP, sometimes as a
PNP, but this is the consequence of avoiding anthropomorphism and not a
result of a consistent reflection on the roles.

a. Introduction
The intention of early criticism was to survey all miracle stories relevant to
the interpretation of the New Testament. Masters, such as Bultmann, ob
served not only Christian stories about saints but also traditions from the
Middle Ages in Lithuania, and among the American Indians or African
peoples. A collection of lives of the Old Testament prophets, Vitae Prophetarum, falsely attributed to Epiphanius, was seldom even mentioned
and studied even less.
The Lives of the Prophets is a collection of texts which has divided the
views of scholars and still does. It has been dated from the early first cen
tury or markedly later; it is considered to be a Jewish or a Christian text
written originally either in Hebrew or Greek. That it is of Palestinian
provenance seems to be unquestionable. The careful commentary of Anna
Maria Schwemer now seems to have solved the problems. The collection
was redacted in the first Christian century; it is a Jewish, not a Christian
work, although it contains some Christian interpolations, and was written
in bilingual Palestine.
1
The Lives is copied in several Greek versions, and moreover, in Syriac, Armenian,
Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin and Hebrew (see Schwemer 1995, 12-22; Satran 1995, 9-16).
The text has been known since 1622 and is included in Migne, PG 43, 393-413 (see
Goodman and Vermes 1987, 783-784). However, it was hardly observed in scholarship;
see Nestle 1893, 1-6; Satran 1995, 16-29. Even the German edition of Schurer (1909)
does not contain a chapter on it.
Scholars who consider the collection written by Christians (de Jonge 1961-1962, 161178, Satran 1995) dare not date it exactly.
The Christian elements are obvious in all manuscripts; see Torrey 1946, 9; Jeremias
1958, 11-13; Hare 1992, 502-503; Schwemer 1995, 11.3-34.
Torrey considered the original language Hebrew (1946,1.7) and was followed by
Jeremias (1958, 12). Schermann (1907b, 119-121.131-132) opposed the view that the
collection is only a translation from a Hebrew original, and assumed a "hebraische
Grundschrift" (followed by Wolff 1976, 42). Greek is supposed, among others, by Stone
(1972, 1150) and Hare (1985, 380; 1992, 502-503). On the history of research, see
Schwemer 1995, 56-58.
Only the Life of Jeremiah points to Egypt. Torrey supposed that the story was told or
written by an Egyptian (1946, 10-11); see also Schwemer 1995, 65-66.
Studien zu den fruhjiidischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum, 1995-1996.
Hare agrees in his introduction with Schwemer on all essential points (1985, 3802
161
None of these judgements was new, but all were represented in the his
tory of research. They were challenged in a book by David Satran, which
he published in 1995, the same year that Schwemer published the first part
of her own commentary. According to Satran the work is late and mainly a
Christian product, but his view is not generally accepted and he admitted
himself recently that he represents a minority. Today we have no reason
to doubt that the Lives of the Prophets is a Jewish work, given its obvious
Christian interpolations, and that the work was copied in the Christian tra
dition alone, without any evidence of its use in Qumran. The youngest tra
ditions in the original collection date to the first Christian century. The
work was collected and redacted soon after this period, probably around
the fall of the Second Temple. The collection thus mirrors the life of the
Palestinian Jews under the sometimes harsh Roman rule, and MittmannRichert justly notes that this point of view is seldom observed well
enough.
Schwemer seems to have defined well the literary form of the Lives actually the early editors freely added the titles 6 T O U ( J I O S . . . Trpo<j)r]TOu
or similar phrases. They follow a clear pattern and tell the name, place of
birth, deeds, death and the grave of each prophet. The Lives were neither
meant to be a Reisefuhrer for the pilgrims nor can they be labelled as
encomia. As in Ben Sira's Laus patrum, the Lives have been influenced
by Greek short biographies, which we know, for example, from the work
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
382), and so does Mittmann-Richert (2000, 156-158). The "English Schurer", i.e. Vermes
and Goodman, is surprisingly uncertain both concerning the original language and date
(1987, 783-786).
Satran 1984, 56-60 is very cautious and does not oppose the communis opinio; he
only observes the open questions. However, in 1980 he already expressed his view that
the Lives was not a first century Jewish composition (1980, 47). Before Satran, this view
was held especially by de Jonge (1961-1962, 161-178). Satran underlines that the geo
graphical names in the Lives have no parallels in the Rabbinic literature and there is no
other evidence for venerating the prophets' tombs than Jesus' words in Matt 23:29-30
and Luke 11:48-49 (Satran 1995, 34-50), the role of the miracles (1995, 46-58) and the
affinity with the ideals and practices of the Christian monks (1995, 79-96).
Satran 2000, 69.
There seem to be two points which offer a terminus ante quern. The wall of Herod
Agrippa was not built (Liv. Pro. 1:4) and Elijah's birthplace was under Nabatean control,
which ended in A.D.106 (Liv. Pro. 21:1); see Torrey 1946, 11-12; Hare 1985, 380-381
and Schwemer 1995, 68-69.
Mittmann-Richert 2000, 159-162.
See Schwemer 1995, 34-35.
This was the opinion of Jeremias, although he considered Fischel's formulation
("strongly resemble guides to the graves of the prophets", 1946-47, 375) "eine iiberspitzte Formulation", because the collection includes no route (1958, 11). See Schwemer
1995, 36-38.
Schwemer 1995, 39.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
162
of Diogenes Laertius. The Greek short lives could be used as reference in

private and public libraries to give the biographical information on a writer
in an easy form. Such a need was obvious to every student of the books of
the prophets, and Schwemer's view that the lives were Beihefte for these
books is plausible. It means that although written in Greek, the Lives
were mainly intended for a Jewish audience, and their content confirms
this view.
17
An obvious feature of the Lives are the numerous miracle stories. Satran
took them as a clear sign that the Lives were not of Jewish but of Christian
origin, because, according to him, only Ben Sira had connected the proph
ets with miracles; several problems, however, are involved with that
view. Firstly, precisely Ben Sira witnesses that the prophet could be linked
with miracles in early Judaism. Secondly, the men described in Liv. Pro.
were not the only ones considered prophets. Moses could also be inter
preted as a prophet - "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from
among their brothers" (Deut 18:18) - and his miracles were commonplace
in early Judaism. Philo writes about the miracles of the prophet Moses.
Joshua is called a prophet in Ben Sira (Sir 46:1) and Josephus (Ant. 4,165).
Thirdly, as the present study, along with many others, shows, Liv. Pro. is
not the only work retelling the miracles of the prophets. Josephus retells
the deeds of the biblical prophets and Pseudo-Philo introduces new pro
phetical and miracle-working figures.
The Lives of the Prophets is thus a text among several dealing with the
miracles of the biblical prophets and is not a valid argument for consider
ing the text Christian and not Jewish. In spite of Schwemer's work, the
role of the miracles is a subject for further study. Eve only offers some
superficial observations on the Lives, and except for Satran's view that
the stories are written by a Christian hand we have only a few, and very
different, views on the role of the miracles in the collection. Whereas
Christian Wolff strongly emphasised the miracles ("ganz massiver Wunderglaube"), Schwemer considers them clearly less important in the
work. A closer study would clearly be useful.
18
19
20
11
22
23
16
24
Schwemer 1995, 43-50; 1997, 544-545. On the genre, see also p. 18-19.
Schwemer 1995,50-52.
Satran 1995, 56-58.
See below chapters 8 and 9.
Eve 2002, 249-250. 254.263.
Wolff 1976, 83-89. See Schwemer's comment, 1995, 174.
Hare's translation is used in the present study. However, the numbers are taken from
Schwemer's Greek text compatible with Torrey.
On the use of the Septuagint in the Lives, see Schwemer 1994, 62-91.
17
18
19
2 0
21
2 2
2 3
2 4
163
b. Isaiah
The Life of Isaiah does not retell the Old Testament stories characterising
the prophet as an independent miracle-worker. Isa 38:1-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11
contains the story about Hezekiah's healing, in which the shadow goes
back ten steps; and Isa 37:14-37 / 2 Kgs 19:14-37 tells how God saved
Jerusalem. Even here Isaiah plays a role, although a minor one, which can
aptly be characterised as MNP.
On the differences between the Hebrew text and the LXX in these stories, see p. 40.
25
Although there are no traces of the biblical traditions treated by Ben Sira
and Josephus (who definitely attributes the miracle to God, Ant. 10,26-29),
other miracles take their place. The Life of Isaiah tells that the prophet
was killed by being sawn in two, and a miracle occurs at the moment of his
death:
26
"And God worked the miracle of Siloam for the prophet's sake, for being faint before he
died, he prayed for water to drink, and immediately it was sent to him from it; therefore it
is called Siloam, which means 'sent'. And in the time of Hezekiah, before he made the
cisterns and the pools, in response to the prayer of Isaiah, a little water came out, for the
nation was besieged by foreigners and (this happened) in order that the city might not
perish for lack of water. For the enemies were asking: 'From where are they drinking?'
If, then, the Jews were coming, water would come out but if foreigners (approached), (it
would) not. Wherefore to this day it comes out intermittently, in order that the mystery
may be manifested" (Liv. Pro. 1:2-4).
27
The miracle (or||je?ov) is attributed to God rather than to the prophet,

who only acts as a PNP, but it is undoubtedly worth mentioning in the pre
sent work. The story shows how a prophet should be remembered. The
water of Siloam was a well-known mystery in the first century A.D. It is
mentioned in John 9 and understandably taken as evidence of Christian
influence on Liv. Pro. by the scholars generally arguing for that view.
28
29
2 5
See p. 3 9 - 4 1 .
2 6
See Jeremias 1 9 5 8 , 6 1 - 6 7 and Schwemer's commentary, 1 9 9 5 , 1 2 2 - 1 4 6 .

See above p. 7 4 - 7 5 . The use of the words or|ue?ov and Tepees is notable in the Lives.
Tepees almost always points to eschatological events. ormsTov is used rarely and it be
longs often, although not exclusively, to the later stage of the tradition; see Schwemer
2 7
1 9 9 5 , 8 2 - 8 7 , 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 ; for the use of the words, see also Satran 1 9 9 5 , 6 3 - 6 8 ; 2 0 0 0 , 7 3 .

28
The reason for the phenomenon was a subterranean siphon caused by a geological
formation (Hare 1 9 8 5 , 3 8 6 ) . It is not clear whether the spring was inside or outside the
wall. If it was outside it implies the setting before the new south wall was built by Herod
Agrippa in A.D. 4 1 - 4 4 , as supposed by Hare 1 9 8 5 , 3 8 1 . However, I'xovTes TT^V TTOAIV is
very difficult and it is may not be adequate to identify the enemies in v. 4 (on the ques
tion see Schwemer 1 9 9 5 , 1 3 0 - 1 3 6 ) .
2 9
Satran 1 9 9 5 , 5 3 - 5 4 .
164
However, the etymology of the phenomenon is different in the two texts,

and the water in Siloam is also an important theme in Josephus, who, in his
speech included in B.J. 5,411, tries to stop the rebellion by pointing to the
waters of Siloam. There is no need to see a Christian influence here.
But what were the inmost thoughts of those telling and writing the story
of Isaiah and the miraculous well? Although the Lives was not a Reisefuhrer for pilgrims, the Life of Isaiah links a well-known, local mysterious
phenomenon with the holy man of the past, and shows that sacred history
was also a part of the present. Simultaneously, mention of the enemy re
minded one of danger, although the events described by Josephus had not
yet occurred.
The passage in Ben Sira represents the peak of Isaiah's reputation as a
miracle-worker in early Judaism. Josephus attributes the miracle to God,
and the story in the Life of Isaiah does not present Isaiah as an independent
miracle-worker, but as a man closely associated with God's miracles. This
is the view in the Old Testament. Isaiah was never accorded the role of an
independent miracle-worker like Elijah or Elisha, either in Liv. Pro. or
elsewhere in the Jewish tradition before the end of the Tannaitic era.
Many other Lives offer much more material for the present study than the
Life of Isaiah, but the story about Siloam is certainly worth noting. An im
portant feature, or rather lack of it, must be observed. In one part of the
tradition the death of the prophet is presented as the work of Beliar and the
false prophets; and the Book of Jubilees connected the miracles with the
war between good and evil spirits. It is difficult to separate the parts be
longing to the Jewish original from the Christian redaction in Martyrdom
and Ascension of Isaiah, but even the Jewish original appears to have con
sidered the death of the prophet as an episode in the war between the good
and evil powers (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1-5). This interpretation does not oc
cur in the Life of Isaiah, although Beliar is mentioned in the Life of Daniel
(4:6; 22) and the Life of Nathan (17,2). It is easy to agree with Hare: The
dualism is present but it is not emphasised.
31
32
33
3 0
Hare 1983, 384. On the question see also Schwemer 1995, 127-128.
See Becker 2002, 261-289.
Nickelsburg (1984a, 52) attributes l,l-2a; 1,7-3 and 12; and 5,1-14 to the Jewish
legend. Beliar dwells in Manasseh's heart, uses a false prophet as his agent and martyrs
Isaiah. It is difficult to date the legend, which has a very dualistic view, but it may be
long to the Maccabean period (Nickelsburg 1984a, 54-55; Knibb 1985, 149).
Hare 1985, 382. Schwemer, too, notes the feature: "Manasse wird nicht damonisiert"
(1995, 104).
31
3 2
3 3
165
c. Jeremiah
Jeremiah's only miracles in the Old Testament are his prophecies. The Life
proudly presents this prophetic office and even expands it, and new fea
tures are added to the prophet's life. Jeremiah, similar to Isaiah, is mainly
treated not as an independent miracle-worker, but the miraculous deeds
God does using his person cannot be excluded from the present study.
Some texts imply that he was linked with miracles elsewhere and that we
actually know only a part of a rich tradition. Matthew 16:14 says that one
guess of the people was that the miracle-working Jesus was Jeremia redivivus. Moreover, in Judah's vision, Jeremiah gives a sword from heaven to
the Jews (2 Mace 15:13-16). The Life also tells that the buried prophet is
famous for his miracles.
34
"He was buried in the environs of Pharaoh's palace, because the Egyptians held him in
high esteem, having benefited through him. For he prayed, and the asps left him, and the
monsters of the waters, which the Egyptians call Nephoth and the Greeks crocodiles.
And those who are God's faithful pray at the place to this very day, and taking the dust of
the place they heal asp's bites.
And we have heard from the children of Antigonus and Ptolemy, old men, that Alexan
der the Macedonian, after standing at the prophet's grave and witnessing his mysteries
(MUOTrjpicc), transferred his remains to Alexandria and placed them in a circle around
(the city) with due honour; and the whole race of asps was kept from the land, and from
the river likewise the crocodiles. And to the same end he introduced the snakes which are
called Argolai, which means 'snake-fighters', which he brought from Argos of the Pelo
ponnesus, whence they are also called Argolai, that is, 'fortunate ones from Argos'; for
everything fortunate they call laia" (Liv. Pro. 2:2-7).
35
36
The protection against snakes occurs in Graeco-Roman as well as in Jew

ish culture. It is presented in the Life in two stories related to each other.
The Egyptian practice is described in 2-4 and Alexander's veneration of
Jeremiah in 5-7.
Snakes were a terrible threat to be blocked in the Greek world. Every
Greek with an elementary education had heard about Laocoon's death (for
example, in Vergile Aen. 2,40-46; 199-231; Apollod. Epit. 5,17-18). The
Egyptians were traditionally protected from snakes and crocodiles by Ho3 4
EuAov in Liv. Pro. 2:10 is either a negative allusion to gentile veneration of the cross
or an expression of the Christian creed (Hare 1985, 388). The latter alternative is the
more plausible; see Wolff 1976, 37; Schwemer 1995, 215-217.
Torrey (1946, 49-52) took the reading' E<|>co0 from manuscripts Ep 2 and Dor and
considered that the alleged Hebrew original did not speak about crocodiles, but about
snakes (followed by Jeremias 1958, 108-109; see also Wolff 1976, 42). However, the
Life is correct in saying that the Egyptians called the crocodile efot or later nefot; see
Schwemer 1995, 176-177.
Schwemer deals extensively with the passage in her commentary (1995, 173-193).
See also Jeremias 1958, 108-111; Wolff 1976,40-43.
3 5
3 6
166
rus. The numerous stelaes and amulets of Horus support the view that the
Life of Jeremiah, unlike the other lives, is obviously rooted in the Egyptian
Jewish tradition. According to Jer 43, Jeremiah was, indeed, brought to
Egypt, and this passage certainly gives a background to the Life?
The motif of snakes was, however, also commonplace in Judaism. The
well-known story in Num 21:4-9 shows that they were part of the common
heritage. Job 20:19 tells about the final punishment of a godless man:
37
"He will suck the poison of serpents;

the fangs of an adder will kill him."
Also, Jeremiah speaks about snakes:

"'See, I will send venomous snakes among you,
vipers that cannot be charmed, and they will bite you', declares the Lord" (Jer 8:17).
Jeremiah speaks about "charming" the snakes, which is closely connected

with magic. Actually, also demons could take the form of snakes, and the
threat of and protection against snakes could be very close to magic. Hanina ben Dosa was bitten by a snake but did not stop his prayer and his dis
ciples found the snake dead (t. Ber. 3:20); the traditions concerning him
reveal that some teachers regarded his skill as magic. Wisdom, riDDn,
could include this type of activity, and this is clearly stated in the gnostic
Acts of Thomas (111).
The writer of the Life of Jeremiah, or the tradition behind him, had a
popular dual heritage showing common traits. Snakes were a danger that
could be averted by magical practices both in Greek and Jewish thought.
However, it is the Graeco-Egyptian tradition that dominates here, and it is
interesting that the Life shows a positive attitude towards native Egyptians
(Liv. Pro. 2:2). Nevertheless, the Greek population in Egypt and Alexan39
40
41
42
3 7
See Torrey 1946, 10-11; Schwemer 1995, 65.

The crucial passages are Jer 8:17 cited above, Isa 13:22 LXX; Ps 58:6; Eccl 10:11 and
2 Kgs 18:4. See Colpe 1976c, 568-569; Maier 1976, 581; Bocher 1981, 276.
See Becker 2002, 337-378.
On the mantic and magical side of the wisdom in Israel, see especially Muller 1980,
376-378.
Schwemer observes that the Egyptians esteemed the prophet. This is exceptional in
the Jewish texts, which generally do not highlight the good relations between the Jews
and native Egyptians. According to her, a similar attitude is attested in T. Jos. and in
Artapanus (1995, 172). However, a closer study of Artapanus' fragments shows that he,
as well as Philo and Josephus, rather felt contempt for the native Egyptians. He has noth
ing negative to say about the Greeks, but the Egyptians are presented as the friendly,
simple and stupid masses, who are led by evil people (see Koskenniemi 2002). This
means that the amiable remarks in Liv. Pro. are even more significant and the reasons
should be investigated. The pride in the prophet may be enough to explain it.
3 8
3 9
4 0
41
4 2
167
der the Great is more important: Jeremiah and his prayer took over the pro
tective function among the Jews.
This power is allegedly honoured by the pagans as well. Alexander had
acknowledged the miraculous power (puaTrjpia) of the prophet in the leg
end and transferred his remains from Taphnai to Alexandria. Jeremias saw
the similarity between the Life and Historia Alexandri Magni, in which
Alexander let the boundary of the new city be marked with flour. In the
Jewish version, either the bones of the prophet or possibly the dust in the
place he was buried took the place of the flour, showing that the tradition
sets the Jewish prophet above the pagan helper. The Jewish story is influ
enced by the pagan tradition, but the national enthusiasm allowed it.
The detail of people taking dust from Jeremiah's place of burial to heal
the asp's bites is also interesting because of the therapeutic technique.
Schwemer mentions a very close, but late parallel from Acts of Thomas
170, where dust was taken from the place at which the apostle was mar
tyred in order to expel a demon. We do not have other and earlier paral
lels to the alleged practice, but undoubtedly such healings occurred in
Egypt. The handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul mentioned in the New Tes
tament (Acts 19:12) can also serve as analogies.
43
44
Jeremiah thus protects people from snakes and crocodiles. Moreover, he

acts miraculously in taking and hiding the ark.
"This prophet, before the capture of the temple, seized the ark of the Law and the things
in it, and made them to be swallowed up in a rock. And to those standing by him he said:
'The Lord has gone away from Zion into heaven and will come again in power. And this
will be for you a sign of his coming, when all the gentiles worship a piece of wood.'
And he said: 'This ark no one is going to bring out except Aaron, and none of the priests
or prophets will any longer open the tablets in it except Moses, God's chosen one.' And
in the resurrection the ark will be the first to be resurrected and will come out of the rock
and be placed on Mount Sinai, and all the saints will be gathered to it there as they await
the Lord and flee from the enemy who wishes to destroy them.' In the rock with his fin
ger he set as a seal the name of God, and the impression was like a carving made with
iron, and a cloud covered the name, and no one knows the place nor is able to read the
name to this day and to the consummations. And the rock is in the wilderness, where the
ark was at first, between the two mountains on which Moses and Aaron lie. And at night
there is a cloud like fire, just like the ancient one, for the glory of God will never cease
from his law. And God bestowed this favour upon Jeremiah, that he might himself per
form the completion of his mystery, so that he might become a partner of Moses, and
they are together to this day" (Liv. Pro. 2:9-15).
It is understandable that the destiny of the ark after the fall of Jerusalem
interested the Jews. We know several variations of the story, in which it
4 3
Jeremias 1958, 108-110. Hist. Alex. Magn. made use of an earlier source from the
first century B.C.; see Pfister 1914 and Schwemer 1995, 180-183.
"Schwemer 1995, 178.
168
was saved and hidden. The Jewish tradition concerning the saved ark
names different agents. Eupolemus (c. 150 B.C.) attributes it to Jeremiah
(Euseb. Praep. ev. 9,39,2-5), which is also attested in 2 Mace 2:4, 4 Bar.
3 and 4QApcrJer. Pseudo-Philo lets God himself say that he will take the
precious stones and tablets from the temple and store them "in the place
from which they were taken in the beginning" (L.A.B. 26,13). Baruch sees
(2 Bar. 6:3-9) an angel saving the holy things of the Temple, and in several
rabbinic texts it is Elijah. The writer of the Life of Jeremiah thus takes
material from a strong Jewish tradition. I doubt whether Kahl's categories
can be used here, but Jeremiah is remarkably active in the Life: He seizes
the ark of the law and causes it to be swallowed up by a rock. According to
the Life, the ark will be resurrected again at the end of the world. It waits
for Moses and Aaron. The cloud-like fire, the ancient sign of God's pres
ence in the desert, defends the place where Jeremiah wrote the holy name
with his finger. The passage is extraordinarily interesting and important,
especially for two reasons.
That the prophet resembled Moses and became his "partner" (auyKoi
vcovos) should be a warning not to draw a sharp line between a miracleworking prophet and the miracle-working Moses. Philo was, as seen,
very fond of the miracle-working prophet Moses. As a matter of fact, in
Liv. Pro. Ezekiel also has some traits of Moses. The leader of the people
was easily regarded as a prophet and a prophet as a leader of the people.
The second feature of the passage, the strong eschatological colouring
common in the texts dealing with the hiding or resurrection of the ark, also
occurs in many other Lives. Jeremiah knew that the temple was de
stroyed, but was waiting for the end of the world. The prophet and escha
tology generally go hand in hand in the Lives of the Prophets. The function
of the story and the intended audience are closely connected with its escha
tology: The story is not contemporized here, but it offered an opportunity
to use the traditions of the past to illuminate the present. MittmannRichert's observation that the collection mirrors the situation of the Jewish
people living under Roman rule is important here. The prophets could be
remodelled to resemble Moses and thus be given a new eschatological mis46
47
48
49
50
51
52
4 5
4 6
TauTrjv (sc. KI(3COTOV) 5E T C V lepeuiav KCCTCXOXSTV.
4 7
See Schwemer 1995, 206.

On this passage, see Schwemer 1995, 217-220.
The eschatological colouring is present, for example, in the Lives of Ezekiel, Elijah,
Daniel and Jonah.
Mittmann-Richert 2000, 159-162.
4 8
4 9
5 0
51
52
169
sion. These two features help us to understand people like Theudas, the
Egyptian and Jonathan.
Unhappily, we only have fragments from the later tradition of Jeremiah.
The Life and the short mentions quoted above, however, attest that he had
the reputation of a miracle-worker and that he was never forgotten.
53
d. Ezekiel
The Old Testament does not tell about the miracles of the prophet Ezekiel,
only about his prophecies. The Life of Ezekiel, on the contrary, relates
many mighty deeds by him. It is short, although one of the longest in the
collection, and consists mainly of miracles. The Life of Ezekiel and the Life
of Daniel were arguments used by Satran to show that the whole collection
was mainly Christian and not Jewish, because, according to him, no Jewish
writer was so fond of miracles.
The Z//e contains the following passages which must be observed:
Crossing of Chebar, an abundant supply of fish, helping the men at the
moment of death, the wonder of dead bones and the punishing wonder of
the reptiles.
54
Crossing of Chebar (6-10)

55
"This prophet gave a portent (repots eScoKe) to the people, so that they should pay
attention to the river Chebar: When it failed they should set their hope in the scythe
which desolates to the end of the earth, and when it flooded, in the return to Jerusalem.
For the saint also lived there, and many used to congregate to him. And once when there
was a multitude with him, the Chaldeans were afraid that they would rebel, and came up
against them to destroy them. And he made the water stop (oxfjvai) so that they might
escape by getting to the other side. And those of the enemies who dared to pursue were
drowned."
56
When compared to the Old Testament, the passage is simply an addendum.

The advice to pay attention to water as an eschatological sign often occurs
in Jewish literature. The story about the people finding a safe way
through waters is much more interesting, and it has both Greek and Jewish
parallels.
57
58
5 3
See below p. 171.

On the Life, see Schwemer 1995, 238-295 and Satran 2000, 69-75.
On the word xepas in the Lives, see above p. 163.
On the story, see Schwemer 1995, 276-278 and Satran 2000, 73-74.
Listed by Schwemer 1995, 271.
There is no reason to follow Jeremias' view (1958, 112) based on ms. Ep. 1, accord
ing to which the event is said to have happened on the tomb of the prophet and that the
people consisted of pilgrims (see Hare 1985, 389).
5 4
55
5 6
5 7
5 8
170
Opening the sea for a multitude was not unknown to the Greeks. Alexan
der's marvellous conquest was embellished with a miraculous event told
by Arrian, Anabasis 1,26,1 and Strabo 14,3,9. Josephus rarely cites the
Greek poets and perhaps knew them poorly, but he was an expert in the
Greek historians. He was, of course, aware of the stories told about Alex
ander and cites them (Ant. 2,347). They were certainly well-known in early
Judaism.
Although the Greeks knew similar stories, the Jewish heritage offers
more material to compare with the story told in the Life. Moses is clearly a
model for Ezekiel, who is reinterpreted throughout the Life. Ezekiel not
only sees the heavenly original of the temple, as Moses did, but also re
peats the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 14). The story is closely connected
with the preceding eschatological words (yap). The motif was vividly
alive in early Judaism. The story of Elijah and Elisha has possibly been
influenced by the stories about Moses (2 Kgs 2:7-8). The Fourth Book of
Ezra (c. A.D. 100) gives an important parallel. Ben Sira quoted Mai 4:5-6
with a crucial emendation, namely, that Elijah would collect the ten tribes
once lost in Assyria (Sir 48:10). Even Josephus says that an immense
number of these people lived beyond the Euphrates (Ant. 11,133). Now 4
Ezr. 13:39-50 deals with them, and shows that they were never forgotten;
God stopped the waters for them, and will do it again in the last times to
let them return to their country. Liv. Pro. admittedly speaks about the cap
tives taken from Judah, not from Israel, but the similarities between the
stories are too great to be overlooked. They reveal a common tradition.
The miracle at the Red Sea was never forgotten in Jewish literature, but
lived on in the Psalms and in the hymns of choirs, and was always present
in early Judaism.
Although the link to Moses and the Red Sea is obvious, there is no rea
son to exclude Joshua and the crossing of the Jordan from the background
of the Life. Ben Sira, admittedly, does not mention this miracle and
Josephus seems to make it more "rational", but this event was retold in
several variants. Texts containing this tradition have been recovered in
both Qumran and Masada. Moreover, although the Tosefta contains very
few miracle stories, the crossing of the Jordan is retold and strongly exag
gerated (t. Sotah S-A-6).
59
60
61
62
63
64
5 9
Satran 2000, 74.

Schwemer, who is well aware of the pagan parallels, presumes a Jewish tradition
behind Liv. Pro. (1995, 278).
See p. 26 and 249-250.
See p. 251-254.
See below p. 252.
See Becker 2002,211-212.
6 0
61
6 2
6 3
6 4
171
Ezekiel's manner of acting and the target audience are interesting ques
tions. The prophet does not pray to God, who is not even mentioned. Eze
kiel is remarkably independent, and if only this passage were studied, he
would undoubtedly be seen as a BNP making the miracle alone. Although
this feature is played down because of the context, it is interesting, and
tells much about the role of the prophet. The intended audience consisted
of Jews, and more precisely of Jews well aware of their historical situation
and hoping for better times.
The literary stories, but also historical persons, attest the strong afterlife
of the miracle at the Red Sea in early Judaism. The Life tells about the
Jewish multitude gathered peacefully, and about the Chaldeans, who were
afraid that the Jews would rebel. This was all too well known in the first
century AD to receive mention coincidentally. The Chaldeans had not
been a threat for centuries. Roman soldiers, however, acted exactly as the
Chaldeans had in the Life. Many reports show that they did not hesitate to
first attack a multitude gathered without permission, and ask questions
afterwards. In this manner they slaughtered the militant or non-militant
Jewish people brought together by the Egyptian, Theudas and Jonathan, as
well as the Samaritans at their holy mountain. Josephus is naturally un
derstanding towards this kind of behaviour, especially if the attack was
initiated by Vespasian and if the Samaritans were the target. He also re
veals the Roman point of view (B.J. 2,258-260; 3,307-315):A crowd of
people meant the first step towards a rebellion. The Law of the Twelve
Tablets forbade unauthorised gatherings. If that was true in Rome con
cerning its own citizens, it was clear that such spontaneous meetings were
not allowed in Palestine.
In addition to the fear of the "Chaldeans", some historical events were
topical. Many men tried to imitate the great miracles of the Exodus and the
conquest of the Holy Land. It is useless to discuss whether Theudas, who
wanted to stop the flow of the Jordan, saw himself as Moses redivivus or
Josua redivivus. He was a combination of the two, at least in the thoughts
65
66
67
68
69
6 5
See Hengel 1989b, 230.

See Josephus B.J. 2,261-263; 7,437-450; Ant. 20,97-98; 20,167-172; Vita 423-425.
There is no need to take these events as arguments for a late date of the Lives. They
rather reflect the reality of the first century BC.
Noted by Smith (1999, 566), who apparently points to Latro, decl. in Cat. 19.
On Theudas, see Acts 5:36 and Jos. Ant. 20,97-98; and Barnett 1981, 680-681;
Hengel 1989b, 229-230; Horsley and Hanson 1985, 164-167; Hemer 1989, 162-163.224225; Gray 1993, 114-116; Schwemer 1995, 277; Lichtenberger 1998, 18; Jervell 1998,
210; Gabba 1999, 143; Schreiber 2000, 293-294.
Barnett (1981, 681) sees Moses and possibly even Joshua in Theudas; Lichtenberger
(1998, 18) mentions both; Horsley and Hanson (1985, 166) and Aune (1983, 127) men
tion also Elijah and Elisha.
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
172
of the people following him. The miracle of stopping the Jordan had, of
course, lost its original function. The way through the waters would not
help his troops flee from Egypt or conquer the Holy Land. Nevertheless, it
should legitimate the man repeating the Old Testament miracles as a leader
sent by God.
The Life of Ezekiel thus significantly combines the multitude, miracles
and attack of the enemies. Also, the eschatological colouring of the pas
sage has to be carefully observed, especially because it also occurs in 4
Ezr. and in the historical figure of Theudas. Schwemer correctly notes the
power of such thoughts: Without them, it would have been impossible for
Theudas to amass the crowd.
70
71
The abundant supply of fish (v. 11a):
"Through prayer he furnished them of his own accord with an abundant supply of fish."
The Life reports very briefly, in only a few words, the miraculous feeding,
which is again an addition to the Old Testament. However, it is possible,
as both Schwemer and Satran suppose, that Ezek 47:10 formed the start
ing-point for the tradition as Ezek 37:1-14 produced a miracle-story.
Now only a prayer was needed and an abundant meal to appear - the
prophet acts as a typical PNP.
72
73
LXX gives no support for any speculations on this verse.
Miracles in which a people were fed with fish or other food were not very
common in the Graeco-Roman culture. Stories about human miracleworkers were generally uncommon in classical antiquity before 150 AD,
and as far as I know they do not include a parallel to this. Schwemer
quotes the story about Pythagoras, but although the tradition may be early,
the text by Iamblichus is late (v.P. 36); Dillon actually takes the passage
as evidence that Iamblichus intended to imitate the Gospels.
While the Graeco-Roman parallels are rare, the Jewish tradition contains
considerably more. Fish, as far as I know, is never mentioned in the stories
74
75
76
7 0
See Schwemer 1995, 277

On the story, see Schwemer 1995, 279-280 and Satran 2000, 74.
"Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be
places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds - like the fish of the Great Sea."
See Satran 1995, 58 and Schwemer 1995, 279.
See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. Kahl gives a list parallel to my version, but no
relevant new material to be compared with the story is included (1994, 58-61).
Schwemer 1995, 279 n.195 supposes that the miracles were common and points to
Pesch 1984, 346-357. However, also Pesch cites only Jewish parallels.
Dillon 2002, 297.
71
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
173
before the New Testament; of course, the miraculous feeding with manna
and quails in the desert (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36) are especially im
portant in the Life, in which Ezekiel possesses many of Moses' traits. Al
though Elijah was also fed and feeds others miraculously (1 Kgs 17:1-16),
it is Elisha in particular whose deeds form a very close parallel to the
story. The prophet feeds a widow (2 Kgs 4:1-7), a hundred men with a
few loaves of bread (2 Kgs 4:42-44) and makes a poisonous food edible (2
Kgs 4:38-41). The closest parallels are in the New Testament (Mark 6:3144; 8:1-10; John 6).
The miracle is related very briefly, as though everybody should be aware
of it. This again implies that the Life along with its several stories is part of
a strong tradition.
77
Helping those at the point of dying (V.
78
lib):
" ... and for many who were at the point of dying he entreated that life should come from
God."
79
Again the Life is brief, although we would gladly read much more. The
passage is interpreted in various ways.
1) Torrey interpreted the Greek text as meaning the everlasting life given
by God after death:
80
"Many who were at the point of death he cheered with the news of life coming to them
from God."
The translation is free but the Greek words (KCU T T O A A O T S E K A E I TTOUOI

cor|V EA0E?V EK 0EOG TrapEKcxAECJEv) seem to leave the door open for inter
preting it to mean life after death. There are, however, reasons to reject the
interpretation. As Schwemer says, TrapccKaAE?v usually goes with the
accusative. The direct object is the accusativus cum infinitivo (cor)V
EA0E7V) and the dative E K A E I T T O U O I is dativus commodi. TTapaKaAETv thus
does not mean here 'to cheer' but 'to ask', or even 'to order'.
2) The second possibility is that Ezekiel not only cheered the dying peo
ple with the life to come, but even raised them from the dead. Schwemer
and apparently also Hare choose this alternative. An argument for this
81
82
77
Noted by Satran 2000, 74.

The late Ethiopic version of the Life tells more, namely, that Ezekiel had with his
prayer raised from the dead those "who had died by the sword of their enemies" (see
Mueller 1994, 18-19). The Babylonian Talmud attributes many different resuscitations to
Ezekiel (b. Sanh. 92b). Moreover, see below the material combined with Ezek 37 (p.
175), which in 4 Mace 18:17 points to a coming resurrection.
Torrey 1946, 37.
See the analysis in Schwemer 1995, 280.
Hare interprets the words as "a restoration to earthly life" (1985, 389): It is unclear
7 8
7 9
80
81
82
174
view is that the rabbinic tradition tells about such miracles o f Ezekiel,
and the evidence seems to grow stronger. While the Graeco-Roman mate
rial does not offer a single close parallel it is not difficult to find them in
the Old Testament, even in the stories told about prophets. Both Elijah and
Elisha raised people from the dead and the stories were retold in many
variants. However, the present tense eKAeiTrouai points to dying rather
than to dead people. A man raising people from the dead is thus not at
tested in these words.
3) If the word EKAeiTrouai means dying and not dead people and life after
death is not indicated, only one interpretation is left: Ezekiel acted as a
healer and has the role of a PNP here, too. His closest parallel is neither
Elijah nor Elisha, but Hanina ben Dosa, the Jewish miracle-worker from
the first century AD. His activity is described only briefly; he prayed for
the dying and knew who was going to survive. The short passage in Life
should possibly be interpreted in a similar way. The figure of Hanina was
not easy for the early rabbis to accept. It was possible that he, contrary to
the usual manner of Jews, did not pray aloud, and his activity was thus
dangerously close to magical practices. It took time before he could be
rabbinised. It is possible - more cannot be said - that a similar activity is
attested in the words of Life: Also TrapEKdAEOEV is strange and may in
clude an exorcism.
84
85
86
87
88
The miracles save the people (V. 12-13):*
"When the people was being destroyed by its enemies, he went to the (enemy) leaders
and, terrified by the prodigies (5ta xepaoxicov) they ceased. He used to say this to them:
'Are we lost? Has our hope perished?" and in the wonder of the dead bones (ev repcm
TCOV ooTEcov TCOV veKpcov) he persuaded them that there is hope for Israel both here and
in the coming (age)."
Ezekiel is, once again in Life, presented as Moses redivivus. Just as Moses
visits the Pharaoh, the prophet visits the leaders of the enemies to terrify
them with miracles. This time it is obvious that the Old Testament offers
the starting point for the story. The vision in Ezek 37 is reinterpreted so
whether he considers the people dead or ill.
See below p. 175.
According to Schwemer many Jewish people raised from the dead were still between
life and death, but this is not the case in Life (Schwemer 1995, 280-281). This is true
about 1 Kgs 17:17.22 and almost all pagan stories, but not, for instance, about 2 Kgs
13:20-21.
Becker 2002, 337-378.
Becker 2002, 348-355.
83
8 4
8 5
8 6
87
8 8
8 9
7. Many Miracles:
175
The Lives of the Prophets
that the miracle of dry bones happens before the eyes of the enemies and
ends the persecution.
Liv. Pro. thus uses Ezek 37, and it is important to study the way LXX translates the He
brew text. LXX has in v. 37:1 KCCI e y s v e T O , although the Hebrew text has nrrn, and adds
avBpcoinvcov to the bones. Although the Hebrew text has mrr T i n , LXX has only KUPIOS
in the passage (v. 37:3; 37:9; 37:12). orr-m rrn is translated TTveGpa Ccofjs in v. 37:5 and
r r m m i coa *nm with Scoaco m / s u p d p o u i\s u p a s , KCCI CrjaeoOe in v. 37:6. In 37:7 *7ip
is interestingly translated a e i o p o s . In 37:7 i D S i r ' w una mosi? "impm is translated K a i
T T p o o r i y a y e r a OOTCC EKCcrepov Trpos Trjv apjjcoviav CCUTOU. In v. 37:10 'TTJ is trans
lated o u v a y c o y r j .
The translation is accurate, but not slavishly literal.
The interpretation is not unique but it is attested by both the rabbis and the
Christian fathers, which shows, according to Schwemer, that there were
contacts between these groups in the Byzantine period. Moreover, the
recent texts provide the opportunity to combine the different pieces of evi
dence and help us understand Life as well as the whole tradition.
Scholars have been well aware that the Church fathers knew two works
of Ezekiel. This is mentioned in Josephus Ant. 10,79, in the Stichometry of
Nicephorus, and in Epiphanius' Panarion 64,70,5 (GCS 15,515). Today
we have several fragments that are either all part of one work or parts of a
larger tradition. The question may be left open here, but the interesting
point is that several fragments point to the bone vision and may be inter
preted to mean that people were raised from the dead. Epiphanius says in
Panarion 64,70,5 (GCS 15,515) \va 5e Kai TCX UTTO T O G ' leêKirjA T O U
90
91
Trpo(|)rJTou ev TCO 'I5(CO aiTOKpv^co p r ) 0 e v T a
nepi
a v a a T a a e e o s Mil
TrapaaiOTrrjaeo. This is how Irenaeus understands the canonical Ezek 37

(haer. 5,34,1), but now at least two fragments of 4Q385 point to Ezek 37
and connect the text with being raised from the dead. 4Q385 2 contains the
following words:
4
"And he said again: Prophesy about the four winds of heaven and let the wind blow on
them and they will live. And it was so. And a great crowd of people stood and they
blessed YHWH Sabaoth who made them live.' And I said: *0, YHWH, when will these
things happen?' And YHWH said to me ,..."
92
Also, another fragment 4Q385,12 alludes to Ezek 37 (nvn

l Q i p ^ ) and
apparently to tombs, but the short fragment does not allow any conclusions
and certainly not on the roles of God and Ezekiel. However, it seems clear
that the later rabbinic tradition about Ezekiel raising people from death had
a broader base in early Judaism, and apparently Life is only a part of it.
9 0
See Dassmann 1988, 1773-1776 and Schwemer 1995, 284.

The texts with translations and comments in Stone and Wright 2000, 7-60. On the
question about the number of the works, see Wright in Stone and Wright 2000, 54-57.
Text and translation by Wright in Stone and Wright 2000, 440-441.
91
9 2
176
Ezek 37 seems to have been a widely used text, which was associated with
the "Messiah of Ephraim." Pearson plausibly supposes that a concrete
interpretation of Ezek 37 was used among the survivors of Bar Kochba's
revolt to explain the fate of the dead warriors. If that is correct, religion
and revolt are intimately connected, and it is more evidence that Ezek 37
was widely interpreted in the same way as in Liv. Pro. The political di
mension is present again in Liv. Pro., and in a way typical of the collec
tion: The work does not call for a rebellion, either openly or covertly, but
reminds the reader of God's mighty deeds in the past.
There are some indications that Life does not point to a single but to sev
eral miracles of the prophet. Firstly, Hare interprets the imperfect tense
eAeyev iterative ("he used to say this to them"), which seems to be correct,
although Schwemer rejects it. Secondly, Life has a plural in Side T E paaTi'cov, but ev xepaxi to describe the miracle of the dead bones. These
two may not be enough to assure certainty, but it seems that Ezekiel is
thought to have performed several miracles to save his people.
93
94
95
96
The reptiles (v. 18):
"He pronounced judgement in Babylon on the tribe of Dan and that of Gad, because they
were committing sacrilege against the Lord by persecuting those who were keeping the
Law. And respecting them he worked this great wonder (KCCI eiroi'noev auToTs Tepas
ueya,), that snakes devoured their infants and all their flocks" (Liv. Pro. 3:18).
97
In his translation, Hare takes the words O T I OI 6<j)6ts OCVTJAICTKOV TOC (3pe'(|>T]
auTcov for a prophecy, but they should, as in Schwemer, be interpreted as
a punishing miracle. There are several models in the Old Testament. The
closest is in 2 Kgs 2:23-25, where Elisha curses the children in Betel. As
summarised above, death by snakes was regarded as a terrible death by
both pagans and Jews. The Life of Jeremiah, as well as the Life of Ezekiel,
makes use of this motif.
The tribes of Dan and Gad had, according to Life, not only rejected the
Holy Law but also persecuted the righteous people, and the prophet pun
ished them with a harsh miracle. Life tells that a man belonging to these
tribes killed Ezekiel, so it is not surprising that these two tribes are ac
cused. In L.A.B., they belong to the four tribes, which were ready to return
98
9 3
See Pearson 1998, 193-196.

Pearson 1998, 196-201.
Schwemer (1995, 282), who rejects Hare's interpretation, interprets "das auffallige
Imperfektum" or as "Schilderung einer gehaltenen Rede" (BDR 329), which is possible;
however, she overlooks the change from plural to singular (5ia TEpaoTi'cov but EV
9 4
9 5
Tepcm TCOV OOTECOV TCOV VEKpcov).

9 6
9 7
9 8

Hare (1985, 389) translates this as "that snakes would devour".
Seep. 165.
111
to Egypt and serve the enemies. Moreover, Dan and Gad try to kill Aseneth, Joseph's wife, in Joseph and Aseneth (Jos. Asen. 27,11), but Aseneth's prayer causes their swords to fall down and burn to ash. It is
worth noting the view that the enemies of the Jewish people were not only
from the outside but also from within the Jewish community. In Life and
Joseph and Aseneth this view is incorporated into the miracles as well as
into the tribes of Dan and Gad.
100
In their present form some of the Lives included in the collection are only
summaries of the biblical stories. Whoever added the lists of the miracles
of Elijah and Elisha followed the tradition closely. The Life of Ezekiel is
different, and it mainly contains a tradition unknown from the Old Testa
ment. Yet the miracles of the prophet again assume the major role in Life,
Some of the miracles are înterpretations of the biblical passages; others
are not alterations but additions. Although we cannot date the traditions
exactly, almost all of them are closely similar to other Jewish stories. Nev
ertheless, the miracles are the core element of Life, and the biblical stories
about Moses, Elijah and Elisha live again in a new hero, the prophet Eze
kiel. It is obvious that the audience consisted of Jews and that we only
know fragments of a broader tradition.
Ezekiel plays a remarkably independent role in these stories. He is not
limited (except in his healing activity) to the role of a PNP, as Isaiah is in
his Life. Ezekiel's actions are those of an MNP, but although God is not
necessarily mentioned, the implied audience was undoubtedly aware of the
source of his power.
e. Daniel
It is unusual for the Lives of the Prophets to deal with a single miraclestory and not to summarise the biblical events.
However, although the
Life of Daniel points to others, the only story retold is the sickness and
healing of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 4), and it forms the main part of the
101
102
" S e e p . 194.
The work is often considered either Christian or very late, but see Collins 2000a,
103-110, who considers the proposed dates between the second century BC and the sec
ond century AD.
It is possible that the story is taken from a source without vigorous editing (Schwe
mer 1995, 301).
"And for other kings of the Persians he wrought many prodigies, which I did not
write down" (4,17). Hare translates "which they did not write down", but An 1 has oacx
OUK !ypav|/a, although Epl and Ep 2 have eypcxvpaijev / sypccvpa. The versions of this
Life vary considerably (see Schwemer's synopsis, 1996, 22*-31*).
100
101
102
178
Life. The story is preceded by a short biographical survey (1-3) and suc
ceeded by the short summary (17) mentioned above: information about his
burial and his eschatological prophecy (20-23).
103
The Life offers a version of a tradition known from Dan 4:1-34. The Greek translations of
the late biblical book cannot, of course, be considered a part of the Septuagint translated
in the third century BC, but they are part of a complicated history of transmission, and it
took time before both the Aramaic and the Greek text found their final forms. It means
that the study of the translations is an especially interesting subject. The two Greek ver
sions of Dan 4 ( L X X and 0 ) differ clearly from each other. 0 , attributed erroneously to
Theodotion, generally stands closer to the Aramaic text, although it also contains large
additions, such as in 4:1-3. The L X X version contains and omits large portions compared
with the Masoretic version text and it is considered to represent a form, which is inde
pendent of the Masoretic text and apparently even older than our Aramaic version.
The very complicated history of the text cannot be studied here in detail, but what fol
lows focuses on the possible redaction concerning the miraculous elements in the story.
In particular, 0 offers an interesting look at the early Jews retelling the miraculous sto
ries about Daniel.
104
105
MT uses five words (K'DDin, WSIOK, K'TBD, nta and D*?n) for the king's wise men in v.
4:4, but L X X omits all of them and 0 only has four (ETTCXOISOI, payoi, yaâpnvot,
XaXSaToi and translates K'DQ-in m with 6 d'pxcov TCOV ETTOCOISCOV in 0 (in v. 4:6). Al
though L X X omits these words here, it adds in v. 4:15 TOV AavirjA TOV apxovTcc TCOV
ao<|)iaTcov KCCI TOV f)you|jEVOv TCOV Kpivovrcov TCX 'EVUTTVIOC. In v. 4:9 L X X strongly
exaggerates the size of the tree (oi KACXSOI CCUTOU TCO MrJKei cos OTCXSICOV TpiocKOVTCc).
Both Greek versions have preserved Daniel's fear of the dream (4:16). Unlike the
Masoretic text the L X X names the angels as the agents in no less than three verses: Kcci 6
livpioros KCCI oi
dyyeAoi
OCUTOU ETTI OE KOCTCXTPEXOUOIV (4:21); KCCI OI d'yysAoi
5icoovTa( OE ETTI ETTI ETTTCC (4:29) and KCCI 'I5OU dfyyEAos ETS EKOCXEOE \IB (4:30c).
Moreover L X X adds that the king accepted the interpretation (4:25). In a large section
not included in the Masoretic text (4:34a-c) L X X especially contains parts of the tradi
tion. The king praises God for his miracles (OTI CXUTOS TTOIET o r ^ a Kai TEpocTa, 4:34,
cf. even 4:2 in the 0 ) , but also his agents (Kai TTCCVTCXS TOUS d y i o u s aurou cc'ivco,
4:34a). Although Daniel may not be totally ruled out, the words apparently refer to the
angels active in the passage.
Of the Greek versions of Daniel, the L X X is especially interesting in many ways. It is
not a translation of the Aramaic text known to us, but an independent and earlier piece of
material, which provides an opportunity to study early Judaism's view on miracles. It
shows that the tradition lived on in different forms and in different variants. It is not
possible to determine what the translator omitted from or added to his Aramaic original,
but the final result is open to some remarks: a) Whoever formulated this tradition was
fond of miracles and shows no tendency to play them down; on the contrary, he empha
sized them, b) Although Daniel is not a strong, independent miracle-worker in the He
brew version, his role is not emphasized here either, but rather reduced, c) The redactor
has attributed the mighty deeds to God's angels. The Aramaic text admittedly does not
The Life of Daniel is Satran's main argument for the view that the Lives are late. He
underlines the similarity between the cure commanded for the king and the ascetic diet of
the penitent Christian monks (1980, 39-43; 1995, 76-96).
See Siegert 2001,334-338.
See Albertz 1988, 156; Schwemer 1995, 322-324.
104
105
179
exclude the activity of the angels, but LXX emphasizes their deeds. Scholars have as
sumed that they are God's punishing angels or fallen angels, demons, and it is not easy
to define which are meant. Mastema, the bad spirit, serves on the side of the good angels
as punisher in Jub. roughly contemporary with the text. However, because 4:10 describes
how God's angel tells about the punishment, and the king apparently praises God's an
gels in 4,34a, the tradition supposes that they are angels from the bright side.
106
Nebuchadnezzar did not only lose his mind but became like an animal
("his fore parts with the head were like an ox, and the feet with the hind
parts like a lion"). The motif of zoomorphy is stronger in LXX than in MT
(Kai a i x p i x e s y o u e y s v e x o c o s Trxspuyss a e x o u , o i o v u x e s Mou coast
A e o v x o s , Dan 4:30b) and the motif attests that Life makes use of the
107
LXX. The reason for the punishment was that "he was fond of pleasure
... and because those who belong to Beliar become like an ox under yoke."
Thus the king is made a model of the tyrant:
108
"Tyrants (O'I Suvdoxai) have these (vices) in their youth, and in the end they become
monsters, seizing, destroying, killing, and smiting" (4,7).
The king was in a hopeless situation. He understood his situation and

prayed to God, but was unable to help himself until Daniel helped him:
"Behemoth used to come upon him, and he would forget that he had been a man" (4,10).
"For many were going out of the city and gazing at him. Daniel alone did not wish to
see him, because he was in prayer for him the whole time of his changed condition; and
he kept saying: 'He will become a man again', and they did not believe him. Daniel made
the seven years, which he called seven seasons, become seven months, the mystery of the
seven seasons, was accomplished in his case, for he was restored in seven months; during
the six years and six months (remaining) he prostrated himself to the Lord and confessed
his impiety, and after the forgiveness of his wickedness he restored to him the kingdom.
He neither ate bread or meat nor drank wine as he made his confession, for Daniel had
ordered him to appease the Lord with (a diet of) soaked pulse and greens" (4,12-17).
The Life of Daniel is, of course, part of the broader tradition concerning
Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar; it does not belong to the early, but rather to
the later stage of the tradition. The text contains many new and interest
ing features in comparison with the biblical version: 1) Daniel's role in the
healing of the king and his intercession are exciting new details. 2) A de
mon causing sickness takes on an important role in the events. 3) An im
portant feature, closely combined with the second is that the healing is
109
106
Kuhn believes them to be punishing angels, but Schwemer does not exclude de
mons; see Schwemer 1995, 324.
Schwemer 1995,324.
The Life makes use of a topos with strong Greek and Jewish roots; see Schwemer
1995, 333-336.
On variants of Dan 4 and the history of the tradition, see the presentation of
Schwemer (1995, 322-329).
107
108
109
180
connected with the forgiveness of the sin. 4) Daniel's relation to the ruler
is important.
1) In the Life, Daniel heals - if in such cases a man can be called a healer through prayer on behalf of the king and is thus a typical PNP. Healing
through intercession is well known in the Jewish texts. Jacob heals Reu
ben in T. Reu. 1:7, Abraham the Pharaoh in IQAp Gen 20 and apparently
Ezekiel in Liv. Pro (see above). The best-known historical person who
healed by prayer is Hanina ben Dosa, whose manner of praying and heal
ing was apparently considered problematic by some teachers.
110
111
2) The king is an example of people belonging to Beliar, and he is tortured

by Behemoth, a famous demon. Torrey and Hare consider the text corrupt,
because Behemoth usually is a primeval monster and not a demon. How
ever, also in 1 En. 60:25, Behemoth is going to be punished by "the Lord
of the Spirits." The demon is cast out, not by a psalm sung by the exor
cist, but by Daniel's prayer, which lasts seven years. We have here a com
bination of demon, sickness and healing.
Demons causing several difficulties are commonplace in the Mediterra
nean world in different ages. Death or other calamities are assumed to be
their work in classical antiquity, too. All this is well known, but the his
torical development of demonology in the Graeco-Roman world should be
given more attention. The main source influencing early Judaism was
112
113
114
On healing by intercession, see Schwemer 1995, 320-321.

See Becker 2002, 348-355.
The name Behemoth was an important argument for Torrey, who claimed that the
original language of the collection was Hebrew. According to him, the Hebrew original
read nam -> and not "the ridiculous Behemoth" (1946, 6; 24-25); see also Hare 1985,
390. Schwemer preserves Behemoth (1995, 340-343). The monster, who attacks the king,
occurs also in 1 En. 60:8: It is the male monster, which dwells in the desert, while a fe
male named Leviathan lives in the abyss of the ocean.
It is not very easy to attest the thought in the classical texts, but the archaeological
evidence is strong. Many pivotal studies overlook the historical development in the
Graeco-Roman culture. In BGcher's books (1970, 1972) the reason obviously is the formcritical method, which lacks the historical dimension. On the other hand, in his important
RAC-article, Thraede, for example, can deal with Homer and Lucian simultaneously (e.g.
1969, 49). He seems himself to give the reason for that: "Als Zweig magischer Weltansicht u. primitiver Volksmedizin reicht der E(xorzismus) so weit in die Geschichte aller
VoTker, Kulturen u. Religionen zuriick, daB sich, bei der Konstanz von Typen u. Mitteln,
in der dem E(xorzismus) eigenen Spanne zwischen Weltbild u. Heilungszweck kaum
mehr als Akzentverschiebungen nachweisen lassen" (1969, 45). However, Colpe already
sharply warns of evolutionism (1976a, 548-550). The way from Socrates' 5ai|Jcov to
Philostratus' demon (e.g. VA 4,20) is longer than usually understood, although the
Greeks already knew of dangerous divine beings in early times (on the pre-hellenistic
Greece see ter Vrugt-Lentz 1976, 598-615 [RAC]). Xenocrates, Plato's successor in the
111
112
113
181

115
not the West but the East and Egypt. The demons often occur in the
sources, but if the focus is on demons causing sickness and a healer heal
ing through expelling demons the material is clearly more limited.
The connection between demon and sickness is attested in some Jewish
texts. The passage of Jub. quoted above does not exactly combine the
demons with sickness or healing with an exorcism: The demons are "lead
ing astray and blinding and killing" Noah's grandchildren (Jub. 10:2).
However, the methods Noah learned were given to him "so that he might
heal by means of herbs of the earth" (Jub. 10:12-13). Moreover, the gen
eral decline in longevity is the result of sin and evil in the world (Jub.
23:8-15). This will finally lead to a point in which children will be white
with grey hairs until they begin to search the law and the days begin to
increase until their days approach again a thousand years. It is crucial to
see that there is no Satan or evil in these days (Jub. 23:22-31). The root
of evil is removed and with it disappears sickness. The combination is in
teresting and helps us to understand not only the Lives, but also the New
Testament.
A good example of the combination now sought is Genesis Apocryphon
20, mentioned above: When Pharaoh takes Sarah, Abraham prays to God,
who sends a demon to torture Pharaoh's house until he gives Sarah back to
Abraham. Abraham expels the demon and heals the Pharaoh:
116
117
118
119
"I prayed for [...] and laid my hands upon his head. The plague was removed from him;
[the evil spirit] was banished [from him] and he lived" (IQAp Gen" 20,28-29).
120
Josephus clearly combines sickness, demons and healing, when telling

stories about Solomon and his wisdom, still alive among the Jews (Ant.
8,44-46). Josephus presents Baaras, the healing herb, and reveals a
121
Academy, took an important step on this path by supposing three classes (God, men and
Scupoves) and supposed that 5oct|joves could have TrccSr). On the Greek demonology in
Greece in the Hellenistic and later period see Colpe 1976, 640-668 (RAC).
Spirits causing problems already occur in the Old Testament 1 Sam. 16:14-23 and
later in a rich and diverse Jewish tradition, which is influenced by the East; see, for ex
ample, Tob 3:7-10.
On the demonology in Iran see Colpe 1976d, 585-598 (RAC); on Egypt see Colpe
1976b, 553-562 (RAC). E.g. Alexander (1999, 35-352) now notes that the demonology in
Qumran is old and seeks its roots from the East rather than from the West.
The rich material in the New Testament offers the closest parallels, e.g. Mark 1:34;
Matt 12:22; Acts 19:13.
See above p. 51.
On the passage, see VanderKam 1977, 269-270.
See above p. 47.
Josephus may be thinking about the tradition in the Life of Daniel when he relates
Herodes' struggles after the murder of Mariamne; see Jos. Ant. 15,240-246.
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
182
broad tradition in which medical treatment and blocking of the demons

cannot be separated.
122
3) The Life clearly combines sin, sickness and forgiveness of sin with heal
ing. Sickness and death as punishment of the gods is possibly one of the
most common features in the religions of the world throughout history.
However, early Judaism developed a very interesting and complex form of
this idea. Sickness and sin were often combined, and moreover, removing
sin not only led to healing, but even to a new type of world.
4QPrNab
once was considered to give excellent parallels to the sec
ond and third features noted above, because it contains both a demon and a
man who forgave sins. It also deals with a king (Nabonid) and his sickness,
which lasted seven years. As Dupont-Sommer interpreted it, a "in, as he
said, a typical Essene healer and exorcist, forgave the sin of the king. The
text thus would not only contain the same noteworthy elements as the Life
but also help to clarify Mark 2:5 ("un parfait parallele"). The remnants
of this interpretation still live on in the scholarship. However, it is not
clear whether the king is tormented by a demon or not. Moreover, recent
scholars read not "in but TH, and regard God and not the man as the
subject of the forgiveness. Thus the text gives no parallel at these points.
If the man does not forgive the king's sins, he does not play the role of an
exorcist but only gives good advice to the king.
The fragmentary text of 4QPrNab* by no means excludes the influence
of demons, which is clear in the Life. The combination of sin, sickness,
forgiveness of the sin and health is important even without the demon and
a human agent. 4QPrNab shows the close connection between sin and
arm
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
aT
On Baaras, see below p. 262.

The text was once dated quite late, about 159 BC, but it is now widely regarded to
be older; see Dupont-Sommer and Muller 1959, 350; Milik 1956, 411; Grelot 1978, 495.
Lange and Sieker set terminus post quern on linguistical reasons in the late fourth or early
third century BC, the terminus ante quern on paleographical reasons in the first century
BC (1996, 6). According to Schwemer it is written in the Persian period; see 1995, 322323.
On the history of research, see Lange and Sieker 1996, 14-31.
Dupont-Sommer 1960, 259-260; followed by e.g. Vermes 1973, 67-69. But see
Lange and Sieker 1996, 17-19.
Satran reads "in (1995, 81). Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar translate "and an exor
cist forgave my sin" (1997, 487).
Twelftree still reads ira, but sees no exorcism in the text (1994, 17-18).
On the reading and meaning of the word, see Lange and Sieker 1996, 9-10.13-14.
17-20.
Schwemer (1995, 323) and Lange and Sieker 1996, 13 (with more literature on the
question) consider God the subject of the forgiveness of the sins.
Lange and Sieker 1996, 18.
123
1 2 4
125
1 2 6
127
128
129
130
183
sickness, which is clear also in the Life. The same thought is strongly pre
sent in early Judaism, for instance in Sir 38:4-8 (which also connects the
physician with the healing) and in T. Reu. 1. Jub. 50 (cf. also T. Judah
25:3) gives the basis for everlasting health: Removing sin means removing
the root of the evil, and with it disappears disease and death. An age with
out Satan, which sometimes occurs in the texts, is closely combined with
this thought in eschatological hopes.
131
4) Because the relation between miracles and politics has been an impor
tant theme in the present study, one feature is worth noting. It is obvious
that the tradition of Daniel presented the prophet from the very beginning
as being associated with rulers, either as their friend or as their opponent.
In the miracle-story this relationship is underlined, interestingly as both
friend and foe. On the one hand, Daniel seems to be a close friend of the
ruler and his only helper. On the other hand, Life contains sharp words
about tyrants generally and reveals a clearly hostile attitude. The tyrants
become a "monster, seizing, destroying, killing, and smiting" (Liv. Pro.
4:7). The prophet wrought "many prodigies" for the other kings of the
Persians (Liv. Pro. 4:17). As in the stories told in Dan the tribune of the
prophet is the court of the kings, but the attitude towards the rulers in Life
resembles that at the end of the biblical book. The rulers are tyrants under
the yoke of Beliar, whom a reader apparently could identify with the Ro
man emperors.
Hare recognises the dualism in Lives, but does not consider it empha
sized. While this is true about most of the Lives, the Life of Daniel is
different and follows the rest of the traditions about Daniel. LXX espe
cially attests how the angels were active as agents. Moreover, not only do
two worlds exist, but a demon also attacks people under the yoke of Belial.
The ideas in the Life are by no means exclusively Jewish. Also, pagans
in the West, but especially in the East and Egypt identified sickness with
sin and disease with demons. The connection in some Jewish texts, how
ever, is very strong and original. Sin, sickness, death and demons, healing,
a long or everlasting life, exorcisms and an age without Satan form a unity
for which cosmology and demonology are essential prerequisites. God's
aid to man is thus essentially an enormous exorcism.
132
133
131
See, for example Jub. 40:2, 50. As. Mos. 10:1; Hist. Rech. 14 (considered by Charlesworth 1986, 227 to belong to the Jewish part of the work).
Tyrants as beasts is a well-known metaphor in classical antiquity, as in Plat. rep.
587b-589b and Philostr. VA 4,38. The metaphor was widely used in early Judaism (see
Satran 1995, 85; Schwemer 1995, 333-336).
Hare 1985,382.
132
133
184
f. Elijah
134
The text of the Life of Elijah,

which is certainly a part of the original, is
very short. It merely consists of a sentence calling him a Thesbite from
Aaron's tribe - meaning that he was a priest - and of a legend in which
his father is informed about the birth of the prophet. Elijah is mentioned
also in the Life of Jonah, in which the father of the son raised from the
dead by Elijah is identified with Jonah.
Elijah's miracles are summarised very briefly in a passage generally con
sidered a later interpolation. The word used for miracles ( O T H J E T O : ) would
seem to support this assumption. Torrey left the summary out of his
translation with a very brief justification. Only one but the oldest of the
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
1 3 4
On the Life, see Schwemer 1996, 224-260, Ohler 1997, 12-13; Schreiber 2000, 530.
The words EK y % ' Apdpcov may point to ravens that fed him: The Arabs were con
sidered a nation which understood the language of the birds (see Appian fr. 19; Philostra
tus VA 1,20 and Schwemer 1994, 136-138).
See below p. 224.
"When he was to be born, his father Sobacha saw that men of shining white appear
ance were greeting him and wrapping him in fire, and they gave him flames of fire to eat.
And he went and reported (this) in Jerusalem, and the oracle told him: 'Do not be afraid,
for his dwelling will be light and his words judgement, and he will judge Israel" (Liv.
Pro. 21:2-3). On the early Jewish legend about the birth of Jewish heroes see Schwemer
1996, 237-238.
"And when his son died, God raised him again from the dead by Elijah, for he
wanted to show him that it is not possible to run away from God" (Liv. Pro. 10:6).
"The signs which he did are these: Elijah prayed, and it did not rain for three years,
and after three years he prayed again, and abundant rain came. In Zareptah of Sidon
through the word of the Lord he made the jar of the widow not to fail and the flask of oil
not to diminish. Her son who had died God raised from the dead after (Elijah) prayed.
When the question was posed by him and the prophets of Baal concerning who is the true
and real God, he proposed that a sacrifice be offered by him and by them, and that fire
not be placed under (it), but that each should pray, and the one answering him would be
God. Accordingly, the (prophets) of Baal prayed and cut themselves until the ninth hour,
and no one answered them; and Elijah, when he had filled the place where the sacrifice
was with much water, also prayed, and immediately fire came down and consumed the
sacrifice, and the water was gone. And all blessed God, and killed the four hundred and
fifty (prophets) of Baal. When king Ahaziah sent to obtain and oracle from idols, (Elijah)
prophesied death, and he died. When two captains of fifty were sent to him from
Ahaziah, the king of Israel, he invoked the Lord and fire came down from heaven, and
the fire consumed them at Lord's command. Ravens brought him bread in the morning
and meat in the afternoon. With a sheepskin he struck the Jordan and it was divided, and
they crossed over with dry feet, both he and Elisha. Finally he was taken up in a chariot
offire"(/v. Pro. 21:4-15).
See Schwemer 1995,216.
See the introduction to the work, Torrey 1946, 3-4. Hare (1985, 396) is surprisingly
uncertain ("Torrey is probably correct, therefore, in regarding this material as secon
dary").
135
1 3 6
1 3 7
1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 0
141
185
manuscripts (An 1) contains this passage, which did not belong to the
original. It is, however, included in the Latin version using the phrases
of the Old Latin Bible translation and not the Vulgate. This indicates that
the addition must be quite old and cannot be totally overlooked in the
present study. The other variants (An 2 and Ep 2) obviously better reflect
the lost original.
The sentences in Ep 2 do not offer much other than the thought about
Elia redivivus (6s TTCCXIV eXeuaeTai upo Trjs auvTeXeias), and that
Elijah was qXeoTTJs Kai d>uXa^ T C S V T O U 0EOU EVTOXCOV aKpiPrjs. The
other variant, however, is very interesting. An 2 briefly tells that Elijah's
f]Xos was favoured by God and that he lived with birds (METCX TCOV
TTBTTIVCOV). This may not refer only to 1 Kgs 17, but to the tradition, which
is attested later in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and which identifies
Elijah with Phinehas (L.A.B. 48). This appears to be corroborated in Life v.
1, in which Elijah is an Aaronite, i.e. a priest. The identification is here not
certain but can by no means be excluded. In any case, Elijah's fjXos is
mentioned in both versions.
The oldest manuscripts thus contain a longer or shorter summary of
Elijah's miracles, all of which treat Elijah's miracles traditionally. All the
biblical miracles are listed, with only one exception, in the order of 1-2
Kgs (ravens first in v. 21). The short summary reveals no biases: The
prophet is neither politically active nor legitimated by the miracles. What
we have is merely a list of the well-known miracles. We cannot be sure if
the author was a Jew or Christian. Nevertheless, the miracles of the
prophet were for him a part of the prophet's life, which could not be over
looked, even if it meant only a list including the miraculous deeds.
The list of miracles in its present form is late, but it apparently contains
features of the original. The most important of these for the present study
is Elijah's role, which is told briefly in An 1 Kai KpiveT TOV ' laparjX (Liv.
Pro. 21:3); the other manuscripts add EV poM<|>aig Kai mjpi. Elijah is de
scribed as a future judge, similarly to Mai 3 and Ben Sira. The back
ground for this mission is undoubtedly his biblical role with all the mira
cles.
143
144
145
146
147

On the versions, see Schwemer 1996, 64*-67*.
On these versions, see Schwemer 1996, 247-250.
See Schwemer 1996, 247-248. On the identification, see below p. 224.
See above p. 35.
186
g. Elisha
14
The Life of Elisha * also includes a legend about his birth. Then his mira
cles - again ar]METa and not TEpccTCC, which points to a later stage - are
summarised. The problems in the summary are the same as in the Life of
Elijah. The manuscripts differ considerably. An 1 gives a very brief list of
almost all the biblical miracles. Ep 1 contains a much shorter list, Ep 2
only a few words, the rest nothing. The summary in An 1 may have been
written by the writer of the summary in Elijah's Life. None of the epitomes
can offer much to the present study. However, the inclination to relate the
miracles of the prophet is again obvious.
149
150
151
148
On the Life of Elisha, see Schwemer 1996, 261-282.

See above p. 163.
150 y/he signs which he did are these: He too struck the Jordan with Elijah's sheepskin,
and the water was divided, and he too passed over with dry feet. The water in Jericho was
foul and sterile; and hearing (this) from the city's residents, he invoked God, and he said:
'I am healing this water, and no longer will death and sterility issue from it', and the
water has remained healed to this day. When children treated him disrespectfully, he
cursed them, and two bears came out and tore to pieces forty-two of them. The wife of a
prophet who had died was being pestered by creditors, and was unable to pay; she came
to Elisha, and he commanded her to gather new vessels, as many as she could, and to
pour the (jar) containing very little oil into them until the vessels were full; and she did
this and filled the vessels and repaid her creditors, and she had the surplus for the suste
nance of her children. He went to Shunem and stayed with a certain woman; she was not
able to bear a child, but earnestly desired to have one; he prayed and made her able to
conceive and give birth; then, when the child died, he prayed again and raised it from the
dead. He went to Gilgal and was brought before the sons or the prophets; and when the
food was boiled, and a deadly herb was boiled with the food, and they were all on the
brink of danger, he bade the food harmless and sweet. When the sons of the prophets
were felling trees by the Jordan, the axhead fell off and sank; and Elisha, praying, made
the axhead float to the surface. Through him Naaman the Syrian was cleansed from of
leprosy. When his servant, named Gehazi, went to Naaman secretly, against his wishes,
and asked for silver, and later upon returning denied it, Elisha rebuked and cursed him,
and he became a leper. When the king of Syria was making war against Israel, he pro
tected the king of Israel by announcing to him the plans of the enemy. When the king of
Syria learned this he sent a force to bring the prophet, but he prayed and make them to be
struck with blindness, and he led them to Samaria, to their enemies, but keeping them
unharmed he preserved and fed them. When the king of Syria learned this he stopped
making war. After Elisha's death a man died, and as he was being buried he was thrown
onto his bones, and just as he touched Elisha's bones the dead man revived immediately"
{Liv. Pro. 22:4-17).
1 4 9
151
See Schwemer 1996, 263. 276-281. 67*-72*.
187
h. Conclusion
The collection called Lives of the Prophets consists of very short biogra
phies of the prophets. Many of them also contain stories about their mira
cles. In the present form the Lives of Elijah and Elisha are almost entirely
lists of the biblical miracles of the prophets, and although the original texts
are lost they apparently treated their mighty deeds. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Eze
kiel and Daniel are certainly treated as miracle-workers. Although the
short Lives do not always allow for a study of the biases in the collection,
the inclination to tell miracles is obvious. On the other hand, it means that
the biblical miracles are retold (Isaiah) or briefly listed (Elijah, Elisha), but
new deeds are added as well. It is obvious that several stories of Jere
miah's mighty deeds circulated, although we only know some of them, and
Ezekiel especially has now become a mighty miracle-worker. The Life
shows that we obviously know only some of the stories about Ezekiel's
miracles. Many of the deeds are not presented extensively, but only sum
marised in very short sentences. The audience obviously knew the stories
better than a modern scholar. Liv. Pro. attests that the stories about Moses
could be adapted to other figures, such as Ezekiel.
The Lives is a collection of traditions. It cannot be presumed that it offers a
unified view on miracles. It is important to note that this tradition con
tained many miracles, both biblical and nonbiblical. Some general re
marks, however, are possible.
Because it is a collection, it is natural that the roles attributed to God and
men vary in the Lives. Isaiah and Daniel can be characterised as PNPs, but
this characterization is not sufficient to cover the activity of Jeremiah and
even less of Ezekiel. The Jewish popular tradition behind the collection
could thus attribute a considerable role to God's human agents.
Some of the stories were definitely topical in the stormy first century
AD, making such prophetical figures as Theudas and the Egyptian under
standable. The collection does not call for a rebellion, but its implied audi
ence is hoping for better times, and not without God's help. In other texts
dealing with similar material, the connection of politics and rebellion is
obvious.
Several Lives allude to the end of the world. The stories about Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and Elijah clearly link the eschatological element with the mira
cles. Interestingly, it is mostly Gentiles, not Israelites, who persecute the
prophets. Israel is only seldom divided, although it certainly is in the Life
of Ezekiel. However, the miracle-working prophets belong mostly to the
common heritage of the nation, while the enemy comes from outside. The
opponents are generally not demonised as in Jub., although Isaiah's fate
could open the door to this interpretation. However, understandably, the
188
Life of Daniel is different and Daniel has to fight against wicked spirits.
The connection between sin, sickness and demons is interesting.
The collection of short Lives thus reveals that the miracles were an integral
part of the picture of the prophets. The stories belong to a wide tradition
only partly known to us, and help us to better understand the Jewish, as
well as the Christian tradition.

a. Introduction
Many early Jewish texts studied in the present text have not received the
attention they deserve, but perhaps no one has been so badly overlooked as
Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum} The critical edition in
Sources Chretiennes (1976) and of course the translations in OTP and
JSHRZ soon led to a vigorous study producing a long line of important
articles and monographs.
L.A.B. starts with Adam and continues with a history of Israel until
Saul's death. It belongs thus to the wide category of the "rewritten Bible"
always needing closer precision. This time it is not easy: The passages on
Moses and Kenaz in particular include biographical features. The closest
parallels are Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae and also several post-70 AD writings dealing with the history of Israel,
such as 2 Bar. and 4 Ezr?
Scholars disagree on whether or not the work originally covered Israel's
history after Saul's death. Many scholars believe that the ending of L.A.B.
has been lost, but Bogaert and Jacobson, among others, consider it intact.
Although there are no decisive arguments for either of these views, the
rather abrupt end would indicate that the work is not complete. We have
the text only in Latin, but there is no doubt about the original language:
L.A.B. was written in Hebrew, translated first into Greek and later into
quite clumsy Latin.
2
The Latin text was printed in 1527, but overlooked, e.g. by Kautsch, Charles and
Billerbeck, although used by Ginzberg. The first modern translation was by James (1917)
followed by Riessler (1928). See Harrington 1985, 302 and Feldman 1989, 59.
The text in Sources Chretiennes (cited as Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 1-2) was preceded
by Kish's critical edition from 1949, but Bogaert, Cazeaux, Harrington and Perrot could
work as a team and combine their resources (see Harrington 1988, 3-4). The project not
only produced a critical text but also a commentary and translations into French and later
into English (OTP 2 [1985], 297-377).
On the genre, see Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 2, 22-28; Jacobson 1996, 211-213.
E.g. Dietzfelbinger 1979, 96-97; Harrington 1985, 298.
Perrot - Bogaert 1976, 2, 21-22; Jacobson 1996, 253-254.
For a discussion, see the English Schurer 3.2. (1986), 326-327 and Jacobson 1996,
253-254.
The view was presented by Cohn (1898) and is commonly accepted; see also Schurer
2
190
8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum
Scholars knew very early on that Philo of Alexandria did not write
L.A.B., although the work has been preserved in his production. Doubts
were already uttered in the 16 century, and today Philo's authorship has
been ruled out: It is a learned work, but its strong, theological profile dif
fers from Philo's theology. The anonymous writer who created it owed
much to the theological tradition before him, which greatly coloured his
treatment of the biblical miracle-workers.
Whoever wrote Liber antiquitatum biblicarum did it around 70 BC and
rather soon after the Temple was destroyed, although the evidence is not
clear enough to remove all doubts. While some scholars, including the
original Schurer, Dietzfelbinger, Bauckham and Jacobson, suppose that the
work was written after the fall of the Second Temple, some scholars date
LA.B. to before it. We do not have a clear terminus ante quern. According
to Harrington, Pseudo-Philo uses the "Palestinian" biblical text, which
should make the latest possible date around 100 AD, but this text hardly
replaced other texts as quickly as supposed here. Jacobson sees traces of
Bar-Cochba's revolt in the work, but the evidence is not convincing. The
most plausible date is thus between the two revolts.
th
10
11
12
1909, 384-385; Harrington 1985, 298-299; Reinmuth 1994, 18 and Jacobson 1996, 215224.
Schurer 1909, 384-385; Bauckham 1983, 33; Dietzfelbinger 1979, 95-96; Jacobson
1996, 199-210. Reinmuth (1994, 24-26) remains uncertain after a thorough study. Zeron
sets the origin of the work not only after Bar-Cochba, but in the 3 or 4 century (1980,
38-52).
L.A.B. 22,8 and L.A.B. 26,15 seem to attest that the temple still stood. However,
L.A.B. 19,7 says that Israel will serve God 740 years in a place given by him and names
the seventeenth day of the fourth month, i.e. Tammuz, as the moment of the catastrophe.
The team which produced the important edition in Sources Chretiennes (Harrington,
Cazeaux, Perrot and Bogaert) argues for the view that this cannot be taken as proof that
the work was written after 70 AD, because the second temple was not destroyed on
Tammuz 17 , as the first, but on Av 9 (Perrot - Bogaert 1976, 2, 66-74; Harrington
1985, 299). Nonetheless, as noted already in the original Schurer, Tammuz 17 is given
as the date of the catastrophe in 70 in some Rabbinic texts, because the daily sacrifice
was stopped on this day (Schurer 3 [1909], 386; Jacobson 1996, 203-204). Moreover, in
L.A.B. 26,13 God tells that when the (Second) Temple will fall, both the miraculous new
stones and the old ones will be removed by him and not restored till eschatological times.
Feldman (1989, 60) dates the work to the first century AD, and also Murphy supposes a
pre 70 date (1993, 223). A date briefly after 70 AD is the most common; see Nickelsburg
1984b, 109-110; Jacobson 1996, 195.210; Vogel 1999, 258-261; Eve 2002, 117-118.
Jacobson's (1996, 199-210) and Reinmuth's (1994, 17-26) detailed studies will form the
basis for further discussion.
Harrington 1985, 299. See the contrary arguments in Dietzfelbinger (1979, 95-96)
and Jacobson (1996, 201).
Jacobson 1996, 200-210. For instance, Dietzfelbinger saw no traces of the revolt in
the work (1979, 95).
8
rd
th
10
th
th
th
11
12
Biblicarum
191
We will never know the name of the author, but the work itself should
offer enough material to inquire into the tradition before him and in his
time. Scholars have not yet, however, been able to agree on the theological
direction. There was a period, in which the newly found material in Qum
ran led scholars to link the work with the Essenes. Feldman sees in it a
pharisaic character.
Jacobson, on the other hand, connects the author
with the mystic, Jewish circles.
Very few works known to us are as strongly connected with the rabbinic
traditions as L.A.B. Many long known parallels have now been collected
and emendated by Jacobson, whose commentary means a decisive step for
scholarship. New Testament scholars have been reminded of the timegap
of decades and centuries between Jesus and the early rabbinic works
known to us. Yet the gap between L.A.B. and, for instance, R. Judah is not
necessarily very large. L.A.B. is considered to be "our oldest substantive
midrashic work." It is an important source for everybody studying the
formation of the rabbinic tradition.
It is certain that L.A.B. was written in Palestine and in Hebrew, and that
it was directed to the Jews and not the Gentiles. Jacobson himself tries to
define the location further and suggests Galilee, because magic and de
mons played a prominent role there, but the material hardly allows such a
conclusion.
Liber antiquitatum biblicarum offers thus a very interesting subject for
this study. It contains a short history of Israel and deals with many biblical
miracle-workers. The way the Scripture is used in the work has been stud
ied, but this task is far from complete. Like the production of Josephus it
is written by a Palestinian Jew, but unlike Josephus' works, L.A.B. was
written in a Semitic language and directed to the Jews. It was written
shortly after the catastrophic Jewish war by a person who knew the Jewish
tradition extremely well. In addition to Jacobson's commentary the most
important contribution to the study of the miracles in L.A.B., especially
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
13
Harrington lists different proposals: "Pharisees, Essenes, Qumran coventanters, Sa

maritans, anti-Samaritans, Hellenists, Gnostics" (1985, 300). Perrot and Bogaert link the
work with synagogal piety (1976,2, 28-39).
See below p. 220.
Feldman 1989, 73.76,
Jacobson 1996, 251-252.
Schiirer (3 [1909], 385) was already aware of numerous contacts between L.A.B. and
rabbinic midrashim.
Feldman 1989, 59.
See Harrington 1985, 300; Jacobson 1996, 210-211.
Jacobson 1996,210-211.
See Nickelsburg 1980, 49-65 and Murphy (1993). Feldman gives a survey of the
biblical material included in his Prolegomenon (1971), and also lists the parallels with
Josephus (1989).
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
192
concerning the distribution of the roles and the function of the miracles, is
the chapter in Eve's book. We have good reason to study the way
Pseudo-Philo uses the Old Testament material on miracle-workers.
22
b. Moses
Even a short summary of Moses' life takes up almost a fifth of L.A.B. (919). The writer also treats his miracles.
The hopeless situation before Moses' birth is described vividly (L.A.B.
9,1-16; cf. Exod 1:1-2:25): the Israelites will stop producing children, be
cause the boys are killed and the girls are raised to serve as slaves of the
Egyptians: LXX cooyove?Te CCUTO can be interpreted that the enemies
intended to take the girls to serve them. Amram faces a hopeless situation
and L.A.B. adds God's word promising to help him: the promise includes
an interesting phrase et ide ecce nunc quod genitum fuerit ex eo mihi
serviet in eternum et per eum faciam mirabilia in domo Iacob, et faciam
per eum signa et prodigia populo meo que non feci ulli. Amram may be
one of the several figures used by the writer to encourage his readers in a
hopeless situation. Although he realised the overwhelming power of the
enemy, Amram refused to give up (see also L.A.B. 27,7). The spirit of God
comes upon Miriam, who sees in a dream a man in a linen garment. He
foretells the birth of a son:
23
24
25
26
"Go and say to your parents: 'Behold he who will be born from you will be cast forth
into the water; likewise through him the water will be dried up. And I will work signs
through him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always.'" (L.A.B.
9,10).
27
2 2
Eve 2002, 117-143.

On Moses in L.A.B., see Tiede 1972, 182-184; Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 102-136;
Nickelsburg 1980, 53-54; Feldman 1989, 64-67; Murphy 1993, 59-61; Reinmuth 1994,
45-62 and Jacobson's commentary, 1996, 400-658.
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint concerning
Moses' early years, see above p. 92.
We know many stories about how Moses' birth was foretold, both in prophecy and in
dreams. Although some of them connect Miriam with the prophecy, this is the only
source attributing the prophetic dream to Miriam (Jacobson 1996, 419).
The translation by Harrington (1985) is used in the present study.
Pharaoh's daughter goes to the river "as she had seen in dreams" (L.A.B. 9,15). Re
inmuth observes the detail, but it is hard to share his view "Es handelt sich sachlich um
eine Rationalisierung" (1994, 96). Pseudo-Philo admittedly makes the story flow more
smoothly, but the word "Rationalisierung" is not correct.
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
193
Moses is, as Jacobson and Levison note, born circumcised (Ipse autem
puer natus est in testamento Dei et in testamento carnis eius, L.A.B. 9,13).
Moses' birth is described in many early Jewish texts and L.A.B. is part of
a large tradition. It is of special interest for this study that Moses' miracles
are present from the very beginning. Signa et prodigia undoubtedly were
D T E I Q I mmK / ar)|je7a Kai xepaTa in the Hebrew original and the Greek
translation (cf. Deut 26:8).
29
The writer says nothing about Moses' life between his childhood and the
return to Egypt (et misit Moysen et liberavit eos de terra Egiptiorum). The
plagues are rendered with only two sentences in L.A.B.
"God also sent upon them ten plagues and struck them down. Now these were the
plagues: that is, blood and frogs and all manner of beasts and hail and the death of cattle
and locusts and gnats and darkness that could be felt and the death of the firstborn"
(L.A.B. 10,1).
above p. 70.
Although the number of ten is mentioned (misit quoque Deus super eos
decern plagas), only nine are listed (the plague of boils is absent), which
undoubtedly is only a lapse, and because the mistake was not corrected by
the translator, perhaps it was not in the original and there is no reason for
further speculations. The plagues are enumerated in a slightly changed
order compared with Exodus (1,2,4,7,5,8,3,9,10). The short list allows only
some observations.
Harrington translates pammixia "all manner of beasts", but Jacobson
("mixed creatures") has understood the text better, pointing to Aquila's use
of the word TrdpiKTOs. However, the present study has revealed that also
Artapanus, Philo and Josephus considered the flies somehow special crea
tures.
The second notable feature is the darkness tractabiles tenebre, which is a
translation of v|;r)Aa<|>T]T6s CJKOTOS. The detail also occurs in Philo, Wis
and Josephus, and in Melito's early Christian sermon in another variant.
30
31
32
33
2 8
Jacobson 1996, 425; Levison 1996, 113.

See above p. 74.
See Harrington 1985, 317; Jacobson 1996, 432. Strangely enough, also Josephus
mentions only nine but omits another plague, i.e. the plague on the livestock (Feldman
1989, 65).
Jacobson 1996, 432-433.
On Artapanus, see above p. 102, on Philo, see p. 117, on Josephus, see p. 238.
On Philo, see above p. 116, on Josephus below p. 238. Melito deals with the darkness
in his sermon (22-24) in a similar way, although when retelling the death of the firstborn.
On T. Sim., see below p. 238.
2 9
3 0
31
3 2
33
194
Biblicarum
The most interesting feature of the passage is its extreme shortness. The
writer was obviously not using this phase of sacred history to teach any
thing. Did he intentionally avoid some features because of the situation in
his own times? Or did he simply suppose that the stories were known well
enough? Before suggesting an answer, the rest of the work has to be stud
ied.
The miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31) is retold briefly, but with a
major emendation and several interesting details.
34
On the differences between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 13:17-14:31, see p. 74.
In the L.A.B. the tribes of Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun and Simeon would
rather cast themselves into the sea than be killed by the enemies; the tribes
of Gad, Asher, Dan and Naphthali want to serve the Egyptians and the
tribes of Levi, Judah, Joseph' and Benjamin are ready to fight against the
enemy (L.A.B. 10,3). God tells Moses to strike the sea with his rod (tolle
virgam tuam et per cute mari). When Moses does all this, "God rebukes the
sea and the sea is dried up" (comminatus est Deus mari) and the way opens
up. God hardens the perception of the Egyptians, who did not know that
they were entering the sea. He tells Moses to strike the sea yet again and
thereby he destroyed the Egyptians. At Moses' birth, the angel prophesied
that the baby thrown to the water would dry up the sea (ecce quod nascetur
de vobis in aquam proicietur, quomodo per eum aqua siccabitur, L.A.B.
9,9).
The use of the biblical story is again very interesting: The writer has
omitted most of the details of the original. There is no God's angel, no
desperate Egyptians and no cloud separating the two peoples. On the other
hand, the writer has freely added extra-biblical details, some of which may
be traditional.
The detail that the Israelites were divided in the discussion of what to
with Pharaoh's troops were coming in many ways. It seems to be tradi
tional and older than L.A.B. Philo knew that the people were divided, al35
36
3 4
Some details play no role in the present study. Reinmuth observes that the people
doubt the promises given to Abraham (Gen 12:7) and underlines the theological character
of the despair (1994, 49-50). Bauckham notes (1983, 37) that the writer has removed the
difficulty in God's words ("Why are you crying to me", Exod 14:15) and added exclamavit. Philo solved the problem in a way typical for him; see p. 119.
It is typical for L.A.B. that the miracle at the Red Sea finds its predecessor in the
miracle of the Creator telling the water to flow to one place (Vogel 1998, 189).
Jacobson (1996, 420) underlines that the detail is not unique (as Feldman claimed,
1970, lxxii; see also Harrington 1985, 316; Feldman 1989, 65). Moreover, the miracle at
the Red Sea was often seen as punishment for the murder of Hebrew children (Jub.
48,14; Wis. 11,5-8). Reinmuth (1994, 118-127) collects the vast evidence of what he calls
"Talio- und Korrelationsprinzip" in L.A.B.
3 5
3 6
195
though he did not name the tribes, and the roots of the division are in the
Old Testament. The tribes of Gad and Asher from the middle group are
presented as villains also in Jos. Asen. 27:11, where they try to kill Aseneth, and in Liv. Pro. 3:18, where they have persecuted the righteous in
exile. Moreover, the entire version of the story is similar to several Rab
binic and Samaritan texts. However, the version in L.A.B. is more militant.
Now the Israelites are not unarmed, as in many early Jewish texts follow
ing the tradition attested in LXX. The feature is easy to explain by allud
ing to the many other militant passages of L.A.B., and has led some
scholars to ask whether the writer intentionally contemporized the biblical
story. The writer certainly realised that the options in Palestine in the first
century AD were analogous: to surrender, to commit suicide or to go on
with resistance. L.A.B. favours resistance at the Red Sea and condemns
the slavery there, similarly to L.A.B. 9: It is possible that the writer sup
ported this option as cowardice also in the time the work was written.
Several Jewish writers exaggerated the miracle, emphasizing that the
way was completely dry; Philo uses the words EKpccupcoBr) y a p q v|/d|JMOs
(Mos. 2,254) under the feet of the people. We do not know which Hebrew
words the writer used, but the Latin et siccatum est mare may reveal an
acquaintance with this tradition.
Moses' rod plays a prominent role here as in many texts cited above.
That he strikes the sea - now twice to open and to close the way - is an
unscriptural but common detail. The manner in which the way opens is
still more interesting. When God threatens the sea (comminatus est Deus
mari), the hymn in Exod 15 is, of course, involved in the event (Et
steterunt maria aquarum et apparuerunt profunda terre, cf. Exod 15:8
"The surging waters stood firm like a wall"). Apparently also several
Psalms are alluded to: Ps 106:9, as noted by Jacobson, but also Ps 114:
38
39
40
41
42
43
3 7
See above p. 121.

The first group consists of Leah's sons, the second of the sons of concubines and the
last of two of Rachel's and two of Leah's sons. On the roots in the Old Testament, see
Jacobson 1996, 437.
On Ezek. Trag., see above p. 75, on Philo p.l 19, on Josephus, see below p. 240.
See Bauckham 1983, 44-46 and Olyan 1991, 75-87.
Olyan (1991, 87-91) considers that the writer has made the version more militant and
favoured resistance. Mendels also tries in his article to show that Pseudo-Philo has tried
to contemporize the biblical story. However, his emphasis is different: None of the views
proposed prevailed but God himself helped his people. Mendels thinks that the writer, a
pre-70 Pharisee or a moderate Zealot (1992, 266), tried to tone down the war, but had no
success (1992, 270-273). Jacobson does not note these possible contemporizations in his
commentary.
See Jacobson 1996, 440 and on Ezekiel above p. 75, on Artapanus p. 105, on Philo p.
119 and on Josephus p. 241.
Jacobson 1996, 441. See also Ps 18:16 as Bauckham 1983, 43 notes.
3 8
3 9
4 0
41
4 2
4 3
196
Biblicarum
"He rebuked the Red Sea, and it dried up,

he led them through the depths as through the desert" (Ps 106:9).
"Why was it, O sea, that you fled
O Jordan, that you turned back,
you mountains, that you skipped like rams,
you hills, like lambs?
Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord,
at the presence of the God of Jacob,
who turned the rock into a pool,
the hard rock into springs of water" (Ps 114:5-8).
Also here the unknown writer combines material (this time biblical) from
many sources to retell the story of Exodus. His redaction means that God
clearly takes a more prominent role than in the biblical original and
Moses' role is reduced.
It is interesting that, unlike, for example, in Jub., Artapanus and Philo,
God stands again in dialogue with Moses. Murphy notes that the writer
often presents God in dialogues with the people and more often with their
leaders. Moreover, he may interpret the Scriptures with God's soliloquy
(for example, cogitavit primo dicens, L.A.B. 53,2), which was not the way
Philo retold the Scriptures.
44
45
46
47
Moses' miracles in the desert generally play no prominent role, and are
only mentioned in a few words:
"Now he led his people out into the wilderness; for forty years he rained down for them
bread from heaven and brought quail (ortigometram) to them from the sea and brought a
well of water to follow them. Now with a pillar of cloud he led them by day, and with a
pillar of fire he gave them light by day night" (L.A.B. 10,7).
The water of Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is mentioned only briefly (L.A.B.

11,15), and it is placed after Moses received the Law. However, it seems to
be part of a larger and multifaceted tradition:
"And there God commanded Moses many things and showed him the tree of life, from
which he cut off and took and threw into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet.
And it followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with
them and went down into the plains" (L.A.B. 11,15).
It is grammatically possible that the subject of sequebatur is God, and

some of the manuscripts add the word, but Harrington translates the sen
tence correctly: As seen above, not only God but also the well followed the
"Jacobson 1996, 442.
Murphy 1988, 7-8.
See chapter 6.
The way from Egypt is also described briefly in God's speech to Joshua in L.A.B.
23,9-10 and in Deborah's hymn L.A.B. 32,7-8 and 17.
4 5
4 6
4 7
197
Biblicarum
people. Moreover, it is interesting to see the method that made the water
sweet. Jacobson justly corrects the translations "Holz des Lebens" and "fe
bois de la vie". Moses saw the tree of life, which made the water sweet.
The anonymous writer undoubtedly wrote ys> which was uAov in Greek
and then lignum in Latin. He followed a broad tradition of interpretation.
It was supposed early on that Moses did not throw an ordinary piece of
wood into the well. Ben Sira used the passage to defend the skills of the
physicians and Philo used it in his own way.
Pseudo-Philo thus mentions briefly the water-miracle (Exod 17:1-7; Num
20:1-13) also in 10,7 (et puteum aquae consequentis eduxit eis) also in
L.A.B. 11,15 (er sequebatur eos). This is an early occurrence of a version
which also figures in 1 Cor 10. It is based on Num 21:16-20: The Israel
ites were given water in Beer and praised the well, which the princes dug
"with sceptres and staffs." It gave reason to believe that it was the same as
that which followed the people from Horeb (Exod 17,1-7) to Meribah
(Num 20:1-13) and to Beer (Num 21:16-20).
The events are thus again retold in the striking brevity with which the
events in the desert are described, and the question asked above must be
asked again: Why did he summarise so briefly an important period of Is
rael's history? Possibly the only reason is that the miracles did not need to
be retold, but were clearly assumed to be known to everybody. They could
be summarised or also alluded to very briefly, because the audience con
sisted of Jews. However, there might be a more serious reason, as sug
gested by Mendels: The writer may have wanted to hurriedly pass over the
events, because the Zealots linked their ideas with the desert. The sug
gestion may be a bold one, but makes sense: The writer shows no interest
in this very important topic in early Judaism. On the other hand, the work
9
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
4 8
See Dietzfelbinger 1979, 132; (Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 1, 125; see however 1976,
2, 113); Jacobson 1996,479.
On the detail in Ben Sira, see p. 20, on Philo, see 122; on Josephus, see p. 242.
The rabbinic sources usually identify the well mentioned in Num 21, and not the one
mentioned in Exod 15:25, as the water which followed the Israelites. Jacobson (1996,
479), however, justly rejects the doubts that the text of LA.B. is confused (see also
L.A.B. 20,8).
See Wolff 1982, 42-43. On Ezek. Trag., see above p. 80.
See Jacobson 1983, 154, Harrington 1985, 317; Jacobson 1996, 444.
Three miracles are closely linked with three persons later in the work (LA.B. 20,8):
"And these are the three things that God gave to his people on account of three persons;
that is, the well of the water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and
the manna for Moses. And when these came to their end, these three things were taken
away from them." The tradition is attested in several rabbinic sources; see Jacobson
1996, 671-672. Manna is later called by Moses "the bread of angels" (L.A.B. 19,5).
Mendels 1992, 273.
On the significance of the desert in early Judaism, see Hengel 1989b, 249-257;
4 9
5 0
51
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
198
Biblicarum
is generally rather militant. Nevertheless, even the short account may re

veal a larger tradition, as the two water-miracles attest.
A miracle-story, which clearly has been reinterpreted in L.A.B., as well as
in Philo and Josephus, deals with Korah (Num 16:1-17:31).
56
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Num 16:1-17:31, see
above p. 126.
In Num 16 his rebellion (200 and not 250 as in Num 16:2) is directed
against Moses and Aaron:
"The whole community is holy, every of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do
you set yourselves above the Lord's assembly?" (Num 16:3).
Pseudo-Philo radically changes the reason for the rebellion. As in Num

15:37-41) God gives the law of tassels on garments, but it is followed by
an unscriptural question:
"Why is an unbearable law imposed upon us (quid si ponitur nobis lex insufferibilis)"
(L.A.B. 16,1).
57
Consequently, the whole story is changed. It no longer deals with the legitimisation of Moses, but with the legitimisation of the Law. It may seem
strange that it is precisely the easy law of tassels, which is called unbear
able, but both the writer and the rabbinic exegesis followed the order of
Num and saw here the reason for the rebellion. Yet, it is clear that the
problem is not merely an individual commandment, but the entire Law,
which cannot be divided. Generally, the central virtue in L.A.B. is to obey
the Law, and this has reshaped the biblical story. Questioning the divine
character of the Law is one the sins confessed to Kenaz by his fellow Isra
elites and punished severely (L.A.B. 25,9-13). The story is dramatized and
embellished with new details, especially with the passage on the seven of
58
59
60
Horsley and Hanson 1985, 162-163; Gray 1993, 114; Schwemer 1995, 214-232; 1996,
131-136.
On Philo, see above p. 126-127; on Josephus, see below p. 244-246. Moreover see
Reinmuth 1989, 165-166; Murphy 1993, 79-89; Jacobson 1996, 553-570, Levison 1996,
123-124 and Feldman 1998b, 91-109.
The Latin phrase is difficult, quid si is mostly taken for "why" (Harrington 1985,
323). The literal "what i f makes no sense. Jacobson proposes quid sic and translates it
"why is an intolerable law ordained for us in this way" (1996, 544). The language in the
Latin translation is bad enough to cause several such problems.
See Jacobson 1996, 553. A common midrashic principle was that there was a real
historical connection between events recounted consecutively in the biblical text (Bauckham 1983, 38).
Reinmuth 1989, 165-166.
See Jacobson 1996, 245. A typical feature in the redaction is that Korah and his fol
lowers are compared to the generation of the flood (Vogel 1998, 189).
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
199
Biblicarum
Korah's sons who did not follow their father but strongly confessed their
commitment to the Law (L.A.B. 16,5). Moses is almost completely passed
over in the story and it is God who defends his Law in an extra-biblical
speech apparently mediated by Moses (loquente Moyse omnia verba hec
populo). The opponents of the Law were destroyed - also a new detail like "the camp of the Egyptians and the race that I destroyed with the wa
ter of the flood" (L.A.B. 16,3). Unlike Philo, Pseudo-Philo retells the story
about the budding of Aaron's rod, but not about the continuing rebellion
(L.A.B. 17).
The story is thus retold in a very learned way. Understandably, its func
tion has changed: Moses' person no longer needs legitimisation, but the
Holy Law is always a subject to defend. Pseudo-Philo solves the problem
in Pentateuch, certainly known to him, that Korah "with his households
and men and all his possession" died (Num 16:32), but that his sons are
mentioned later (Num 26:11). He also reveals a list of the greatest sinners
of history, which has many parallels. Here they are the people before the
flood, the Egyptians and Korah, who wanted to reject the Law. Everything
indicates that the writer was part of a long, learned tradition, and that he
contemporized a miracle-story to teach his audience.
61
62
63
Also, Moses' last day is retold by Pseudo-Philo extensively and with new
details (Deut 34:1-8 I L.A.B. 19).
64
On a comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Deut 34,1-8, see above p. 127.
Unlike Philo and several other authors investigated in the present study the
writer did not avoid presenting God in dialogue with Moses. God's speech
(Deut 31:16-21) conflates with Moses' words (Deut 31:25-29). Moses
himself says that the Israelites will cry for a "judge for the sons of Israel to
pray always for our sins" (oret pro peccatis nostris, L.A.B. 19,3). Moses
has a role as mediator and intercessor in the Scripture (Exod 32:30; Exod
34:9), but it is now underlined. A dialogue between God and Moses is
added, in which God tells about the fall of a "place where they will serve
65
66
61
See Levison 1996, 123-124.

The rabbinic tradition observes that Korah's sons did not take part in his rebellion;
see Jacobson 1996, 563.
A minor detail is that Balaam's she-ass did not speak (L.A.B. 18,9). A rationalistic
interpretation could be assumed, but is hardly correct, because the work otherwise shows
no such tendencies.
On Moses' death in L.A.B., see Delling 1971, 16; Murphy 1993, 89-95, Jacobson
1996, 611-658; in Philo above p. 127-128, in Josephus below p. 245. See also Deut. R.
11:10.
Jacobson 1996,612-613.
Jacobson 1996,617.
6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
200
Biblicarum
me" and about a horrible day similar to the one in which God smashed the
tablets of the covenant (L.A.B. 19,7). In this dialogue Moses again men
tions the miracles of the burning bush and the Red Sea. God shows him the
Promised Land, Egypt and the places from which water and clouds come
upon the Holy Land, and, moreover the storerooms of manna and the
paths to paradise. Moses' rod, which is often treated in interesting ways,
is now accorded a more significant function than earlier:
67
68
69
"And now your staff with which these signs were performed will be a witness between
me and my people (erit testimonium inter me et populum meum). And when they sin, I
will be angry with them but I will recall your staff and spare them in accord with my
mercy. And your staff will be before me as reminder all the days (et erit virga tua in
conspectu meo in commemorationem omnium dierum), and it will be like the bow with
which I established my covenant with Noah when he went from the ark" (L.A.B. 19,11).
Aaron's rod was placed in the Tabernacle and preserved during centuries
(Num 17:25), but now Moses' rod is given yet another role: It will not
stand in the temple in Jerusalem, but in the heavenly Temple - at least
Moses sees mensuras sanctuarii.
Moses' death - if it can be called a death - is described in an intriguingly
way. He asks God how much time is left (L.A.B. 19,14) and gets the an
swer that four and a half have passed and two and a half remain.
10
"And when Moses heard this, he was filled with understanding and his appearance be
came glorious; and he died in glory according to the word of the Lord, and he buried
him" (L.A.B. 19,16).
Moses' death means mourning in heaven:

"And the angels mourned at his death, and the lightnings and the torches and the arrows
went all together before him. And in that day the hymn of the heavenly hosts was not
sung because of the passing of Moses, nor was there such a day from the one on which
the Lord made man upon the earth, nor shall there be such forever, that the hymn of the
angels should stop on account of men; because he loved him very much" (L.A.B. 19,16).
Jacobson doubts the integrity of the text, because there is, according to him, no rea
son to show Moses Egypt among the mysterious things (Jacobson 1996, 635). Perhaps
the original text has indeed alluded to Gen "To your descendants I give this land, from
the river of Egypt to the great river", i.e.fluvium Egypti and not terram Egypti.
Unde bibet sola terra sancta. The tradition that the land of Israel had special sources
of rain is attested later in Sifr. Deut. 42 and b.Taan. 10a ("Palestine is watered by the
Holy One, blessed be he, and the rest of the world is watered by a messenger").
Artapanus tells that the Egyptians worshipped Moses' rod in their temples (Artap.
3,32). To Philo it was fj 'lepd ftaKTnpi'a (see 133).
"And he showed him the measurements of the sanctuary and the number of sacrifices
and the signs by which they are to interpret the heaven", L.A.B. 19,10; see Jacobson
1996, 638-639. James saw an analogy with Noah's covenant and the rainbow and sup
posed that the Milky Way is meant (1917, 130). There is an analogy, but although Noah
is mentioned, it is not between Noah and Moses but between the earthly and heavenly
Temple.
68
6 9
7 0
Biblicarum
201
The death of the hero presents us with a puzzling problem. On the one
hand, hand he clearly dies, is buried and the angels mourn him. On the
other hand, Pseudo-Philo writes "mutata est effigies eius in gloria" and
soon after that adds to Deut 34:5 again the words that Moses died "in glo
ria" Moreover, later in the work, Deborah's way of speaking about Moses
in heaven is not easy to interpret:
71
"And when Moses was dying, God established for him a platform and showed him then
what we now have as witnesses, saying: 'Let there be as witness between me and you and
my people the heaven that you are to enter and the earth on which you walk until now.
For the sun and the moon and the stars are servants to you"' (L.A.B. 32,9).
As told above, in L.A.B. 19 God shows Moses the secrets of the world be
fore Moses' death. The words et cum moreretur disposuit ei firmamentum
may point to this brief look. However, the death in gloria and his trans
formation allow another interpretation. It is possible that Moses is given a
similar role as in his dream in Ezekiel's Exagoge and as Abraham is given
in Apoc. Ab. 13:4-14: A place in heaven, from which he can look at the
whole world. It may be connected with his enthronement, although the
word is not used.
Moses thus did and did not die. Jacobson supposes some kind of
body/soul split: The body is buried, but his soul is led to some other
world. This may be true, but because of the scarce material, one cannot
be certain. Philo offers a very close parallel by combining Moses' death
with the Platonic doctrine about body and soul. However, it is obvious
that Moses was sui generis in life as well as in death.
The words referring to a day similar to the one on which God smashed
the tablets of the covenant (L.A.B. 19,7) is generally taken as a sign for a
post-70 date of the work. This seems to be true, and although the evidence
is not absolute, the passage should be studied in the light of the stormy
first century AD. It is likely that the writer is contemporizing the holy his
tory again. The nation will not obey the Law and it will suffer, but the na
tion will never be forgotten. Moses acts as intercessor and his holy rod
72
73
74
75
76
77
71
See below p. 204.

See above p. 81-86 and 50.
God promises Moses to shorten the days so that his resurrection should happen
sooner (L.A.B. 19,13). According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354) the key to an inter
pretation is that Moses is going to return ("endzeitliche Wiederkehr") and that he is
"Paradigma und Vorlaufer des Messias". The interpretation is rather bold: the eschatological resurrection does not necessarily contain the idea about the returning Moses.
On the enthronement of the men in early Judaism, see above p. 85-86.
Jacobson 1996, 249; see also Lierman 2004, 190-191. On the death of Moses, see
also pp. 127 and 245.
See above p 190-191.
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
202
Biblicarum
reminds God of his great miracle of the exodus. The hope of the despaired
nation lies in its sacred history.
The most striking feature of the stories about Moses is that, unlike in Jub.,
Artapanus and Philo, he now again stands in dialogue with God. The tradi
tion had reduced God's anthropological features, which had led to various
redactions of the miracle stories. Now the direction is diametrically op
posed to this: Pseudo-Philo freely adds passages in which God speaks with
Moses before his death. It is not nonbiblical, because God spoke with
Moses D D D " ^ D^DS, but why did the writer choose this approach?
Several Jewish writers distanced God from men, which necessarily led to
a redistribution of the roles in the stories. Yet the opposite approach of
Pseudo-Philo led to similar consequences, and also here it is difficult to
find a consistent line. God's role in the events has certainly reduced
Moses' role, but, on the other hand, his special status is strongly empha
sized, especially in the stories about his death. Once again it is difficult to
use Kahl's good terminology.
According to Eve, the main function of the miracles is to show that God
is in charge of the world, punishing the wicked and rewarding and protect
ing his own people; it is easy to agree with him. This idea, of course, has
strong biblical roots, but L.A.B. has preserved and expanded it. God pun
ishes the Egyptians and Korah, rewards Amram and protects the Israelites
at the Red Sea. The writer does not seem to have found a function, how
ever, for some of the miracles mentioned very briefly, which include the
plagues and the miracles in the desert. If the reason is not that he inten
tionally avoided some stories, then it is that he supposed them to be known
to every reader.
N
78
79
Eve studies the miracles in L.A.B. and considers them generally the miracles of God
or his angelic agents; however he notes the ambivalence in the stories of Moses as some
thing puzzling (2002, 129-132).
Eve 2002, 134-142.
7 9
Biblicarum
203
c. Joshua
Joshua, a miracle-worker in the Old Testament and in The Wisdom of Ben
Sira* also gets a role in L.A.B.* but Pseudo-Philo has been very selec
tive. Some things are left out, some things are added and some things un
derlined.
0
On the differences between the Hebrew texts and LXX concerning Joshua, see above p.
249.
Jericho's conquest (Jos 5:13-6,27) is rendered only briefly and without any
miraculous features ("And when they brought back word, the people went
up and attacked the city and burned it with fire", L.A.B. 20,7), and the
crossing of the Jordan (Jos 31-5,1) is totally omitted. The omissions con
cern the most prominent deeds told in Joshua: No miraculous features are
preserved in this passage. The stones from heaven (Jos 10:8-14) are men
tioned only after the life of Joshua and also then very briefly (L.A.B. 30,5):
"And when your enemies came against you, he rained down hailstones on them and
destroyed them (lapides grandinis pluit super eos)."*
2
The miracles of the new leader, however, could not be ignored. When
Joshua is called, Pseudo-Philo adds events to the biblical story:
"Then God said to Joshua the son of Nun: 'Why do you mourn and why do you hope in
vain that Moses yet lives? And now you wait to no purpose, because Moses is dead. Take
his garments of wisdom and clothe yourself, and with his belt of knowledge gird your
loins, and you will be changed and become another man. Did I not speak on your behalf
to Moses my servant, saying: 'This one will lead my people after you, and into his hand I
will deliver the kings of the Amorites?' And Joshua took the garments of wisdom and
clothed himself and girded his loins with the belt of understanding. And when he clothed
himself with it, his mind was afire and his spirit was moved, and he said to the people:
..." (L.A.B. 20,2-3).
The miraculous legitimisation of the leadership is very interesting. Deut

34:9 says only that Joshua "was filled with the Spirit", and LXX renders
the phrase literally, but here we have a more detailed description. Jacobson
plausibly points to Num 20:22-29, where Aaron's garments are put on his
son Eleazar. However, the succession of the prophet forms a closer paral
lel: As Elisha took the mantle of Elijah, Joshua takes Moses' garment. This
83
8 0
On Ben Sira, see above p. 26-31, on Josephus, see below p. 249-255.

On Joshua in L.A.B., see Nickelsburg 1980, 54; Murphy 1993, 96-101; Reinmuth
1994, 63-65 and Jacobson 1996, 658-735.
According to Harrington L.A.B. follows LXX, which has X(0ous x^dCns, choosing
"hailstones" instead of "great stones" (1985, 343; similarly Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2,
166), but actually MT has both (nVna wn* and n a n âaa, Jacobson 1996, 837).
Jacobson 1996, 660.
81
8 2
8 3
204
Biblicarum
no longer refers to his clothes; the idea has been developed further, pos
sibly on the grounds of the succession between Elijah and Elisha: The
garments symbolise a leadership in Spirit. This kind of leadership is one of
the most notable features in the miracle stories of L.A.B., and it means an
obvious connection between religion and politics. The puzzling words
"you will be changed and become another man" (et immutaberis et eris in
virum alium) are not unique, in L.A.B. or elsewhere. They are taken di
rectly from 1 Sam 10:6 (ina wvb roami) and they point to the ancient,
spirit-filled leadership in Israel. Saul hears the news of the terrible situa
tion in Jabesh Gilead and "the Spirit of God came upon him in power and
he burned with anger". The newly elected king took Israel to war against
the Ammonites and triumphed over them (1 Sam 11:6-11). A similar lead
ership is also attested in the biblical Samson (esp. Judg 13,25). It is a
sign that leadership and miracles were closely integrated in Joshua's fig
ure, just as Philo combined them in Moses' figure. Joshua takes "Moses'
garments of wisdom" and leads the people to battle.
The writer seems to contemporize the biblical story again, since it should
not be forgotten that the work was written in a period of battles, blood and
slaughter. Was the author waiting for a man who would take the "garments
of wisdom" and lead his people to the fight against the Romans as Saul
once did against the Ammonites? If that is true, the passage should not be
overlooked when the question of the religious background of the revolts is
raised.
That Joshua is called to lead the people in Spirit and that he also fulfils
his mission and the place given to him shows that he is one of the main
figures in the work. The most interesting passage concerning Joshua is,
however, not a part of his life, but comes much later in the song of Deb
orah:
85
"And when Moses was dying, God established for him a platform and showed him then
what we now have as witnesses (Et cum moreretur, disposuit ei firmamentum, et ostendit
ei tunc quos nunc habemus testes), saying: 'Let there be as witness between me and you
and my people the heaven that you are to enter and the earth on which you walk until
now. For the sun and the moon and the stars are servants to you.' And when Joshua
arose to rule the people, on the day when he was fighting the enemies, the evening ap
proached while the battle is still going on. Joshua said to the sun and moon: 'You who
have been made servants between the Most Powerful and his sons, behold now the battle
is still going on, and do you abandon your duties? Therefore stand still today and give
light to his sons and darkness to his enemies.' And they did so" (LA.B. 32,9-10).
87
See
See
See
See
also Wis 10:15-16 and on Kenaz below p. 206-255.

below p. 216-217.
above p. 148-155.
Jacobson 1996, 876-883.
205
Biblicarum
The miracle at the battle of Gibeon, briefly told in Jos 10:12-13, is now
given a place in the theology of the work. The miracle in itself, unlike in
Sir 46, is not enough. The difficult Latin phrase disposuit ei firmamentum
is understandably interpreted in different ways and because of the often
poor Latin in L.A.B. many translators have allowed themselves plenty of
freedom. Jacobson, in his analysis of the proposed interpretations, takes
disponere for 'arrange', i.e. that God opened the heaven to Moses. How
ever, the word also means 'to distribute', 'allot', 'assign'. The Oxford
Latin Dictionary quotes (s.v.) Q. Cic. Pet. 20: ut dispositum suum cuique
munus sit. As mentioned above, prior to his death, Moses was allowed to
look at all the secrets of the universe (L.A.B. 19). Now, however, it seems
that it was not a temporary but a permanent situation: God gave Moses a
seat similar to Abraham's in Apoc. Ab? If this interpretation is correct,
this hymn gives a cosmic dimension to the battle at Gibeon and Joshua's
leadership. The angels followed the battle between David and Goliath,
but now the sun and the moon have to wait until the man fulfils his task in
Spirit.
It is difficult to use Kahl's terminology. Eve notes that Joshua is pre
sented as a BNP, if the passage about the stopped sun is taken in isolation
and no satisfactory explanation is found. Firstly, however, the framework
of interpreting a passage should always be noted. Some verses in Ben Sira
may raise similar questions. Secondly, it seems useless to seek consis
tency, because the writer has not reflected thoroughly on the roles given to
God and men, and the result is sometimes slightly confused. Kahl's termi
nology offers no alternative for a spirit-filled leader such as Joshua: Such a
man is not merely a PNP, and also an MNP is not exact. Thus instead of
suggesting a new terminology it may be enough to state that the terminol
ogy does not cover people like Joshua in L.A.B.
88
89
90
92
93
94
8 8
See above p. 27f.

See Jacobson 1996, 880.
James (1917, 176) translated it as "appointed unto him the firmament", Harrington
"God established for him a platform" and adds in a note "Moses is given a platform or
balcony from which he can see all" (1985, 346). Both scholars, as well as Dietzfelbinger
("bestimmte er ihm das Firmament", 1979, 196), seem to try to formulate that God gave a
special status to Moses and let him watch the world below him. It seems that Jacobson,
who was unwilling to accept Moses' exaltation in Ezek. Trag. (see 81-85) is unwilling to
accept it also here.
See p. 50.
Eve 2002, 133-134.
See above p. 30.
8 9
9 0
91
9 2
9 3
9 4
206
Biblicarum
d. Kenaz
Early Judaism knew much about people hardly mentioned in the Old Tes
tament. Sometimes different figures could be combined, for instance Ke
naz (up), who is mentioned in very different connections in the Old Testa
ment. He is "Caleb's younger brother" (Judg 1:13) or his grandson (1 Chr
4:15) and Othniel's father (Judg 1:13; 1 Chr 4:13; Jos. Ant. 5,182-184),
but he also has traits of the Edomite mentioned in Gen 36:11; 42. Appar
ently, as Schwemer says, the Israelite conquest of Edom in 128 BC has
made the Edomite and his monument a part of the Hebrew heritage in Jew
ish patriotic propaganda and later texts.
We have only dim echoes of Kenaz' role in early Judaism. Kenaz is men
tioned briefly in Liv. Pro. 10:9:
95
96
"He (Jonah) died and was buried in the cave of Kenaz, who became judge of one tribe in
the days of anarchy."
97
Josephus speaks of a very militant Kenaz (Keviaos), but Kenaz' role is

especially emphasized in Pseudo-Philo's work. The space given to him
attests the writer's interest. He writes more extensively about a man hardly
mentioned in the Old Testament than on any one else except for Moses.
Kenaz is not a marginal figure; on the contrary, he is of help in studying
5
Bauckham notes that Kenaz can be considered a substitute for Othniel and points to
Judg 3:10: "The Spirit of Lord came upon him, so that he become Israel's judge and went
to war" (Bauckham 1983, 48-50). There is no evident reason why both L.A.B. and
Josephus (Ant. 5,182-184) have replaced Othniel with Kenaz.
"Alle Wahrscheinlichkeit spricht dafur, daB die Entstehung dieser Tradition mit der
Eroberung des idumaeischen Gebiets um 128 v. Chr. zusammenhangt und den Anschluss
der Idumaer an den hasmonaischen Staat verklart" (Schwemer 1996, 77). His monument
was originally an Idumean tomb but was taken as evidence that the great leader was an
Israelite (Schwemer 1997, 620-621). Jacobson (1996, 738-741) sees "nothing in L.A.B's
account that suggests Idumean provenance, background or influence" (1996, 739). His
note is correct but does not, of course, contradict Schwemer's view: Pseudo-Philo does
not present Kenaz as an Edomite but as an Israelite, because the Israelites wanted to jus
tify the conquest of Idumea. We know little about the traditions of Kenaz, but it is certain
that they existed and were militant, and that he had a monument in the Idumean regions
(cf. Liv. Pro. 10:9). There is no reason to reject Schwemer's proposal.
"A man of the tribe of Judah, Kenaz by name, vigorous and noble-hearted, being
warned by an oracle not to leave the Israelites to lie in such deep distress, but to essay to
vindicate their liberty, after exhorting some others to share his hazards - and few were
they who were filled with shame at their present state and longed to alter it - began by
massacring the garrison of Chusarsathus that was quartered upon them. Then, when lar
ger numbers rallied to his arms, seeing that he had not miscarried at this opening of his
enterprise, they joined battle with the Assyrians and, having utterly repulsed them, forced
them to recross Euphrates. Kenaz, having thus given practical proof of his prowess, re
ceived as his reward from the people rulership, to act as judge of the nation. And after
ruling for forty years he ended his days" (Ant. 5,182-184).
9 6
9 7
207
Biblicarum
the theology of the whole work. The analysis of Kenaz is interesting es

pecially because the material on him is not taken from the Old Testament;
it is either taken from a much younger tradition or created freely. Miracles
do not play a role in his figure."
The heavy-handed judge was sent as a spy to Jericho (L.A.B. 20,6), and
elected by lot as leader after Joshua's death (L.A.B. 25,1-3). He started his
mission by burning more than 6,000 men of his own people, who con
fessed their different sins in a story similar to Achan's trial and death
(L.A.B. 25,4-26,5). In the trial, Kenaz expressis verbis points to the
miracles of God.
God not only directly speaks with the new leader, but also makes many
miracles and shows him the right way (L.A.B. 25-26). His physical strength
is no longer ordinary, and he is led by the Spirit, filling him with power
and courage. He fights alone against the Amorites and prays - as also some
other Jews - that God will make a miracle (Et nunc unum de mirabilibus
tuis mitte servo tuo). He knows that if he fails he fails because of his sins,
but if he wins his prayer was heard (L.A.B. 27,7). The same thought also
occurs elsewhere in L.A.B.
The events show the latter alternative to be
true:
100
101
102
103
104
"And when Kenaz heard their words, he was clothed with the spirit of power and was
changed into another man (indutus est spiritu virtutis et transmutatus in virum alium),
and he went down to the Amorite camp and began to strike them down. But the Lord sent
before him the angel Ingethel, who is in charge of hidden things and works invisibly, and
another powerful angel was helping him. And Ingethel struck the Amorites with blind
ness so that, when each saw his neighbour, they thought they were their adversaries and
they killed one another. And Zeruel, the angel who is pre-eminent in military might, bore
up the arms of Kenaz lest they should sink down. And Kenaz killed forty-five thousand
men of the Amorites. Now they killed one another, and forty-five thousand men fell"
(L.A.B. 27,10).
9 8
Feldman 1989, 60. On passages in the Old Testament, which may have formed the
tradition, see Bauckham 1983, 48-50.
On Kenaz in L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2, 150-164; Nickelsburg 1980, 5455; Murphy 1993, 116-133; Reinmuth 1994, 65-68 and Jacobson 1996, 735-945.
Unlike L.A.B., in Josephus the Israelites are pressed by the Assyrians and not the
Philistines. Moreover, Kenaz starts his mission with a battle against the enemy and not
with a massacre against his own people (Ant. 5,182-184). The tradition about Kenaz does
not seem to have been very fixed.
"Lord God of our fathers, reveal to your servants the truth, for we have found those
who do not believe the wonders that you did for our fathers from the time you brought
them out of the land of Egypt until this day" (quoniam invenimur non credentes prodigiis
que fecisti patribus nostris ex quo eiecisti eos de terra Egypti usque ad hodiernam diem),
L.A.B. 25,6.
See e.g. 3 Mace 6:4.
See L.A.B. 47,1 and 47,9.
9 9
100
101
102
103
104
208
Biblicarum
Like Joshua {L.A.B. 20,2), Kenaz is also "changed into another man" by
the spirit. The spirit not only means that he was filled with courage; the
words are again taken from 1 Sam 10:6. mi means that he acts as Saul
once did against the Ammonites unanimously uniting the people to wage
war (1 Sam 11:6-11). Nevertheless, the nearest Old Testament parallel may
not be Saul, but Samson, who acts acting similarly in Judges:
105
"And the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between
Zorah and Esthaol" (Judg 13:25).
"Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon,
struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes
to those who had explained the riddle" (Judg 14:19).
"The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like
charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a don
key, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men" (Judg 15:14).
The passage in L.A.B. also contains a great deal of the story about
Gideon's victory, when the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, too (Judg
6:34). It is easy to follow a historical line in the miracle stories. Exodus
may vary between God and his angels, while LXX goes a step further. Jub.
introduces the Angel of Presence and divides divine action between God's
angels and Mastema. Now L.A.B. continues and specifies God's saving
action, giving the names of the angels. The next step is seen, for example,
in a Nag Hammadi text telling how the different (bad) angels took part in
the creation (Apocryphon Johannis 15-17). Jewish angelology developed
and was introduced into the miracle stories; this changed the roles of God
and the human agents. Ingethel (superpositum occultis et operantem invisibliter) and Zeruel (angelus qui preerat virtuti) are mentioned only in
L.A.B. (Zervel is probably Zervihel, mentioned in L.A.B. 61,5,), but appar
ently their names reveal their mission. Their help in the passage makes it
clear that Kenaz is not an ordinary leader, but a man in the Spirit of God
and a prophet. The way the angels support Moses' hands resembles the
story about Moses' hands in the battle against Amalek.
It is also interesting to see how Kenaz prophecies. The important pas
sage is worth citing extensively:
106
107
108
109
Jacobson cites, as others before him, Luke 24:49 and Isa 11:2, and considers the
words indutus est spiritu virtutis to mean only that when Kenaz heard the words of the
enemies his courage grew (1996, 790). However, the spirit plays a marked role in Kenaz'
leadership.
For details, see Jacobson 1996, 787-788.
See Perrot and Bogaert (1976, 2, 160) and Harrington (1985, 340), who consider the
names only two variants, and trace the name to tfnr ('arm', 'strength').
Pseudo-Philo mentions in the same chapter two other prophets, Jabis and Phinehas
(L.A.B. 28,1).
A commentary in Jacobson 1996, 811-822.
1 0 6
107
108
109
209
Biblicarum
"And when they had sat down, a holy spirit came upon Kenaz and dwelled in him and put
him in ecstasy (insiluit spiritus sanctus habitans in Cenez, et extulit sensum eius), and he
began to prophesy, saying: 'Behold now I see what I had not hoped for, and I perceive
that I did not understand. Hear now, you who dwell on the earth, just as those staying a
while on it prophesied before me and saw this hour even before the earth was corrupted,
so all of you who dwell in it may know the prophecies that have been fixed in advance.
Behold now I see flame that do not burn, and I hear springs raised up out of a sleep for
which there is no foundation, and I perceive neither the tops of the mountains nor the
roof of the firmament, but everything has no appearance and is invisible and has no place
whatsoever. And although my eye does not know what it sees, my heart will find what to
say. Now from the flame that I saw not burning, I saw and behold a spark came up and,
as it were, laid for itself a platform. And the floor was like what a spider spins, in the
pattern of a shield. And when this foundation had been set, behold there was stirred up
from that spring, as it were, boiling foam; and behold it changed itself into another foun
dation, as it were. Now between the upper foundation and the lower there came forth
from the light of that invisible place, as it were the images of men; and they were walk
ing around. And behold a voice was saying: "These will be a foundation for men, and
they will dwell in between them for 7,000 years. And the lower foundation was solid
material, but the upper was of foam. And those who went forth from the light of the in
visible place, they will be those who will have the name 'man.'" And when he will sin
against me and the time will be fulfilled, the spark will be put out and the spring will
stop, and so they will be transformed.' And when Kenaz had spoken these words, he was
awakened, and his senses came back to him. But he did not know what he had said or
what he had seen." (L.A.B. 28,6-9).
It is not easy to explain how the spirit dwelling in Kenaz came upon him,
and some translators have tried to correct the sentence. Apparently a
strict logic cannot be assumed. The words extulit sensus eius correspond
with the words reversus est sensus eius. Jacobson cites Plato (Ion 534bc, Meno 99c; apol. 22c) and Ael. Arist. 2,43 as Greek parallels for the
mantic inspiration; and the vivid description in Vergil's Aen. 6,42-54 could
be added to the material. Levison compares Philo with Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum and finds important parallels useful also here. The ec
stasy of the prophet was not very common in early Judaism (cf. L.A.B.
18,10), but it is strongly present in the picture Philo gives of Moses.
Philo offers a very close parallel in Mos. 1,274, where Moses prophesied
God's help at the Red Sea (Mos. 2,250). Both Jewish writers thus com
bine leadership with ecstasy.
Perhaps of greater importance is that Pseudo-Philo closely links his vivid
cosmological interest with Kenaz' prophecy and miracles. Kenaz receives
the prophecy immediately before his death. The great leader sees the long
110
111
112
113
114
110
111
112
113
114

Jacobson 1996, 811.821
Levison 1995, 190-206.
On Philo, see above p. 148-155.
See Levison 1995, 191.
210
Biblicarum
chain of events: Man, created by God, will sin against him and extinguetur
scintilla et pausabit vena, et sic mutabuntur - this is an obvious reference
to the eschatological passing away of heaven and earth. Then L.A.B.
gives his last words:
115
"If the repose of the just after they have died is like this, we must die to the corruptile
world (mori corruptili seculo) so as not to see the sins" (L.A.B. 28,10).
The words are, again, not easy to interpret: corruptili seculo is hardly an
ablativus causae or temporis as Jacobson seems to take it, but presuma
bly a dativus incommodi as translated above by Harrington. Nonetheless,
this is the framework of Kenaz' spirit-filled leadership: He sees the heav
enly order, which determines the place of man, as well as the battles
fought, in the world. Understandably elsewhere (L.A.B. 32,1) God decides
a battle between men by changing the movements of the stars and shocks
so Sisera (L.A.B. 31,4; see also L.A.B. 32,11; 17). The hymn in Judg 5:20
is involved in the story, and the whole passage in L.A.B. clarifies how
the heavenly order influences human beings.
116
117
Josephus carefully observes the reactions of his Greek audience in Antiquitates, but L.A.B. is supposed to be directed to the Jews. It is a popular his
tory and an important parallel to the Antiquitates.
As theologian and
moralist Pseudo-Philo shows according to Feldman an original profile,
which differs from Josephus and early rabbinic tradition and is closer to
Pharisaism. However, it is very difficult to define the group behind the
theology L.A.B,
although the writer certainly came from very religious
circles. He wants to teach a wide, Jewish audience and uses the main fig
ures of his work for that purpose. What is thus the role of Kenaz and his
miracles?
Some features lead us to understand that the miracles in the work, and
especially Kenaz' miracles, were indeed written for a Jewish audience. We
cannot be sure whether Kenaz' miracles were widely known or not, but
Pseudo-Philo clearly supposes that the biblical stories are generally known
to all. Violence against the enemies is not toned down at all; on the con
trary, it is generally increased also in the redaction of the biblical stories
m
119
120
121
115
Jacobson 1996,820.
Jacobson 1996, 821-822.
See Jacobson 1996, 842.
Feldman has shown many similarities and dissimilarities in his article (Feldman
1989, esp. 76); see also Nickelsburg 1984b, 107-110.
Feldman 1989, 76.
See above p. 191.
He does not have a need to introduce Moses' father Amram at all (L.A.B. 9,3) and
the plagues are only listed briefly (se above p. 193).
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
1 1 9
1 2 0
121
Biblicarum
211
and it is brutal in the extra-biblical stories about Kenaz. Moreover, the

miracles are combined with theological material. In addition to the cosmological interest the old Hebrew view on the leadership in Spirit is an
important factor. Just as Saul (1 Sam 10:6) is changed into another man in
ancient times, Kenaz prophesies and does not know afterwards what he has
seen or said. Kenaz sees the creation of the world and prophesies its end,
and it is the cosmological knowledge which provides the framework for his
leadership.
German scholarship traditionally calls the judges "charismatische Heerfiihrer." No words could better characterise Kenaz, the alleged first judge.
He is not a king, nor does the work show any signs of "messianology".
However, the man is at the same time more than a king. Before Samuel's
birth the Hebrews sought a man who could "rule us as Kenaz did". Once
again Samuel's leadership fulfilled this hope; but after his death the people
had no other choice but to elect a king.
They were, however, not satis
fied with the decision they were forced to make:
122
123
"And the people answered (to Samuel): 'We are your servants; but we have a king, be
cause we are not worthy to be governed by a prophet. Now appoint us a king who will
govern us.' And all the people and the king wept with a great lamentation and said:
'Long live Samuel the prophet!"' (L.A.B. 57,4).
The period Kenaz allegedly lived in, but also the idea of the leadership in
the Spirit of God and the close similarity to Samson and Gideon link him
with the time of the great judges. The extraordinary knowledge of the Jew
ish tradition allowed the writer to easily immerse himself in the world of
the oldest texts and adopt the view of the traditional Hebrew leadership as
his own. A salvation through a divinely appointed leader is a common
topic in L.A.B.
It attests the close, and, in the first century AD, very dan
gerous combination of miracles and politics. No wonder that before a
battle Kenaz prays to God to show his miracles:
124
"And now send one of your wonders to your servant, and I will fight your enemies in
order that they and all the nations and your people may know that the Lord saves not by
means of a huge army or by the power of horsemen. If they but knew the sign of deliver
ance that you will work with me today!" (L.A.B. 27,7).
122
Also Saul prophesies in L.A.B. 62,2 the end of his rule, but does not know what he
has said afterwards.
Samuel is angry, because the people ask for a king, because "it is not yet the time
for us to have an everlasting kingdom and to build the house of the Lord our God, for
these people are seeking a king before the proper time." God's answer to him that they
would get a king nevertheless is interpreted in L.A.B: the king is a punishment to the
people and he will destroy them (L.A.B. 56,2-3).
Nickelsburg 1980, 49-50.
123
124
212
Biblicarum
Scholars have until recently been rather cautious about the political as
pects of L.A.B.
The articles by Olyan (1991) and Mendels (1992) have
now raised the question of how much the writer wanted to contemporize
the biblical stories. Why did the writer create a man like Kenaz? The
writer did not attribute this leadership to any of the biblical miracleworkers, but created a new figure or took him from the extra-biblical tradi
tion only partly known to us. It is perhaps one of the first signs that the
"rewritten Bible" was to lose its freedom and role in Judaism. Although
both Moses and Joshua are treated freely in L.A.B, the writer preferred to
choose a person hardly mentioned in the Scriptures as a vehicle for his
message. If the stories about Kenaz are studied in the context in which
they were written, they tell much about the situation in Palestine.
In Pseudo-Philo's work a man, who is a judge, prophet and miracleworker, stands clearly above a king, obviously because the writer did not
have any expectations in terms of a kingdom. A king was not a solution to
the problems: Saul was anointed only because there was no person like
Kenaz or Samuel, and the correct moment for anointing a king had not yet
come. It may be left open whether Pseudo-Philo judged a Davidic ruler
otherwise. He has nothing negative to say about David, and he has Samuel
say that it was not yet the moment for an everlasting kingdom, or to build
the house of the Lord: People were mistaken in seeking a king before the
proper time (L.A.B. 56,2-3). The targets of his criticism certainly were - if
not the Hasmoneans - those seeking the kingdom in his own time.
The lack of leadership and strong leaders is a central theme in L.A.B. The
writer looked over the kings of his own time to the age of the Judges. Ke
naz is a hard, even a cruel leader of the people in the chaotic time after
Joshua's death. One cannot help thinking that some circles were waiting
125
126
127
125
128
According to Feldman 1989, 75: "Pseudo-Philo avoids political and favours moral
issues," but to Pseudo-Philo the moral issues were political issues. However, Feldman
briefly puts the literary figure of Kenaz into the context of the first century AD, although
he does not develop the idea (1989, 76). According to Harrington (1985, 301) PseudoPhilo "does not cast his eschatology in political terms, nor does he show interest in the
future Messiah" (see also Jacobson 1996, 250). It is true that the Messiah seems to have
no place in his theology, but the political dimension of his thought should not be over
looked. Jacobson hardly observes the possibility that the writer has intended to contem
porize a biblical story (however, see Jacobson 1996, 740).
Nickelsburg (1980, 54) already considered that Pseudo-Philo had created a character
to serve his own purposes. He asked in his short article whether the good and bad leaders
belonged to the chaotic years immediately before or after AD 70, and believed that the
writer was waiting for a leader like Kenaz (1980, 63). Also Bauckham noted the interest
in the period of the judges and assumes contemporization supposes actualisation (1983,
40.48-50).
Hadot 1983, 165-167.
Noted e.g. by Mendels 1992, 266-267.
1 2 6
127
128
213
Biblicarum
for a strong, miracle-working man like Kenaz in the chaotic times around
and after the destruction of the Second Temple. This kind of figure was not
a Messiah / king, but L.A.B. shows that it was also possible - as Josephus
showed from a totally different point of view - to project the ideals to the
pre-royal, golden age. No less than 40% of the work as we have it deals
with the age of the judges.
This helps to understand why several "zealotic" prophets appeared in the
times in which L.A.B. was written. Kenaz was not alone in praying for
miracles manifesting God's activity. Whether the work is characterised
Pharisaic or mystic, it clearly comes from very religious circles and com
bines miracles with politics. This political significance of the miracles
should never be forgotten when the miracle stories of the New Testament
are studied.
The distribution of the miracles between God and Kenaz is widely simi
lar to the passages on Joshua; however, with one exception. The angels are
now expressis verbis introduced into the story, mixing the roles of God and
man. Nevertheless, Kenaz remains an MNP.
129
130
We do not have specific knowledge about the tradition of Kenaz before

L.A.B., but the few clues indicate that it was not creatio ex nihilo: He had a
monument in Idumea and his reputation had apparently been used in the
judaizing propaganda certainly connected with the conquest. When Liv.
Pro. 10:9 says that Kenaz became judge in the days of anarchy, he had
obviously earned his reputation. Josephus knows him as a heavy-handed
leader, and his militant reputation was highly probable before L.A.B. Ke
naz in Pseudo-Philo's L.A.B. is not a historical but purely a literary figure.
In this context, however, a literary figure can be as real as the Old Testa
ment heroes, who could also be treated freely, but who were always pre
sent in Judaism. Such a figure also illustrates the ideas the Jewish belief
identified with leadership. Kenaz happens to be a literary figure. Had the
hopes of the writer become reality, a historical person would have led the
Jews to war against the enemy.
131
129
In Judg, as generally in the Deuteronomistic work, the age of Judges is all but a
golden age. It is a period of anarchy which necessarily led to the kingdom. This view was
common also later; Liv. Pro. 10:9 tells that Kenaz became judge "in the days of anar
chy". In Josephus, however, old Samuel represents the old, ideal aristocratic rule (Ant.
6,37).
Feldman 1989, 59-60.
See above p. 206.
130
131
214
Biblicarum
Excursus: Magical practices in L.A.B.

A feature which occurs especially in the part dealing with Kenaz, but also
elsewhere, is the fight against magical techniques.
The sinners from Dan's, Naphtali's, and Asher's tribe had each sinned in
different ways, but all like the Amorites (L.A.B. 25,9). "The ways of the
Amorites" is a common phrase for magic in early rabbinic literature, and
the Amorites were regarded as famous sorcerers (2 Bar. 60:1). The con
demned had all used some kind of objects, and it is not easy to determine
whether they were idols or magical articles. The sinners from Asher's tribe
had found the golden idols of the Amoritan sacred nymphs and their
stones, which had magical powers, and stored them beneath the summit of
Mount Shechem (L.A.B. 25,10-12). God's angel throws the stones into the
sea to be swallowed by the deep, "because they have been defiled by the
idols of the Amorites". Another angel takes twelve stones from the same
place that these seven were taken from and gives them to Kenaz (L.A.B.
26,4; 6-13).
A war against sorcery is an important theme in L.A.B., and the passage is
obviously written as a warning to its readers. In the view of the writer,
magic is by no means nonsense, but a treacherous and powerful danger.
Stones are not powerless: some of them were only defiled by idolatry. A
stone faces a stone and counters it power. The writer is thus well informed
about a form of magic, common in different parts of the Mediterranean
world. As often, the attitude is ambivalent. The power of stones is ad
mitted, but hate against sorcery is as strong as in 2 Bar. 66:2, and in the
story alluded to in m. Sank. 6:4, in which Simon ben Shetah hanged 80 sor
cerers in a single day. L.A.B. is chronologically close to, for example, R.
Judah, and also the theology is similar to the early stages of the rabbinic
tradition.
Another passage deals with the magic of the Amorites. When Kenaz had
killed 45,000 of them he was unable to loosen his grip on his sword. An
Amorite tells him to kill a Hebrew soldier and put his hand in his warm
blood. Kenaz kills the Amorite and loosens his hand from the sword with
his blood (L.A.B. 27,11).
132
133
134
135
136
137
132
See Eve 2002, 139-141.

Perrot and Bogaert (1976,2, 154) and Jacobson (1996, 749) quote t. Shab. 6-7.
Jacobson 1996, 749-750.
It is impossible to identify the stones with others mentioned in the literature (for
details and for reasonable scepsis, see Jacobson 1996, 754). The magical stones were a
common theme, and also treated in the literature. We have only fragments from
Damigeron's book De lapidibus (see Koskenniemi 1994, 208-209).
On this event, see O. Betz 1980-1981, 70; Hengel 1989b, 186-187.
See Becker 2002, 87-140.
133
1 3 4
135
136
137
Biblicarum
215
Some passages outside the stories about Kenaz also deal with magic.
Aod, a Midianite, who for a long time had sacrificed to the angels in
charge of magicians (qui praeerant maleficiis), led the Israelites astray
after Deborah's death (L.A.B. 34). He made a direct attack against the
Law ("I will show you something other than your Law"). With the help of
the fallen angels he could show the sun at night to the Israelites, who fol
lowed the man and were delivered to the Midianites by God. Aod thus
plays the role of a false prophet as described in Deut 13:1-6, and it is evi
dent that he is added to this story to explain the Israelites' misery under the
Midianites (Judg 6:1). Because they listened to a Midianite magician, they
had to suffer under the Midianites. Another novum compared with the
biblical story is that he is supported by the angels. The war between the
good and fallen angels, like in Jub. and several texts found in Qumran,
is the background for the episode. Moreover, Pseudo-Philo once again em
phasizes how important it is to observe the Law in all situations.
The biblical story about Saul and the witch of Endor (1 Sam 28) could be
considered problematic, because the witch could raise Samuel's spirit with
her magical practices. Pseudo-Philo carefully removes the difficulty.
Samuel is not only Lord of the situation, but he also makes it clear that the
magical practices had not brought him up:
139
140
141
142
"And so do not boast, King, nor you, woman: for you have not brought me forth, but that
order that God spoke to me while I was still alive, that I should come and tell you that
you have sinned now a second time in neglecting God" (L.A.B. 64,7).
The biblical original rejected magical practices but the condemnation is

even stronger in L.A.B.
143
Pseudo-Philo thus considers magical practices a reality that should be care

fully observed. The evil angels support specialists practicing these meth
ods, but they are severely punished. He does not use a figure like Mastema
in Jub. to oppose the biblical miracle-workers. Yet, the evil angels support
the magicians and that means that they are involved in the war between the
good and evil powers.
On David and his stones, see below p. 222.

On this passage, see Jacobson 1996, 906-911.
Nickelsburg 1980, 56.
See above p. 57.
See Jacobson 1996, 1201-1212.
Josephus writes in a surprisingly positive manner on the witch, see Ant. 6,236.
216
Biblicarum
e. Samson
The Old Testament tells about many mighty warriors and sometimes it is
not easy to draw the line between their miraculous and non-miraculous
power. It is obvious, however, that Samson's physical power was not con
ventional, but a special gift given by God to help his people.
The miracles of Samson (Judg 13:1-16:31) are treated only rarely in the
early Jewish text we have, although Josephus' rewritten Bible contains a
passage on h i m and we happen to have an early Jewish sermon on him,
which deals extensively with his miracles and shows that they were ea
gerly discussed. In addition to this sermon L.A.B. gives us an opportu
nity to study how Samson's miracles were treated. No other text is as en
thusiastic about Samson as Pseudo-Philo's.
144
145
146
The textual criticism of the biblical Judges in the Septuagint is notoriously very difficult:
Rahlfs offers in his edition two versions (A and B).
The Philistines are consistently named ccAA6<|>uAoi throughout version A, but version B
has occasionally preserved OuAioTiip (e.g. 13:1; 14:2). The drink Samson must avoid
is translated OIKEPOC (version B: \xi\)0\io) in v. 13:4 (cf. also 13:14). A major disagree
ment between the two Greek versions is the rendering o f the words o f Samson's mother
vrrfaw vby. Kai fjpcoxcov / OUK F)PCOTRJOA (v. 13:6). " w r - D E W D is translated very literally
in both versions in v. 13:12 (TO Kpi'pa / Kpiois). In v. 13:15 n r m s w is rendered p i ccaco|je8a / KaTaoxcopev, and in v. 13:17 - p a i KT O is translated STOCV eA0rj TO px\\\d
o o u / OTI eA0oi TO PFJJJCX o o u . In v. 13:19 the difficult rmvb tfpam mn ? is rendered with
147
,J
TOO Kupi'co, TOO BauMccaTa TTOIOUVTI Kupi'co / Kai Siexcopiaev Troirjaat. The crucial
4
verb iQtfD ? ('impel', 'push') is now translated ouuTropsuEoSai / auveKiropeueoSai in v.

13:25.
In v. 14:5 the words nraon ' D - D iv IKTI are translated E^BKAIVSV bis apTreAcova 0 a p v a 0 a / f)A0ev ecos TOU apTreAcovos 0 a p v a 0 a . In v. 14:6 (and in 14:19 as well as in
15:14) mrr i m v^v n*?sm is rendered Kai KaTrju0uv6V eir auTov TTVEGpa Kupiou / Kai
rjAaTO 6TT AUTOV TrveuMa Kupiou. In v. 14:7 the Hebrew has the singular (-QTI TVI), but
the Greek versions the plural (KaTePrjoav Kai sActArjoav). In v. 14:8 the Hebrew text has
man, but the Greek versions 'ev TCO OTopaTi. In v. 14:10 the Greek versions add fjnepas
6TTT<x / eiTTa f)M6pas. In v. 14:11 the Hebrew text has ina om"iD, but version A 'ev TCO
<|>ope?a0ai a u T O u s , which implies nnRT3 in the original (version B has OTE eTSov
auTov). In 14:15 the verb wv'pn is translated TTTcoxsuoai / SKpidoai.
In v. 15:6 version A adds TT^V o'lKiav TOU TraTpos. In v. 15:7 the Hebrew words 'nnR
inT DD3 TiQp3"DR o are translated aAAa Tr|v EKSIKTIOIV [iov ec; evos Kai EKOCOTOU upcov
TToirjoo|jai / OTI e'l prjv 6K5iKrioco 'ev u^Tv Kai eoxaTov KOTTCCOCO. In v. 15:8 the prover
bial f T ~ ^ pie? oniR y\ is translated very literally (Kai STrc(Tac;ev auTOus siri prjpov/
1 4 4

De Sampsone is falsely attributed to Philo. The sermon vividly describes the deeds
of Samson and reveals a broad discussion of which the sermon itself is a part (see esp. De
Sampsone 23-24 and Siegert 1992, 212-214).
On Samson in L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert 1976.2, 194-198; Feldman 1989, 6871; Murphy 1969, 173; Jacobson 1996, 979-1002; Feldman 1998a, 470.
This contemporization is common in LXX; see Siegert 200, 214.
145
1 4 6
1 4 7
111
Biblicarum
K a i ETrotTccêv OCUTOUS Kvrjpriv ETTI urjpov). In v. 15:12 Dm *a pwan~]S ? imc&n is ren

dered o u o o a T e u o i
aTTOKTeTvai ue uue?s K a i Trapa'SoTe \is a u T o ? s , MrjTTOTe
aTravTrjoTiTe uue?s EV euoi / b u d a a T e u o i urJTTOTe a u v a v T r j a r j T e ev euoi uue?s. In v.
15:16 o'mon ~nan -norm Tâ is translated ev oiayovi d v o u eaAe(<|>cov e^rjAeivpa. A
major change is presentin v. 15:19, where the translators have taken the word play liter
ally: T ^ a new BroDrrnK cif?** i>pa i, but K a i rjvoiev 6 0ebs TO T p a G u a TT\S a i a y b v o s /
K a i eppr|ev b 0 e b s TOV XCCKKOV TOV ev Trj o i a y o v i .
In v. 16:2 LXX adds K a i dmiyye'Ari / K a i dvrjyyeAr] In v. 16:5 'no is translated inter
estingly o a T p a i T a f / a p x o v T e s In v. 16:12 cnro is rendered cos pauMcx / c o s OTrapTiov.
In 16:13 LXX adds e y K p o u o r j s ev TCO TraoadAco e'is TOV TO?XOV (B omits ev), K a i
eao|jai ao8evris c o s e^s TCOV avOpcoTrcov (B K a i eooMai cos e l s TCOV dv8pco7Tcov
ao0evr|s). In v. 16:14 LXX (A) adds K a i OUK eyvcooSr) f) 'IOXUS auTOU. In v. 16:16 the
Hebrew text is o ^ r r ^ a ; version B also has i r c f o a s T a s f)Mepas, but A has 6Ar|v TI^V
VUKTO. In v. 16:17 TT3 is translated v a i p a ? o s in version A, but d y i o s 0eoG in version B
(however, also B has v a i p in v. 13:5). In v. 16:19 the Hebrew rrona" ^ is rendered a v d
Msoov TCOV y o v c t T c o v auTr]s / e n i T<i y o v a T a a u T r j s . In v. 16:26 LXX (A) adds 6 5e
TTOTS eTTOirjaev OUTCOS. In v. 16:27 the Hebrew text has "about 3,000" as does version
A, while version B has e n r a K o o i o i .
,l
Both versions tend to translate the text very literally and version A especially is written
partly in very poor Greek. There are no traces o f a biased theological redaction o f the
stories.
Judg 13 contains a story about Samson's miraculous birth. Pseudo-Philo

embellishes it with many new details and gives as much room to it as to
the rest of the stories combined. He lets (as Num. R. 10:5) the couple
quarrel daily about which of them was guilty of sterility (L.A.B. 42,1). The
angel appears, and as in Judges, Manoah does not meet him. Pseudo-Philo
lets him groan:
148
"Behold, I am not worthy to hear the signs and wonders that God has done among us or
to see the face o f his messenger (Ecce non sum dignus audire signa et prodigia que facit
in nobis Deus aut videre faciem missi)" (L.A.B. 42,5).
The extra-biblical phrase audire signa is strange and it is not easy to de

cide what phrase would have been used in the Hebrew original. The only
verse in which m& and raz? occur together in the Scripture is Exod 4:8, and
there the verb apparently refers to the wider range of miracles, as well as
to Moses' words. At any rate, it is clear that the words reveal a love of
miracles.
Samson's life is described very freely. Many of his miraculous deeds are
left out or mentioned briefly with words pointing to the Judges (" ... are
not these written in the Book of Judges?" (L.A.B. 43,4). However, some
thing important is added. Rendering Judg 16:1-3, Pseudo-Philo tells about
a totally new battle. Samson explicitly alludes to the presence of the Lord
(".. and now the Lord will be with me, and I will go out through their gates
149
Cf. the story in Josephus; see below p. 255-255.

Rengstorf 1964, 210. See also Deut 5:24.
218
Biblicarum
and attack them"), and subsequently kills 25,000 of his enemies without a
sword, only with the gate of the city (L.A.B. 43,2).
It is said clearly that Samson's love for Delilah leads to his rejection
("Behold now Samson has been led astray through his eyes"). The punish
ment is foretold in God's words, which are added to the biblical story.
Samson had not followed the way of Joseph in Egypt but had taken a
pagan wife (L.A.B. 43,5). The description of his death is more faithful to
Judg 16, but the number of dead enemies is clearly exaggerated (Judg
16:27: 3,000; L.A.B. 43,5-8: 40,000).
Pseudo-Philo thus retells the stories about Samson very freely, but shows
a clear interest in his militant miracles. He is, as Feldman says, "almost a
kind of superman." The courage of the hero and his extreme contempt of
the enemy are features suggesting the stories were contemporized to be of
more relevance to the times in which the work was written. Samson's
violence is not toned down but exaggerated. The writer apparently consid
ered it by no means contradictory for a biblical hero to kill thousands of
the people's enemies. Samson is, as Kenaz, an example of a leader and
warrior who was expected to reappear in the difficult times in which the
writer lived.
It should also be observed that the hero is morally criticised, also with
the words of God himself added to the story. This is not unique in early
Judaism. Also, Josephus and the sermon De Sampsone criticise the hero
and reveal a tradition of ethical teaching combining moral issues with
miracle stories. L.A.B. is clearly a part of this tradition, but in PseudoPhilo's work the subject of the criticism is neither hybris nor sexual mis
conduct, but relationships with pagan women, which is a theme far too
important to Pseudo-Philo to be overlooked. The writer thus again inter
prets a miracle-story with the help of the holy Law and does not hesitate to
add God's soliloquy for that purpose.
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Jacobson (1996, 996), considers it difficult that Samson first used a gate as a shield
and then as a weapon with which to kill the enemy and doubts that the text is corrupt.
However, it is the writer's prerogative.
On the unclear phrase noluerit contristare semen suum, see Jacobson 1996, 999.
Feldman 1989, 70.
Correctly observed by Feldman, 1971, lxiii and F.J. Murphy (1993, 172).
Samson had got, according to De Sampsone, only the spirit of power and not the
spirit of righteousness, and that was the reason why Satan could defeat him (see De
Sampsone 1; 20; 24).
On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994, 266.
See Feldman 1989, 171; F.J. Murphy 1993, 171; Reinmuth 1994, 104-105.
151
152
153
1 5 4
155
1 5 6
Biblicarum
219
/ David
1 Sam 16:14-23 tells how an evil spirit sent by God tormented Saul and
how David played his harp and caused the spirit to leave the king. The
short story is expanded by Pseudo-Philo with the hymn, which forced
the evil spirit to leave the king:
157
"And in that time the spirit of the Lord was taken away from Saul, and an evil spirit was
choking him. And Saul sent and brought David, and he played a song on his lyre by
night. And this was the song he played for Saul in order that the evil spirit might depart
from him:
'Darkness and silence were before the world was made, and silence spoke a word and
the darkness became light. Then your name was pronounced in the drawing together of
what had been spread out, the upper of which was called heaven and the lower was called
earth. And the upper part was commanded to bring down rain according to its season, and
the lower part was commanded to produce food for all things that had been made. And
after these was the tribe of your spirits made. And now do not be troublesome as one
created on the second day (et nunc molesta esse noli tamquam secunda creatura). But if
not, remember Tartarus where you walk. Or it is not enough for you to hear that, through
what resounds before you, I sing to many? Or do you not remember that you were created
from a resounding echo in the chaos? But let the new womb from which I was born re
buke you, from which after a time one born from my loins will rule over you.'
And as long as David sang, the spirit spared Saul" (L.A.B. 60,1-3).
LXX translates in 1 Sam 16:14-23 innim ETrviyev CCUTOV in v. 16:14 and adds in 16:16
ccvaTTauoei oe. 13D is not identified with any Greek instrument in 16:16 (i3Dn and ev
Kuvupcc, see also 16:23). In 16:17 \nb TD'Q is translated 6p0c3s V|KXAAOVTOC, and in 16:18
]aa VT EISOTCC vpaAuov. In v. 16:18 the Hebrew text has
"oa and in era, but Septua
gint avrip ouvsTOs and ccvrip ayaOos TCO EI'SEI. In v. 16:21 D^D woa is rendered very
literally aTpcov Ta OKeurj auxoG. In v. 16:23 the Hebrew text has wrfr* rrn, but LXX
TTVEGUO: TTOvripov. The translation is thus partly very literal, but with some deviations
affecting the heart of the story. However, TTVEUUCC TTOvrjpdv in v. 16:23 seems rather to
be only a clarification of the original meaning taken from 16:14 (narnn).
15
L.A.B. * does not say that the spirit was sent by God, but only that it was
spiritus pessimus (cf. 16,14). Praefocabat certainly is a translation of
srrviyEV. The Old Testament original is thus reinterpreted as an exorcism.
The interpretation is not far-fetched, and as a matter of fact also Josephus
uses it, although much more cautiously. However, the emendation is a
very interesting alteration, because it helps to understand early Jewish demonology.
159
157
On David in L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2, 232-236; Murphy 1993, 205229; Reinmuth 1994, 90-93; Jacobson 1996, 6-14. 1173-1186.
On Josephus dealing with the text, see below p. 259.
See Ant. 8,166-168 and Maier 1976b, 636.
158
159
220
Biblicarum
As early as 1961, Philonenko regarded the passage as an Essene hymn.

It was a period in which the Essenes were seen everywhere in the litera
ture, and we know today that the traits Philonenko referred to are too com
mon in Judaism to be characterised solely as Essene. The Graeco-Roman
exorcisms known to us are surprisingly late although the apotropaic
technique is archeologically attested in different parts of the Mediterranean
world very early. The Jewish parallels are not few and they are earlier than
the Graeco-Roman ones. As with many miracles they were apparently
more common in the East than in the West and the Jews had traditionally
strong contacts with the Mesopotamian, as well as with Egyptian wisdom,
in which magic was institutionalised.
It is thus not correct to consider David's hymn in L.A.B. as specifically
Essene. Jub. presents Abraham singing a rather apotropaic hymn, but a
text from the Qumran helps to interpret L.A.B. 60 from a new point of
view. 11Q11 freely uses the tetragrammaton and is written at least in the
3 or early 2 century, before the origin of the Qumran community. The
text is a modified version of Ps 91 and is clearly exorcistic. The text is
badly corrupted but clear enough. In the translation of Garcia Martinez and
Tigchelaar some crucial passages for the present study are rendered as
follows:
161
162
163
rd
n d
164
165
"[...] Solomon, and he will invofke...] [... the spirits and the demons" (col. 2,2-3).
"Who ma[de these portents] and wond[ders upon the] earth? It is he, YHWH, [who]
made tfhese through] his [strength], who summons all [his] a[ngels] and all [the holy]
se[ed] to st[a]nd before [him, and calls as witness] [all the hea]vens and [all] the earth
[against them] who committed against [all me]n sin, and against every m[an evil. But]
they know his [wonder] ful [secrets,] which they do not [...] If they do not [refrain ] out
of fear of YHWH from killing the soul..." (col. 3,2-9).
"Of David. A[gainst ... An incanta]tion in the name of YHW[H. Invoke at any tim]e.
the heave[ns. When he] comes upon you in the nig[ht,] you shall [s]ay to him: Who are
you, oh [offspring of] man and of the seed of the hol[y] ones? Your face is darkness and
not light and not light, [injustice and not justice. [...] the chief of the army. YHWH [will
bring] you [down] [to the] deepest [Sheo]l, [he will shut] the two bronze [ga]tes through
[which n]o light [penetrates]" (col. 5,4-10).
1 6 0
Philonenko 1961, 43-54, rejected e.g. by Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 232 and Jacobson
1996,1173-1174.
Most of the Gentile miracle-workers known to us before 200 AD come from the
eastern parts of the empire; see Koskenniemi 1994, 218-219.
See Becker 2002, 87-93.
See above p. 47.
On the text considered sectarian by Alexander (1999, 345), see Lange 1997, 379383. Lange also presents the evidence on David's role as exorcist in the Qumran. See
also Kister 1999, 167-184.
Garcia Martinez - Tigchelaar 1998, 1201-1205.
161
162
163
164
165
221
Biblicarum
The text clearly helps to interpret the hymn in L.A.B. All important ele
ments are present: It is a hymn written by David in which Solomon is men
tioned, but it is by far more important to observe the method of the exor
cist, common in both texts. Unhappily we do not know much about
apotropaic music, but cosmological knowledge is crucial here. David
can tell the origins of the universe and the demons, and so he gets the up
per hand over the evil spirit.
The words tamquam secunda creatura have been difficult for commenta
tors. It is generally understood to mean that the demons were created on
the second day of creation. It would mean that the demons were created
before man, and several Jewish texts seem to say precisely that.
Jacobson deals with the problem in an extant footnote and suggests that secunda
should be taken for 'inferior', 'subordinate'. However, 11Q11 seems to
control the demon by giving another version of its origin: The threatening
demon is only a result of the sinful relations between human beings and
the fallen angels (Gen 6). The text is corrupted, but it allows an interpreta
tion compatible with 1 En. 15:8-9: Evil spirits came out of the bodies of
the slain Giants. This interpretation also makes sense in regard to L.A.B.:
The demons should remember that they came after man; they should
know their place in the cosmic order and understand that forgetting it
means severe punishment.
Also, David's final argument is interpreted controversially. Who is the
one who is going to rule over the demon? The Messiah is apparently not
meant, because L.A.B. is generally opposed to kingship. Most of the schol
ars do not think that the Latin text is correct, because the same womb
could not produce David and the one who is coming to rebuke the demon
(Arguet autem te metra nova unde natus sum, de qua nascetur post tempus de
lateribus meis qui vos domabit)} But if the Greek loanword metra, used in
Latin, is taken metonymically ('source', 'origin') the words clearly point
166
167
168
169
170
11
172
166
Bocher (1970, 176) has collected the scarce evidence.

Also Jub. (10:1-11) and 1QS 3,20-25 contain a story about the origins of the de
mons. On different traditions, see Alexander 1999, 337-341 and Becker 2002, 152-159.
See Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2,232-234 and Harrington 1985, 373, who point to 2
En. 29 und 4 Ezr. 6:41 and Gen. R. 1:3. However, it is not clear whether the "spirits" here
mean demons; see Jacobson 1996, 1177.
Jacobson 1996, 7-8.
Dietzfelbinger (1979, 254) and Jacobson (1996, 1177) take the words for the view
that the demons are created chronologically after man.
Jacobson also tries unnecessarily to polish the text (1996, 1179-1180).
Liddell, Scott and Jones s.v. uriTpa "source", "origin" as e.g. Diog. Laert. 7,46.
Harrington translates OTP literally: "But let the new womb from which I was born re
buke you" and interprets the words referring to Solomon (1985, 373). Perrot and Bogaert
seem to have no problem with the text and the correctly translated "mais la famille nouvelle", and refer to Solomon (1976, 235-236).
167
168
1 6 9
1 7 0
171
172
222
Biblicarum
to Solomon, who is also mentioned in 11Q11, quoted above. Even scholars

doubting the integrity of the text conclude that text refers to Solomon. The
hymn belongs to the tradition which considers Solomon to be the master of
exorcising techniques.
This tradition often combines cosmological
knowledge with power over the demons, and it was easier to identify this
order because the writer neglected to mention that the spirit was sent by
God.
David thus has a new role as exorcist. Although he is the only exorcist
in L.A.B. it is easy to connect him with the theology of the work. David
casts the demon out with the same cosmological knowledge that serves as
the basis for Joshua's and Kenaz' leadership. The cosmological order re
serves the right place for everybody, for the Israelites as well as for their
human enemies and for demons.
Why is David presented as an exorcist? Apparently David and his
psalms provided a device for opening the door to exorcists in early Juda
ism. The war between good and bad spirits was a hard one, and a man
needed apotropaic techniques to be safe. This tradition, which 11Q11 helps
to date to at least the late second century B.C., was strong also before
L.A.B. As noted, there is a dual attitude towards magical practices: They
are strictly condemned in the work, but their power is not denied. The
writer obviously does not condemn the apotropaic technique presented
here but accepts and even recommends it. This means that David in L.A.B.,
like Solomon in some texts, appears as a patron of the later exorcists. The
exorcists in the times of the writer are not alone but in the good company
of David, Solomon and also of Abraham and Moses.
173
174
175
176
David not only casts out demons. His fight against Goliath also shows
interesting features. The battle is preceded by David's words to Goliath,
in which he describes Ruth and Orpah as the mothers of the two warriors:
While Ruth seeks Israel's God, Orpah chooses the idols. L.A.B. also ex
plains why Saul did not recognize David: An angel changed his face. The
most important change, however, happens after Goliath is hit. God also
helped him in 1 Sam 17:41-51, but L.A.B. adds several new elements to the
story:
177
173
See p. 259-264.
On Abraham, see p. 47, on Moses see p. 57.
In L.A.B. Goliath appears earlier than in the Old Testament: The Philistean warrior
kills Eli's sons and takes the Ark of the Covenant. Saul saves himself through a rapid
escape (L.A.B. 54,3-4).
Pseudo-Philo may be alluding to the stories about Samson (and of course to 1 Sam
17:34-36) when he tells how David killed a bear and a lion (L.A.B. 59,5).
1 7 4
175
1 7 6
177
Biblicarum
223
"And David set out, and he took seven stones and wrote on them the names of his fathers
(those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and Aaron) and his own and the Most Pow
erful. And God sent Zervihel, the angel in charge of might in warfare."
"And David put a stone in the sling and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And he
ran up to him and drew his sword. And Goliath, while he still had life in him, said to
him: 'Hurry and kill me, and then rejoice.' And David said to him: 'Before you die, open
your eyes and see your slayer, the one who has killed you.' And the Philistine looked and
saw an angel and said: 'Not you alone have killed me, but also the one who is present
with you, he whose appearance is not like the appearance of a man.' And then David cut
off his head" (L.A.B. 6 1 , 5 ; 7 - 8 ) .
178
L X X omits totally verses 1 7 : 4 1 and 1 7 : 5 0 and the end of verse 5 0 .

is consistently
changed to 6 dXXd<t>uXos. In verse 1 7 : 4 3 LXX adds Kai X(0ois. In v. 1 7 : 4 5 m n a i anna
]iTaai is translated ev pou<t>afg Kai ev S o p a n Kai OCOTTISI. In v. 1 7 : 4 6 uvafra nano nas
is rendered T a KcoXd aou Kai KcoXa TTapeu|3oXfjs dXXo<|>\jXcov. In v. 1 7 : 4 9 inôa is
translated 5id TT\S TrepiK6(|>aXaias HIS TO ueTcoTTOv OUTOU. The deviations attest,
above all, that the Hebrew original of the translators differed from ours, but there is no
intention to exaggerate or reduce the miraculous.
The line between great but conventional power and the miraculous is often
blurred in L.A.B.,
but this time the war between Israel and the Philistines
clearly has a new feature. It is not surprising after Joshua and Kenaz: The
entire battle between the human beings is reinterpreted as a war between
good and evil powers, and the name and specified function of the angel is
mentioned again. The interpretation thus clearly resembles the one studied
above in the Book of Jubilees, as well as many texts from the Qumran,
but it is now applied to the military field. David himself is well aware of
his role in this war, against both evil men and evil angels, and he is filled
with courage to fulfil his task. Zervihel helps him as he helped Kenaz.
This feature, which occurs so often in the work, is very important when
studied against the background of the times in which L.A.B. was written.
David strikes the enemy without fear, without mercy and with the help of
the angel. Undoubtedly this was also the way the writer hoped the leaders
of his own times would act. The political dimension of the miracles, un
doubtedly urgent in the first century AD, should not be overlooked.
179
180
181
1 7 8
LXX generally agrees on many points with the Hebrew text of 4Q and represents an
older form of the text; see Hengel 2002, 84.
See DeboraL.yO. 31, Joshua L.A.B. 32,10 and Gideon L.A.B. 34-35.
See above p. 57-58.
The Latin text has the form Zervihel in L.A.B. 60,5 but Zeruel in 27,10. See above p.
208.
1 7 9
1 8 0
181
224
Biblicarum
g. Elijah / Phinehas
The political significance of the miracle culminates in a passage which
does not contain a single miracle-story. We do not know who first identi
fied Elijah, the zealotic prophet, with another zealot of the Old Testament,
Phinehas, who drove a spear through an Israelite and a Midianite woman
(Num 25:6-15). "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron" is men
tioned not only in Jos 22 but also in Judg 20:28, and his life apparently
covers a very long and difficult period from the desert to the times of the
later judges. This understandably led to speculations and to the identifica
tion of Phinehas and Elijah. It is attested in many rabbinic sources, which
may have been critical of Elijah. The identification occurs at least in some
versions of the Lives of the Prophets and apparently also in the original.
Consequently, the occurrence in the Lives cannot be an argument for the
supposed later date of L.A.B. *
Pseudo-Philo's work ends with Saul; although nothing is said about
Elijah, one passage is too similar to stories about him to be a coinci
dence. It tells about Phinehas as and old man:
182
183
184
186
187
"And in that time Phinehas laid himself down to die, and the Lord said to him: 'Behold
you have passed the 120 years that have been established for every man. And now rise up
and go from here and dwell in Danaben on the mountain and dwell there many years.
And I will command my eagle, and he will nourish you there, and you will not come
Philo adds the detail that Phinehas ripped up "also her parts of generation because
they had served to receive the illicit seed" (Mos. 1,302).
The rabbinic texts identifying the two figures have been collected by Hayward
(1978, 22-24). The date of the identification is quaestio vexata. The eldest written source
is L.A.B., but it is unclear how long the tradition had been alive before this text. Aptowitzer and after him Hayward date it to the Hasmonean period (see Hayward 1978, 22-34).
Hengel supposes that the idea was born in zealotic circles in the first century AD. The
tradition is eliminated in the rabbinic texts by criticising Elijah, which implies that it had
evolved late and died with the rebels; see Hengel 1989b, 162-168. However, Phinehas (a
priest in the Hebrew but not in the Greek version of Sir 45:24) was a very important fig
ure, whom the Hasmoneans referred to to justify their priesthood. Ps.-Jon. to Deut 33,11
seems to identify John Hyrcanus with "Elijah the priest", and it is conceivable, although
not certain, that this identification already included traits of Phinehas (see Hayward
1978, 31-33). Jacobson considers Hayward's view "interesting, if speculative" (1996,
1060), but Ohler accepts it (1997, 24-25). See also Perrot - Bogaert 1976,2,208-211 and
Dietzfelbinger 1979, 230-231. On the identification and tradition, see also Jacobson
1996, 1060-1061; Feldman 1998b, 293-294.
See above p. 190.
Jacobson (1996, 207) rejects Hayward's view and takes the identification as an ar
gument for his view that the work was written in the second century.
See above p. 189 sq.
Pseudo-Philo tells about a conflict between the faithful Israelites and Jair, the ser
vant of Baal, who is burned by Nathaniel, the angel in charge of fire (L.A.B. 38).
183
1 8 4
185
186
187
225
Biblicarum
down to mankind until the time arrives and you be tested in that time; and you will shut
up the heaven then, and by your mouth it will be opened up. And afterward you will be
lifted up into the place where those who were before you were lifted up, and you will be
there until I remember the world. Then I will make you all come, and you will taste what
is death'" (L.A.B. 48,1).
188
Pseudo-Philo follows here a broader tradition: Elijah and Phinehas are

one and the same person. Phinehas, the famous zealot, returned to earth at
a time of despair, closed heaven, and was known as Elijah. After his sec
ond mission he was taken back to heaven to wait for his third: the words
quousque rememorabor saeculi
attest the idea of Elia redivivus}
Although L.A.B. does not deal with Elijah's life, the short passages re
veal Pseudo-Philo's view on the miracle-working prophet. While Josephus
treated Elijah's political activities with caution, Pseudo-Philo, on the
contrary, has no reservations about adapting the biblical story to his times.
He follows the line attested in Ben Sira's work and apparently commonly
adhered to at the time. Elijah's political activities are not toned down but
emphasized. Miracles and politics are intimately connected in his person.
m
90
191
h. Conclusion
Liber antiquitatum biblicarum has an original approach when dealing with
the biblical miracle stories. They are richly retold. The anonymous writer
is very learned, and knowledgeable about both biblical and the later tradi
tions. The anonymous Palestinian scholar was chronologically close to R.
Judah. He certainly assumed that his audience knew the stories, and that he
could very briefly summarise, for instance, the plagues in Egypt, or briefly
point to the stories about Samson in Judges. The writer may retell the sto
ries quite freely and occasionally combine the stories with other biblical
material, either from the Psalms or from the Law. This gives a good oppor
tunity to study his biases in terms of the miracle stories.
For thousands of years, the Jewish religion has wrestled with two alter
natives: God may be understood either as a distant, uncontroversial being
with no anthropomorphic features, or he may be seen as a personal, feeling
God, close to the human spheres. Most of the writers studied above have
distanced him in the miracle stories, reducing his dialogues with men.
188
Philo does not attest the identification of Elijah and Phinehas, but he praises Phine
has, of course, interpreting the story allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 3,242; Post. 182).
The phrase also occurs in L.A.B. 16,3: et non morientur sed tabescent, quo usque
rememorabor saeculi et ero innovans terram. Et tunc morientur et non vivent, et aufertur
vita eorum de numero omnium hominum.
See above p. 35-36.
189
190
191
226
Biblicarum
Pseudo-Philo did not reduce God to a divine voice as did Artapanus, and
was not anxious to oppose anthropopathic theology, as was Philo. He went
in the opposite direction, freely adding passages in which God speaks,
alone or with men. The writers distancing God from men necessarily redis
tributed the roles of God and men in the stories, seldom following a con
sistent, reflective line of thought. Although L.A.B. increases God's pres
ence in the stories instead of reducing his role, the problems are similar:
Moses' role in the stories is clearly reduced, but on the other hand, he is
given a totally new status. The text is not clear and the short allusions are
not sufficient to remove all problems, but apparently Moses achieves a
position comparable to the one supposed in Ezek. Trag. His death was cer
tainly mourned in heaven, but it was hardly the end of his mission. We are
led to assume that he had a position in heaven, possibly even a throne, as
he and other figures had in early Jewish texts.
The changed role of God also influences the roles attributed to human
figures other than Moses. The emphasis laid on the spirit-filled leadership
makes it especially difficult to apply Kahl's terminology. Joshua and Ke
naz hardly fit any of his categories.
Early on, Jub. attested the tendency to combine the miracle stories with
the war between good and evil powers. This feature is obvious in L.A.B.
The cosmological order determines the lives of human beings and nations
in this world. When David throws out the demon torturing Saul he does it
by appealing to this cosmological order. The magical skills used by sinners
violate this order and they must be blocked by stronger skills and powers.
The most important question is how much the writer has intended to re
shape the biblical persons in order to tell his audience something about
their own times. It is obviously impossible to separate the figures pre
sented in the work from the context of the stormy late first century AD.
We do not have exact knowledge of the spiritual background of the writer,
but he certainly belonged to very religious circles. He was waiting for a
leader sent by God, a man filled with Spirit. This trait is present in almost
all the men studied above (Moses, Joshua, Samson), but above all in Ke
naz, a figure created freely or taken from a militant tradition representing
the ideal. He is not a king, but more. He is a man sent by God. The ancient,
spirit-filled leadership of the Judges takes a new form in him, but not only
in him. The Israelites had always had good leaders, who did not give up
and were not ready to accept slavery. God had sent them, and their success
was a direct consequence of the cosmic order described above. It meant a
strong, and even dangerous, link between religion and politics, which
should be observed in the discussion about religious and militant opposi
tion against the Romans. This link is obvious in L.A.B., when the two zeal
ots, Phinehas and Elijah, are identified as the same figure.
Biblicarum
227
The anonymous writer could not create the picture of militant leaders
making miracles from nothing. Several of the Jewish writers studied above
showed that there were many ways to present the ancient leaders and mira
cle-workers. The Old Testament gives an especially forceful description of
Saul and Samson as spirit-filled and violent leaders. Ben Sira recalled the
glorious past of the nation and repeated the great deeds done by its heroes.
The Book of Jubilees revealed a bias to link the miracles with the war be
tween good and evil leaders. Also, Philo's view on the strong, miraclemaking prophet Moses is an important analogy to Pseudo-Philo's work.
This whole tradition is expressed more strongly in Pseudo-Philo's work
than in any other. L.A.B. shows how close the past was to the present in the
first century AD. The writer was perhaps not expecting a miracle-making
Messiah, because the kings of his own times did not encourage these
hopes, but he looked over the long, dark ages and waited for a miraclemaking righteous man similar to the biblical (and nonbiblical) judges.
The implied audience and their situation thus shape the function of the re
told stories in L.A.B. There was no longer a need to legitimate Moses, so
these parts of the stories could be omitted. On the other hand, the militant
Kenaz received legitimisation by miracles. This line of thinking, so impor
tant for the first century militant "sign-prophets", plays a significant role in
Pseudo-Philo's work. Israel's God protected, rewarded or punished with
his miracles, and Pseudo-Philo was waiting for him to demonstrate his
power again.
9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus
a. Introduction
1
Scholars still cannot agree whether Flavius Josephus betrayed his people
or not when he gave himself to the Romans, prophesied that Vespasian
would become emperor and finally became the writer of royal history at
his court. However, the contribution of his work to scholars cannot be
overestimated. His production also offers a good possibility for studying
the interpretations of the Old Testament miracle workers. Research on
Josephus has noted three important intentions influencing his way of deal
ing with the miracles.
1) Josephus has often been said to rationalise the miracle stories. Thack
eray and Marcus thus comment on the way Joshua crosses the Jordan with
the Israelites:
"Josephus, more suo, lessens the supernatural character of the miracle: the waters are not
'wholly cut off as in Joshua (3:14,16)."
2
The same view is often presented more subtly. MacRae underlined Jose
phus' dual heritage: As a Jew he does not balk at accepting the miraculous
whenever he encounters it because it is a sign of God's Trpovoia and
S u v a u i s , but as a Hellenist "he does not hesitate to offer a pseudoscientific or pseudo-philosophical explanation as well whenever one comes
to mind." Delling also represented a similar view in his article (1970) and
Moehring in 1973. Today the most important advocate of this view is
Louis Feldman, a prominent Josephus scholar since the sixties. He studied
the portrait of Solomon in Josephus (1976) and continued with several Old
Testament figures. In 1998 he published two works, Josephus's Interpreta3
Josephus was born in 37-38. Bellum Judaicum was published between 75-79; Antiquitates Judaicae 93-95; Vita may be an appendix to it, and Contra Apionem was published
subsequently (Bilde 1988, 79; 104-106.113).
Thackeray - Marcus 1934, 168-169.
MacRae 1965, 142.
Delling, "Josephus und das Wunderbare", (1970); Moehring, "Rationalisation of Mi
racles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus" (1973), and Betz, "Das Problem des Wunders
bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium" (1987).
2
229
tion of the Bible (=1998a) and Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible

(=1998b). In these extant monographs Feldman studies the portraits of vir
tually all important Old Testament figures in Josephus' production, includ
ing all the miracle-workers. In Feldman's view Josephus' general bias is
very clear: He tried consistently to tone down the miraculous traits of the
Old Testament heroes:
"One of the stock charges against the Jews is credulity, as we can see from Horace, who
has a proverb, "credat Iudaeus Apella", referring to the fact that only the credulous Jew
Apella would believe that frankincense can melt without fire (Satires 1,5,97-103). To the
Greeks, as we can see from Herodotus's criticism (1,60) of the ease with which the Athe
nians allowed themselves to be deceived by Peisistratus's ruse in returning to power,
such credulity was hardly admirable. Indeed, it was a standard tenet of the Epicureans
that the gods do not intervene in human affairs, and thus do not perform miracles.
In dealing with miracles, Josephus was clearly in a dilemma. On the one hand, as a
believing Jew, he could hardly deny the centrality of such miracles as the plagues in
Egypt, the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, and the revelation at Sinai. On the other hand, he
hardly wished to expose himself to ridicule for being so credulous and insisted that
Moses wrote nothing that was unreasonable, and that everything in Scripture was in
keeping with the nature of the universe (Ant. 1,24)."
5
Feldman is well aware that some philosophical schools, such as the Stoics,
did allow for divine intervention in the world. Nevertheless, Josephus fre
quently uses a formula used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lucian, Pliny,
Herodotus and Thucydides, allowing the reader to make up his own mind.
Feldman's general view is clear:
6
"On the whole, Josephus tends to downgrade miracles, as we see especially when we
compare, for example, his depiction of Abraham and Moses as talented generals with the
rabbinic portraits of these leaders as prevailing because of G-d's miraculous assistance."
7
The general view is thus that Josephus had to observe his sceptical, pagan
audience. As seen above, Feldman is by no means the first to consider this
an important bias in Josephus, and today, for example, Collins shares the
5
Feldman 1998a, 209; see also 1999, 907.

The significance of the formula was often noted before Feldman. According to
Thackeray (1930, 52-53; see also 1929, 56-57) it recurs "repeatedly where anything of a
miraculous nature is in question (2,348; 3,81, etc)." He compares Josephus with Diony
sius of Halicarnassus (48,1) and Lucian (Quomodo historia sit scribenda 60): "And
should any myth come into question, it should be related but not wholly credited: rather
it should be left open for readers to conjecture about it as they will, but do you take no
risks and incline neither to one opinion nor to other." On the views on the formula see
also Moehring 1973, 376-377; Feldman 2000, 39; Eve 2002, 26. Delling studies the use
of the formula in Josephus and notes that it cannot be taken merely as noncommittal,
because Josephus uses it also after describing the theophany in Ant. 3,322 (Delling 1971,
141-142). Also according to Ladouceur (1983, 25-29) Josephus does not always remain
neutral in using the formula.
Feldman 1998a, 209-210.
6
230
view that the Jews had to defend themselves against the charges of credu
lity. Feldman's view, however, must be thoroughly investigated, espe
cially because of its relevance in the articles he has written on several bib
lical figures and now in many chapters in his two books. If a further moti
vation for this scrutiny is needed, it is that Feldman's view, though now
very common, is not the only one on the miracles in Josephus' production.
Most scholars share the view that Josephus was more or less reserved
about the miracles, but such scholars as Delling, Tiede, Betz and Eve pre
sent their opinions with clearly greater emphasis on Josephus' ambivalence
towards miracles. Moreover, Begg has rejected the view in connection
with the passage on Elisha, although he accepts it elsewhere.
The present study does not deal with all miracles included in Josephus'
production, only with the miracles of figures in the Old Testament. The
point of view is thus narrower than in Delling's, Moehring's and Betz's
articles, or in Eve's book mentioned above, because they deal with "das
Wunderbare", "Rationalisation of Miracles" and "das Problem des Wunders."
8
10
2) Josephus has usually been observed to allow the miracles to be influ

enced by his political convictions, especially in Bellum Judaicum. Jose
phus had good reason to separate religion and politics. Scholars may have
different views on the historical motives for the rebellion, but it is clear
that Josephus did not want to emphasize the religious reasons for the re
volt, but rather to minimise them. He tells about the many Jews using
miracles to legitimate themselves as leaders in a revolt against the Ro
mans. They were, of course, men of his own time and not Old Testament
figures, and such men as Theudas and the Egyptian do not directly belong
to the present study. However, he certainly did not forget these men when
retelling the miracles told in the Old Testament. He had a selective attitude
toward the prophets of his own time: He did not reject the prophecies of
Jesus ben Ananja (B. J. 6,300-309) or any paradoxical phenomenon refer
ring to Jerusalem's fall, but considered all failed prophets leading political
11
Collins 2000a, 8.
Delling 1970, 132-134; Tiede 1972, 215-217; Betz 1987, 212-235; Eve 2002, 26;
Begg 1996, 69-109.
The chapter in Eve's book covers all the miracles in Josephus regardless of whether a
human agent occurs or not. The wide scope has produced many important points of view,
but also prohibited a detailed study thoroughly investigating the stories and the secon
dary literature. Eve, for example, cites only one work of Feldman (1998b), overlooks
Begg's important article and is thus not aware of the suggestion that there is a lacuna in
Josephus' work in the passage on Elisha (see below p. 277).
Bilde 1988, 186-187; Gabba 1999, 148-156; Schreiber 2000, 284.
9
10
11
231
movements as pseudoprophets. Whether he let them influence the way he

presented the ancient heroes of the people is an interesting question.
3) The discussion on divine men has, of course, influenced research on
miracles in Josephus' production. Windisch (1934) included Josephus in
this discussion, and he was followed by Georgi (1964) and Schottroff
(1983) in their important studies. The problem has also been thoroughly
studied by Tiede (1972) and Holladay (1977), and recently by du Toit
(1998). Although simplified formulations occur sometimes, Josephus
has never been a central writer in this discussion and the question is not
crucial today. However, it cannot be overlooked in the present study.
13
14
15
We know many Jewish writers from only a few pages. Josephus is differ
ent. His wide production allows a study in which his various intentions
should be possible to define.
16
b. Moses
Moses was famous in the Greek and Latin world, but his depiction at times
was anything but positive. Hata quotes 24 Graeco-Roman writers who
mentioned the Jewish lawgiver, partly in a positive, partly in a negative
light. Many pagan writers knew a distorted version of the Exodus, ac
cording to which the Israelites were not freed by God but expelled by the
Egyptians. The reason for this was a disease which had spread among the
Egyptians. They sought help from their gods and then were told to force
the people who had caused the disease to leave. Moreover, Moses was con
sidered a great sorcerer, both in a positive and in a negative sense. The
origin and the details of this view are still under debate, especially the in
tentions of the different Graeco-Roman writers, and Gruen attributes
17
18
12
See Rajakl983, 89-91.

See Windisch 1934, 113-114; Georgi 1964, 152; Schottroff 1983, 232.
Tiede 1972, 207-242; Holladay 1977, 47-102; du Toit 1998, 349-399.
For example, Beegle writes (1992, 916): "Josephus ... portrays Moses as the divine
man of Greek culture as well as the Israelite 'man of God.'"
Josephus also tells the story about Isaiah and the sun, but strongly reduces the
prophet's role and attributes the miracle to God; see Hoffken 1998, 37-48.
Hata 1987, 180-181. See also Tiede 1972, 208-212 and Feldman 1998a, 374-375.
The fundamental study was written by Gager (1972). A traditional disagreement
among scholars is whether Manetho, an Egyptian priest in the early 3 century BC, al
ready identified the people expelled (Kasher 1985, 6; 327-332) or whether this identifica
tion happened later, after the Maccabean revolt had sparked an anti-Jewish attack (for
example, Gabba 1989, 631). Gruen attributes the identification to Josephus (1998, 4172). See also Pucci ben Zev 1993, 215-234.
13
14
15
16
17
18
rd
232
much of it to the "distorting lens of Josephus." However, there is no

doubt that these traditions were common in Josephus' times. Pompeius
Trogus was well aware of them in Augustus' time: According to him, Jo
seph had learned magic in Egypt and taught it to "his son Moses" (Historiae Philippicae libri 36 epitoma 2,5-15). Writing in Rome at Vespa
sian's court, Josephus may personally have met his contemporary Tacitus,
who, untouched by the attempts Josephus and other Jews made to invert
the tradition, still wrote a negative version of the Exodus, including some
versions of Moses' miracles (hist. 5,3,2).
It was evidently not unproblematic to write about the great hero of the
nation. Josephus himself reveals the pressure under which he wrote about
Moses.
"Seeing, however, that Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus, and others, partly from igno
rance, mainly from ill will, have made reflections, which are neither just nor true, upon
our lawgiver Moses and his code, maligning the one as a charlatan and impostor (ydr|Ta
Kai aTraTscova)... " (c. Ap. 2,145).
20
It is important to observe that Josephus tells nothing about Moses' mira

cles in Contra Apionem. This silence is a matter that needs to be explained,
however, after a thorough study of the wide material included in Antiquitates Iudaicae.
21
Although Josephus has slightly abridged the biblical narration about Mo

ses in Antiquitates Iudaicae, he devotes two and a half books to him (Ant.
2,205-4,331), giving the lawgiver a unique position in Antiquitates. The
biblical miracles are mostly retold extensively, with some additions, altera
tions and omissions.
Moses' birth is told extensively and with new details (cf. Exod 1:1-2:25).
22
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 1:1-2:25 see above
p. 92.
19
According to Gruen the Graeco-Roman writers did not distort the Jewish story, but
the other way around: Josephus mixed Egyptian stories with the Jewish tradition to show
that the Jews were an ancient people (Gruen 1998, 41-72). Gruen's chapter presents a
fresh challenge to the traditional view, but does not change the fact that Moses was fa
mous, and not always in a benign way.
See also c. Ap. 1,229 mdAnt. 3,265-268.
Compared with the Septuagint, Josephus' description of Moses is 83% (Feldman
1998a, 80). See the summary of the biblical material used and omitted in Hata 1987, 180197.
On Moses in Josephus, see Tiede 1972, 206-238; Holladay 1977, 67-73; Beegle
1992, 916; Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 350-351; Feldman 1998a, 374-442 (lit. 376), esp.
425-433.
2 0
21
2 2
233
Moses' birth is foretold by one of the sacred scribes (tepoypamjaTeusA

who knew that a Hebrew child, if reared, would bring the Egyptian rule
down (Ant. 2,205); that was the reason for the genocide. Amram, Moses'
father, according to Josephus a noble man, prays to God, who foretells
Moses' birth (Ant. 2,211-216). God's speech interestingly resembles the
prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam 7: The nightly vision promises the father a
kind of eternal position. The child is born without Jochebed's labour (cf.
Apollo's birth in Theogn. 1,5-10; Callimachus 4,249-259) so that he can be
concealed (Ant. 2,218). Amram decides to trust the safety of the child to
God, and puts him in the river, to be found by Thermuthis, the king's
barren daughter. The child himself does not accept the breast of other
women until Miriam seeks out his mother to feed him (Ant. 2,219-227).
When brought to the Pharaoh, the admired child takes off the diadem put
upon his head and tramples it underfoot. The scribe realises that he is the
child whose birth has been foretold and tries to kill him, but his life is
saved by Thermuthis (Ant. 2,232-237). Moses becomes, as in Artapanus,
an Egyptian general in the war against the Ethiopians (Ant. 2,238-253) and
marries an Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2,253). Josephus omits Moses' mur
der of the Egyptian taskmaster and cites the envy and plots of the Pharaoh
as the reasons for the escape.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
2 3
There is a Rabbinic tradition similar to this detail (Tg. Ps.-J. 1:15), which names
Jannes and Jambres as Moses' opponents, but it is late; see Feldman 1998a, 380 and
2000, 188-189.
A noble birth is a feature often added by Josephus to the biblical stories; see, for
example, Ant. 5,276 (Samson) and Feldman 1998a, 378. It is commonplace in GraecoRoman literature, for example, Diog. Laert. 3,1 (Plato).
The story that the birth of the child is told to his father is unique in Josephus
(Feldman 1998a, 379). Moses' birth is prophesied by Miriam in L.A.B. (see p. 192). Ac
cording to some scholars such as Feldman, Josephus has changed, for misogynic reasons,
Miriam to Amram (1998b, 379). The view is justly rejected as speculation by Rajak
(1974, 276).
"He shall deliver the Hebrew race from their bondage in Egypt, and be remembered,
so long as the universe shall endure, not only by Hebrews alone but each by the alien
nations; that favour do I bestow upon you and upon your posterity", Ant 2,216.
Jub. 47:5 calls her Tharmuth and Artap. 3,3 Merris.
Josephus tells later (Ant. 2,232) that Thermuthis had no children of her own and had
been worried about the succession. On the same topic in Artapanus, see above p. 92, in
Philo p. 111.
Also here the later Rabbinic literature knows the same story; see Exod. R. 1:26; Deut.
R. 11:10 and Feldman 1998a, 382-383; 2000, 198-199.
See above p. 93.
Josephus does not retell the story about Miriam's punishment after the quarrel about
Moses' non-Jewish wife in Num 12:1-16. The Hebrew text calls her rPBDn, but LXX
2 4
2 5
2 6
27
2 8
2 9
3 0
31
A'lSioTTtaoa.
32
Cf. above on Artapanus, p. 93.
234
Josephus
The birth of the child is full of details known from both the earlier and
later Jewish texts, but also from Greek literature. Prophecies announcing
the birth of a famous man were, of course, very common in Graeco-Roman
antiquity. According to Diogenes Laertius (3,2), Speusippus (died 339),
told that Plato's father had a vision of Apollo. According to tradition,
Alexander's birth was announced to his mother in a vision (Hist. Alex.
Magni 1,4,8) and a little later Philostratus tells several such stories (VA
1,4-6; her. 45). Although no Jewish writer retold the events as broadly,
several extrabiblical details are traditional: The vision occurs in L.A.B.,
although it is Miriam's; the daughter of Pharaoh is barren in Artapanus and
Philo; she is named Tharmuth in Jub., and Moses is also an Egyptian gen
eral in Artapanus. A broad Jewish tradition is inseparably combined with
Graeco-Roman folklore. It is an interesting detail that Josephus, unlike
Artapanus and Philo, does not mention Moses' education. The only words
Josephus gives for Moses' education are that "he was educated (6Tpe<j>eTo)
with the utmost care" (Ant. 2,236).
33
34
35
God called Moses to the mountain not invaded by the shepherds, because it
was believed that God sojourned there.
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX see above p. 66.
The theophany (Tepas) in the burning bush is retold in a interesting way.

Similarly to some other Jewish writers, Josephus reduced Israel's God to a
divine voice, although the dialogue between God and Moses is only con
densed and not completely omitted. The biblical miracles are briefly re
told:
36
"He bade him cast his staff to the ground and to have faith in his promises. Moses did so,
and lo, there was a serpent crawling and coiling itself in spiral fashion and rearing its
head as in defence against assailants; then once more it became a stick. Next he bade him
put his right hand into his bosom: he obeyed and drew it fourth white, of a colour resem
bling chalk; then it resumed its ordinary aspect. Receiving a further command to take of
the water of a neighbouring brook and pour it on the ground, he beheld it turned to the
colour of blood. And while he marvelled at these wonders, God exhorted him to be of
good courage, to be assured that his mighty aid would be ever with him, and to use mira
cles to convince all men" (Ant. 2,272-274).
3 3
See Koskenniemi 1994, 192.

According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 351) the succession is "sicher griechisch
inspiriert", but it is hopeless to try to separate the two traditions from each other.
On Moses' good Greek education in Artapanus, see above p. 93, in Philo see p. 111.
On the "divine voice" in Artapanus, see above p. 94, on the way in which Philo
avoids God's anthropomorphism, see p. 112. According to Feldman (2000, 209) Josephus
has removed the angel in Exod 3:2 in order to reduce the miraculous, but this is hardly
true.
3 4
3 5
3 6
235
Josephus
All three miracles are slightly edited. Moses' rod becomes a serpent, but
he is not afraid of it. His hand becomes white, but not expressis verbis lep
rous: The detail is often taken as a deliberate alteration of Exod 4:6, and
we cannot ignore the possibility of an intentional modification, especially
because Josephus omits the miracle punishing Miriam (Num 12:1-16).
However, because LXX also only has coast x ^ and Josephus does not
avoid the disease later, he does not necessarily avoid the word here.
In contrast to Exod 4 Moses not only listens to the description of the
third miracle but also takes water and turns it to "the colour of blood." Ac
tually, this is a detail that Jacobson supposed Ezekiel the Tragedian had
included in the lost verses of his tragedy. Josephus has complemented the
original with a miracle, which is mentioned but not performed in Exodus.
The miracles (armeTa) were accessible to Moses whenever there was a
need for them (Ant. 2,276). Also Philo compared Moses with a pupil who
had learned at Horeb how to make miracles and repeated them to be sure.
Moses is terrified (Ant. 2,267; 270) and partly also reluctant (Ant. 2,271),
but less so than in Exodus. Josephus has reduced the arguments Moses
expressed to avoid the mission: He is still 'ISICOTTJS and does not find the
words to persuade his people. However, he is no longer the helpless man
who needs Aaron to be his speaker, and his lack of eloquence is not explic
itly mentioned. To be sure, Aaron is mentioned later, but his role is clearly
reduced (Ant. 2,279).
37
ic
38
39
40
41
The brief reference in Exod 4:30 to Moses making the miracles in the
presence of the Israelites is included in the work. Josephus emphasizes that
Moses could not convince his people with a mere description of the mira
cles but had to perform them before their eyes (Ant. 2,279-280). The legitimisation by miracles is present here as in God's words to Moses (Ant.
2,274). Josephus thus renders the biblical original very faithfully.
42
43
Exodus tells about the first failed visit to Pharaoh, when no miracles oc
curred (Exod 5:1-5), the growing oppression and the second visit accom
panied by miracles (Exod 6:28-7:13). Josephus has included miracles in
37
Hata 1987, 186-187; Feldman 1998a, 385-386; 2000, 210-211.

See above on Ezek. Trag. p. 72 and on Philo 111. On Josephus see below p. 239.
See above p. 68.
The episode in Exod 4:24-26 is omitted and God tries not to kill Moses.
Moehring 1973,377.
According to Feldman (2000, 313) Josephus contemporizes the story. He was well
aware that people are generally not convinced by miracles and notes that the leaders were
amazed at this astonishing spectacle. However, Exod 4:31 already noted that "they
bowed down and worshipped."
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
42
4 3
236
the first visit (Ant 2,281-287). Moses informs Pharaoh about his previous
merits and the signs (ar]|je?a) God showed him. The Pharaoh mocks him
(but does not imprison him as Artapanus claims) and Moses repeats the
miracles, which do not have a positive impact: Pharaoh dubs him a crimi
nal, who used "juggleries and magic" (TepccToupyicus Kai jjayeiais,
Ant 2,284) to impress people. He orders "the priests" (as in Artapanus,
Artap. 3,30) to make the same miracles and to prove that Moses is not the
only one with this ability. They drop their rods, which become snakes,
leading Moses to comment politely:
44
45
"Indeed, O king, I too disdain to the cunning of the Egyptians, but I assert that the deeds
wrought by me so far surpass their magic and their art ( T % TOUTCOV uccyei'as J
Tsxvrjs) as things divine are remote from what is human" (Ant. 2,286).
K a
It is not Aaron, as in Exod 7:8-13, but Moses who throws the rod to the
ground before Pharaoh (Ant 2,287), and Josephus retells dramatically how
Moses' snake ate the Egyptians'. Moses' role is thus emphasized and he
certainly is an MNP.
It is interesting that Josephus does not nullify the Egyptians' capacity to
make miracles. On the contrary, he lets Moses politely respect it, but at the
same time reject it with his greater skill. Josephus omits the rest of the
miracles made by the Egyptian wise men and seems thus not to be willing
to create a contest between them and Moses. It is not said that they were
unable to make miracles, only that they, unlike Moses, used methods that
were not allowed. What that precisely meant is not said and it is hard to
believe that Josephus himself knew the answer. A well-known feature in
classical antiquity is that one side of what we call "magic" was strictly
forbidden, even punished by death, but another was commonly used, also
in the cultured circles.
46
47
48
4 4
Artapanus lets the Pharaoh imprison Moses; see above p. 96. Josephus may reveal a
tradition in common with Artapanus, both in making Moses an Egyptian general, and in
letting the Pharaoh call Moses a criminal (Ant. 2,284). However, this is a very under
standable midrashic trait and the texts may also agree occasionally, because Exodus tells
that Moses had killed an Egyptian.
On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Artapanus, p. 100, in Philo, p. 113
and 134.
The competing miracle-workers belonged to the nucleus of the divine man-hypo
thesis. However, the present study has found very few texts in which a contest would be
of importance. There is a fully dramatized story about a contest between men concerning
miracles, but it is the contest between Moses and Korah and, thus, a Jew against a Jew;
see below p. 244-246.
See Delling 1970, 135; Duling 1985, 10-12; Feldman 1998a, 428-429. The view is
thus similar to L.A.B.: Magical skills are by no means nonsense, but they are not allowed;
see above p. 214 pp.
See Koskenniemi 1994, 224.
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
237
The second visit includes no miracles, but interestingly, Moses threatens

Pharaoh, saying that "neither earth nor air" will be friendly to the people
opposing God (Ant. 2,292). Philo wrote that the four elements were at war
against the Egyptians. However, the speculation about the different roles
of heaven and earth in the punishment has also been traced elsewhere, and
it is not necessarily linked with the Greek theory. However, Josephus and
Philo, as well as Wis, seem here to be using a common tradition.
49
The plagues are retold in many new variants.

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 7:14-12:36,
see above p. 70.
50
The river is changed into blood (Ant. 2,294-295) as in Exod 7:14-24,

but there is no God to tell Moses what to do and no Aaron to help him.
Moses does not meet Pharaoh and nobody uses his rod: The water becomes
atpaxco5r]s at God's command. Unlike Exodus, the water tortured and
caused excruciating pain to those who sought to drink of it. A new detail is
that it was sweet to the Hebrews. The detail also occurs in Philo, Mos.
1,26; 144 and in Deut. R. 3:8. This can be traced to Exod 7:21 and 7:24, in
which the Egyptians were not able to drink the water, but in which there is
no mention of the Hebrews. Josephus has, however, removed the Egyptian
magicians and had Pharaoh permit the Hebrews to depart.
The frogs (Ant. 2,296-299) come and disappear as in Exod 7:26-8:11,
God does not speak to Moses, Aaron is absent and no human agent is con
nected to the plagues. The magicians are removed again. Pharaoh tells
Moses and the Hebrews to go, but repents and seems to hope for new ca
lamities.
The next punishment is called OKV?(|>es in LXX (Exod 8:12-15), while
Josephus uses the words (|>0eipcov ... aTreipdv TI TrXfjSos (Ant. 2,300302). Exodus has Moses and Aaron produce the plague with their rods, but
Josephus has removed both, and the sorcerers are again omitted.
The episode before the following plague shows that Josephus has inten
tionally reduced the role of Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh opens the way, but
only for men and not for the wives and children (a detail taken from the
plague of locusts, Exod 10:10-11). This leads Josephus to comment:
51
"Thus he did but exasperate God the more, in thinking to impose upon his providence, as
though it were Moses and not he who was punishing Egypt on the Hebrews' behalf (Ant.
2,302).
4 9
See above p. 114 and 124.

Moses remembers the event in Ant. 3,17-18 in conjunction with the miracle at the
Red Sea and again in Ant. 3,86.
According to Tiede 1972, 221-22 and Feldman 2000, 217 this is a device used so as
not to make Moses appear to be a mere magician.
5 0
51
238
Josephus
The plague clearly differs from that in Exodus (Exod 8:16-28; Ant. 2,303).
LXX reads KUVOJJUICC, "dog-fly", as does Philo, but in Josephus' very short
presentation it is Brjpicov y a p TTCCVTOICOV KCCI iroAuTpoTrcov. Artapanus,
Philo, Pseudo-Philo and now Josephus thus all seem to assume that they
were not ordinary insects. The offending Hebrew manner of sacrifice is
removed, as in Philo, and so is the entire dialogue between Moses and
Pharaoh.
The plague on livestock (Exod 9:1-11) is completely omitted and the
following biblical plagues are summarised only briefly. The LXX sAxr)
(Exod 9:8-12), is retold very briefly (Ant 2,304) but more catastrophically
("and the greater part of the Egyptians perished thus"). Not only the Egyp
tian magicians, but also Moses and Aaron, with dust in their hands, are
absent. Also the plague of hail (xccAaa) is presented very briefly (Exod
9:13-35; Ant. 2,305), and the dialogues are omitted. The locusts are men
tioned in only one sentence (Exod 10:1-20; Ant. 2,306).
Josephus renders the plague of darkness (Exod 10:21-29) markedly
longer (Ant. 2,307-310). The dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh pre
cedes and follows the plague, although Exodus puts it before the calamity.
The darkness is described in a new way:
52
53
54
55
"... and when time in consequence dragged on, dense darkness, without a particle of
light, enveloped the Egyptians - darkness so thick that their eyes were blinded by it and
their breath choked, and they either met with a miserable end or lived in terror of being
swallowed up by the fog."
Josephus follows the broad tradition in retelling the biblical plague. LXX
mentioned v|;r|Aa<}>r)T6s" O K O T O S , and Philo described the darkness as not
only unnatural but also dangerous, while L.A.B. mentions tractabiles tenebre. As noted, the tradition also seems to be known to the writer of the
Book of Wisdom and Melito of Sardes. Pharaoh is prepared to allow the
people to go, but without cattle. Josephus has Moses resist, saying that
they needed cattle as sacrifice. He does not mention that they were going
56
5 2
"For now he sent wild beasts of every species and kind, the like of which no man had
ever encountered before, to infest their country, whereby the people perished and the
land was deprived of the care of its labourers."
On Artapanus, see above p. 102, on Philo, p. 117, on Pseudo-Philo, see p. 195.
See above p. 144.
Josephus does not use the words o f LXX (sAxr), ÂuKTiSes avae'ouaai), but drama
tizes the event with stronger words (Setvcos cxuxoTs er)AKouTO TCX acojjaTa TCOV E V T O S
5ia<t>0eipo|j6vcov).
See above p. 116 and 193. Also T Sim. 8 tells about the darkness, although in a dif
ferent way: The Egyptian sages knew that a special darkness would cover Egypt when
Joseph's bones were carried out.
53
5 4
55
5 6
239
to offer the sacrifice in way that was offensive to the Egyptians (Exod
8:22; 10:26).
The death of the firstborn (Exod 11:1- 12:36) is retold briefly, but unlike
Philo, Josephus includes the Passover:
"Hence comes it that to this day we keep this sacrifice in the same customary manner,
calling the feast Pascha, which signifies 'passing over', because on that day God passed
over our people when he smote the Egyptians with plague. For on that selfsame night
destruction visited the firstborn of Egypt, insomuch that multitudes of those whose
dwellings surrounded the palace trooped to Pharaotes to urge him to let the Hebrews go"
(Ant. 2,313).
One word is especially worth noting. Josephus says that God A'tyuTrriois
ETrav8aKr]v|/s xrjv voaov. Although he does not use the word Aoipos,
vdaos is not a benign word either, and may be used for disastrous dis
eases. It thus seems that Josephus has not intentionally avoided it, either
here or in Ant. 2,273. Philo also used the words quite freely when pointing
to the pestilence. The friendly relations between the Hebrews and most of
the Egyptians are underlined (Ant. 2,311-315).
Several smaller alterations apparently once again attest the tradition of
retelling the biblical original freely. Josephus is the only author investi
gated in the present study who follows almost exactly the biblical order of
the plagues, leaving only one of them out. There is no obvious reason why
the plague among livestock is omitted, but some features occur often and
reveal a reflective, redactional work.
Josephus has generally reduced dialogues, especially dialogues between
God and Moses. Israel's God does not talk with men. Josephus here can be
likened to Artapanus and Philo, but not to Ezekiel and Pseudo-Philo.
It is clear that Josephus has reduced the role of human agents in the
plagues. Aaron is totally absent as in many texts studied above and God
is clearly more active than Moses. Consequently, Moses' rod plays no role
and Moses is not as helpless as in Exodus. Moses does not take the role of
an independent BNP, and Josephus unequivocally says that God made the
miracles. It is not easy to classify Moses as an MNP or a PNP. The main
reason why his role is changed is that Josephus does not include God in the
dialogue as Exodus does, and this has necessarily led to a new distribution
of roles, with Josephus reducing rather than expanding Moses' role.
Josephus has - as Philo - omitted everything referring to the Hebrew's
manner of the sacrifice, and the reason is obvious. He himself mentions the
57
58
59
57
Nooos means generally 'sickness', but vooos / vouoos is traditionally used also for
diseases in the army, for example, 77. 1,10.
See above p. 117.
The reason seems to be that Josephus highlights the importance of Moses, Feldman
1998a, 387. The budding of Aaron's rod is told in Num 17:16-28 (Ant. 4,63-66).
5 8
5 9
240
rumours about Jewish ways of sacrificing human beings, and there is no

need to quote the Scripture, according to which the Egyptians would kill
the Hebrews if they saw what they sacrificed (Exod 8:22).
However, regardless of these changes, Josephus retells almost every mi
raculous feature, and there is no sign of a general intention to play down
the supernatural features of the biblical stories. Such an intention is con
ceivable when Josephus omits the stories about the rod of Moses (and
Aaron) and the magicians in the plagues. On the other hand, darkness is
described in more miraculous terms than in Exodus.
After the final plague, the Hebrews are free to go (Exod 13:17- 14:31),
and Josephus adds that the Egyptians honour the Hebrews with gifts and
lament their hard treatment - to be sure, partly to speed their departure
(Ant. 2,314-315). Still, it was apparently easier for Josephus, who was out
side Egypt, to be friendlier toward the Egyptians than it was for Philo, in
side the country. The miracle at the Red Sea (Ant. 2,320-348) is told
much more extensively than in Exodus. Moses' wise leadership is empha
sized. He chooses a good route to the land of Canaan, and God's thought in
Exod 13:17-18 is now Moses' plan (Ant. 2,322-323).
60
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 13:17-14:31
see above p. 74.
The Egyptian forces are described in detail: alongside the biblical 600
chariots stood fifty thousand horsemen and two hundred thousand heavy
infantry (Ant. 2,324). The numbers of the enemy vary in early Jewish lit
erature. The Hebrew multitude, following LXX as in Ezekiel and Philo
(Ant. 2,321; cf. Exod 13:18,), is overtaken unarmed by the Egyptians. The
blame is laid on Moses, as in Exodus, but the controversy is dramatized:
they were ready to stone Moses (cf. Exod 17:4) and decided to deliver
themselves to the Egyptians. Moses, for his part, gives a beautiful speech
to the people and offers a beautiful prayer to God (Ant. 2,329-337):
61
62
63
64
6 0
65
The miracle is mentioned briefly in connection with the plagues also in Ant. 3,86.
Jub. 48:14 and Ezek. Trag. 203 say that a million Egyptians attacked the Hebrews.
On Ezekiel, see above p. 75 on Philo, see p. 119. According to Josephus a good
number of the Hebrews were armed after the victory over the Amalekites (Ant. 3,62).
L.A.B. supposes that the nation was armed at the Red Sea and could choose between
several options; see above p. 194.
Cf. the presentation of the story in L.A.B, p. 194. However, Josephus does not differ
entiate between different tribes and his words may be derived from Exod 14:12.
In Josephus, Moses is not reluctant to go to Egypt because he is aware that he lacks
eloquence: He is a good rhetorician, not only here but often, for example, Ant. 4,13-21.
Like Philo (see above p. 119) Josephus has also read Exod 13:13-15 closely: Moses
speaks to the people, but God asks why he is crying out to him. Josephus lets Moses first
speak to the people and then pray to God.
61
6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
241
Also here, Josephus seems to allude to the theory of elements or its Jewish
variant mentioned above. He certainly attributes the miracle to God's al
mighty power. There is no God's angel between the Hebrews and Egyp
tians. Moses hits the sea with his rod, which is now also mentioned, and
the way is immediately opened (Ant. 3,38). It is not only the sea that
flows over the Egyptians, but showers of rain, with thunder, lightning and
fire (Ant. 2,343). Josephus omits Moses raising his hand again and clos
ing the way (Exod 14:26-27). In contrast to Ezek. Trag. Josephus tells that
no one survived the catastrophe (Ant. 2,344). Moses composes a song to
God "in hexameter verse" (Ant. 2,346).
Josephus adds an important passage to the story:
66
67
68
69
70
71
"For my part, I have recounted each detail here told just as I found it in the sacred books.
Nor let anyone marvel at the astonishing nature of the narrative or doubt that it was given
to men of old, innocent of crime, to find a road of salvation through the sea itself,
whether by the will of God or maybe by accident, seeing that the hosts of Alexander king
of Macedon, men born but the other day, beheld the Pamphylian Sea retire before them
and, when other road there was none, offer a passage through itself, what time it pleased
God to overthrow the Persian empire; and on that all are agreed who have recorded Alex
ander's exploits. However on these matters everyone is welcome to his own opinion"
(Ant. 2,347-348).
Josephus knew the tradition, either from Arrian 1,26 or from some other
source. He had learned his historians extremely well and was able to quote
an impressive list of their works; see, for example, Ant. 1,107-108 and c.
Ap.l, 6-18. He does not rationalise the story but supports it with a second,
Gentile story.
72
6 6
"Nay, thine is the sea, thine the mountain that encompasseth us: this then can open at
thy command, or the deep become dry land, or we might even find escape through the
air, should it please thine almighty power that after this manner we should be saved"
(Ant. 2,337).
In Exod 13:26-27 Moses does not hit the sea and the way opens during the night. On
these details in Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo and L.A.B., see above p. 75, 105, 119 and 194.
Feldman is surprised that Josephus does not rationalise the miracle and explain it in natu
ralistic terms, but unlike Exodus tells that the miracle was instantaneous and that Moses
divided the sea with his rod (2000, 228). However, Josephus follows a strong tradition
and it is not clear whether he has generally toned down the miracles or not.
Feldman sees a rationalisation in the thunder, lightning and fire (Feldman 1998a,
430), but Josephus apparently only quotes Ps 77:16-20, as noted already by Thackeray
(1930, 315). To Josephus all the events show that the Creator of the universe was angry
with the Egyptians.
On Ezekiel, see above p. 77, on Philo, see p. 121.
Thackeray (1929, 91) and Feldman (2000, 230) suggest that Josephus was acquainted
with a collection of chants possibly adapted for a Temple choir (see Ant. 4,303).
The event is mentioned in Ant. 3,18 and Ant. 4,44; in both cases it is clearly a mira
cle.
Delling 1970, 138-139.
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
71
7 2
242
The miracles in the desert are also included in Josephus' work.

The short story about the water in Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is retold
dramatically and clearly emended (Ant. 3,1-8). The well was considered
insufficient from the very beginning. The distress of the people and chil
dren is underlined and the way in which Moses healed the water is given in
a new variant:
73
"And, God having consented to grant that favour, he picked up the end of a stick that lay
at his feet, cleft it in twain, lengthwise, and then, flinging it into the well, impressed upon
the Hebrews that God had lent an ear to his prayers and had promised to render the water
such as they desired, provided that they executed his order with no remissness, but with
alacrity. On their asking what they must do to procure the amelioration of the water, he
bade those in the prime of life stand in a ring and draw, declaring that what remained,
after they had drained off the larger part, would be drinkable. So they set to work, and
the water, belaboured and purified by these incessant blows, at length became good to
drink" (Ant. 3,7-8).
Josephus seems to have combined the story with the passage in Numbers
(Num 21:10-18) and he does not tell the story twice. There seem to be
traits of rationalisation in the story: A larger part of the water is drained
off. Yet the event is still clearly a miracle. The piece of wood thrown into
the water was treated in very different ways in early Judaism.
Israel does not accuse Moses at Marah, but he is heavily attacked in the
desert. Moses answers with a long speech also reminding his listeners of
the preceding miracles (Exod 16:1-36; Ant. 3,13-22). After the speech, the
quails come. The story about the quails is told very briefly in Ant. 3,25, as
in Exodus, and there is not much to rationalise. It is interesting that the
birds were opTiiycov Trf]0os and he does not use the word in LXX
(opTuyoMrJTpcc). In retelling the feeding with manna (Ant. 3,26-32)
Josephus has added new traits to the story:
74
75
76
77
78
"Immediately after this first supply of food God sent down to them a second. For, while
Moses raised his hands in prayer, a dew descended, and as this congealed about his
hands, Moses, surmising that this too was a nutriment come to them from God, tasted it
and was delighted; and, whereas the multitude in their ignorance took this for snow and
attributed the phenomenon to the season of the year, he instructed them that this heavendescending dew was not as they supposed, but was sent for their salvation and suste
nance, and tasting it, he bade them thus too to convince themselves. They then, imitating
their leader, were delighted with what they ate, for it had the sweet and delicious taste of
7 3
Noted already by Thackeray 1978, 325 and Feldman 2000, 234.
On the story in Sir, see above p. 20; in Philo p. 122 and in L.A.B. p. 242.
According to Moehring (1973, 380-381), also this story is rationalised.
The food from heaven, i.e. quails and manna, are mentioned with the water from the
rock also in Ant. 3,88 and Ant. 4,45.
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
243
honey and resembled the spicy herb called bdellium, its size being that of a coriander
seed; and they fell to collecting it with the keenest ardour" {Ant. 3,26-28).
It is not obvious whether manna means a miracle or not. It was still be

lieved to fall from the skies in Josephus time: "and to this very day all that
region is watered by a rain like to that which then, as a favour to Moses,
the Deity sent down for men's sustenance" (Ant. 3,31). However, manna
is God's answer to Moses' prayer.
The story about the water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7; cf. Num 20:1-13)
is told in somewhat dramatized form but without any greater alterations in
content (Ant. 3,33-38). The rod of Moses, which plays a minor role in the
plagues, is now present as in Exodus and the event is clearly a miracle
(TTCcpdSoov, Ant. 3,38) without any "rationalisation." One interesting
detail is that Josephus again refers to a writing deposited in the temple.
Also, this underlines the importance of the miracles in Exodus for early
Judaism. The obvious reason why Josephus is satisfied with one story
about the water from the rock and does not retell the other version in Num
20:1-13 is that in so doing he can omit the reason why God did not allow
Moses to go to the Promised Land.
79
The battle against the Amalekites (Exod 17:8-16) is heavily expanded in

Josephus (Ant. 3,39-62). It is preceded, of course, by a marvellous speech
of Moses, the model being taken from the Greek historians: A speech by
the general before a battle is commonplace in classical antiquity. Although
Moses' military genius is underlined, there is hardly any trace of a ration
alisation of the story, despite Tiede's and Feldman's observance of such a
bias: Moses' hands stretched out are still the decisive factor, and Jose
phus has carefully preserved the core of the biblical story.
Unlike other early Jewish writers, Josephus tells the story about the
quails twice, although the second feeding is rendered much shorter than in
the biblical original. The punishment of the people is preserved. Josephus
clarifies that the reason for the following punishment was the people's mu81
82
79
Ant. 3,31: Josephus apparently identifies manna with the exudation of a species of
the tamarisk-tree; see Thackeray 1930, 335 and Feldman 2000, 239. Feldman sees here a
clear rationalisation of the story as in the passage dealing with quails (2000, 237. 239).
Thackeray (1928, 336-337) takes the writing for a collection of chants made for the
use of the temple singers.
Tiede 1972, 227-228; Feldman 1998a, 432; 2000, 243.
"So long as Moses held his hands erect, the Amalekites were discomfited by the
Hebrews. Moses, therefore, unequal to the strain of this extension of his arms, and seeing
that as often as he dropped them so often were his men worsted, bade his brother Aaron
and his sister Mariamme's husband, by name Ur, stand on either side of him to support
his hands and by their aid not suffer them to flag. That done, the Hebrews inflicted a
crushing defeat on the Amalekites" (Ant. 3,53-54).
8 0
81
82
244
tiny (Num 11:4-36; Ant. 3,299). Moses is clearly a more active agent than
in the biblical original.
83
The mutiny led by Korah (Num 16:1-17:31) awakened special interest in

Josephus.
84
On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Num 16:1-17:31,
see above p. 126.
The revolt is described extensively (Ant. 4,11-66), and the short biblical
original has been made into a story about a "sedition for which we know of
no parallel whether among Greeks or barbarians" (Ant. 4,12), and the rhe
torical skill of both Korah and Moses. Philo and Pseudo-Philo have given
new accents of the story, and so has Josephus; however, Josephus has
preserved the original core of the story clearly better than Philo, who has
Korah doubt Moses' prophecy, and Pseudo-Philo, who has redirected the
mutiny against the holy Law (this point of view also occurs in Josephus,
Ant. 4,13). However, a closer look shows that Josephus has also changed
the focus. In Num Korah says that Moses and Aaron had set themselves
above the rest of the people, and overlooked the fact that the whole com
munity is holy (Num 16:3; 17:1-5). Josephus, in turn, has removed the
thought that the priesthood should not be restricted to certain persons but
should be given to everyone. To him it is clear that the priesthood is re
stricted, but he lets the aristocratic circles of the Hebrews quarrel about the
question of who should attain it (Ant. 4,18). The change may be uninten
tional and may only show that Josephus could no longer imagine Israel
without a priesthood. Yet the bitter clashes over the priesthood in the
Hasmonean period have certainly influenced his view on the story.
God does not want to kill the whole crowd and does not stand in dia
logue with Moses and Aaron as in Num 16:20-21. In the prayer added by
Josephus, Moses remembers the miracles God made in Egypt (Ant. 4,4347) and asks for the punishment of his opponents. In contrast to Numbers,
Korah survives the earthquake (Ant. 4,51), but is killed along with 250
men by fire (Ant. 4,54-58). The budding of Aaron's rod ends the sedition
and legitimates Aaron as the right priest (Num 17:1-13; Ant. 4,63-66).
It would be tempting to see some elements of the Jewish war in the great
OTaois. Josephus has heavily expanded the story, obviously meaning it as
a lesson on the political consequences of a revolt. However, he seems to
85
86
87
8 3
Feldman 1998a, 426.

See Feldman 1998b, 91-109.
On Philo, see above p. 126, on L.A.B., see above p. 198.
The priesthood was clearly a theme which influenced Josephus' way to retell the
Scriptures; see Schwartz 1990, 88-90; Feldman 1998b, 100-101.
Feldman 2000, 333-343 recognises the political tone of the remodelled story.
8 4
85
8 6
8 7
245
be more concerned about Moses' role as an excellent statesman than about

the events of the Jewish war. Simultaneously he, of course, expresses his
view of how a good leader leads his people and avoids all the dangers,
which were not avoided some decades before Josephus' work was written.
Josephus tells about the death of Moses in an interesting way:
"And, while he bade farewell to Eleazar and Joshua and was yet communicating with
them, a cloud of a sudden descended upon him and he disappeared in a ravine. But he has
written on himself in the sacred books that he died, for fear least they should venture to
say that by reason of his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the Deity" (Ant 4,326).
88
Philo and L.A.B. also give a version of Moses' death. Josephus' version
has parallels in the Graeco-Roman world: Moses disappears, like Aeneas
and Romulus (Dion. Hal. ant. 1,64,4; 2,56,2). However, the biblical stories
about Enoch and Elijah and their later formulations are still closer paral
lels.
Josephus' version is an old puzzling question in the scholarship. The
main point of the present study is that neither here nor elsewhere does
Josephus attribute to Moses a position such as he has in Ezek. Trag. or
L.A.B., although the passage has its mysterious elements. Moses may be
the best of generals and lawgivers, but he is not a "divine man of Greek
culture."
89
90
91
A few miracles are totally omitted.

Josephus retells two water-miracles but leaves a doublet out (Num 20:113). In so doing, Josephus also passes over the reason why Moses did not
enter the Promised Land, and it is hardly an accident.
There are several reasons why Josephus omitted Miriam's punishment
(Num 12:1-16), but it is difficult to choose between them: Josephus may
have been unwilling to tell that Moses was challenged again, or he may
have wanted to exonerate his own people; most probably he wanted to
avoid the disease mentioned in the anti-Jewish propaganda.
8 8
See above p. 127 and 199 and Deut. #.11:10.

See Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 351-352; Sievers 1998, 24-25; Feldman 1998a, 396397; Feldman 2000, 472-473. Especially Jacobson (1983b), Tabor (1989) and Feldman
1998a, 173 see a connection with Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus.
Josephus uses the words 06?os avrjp about Moses once, in Ant. 3,180. However, this
passage has nothing to do with the miracles. Moses is 0e?os because he was a "man of
God" and because he had correct knowledge about God, and the Law and cult were di
vine. Tiede considered that Moses was according to Josephus divine, because he was
regarded as an ideal wise man (1972, 237), but Holladay (1977, 47-100) and finally du
Toit (1998, 349-399) have put the question ad acta. See also Feldman 2000, 279-280.
Beegle 1992, 916.
8 9
9 0
91
246
P. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus
Also, the snakes in Num 21:4-9 are omitted. Some scholars presume that
Josephus was unwilling to criticise Israel. This seems to be a logical ex
planation - Josephus also excluded the story about the golden calf - but
why is he so inconsistent in this bias? He also tells, for example, that the
Hebrews did not believe Moses (Ant. 2,279-280) and that they mutinied
against him several times. He even expands and dramatizes Korah's sedi
tion. Apparently some details in the sacred history were too much for
Josephus, but he by no means consistently excluded the errors of his own
people, either in the miracle stories or elsewhere in his work.
The view that Josephus was reluctant to relate the miracle stories is not
supported by the text. In fact, Josephus omitted very few of Moses' mira
cles. We are then led to ask how much Josephus rationalised other stories:
The analysis shows that indeed some stories seem to have been rational
ised. Josephus tells the miracle at the Red Sea, remaining faithful to the
biblical original, but he adds the story about Alexander and the well known
formula (Ant. 2,347-348). The water-miracle at Marah also contains a ra
tionalistic explanation of the events (Ant. 3,7-8), and even in Josephus'
time, manna was believed to fall from the skies (Ant. 3,31). The evidence
of rationalisation is thus not very strong. Josephus is not saying that there
was no miracle in the story about Alexander. In his view Israel's God had
chosen Alexander to serve him, as Moses had done before him. In some
stories the "rationalisation" proposed seems rather far-fetched. There is
hardly any rationalisation in lightning and fire Ant. 2,343, or in the stories
about the quails Ant. 3,25 or the battle against Amalek Ant. 3,39-62.
Josephus might certainly have added a more natural explanation to the
events. However, it is obvious that he himself believed that the biblical
miracles really happened and was not at all unwilling to retell Moses'
miracles. On the contrary, Josephus often exaggerated the miraculous, and
considered them as God's saving deeds. Even the Egyptian 'lepoypccjjU C C T E U S , although he hated Israel and tried to kill Moses, was correct in his
prophecy about Moses' birth and mission, and he was not the only Egyp
tian who did not err in such matters: Kai y a p eWi S e i v o i Trepi T C O V
J J E A A O V T C O V T I I V aArjSeiav eiiTeTv (Ant. 2,205). This is not unique in
Josephus. It was not only the biblical Balaam who could prophesy cor
rectly (Ant. 4,104-130), but a German soldier as well (Ant. 18,195-202).
Josephus sometimes reduces magical traits in the stories about Moses and,
for example, does not emphasize the importance of his rod as Artapanus
92
93
94
95
9 2
Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 351-352.

Thackeray noted that Josephus has "unlike the Biblical Chronicler ... not hesitated to
tell the story of David's sin and the disastrous sequel" (1929, 58).
Ant. 2,223 ocoôuevous S BK irapaSdôu.
Noted correctly by Delling 1970, 132-133.
9 3
94
9 5
247
does. Yet he retells almost all of Moses' miracles with very few altera
tions. If he had reflected on leaving out those miraculous events which
could provoke ridicule among the Epicureans, then the first story to be
omitted might have been the one concerning Balaam's ass. However, it is
included in his work with all the miraculous elements.
96
Even if it is hard to attest a strict rationalistic bias in the stories about

Moses, other features of the redaction can be traced.
Josephus has changed the roles of God and Moses in several stories in
different ways. Feldman notes correctly that Josephus seems to develop the
stories in two opposite directions: Sometimes he underlines God's and
sometimes Moses' role. God is active especially in the plagues. To be
sure, Josephus lets Moses prophesy to the people:
97
"For it is not Moses, son of Amram and Jochama, but he who constrained the Nile to
flow for your sake a blood-red stream and tamed with diverse plagues the pride of the
Egyptians, he who opened for you a path through the sea, he who caused meat to descend
from heaven when you were destitute, water to gush from the rock when you lacked it"
(Ant. 3,86).
The main reason to change the roles of God and Moses is the fact that
Josephus was, as many Jewish writers, unwilling to retell the biblical dia
logues between God and men. Consequently, a large number of these dia
logues are omitted, also in the miracle stories. It necessarily leads to a new
division of roles, which is not consistent. Sometimes Moses can be charac
terised as an MNP, but often he loses his role, and can hardly even be
called a PNP.
In Josephus, Moses is not merely a miracle-worker, but also a good gen
eral, statesman and rhetorician. This is apparently why Josephus can to
tally omit Moses' miracles in Against Apion. He is a great leader, but not
only because of his miracles. There is no intention to develop the idea
that Moses was a godlike figure (Exod 7:1). The factors mentioned above
are also featured in the miracle stories. The way to the Red Sea, as well as
98
9 6
See Num 22:28; Ant. 4, 09. Thackeray and Marcus note the formula used in 4,158
and consider it to "refer to the story of Balaam as a whole and in particular to the miracu
lous element in it, such as the speaking of the ass" (1934, 79). However, the formula does
not follow immediately after the detail, and it is not probable that Josephus meant pre
cisely this detail. Moreover, the formula is not always used as a non-committal sentence;
see Delling 1970, 138.141-142.
See Feldman 1998a, 425-427. According to Eve (2002, 27-28) the miracles are defi
nitely deeds of God. However, Moses' role as his agent can be bigger than in the biblical
original.
Tiede formulated it correctly: "Moses' elevated status does not rest on his miracles"
(1972, 229).
9 7
9 8
248
the battle against the Amalekites, are led by a skilful general. The great
statesman leads the people to freedom and to the desert. The man who
could not rely on his rhetorical skill now controls people with his marvel
lous speeches. All these are well-known general features of Moses' pic
ture, also in the miracle stories. They may justly be called "Hellenizations." The stories about Moses' birth, childhood and death are undoubt
edly influenced by the Greek, as well as by the Jewish culture.
As noted above, Josephus was well aware of the distorted version of
Exodus circulating among the literate Gentiles. It did not lead to his mak
ing many alterations, although some are obvious: The offensive manner of
sacrifice is omitted because of pagan criticism against the Jewish cult, and
the story about Miriam's punishment is omitted because of the Gentile
story about the leprous being expelled from Egypt. However, Josephus was
not as concerned as many scholars have assumed. He admittedly does not
use the word A o i p o s when retelling the story about the plague in Egypt; he
uses the word v o o o s , however, which has similar connotations. Perhaps
Josephus thought that the best way to oppose the distorted version was to
faithfully retell the original?
Some Jewish writers have almost totally dropped legitimisation through
miracles, but Josephus has preserved it in several passages. Moses is
legitimated by miracles (esp. Ant. 2,274.279-280), and so is Aaron (Ant.
4,63-66). One reason, of course, is that Josephus is markedly faithful to the
biblical original. However, the second reason may be more important:
Moses had always been the great authority for the Jews and did not need
any legitimisation, but since Josephus was also writing for a Gentile audi
ence, he needed the original function of the miracles. Because of the mira
cles Moses himself believes that God has sent him (Ant. 2,275), as do the
Hebrews, his opponents and, as Josephus hopes, his readers. Moses has
to compete with the Egyptian magicians, and with Korah and his allies.
According to Feldman, Josephus toned down the cruelty of his heroes.
This feature can hardly be noted in Moses' miracles, although the friend
ship between the Hebrews and Egyptians is emphasized (Ant. 2,311-315).
The plagues are as disastrous as in Exodus, and Josephus adds details to
the miracle at the Red Sea, which by no means lessen the punishment (Ant.
2,343). Also, Korah's punishment is retold without any mitigation (Ant.
4,51; 54-58), and Josephus' heroes occasionally followed God's words:
100
101
102
103
104
9 9
See Betz 1987, 402-405; Feldman 1998a, 401-411.

Feldman lists the Hellenizations in 1998a, 437-441.
See Feldman 1998a, 428.
It is a novum that Moses lists the miracles of God in Elim and assures the continuous
help of God, Ant. 3,925.
The competition is by no means polemical (Ant. 2,286, see above p. 236).
Feldman 1998a, 418.
1 0 0
101
102
103
1 0 4
249
"You will leave not one of your enemies alive after defeating them" (Ant.
4,191).
Generally, however, the study of additions and omissions shows that
Josephus is surprisingly faithful to the biblical original. He adds nonbiblical stories mainly in connection with Moses' birth, childhood and death,
but otherwise he follows the original closely. He tells almost all the sto
ries, even those that might have been difficult for him. It is worth noting
that he also retells the crossing of the Red Sea and that Moses stroked the
water with his rod, although these miracles could have negative connota
tions in his own time.
c. Joshua
Josephus has generally abridged heavily the biblical stories about Jo
shua. According to Feldman he gives him only 47% of the space given
to Joshua in LXX, although the corresponding amount for Moses is 87%
and for Elijah 96%. These numbers make it clear that Joshua was not his
favourite figure in the Old Testament.
105
In translating the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1) LXX omits pmar â'âi Kin in 3:1.
In 3:5 rviK^sa is rendered GCCUUCCOTO: and "piy in 3:7 uvpcooai O E (but mjnoEV in 4:14).
Instead of the plural nan the singular pfjua is used in 3:9. The words vnmrv "iom are omit
ted in 3:10 and a n o TCOV UICOV in 3:12 seems to indicate that the translator had "oao in
stead of 'Daioo in his original, irm 13 n a m n*?D*?o am-n D^DH p m ^ is translated T O uScop
TOG ' lopSdvou E K X E ( \ | / E I , T O 5E (iScop T O KCCTCCPCUVOV OTrjOETcn in v. 3:13 (but ~u /
Trqyua in 3:16). In 3:16 jrra i s a m T i n oiaa I K D is rendered uaKpdv o<l>65pa
a<t>o5pcos EGOS UEpous KapiaSiapiu and reveals a Hebrew original different from ours,
naiim
in the same verse is rendered Trjv 0dXaaoav ' Apa(3a. LXX omits in 4:2 the
words ids who and in 4:3 o^nan ?n asao. In v, 4:6 m is rendered or|UE?ov. In v. 4:7
LXX does not repeat )Tvn ' 0 lrnaa and in 4:10 omits ircnrr-riK nD rranejK *?aa. In 4:13 the
Hebrew original apparently did not include a in D ^ a i t o . In 4:14 LXX adds yEVOUS. In
4:21 DrnatcnK is rendered uuds and in 4:24 T 5uvaus. In 5:1 contemporization has
changed the nation ("Oittan, but T T J S OotviKrjs). The deviations from the Hebrew text are
numerous, but d o not attest a reflected redaction of the miraculous.
In the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27) the text of the Septuagint now differs con
siderably from the Masoretic text after the prelude (Jos 5:13-15), showing verse after
verse of several omissions and additions. A good example is v. 6:15:
TurrnK iaon -iron rrfrio loaizH 'vyon ava
CDtfs V2V Tn*n n a o twin ova pn CTQDS J O D run DODOD
which is rendered Kai Trj fiUEpa Trj E(35durj dvEOTrjoav 6p0pou Kai TTEpiriXSoaav Trjv
TTOXIV E^riKts. However, it is very difficult to find any difference in the framework or
new intentions in the miraculous story. In spite of the deviations, LXX tells the same
story of the people marching around the city with the Holy Ark, and trumpets and falling
walls. The only notable detail is that in v. 6:20 the Septuagint renders "lawn as
m
,4
On Joshua in Josephus, see Delling 1970, 139-140; Feldman 1998a, 443-460.
250
P. Toning Down the Miracles?
Josephus
ocxATn yyeov, and does not distinguish between the instrument mentioned in the previous
verses. Otherwise, the deviations only reveal that the translators had a Hebrew original
that was different from ours.
LXX shows some smaller deviations from the Hebrew text of Jos 10:8-14. In v. 10:8
the Hebrew text has "pasn, but LXX EVCOTTIOV UUCOV. In v. 10:10 ODm is rendered
a
eêoTrjoev and in 10:11 is translated nVna wn* \(0ous x Aaris. In v. 10:12 LXX adds
fjViKa auvsTpivpev a u x o u s ev ra(3acov Kai auvsTpi'Prioav OTTO TTpoacoirou uicov l o panA, but in v. 10:13 omits "lern izo'bv rains K'm^n. In v. 10:13 the subject of the re
venge is changed: The Hebrew text has â, but LXX o 0e6s. Most of the details only
attest that the Hebrew original the translators used was different from the one we have.
The only important difference is the variant na / 6 0e6s in v. 10:13 introducing a new
agent of the deed.
It is not unique in Josephus that the role of man is smaller and of God
greater than in the biblical original, but the bias is very clear in the miracle
stories concerning Joshua. God's speech (Jos 3:7-8) is left out, and with it
also the thought of legitimisation by miracles. The crossing of the Jor
dan is retold, but the flow of the river is not stopped, only minimised.
Given that it is still a miracle, the text is rather reserved:
106
107
"Now since the army was afraid to cross the river, which had a strong current and could
not be crossed by bridges .... God promised to render the stream passable for them by
diminishing its volume" (Ant. 5,16).
"When the priests, who were the first to enter, found the river fordable the depth
having diminished and the shingle, which the current was neither full nor rapid enough to
force from under their feet, lying as a solid floor all thereupon confidently traversed
the stream, perceiving it to be even as God has foretold that he would make it. But the
priests stood still in the midst until the multitude had crossed and reached the firm
ground. Then, when all had crossed, the priests emerged, leaving the stream free to re
sume its accustomed course. And the river, so soon as the Hebrews had quitted it,
swelled and recorded its natural magnitude" (Ant. 5,17-19).
"And Joshua, with the stones which each of the tribal leader had, by the prophet's or
ders, taken up from the river-bed, erected that alter that was to serve as a token of the
stoppage of the stream, and sacrificed there to God" (Ant. 5,20).
Also, the miraculous conquest of Jericho is told,
108
but very briefly:
"For six days this was repeated, and on the seventh Joshua, having assembled the troops
and all the people, announced to them the good news of the impending capture of the city
to wit that on that day God would deliver it to them and that, spontaneously and without
effort on their part, the walls would collapse" (Ant. 5,24).
1 0 6 j j y j J U b g i to exalt you in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am
with you as I was with Moses", Jos 3:7.
This passage has always been an example of Josephus' alleged intention to rational
ise a biblical story. Thackeray and Marcus (1934, 168-169) comment on it briefly:
"Josephus more suo, lessens the supernatural character of the miracle." On the crossing
of the Jordan, see Feldman 1998a, 455.
Josephus combines the conquest with the Passover (Ant. 5,22, see Thackeray - Mar
cus 1934, 172-173).
0(
107
108
251
"And when they had compassed it seven times and had halted for a while, the wall fell
down, without either engine or force of any other kind having been applied to it by the
Hebrews" (Ant 5,27).
Nor is the battle at Gibeon an exception. The battle is described quite ex

tensively (Ant. 5,58-61), but not the miracles, which are rendered very
briefly:
"Joshua, with his whole army, sped to their assistance and, marching all day and night,
at early dawn fell upon the foe, routed them and followed in pursuit down to the slopes of
the region called Bethora. There too he was given to know of God's co-operation, mani
fested by thunder-claps, the discharge of thunderbolts and the descent of hail of more
than ordinary magnitude" (Ant 5,60-61).
"That the length of the day was increased on that occasion and surpassed the customary
measure is attested by Scriptures that laid up in the temple" (Ant. 5,61).
Joshua's prayer is omitted and if the reader does not know the original, he
attributes the miracle to God and not to Joshua, who is no longer the MNP
described in the biblical Joshua. However, Josephus' intention was hardly
to increase Joshua's role in the miracles, and a better explanation must be
found.
All the stories quoted are still miracles, but Josephus tells them very
briefly and does not at all emphasize the miraculous. It is thus obvious that
Josephus has heavily abridged both the biblical stories of Joshua and espe
cially his miracles. Joshua was not Josephus' favourite figure, and al
though he retells all the biblical miracles, he writes very briefly and with
out any bias to underline Joshua's importance. Feldman considers that
Josephus was careful not to arouse ridicule among his cultivated audi
ence. But why does he tell almost all the miracles made by Moses with
out any rationalisation, yet tones down the miracles made by Joshua?
Joshua is Moses' S i d S o x o s . . . ETTI . . . TCCTS Trpoc|>r|Teiais (Ant. 4,165),
which seems to be an echo of Ben Sira calling Joshua 5 i d 5 o x o s Mcouorj
ev TTpo^rjTsiais. Nevertheless, he is treated with reservation. The answer
is not found in the production of Josephus but by comparing the different
depictions of Joshua. Josephus perhaps did not like Joshua and his mira
cles, but other Jewish writers did, and the tradition was problematic to
Josephus.
As noted, Ben Sira revealed a notable interest in Joshua and especially in
his miracles. As he enthusiastically put it, Joshua was the great hero awak109
110
109
According to Feldman (1998a, 445) Josephus has diminished Joshua's harshness,

because utmost cruelty was one of the charges against the Jews. This is perhaps true in
some cases, but not, for example, in Jos 11:11 / Ant. 5,67, and it is by no means a consis
tent bias.
Delling (1970, 139-140) sees here a rationalisation, as also Feldman 1998a, 455.
110
252
Josephus
ening fear among his enemies (nnn *na, Sir 46:6) and hope among his people
with his militant miracles. Ben Sira's work is not the only Jewish work
in which Joshua and his miracles are praised. Jub. 1:7-15 also describes
the situation before the conquest of the Holy Land and Berger rightly sees
that the writer considered the situation analogous to his own.
Liber
antiquitatum biblicarum was written by an anonymous writer in the same
decades as Antiquitates, and it gives a very militant picture of Joshua.
That is not all, but we now have some fragments of a work or works be
longing to writings concerning Joshua.
The fragmentary Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q378-4Q379), a text written in
the late second or early first century BC and perhaps outside the commu
nity of Qumran, contains a version of the crossing of the Jordan. Unfor
tunately the lines in 4Q379,4-13 cannot be read any more.
Talmon has
now published a fragment from the same or a similar text, and it is strik
ing that the text was found precisely in Masada. According to Talmon it
attests that the last Jewish rebels expected a repetition of the conquest.
Also, Sib. Or. 5:256-259, the work apparently written in Egypt between
70-115 A D , tells that a man is coming, "the best of the Hebrews, who
will one day cause the sun to stand, speaking with fair speech and holy
lips." There is no agreement among the scholars as to whether these words
are entirely a Christian interpolation or not. If they are not, they are clear
evidence for the thought about an eschatological sign combined with the
ancient miracle of Joshua. We can conclude that such expectations were
certainly alive in Qumran as well as in Masada, possibly also in Egypt,
where Jonathan was able to collect the crowd in the desert after the fall of
Jerusalem.
Mishna and Tosefta deal very rarely with miracles made by people who
lived after biblical times. Moreover, this tradition was also generally re
served regarding miracles made by biblical heroes. The mighty deeds of a
man were not a favourite theme of the early rabbis. Elijah's or Elisha's
miracles first gain importance in the later stage of the tradition. However,
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
111
See above p. 26-30.

Berger 1981,282.
N e w s o m 1996, 36-37.
S e e N e w s o m 1996,61-66.
The text in Talmon 1996, 128-139.
Talmon 1996, 137-139. On the contacts between Qumran and the sicarii, see also
Hengel 1989b, 401-402.
Collins 2000,142-143.
See Merkel 1998, 1126 and Schreiber 2000, 266-267.
Seep, above p. 158.
112
113
114
115
116
1 1 7
118
119
120
253
there are some important exceptions. The miracles of Moses were some
times retold without any reservation, and although Mishna does not refer to
the miracles of Joshua, Tosefta contains an enthusiastic presentation of the
crossing of the Jordan: The flow of the river was not really reduced, but
the water stopped by God rose so high that the enemies of the people lost
their courage (t. Sot. 3). The stones carried by the elders of the tribes
weighed 40 seahs (about 400 kg) each. After the people had crossed the
Jordan, the Holy Ark carried itself and the people carrying it over the river
it. Sot. 8:6). It is an interesting feature of the story that the hornets looked
at the events from a distance, and although they did not follow the people
they spat poison after them. According to Becker the few miracles told
by the early rabbis are the result of a well considered selection: They be
long to the glorious past shaping the identity of the nation.
Joshua be
longed to this "identitatsstiftende Vergangenheit".
The tradition traced above highlights Josephus' own stories about the
men who wanted to repeat the miracles made by Joshua. Theudas, men
tioned also in Acts 5:36, was the first of them:
122
123
124
"During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor named
Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow
him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the
river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. With this talk he de
ceived many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to reap the fruit of their folly, but sent
against them a squadron of cavalry. These fell upon them unexpectedly, slew many of
them and took many prisoners. Theudas himself was captured, whereupon they cut off his
head and brought it to Jerusalem" (Ant. 20,98).
An Egyptian Jew
125
also combined the miracles with revolt:
"For he asserted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusa
lem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance
into the city. When Felix heard of this he ordered his soldier to take up their arms. Set
ting out from Jerusalem with a large force of cavalry and infantry, he fell upon the Egyp
tian and his followers, slaying four hundred of them and taking two hundred prisoners"
(Ant. 20,170-171).
121
Becker 2002, 271-289.

On the hornets (cf. Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20; Jos 24:12), see Bietenhard 1986, 190191. Philo also points to them; see QE 2, 24.
Becker 2002, 211.
On Theudas, see Horsley and Hanson 1985, 164-167; Pesch 1986,1,218-219; Hemer
1989, 162-163.224-225; Hengel 1989b, 229-230; Gray 1993, 114-116; Schwemer 1995,
277; Lichtenberger 1998, 18; Jervell 1998, 210; Gabba 1999, 143; Schreiber 2000, 293294.
On the Egyptian, see Horsley and Hanson 1985, 167-170; Pesch 1986,2,231-232;
Hengel 1989b, 231-232; Gray 1993, 116-118; Kollmann 1996, 145-146; Lichtenberger
1998, 19; Gabba 1999, 145; Schreiber 2000, 291-292.
122
123
124
125
254
It is obvious that these men really wanted to legitimate their political mis
sion with a miracle similar to Joshua's in the Scriptures. It is unnecessary
to quarrel about whether they wanted to be Moses redivivus or Josua redivivus, because the traditions about several biblical miracle-workers had
grown together.
Nevertheless, according to Josephus himself, they
wanted to repeat the biblical miracles and thus legitimate themselves as
leaders of Israel. Joshua belonged to the glorious past of the people and he
was always present.
126
The political Joshua is thus well attested in early Jewish tradition. A study
of the ancient texts often leads one to ask whether an idea or a tradition
was strong enough to influence a writer or not. It does not matter whether
or not these men wanted to imitate the biblical Joshua and to repeat his
miracles. It is enough to see that Josephus himself claims it and that he
tells about the expectations that Jordan would part before Theudas and that
the walls would fall before the Egyptian. We undoubtedly have here the
key to understanding Josephus' depiction of Joshua.
There is no reason to believe that Josephus, out of respect for his culti
vated audience, diminished Joshua's miracles, since he also included mira
cles made by Moses and other biblical figures. He had other reasons not to
glorify the militant and miracle-working Joshua. A bias generally assumed
is that he tried to distinguish between religion and revolt. In some circles
the bias was the opposite, as seen above: to repeat the miracles of the an
cient heroes, which once had manifested that they were sent by God the
Almighty. Josephus' desire to separate religion from rebellion seems to be
the reason why Josephus mentions Joshua's miracles only briefly. He still
retells the miracles, however, and says that Joshua was S i d S o x o s Mcouarj
ev Trpo(|>r)Teiais. He has by no means consistently removed everything
miraculous, but it is understandable that his passages on Joshua do not
show the enthusiasm seen in Ben Sira, and especially in L.A.B. and the
fragmentary texts quoted above.
127
126
Barnett (1981, 681) sees in Theudas Moses and possibly also Joshua; Lichtenberger
(1998, 18) mentions both; Horsley and Hanson (1985, 166) consider the influence of the
biblical Elijah and Elisha and so does Aune (1983, 127). The Egyptian is more like
Joshua (Hengel 1989b, 231; Horsley and Hanson 1985, 169), but because he came from
the desert it is unnecessary to exclude Moses, especially when Deut 18:18 led people to
expect "a prophet like Moses".
127
255
d. Samson
Josephus is one of the few early Jewish writers who has left us a passage
dealing with the miracles of Samson. Although there are not many of
these writers, we have reason to believe that his memory was preserved in
a strong tradition. This makes Josephus' depiction very interesting.
He has written on Samson extensively. In his text, the space given to Sam
son is 88% or 89% of the space given to him in the two Septuagint ver
sions, while Moses has 83% and Joshua only 4 7 % .
It shows that
Josephus found Samson very interesting. Yet, it should be noted that the
short presentation of Samson in the Scripture is not expanded and his role
in Josephus should not be exaggerated.
128
129
130
131
On a comparison between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint concerning the stories
about Samson, see above p. 216.
The story about the miraculous birth is retold vividly and with new details
(Ant. 5,276-285). Unlike LXX, where the enemies are called aAA6(|>uAoi
(version A ) , Josephus calls them TTaXaiaxivoi (Ant. 5,278). Samson's
father Manoah is now "among the most notable of the Danites" and his
mother "pre-eminent among the women of her time" (Ant. 5,276).
Manoah's love for his wife is underlined strongly (jjavicoSris UTT e p c o T O S , Ant. 5,277) and jealousy towards the "comely and tall youth" awak
ens a quarrel before Manoah understands that the man is God's angel. The
angel touches the meat with his rod as in L.A.B. (L.A.B. 42,9) and smoke
carries him to heaven as a chariot (Ant. 5,284). The entire story is told very
freely, not in comparison with, for example, Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiqui
tatum biblicarum, which contains a parallel and dramatized version of the
biblical original (L.A.B. 42), but with, for example, the stories about
Elijah in Josephus. Josephus adds several new features to the meeting be
tween the angel and Manoah (Ant. 5,280-284).
Samson grows up, and his food as well as his hair prove him to be a
prophet (5f]Aos ify Trpo<J>r|Teuacov, Ant. 5,287). Josephus apparently only
replaces the word vaipoc?ov in Judg 13:7. He kills the lion as in Judg
132
133
134
135
128

On L.A.B., see above p. 216-218.
On Samson in Josephus, see Feldman 1998b, 461-489.
See Feldman 1998a, 80. 461.
On the Philistines in the Septuagint, see Siegert 2000, 214.
See above p. 216.
An interesting and nonbiblical detail is that the angel touches the meat with his rod
and a fire blazes out (Ant. 5,284). The same detail is in L.A.B. 42,9.
Feldman (1998a, 483) gives a deeper interpretation to the word, noting that Josephus
may be ascribing to him the four traditional characteristics of a prophet as stated in the
Talmud, namely physical strength, wealth, wisdom and humility.
129
130
131
1 3 2
133
1 3 4
135
256
14,5-6 (Ant. 5,287), but does not give the honey to his parents but to the
girl (Ant. 5,287). He takes the garments of the Ascalonites, although
Josephus does not say that Samson killed them (Judg 14:19; Ant. 5,294),
and slays many of the Philistines (Judg 15:8; Ant. 5,297). He bursts his
bonds asunder and kills a thousand Philistines in the fight (Judg 15:14-15;
Ant. 5,300). Persecuted by the Philistines in Gaza, he takes the gates and
carries them to the mountain above Hebron (Judg 16:1-3; Ant. 5,304305). Delilah binds him with seven vine-shoots still flexible - not with
thongs as in Judg 16:8 (LXX ETTTCX veupas u y p a s ) - and seven cords
weaving his locks into a web (Ant. 5,309-312). Samson loses his power,
but retrieves it, and kills as many as 3,000 when he dies. Dagon is not
mentioned in the story (Judg 16:26-30; Ant. 5,316).
Almost everything is thus retold very faithfully according to the biblical
original. However, a detailed study makes it clear that something very im
portant has been removed. A crucial feature of Samson's depiction in
Judges is that the man was filled with the Spirit, which gave him the su
perhuman power to make him invincible. In Josephus' redaction this fea
ture is totally removed. According to Judg 13:25 "the Spirit of the Lord
began to stir him", but Josephus has omitted the verse. Spirit is not men
tioned when Samson kills the lion (Judg 14:6: "The Spirit of the Lord
came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart", cf. Ant. 5,287).
Judg 14:19 and 15:14 tell about the battles against the Philistines: "The
Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power", but again Josephus has omit
ted this, although he retells the fights (Ant. 5,300). Samson is as strong as
Hercules, but he is by no means a leader filled with the Spirit. Actually,
according to Levison, in retelling the Book of Judges, Josephus omits all
references to the divine spirit.
If something has been omitted, something new has been added. Josephus
tells that Samson was filled with pride after his fantastic victory and forgot
that he had done everything with God's help. That was the reason that God
punished him with thirst, until he prayed to God, who gave him water from
a rock (Ant. 5,301-303). The pride of the hero does not occur in Judges,
but had to be added to it. Samson's life, however, displayed offered other
traits, which could be morally criticised. Delilah binds the drunken man,
who had forgotten the rules given to him (Ant. 5,309). In Josephus,
Samson does not sleep in the house of a prostitute in Gaza but in "one of
137
138
139
136
The story is told very briefly, in a reserved rather than a proud way; cf. De
Sampsone 27-28.
Josephus has preserved Hebron and the distance of 40 miles. Cf. L.A.B. 43,2-3.
Levison 1996, 253.
MEQUOVTCC; some manuscripts read Ka0eu5ovTa and the Latin text has dormientem:
They apparently follow the biblical original.
137
138
1 3 9
257
the inns" ( K a x a y c o y i o v , Ant. 5,304). Yet even after this revision Samson's
morals could not serve as a model (Delilah is called Taipiojjvr|). He
had learned to "transgress the laws of his forefathers and debase his own
rule of life by the imitation of foreign usages" (Ant. 5,306). Josephus thus
summarises his life, noting his virtues and vices:
14()
"And it is but right to admire the man for his valour, his strength, and the grandeur of his
end, and also for the wrath which he cherished to the last against his enemies. That he let
himself be ensnared by a woman must be imputed to human nature which succumbs to
sins: but testimony is due to him for his surpassing excellence in all the rest" (Ant.
5,317).
141
In addition to Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and the rabbinic sources

the closest parallel is the sermon De Sampsone mentioned and quoted
above. The text, which is roughly contemporary with Josephus' works
and written apparently in Egypt, deals vividly with Samson's virtues and
vices. Some sentences reveal that the preacher was not the only one trying
to explain why the man of God could fall, and consequently be taken by
the Philistines. They found several reasons for Samson's destiny. Interest
ingly enough, the problem is how the man, filled with the Spirit of the
Lord as he was, could fall to sin ("Some of the wise men say ... but the
others say", De Sampsone 23-24). The answer in the sermon is that Sam
son had got one sort of spirit, but not another: He had got the spirit of
physical power, but not the spirit of righteousness, and that was the reason
why his soul lacked power and fell to sin (esp. De Sampsone 20 and 24).
He sinned and lost his physical power. Satan, the invisible barber, could
cut his hair and take his power (De Sampsone 1). The point of the sermon
is that a man has to keep his task clearly in mind and fight against sin; oth
erwise God abandons him, although not totally as he did not leave Samson
but helped him.
142
143
It is now easy to understand the redaction of the stories. Two main lines
should be noted.
Josephus has consequently removed all passages telling about the Spirit
of the Lord, and the reason is obvious. His depiction of Joshua implies that
140
Feldman sees here an attempt to protect Samson from criticism: Delilah is not
TTopvri as in LXX, but a courtesan, ETCUpiCoue'vri; Feldman 1998a, 480. This is perhaps
true, because in Josephus' version Rahab is not a prostitute (Ant. 5,7; see Thackeray and
Marcus 1934, 165). Nevertheless, Samson is not exempted from moral criticism.
Mishna and Tosefta do not mention Samson. In the later rabbinic tradition he was
often strongly criticised (see Feldman 1998a, 467-472).
See above p. 216.
The content alone can help date the sermon. Siegert plausibly argues that it is writ
ten in Alexandria between the first century BC and second century AD, presumably in
the middle of this period; see Siegert 1992, 40-52.
141
142
143
258
Josephus
the political side of the man was unpleasant to him, and the same is obvi
ous in Samson's life. He might be a strong man and a hero, but the Spirit
of the Lord plays no role in his life. Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum
biblicarum shows how the thought about spirit-filled leadership was pre
sent in early Judaism during these decades. Precisely that is the profile of
Samson in Judges. In Josephus' view it was something to be consistently
removed. The biblical Samson could be a dangerous model for people ea
ger to fight against the enemies. The man at Vespasian's court had learned
his lesson. The biblical heroes were not far enough removed from the life
of Jews in Josephus' time. They could not be left untouched, but they had
to be refigured. Their presence in early Judaism resulted in a quarrel about
the heritage, and Josephus' reduction of the spirit-filled leadership is a part
of this quarrel.
Another side of the redaction is ethical teaching. As in De Sampsone and
in the rabbinic texts, Samson is partly a negative exemplum. The sermon
shows clearly that the miracle stories were used in ethical instruction. The
best example of such a writer is Philo (although his works do not mention
Samson) and the anonymous writer of De Sampsone,
but also Josephus
is aware of this tradition and is a part of it.
A third bias proposed should be dealt with much more cautiously. Ac
cording to Feldman, Josephus presents Samson as an Israelite Achill and
Hercules. Achill's [sf\v\s is the subject of Ilias and Josephus has allegedly
added opyrj to Samson's behaviour (Judg 15:15; Ant. 5,300). As tempt
ing as it is to think that Samson, like Achill, allowed the wrath caused by a
woman to determine his behaviour, there is not enough evidence in
Josephus to support this view. Josephus does not himself compare Samson
with Achill explicitly and the passages emphasized by Feldman are not
sufficient evidence. Samson's wrath against the enemies is not rebuked but
praised in the encomium (Ant. 5,317), but Achill's \IT\V\S leads him and his
friend to a bitter end, and is strongly rebuked in Iliad 9. However, the ser
mon mentioned above contains some new elements, presumably originat
ing from the stories about Achill and Hercules: Samson is as invulnerable
as Achill (De Sampsone 19), and his fight with the lion is retold with new
details (De Sampsone 27-28), which can be traced to stories about Hercu
les. The exceptional freedom Josephus takes when describing Samson's
birth shows that he is well aware of the Jewish tradition, which mixed the
Jewish and Greek elements.
144
145
146
147
See above chapter 6.

See Feldman 1998a, 486-488.
Feldman 1998b, 471-472.
On the reputation of Hercules among the pagan philosophers, see Tiede 1972, 71100. On the similarities with the stories about Hercules, see Siegert 1992, 269-272.
145
146
147
259
e. Solomon
148
Solomon and his wisdom take a prominent position in Against Apion, in

which Josephus refers more to Solomon and his wisdom than to any other
biblical figure except Moses. In this work he appears as Josephus' star
witness to disprove the view that the Jews had produced no wise men.
Also, in Antiquitates Iudaicae Solomon is given notably more space than
the LXX original would give reason to assume: 160% in comparison to 1
Kgs and 138% in comparison to 2 Kgs - 1 Chr. He has thus a clearly
greater role than Moses (87%) and Joshua (47%), presented above.
Josephus tells no miracles made by Solomon himself. However, he
praises his wisdom and combines it with exorcisms:
149
150
151
152
"Now so great was the prudence and wisdom which God created Solomon that he sur
passed the ancients, and even the Egyptians, who are said to excel all men in understand
ing, were not only, when compared with him, a little inferior but proved to fall far short
of the king in sagacity. He also surpassed and excelled in wisdom those who in his own
time had a reputation for cleverness among the Hebrews, and whose names I shall not
omit; they were Athanos and Haimanos and Chalkeos and Dardanos, sons of Hemaon. He
also composed a thousand and five books of odes and songs, and three thousand books of
parables and similitudes, for he spoke a parable about every kind of tree from the hyssop
to the cedar, and in like manner about domesticated animals and all other kinds of living
creatures and those that swim and those that fly. There was no form of nature with
which he was not acquainted or which he passed over without examining, but he studied
them all philosophically and revealed the most complete knowledge of their several
properties. And God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the bene
fit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved,
and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them
out, never to return" (Ant. 8,42-45).
153
The exorcisms, incantations and healings are thus combined expressis ver
bis with Solomon. Josephus goes on telling about an exorcism made in the
presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a number of other soldiers. A
148
Solomon in Josephus is studied by Feldman (1976, 69-98; 1998a, 570-628) and byDuling in a very good article (1985, 1-25).
Feldman 1998a, 575.
Feldman 1998a, 579.
See Feldman 1998a, 80.
Josephus retells very briefly the story about David helping Saul with his music:
"When he came, Saul was delighted with him, made him his armour-bearer and held him
in the highest honour, for his illness was charmed away spirits, whensoever they assailed
him (Kai Ttpos Trjv CCTTO TCOV Saipovicov Tccpaxriv, OTTOTE CCUTG? TCXUTO: TrpoosA0oi,
he had no other physician (ictTpos) than David, who, by singing his songs and playing
upon the harp, restored Saul to himself (Ant. 6,168, cf. 1 Sam 16:14-23).
The translation of Thackeray and Marcus (1934, 595), corrected by Duling (1985,
18-19): The text does not read "birds" but Trepi KTnvcov; however, Solomon also wrote
(TTgpi) aepicov (Ant. 8,44).
149
1 5 0
151
152
153
260
certain Eleazar had thrown out a demon with the methods taught by Solo
mon:
"He put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots
prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his
nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back
into him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the incantations which he had com
posed. Then wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this
power, Eleazar placed a cup or footbasin full of water a little way off and commanded the
demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make known to the spectators that he
had left the man. And when this was done, the understanding and wisdom of Solomon
were clearly revealed, on account of which we have been induced to speak of these
things, in order that all men may know the greatness of his nature and how God favoured
him, and that no one under the sun may be ignorant of the king's surpassing virtue of
every kind" (Ant. 8,47-49).
Josephus is no longer the first writer known to us connecting Solomon di

rectly with exorcisms. He follows a strong tradition, which can be traced
to before and, especially, soon after him, and the new sources help us to
trace the history of the tradition. Solomon was considered a great magician
in later Jewish, Christian and Moslem magic. He does not have this
reputation in the Old Testament, but 1 Kgs 4:29-34 opens a door for this
reprojection. Moreover, 1 Kgs 5:9-14 underlines his encyclopaedic wisdom
as typical for the later magicians, and his psalms (LXX coSccf) were appar
ently sometimes regarded as magical ETTCOSOCI. In any case, Solomon
soon had a new reputation, which is attested in the archaeological evi
dence, as well as in Wis 7:16-21. The text, written perhaps in the first
century BC and perhaps in Egypt, praises the wisdom of the king. Al
though no miracles are mentioned, the meaning is clearly implied. Solo
mon not only knows the "structure of the world and the activity of the ele
ments" and "constellations of the stars", but also "the natures of animals
and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of
human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots." This means
that the main parts of the later picture are present. The later depictions
combine great knowledge with encyclopaedic wisdom. Early on, noDn
included several kinds of abilities. Moreover, the cosmological knowl
edge gives him the power over the demons and, consequently, also over
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
154
On H Q l l , s e e a b o v e p . 220.
See esp. Preisendanz 1956; also Schurer 3.1. (1986), 377.
See Duling 1992, 118.
See Preisendanz 1956, Stemberger 1998, 727-729 and Alexander 1999, 1076-1078.
Collins 2000a, 195. According to Georgi (1980, 426) the work was already written
in the late second century and cannot be localised.
See Georgi 1980, 426.
See Muller 1980, 376-378.
On demonology in early Israel, see Maier 1976a, 579-585; in Hellenistic Judaism,
155
1 5 6
157
158
159
1 6 0
161
261
various diseases. "Solomon" is the great expert of this kind of wisdom and
the tradition also passes it on to his followers.
The esoteric wisdom of the king is well attested, but 11Q11, cited above,
shows that it led to exorcisms long before Josephus. Four texts, all roughly
contemporary with him, attest the tradition. In L.A.B. 60 and 11Q11 Solo
mon is undoubtedly alluded to as the coming master of demons.
2 Bar. 77:25 does not mention the demons, but it mentions wisdom, and
the work lists several events in which God sent birds to help man. It also
includes a story not occurring in the Old Testament:
162
"Also Solomon, in the time of his kingship, commanded a bird whither he wanted to send
a letter and in whatever he was in need of and it obeyed him as he commanded i f (2 Bar.
77:25).
163
The Apocalypse of Adam

demons:
reveals that Solomon could also make use of
"Solomon also sent his army of demons to seek the virgin" (Apoc. Adam 7:13).
164
All these texts clearly show the course of history: The wise man, the expert
in nature, also became lord over the demons. This is also obvious in an
other work, The Testament of Solomon, which is problematic in many
ways. It may have been written in the early third century AD or even later,
and it is not clear whether it was written by a Jew or a Christian. However,
it contains older material, possibly from the first century A D . The text is
explicit about Solomon's apotropaic technique. He rules the demons (T
Sol. 1:1-13), even Beelzeboul (T. Sol. 3:1-5) with his ring. The text names
the most important demons and describe their character, and gives the
names of the angels controlling them, as well as the suitable apotropaic
technique to be used against them. The text is late, but it contains much
material compatible with Josephus' text.
165
It is easy to understand the side of Solomon portrayed by Josephus. In leg

endary wisdom, Solomon does not compete with Greeks such as Socrates
or Plato, but his wisdom surpasses "even the Egyptians." The words may
not be a glimpse from Herodotus (2,121), but they reveal an important
166
Maier 1976b, 626-640; in the rabbinic writings, see Maier 1976c, 668-688.
The text from Nag Hammadi is difficult to date, but it may be from the first or sec
ond century AD. It is not necessarily influenced by the New Testament and may contain
older material (MacRae 1983, 708).
Solomon is mentioned twice in conjunction with demons in the rest of the texts from
Nag Hammadi {Orig. World 2,5 106-107; Gos. Truth 9,3 70). The manuscripts are writ
ten in the early fourth century, but the works are older.
Duling 1992, 117-119.
Cf. Feldman 1998a, 584.
162
163
164
165
1 6 6
262
component in the history of religion. The Egyptian religion was ridiculed

by the Greeks and Romans and, as other Jews, Josephus laughed with
them. Now, however, Josephus does not speak about the worship of
animals among the Egyptians, but about the wisdom he wants the Jews to
compete with and excel in. It is the esoteric wisdom covering the knowl
edge of herbs, as well as the power over demons. The Egyptians were ex
perts in this kind of wisdom, as Josephus himself attests when telling that
an Egyptian scribe prophesied Moses' birth. For certain reasons, and
especially because of his universal wisdom praised in the Old Testament,
Solomon became the hero through whom Mediterranean magic became
part of the Hebrew heritage.
A closer look at the passage on Solomon emphasizes the role of herbs and
roots. The root mentioned in the exorcism performed by Eleazar was cer
tainly Baaras, described accurately elsewhere in Josephus' production.
Baaras was grown in hidden places, and picking it could be fatal, but if
taken it was very effective.
We have studied several Jewish texts showing a great interest in demonology. The Book of Jubilees closely links demonology with cosmology and
the same bias is well known from Qumran. L.A.B. shows what an impor
tant factor the war between the good and evil powers was. The depiction of
Solomon and his wisdom undoubtedly shows that Josephus belongs to this
tradition of the world of demons, apotropaic incantations and healings. In
his writings medicine is not isolated from magic, but God is also the
great healer. This view of Solomon and his wisdom is clearly the subject of
pride for Josephus. It is thus hard to accept or even understand Feldman's
view presented in his article in 1976 and mainly repeated in 1998, in which
he notes that Josephus' main bias was to minimise the miraculous traits,
both generally and in terms of Solomon:
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
1 7
"Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens/ Aegyptos portenta colat? crocodila
adorat /pars haec, ilia pavet saturam serpentibus ibin" Iuv. 15,1-2; see also 3-8. Weber
(2000, 69) quotes several classical texts, namely Herodot. 2,46; Diod. 1,83-86; Strab.
16,2,35-39; Plut. Isis and Osiris 71; Lucian, Im. 11; Philostr. VA 6,19; Cic. nat. 1,36.
Augustine (civ. 2,22) shows that the critique was commonplace in the ancient world.
Josephus c. Ap. 1,225; 2,66. 81- 86.139.
See above p. 233.
Josephus describes Baaras extensively in B.J. 7,180-185 and tells in B.J. 2,136 that
the Essenes used not only powerful roots but also stones. The roots and / or plants are
also mentioned in Jub. 10:11-14 and 2 En. 7:1. Lange (1997, 348), unlike Alexander
(1999, 347-348), rejects Josephus' testimony that herbal medicine was used in Qumran.
See above p. 57.
On Ben Sira, see above p. 20, on Jub. see p. 51; on Liv. Pro. see p. 180. Josephus
had no problems using the help of physicians; see Vita 404.
"In general Josephus attempts to tone down the miraculous and supernatural element
of his narrative, since he apparently thought that such details might appear incredible to
168
1 6 9
1 7 0
171
172
173
263
"As in other portions of the Solomon pericope, Josephus avoids details that would seem
incredible to the sophisticated reader here."
174
Feldman combines Solomon's universal wisdom in Josephus with the love

of philosophy among the audience of the author. This is true if the word
'philosophy' points in a direction totally different from that of, for exam
ple, in Philo's texts. Philo shows little interest in esoteric wisdom, but
knows the tradition of classical Greek philosophy extremely well. Jose
phus, on the contrary, as observed very clearly by Duling, makes Solo
mon an expert in syncretistic wisdom and magical practices, and places
Solomon among the best of the experts, even superior to the famous Egyp
tians. Feldman overlooks the role of the roots and actually speaks very
little about magic in Solomon's description. It is very problematic to
claim, as Feldman does, that Josephus consequently tries to tone down the
miraculous traits of his heroes, including Solomon, because he chooses to
tell about an exorcism done by Solomon's followers. It would have been
easy for Josephus to overlook all of Solomon's magical skills, because the
Old Testament gives little or no evidence for that kind of interpretation,
yet Josephus did not want to do this. The great encyclopaedic wisdom also
included the power over demons, and magical practices. Josephus did not
write for a sceptical audience. All levels of the Greek and Roman societies
had a vivid interest in one type of magic and deeply hated another - how
ever, it generally seems to have been very difficult to distinguish between
175
176
177
178
179
these two.
One detail seems to be worth noting. The Old Testament tells that the
king ended his life in idolatry (1 Kgs 11:4-10), and Josephus does not omit
the Greek reader" (1976, 91).
Feldman 1998a, 585.
Feldman 1976, 87
Duling 1985, 18-23.
Feldman sees in Solomon the traits of Oedipus as shown in Sophocles' two plays,
Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus (1998a, 579-586; 593-594). However, the
evidence for this is scarce and very general.
Feldman finds the details Josephus avoids in the later rabbinic tradition (1998, 585586). However, to say that Josephus has avoided some details one must prove that he
knew them; Feldman does not date his sources. There is no evidence that Josephus has
excluded here some part of the tradition. On the contrary, he has freely chosen to add an
exorcism to the biblical presentation.
Duling correctly notes the fact and supposes that the difficulty already existed in the
first century BC (1985, 23-25). However, the magical love rite used by Theocritus in his
second idyll (reworked in Vergil eel 8,64-109) attests that it was not impossible for a
cultivated Greek poet to write about magic. It certainly influenced the Hellenized circles
in Rome before the first century. The attitude was ambivalent: One type of magic is
criminal, while another is interesting, and it was difficult to draw the line. On such views
in Philo, see above p. 114.
174
175
176
177
178
179
264
Josephus
this, the reason being that he perhaps only followed the Old Testament
presentation, or that he rejected intermarriage (Ant. 8,211). However,
The Testament of Solomon, which generally does not follow the Old Tes
tament original at all, also tells that Solomon fell to idolatry and that the
spirit of God departed from him.
180
"As a result I, wretched man that I am, carried out her advice and the glory of God com
pletely departed from me: my spirit was darkened and I became a laughingstock to the
idols and demons" (T Sol. 26).
Actually, the warning in the last chapter of the Testament is given as a rea
son why "Solomon" wrote his book. Both Josephus and the Testament of
Solomon have thus preserved the unfortunate demise of the king, and the
reason is hardly of historical interest any longer. Does this perhaps reveal a
broader tradition in early Judaism? Solomon is presented as a great man
with universal wisdom and supreme power over demons. At the same time,
every follower of his wisdom was warned of the danger of idolatry in
volved in this kind of knowledge.
/ Elijah
Also, Josephus' redaction of the biblical material relating to Elijah has
recently been studied by Feldman, first in an article (1994) and then in his
book, essentially repeating the view presented in the article. The main
line here is also that Josephus has observed his audience and toned down
all miraculous events, especially the violent fervour of the prophet. Thus
the miracles of the prophet have been one of the main themes of the dis181
182
cussion.
It is not possible to treat here the vast material on Elijah's miracles in LXX in as much
detail as the shorter passages above, but every significant feature is observed. In 1 Kgs
17:1-6 the Hebrew text has zrun -iem on ?! -ipD3 iizm on ? in v. 17:6, but Septuagint only
d'pTous* T O TTpcoi Kai Kpea T O SeiArjs. In 1 Kgs 17:7-16 the widow has only one child in
the Hebrew text (v. 17:12 ^ i ) , but in the Septuagint several (Kai T O T S T B K V O I S Mou). In
1 Kgs 17:17-24 the Hebrew text has n o m ("stretched himself out on" in v. 17:21, but
LXX has 6V6<t>uarja6v, "breathed upon". In 1 Kgs 18:1-15 the Hebrew text has irra'n in v.
18:7, but LXX IOTTSUOEV. In v. 18:10 the Hebrew text has iT3e?m, but LXX eveirprjoev
1
1 8 0
Feldman (1998a, 570) notes that Josephus himself was descended from the Hasmonean kings, that the line of David was a rival to them and that David was identified as
the ancestor of the anticipated militant messiah. This is perhaps one of the reasons why
Josephus does not omit the criticism. On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders
1994, 266.
Feldman 1998b, 291-306.
On Elijah in Josephus, see O. Betz 1987, 219-220; Feldman 1994, 61-86 and 1998b,
291-306.
181
1 8 2
265
("set fire"). In v. 18:12 LXX omits the words "[rcar *HR\. In 1 Kgs 18:16-45 Baal's name is
sometimes removed 0?ion nrm, but T O U S Trpo^rJTas T T J S aioxuvrjS in v. 18:19 cf.
18:25), but, for example, not in 18:18 and 18:21. The unclear D'sron is translated
'lyvuais in v. 18:21. In v. 18:22 LXX repeats the prophets of Asherah. LXX adds in v.
18:24 B B\(XXT]0(XS
and in 18:26 STTCCKOUCJOV fjucov. In verse 18:27 the Hebrew text is 1TB
T> " p r n D T V? reroi, but the Greek cxSoAeoxia OUTCO e a n v Kai a p a prJTTOTe xpriMaTi'ei
a u T o s . LXX adds Kai eAdAnaev HAiou 6 eoPiTrjs T r p o s T O U S TTpo<j>TiTas TCOV TrpoaoxBiaMccTcov Aeycov MeTaoTriTe OTTO T O U V U V Kai 'eyco Troirjaco T O oAoKauTcopa'
p o u in 18:29, and omits nmon m^m
in v. 18:36. In v. 18:36 the Hebrew text has
"[""im, but LXX Kai 5ia oe. Ahab's reaction is different in the two versions: ns-n, but
Kai EKACUEV (18:45). In 1 Kgs 19:1-21 the formula of oath is markedly different in v.
19:2 :]W HDI D'rfrK ptDir-ra, but E'I o u e! HAiou Kai eyco lea(3eA, TccSe iroirjaai p o i 6
0e6s Kai Ta'Se TTpooSeir]. A major alteration is that "jtfpo is replaced with T I S in v. 19:5,
but mn ""|'?D is translated ayyeAos Kupiou in v. 19:7: All in all, the result o f the altera
tion is that the angel does not touch Elijah. LXX adds KOKST Kiipios in verse 19:12. mrr ?
max THIK is translated TCO K u p i c o TtavTOKpcfTopi in v. 19:14. The agent is changed in
v. 19:18 (-rntram, but Kai KaTaAeivpeis). LXX omits n 7i in v. 19:20. inrnen in v. 19:21
is translated eAeiToupyei.
It does not seem t o be possible to trace any significant bias in Elijah's miracles in 1
Kings, and the stories with Elijah and Elisha together in 2 Kings (see below p. 272), are
translated even more literally
183
Josephus has given Elijah a large role in his work. Feldman again com
pares the text of Josephus to the one in LXX, the result being that Elijah is
given 96% of the space LXX gives him, while Moses is given 83%, Joshua
47% and Elisha 72%. Elijah thus gets a prominent position among the
miracle-working biblical heroes.
As 1 Kgs 17:1-6 Josephus also tells how Elijah prophecies the drought,
withdraws to the desert and is fed by ravens. The biblical original specifies
the bread and meat, but Josephus writes only Tpoc|>r|V auTco KA0' fipepcxv
KopaKes Trpoo6(|)6pov (Ant. 8,319). The widow gives him a room and
bread, and miraculously gets food every day (1 Kgs 17:7-16, Ant. 8,320323). A new feature is Josephus' citation o f the historian Menander o f
Ephesus, who mentions the drought (Ant. 8,324).
The story o f the widow's son falling ill is told as in 1 Kgs 17:17-24 with
small alterations: the mourning o f the widow is dramatized, and the death
o f the son is not obvious at the beginning of the story (KaTaTreaovTOs e'is
vdaov, cos Kai xrjv V|AJXI]V a ^ e T v a i Kai 5o;ai VEKpov); however, it is
clear later that the son is dead (Ant. 8,325-327). The story deviates from
184
185
186
187
183
184
185
186
On these changes generally in LXX, see Siegert 2000, 211-212.

Feldman 1998a, 80-81.
Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 298.
Josephus interestingly has a singular T S K V C O , as in the Hebrew text, not the plural as
in LXX
187
TSKVOIS.
That the child "seemed" to be dead is noted as a rationalisation by Feldman; how

ever, he seems to be selective in his argumentation, because he overlooks the words
266
the biblical original, because the prophet knows in advance that the son
will live again (Ant. 8,326). The technique of resuscitation is not given in
all details, but the subject of the story is obviously God (avs(3(coas). We
might say that an MNP is thus interpreted as a PNP.
Finally, Elijah meets Ahab. Josephus underlines that the prophet is not
at all afraid of the king's anger (b 5' ou5ev UTroBcoTreuaas C C U T O V , Ant.
8,335). This is faithful to the biblical original, but the courage of a phi
losopher facing tyrants was also commonplace in the Graeco-Roman tradi
tion. Elijah calls the prophets of foreign gods (not of Baal as in the
original, although in Ant. 8,318) to Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:1-19; Ant.
8,328-337). The events follow the biblical original faithfully. However, the
crowd steps near to the altar to make sure that he does not secretly set the
wood on fire, the jars are filled only once and not three times, and it is
not Elijah but the crowd who kills the prophets (1 Kgs 18:16-45; Ant.
8,338-346). Josephus adds that the people understood that there was
only one God and that the "others were mere names invented by unworthy
and senseless opinion" (Ant. 8,343).
Baal's name is consistently removed and replaced, for example, with e V I K O I 0eo( in Ant. 8,335; 338.
The story is thus stripped of the ancient
controversy between Baal and the Lord, updated for Josephus' own time
and translated into a language understandable to everybody. It is not Jose
phus' own innovation; he follows the Septuagint. The story is thus not only
contemporized but also adapted. Another interesting point is that in Jose
phus' version Elijah tells the people to kill the prophets, although he does
not kill them himself (1 Kgs 18:40; Ant. 8,343). Josephus thus obviously
sees no problem in punishing the Israelites serving foreign gods. He of
fers an interesting parallel, when Jehu also kills Baal's prophets: In an ex
tra-biblical addition all non-Israelites are removed from the crowd before
Jehu reveals his real intention and kills the crowd (Ant. 9,136). Josephus
188
189
190
191
192
193
rrjv vpuxrjv EioTTS|jv|/ai TTCXAIV TOO Trai5i Kai trapaoxeTv auxco T O V P i d v

iraoav TrpoaSoKiav ave(3icGae.
The words of Obedias are worth noting: 1 Kgs 18:12 speaks about the Spirit of the
Lord carrying Elijah away, but Josephus has replaced this with theophany: prj T O U 0eou
<|)av8VTOs OUTGO TTCXAIV E ' I S a'AAov aTTeASrj TOTTOV. The Spirit of the Lord, consistently
removed in the stories about Samson, is removed again. However, Josephus tells that
Elijah was I'vOeos running beside the king's chariot (Ant. 9,346; cf. 1 Kgs 18:46).
Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 303, as also the detail that the water
went up in steam and was not licked up by the fire (1998b, 298).
In Ant. 8,350, however, Elijah says, as in the original, that he had killed the proph
ets.
Josephus has preserved BariA elsewhere, as in the controversy between Baal's
prophets and Jehu (Ant. 9,135-139).
Cf. Philo, QE 2,5 containing a similar regulation based on Exod 22:28.
eSeTTo
...Trapa
188
189
190
191
192
193
TH
267
thus does not avoid violence when the Israelites fall into idolatry, but he
excludes the pagans. This fits his view, presented in an extra-biblical addi
tion to the summary of the Mosaic code (Ant 4,207): "Let none blaspheme
the gods which other cities reveres, nor rob foreign temples." Goldenberger plausibly points to Exod 22:27 LXX, where WTtm is rendered 8eous.
On the other hand, Josephus makes Zimri a programmatic Jewish polytheist punished by Phinehas (Ant 4,145-155). Zimri confesses his belief:
194
"I sacrifice to gods to whom I hold sacrifice to be due, deeming it right to get at the truth
for myself from many persons, and not to live as under a tyranny, hanging all my hopes
for my whole life upon one. And woe be to any man who declares himself to have more
mastery over my actions than my own will!" (Ant. 4,149).
The man is punished by Phinehas (Ant 4,152-155; cf. Num 25). The redac
tion of the miracle-story shows no signs that Josephus found the biblical
violence offensive. Judaism was to him a national religion, and the meas
ure for Jews was other than the measure for Gentiles.
The escape of the prophet and his meeting with God at Sinai / Horeb are
told as in 1 Kgs 19 (Ant 8,347-352), but some alterations must be noted.
Similarly to L X X
Josephus also omits the angel (SieyEipavros 5'
auTov xtvos a v a a x a s eupiaKet TrapaKeiuevrjv C C U T C O xpo<J>r|v Kai ii5cop,
Ant 8,349). Moreover, he does not tell that Elijah could travel forty days
and forty nights strengthened by that food. Elijah does not tell God that
he is the only one left of Israel but that he was being sought by the wife of
the king. God's manifestation is reduced to a very short presentation.
195
196
"The next day, therefore, he came out of the cave and heard the earth rumble and saw a
brilliant fiery light. And, when all became quiet, a divine voice exhorted him not to be
alarmed by what was happening, for none of his enemies should have him in their power
..." (Ant. 8,352).
An interesting detail is that Hazael and Jehu are said to kill people, as in 1
Kgs 19:17, but Elisha is not, as Elijah does not in his own person kill the
prophets. Elisha is sought to be Elijah's follower and he prophecies, unlike
in 1 Kgs 19:19-21, soon after his call, and Josephus has omitted that he
sacrificed the oxen (Ant 8,353-354).
Marcus and recently Feldman consider the redaction of the theophany a
rationalisation of the story. This is hardly true. In common with several
Jewish writers, Josephus apparently was only reluctant to describe the
theophany in detail. God's theophany was reduced to a divine voice in Ar197
194
Goldenberger 1997, 386.

LXX: Kai i6ou T I S rjvpaxo airrou; in 1 Kgs 19:7 the angel is mentioned: Kai
EiTETpsvpsv 6 ayyeAos Kupi'ou SK SeuTepou.
Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 299.
Marcus 1934, 404; Feldman 1998b, 299.
195
196
197
268
tapanus and Philo is also very reserved. Josephus' version of the theophany
at the burning bush is less reserved than Artapanus' and Philo's, but like
them, he does not usually put God in dialogue with men.
198
Again following the biblical original (1 Kgs 21:19), Josephus lets Elijah
prophecy Ahab's death after Naboth's murder and tells about Ahab's re
pentance and about the delay of the punishment (Ant. 8,360-362). Elijah
also prophesies the death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:1-8; Ant 9,20-21). When
the king sends fifty men to catch him he prays twice for a fire from heaven
to show whether he is a true prophet or not. When the third officer tries to
persuade him to save himself and his men, Elijah follows him to the king
and prophecies his death again (2 Kgs 1:5-2:17; Ant 9,22-26). The account
is faithful to the biblical original with the exception that God's angel is
omitted twice (2 Kgs 1:3; 15), which is not unusual in Josephus, while
the first two officers behave in a more unfriendly way and the third in a
more friendly way than in the original.
199
A major alteration is that Elijah's ascension (2 Kgs 2:1-18) is retold very

briefly:
"Now about that time Elijah disappeared from among men (e av8pconcov f|<|>o:vio0r]),
and to this day no one knows his end. He left behind him a disciple Elisha, as we have
related. However, concerning Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the Flood, it is written
in the sacred books that they became invisible (yeydvaotv acâveTs), and no one knows
of their death" (Ant. 9,28).
The heavily redacted story about Elijah's end seems to be more similar to
some of the pagan stories. Feldman plausibly points to the similar disap
pearances of Aeneas (Dion. Hal. ant. 1,64) and Romulus (Ovid, metam.
14,805-885; fast. 2,481-509; Liv. 1,16), but the parallels with Sopho
cles' Oedipus at Colonus are far-fetched. Josephus' version also resembles
the story about Enoch, which Josephus himself refers to. However, the
closest parallel is, of course, the death of Moses in Josephus. Moses also
disappears and the problems are similar to Elijah's story.
According to Feldman the story about Elijah's end is rationalised, and
Josephus avoids setting Elijah over Moses, "who definitely did die, accord
ing to both the biblical text (Deut 34:5) and Josephus himself (Ant
4,326). However, rationalisation is apparently not the reason for the
200
202
198
On Artapanus, see above p. 94-96, on Philo p. 112, and on the version in Josephus,
see p. 234-235.
See Marcus 1937, 13.
Feldman 1998b, 301-302.
Feldman 1998b, 301.
199
2 0 0
201
2 0 2
269
heavy redaction of the story, the reason being Elijah's political fervour:
The theme of the returning prophet was not a pleasant one for Josephus.
Moreover, in Josephus, Moses and Elijah disappear in a similar way.
203
As 2 Chr 21, Josephus tells that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram prophesying
his punishment (Ant 9,99). Josephus follows the history of the people and
not the life of Elijah. Consequently, he tells the story much later, and some
manuscripts add the explanation e n y a p STTI yfjs i^v.
A detailed study of the miracles thus shows that Josephus retells all the
biblical miracle stories about Elijah, and that only the ascension of the
prophet is rendered markedly shorter than in 2 Kgs 2. Josephus follows
mainly the order of 1-2 Kings, but sometimes he improves on the flu
ency or complements his presentation with 2 Chr. None of the
miracles has thus been completely excluded, but most of them have been
changed in some way.
The most obvious alteration is clearly the heavy abridgement of the as
cension of the prophet. Josephus does not complete the biblical account
with the idea of Elia redivivus, found in Mai 4:22-24 and certainly known
to him. It is obvious that the coming Elijah was not Josephus' favourite
figure, especially if he was identified with Phinehas. His reasons are
clear: these traits of Elijah were politically relevant and could be extremely
dangerous. Josephus relates that Theudas wanted to part the Jordan and so
be legitimated as the leader of Israel. Others were willing to repeat other
biblical miracles to legitimate their revolt against the Romans. After the
catastrophe Josephus had reason to avoid the story of Elisha striking the
Jordan with his mantle and being legitimated as God's prophet. The com
bination of religion and politics had led to the revolt, and Josephus was
eager to separate the two. The fact that this is the only story about Elijah
so heavily revised only underlines Josephus' bias.
Nevertheless, Josephus is surprisingly faithful to the biblical original
describing Elijah and his work. The view that Josephus has totally stripped
his Elijah of political zealousness is common, but should be reconsid204
205
206
207
208
2 0 3
2 0 4
See above p. 35
1 Kgs 20 is understandably first paraphrased after 1 Kgs 21, as in LXX (Ant 8,355-
392).
2 0 5
In Josephus, the false prophet Zedekiah quotes Elijah's words written in 2 Kgs
21:19, which a nonbiblical detail in Ant. 8,408.
As, for example, in 2 Chr 17 / Ant. 8,393-397 and 2 Chr 19 / Ant 9,1-17.
The identification occurs in L.A.B., written in the same decades as the Antiquitates.
Feldman supposes that Josephus was aware of it (1994, 85).
2 0 6
2 0 7
2 0 8
270
Josephus
ered. He still is the man who kills the false prophets and who calls on
the fire to kill 50 soldiers twice. Although it is clear that Josephus does not
share the unlimited delight in Elijah's zealousness shown in Sir,
some of
Elijah's fervour is still present.
There are some definite Hellenizations in the stories about Elijah. It is
important to Josephus to quote Menander on the rainless time (Ant. 8,324).
Josephus had studied the Greek historians well. In Against Apion he de
fends his people against several accusations. According to one of them, the
Jews were never mentioned in ancient Greek literature. Josephus tries to
find reasons for the scarce evidence and is always happy when he can see
Jews mentioned in the literature. Baal's name is no longer needed to
illustrate the controversy between the worshippers of Israel's God and of
foreign gods. Following the example of the Septuagint, this polemic is up
dated to correspond more to the way of life in Josephus' own time. Also,
Elijah's end is similar to some Graeco-Roman stories.
But what can be given as an argument for the view that Josephus has
clearly toned down the miraculous traits in the life of the prophet?
Feldman cites here the words of Horace (credat Iudaeus Apella, sat.
1,5,97-103). In retelling Elijah's miraculous feeding, Josephus leaves
aside several traits, which according to Feldman would astonish a sceptical
pagan. He omits God's commands to the birds, mentions the food
brought by the ravens but does not specify exactly what they brought,
namely bread and meat. The fire of the Lord does not lick up the water; the
water goes up as steam and the ground becomes completely dry (Ant.
8,342). In the biblical version, Elijah hears the sound of the rushing rain,
but the Josephan Elijah says that the rain will come in a little while (2 Kgs
18:41-45; Ant. 8,343). Josephus omits the angel who gives him the food
that helped him to go forty days and forty nights (19:8; Ant. 8,349). The
angel is omitted also in Ant. 9,20, and the 1 Kgs theophany in 1 Kgs 19 is
strongly reduced. Also, Elijah's end is allegedly rationalised.
210
211
212
213
214
2 0 9
According to O. Betz 1987, 219-220, Josephus tones down Elijah's political fervour,
and renders him "free from any zealot features" (1987, 219). According to Feldman
(1998b, 302-303) "the key characteristic of Josephus' remolding of the biblical portrait
of Elijah is his elimination of its Zealot features." Josephus' intention to separate be
tween religion and politics is clear, but should here not be exaggerated: The only argu
ments Feldman can present are that Josephus has twice omitted the biblical mentions of
his zealotry (1 Kgs 19:10; 14) and that the Israelites, and not Elijah, killed the prophets
(1 Kgs 18:40; Ant. 8,343).
See p. 31-37.
See, for example, c. ^4/7. 1,168-171.
Feldman 1994, 74.
Feldman 1998b, 298-302.
Feldman supposes that Josephus has already observed the Christian interest in
Elijah; this, however, is questionable (1994, 79-80).
2 1 0
2 1 1
2 1 2
2 1 3
2 1 4
Josephus
271
Most of Feldman's arguments are weak and some far-fetched. No Jewish

writer retelling the biblical stories repeated all details. As seen above, the
details are more naturally explained in alternative ways. There are minor
disagreements with the biblical original, but they should be seen in the
light of the fact that Josephus retells almost all of Elijah's miracles and by
far more faithfully than most of the Jews retelling the biblical stories. It
seems that Feldman clearly exaggerates Josephus' intention to tone down
the miraculous, and it is easy to agree with Roncace's criticism of other
passages of Feldman's book. According to Roncace, Feldman's general
view on Josephus' work leads him too strongly, and the evidence to the
contrary is not observed. Josephus may give a more natural explanation or
remove some miraculous elements from the story, but generally he summa
rises Elijah's life surprisingly faithfully. He includes all the stories and
makes only minor alterations, which do not warrant Feldman's critical in
terpretation.
215
g. Elisha
The great deeds of Elisha are presented by Josephus in his ninth book of
Antiquitates Iudaicae in a very interesting way. We happen to have two
recent and parallel studies on this passage. In addition to Feldman, Chris
topher Begg (1996) has also investigated it. These parallel studies offer
a possibility for comparing their respective results.
216
217
The translation of 2 K g s in LXX is, as in the last stories of Elijah, very literal and con
tains only a few interesting details. In v. 3:13 LXX omits -JDK n r a
In v. 3:15 the
Hebrew text has the plural i n p , but the Greek the singular Ad(3E. In v. 3:18 bp: is rendered
with Kouc|>r|. In v. 3:19 LXX omits T i m o T J T ^ D I . In v. 4:9 amp O T f r u art* is very literally
translated d'v8pcoTTOs T O U 0EOG a y i o s . In v. 4:20 the Hebrew text has s e n , but the Greek
Kai 6Koiuri8n. Sometimes, as in 4:25 and 4:27, the Hebrew has trrr^n BPK, but LXX
EAioaie. In v. 4:35 the Hebrew text has TTITV rbss " i n n , but LXX ouvEKauvpEV ETT! T O
naiSaptov. LXX adds Gehazi in v. 4:41. In v. 4:42 the Hebrew text has rrcr'TO J M D , but
the Greek 'EK BaiSaptoa. In v. 4:42 the Hebrew text has lftpsn baiD\ but the Greek
TTaAd8as. An interesting change is in v. 5:11, where the translator seems to have up
a
dated the healing technique: D i p o n " ^ I T pm, but Kai ETn0rjoEi Trjv x ^ P airrou eiri
T O V T O T T O V . LXX adds in v. 5:17 Kai ou \io\ ocooets E K T % yfjs
nuppds. In v.
218
2 1 5
See above p. 10.

Begg's article in Henoch ("Elisha's Great Deeds according to Josephus", 1996, 69109) is an extensive study on the theme. Feldman deals with Elisha in 1998, 334-351.
Moreover, see O. Betz 1987, 221.
The passages disputed in the present work are 1 Kgs 19; 2 Kgs 2:19-22; 2:23-25;
3:1-27; 4:1-7; 4:8-37; 4:38-41; 4:42-44; 5:1-27; 6:1-7; 6:8-23; 8:1-6, 8:7-15, 9:1-13;
13:14-19; 13:20-21.
Noted by Eve, 2002, 179.
2 1 6
2 1 7
2 1 8
272
5:19 p t r r r o D is rendered e'is 5ef3pcx8a T T J S y % . LXX omits n'?Krn0 K in 5:20. In v.

6:8 the Hebrew text has
but LXX EAMCOVI. In 6:11 xbm is rendered TTpo5i5coo(v
MS. In v. 6:18 nmaoa ("dazzling light") is translated aopaoioc. LXX omits wo+m-'yn in v.
6:21 and Dserp in 6:31. In v. 6:30 the Hebrew text is liv, but the Greek e'lOTrJKei, and
the translator apparently had mv in his original, er^to ("shield-bearer") is translated
TpioTCXTrjs in v. 7:2. LXX adds T O U PaaiAs'cos in v. 7:14. In v. 7:17 our Hebrew text
has f^nn, but the Greek T O V cxyysAov, attesting that the translator had -[vfyan in his origi
nal. nruQ in v. 8:8 is rendered pcxvaa. OUTGO in v. 8:10 attests that the original had t> and
not a ?. LXX omits *rwn, but adds o TEOVTIKCOS in v. 8:13. -QDQrr is rendered T O M<*XMa in
v. 8:15. LXX omits the second -iwn in 9:4. nrrom in v. 9:7 is rendered Kai E O A E S p E U O E i s , and the translator thus had n r r D m in his original. LXX adds Kai 'EK T O U X p o s
6Aou T O U O'IKOU A x a a p in v. 9:8 and changes the agent ( T r o n / E O A E 0 P E U O E I S ) . irrarrwi
is rendered TT\V aSoAEOXiav in v. 9:11 and ma is translated as y a p E p in v. 9:13. The
numerous words only borrowed from the Hebrew (EAMCOVI, p a v a a , paXMa, yapEp)
reveal the slavishly literal character of the translation. The only passage relevant for the
present theme is the updated technique of healing in v. 5:11.
,
Feldman notes that Josephus devotes notably little space to Elisha. The
ratio compared with the Septuagint is only 72%, which means that the sto
ries about Elisha have been strongly reduced. His calling is retold (1
Kgs 19:19-21; Ant. 8,353-354), but, as mentioned above, Elijah's ascen
sion and the accompanying legitimisation of Elisha are described only very
briefly. While this is Elijah's only miracle omitted, Elisha is treated dif
ferently.
Josephus omits in Antiquitates Iudaicae the healing of the water in Jeri
cho (2 Kgs 2:19-22), but expands on it in B.J.:
219
220
"For he went out to this spring and cast into the stream an earthenware vessel full of salt,
and then raising his righteous right hand to heaven, and pouring propitiatory libations
upon the ground, he besought the earth to mollify the stream and to open sweeter chan
nels, and heaven to temper its waters with more genial airs and to grant to the inhabitants
alike an abundance of fruits, a succession of children, and an unfailing supply of water
conducive to their production, so long as they remained a righteous people. By these
prayers, supplemented by various ritual ceremonies, he changed the nature of the spring,
and the water which had before been to them a cause of childlessness and famine thence
forth became a source of fecundity and plenty" (B.J. 4,462-464).
A l o o k at the short biblical original shows that Josephus has not omitted
anything, but changed, and above all, added abundantly to the story. The
technique used by the prophet is especially detailed: It is no longer simply
God's brief words combined with the salt thrown to the water; the prophet
conjures heaven and earth to reach his goal. He can heal the water with
prayers and T T p o a x E i p o u p y r j a a s , as Josephus says. The magical technique
is explained here in interesting detail and Josephus exaggerates the mira
cle, showing that he was not always concerned with distinguishing the
See Feldman 1998b, 335.
See p. 268-269.
273
miracles from magic.

It is far-fetched to consider them as "invoking
natural causality."
In Ant. Josephus also leaves out the miracle in which the 42 boys were
cursed by the prophet and are severely punished by being killed by bears
(2 Kgs 2:23-25). Elisha's activity on the camp of the three kings suffering
from lack of the water is retold extensively (2 Kgs 3:1-27; Ant. 9,29-43),
including the technique of the prophecy (a man playing the harp was
needed to divinely inspire the prophet (evSeos, Ant. 9,35). The biblical
original does not explain why the stream flowed with much water, but
Josephus tells that God had sent a heavy rain to Idumea. This is either a
rationalisation or merely a simple explanation of the event told very
briefly in 2 Kgs.
The story about the heavily indebted widow (2 Kgs 4:1-7 / Ant. 9,47-50)
is retold with new details. She is now considered to be the widow of
Obadiah, the man who had saved the prophets of the Lord and fed them (1
Kgs 18:12). The man's actions were also the reason why the family was
in economic difficulty, because the man had had to borrow money and had
left the debts to his wife. The miracle itself is told as in the Scripture,
but it is followed by a series of omissions: The entire story about the Shunammite wife and her husband is omitted, as well as the miraculous birth
of their son, his death and resurrection (2 Kgs 4:8-37). Josephus has also
left out the story in which the prophet makes the poisoned food safe (2 Kgs
4:38-41). Also, the miraculous feeding of a hundred men is omitted (2 Kgs
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
2 2 1
O. Betz 1987, 400.

Feldman also sees here a rationalisation (1998b, 344-345). It is difficult to under
stand how, just a few pages later, he can say that Josephus has improved the story by
"greatly elaborating the picture of a Palestinian example of a Graeco-Roman 'divine
man' in action" (1998b, 348).
Cf. Moses in Philo, p. 148. Music could be used in exorcisms; see Bocher 1970,
176. Josephus adds an extra-biblical detail with Elisha ordering the kings to dig many
pits in the bed of the stream (Ant. 9,35). This can hardly be taken as a rationalisation, as
Feldman (1998b, 345) says, because the pits seem to have nothing to do with the flow of
water.
Feldman 1998b, 345.
The Moabite king consecrated his eldest son as a holocaust, as is told also in 2 Kgs
3:27. The biblical original says that the Israelites leave his country in terror, but Josephus
has reinterpreted the event: They were not filled with terror but with pity and compassion
(cf. LXX MeTaMeAos peyas). Moreover, the son was apparently not consecrated to "his
god" (so Marcus 1937, 25), but xco 0eco, to the God of Israel.
On the story, see Begg 1996, 71-74.
The detail is well attested in the later midrashic tradition; see Begg 1996, 71.
Feldman (1998b, 345) sees rationalising traits in Josephus* version (<(>aoiv, the role
of God is underlined), but is not convincing. On the contrary, the Hebrew original and
LXX both tell about the interest ('D'lornK / T O U S T O K O U S OOU) but Josephus exaggerates
the story, saying that the widows paid the loan (TCC 6<j>eiA6|JEva).
2 2 2
2 2 3
2 2 4
2 2 5
2 2 6
2 2 7
2 2 8
274
4:42-44). The healing of Naaman and the punishment of Gehazi are left out
(2 Kgs 5:1-27) as well as the story about the axe-head falling into river (2
Kgs 6:1-7).
The long series of omissions is broken in Ant. 9,51-59, in which
Josephus tells how Elisha warned Joram the king (cf. 2 Kgs 6:8-23). The
troops surrounding the enemies and the blinding of the Syrians are faithful
to the biblical original, but Josephus adds a note underlining the role of
the miracle and the prophet:
229
"But, when they came and informed him of what had happened, Benhadad was amazed at
the marvel and at the manifestation of the God of the Israelites and his power, and also at
the prophet, with whom, the Deity was so evidently present; and so, because of his fear
of Elisha, he determined to make no more secret attempts of the life of the Israelite king,
but decided to fight openly" (Ant. 9,60).
230
Josephus tells the story about Joram closed in Samaria and famine in the
city (2 Kgs 6:24-7:20; Ant. 9,61-86). He has carefully revised the biblical
account and tried to remove the problems, but the story about Elisha
prophesying sudden help for the city has remained the same. Josephus
seemed to like the story, which he now tells extensively, vividly and with
some new details. One of the additions is the close connection of the
story with the explanation of how the Syrian king fell ill in 2 Kgs 8:7. The
story about the Shunammite wife who got back her house and land (2 Kgs
8:1-6) is omitted and the divine victory is the immediate reason for the
king's illness. As in 2 Kgs, Elisha prophesies that Hazael will be the king
231
232
On the story, see Begg 1996, 74-80. Josephus does not mention that the horses and
chariots were fiery (2 Kgs 6:14). It does not seem, however, to be a rationalisation (as
Begg 1996, 78 and Feldman 1998b, 346 take it), because the troops nevertheless appear
and disappear miraculously. According to Josephus, Elisha asked God "to blind the eyes
of the enemy and throw a mist about them through which they would be unable to see
him" (Ant. 9,56). Marcus takes this for a rationalistic detail (Marcus 1937, 31), but it is
not easy to see how God's immediate action could be considered "a rationalistic detail".
Retelling the biblical original was problematic: God sends omaoa / ocopaoig, but the
men were apparently not blind. Josephus makes an attempt to refine the story.
According to Feldman, "the miracle is rendered more credible because the Syrian
king, Benhadad, himself, in an extra-biblical addition expresses amazement at the unex
pected (TTapd5oov) deed" (Feldman 1998b, 346). In my opinion, Feldman forces the
evidence to show Josephus' alleged rationalistic bias.
The Syrians attack the Israelites too soon after their defeat. Josephus gives the de
feat as the direct reason for the attack (Ant. 9,60). Joram wants to kill Elisha, his helper,
but Josephus makes him repent even before he meets him (Ant. 9,70). It is perhaps worth
observing that Josephus adds a note explaining that those who had leprosy had to stay
outside the city (Ant. 9,1 A). The alleged leprosy of the Israelites in Egypt was a common
place in anti-Jewish propaganda (see above p. 231-232).
For example, Josephus tells that the Syrian king could hear the voices of the alleged
army (Ant. 9,78).
2 3 0
2 3 1
2 3 2
275
(2 Kgs 8:7-15; Ant 9,87-92), and he lets his disciple anoint Jehu as king
the of Israel (2 Kgs 9:1-13; Ant 9,105-111).
The story of the dying prophet and king Jehoash seems to have awakened
Josephus' special interest (2 Kgs 13:14-19; Ant 9,177-181). Elisha's last
prophecy is retold, but in Josephus' extra-biblical addition the king la
ments the dying prophet and offers humble words of praise to him:
233
"Because of him, he said, they had never had to use arms against the foe, but through his
prophecies they had overcome the enemy without a battle. But now he was departing this
life and leaving him unarmed before the Syrians and the enemies under them. It was,
therefore, no longer safe for him to live, but he would do best to join him in death and
depart this life together with him" (Ant. 9,179-180).
The miraculous revival of the dead man thrown into the grave of the
prophet is retold (2 Kgs 13:20-21; Ant 9,183). Josephus adds a summary
about his life and death:
234
"But not long afterward the prophet died; he was a man renowned for righteousness and
one manifestly held in honour by God; for through his prophetic power he performed
astounding and marvellous deeds, which were held as a glorious memory by the He
brews. He was then given a magnificent burial, such as it was fitting for one so dear to
God to receive" (Ant. 9,182).
It is thus clear that Josephus deals with Elisha and Elijah in totally differ
ent ways. Now he does not merely retell the Bible but redacts it heavily.
Yet, this should not be exaggerated, because it still is possible for Marcus
to note the "nonbiblical details", which would be far more difficult for
someone translating, for example, Artapanus' fragments or Pseudo-Philo's
text. Josephus adds magical elements to the healing of the water in Jericho
and may add midrashic details to the stories. One such addition is that the
woman helped is Obadiah's widow. He also gives his prophet additional
political importance. Nevertheless, the main body of the text is faithful to
the biblical original.
Clearly the most important problem consists of several omissions. Some
of them have been the source of major conclusions.
It is not a coincidence that Elisha's legitimisation is omitted. It is con
nected with Elijah's ascension, and the problems were treated above.
However, the problematic figure here is Elijah, not Elisha. Feldman con235
2 3 3
See Begg 1996, 81-98; Feldman 1996b, 335-336.

According to Feldman (1998b, 347), who sees a rationalistic bias in Josephus' pres
entation of Elisha, Josephus included this miraculous incident to show his dislike of the
robbers then and in his own times. This, however, is too fantastic.
See p. 268. Feldman (1998b, 345-346) suggests another reason for the omission: that
Josephus has removed a difficulty in the biblical original. Elisha could raise people from
the dead, but why did he not, then, raise his master? This guess is questionable. It is the
problematic figure of Elijah which caused the omission.
2 3 4
2 3 5
276
siders that the omission of the water-miracle reveals a well thought out
bias: Josephus has omitted the story in Antiquitates but included it in Bellum, because the former was intended rather for a pagan and the latter for a
Jewish audience. The intention would thus be to avoid miraculous
events in a work directed to the pagans, but it is hardly credible that
Josephus would have planned his works so rigorously. Moreover, the pas
sage in B.J. 4,462-464 shows no rationalisation, yet Josephus freely chose
to include the story in his work.
A more puzzling problem consists of a series of other omissions. The
entire story about the Shunammite wife and her family is left out, as well
as the stories about the cursed boys, the poisoned food, miraculous feed
ing, the healing of Naaman, the punishment of Gehazi and the axe-head
which had fallen into the river. In 2 Kgs most of these stories form a unity,
which is now entirely omitted. Did Josephus really "tone down the mira
cles performed at his behest", as Feldman suggests? Since he retells
most of the biblical miracle stories, why did he omit just these stories?
One of the stories - the cursed boys - was, according to Feldman, too cruel
to tell to the pagan audience. This is perhaps true, yet Josephus tells how
Elijah and Jehu let the prophets of Baal be killed. He adds the detail that
Jehu excluded the strangers from the slaughter, but Josephus apparently
does not treat the Jewish people mercifully. Feldman looks at Josephus
from too modern a perspective: Josephus was a man who could cut off the
hand of a man, hang it around his neck and send him out to speak to his
enemies, and finally proudly tell the story himself in his Life (Vita 147). A
better reason for the omissions is needed. There are two alternatives, both
of which have existed in the scholarship for decades: Either Elisha is un
important to Josephus or a part of the text is lost.
1) Feldman considers Elisha very important to Josephus. According to
him, Elisha, contrary to Elijah, was not a controversial figure and he could
be praised in a eulogy. However, Feldman is aware that Josephus de
votes remarkably little space to Elisha. In spite of some features noted by
Feldman, Josephus apparently did not consider him a very important
person, presuming that we have all of his text. His view was not unique.
Elisha's miracles do not often occur in the later literature. He is not men236
237
238
239
240
241
2 3 6
Feldman 1998b, 344-345.

Feldman 1998b, 345.
Feldman 1998b, 339. Feldman also thinks that Gehazi's punishment is omitted for
the same reason, namely that Elisha loses his temper (Feldman 1998b 340). He quotes
some later rabbinic parallels for both stories, but his argument is not convincing.
See above p. 267.
Feldman 1998b, 350-351.
Feldman notes that Elisha is often called a prophet and that Josephus added an en
comium to the biblical text (Feldman 1998b, 335).
2 3 7
2 3 8
2 3 9
2 4 0
2 4 1
P. Toning Down the Miracles?
277
Josephus
242
tioned at all in Mishna and only seldom in Tosefta. He appears in the

New Testament only once (Luke 4:27). Elisha never achieved the status of
his master. He was never a central figure like Elijah, but also never as con
troversial as his predecessor. This is certainly one reason for the omis
sions, although not the only one.
A closer look at the stories omitted shows that they share something in
common. They are miracles occurring in the daily lives of private persons.
Only the healing of Naaman has a wider reach. The Shunammite wife and
her family, also the cursed boys, and especially the healing of the water,
the poisoned food, the feeding of the multitude, the punishment of Gehazi
and the axe-head are all part of the smaller circles of daily life. On the
other hand, Josephus has not omitted a single story in which Elisha meets
kings and consults with them. Josephus clearly preferred miracles that
were politically significant. History was the field in which God worked.
This is underlined in the speech of Jehoash and in the encomium. The
magnificent burial, which is an unscriptural detail, makes it clear that an
important prophet necessarily moved in greater circles.
2) Finally, some puzzling questions remain. Elisha seems to be important
to Josephus and he is praised in a eulogy, but he is given very little space.
Josephus generally retells almost every miracle made by men in the Old
Testament, but Elisha is treated differently. This leads to the question of
whether we have all the texts written by Josephus. Actually, many scholars
have assumed that some of the stories about Elisha have been lost. The
stories in 2 Kgs 4:8-6,8 are not included in Antiquitates and in the 18 cen
tury a lacuna was presumed to exist. Moreover, Ant. 9,51 says
243
th
244
' EAioocuos 5E raxecos rrpos ' Icopauov
E^CCTTEOTEIAE
<t>uAa'TTEo0cu TOV TOTTOV
EKETVOV.
However, the place Josephus refers to is not mentioned above, but the
words are preceded by the story about the widow's oil. As Begg recently
pointed out, something is obviously missing, and although Feldman con
siders this alternative worth only a footnote, it seems indeed that we
245
246
2 4 2
See t.Yoma 1:6; t. Sank 2:9; 14:10; t. Sot 4:7; 12:5-6.

Feldman (1998b, 336-337) considers this a feature emphasizing that Elisha was in
Josephus' view a prophet, which is statistically clear. This, however, is not enough. We
need to ask what kind of prophet he was. The answer is that his political significance is
clearly underlined.
See Marcus 1937, 28-29 and Begg 1996, 74-75.
Begg 1996, 74-75.
Feldman is aware of Marcus' suggestion, but rejects it only in a footnote. According
to him, Josephus has omitted the stories, because he wanted to avoid or to downgrade
miracles (1998b, 340). However, as Begg notes, something is clearly missing in the text.
Eve overlooks the possibility and tends towards the first alternative after wrestling with
the problem (2002, 35-37).
2 4 3
2 4 4
2 4 5
2 4 6
278
have lost part of Josephus' text. It is impossible to analyse what we do not

have, but it is clear that we should not jump to conclusions because
Josephus has omitted 2 Kgs 4:8-6:8. At the same time it means that the
ratio given by Feldman is questionable. Josephus has given more space to
Elisha than is recognized by Feldman, and, as the words of the eulogy also
indicate, Elisha can well be considered a more significant figure.
h. Conclusion
It is well known that Josephus himself claimed that he had neither added
nor omitted anything contained in the holy writings (Ant. 1,17). These
words are understandable only in light of the previous texts. Josephus cer
tainly felt that he was very faithful to the biblical original. No Jewish
writer studied in the present book felt bound to the holy words when retell
ing the Old Testament miracle stories. The holy history was a part of the
living reality. Josephus is remarkably close to the Scriptures, but also he
adds, omits and reinterprets, apparently both consciously and uncon
sciously.
Josephus was well aware of the distorted version of the Exodus circulat
ing among the Gentiles, but this only slightly influenced his redaction.
However, the offensive manner of sacrifice and Miriam's punishment are
obviously removed for this reason. The number of miracle stories totally
omitted is very small and most of them are part of the passage on Elisha,
part of which is apparently lost. Josephus adds midrashic elements, espe
cially in retelling Moses' and Samson's childhood; these elements are one
of the main sources for the extra-biblical details. The stories about the
birth of Moses and Samson and about the end of Moses and Elijah are par
ticularly influenced by Graeco-Roman stories.
Similarly to several Jewish writers, Josephus also tends to refigure pas
sages in which Israel's God stands in dialogue with men. Thus the roles of
God and man are in a state of change, either growing or decreasing, but
this is apparently only a consequence of, and not a reflected bias in the
redaction.
Some of the major biases presented in the scholarship should be re
evaluated. Josephus certainly can retell a biblical story and give a more
reasonable version of it. However, he retells almost every biblical miraclestory, even adding new stories, about Solomon for example, or new details,
such as in the stories about the water in Jericho. There is no reason to be
lieve that he consistently tried to remove the miraculous to please his Gen
tile readers. A miracle did not signify to Josephus a regrettable violation of
the laws of nature. Moreover, the entire concept is more than questionable.
It is simply not enough to refer to "Gentile readers". A strict rationalism as
279
we understand it could be the view of the Epicureans but it was by no

means common. There is no reason to cite the sceptical Horace (credat
Iudaeus Apella), as Feldman and Collins do. A majority of the GraecoRoman people had an interest in Eastern, esoteric wisdom, which also in
cluded miraculous traits. Tacitus attests that the Roman Caesars had east
ern astrologers at their courts (for example, ann. 6,20-21) and Josephus
tells about Atomos (Ant. 20,141-144) and Eleazar (Ant. 8,46-48) awakening
interest among the Roman military leaders. These were the Gentiles Jose
phus could please with his stories. A sceptical pagan audience, which
Josephus was allegedly concerned about, is the fantasy of some scholars.
He did not write for the sceptics; otherwise he certainly would have omit
ted more stories, and certainly he had not added or exaggerated miracles,
as he sometimes does.
In contrast, the second intention proposed applies well to the miracle
stories. Josephus indeed tried to separate religion and politics. Also, the
small space attributed to Joshua shows that he was certainly not Josephus'
favourite figure. Although he liked prophets with political influence, such
as Elisha, a person like Kenaz in L.A.B. does not and cannot occur in
Josephus. The spirit-filled leadership, which is so central in some texts, is
consistently removed, for example, in the picture of Samson. This type of
biblical figure had encouraged revolts and Josephus had learned his lesson.
Josephus was aware of the religious motivation of the armed resistance
against Rome. Theudas, the Egyptian and Jonathan had imitated the spiritfilled leadership of biblical figures. Now the holy history had to be consis
tently rewritten.
Josephus glorifies the biblical heroes and, of course, especially Moses.
However, Moses does not reach the same position as, for example, in
Ezek. Trag. His death is a mystery, as in many Jewish texts, but Moses is
not a half-god and there is no evidence that Josephus would have devel
oped the idea in Exod 7:1. Moses' miracles are retold, but he is, above all,
an excellent ruler, law-giver and rhetorician. Josephus totally omits the
miracles when defending Moses in Against Apion. His texts are weak evi
dence for supporting the 0eTos avrjp - hypothesis, although they have been
used in the past.
Most of the Jewish writers show an ambivalent attitude towards magic;
so does Josephus. Against Apion attests that Moses was often presented as
a sorcerer among the Gentiles. Josephus apparently considered that the
best way to contradict these charges was to retell Moses' miracles, and he
lets Moses reject the way the Egyptian sorcerers tried to repeat his mira
cles. Yet magic was by no means nonsense in his view. The Egyptians and
even a German soldier could skilfully prophesy. Elisha uses a magical
technique to heal the water in Jericho. And above all, Solomon is the mas
ter of all kinds of knowledge, also of herbs and demons. Such esoteric
280
wisdom, according to Josephus, was still common among the Jews, and he
was proud of it. The line between what was allowed and what was not was
as fuzzy to him as to most of the men in the Mediterranean world of his
times. Demons and apotropaic techniques belonged to the world of
Josephus. However, the war between good and evil spirits was not a major
theme for him, at least not at Vespasian's court.
Feldman in particular has attributed to Josephus the strong tendency to
contradict charges that Jews acted with utmost cruelty. There are admit
tedly some important omissions, especially in the story about Elisha cur
sing the mocking boys. But generally, Josephus, who could proudly tell
about his own utmost cruelty, freely and without any mitigation retold how
the Old Testament figures killed people in great numbers. However, he
might add that the punishment for idolatry did not apply to Gentiles, but
only to the Israelites.
The miracles certainly served to legitimate people, and this function is
emphasized more in Josephus than in L.A.B. or other texts written for a
mainly Jewish audience. Josephus considered it useful to occasionally use
this biblical function, especially to prove the importance of Moses. He is
also well aware that some figures of his own time (Theudas, the Egyptian)
tried to legitimate their mission by miracles. Nevertheless, Josephus retells
the biblical stories so faithfully that legitimisation seems to be an echo of
the biblical texts rather than a theme he particularly wished to emphasize.
10. Conclusion
The present study has shown that the Jewish writers used the material on
the Old Testament miracle-workers in a variety of ways. The stories were
retold again and again, either as short summaries or with the addition of
colourful, midrashic details. The figures of holy history were often modi
fied, even transformed, and the roles of God and man were presented in
many variations.
a. LXX
A comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint confirms the wellknown fact that the various books are translated differently. The translation
of 2 Kgs is a slavish translation of the Hebrew original, which did not dif
fer much from the Masoretic text. On the other hand, some passages in
Joshua have a completely different character, and the Hebrew original used
by the translator was also very different from the Masoretic text. This is
also obvious in the miracle stories included in these books. An intentional,
consistent redaction of the miracle stories, however, cannot be found in
any of the passages studied above. An exception is the passage in Dan 4,
but here all the early versions we have are a part of an unfixed textual tra
dition. The miracles are not omitted and new stories are not added; the
great deeds are generally neither exaggerated nor explained rationally. The
only bias discovered above was that God or his angels are sometimes dis
tanced from men. For example, God does not try to kill Moses in Exod 4
his angel does. Also, the angel does not touch Elijah in the desert (1 Kgs
19:5). This bias is compatible with the tendency in the Septuagint to gen
erally distance God from men.
Although a consistent redaction is not present in any passages studied,
many details are interesting and some important deviations from the He
brew text explain the later tradition: Moses' hand is not leprous in the
LXX, but cooe! x ^
(Exod 4:6), the darkness in Egypt is i|/r)Ac|>r]T6s
O K O T O S (Exod 10:21-29), and the Hebrews leave Egypt unarmed (cf. Exod
13:18 nrtDom but ITSjJTnTj S E yeved). Writers using the LXX repeated all
these details. Sometimes, as in the healing of Naaman, the translator has
1
'See Siegert 2001,243-244.
282
10. Conclusion
updated the healing technique the man expected from the prophet (2 Kgs
5:11). All in all, the faithfulness with which the translators rendered the
miracle stories is astonishing. They did not follow any Graeco-Roman or
early Jewish model of miracle-workers, but - with the few exceptions
mentioned in this study - translated the texts so faithfully that the core of
the original was preserved. Although prominent scholars once claimed that
the Septuagint is strongly influenced by Greek thought, the results of this
study are in concordance with the recent view that these scholars relied
more on their presupposition than on their eyes.
2
b. The texts retold

The Old Testament miracle-working figures are used widely in early Juda
ism.
The rich legendary tradition of Abraham contained many traits that made
the father of the nation invincible, and sometimes also a miracle-worker.
The Old Testament gives very little support for this interpretation, but
whatever support existed was used. The Jews were known as great astrolo
gers, and while part of the Jewish tradition (for example, Artapanus) ac
cepted this, another (e.g., Jub.) rejected it. Gen 15:5 is the only possible
startingpoint in the Old Testament for this interpretation. The interpreta
tion of Abraham as an exorcist is a little closer to the Scripture. The story
about the father in Egypt and God helping him and Sarah against Pharaoh
(Gen 12:10-20, cf. Gen 20:1-18) is retold in lQAp Gen" 20,28-29, and
may form the background for the new interpretation, according to which
Abraham fights against evil spirits and is able to control them: The birds
disturbing Abraham's sacrifice (Gen 15:11) are interpreted as demons in
Jub., in the Apocalypse of Abraham and in some later Christian texts which
indicate a tradition independent of Jub. The reason may be the (|>o(3os
O K O T E I V O S [liyois that Abraham felt in Gen 15:12. Jub. lets him expel the
birds / demons in the field, making him simultaneously a irpcoTOs euprjTrjs of the agricultural technique - a topos widely used in Artapanus' frag
ments.
Moses' miracles were widely retold in different variants and different
theological frameworks.
Moses' childhood (cf. Exod 1:1-2:25) was often embellished with legen
dary material common to several Jewish writers. Ezekiel the Tragedian
tells about it briefly without miracles, but the miraculous traits of Moses'
birth are often exaggerated and some of them occur often: Pharaoh had
2
See Siegert 2001,250.
283
10. Conclusion
only one daughter (called Merris in Artapanus, Tharmuth in Jub. and Thermuthis in Josephus); she was barren and had long hoped for a son who
would save the reign of his father (Artapanus, Philo, Josephus). The birth
is foretold to Moses' father (Josephus) or to Miriam (L.A.B.). The Jewish
folklore here clearly follows the gentile. Moses is born circumcised
(L.A.B.), and his admirable education and capacity to learn are especially
emphasised in Artapanus and Philo. Artapanus and Josephus both make
Moses a successful Egyptian general.
The theophany at Horeb (Exod 3:1-4:17) reveals the diversity of early
Judaism. Some writers - interestingly enough, especially the dramatist
Ezekiel - follow the story of Exodus faithfully, but many writers greatly
reduce the dialogues between God and Moses. Josephus does so; Artapa
nus reduces God to a divine voice and omits all dialogues, as well as the
miracles; Philo denies that a man can ever see God. Admittedly, the He
brew text is open to different interpretations; in some verses it refers to
God, but in others to God's angel. The writer of the L.A.B. generally takes
the opposite view, adding God's speeches and conversations with men,
although he here omits the theophany. Moses' human weaknesses are often
improved with minor changes: Moses' reluctance was either omitted (Ar
tapanus) or reduced (Josephus), and his lack of eloquence was either ex
plained (Philo) or simply omitted (Artapanus). Aaron's role as Moses'
helping hand has generally been diminished: he may be totally omitted
(Jub., L.A.B.), or, as in Philo and Josephus, his role is notably smaller than
in the original. Both Philo and Josephus suppose that God taught Moses to
make miracles, and that this was the reason he could repeat them at any
time. Philo compares Moses' wonderful rod with a good education, which
can be used either positively or negatively. The Jewish writers who used
the Greek translation (Ezekiel, Philo, Josephus) have followed the LXX by
saying that Moses' hand is not leprous, but cooei X *^ ? although the word
ing varies. It was no longer necessarily an intentional alteration and a re
sponse to the anti-Jewish propaganda, but a fixed tradition.
Moses' opponents in Egypt appear in Exodus during his second visit to
Pharaoh and then during the first plagues (Exod 6:28-7:13). A rich and
multifaceted tradition is present here. Artapanus and Josephus tell how
Moses was treated as a criminal. The reason is hardly a common tradition,
but the detail is a midrashic trait, which is easy to understand because
Moses had killed a man. Artapanus adds that Moses was jailed and inserts
several miracles in the biblical story. Artapanus, Philo and Josephus viv
idly retell the struggle with the opponents. On the one hand, the opponents
are interpreted in different ways, and the Hebrew and Greek originals leave
several doors open. The opponents can be interpreted as priests (Ar
tapanus, Josephus), or sorcerers (Jub., Philo), or physicians (Artapanus),
but also as sophists and "wrong philosophers", as Philo says. On the other
lc
284
10. Conclusion
hand, these figures may have names, and Jannes and Jambres were famous
in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature. In Jub. they are only puppets
supported by Mastema and his angels, just as Moses was supported by
God's angels: The short mentions in Jub. and Jannes and Jambres imply
that the men not only tried to imitate, but also to block the plagues through
healing. Perhaps this is the reason why Artapanus calls them i'ccTpoi. The
problematic relation to magic is obvious: God's name, so important in
Mediterranean magic, plays a role in Artapanus and Josephus, and several
writers (like Philo and Josephus) try to draw a line between miracles that
are allowed and those that are not.
Philo interpreted the biblical plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) allegorically,
but also, as many Jewish writers, literally. The biblical order is preserved
only in Josephus (who, however, omits the plague on livestock): Philo ex
plains his new order in terms of attributing the different plagues to differ
ent agents and elements, and this explanation may be the reason for the
changed order in Artapanus, too. Ezekiel apparently could not retain the
sequence when writing in iambic trimetre. The number of plagues (ten) is
not necessarily fixed: Artapanus, for example, has left out several plagues
and replaced them with new ones. The translator has obviously uninten
tionally omitted the plague of boils in the Latin version of the L.A.B. When
retelling the plague of ui I aTjja, Exod 7:14-24, Philo and Josephus (as
Deut. R. 3:8) say that the water was good for the Hebrews. They generally
expand the word in Exod 7:21 and 7:24 and assume that none of the
plagues touched the Hebrews. Josephus says that the water seized with
pains Egyptians drinking it. Several Jewish writers ended the biblical story
with an end to the plague. Philo and Josephus omit the offensive manner of
sacrifice in the plague of c n r n a s / p d r p a x o i (Exod 7:26-8:11), as also in
the rest of the plagues, the obvious reason being the anti-Jewish propa
ganda claiming that the Jews practiced terrible sacrifices. Philo claims in
his allegorical interpretation that the words point to virtues that offended
people living in Egypt, and he compares the river producing frogs and
blood to bad speech. Philo uses the third plague (CtfD / OKV?CJ>ES, Exod 8:1215) to teach how God uses small beings to beat mighty men. Philo and
Josephus have removed the sorcerers, possibly because they were cautious
not to equate Moses with them. Several Jewish writers have interpreted the
fourth biblical plague mi> / Kuvdjjuta, Exod 8:16-28, as beings of a special
kind: Artapanus says that they were coov T I TTTTIVOV, and Philo also con
siders them combinations of the two most shameless animals of the land
and air, the dog and the fly. The L.A.B. calls thempammixia, and Josephus
has 9r)picov y a p TTCCVTOICOV Kai iroAuTpoTrcov. It may be surprising that
several Jewish writers used Aoinos or AOIMIKCC appcooTrjiiaxa when re
telling the fifth plague on livestock (Exod 9:1-11), although, according to
many scholars, the pestilence in Egypt was a common topos in anti-Jewish
10. Conclusion
285
propaganda. However, this is the only plague omitted by Josephus. Philo

exaggerates the sixth plague (yrw / E A K T I , Exod 9:8-12), but cannot compete
with Josephus, who tells about the plague briefly, but has "the greater part
of Egyptians" die from it. Jub. assumes that the opponents of Moses tried
to heal the Egyptians, but were not allowed to do so, and Artapanus fol
lows the tradition by occasionally calling them physicians. Philo gives a
brief but impressive picture of the biblical plague of mîp / <|>covai, T O /
Xa'Aaa and m I Trup <J>Aoyiov (Exod 9:13-35), strongly exaggerating the
original. Josephus is very brief about the plague. The wind bringing the
locusts (rm / aKpiSa TroAArjv, Exod 10:1-20) dominates the eighth
plague in Philo. Josephus renders it with only a few sentences, and Ar
tapanus may have combined several of the plagues into one. The type of
darkness in the ninth plague has awakened great interest (Exod 10:21-29),
the reason being the Greek translation. "je?n Ban was translated vpr]Aa<j)r)T6s
O K O T O S in the LXX, and the extraordinary darkness was described by
Philo and Josephus, but also in the L.A.B. and the book of Wisdom. In
Philo's allegorical interpretation the darkness is contrasted with God's
presence. In the final plague (Exod 11:1-12:36), the offensive manner of
sacrifice is removed from Philo and Josephus. In Philo's allegorical inter
pretation the firstborn are lust, desire and other vices. God's dialogues are
again reduced or removed (Philo, Artapanus, Josephus).
Jub. and Artapanus presume that the Egyptian gods were destroyed in
one way or other: Jub. says that they drowned with the Egyptians; Ar
tapanus claims an earthquake destroyed the temples.
The events at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31) are often retold with dif
ferent details (Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B., Josephus). A special case
is Ezekiel the Tragedian, who puts everything in the form of a classical
tragedy, letting an Egyptian messenger give a description of the defeat of
his own nation. Philo and Josephus, when emphasising that there were no
survivors, hardly criticize Ezekiel or any tradition represented by him, but
only repeat Exod 14:28. Some details are traditional: Owing to the differ
ence between the Hebrew text and the LXX in Exod 13:18, the Israelites
were unarmed (Ezekiel, Philo, Josephus) or armed (L.A.B.), and although
Philo also knows that the people were divided, Pseudo-Philo is the first
who names and distinguishes between the tribes ready to surrender, to
commit suicide or to fight. The number of the drowned Egyptians is given
in different versions: Jub. and Ezekiel speak of a million, Josephus gives
detailed information on different parts of the army (600 chariots, 50,000
horsemen and 200,000 heavy infantry). Moses' rod is given a more or less
important role: Although Exodus does not directly say that Moses hit the
sea with his rod, the words (inpn / pfjov) are close enough to assume that
he really did (either once or twice). Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and
Josephus say the same. The role of the angels is emphasized in Jub. and in
286
10. Conclusion
Philo. Possibly Jub., but certainly Philo and apparently also L.A.B. know
the exaggerated detail that the sand was dry enough to crackle under the
feet of the Hebrews. The biblical original supports the view that Moses'
rod had a special power, and several Jewish writers developed the theme
further (Ezekiel, Artapanus, L.A.B.).
The way from Egypt and through the desert is a model for a spiritual
emigration in Philo's allegorical interpretation, which depends heavily on
Plato, and the details are interpreted consistently. But a literal interpreta
tion was common, too. The water-miracle at Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is
retold or alluded to in Ben Sira, Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and
Josephus. Ben Sira connects the story with the help given by the physician.
Philo exaggerates the effect of the water, and his description of Elim, as
well as that of Ezekiel and Artapanus, resembles Hellenistic Utopias. In
Philo's allegorical interpretation the water is God's wisdom. The stories of
the manna and the quail (Exod 16:1-36 / Num 11:4-36) are retold often.
Compared with several later Jewish texts, Philo's texts attest a broad and
early tradition of the manna. Philo uses the stories for his own purposes,
for instance, to emphasize the universal importance of the Sabbath. Ar
tapanus tries to explain the phenomenon to his Gentile readers in his own
words. Josephus assumes that manna was still a phenomenon in his own
times. In retelling the story of the quails Philo eliminates almost every fea
ture of the original in Numbers. Josephus tells the story twice, but very
briefly. The story of the water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13)
is retold often, and apparently Ezekiel, but certainly L.A.B., attest the detail
known to Paul (1 Cor 10): that the rock followed the people. Philo has
again omitted the epiphany and God's speech, but also the crucial element
of Moses not being allowed to lead the people to the Promised Land.
Josephus also omits the version in Numbers, but retells the one in Exod
without any "rationalisation". In Philo's allegorical interpretation the rock
is God's wisdom. The fight against Amalek (Exod 17:8-16) is retold in
Philo and Josephus. Philo uses the story literally, connecting the event
with the elements, which now supported Israel. He also uses it allegorically, with the battling parties symbolizing mind and pleasure instead of
the two people. Later, also Mishna interprets the text from an ethical point
of view. Josephus has carefully preserved the core of the story, although he
emphasizes Moses' military skill.
The problematic story about Miriam's leper and Moses' Gentile wife and
Miriam and Aaron attacking him (Num 12:1-15) is mostly omitted. Philo
uses the story, but only allegorically.
All Jewish writers retelling Korah's revolt (Num 16:1-17:31) drastically
change the aim of the biblical story. What once was an attack against the
priesthood is to Philo - and to Josephus - an exemplary revolt against a
good ruler. In Philo's view, however, it is especially directed against
10. Conclusion
287
Moses' prophecies. In L.A.B. the target is the holy Law, and Josephus, the
Palestinian oligarch, allows the people to quarrel about the question of
which of the leaders should get the priesthood.
The story about the bronze snake (Num 21:4-9) is mostly omitted. Only
Philo uses it in his allegorical interpretation, explaining that the story tells
about the mind's control over pleasure.
The treatment of the death of Moses (Deut 34:1-8) is interesting in the
texts, and it probably rests on a broad Jewish tradition based on Deut 34:7.
In Philo's view it was not a death but an assumption, and he cleverly ex
plains how Moses could write about his own death. The anonymous writer
of L.A.B. expands the short story and freely adds God's dialogues with
Moses. Josephus lets Moses disappear, like Aeneas and Romulus, but also
Enoch and Elijah in the Old Testament tradition.
The mighty deeds of Joshua divided views in the later Jewish literature. On
the one hand, Ben Sira liked the idea of a militant Joshua stopping the sun
and moon, and L.A.B. expands the spirit-filled leadership of the biblical
original, although it omits some of the most miraculous deeds of Joshua.
The works we know from only a few fragments found in Masada and
Qumran attest in particular that Joshua, the conqueror the conqueror le
gitimated by miracles, could be and indeed was dangerously popular and
could incite revolts. Although also the Greek world told about miracles of
rulers and would-be rulers, we undoubtedly have here a characteristic
Jewish feature of miracles, the eschatological hope, which greatly differs
from the Greek heritage. On the other hand, Josephus retells all the stories
of Joshua - especially his miracles (the crossing of Jordan, Jos 3:1-5:1; the
conquest of Jericho, Jos 5:13-6:27; stopping the sun, Jos 10:8-14) - very
briefly; the reason is obvious, especially after the catastrophe.
3
The stories of Samson (Judg 13:1-16:31) open many doors for early Jew
ish exegesis, and a sermon preserved by coincidence attests that his life
was discussed vigorously. The story of his miraculous birth was retold and
expanded with new details (L.A.B., Josephus). In L.A.B. the brutal Samson
is an exemplary leader, although he is morally criticized. De Sampsone and
Josephus, too, add moral criticism, but, above all, Josephus removes the
crucial trait of the stories, the spirit-filled leadership: Josephus had learned
his lesson, and was not interested in spirit-filled leaders after Theudas, the
Egyptian and Jonathan.
The biblical stories about David offered little to be interpreted as miracles,
but the anonymous writer of L.A.B. used everything there was. The story
3
288
10. Conclusion
about David helping Saul with his music (1 Sam 16:14-23) is reinterpreted
as an exorcism, and the writer even quotes the hymn sung by David. Some
of David's psalms were used similarly in Qumran, indicating a strong tra
dition. Also, the fight between David and Goliath (1 Sam 17:41-51) is de
veloped in L.A.B., and takes on miraculous traits: David, the offspring of
Ruth, is supported by good angels, and he beats Goliath, the offspring of
Orpah.
The stories about Elijah had a strong afterlife in early Judaism. His role as
a zealous and eschatological prophet was strongly developed. Mai 3 attests
his role as a future judge, and later Ben Sira emphasizes the political side
of his miracles, expecting him to reunite the lost tribes with Israel. Elijah
was later (at least in L.A.B.) identified with Pinehas, the other zealot. In his
person, miracles, politics and eschatological hope were combined in a way
typical for early Judaism. Unhappily the original of the Life of Elijah is
lost and the manuscripts give only a short list of the biblical stories. Philo
briefly refers to the story of the widow. Nevertheless, Josephus' way of
dealing with the biblical material attests both Elijah's special position and
the problems he caused for a moderate writer. However, even Josephus did
not completely remove his political fervour.
Elisha never attained the role of a returning judge or a reputation like
Elijah's. The biblical material admittedly allowed Ben Sira to emphasize
Elisha's political mission, and the manuscripts we have of the Life in Vitae
prophetarum list the biblical material as a later addition. Yet, although the
material on Elisha was easier for Josephus, who was clearly fond of him,
Elisha never attained the same status as his master. Apparently part of
Josephus' text on Elisha is lost.
The only Jewish writer emphasizing Isaiah's biblical miracles (Isa 37:143 7 / 2 Kgs 19:14-37 and Isa 38:1-22/ 2 Kgs 20:1-11) is Ben Sira. Josephus
also mentions the miracles, but he attributes them clearly to God and not to
the prophet. Ben Sira, on the contrary, emphasizes Isaiah's significance,
clearly at the cost of King Hezekiah's role. The Life of Isaiah tells about
the death of the prophet and connects it with the miraculous water at
Siloam, well known in early Judaism.
The traditions of Daniel form in many ways a special case in early Juda
ism. The Book of Daniel is written at about the same time as several retold
versions of the miracle stories studied in the present study, and the study of
the LXX attests that the tradition was not yet fixed. The different versions
of Dan 4 - the later canonical Aramaic version, the Greek versions and the
10. Conclusion
289
Life of Daniel - show how also this piece of tradition could vividly reflect
the early Jewish view on miracles.
Several features presented above are expansions of the miracles made by
the Old Testament figures, but early Judaism also produced totally new
miracle-workers. Although the only miracle of many prophets was their
prophecy, extra-biblical miracles of Jeremiah were apparently commonly
known, and it is unfortunate that we only have fragments of the tradition.
The only text describing them in more than a few words is the Life of
Jeremiah, which tells how the prophet protected the people in Alexandria
from snakes after his death, and how he had the ark of the Law swallowed
up in a rock. Several fragmentary hints (2 Mace 15:13-16; Matth 16:14)
attest that the prophet had a reputation, but unfortunately we do not know
the details. Strong eschatological hope is connected with his person.
It is also a pity that we have only fragments of the traditions of the many
miracles attributed to Ezekiel. The Life of Ezekiel briefly mentions the
mighty deeds, apparently assuming them to be well known to the audience.
Ezekiel saved his people by stopping the river (the repetition of which was
attempted by several Jews in the first century); he offered them an abun
dant meal of fish (cf. Ezek 47:10) and apparently acted as a healer. Both in
this work and elsewhere in early Judaism, the vision of dry bones (Ezek
37:1-14) is interpreted literally, as referring to Israelites who would rise
from the dead, and Irenaeus attests that the Christians adopted and devel
oped the view.
An important novum compared with the Old Testament is that Solomon
is made a master in esoteric wisdom concerning medical cures and exor
cisms. Solomon the wise became thus the door through which the Mediter
ranean magical techniques invaded early Judaism. The view is attested in
different manners in Wis, 11Q11, L.A.B., Josephus, 2 Bar., Apocalypse of
Adam and Testament of Solomon.
As seen, early Jewish tradition could strongly expand and develop the
miracles told in the Old Testament, and also produce new ones. The most
striking example is the way L.A.B. deals with Kenaz, a man mentioned
only briefly in the Old Testament. The writer makes him the first of the
judges, a spirit-filled and brutal leader. Although Kenaz had a reputation in
the extra-biblical tradition as a militant leader earlier, Pseudo-Philo has
clearly used him as an example for his readers in the difficult situation af
ter the fall of Jerusalem. Kenaz was a spirit-filled, religious and militant
leader, who, although he was a litarary figure, clearly attests the religious
motivation of the armed resistance.
290
10. Conclusion
c. The themes
It is certainly useful to briefly summarize the kind of stories encountered
during this study, although there is no agreement on a classification of the
"themes." The following list basically uses Theissen's catalogue of the
themes, but some further distinctions are needed. Moreover, not all the
texts referred to are "stories"; nevertheless they represent "themes", even
though a brief mention or allusion may not be developed into a story. The
references on non-biblical persons, although quoted above, are now ex
cluded.
Exorcisms, which are justly distinguished from the healings, are numer
ous. To be sure, they do not all contain the characteristics which, according
to Theissen, were specific to the category (a person in the power of the
demon; a battle between the demon and the exorcist; the destructive activ
ity of the demon in nature), and because they do not contain a opKOs, they
cannot be properly called eopKio|joi. However, a kind of opKOs is in
cluded in traditions about David (L.A.B. 60,1-3; 11Q11) and Solomon
(11Q11; Jos. Ant. 8,42-45), and such stories seem to have been common.
Moreover, a struggle with demonic power without opoKOs occurs in the
stories about Abraham (Jub. 11:18-22; lQAp Geri" 20,28-29; Apoc. Ab.
13:4-14) and Daniel (Liv. Pro. 4:10; apparently not in 4QPrNab ).
The Old Testament stories about healings were retold differently and
expanded. Jacob heals his son Reuben through prayer (T Reu. 1:7). Moses
acts as a healer (Exod 15:22-27; Num 21:4-9: Sir 38:4-8; Philo Agr. 9598), but his opponents also act or attempt to act as healers (Jub. 48:9-10;
Artap. 3,31). The encyclopaedic wisdom of Solomon also covered magical
medicine, and the tradition was strong in early Judaism (Jos. Ant. 8,42-44).
The stories about Isaiah and Hezekiah (Isa 38:1-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11) are
referred to in Ben Sira (Sir 48). Healings are also attributed to Jeremiah
(Liv. Pro. 2:2-7), Ezekiel (Liv. Pro. 3:11b), and to Daniel (4QPrNab ).
Resuscitations of the dead, considered only a category of healings by
Theissen, because there are only a few, are surprisingly common in early
Judaism. The stories about Elijah (1 Kgs 17:17-24: Sir 48:5; Liv. Pro.
21:5; Sir 48:12-16; Jos. Ant. 8,325-327) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:18-37; 2 Kgs
13:20-21: Sir 48:13-14; Liv. Pro. 21:12 and 20; Jos. Ant. 9,183) were re
told often. But extra-biblical revivals are told about both Moses (Artap.
3,24-26) and Ezekiel (Liv. Pro. 3:12-13, cf. Ezek. 37 and 4Q385).
The category of epiphany is problematic concerning our material, be
cause, according to Theissen, epiphanies occur "when the divinity of a per4
Theissen 1983, 85-114.

See Theissen 1983, 85-90.
Theissen 1983, 90.
291
10. Conclusion
son becomes apparent not merely in the effects of his actions or in atten
dant phenomena, but in the person himself." In this sense, only a few of
the passages quoted (perhaps the story about Moses in Pharaoh's house in
Artapanus) can be characterised as epiphanies, because men only seldom,
if ever, are divine. However, it may be useful to mention the theophanies
with (Exod 3:1-4:17: Ezek. Trag. 120-141; Philo Mos. 1,65-84; Jos. Ant.
2,271-272) or without miracles (Exod 3:1-4:17: Artap. 3,21-22; Elijah: Jos.
Ant. 8,32). That Abraham (Apoc. Abr. 13:4-14) and Moses (Ezek. Trag. 6882) receive a throne, as do several figures in early Judaism, is worth men
tioning.
Being freed from prison is considered a typical rescue miracle, and such
a story is told about Moses in Artap. 3,23-24 (and of Rechabites in Hist.
Rech. 10:5). The swords of the enemies turn into ashes in Jos. Asen. 27,11.
Ezek 37 has found an interesting afterlife, as shown in Liv. Pro. 3:12-13.
Possibly also the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31: Jub. 48:1219; Ezek. Trag. 204-217; Artap. 3,36-37; Philo Mos. 1,167-180; L.A.B. 10;
Jos. Ant. 2,320-348) and at the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1: Jos. Ant. 5,16-20;
4Q378-379) must be included in this category, and the same is certainly
true of the other miracles performed to save the Hebrew crowd from a hos
tile army (Liv. Pro. 3:6-10; 4 Ezr. 13:39-40). However, it is difficult to
distinguish them from the battle against Amalek (Exod 17:8-16: Philo,
Mos. 1,214-219), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27: Sir 46:2-3; Jos.
Ant. 5,22-27), the stopped sun at Gibeon (Jos 10:12-13: Sir 46:4; Jos. Ant.
5,58-61), the hailstones from heaven (Jos 10:8-14: L.A.B. 30,5), the return
ing shadow at Hezekiah's palace (Sir 48:23), the help given to David in his
fight against Goliath (1 Sam 17:41-51: L.A.B. 61) and Samson against the
Philistines (Judg 13:1-16:31: L.A.B. 43,2; 43,5-8; Jos. Ant. 5,297; 5,300;
5,304-305; 5,316), or even protection from the plagues (Jub. 48:4-8; Ezek.
Trag. 132-151; Artap. 3,27-33; Philo Mos. 1,98-139; L.A.B. 10,1; Jos. Ant.
2,294-315). Not only were the biblical stories retold in new variants, but
also new ones were added: The help Kenaz got in the fight against the
Amorites (L.A.B. 27,10) and Aseneth in Jos. Asen. 27,11 belong to this
category.
Gift miracles tell about manna (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36: Artap.
3.38; Philo, esp. Mos. 1,200-207; Mos. 2,258-267; Jos. Ant. 3,26-28), or
quails (Exod 16:13 / Num 11:4-36: Philo, Mos. 1,209; L.A.B. 10,7; Jose
phus Ant. 3,25), or water becoming sweet (Exod 15:22-27: Philo, Mos.
1,181-187; L.A.B. 11,15; Jos. Ant. 3,1-8) or water from the rock (Exod
17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13: Ezek. Trag. 250; Philo, Mos. 1,210-213; L.A.B.
10,7), but also about a meal Ezekiel gave to his people (Liv. Pro. 3:11),
7
Theissen 1983,94.
Theissen 1983, 99.
292
10. Conclusion
and the water at Siloam (Liv. Pro. 1:2-4). The widow who helped Elijah
was miraculously fed (1 Kgs 17:7-16: Jos. Ant. 8,320-323). Elisha fed the
widow and her sons (2 Kgs 4:1-7: Jos. Ant. 9,47-50), and restored the wa
ter in Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19-21; Jos. B.J. 4,462-464).
Rule miracles, which confirm a rule, are often but not always "rule
miracles of punishment" sent as punishment for misdeeds, and in our mate
rial it is not always easy to distinguish them from the rescue miracles. The
material contains many of them, even if the plagues, for instance, are con
sidered rescue miracles. However, the preludes before the elders (Exod
4:27-31: Jo's. Ant. 2,279-280) and at Pharaoh's court (Exod 6:28-7:13: Ar
tap. 3,27; Philo, Mos. 1,91-94; Jos. Ant. 2,281-287) belong to this cate
gory. A typical one is the punishment of Korah (Num 16,1-17:31: Philo,
Mos. 2,278-287; L.A.B. 16; Jos. Ant. 4,11-66), which confirms either
Moses' prophecy, the entire Law, or Moses' priesthood. Elijah closed
heaven (1 Kgs 17:1-6: Sir 48:2-3 Jos. Ant. 8,319-323), and opened it at
Carmel (1 Kgs 18:41-45; Jos. Ant. 8,343), and sends fire from heaven (2
Kgs 1:9-15; Jos. Ant. 9,20-21 and Ant. 8,328-346). The scoffing words of
the Egyptian priest led to his painful death (Artap. 3,24-26).
Some miracles hardly fit any of Theissen's categories. Yet, the stories
about the birth of Moses (Exod 1:1-2:25: Philo, Mos. 1,65-84; L.A.B. 9;
Jos. Ant. 2,205-237) or of Samson (Judg 13:1-25; L.A.B. 42; Jos. Ant.
5,276-285), or the end of Moses (Philo, Mos. 2,288-291; L.A.B. 19; Jos.
Ant. 4,326) or of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9-18: Sir 48:9; Jos. Ant. 9,28) can easily
be categorized. However, it is more difficult to classify the stories about
the seizing of the ark with their different agents, Jeremiah (Liv. Pro. 2:915; Eupolemus in Euseb. praep. ev. 9,39,2-5; in 2 Mace 2:4, 4 Bar. 3;
4QapcrJer\ God (L.A.B. 26,13) or an angel (2 Bar. 6:3-9).
d. The Greek influence

The Graeco-Roman spirit influenced the manner of retelling the Old Tes
tament miracles, in both form and content. Hellenistic short biographies
together with the Jewish heritage formed the passages in Ben Sira's Laus
patrum and the Lives of the Prophets. Artapanus and Josephus chose the
form of Greek historiography, offering more and less serious models. Eze
kiel put the great exodus in the form of a tragedy and followed Aeschylus'
path in his Exagoge. However, although Ezekiel thus took the form origi
nally belonging to the cult of Dionysus, the content of his work is astonish
ingly faithful to the biblical original and the Jewish heritage. Many other
writers were not as faithful. Artapanus made Moses Mousaios, Orpheus'
teacher, and based the entire Greek culture on Moses' wisdom. Moses is,
as Abraham, Trpcoxos eupriTrjs of various things, and the plague on the
10. Conclusion
293
river was the first time the Nile flooded the fields. Artapanus is a good
example of how the biblical stories were quasi-historically put into a
Graeco-Roman historical framework. Philo and Josephus also took the
same path. Both of them emphasized Moses' role as a general, ruler and
law-giver more than as a miracle-worker, although they retold most of his
miracles. Josephus especially showed how the Jewish tradition was merged
with Graeco-Roman folklore. This is particularly obvious in the stories
concerning the birth and also the death of some biblical heroes. Greek
thought certainly influenced people such as Philo and Josephus, who ap
preciated Greek writers. However, even the radical Book of Jubilees used
the Greek topos of T r p c o T o s EUprjTrjs to emphasize Abraham's signifi
cance. It was impossible to avoid the Graeco-Roman influence.
The Graeco-Roman influence was not, on the other hand, as significant
as sometimes supposed. The Jews were aware of the anti-Jewish version of
the exodus, which made Moses a sorcerer and the Hebrews evil people
expelled from Egypt because of the pestilence. Nonetheless, Josephus, who
quotes the anti-Jewish writers, apparently considered that the best way to
defend Moses was simply to retell his miracles. This is also Philo's way.
Although LXX avoids the word Aoipos, Ezekiel freely uses it. Philo tells
about AOIJJIKCX appcoaTr||jaTa of the animals and Josephus uses the word
v6oos, also used for bad diseases.
But above all, the Jewish tradition formed and preserved a particular way
way to deal with the biblical miracles, and it clearly differs from the Greek
view. The biblical miracles belonged to the glorious past, which formed
the identity of the nation. But the miracles not only belonged to the past;
they were expected to be repeated in the future: Die Urzeit entspricht der
Endzeit. This is the typical Jewish feature, often spiced with war between
good and evil powers, that explains much of the Jewish miracle tradition.
e. Biases and functions of the miracle stories

A study of the texts has revealed some important biases and functions
common to many Jewish texts. Some biases suggested in the previous re
search, however, could not be confirmed.
1) An early and important function of the retold miracle stories was to
praise God and simultaneously the glorious past of the nation. This func
tion is strongly present in Laus patrum in Ben Sira, and it is an important
factor especially in Ezekiel the Tragedian and Philo. This function of the
biblical stories was not only limited to literature. The plagues in Egypt and
the miracle at the Red Sea were never forgotten in early Judaism. Philo
tells about the choirs singing the praises of God's victory, and Mishna
294
10. Conclusion
supposes that it was remembered daily. It also meant that the holy past was
always present among the Jews.
2) The men making miracles were involved in the war between the pow
ers. LXX and 1 Chr 21:1 attest that some strange deeds of God were at
tributed either to his angel or even to Satan. This view of the good powers
poised against evil is strongly developed in the retold biblical miracle sto
ries of early Judaism. Jub. presents Moses and his Egyptian opponents as
mere puppets led by the good or bad angels. A similar view also appears in
L.A.B., when David fights Goliath and is supported by God's angels. As
seen above, the figures of Abraham and Solomon were altered so that they
were able to control the demons.
3) A bias resulting in considerable alterations to the miracle stories is that
many early Jewish writers were unwilling to present God in dialogue with
men. Admittedly, Ezekiel the Tragedian retains the dialogues between God
and Moses and L.A.B. even adds them, but particularly Jub., Artapanus,
Philo and Josephus remove, reduce or reshape the dialogues. The reason is
the theology present in Aristobulus' fragments: God's anthropomorphic
traits were honourably reduced. That God was distanced from the human
spheres and no longer spoke D ' E T ^ K D ^ S with men had several conse
quences. The roles of God and men were redistributed (see below), and
angels occasionally filled the gap between God and men.
4) The war between the good and evil powers is thus present in the retold
biblical stories. Including Mediterranean magic in the Jewish miracle tradi
tion was only one step away. Moses' rod plays an interesting role in Ar
tapanus and Ezekiel. This holy rod punishes the Egyptians in different
ways, and L.A.B. finally puts it into the heavenly Temple. The holy name,
later so important in Mediterranean magic, was occasionally introduced in
the stories. Jub. shows how Mastema and his demons attack people need
ing protection. This protection was offered to Abraham and Moses by good
angels in Jub., by Solomon's skills in Josephus, and David's hymns in
L.A.B. and in the Qumran texts. Magic was by no means nonsense; it was a
danger to be averted with God's help. The line between the protection
allowed and "the ways of the Amorites" was blurred, as in most parts of
the Mediterranean world.
5) It has been commonly claimed that the Jews were keen to rationalise
and reduce the miraculous, and that the obvious tendency to exaggerate the
miraculous is seldom observed. However, many early Jewish writers were
happy to retell the biblical stories, and to make events even more miracu
lous. Artapanus, for instance, exaggerates the biblical plagues, but so do
Philo and Josephus, and L.A.B. makes Samson stronger than the biblical
original. LXX exaggerates instead of reduces the miraculous in Dan 4.
6) The topos to seek and laud the first inventor of a technique was com
mon in the Greek culture, and it is widely used in Artapanus, who makes
10. Conclusion
295
all Jewish fathers he deals with innovators in important fields such as as

trology, letters or administration. It is notable that even Jub., although
written in Palestine and considered anti-Hellenistic, uses this topos by hav
ing Abraham discover the use of the plough.
7) Early Jewish writers seldom retold miracle stories that could put Israel
or its leaders in a negative light. The stories about the bronze snake, the
punishment of Miriam and, especially, the water from the rock, leading to
the punishment of Moses not being allowed to go the Promised Land, were
retold seldom, if ever. Of course, some traits in many stories were sup
pressed because the writer wanted to exonerate the biblical figures.
8) Several scholars have assumed that Jewish writers tried to rationalise
the miracle stories, because Gentiles mocked their credulity. The view is
most common in the studies on Josephus, but occurs also in research on
Ben Sira, Artapanus and Philo. Its most prominent advocate is Feldman.
However, the entire concept of "rationalisation" is questionable: What we
call miracles were in the Old Testament and in texts such as Philo thought
to be only a part of God's mighty deeds. Philo expressis verbis confesses
his belief that God is able to do everything, also the most marvellous mira
cles told of in the Scripture. Although he may give a more natural version
of, for example, the story about the water that became sweet, it can hardly
be called a "rationalisation". Josephus also retells almost every biblical
miracle-story without omitting their most miraculous traits; he freely em
phasizes Solomon's miraculous wisdom and is obviously proud of the tra
dition alive in his own times. Like Artapanus and Philo, Josephus may
even exaggerate the miraculous. The Jewish writers could diminish the
miraculous for several reasons: to imitate the Greek historians (Artapanus,
Josephus) or to play down the political fervour, as in Josephus retelling the
life of Joshua and Elijah. They also could freely link God's saving deeds
with his other activities, just as Ben Sira connected the sweet water with
God's help given through the physicians. There is very little evidence,
however, that the miracles as such would have been problematic to Jews,
and the scarce evidence on the alleged Gentile reaction is collected from
the writings of a few sceptical authors.
9) An ancient Jewish writer seldom if ever distinguished between the
biblical and his own times, which means that the biblical stories were eas
ily adapted and contemporized in very different ways. They could relate to
the life of an individual and act as a guide. Jub. presented Abraham and
Moses as exemplary men remaining faithful under Mastema's attacks, and
the ethical exemplary function is also occasionally present in a negative
way (Samson). Another kind of adaptation uses a biblical hero as a vehicle
for new arts new concepts: Abraham, David and Solomon were able to
control the demons, and their skills certainly protected exorcists from criti
cism. But an adaptation of the biblical miracle stories had a much wider
296
10. Conclusion
dimension when the entire glorious past was used to strengthen the people:
Ben Sira could use the biblical miracles in praise of the fathers; Jub., Philo
and Ezekiel the Tragedian could use them, but, above all, L.A.B. and the
fragmentary works on Joshua attest the power of the holy past. Conse
quently, it is no wonder that Josephus was not keen to emphasize the zealousness of Joshua and Elijah.
10) A strong biblical function of the miracle stories is that they legitimate
a man as a leader sent by God. This function, so significant in the stories
about the exodus and conquest, exists in early Judaism in different tones.
The Book of Jubilees has preserved it, particularly when describing Abra
ham. However, because Moses' position was very strong in early Judaism,
legitimisation through miracles has often (as in Ben Sira) lost its function,
and can either be left out or remain as only an echo of the biblical texts
(Philo, L.A.B.). The function is sometimes needed again when a text is di
rected to a Gentile audience (Josephus). A very interesting feature is that a
military leader is legitimated through the Spirit in L.A.B., which also helps
to understand people such as Theudas and the Egyptian.
11) Several of the Jewish authors studied above reveal a notable function
of the miracle stories present especially in the stories on Samson (De
Sampsone, L.A.B., Josephus). The synagogal tradition used the biblical
stories in ethical instruction, adding and removing what was needed. This
was the main goal of Philo in using the miracle stories, as well as the rest
of the biblical tradition. The stories about individuals and about entire
peoples (the Israelites and the Egyptians or Amalekites) were used to teach
the audience to control pleasure. God was present, punishing the sinners,
but rewarding and helping his own people.
12) The miracles were not always retold seriously; the function of enter
tainment is sometimes obvious. Many of the details presented above reveal
a delight in retelling and developing the biblical miracles. Although it was
certainly a part of the oral tradition - Samson's fight against the lion is
proudly retold in De Sampsone - Artapanus' fragments attest that rewriting
the great past could also be very entertaining.
13) Competition between the miracle-workers sometimes appears in the
texts. Artapanus is especially happy in presenting the Egyptian opponents
of Moses, and their competition results in the names of Jannes and Jam
bres, the famous sorcerers. Philo and Josephus, too, enjoy telling about the
meeting at Pharaoh's court, but remove the sorcerers when retelling the
plagues. A competition between the miracle-workers thus exists in the
Jewish texts, but it is by no means a decisive function of the retold stories.
A missionary function occurs very seldom if ever. Although writers such
as Artapanus and Josephus like to show the superiority of Moses, a link to
a mission is difficult to specify. When Philo and Josephus write to Gentiles
297
10. Conclusion
they emphasize traits of the biblical Moses which are not connected to
miracles.
/ The audience
The question about the intended audience of the retold miracle stories is
generally very complicated, and should be observed better than has been
done up to now.
Several Jewish writers obviously tried to attract Gentile readers, and it
certainly influences the way they dealt with the biblical material, including
the miracle stories. However, it is not enough to refer to the "Gentile rea
ders" and quote a few sceptical writers who were critical of the miracu
lous. Although some of the Gentiles were sceptical, a large part of the peo
ple, consisting of all social classes, loved anything miraculous. This was
the audience Artapanus successfully tried to reach, and it is simply non
sense to say that Josephus' targeted audience was made up of sceptics. His
main Gentile audience consisted of people interested in the Jewish heri
tage, also in its miraculous elements.
The authors seeking mainly Jewish readers could generally expect eve
ryone to know the biblical stories. Only a few words were needed to refer
to them in Ben Sira, for instance. But the Jewish audience also had to be
specified: L.A.B., for example, is written for a people well aware of the
biblical material and in a very difficult situation, and it certainly had a
strong political message. Apparently Philo - and he was not alone - used a
double-edged strategy: He wrote for the Jews in Alexandria and was will
ing to teach them, but on the other hand, he obviously expected Gentiles to
read his works, too.
g. The roles of God and man and Moses extraordinary
position
The roles of God and man are often drastically changed in the retold sto
ries. Sometimes man's role is emphasized (Artapanus), sometimes reduced
(Jub.), but the most interesting feature is that in several texts the river
flows in opposite directions inside a text. Josephus strongly emphasizes
God's role in the plagues, but Moses' role at Pharaoh's court. He is not the
only early Jewish author inconsistent on this point: Neither Philo nor
L.A.B. show a unified line either. The main redactional line has thus not
been to emphasize or to reduce man's role in the miracles; the reason is
that almost all writers were unwilling to present God in dialogue with man
as the Old Testament does. The primary bias, the removal of the dialogues
298
10. Conclusion
(or adding them as in L.A.B.!), has led to secondary consequences not al

ways considered.
In any case, the role of men is an important theme for study in the texts,
but it should be observed that different readers interpreted the roles differ
ently. The audience of Ben Sira hardly interpreted Joshua, Elijah, Elisha
and Isaiah as "Bearers of Numinous Power" (BNP's), although some
words could be interpreted to imply this if taken isolated, without the Jew
ish horizon and analogia fidei. On the other hand, Artapanus also success
fully sought Gentile readers, and they hardly could interpret Moses as
other than an independent miracle-worker.
Some Jewish texts, such as The Book of Wisdom, greatly reduced the
roles of the human agents in the miracle stories. Although The Book of
Jubilees inserts the war between the powers into the biblical stories and
makes men only puppets of the good or bad angels, the texts studied in the
present book mainly take another course. The short passages in Ben Sira's
Laus patrum show how proud the writer was of the famous miracle-making
Israelites. Ezekiel the Tragedian expands Moses' role only in Moses'
dream, but Artapanus lets him act almost alone, and makes him a BNP for
his Gentile readers. Philo is inconsistent, his view affected by the tendency
to distance God from human spheres, and Josephus offers no consistent
line either. The Lives of the Prophets contains several different views, as
can be expected in a collection.
The advocates of the 0s?os avrjp-hypothesis once supposed that miracles
were told about persons to make them divine or half-gods. Previous studies
have criticised the fundamentals of the hypothesis and the present book
gives further support to the criticism. The miracles are only one and not a
decisive side of Moses' picture in Philo and Josephus. He is above all a
lawgiver, a general and a philosopher. Exod 7:1, in saying that God will
make Moses god to Pharaoh, offered an opportunity to alter Moses so that
he would fit the alleged B E T O S avrjp - pattern. However, the Greek version
of Ben Sira changed the sense and Philo tries to explain the very limited
way in which Moses was a god. The miracle-making Moses does not reach
the pinnacle of his position in Philo's or Josephus' texts, but in Ezekiel the
Tragedian and in L.A.B. Moses' dream in Exagoge is a very important text,
in which a man is given an extraordinary position on a throne God gives
him, and the writer of L.A.B. lets Moses die in gloria, saying mutata est
effigies eius. However, the background here is obviously Jewish and not
Greek.
10. Conclusion
299
h. Geography and chronology

It is useful to look at the entire material studied here from a geographical
and chronological point of view.
Whether or not a Palestinian midrashic tradition can be separated from the
Egyptian one is an old question. It should be answered negatively concern
ing details: Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and Josephus all share the detail that
the insects in the plagues were not of a conventional kind. Philo includes
the theory of elements when presenting the plagues, but the Palestinian
tradition also shows interest in the unusual roles of heaven and earth.
Moses' birth and death awaken a similar interest in both traditions. It
seems impossible to separate the details of the tradition. Artapanus and
Ezekiel are keen to retell the biblical and new miracles. The same is true
for the Lives of the Prophets. However, there are marked differences, if the
entire theology of miracles of the texts is investigated.
The glorious past is as important to Philo as it is to Ben Sira or to the
writer of Jub., but the ancient miracles gained special roles in Palestine,
where people tried to repeat them and so legitimate themselves as leaders
of Israel. The historical persons are subject to another study, but L.A.B.
and Liv. Pro. show that expectations were a part of the religious reality in
Palestine. They understandably had less importance for people living in an
Alexandrine T T O A I T E U I J O : , although the tensions there should not be onesidedly excluded. Nonetheless, the literary figure of Kenaz shows the
power of the religious tradition in Palestine. Josephus, on the other hand,
had to carefully observe this side, especially when presenting Joshua: He
attributes little space to the conquest, and he is not at all keen to retell
Joshua's miracles.
Artapanus, Ezekiel and Philo show little or no interest in the war be
tween the good and evil powers, although this is a crucial theme in the
miracle stories of Jub., and L.A.B., as well as Josephus, shows traces of it.
We may conclude that the belief in Qumran was compatible with this view,
also in regard to miracles, and the demonic world influenced how the
miracle stories were interpreted. In Jub. Abraham and Moses have a new
opponent, Mastema, attacking them as the demons attacked people in
Qumran. They are also obstructed by Davidic psalms. Josephus, too, tells
how Solomon's wisdom helped the Jews to expel the demons. L.A.B.
shows the dangerous link between the political adaptation of the miracle
stories and the view that the cosmological order decides human battles. But
the connection between the Old Testament miracle stories and the war be
tween the spirits not only had political consequences. It also formed a multifaceted complex, in which sin, forgiveness and immanent health were
combined in an original way. This is obviously a subject for further study,
300
10. Conclusion
which can contribute to a deeper understanding of the New Testament

miracle stories.
It is easy to conclude that a very early practice to use was the praise of the
glorious past. It is well attested in the Old Testament and strongly present
from Ben Sira to Josephus in the texts studied here. The political signifi
cance of the biblical stories is a natural consequence of this, and as seen, is
stronger in Palestine than in Egypt. It is impossible to trace the history of
this bias: Its roots were so strong that an adaptation of the stories could
appear whenever it was needed. The war between the powers is a novum in
the Jewish miracle stories, although Jewish demonology also had roots in
the Old Testament. The few sources preserved do not allow us to draw a
historical line. Although Ben Sira does not show interest in it, Jub. does,
and it is certainly not the first text of its kind. L.A.B. and Josephus attest
that this view cannot be limited to the Qumran community and related
groups. The Hellenizations are present in the anti-Hellenistic Jub. and,
afterwards, especially in the altered stories, about the birth and death of the
heroes.
It is interesting that all the writers studied retold the stories freely. There is
no trace of quoting the original word for word, and then interpreting the
passage. Josephus may say that he follows the original without adding or
omitting anything to the Scripture and it certainly was his own view of his
work. However, he added, omitted and redacted miracle stories, uncon
sciously and even consciously. Also, the most devoted and conservative
Jews, including the writers of Jub. and L.A.B., could deal very freely with
the stories. Philo considers the stories of the old men a source alongside
the Scriptures (Mos. 1,4). Like his colleagues, he still lived in a world in
which the biblical exegete was not primarily interested in the world the
biblical persons lived in, but in the world of his audience. This strong and
living tradition of the biblical miracles should be better observed in New
Testament exegesis than has been done in recent years.
Bibliography
A. Sources, Texts and Translations

The Old Testament:
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,
emendata. Stuttgart 1990.
ed. K. ELLIGER and W. RUDOLPH et al., editio quarta
Septuaginta:
RAHLFS, Alfred, Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretum 12. Stuttgart 1935.
Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. J.W. WEVERS et al. G6ttingen 1974-.
Ben Sira:
BEENTJES, Pancratius C, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant
Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden New York - K5ln 1997. Vetus Testamentum Suppl. 68.
Dl LELLA, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Transl. with notes by Patrick W.
SKEHAN, introduction and commentary by Alexander Dl LELLA. New York 1987. The
Anchor Bible 39.
The Book of Jubilees:

The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, ed. by James C. VANDERKAM (1989a). Leuven
1989. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 87.
-, The Book of Jubilees, translated by James C. VANDERKAM (1989b). Leuven 1989.
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 88.
Ezekiel:
JACOBSON, Howard, The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge - London - New York - New
Rochelle- Melbourne- Sydney 1983.
Artapanus:
HOLLADAY, Carl R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians.
Chico, California 1983. SBL Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 10-20.
Philo:
Philo. With an English translation ed. by F.H. COLSON, G.H. WHITAKER et al. London
1949-1953. Loeb Classical Library.
Bibliography
302
The Lives of the Prophets:
SCHWEMER, Anna Maria, Studien zu den fruhjiidischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum 1-11. Tubingen 1995-1996. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 49.
- , HARE, Douglas A., "The Lives of the Prophets", OTP 2 (1985), 379-399.
Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum:
JACOBSON, Howard, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

with Latin Text and English Translation 1-2. Leiden - New York - K6ln 1996. AGJU
31.
- , HARRINGTON, Daniel J., "Pseudo-Philo", OTP 2 (1985), 397-377.
Josephus:
Josephus. With an English translation ed. by H. St. J. THACKERAY et al. London 19261965. Loeb Classical Library.
Other sources and texts (see also sction B.):

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1-2, ed. by James H. Charlesworth. New York London - Toronto - Sydney - Auckland 1983-1985.
GARCiA MARTINEZ, Florentino - TlGCHELAAR, Eibert J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition I-II. Leiden - New York -Koln 1997-1998.
B. Subsidia
ALBANI, Matthias, FREY, J6rg and LANGE, Armin, Studies in the Book of Jubilees.
Tubingen 1997. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65.
ALBERTZ, R., " ^ D " , THWAT2 (1984), 414-420.
ALEXANDER, Philip S., "Incantations and Books of Magic", Emil Schurer, The History of
the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135) 3.1., rev. ed. by
Geza VERMES, Fergus MILLAR and Martin GOODMAN, 342-379. Edinburgh 1986.
- , "The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls", The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A
Comprehensive Assessment,, ed. by Peter W. FLINT and James C. VANDERKAM with
the assistance of Andrea E. ALVAREZ, 2, 331-353. Leiden - Boston - Koln 1999.
- , "Jewish Elements in Gnosticism an Magic c. CE 70- c. 270", The Cambridge History of
Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John
STURDY, 1052-1078. Cambridge 1999.
ALEXANDRE, Manuel, "Rhetorical Argumentation as an Exegetical Technique in Philo of
Alexandria", Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky edite par A.
CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL et J. RlAUD, 13-41. Leuven -
Paris 1986.
ATTRIDGE, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the "Antiquitates Judaicae"

of Flavius Josephus, Missoula 1976. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7.
- , "Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets", OTP 2 (1985), 821-830.
AUNE, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Grand Rapids 1983.
BARCLAY, John M.G., "Manipulating Moses: Exodus 2.10-15 in Egyptian Judaism and
the New Testament", Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson, ed. by
Robert P. CARROLL, 28-46. Sheffield 1992. JSOT.S 138.
Bibliography
303
-, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE -117 CE).
Edinburgh 1996.
BARNETT, P.W., The Jewish Eschatological Prophets A.D. 40-70 in their Theological
and Political Setting (not printed). London 1977.
- "The Jewish Sign Prophets - A.D. 40-70: Their Intentions and Origin", NTS 27 (1981),
679-697.
BARRACLOUGH, Ray, "Philo's Politics: Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism", ANRW
2.21.1. (1984), 417-553.
BASSER, H.W., "Josephus as Exegete", JAOS 107 (1987), 21-30.
BAUCKHAM, R., "The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospel as
'Midrash'", Gospel Perspectives 3 (1983), 33-76.
BECKER, Michael, "4Q521 und die Gesalbten", Revue de Qumran 18 (1997), 73-96.
-, Wunder und Wundertdter im friihrabbinischen Judentum. Studien zum Phanomen und
seiner Uberlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Ddmonismus. Tubingen 2002.
WUNT 2,144.
BEEGLE, Dewey M., "Moses", ABD 4 (1992), 909-920.
BEENTJES, Pancratius C , "Hezekiah and Isaiah. A Study on Ben Sira XLVII: 15-27", OTS
25 (1989), 77-88.
-, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew : A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts
and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden - New York - Koln
1997. Vetus Testamentum Suppl. 68.
BEGG, Christopher, "'Josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and
Moses': Some Observations", JBL 109 (1990), 691-693.
- , "Joash and Elisha in Josephus Ant 9,177-185", ^ 3 2 (1994), 28-46.
- , "Elisha's Great Deeds according to Josephus", Henoch 18 (1996), 69-110.
BEN ZEEV, Miriam Pucci, "The Reliability of Josephus Flavius: The Case of Hecataeus'
and Manetho's Accounts of Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years of Contemporary
Research (1974-1990)", JSJ2A (1993), 215-234.
BERGER, Klaus 1981, = Das Buch der Jubilaen", JSHRZ 2,3 (1981).
- , (= 1984a) Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg 1984.
- , (=1984b) "Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament", ANRW 2.25.2 (1984),
1031-1432.1831-1885.
BERNHEIMER, R., Vitae Prophetarum., JAOS 55 (1935), 200-203.
BETZ, Otto, "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum
Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium", Jesus der Messias
Israels. Aufsdtze zur biblischen Theologie, 398-419. Tubingen 1987. WUNT 42.
- , "Der Tod des Choni-Onias im Licht der Tempelrolle von Qumran. Bemerkungen zu
Josephus' antiquitates 14,22-24", ibid. 59-74.
- , "The Essenes", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by
William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 444-470. Cambridge 1999.
BlELER, Ludvig, 0 E I O I A N H P . Das Bild des "Gottlichen Menschen" in Spdtantike

und Friihchristentum 1-2. Wien 1935-36.
BIRNBAUM, Ellen, "Allegorical Interpretation and Jewish Identity among Alexandrian
Jewish Writers", Neotestamentica et Philonica. Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed.
by David E. AUNE, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen, 309-329. Leiden Boston 2003.
BlETENHARD, Hans, Der Tosefta-Traktat Sota. Hebraischer Text und kritischer Apparat,
Ubersetzung, Kommentar. Bern 1986. Judaica et Christiana.
BlLDE, Per, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and
their Importance. Sheffield 1988. JSPSup 2.
Bibliography
304
BLACKBURN, Barry L., Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tubingen 1991.
WUNT 2.40.
BOCHER, Otto, Ddmonenfurcht und Ddmonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der
christlichen Taufe. Stuttgart- Berlin - K o l n - Mainz 1970. BWANT 10.
-, Christus Exorcista. Ddmonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart - Berlin K 5 l n - Mainz 1972. BWANT 16.
- , "Damonen ('bdse Geister')", TRE 8 (1981), 270-286.
- , "Exorzismus. I Neues Testament", TRE 10 (1982), 746-750.
BOGAERT, P.M., "Les A n t i q u e s Bibliques du Pseudo-Philon a la lumiere des
dScouvertes de Qumran. Observations sur 1' hymnologie et particulierement sur le
chapitre 60", Qumran. A sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu, ed. by M. DELCOR, 313331. Paris - Leuven 1978. BETL 46.
BOHL, F., "Die Legende vom Verbergen der Lade", FJB 4 (1976), 63-80.
BONNEAU, G., - J. DUHAIME, "AngeTologie et legitimation socio-religieuse dans le livre
des Jubil6s", Eglise et Teologie 27 (1996), 333-349.
BOOTH, A. Peter, "The Voice of the Serpent: Philo's Epicureanism", Hellenization
Revised. Shaping a Christian Response within the Graeco-Roman World, ed. by
Wendy E. HELLEMAN, 159-172. Lanham- New Y o r k - London 1994.
BORGEN, Peder, Bread from Heaven. An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the
Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. Leiden 1965. Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 10.
- , "Philo of Alexandria: A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research since World War
II", ANRW 2,21 (1984), 98-154.
-, Philo, John and Paul. New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. Atlanta
1987. Brown Judaic Studies 131.
- , "Philo of Alexandria", ABD 5 (1992), 333-342.
-, Philo of Alexandria. An Exegete for his Time. Leiden - New York - K6ln 1997.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum 86.
BOWIE, Ewelyn Lyall, "Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic", PaP 46 (1970),
3-41.
- , "Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality", ANRW2A6.2 (1978), 1652-1699.
BROCK, S.P., "Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11-12 and its
Implications", JSJ9 (1978), 135-162.
BOWLEY, J.E., "Josephus' Use of Greek Sources for Biblical History", Pursuing the Text:
Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday,
ed. by J.C. REEVES and J. KAMPEN, 202-215. Sheffield 1994.
BULTMANN, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. GSttingen 1921.

FRLANT 29.
CHARLES, R.H., The Book of Jubilees Translated from the Editor's Ethiopic Text. London
1902.
CHARLESWORTH, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a
Supplement. 2 ed. 1981. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7.
- , "Greek, Persian, Roman, Syrian and Egyptian Influences in Early Jewish Theology: a
Study of the History of the Rechabites", Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a Valentin
Nikiprowetzky dite" par A. CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL et J. RlAUD, 219-243. Leuven Paris 1986.
- , "The Son of David: Solomon and Jesus (Mark 10.47)", The New Testament and
Hellenistic Judaism, ed. by Peder BORGEN - S6ren GlVERSEN, 72-87. Aarhus 1995.
CHRISTIANSEN, Irmgard, Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft bei
Philon von Alexandrien. Tubingen 1969.
n d
Bibliography
305
COGGINS, Richard J., Sirach. Sheffield 1998. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.
COHN, L., "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria", JQR 10 (1898), 277332).
COLLINS, John J., "Artapanus", OTP 2 (1985), 889-903
- , "The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls", Congress
Volume, Paris 1992, 25-38. Leiden 1992. NT.S 61.
-, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
literature. New York 1995. Anchor Bible Reference Library.
- , "Jesus and the Messiahs of Israel", Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion : Festschrift fur
Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag,
hg. von Hubert CANCIK, Hermann
LlCHTENBERGER und Peter SCHAFER, 3, 287-302. Tubingen 1996.
- , (2000a) Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora.
2 ed. Michigan 2000. The Biblical Resource Series.
- , (200b) "Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt", For a Later
Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early
Christianity, ed. by Randal A. ARGAL, Bewerly A. Bow and Rodney A. WERLINE, 5262. Harrisburg 2000.
COLPE, Carsten, "Samaria 3", RGG 5 (1961), 1353-1355.
- , "Geister (DSmonen). A. Grundsatzliches zur Theorie des Animismus u. zur Bewertung
antiker Geistervorstellungen" (= Colpe 1976a), RAC 9 (1976), 546-553.
- , "Geister (DSmonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, a. Agypten" (=Colpe 1976b),
RAC 9 (1976), 553-562.
- , "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, b. Mesopotamien, Syrien,
Kleinasien" (=Colpe 1976c), RAC 9 (1976), 562-578.
- , "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, d. Iran" (=Colpe 1976d), RAC
9 (1976), 585-598.
- , "Geister (DSmonen) B. Nichtchristlich. III. Ostliche Mittelmeerwelt seit dem 4./3. vC.
a. Synkretismus in Agypten" (=Colpe 1976e), RAC 9 (1976), 615-625.
COLSON, F.F., "Philo on Education", JTS 18 (1917), 151-162.
- , (=COLSON 1934) = Philo VI. With an English translation by F.H. COLSON. London
1935 (1994). Loeb Classical Library 289.
CORRINGTON, Gail Paterson, The "Divine Man ". His Origin and Function in Hellenistic
Popular Religion. New York - Bern - Frankfurt a.M. 1986. American University
Studies 7,17.
DASSMANN, Ernst, "Hesekiel", RAC 14 (1988), 1132-1191.
DAWSON, David, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria.
Berkeley - Los Angeles - Oxford 1992.
DELCOR, Mathias, "Jewish Literature in Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek Era", The
Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed by. W.D. DAVIES and Louis
FlNKELSTElN, 352-384. Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester Melbourne- Sydney 1989.
DELLING, Gerhard, "Josephus und das Wunderbare", cited according to: Studien zum
Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum. Gesammelte Aufsdtze 1950-1968,
hg. von Ferdinand HAHN, Traugott HOLTZ and Nikolaus WALTER, 130-145. Gottingen
1970.
- , "Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus", Josephus-Studien.
Untersuchungen zu
Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament (FS Otto MICHEL), hg. von
n d
Otto BETZ, Klaus HAACKER und Martin HENGEL, 109-121. GOttingen 1974.
306
Bibliography
Dl LELLA, Alexander A . , The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Transl. with Notes by Patrick W.
SKEHAN, Introduction and Commentary by Alexander Dl LELLA. New York 1987. The
Anchor Bible 39.
- , "Wisdom of Ben-Sira", ABD 6 (1992), 931-945.
DlETZFELBINGER, Christian, "Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae (Liber antiquitatum
BiblicarumT JSHRZ 2,2 (1979).
DILLON, John, "Die Vita Pythagorica - ein Evangelium?", Jamblich flEPI TOY
nVSArOPE/OY BIOY. Pythagoras: Legende - Lehre - Lebensgestaltung, hg.
Michael von ALBRECHT, John DILLON, Martin GEORGE and Michael LURJE, David S.
DU TOIT, 295-301. Darmstadt 2002. SAPERE 4.

DU TOIT, David S . Theios anthropos: zur Verwendung von theios anthropos und
sinnverwandten Ausdriicken in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Tubingen 1997. WUNT
2.91.
DULING, Dennis C , "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David", HThR 68 (1975), 235252.
- , "The Eleazar Miracle and Salomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's
Antiquitates Judaicae 8,42-49", HThR 78 (1985), 1-25.
- , "Solomon, Testament o f , ABD 6 (1992), 117-119.
DUPONT-SOMMER, Andre, "Exorcismes et guensons dans les ecrits de Qoumran",
Congress Volume, Oxford 1959.246-261. Leiden 1960. NT.S 7.
- , /MOLLER, Walter W., Die essenischen Schriften vom Toten Meer. Tubingen 1959.
DURHAM, John I., Exodus. Waco 1987. Word Biblical Commentary 3.
ENDRES, John C , Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Washington DC 1987.
CBQMS 18.
ESKOLA, Timo, Messiah and the Throne. Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early
Christian Exaltation Discourse. Tubingen 2001. WUNT 2.142.
EVANS, Craig, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Leiden - New York
- Koln 1995. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums
25.
EVE, Eric, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles. Sheffield 2002. JSNT. S. 231.
FELDMAN, Louis H . , "The Orthdoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt", JSSt 22 (1960),
215-237.
- , "Prolegomenon", The Biblical Antiquities of Philo transl. by M.R. James, ix-clxviii.
New York 1971. The Library of Biblical Studies.
- , "Epilegomenon to Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)", JJS 24
(1974), 305-312.
- , "Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon",
Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity ed. by Elisabeth
Schiisser FlORENZA, 69-98. Notre Dame, Indiana 1976.
- , FELDMAN 1981 = Josephus in Ten Volumes 10. London 1981. Loeb Classical Library.
- , "Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities", Josephus, the
Bible and History, ed. by Louis H. FELDMAN und Gohei HATA, 59-80. Detroit 1989.
- , "Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus", JTS41 (1990), 386-422.
- , "Josephus' Portrait of Moses", JQR 82 (1991-1992), 285-328.
- , "Josephus, Portrait of Korah", OTE 6 (1993), 399-426.
- , "Josephus' Portrait of Elijah", SJOTS (1994), 62-86.
-, Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin
Concordance to the Portions Missing in Greek. Leiden 1996.
- , (= 1998a) Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley - Los Angeles - London
1998. Hellenistic culture and society 27.
Bibliography
307
- , ( = 1998b) Studies in Josephus's Rewritten Bible. Leiden - Boston - Koln 1998.

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58.
- , "Josephus", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by
William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 901-921. Cambridge 1999.
- , "On Proferssor Mark Roncace's Portraits of Deborah and Gideon in Josephus", JSJ 32
(2001), 193-220.
- , "Philo's Interpretation of Joshua", JSP 12 (2001), 165-178.
FLINTERMAN, Jaap-Jan, "The Ubiquitous 'Divine Man'", Numen 43 (1996), 82-98.
FLUSSER, David, "Das judische Martyrium im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels und die
Christologie", FrRu 25 (1973), 187-194.
FOSSUM, Jarl, "The New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish
Christology", SBL Seminar Papers 1991, 638-646.
FRASER, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria 1-3. Oxford 1972.
FREY, J6rg, "'Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wtiste erhoht hat ...' Zur fruhjudischen
Deutung der 'ehernen Schlange' und ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes
3,14f", Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, hg. von. Martin
HENGEL and Hermut LOHR, 153-205. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 73.
- , "Different Patterns on Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library", Legal Texts and
Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for
Qumran Studies. Published in Honour of Joseph M. BAUMGARTEN, ed. by M.
BERNSTEIN, F. Garcia MARTINEZ, J. KAMPEN, 276-335. Leiden 1997. STDJ 23.
FREYHAN, M., "Ezechiel der Tragiker", Jahrbuch fur judische Gesichichte und Literatur
31 (1938), 46-83.
GABBA, Emilio, "The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards the Jews",
The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed. by. W.D. DAVIES and
Louis FINKELSTEIN, 614-656. Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester Melbourne - Sydney 1989.
- , "The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 BCE-CE 70", The
Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY,
W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 94-167. Cambridge 1999.
GAGER, John G., Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism. Nashville 1972.
GARCIA MARTINEZ, Florentino - Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition I-II. L e i d e n - New Y o r k - K6ln 1997-1998
B. GAULY - L. KAEPPEL - R. KLIMEK-WINTER - H. KRASSER - K.-H.
STANZEL -
V.
UHRMEISTER (eds with R. KANNICHT), Musa Tragica. Die griechische Tragoedie von
Thespis bis Ezechiel. Ausgewdhlte Zeugnisse und Fragmente griechisch und deutsch,
Gottingen 1991.
GEORGI, Dieter, Die Gegner des Paulus von 2. Korintherbrief. Studien zur religioser
Propaganda in der Spdtantike. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964. WMANT 11.
-, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Edinburgh 1986.
-, WeisheitSalomos. JSHRZ 3.4. (1980).
GOLDENBERGER, Robert, "The Septuagint Ban on Cursing the Gods", JSJ2% (1997), 381389.
GOODMAN, Martin - VERMES, Geza, "Jewish Literature of which the Original Language
is Uncertain", Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ (175 B.C - A.D. 135). New English Version ed. by Geza VERMES, Fergus
MILLAR, Martin GOODMAN, 3.1., 705-889. Edinburgh 1987.
GOULDER, Michael D., The Evangelist's Calendar. A Lectionary Explanation of the
Development of Scripture. London 1978. The Speaker's Lectures in Biblical Studies.
308
Bibliography
Richard, La philosophie de Moi'se. Essai de reconstitution d' un commentaire

philosophique prephilonien du pentateuque. Paris 1987. Histoire des doctrines de 1'
antiquity classique 11.
G R A Y , Rebecca, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The
Evidence from Josephus. New York - Oxford 1993.
GRELOT, Pierre, "La priere de Nabonide (4QOrNab). Nouvel essai de rSstauration",
Revue de Qumran 9 (1978), 483-495.
- , "Nabuchodonosor change* en bete", Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994), 10-17.
G R U E N , Erich S., Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley
- Los Angeles 1998. Hellenistic Culture and Society 30.
HAACKER, Klaus - SCHAFER, Peter, "Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod Mose",
Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem Antiken Judentum und dem
Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum lO.Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. by Otto B E T Z , Klaus
HAACKER and Martin HENGEL, 147-174. Gottingen 1974.
HADAS, Moses, Hellenistic Culture. New York 1959 .
HADOT, Jean, "Le milieu d' origine du 'Liber antiquitatum biblicarum', La litterature
intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17-19 octobre 1983), 153-171. Paris 1985.
H A H N , Ferdinand, Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im friihen Christentum.
Gottingen 1963. FRLANT 83.
HALPERN- AMARU, Betsy, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Leiden Boston - K6ln 1999. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 60.
HARE, Douglas A., "The Lives of the Prophets", OTP 2 (1985), 379-399.
- , "Prophets, Lives of the", ABD 5 (1992), 503-504.
HARRINGTON, Daniel J. "A Decade of Research on Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities,"
JSPE2(\9U),
3-12.
- , "Pseudo-Philo", OTP 2 (1985), 397-377.
- , "Birth Narratives in LAB", To touch the Text: Biblical and related studies in honor of
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. by M.P.HORGAN, P. KOBELSKI, 316-324. New York 1988.
- , "Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies. I The Bible
Rewritten", Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. by R.A. K R A F T - G.W.E.
NlCKELSBURG, 239-247. 253-258. Atlanta- Philadelphia 1986.
HATA, Gohei, "The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Antisemitism".
Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 180190. Leiden 1987.
HAY, David M., "Philo's View of Himself as an Exegete: Inspired, but not Authoritative",
The Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991), 40-52.
HAYWARD, Robert, "Phinehas - the Same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradi
tion", ^ 2 9 (1978), 22-32.
HAYES, Christine, "Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources", HTR 92
(1999), 3-36.
HELLEMAN, Wendy E., "Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God",
The Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990), 51-71.
HENGEL, Martin, "Ben Sira und Hellenismus", JSJ5 (1974), 83-87.
- , (1989a) "The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus II
(222-187 B. C. E)", The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed by.
W.D DAVIES and Louis FINKELSTEIN, 3-78. Cambridge - London - New York - Port
Chester- Melbourne- Sydney 1989.
- , (1989b) The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period
from Herod I until 70 A.D. Edinburgh 1989.
GOULET,
Bibliography
309
-, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early
Hellenistic Period. Second one-volume Edition Minneapolis 1991.
- , "'Sit at My Right Hand!' The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and
Psalm 110:1", Studies in Early Christology, 119-225. Edinburgh 1995.
- , "Jerusalem als judische und hellenistische Stadt", Hellenismus: Beitrdge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen
Zeitalters, ed. Bernd FUNCK, 269-317. Tubingen 1996.
-, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon
(with the assistance of Roland DEINES). Edingburgh - New York 2002.
HOFFKEN, Peter, "Hiskija und Jesaja bei Josephus", JSJ29 (1998), 37-48.
- , "Jesus Sirachs Darstellung der Interaktion des K6nigs Hiskija und des Propheten
Jesaja (Sir 48,17-25)", JSJ 31 (2000), 162-175.
HOLLADAY, Carl R., "The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian", SBL 1976
Seminar Papers, 447-452. Missoula 1976.
-, Theios aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: a Critique of the Use of this Category in New
Testament Christology. Missoula 1977. SBLDS 40.
-, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians. Chico, California
1983. SBL Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 1 0 - 2 0 .
HORBURY, William, "Ezekiel Tragicus 106: ScopriuaTa", VT36 (1986), 37-51.
-, Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies.
London - New York 2003.
HORSLEY, Richard A.
- , /HANSON, John S., Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time
of Jesus. Minneapolis 1985.
- , "Social Relations and Social Conflict in the Epistle of Enoch " For a Later Generation:
The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed.
by Randal A. ARGAL, Bewerly A. Bow and Rodney A. WERLINE, 100-115. Harrisburg
2000.
van der HORST, Pieter, "Moses' Throne-Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist", JJS 34 (1983),
21-28.
- , "Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel", Mnemosyne 37 (1984), 354-375.
HOUTMAN, Cornelis, Exodus. Kampen 1993. Historical Commentary on the Old
Testament.
JACOBSON, Howard, "Ezekielos 12-13 (TrGF 128), AJP 98 (1977), 415-416.
- , Ezekiel the Tragedian and the Primeval Serpent" AJP 102 (1981), 316-320.
- , "The Identity and Role of Chum in Ezekiel's Exagoge", HSL 9 (1981), 272-293
- , "Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel's Exagoge" ICS 6 (1981), 272-293.
- , "Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian" GRBS22 (1981),167-78.
-, The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge - London - New York - New Rochelle Melbourne- Sydney 1983.
- , (= 1983b) "Josephus on the Death of Moses" Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented
to John Pinsent, ed. by H.D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt. Liverpool Classical Papers 3 (1983).
Liverpool Classical Monthly.
- , "Biblical Quotation and Editorial Function in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum", JSP 5 (1989), 47-64.
-, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and
English Translation 1-2. Leiden - New York - K6ln 1996. AGJU 31.
JAMES, M. R. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo: Prolegomenon by Louis H. Feldman.
New York, 1917(1971).
Jenni, Erst, '"m", ThWAT 1 (1984), 401-409.
310
Bibliography
JEREMIAS, JOACHIM, Die Heiligengrdber in Jesu Umwelt (Mt. 23,29; Lk. 11,47). Eine
Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesu. Gflttingen 1958.
JERVELL, Jacob, Die Apostelgeschichte. Gottingen 1998. KEK 17.
DE JONGE, Marinus, "Christelijke Elementen in de Vitae Prophetarum",
Nederlands
Theologisch Tijdschrift 16 (1961-62), 161-178.
KAHL, Werner, New Testament Miracle Stories in their Religious-Historical Setting. A
Religionsgeschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective. Gdttingen 1994.
FRALANT 163.
KAISER, Otto, "Krankheit und Heilung nach dem Alten Testament", MedGG 20 (2001),
9-43.
KASHER, Aryeh, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Tubingen 1985.
KlEWELER, H.W., Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Eine kritische
Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp. Wien 1992. BEAT 30.
KiSTER, Menahem, "Demons, Theology and Abraham's Covenant (CD 14:4-6 and
Related Texts)", The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty. Proceedings of the 1997 Society of
Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings, ed. by Robert A. KUGLER and Eileen M.
SCHULLER. Atlanta 1999, 167-184. Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and
its Literature 15.
KLAUCK, Hans-Josef, The Religious Context of Early Christianity. A Guide to GraecoRoman Religions. Edinburgh 2000.
KLEINGONTHER, Adolf, " T T P n T O I EYPHTHI. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer
Fragestellung", Philologus Suppl. 26.1. (1933), 1-55.
KNIBB, M. A., "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah", OTP 2 (1985), 143-176.
- Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community. London 1989.
KOSTER, Helmut, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age 1-2. Philadelphia
- B e r l i n - N e w York 1982.
- , /ROBINSON James M., Trajectories through Early Christianity. 1970. Cited according
to: Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des fruhen Christentums. Tubingen 1971.
KOLLMANN, Bernd, "Gfittliche Offenbarung magisch-pharmalogischer Heilkunst im Buch
Tobit", ZAW 106 (1994), 289-299.
-, Jesus und die Christen als Wundertdter. Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus
inAntike und Christentum. Gmtingen 1996. FRALANT 170.
KOSKENNIEMI, Erkki, Der philostrateische Apollonios. Helsinki 1991. CHL 94.
-, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und
Weiterfuhrung der Diskussion. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 2.61.
- "Apollonius of Tyana - a typical 6e?os avrjp ?" JBL 117 (1998), 455-467.
- , "Greeks, Egyptians and Jews in the Fragments of Artapanus", JSP 13 (2002), 17-31.
KOTTEK, S.S., "Magic and Healing in Hellenistic Jewish Writings", Frankfurter
Judaistische Beitrdge 27 (2000), 1-16.
KRAFT, Fritz, "Elementenlehre", Der Neue Pauly 3 (1997), 978-980.
KUIPER, K., "De Ezechiele Poeta Judaeo", Menomosyne 28 (1900), 237-280.
LANGE, Armin, "lQGenAp XIX, 10 - XX,32 as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactive
narrative", Qumranstudien.
Vortrage
und Beitrdge
der
Teilnehmer
des
Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature,
Miinster, 25.-26. Juli 1993, ed. by Heinz-Josef FABRY - Armin LANGE - Hermann
LICHTENBERGER, 191-204. Gottingen 1996. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum
Delitschianum.
- , LANGE, Armin - SlEKER, Marion, "Handschrift und Werk". Qumranstudien. Vortrage
und Beitrdge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der
Society of Biblical Literature, Miinster, 25.-26. Juli 1993, ed. by Heinz-Josef FABRY,
Bibliography
311
Armin LANGE and Hermann LICHTENBERGER, 4-34. Gottingen 1996. Schriften des
Institutum Judaicum Delitschianum.
- , "The Essene Position on Magic and Divination", Legal Texts and Legal Issues.
Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran
Studies. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. by M. BERNSTEIN, F.
GARCIA MARTINEZ, J. KAMPEN, 377-435. Leiden 1997. STDJ 23.
LEE, Thomas R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50. Atlanta, Georgia 1986. SBL
Dissertation Series 75.
LEVISON, J.R., "Torah and Covenant in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum",
Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen
Begriffsgeschichte
in
alttestamentlicher,
friihjudischer
und urchristlicher
Tradition, ed. by F. AVEMARIE and H.
LICHTENBERGER, 111-127. Tubingen 1996. WUNT 92.
- , "Josephus' Interpretation of the Divine Spirit", JJS 41 (1996), 234-255.
LEVY, Carlos, "Le 'scepticisme' de Philon d' Alexandria une influence de la nouvelle
Academie?", Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky 6dite par A.
CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL et J. RlAUD, 29-41. Leuven - Paris 1986.
LICHTENBERGER, Hermann, "Messianic expectation and messianic figures in the Second
Temple Period", Qumran-Messianism, ed. by James H. CHARLESWORTH, Hermann
LICHTENBERGER and Gerbera S. OEGEMA, 9-20. Tubingen 1998.
LlDONNlCI, Lynn R., The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions. Text, Translation and
Commentary. Atlanta 1995. JBL Texts and Translations 36, Graeco-Roman Religion
eries 11.
LlERMAN, John, The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in
the Setting of Jewish Religion. Tubingen 2004.
MACH, Michael: Entwicklungsstadien des jiidischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer
Zeit, Tubingen 1992. TSAJ 34.
MACDONALD, J., "The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses", SJT 13 (1960), 149-162.
MACK, Burton L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of Fathers.
Chicago 1985.
MACK - MURPHY 1986 = MACK, Burton - MURPHY, Roland, "Wisdom Literature", Early
Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. by Robert A. KRAFT and George W.E.
NICKELSBURG, 371-410. Philadelphia - Atlanta 1986. The Bible and its Modern
Interpreters 2.
MACRAE, George, "Miracles in the Antiquities of Josephus", Miracles.
Cambridge
Studies in their Philosophy and History, ed Charles F.D. MOULE, 127-147. London
1965.
MAIER, Gerhard, "Zur neutestamentlichen Wunderexegese im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert",
Gospel Perspectives 6 (1986), ed. by D. WENHAM - C. BLOMBERG, 49-87
MAIER, Johannes, "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, c. Israel"
(=Maier 1976a), RAC 9 (1976), 579-585.
- , "Geister (Damonen) B. Nichtchristlich. III. Ostliche Mittelmeerwelt seit dem 4./3. vC.
b. Frtihes und hellenistisches Judentum" (=Maier 1976b), RAC 9 (1976), 626-640.
- , "Geister (Damonen) B. Nichtchristlich. III. Ostliche Mittelmeerwelt seit dem 4./3. vC.
d. Talmudisches Judentum" (= Maier 1976c), RAC 9 (1976), 668-688.
-,Die Qumran-Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer 1-3. Mtinchen - Basel 1995-1996.
UTB 1862, 1863, 1916.
MARBOCK, Johannes, "Structure and Redaction History of the Book of Ben Sira. Review
and Prospects", The Book of Ben Sira in Modern research. Proceedings of the First
International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July Soesterberg, Afemerlands, ed. by
Pancratius C. BEENTJES, 61-79. Berlin - New York 1997. BZAW 1997.
312
Bibliography
MARCUS 1937 = Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books IX-XIWvth. an English translation by

Ralph MARCUS. London 1937 (2001). Loeb Classical Library 326.
MARTIN, James D., "Ben Sira's Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective", OTS 24
(1986), 107-123.
MAYER, G., " " D i , debher", Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 3 (1978), 125127.
MASON, Steven, "Should any Wish to Enquire Further' (Ant. 1,25): The Aim and
Audience of Josephus' Judean Antiquities / Life", Understanding Josephus. Seven
Perspectives, ed. by Steve MASON, 64-103. Sheffield 1998. JSOT Suppl 32.
MEEKS, Wayne, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology.
Leiden 1967. NT.S 14.
- , "The Divine Agent and his Counterfeit in Philo and the Fourth Gospel", Aspects of
Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity ed. by Elisabeth SCHOSSER
FlORENZA, 43-67, Notre Dame, Indiana 1976.
MEIER, John P., A Marginal Jew 1-3: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 v,. New York
1991. The Anchor Bible Reference Library.
MENDELS, D., "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the Fourth Philosophy' and the
Political Messianism of the First Century C.E.," The Messiah: Developments in
Earliest Judaism and Christianity ed. by J. CHARLESWORTH, 261-275. Minneapolis
1992.
MENDELSON, Alan, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati 1982.
MERKEL, Helmut, "Sibyllinen", JSHRZ5 (1998), 1041-1148
MERKELBACH, Reinhold, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans. Miinchen
1954. Zetemata 9.
van der MEULEN, H.E.F., Das Salomo-Bild im hellenistisch-judischen
Schrifttum,
Kampen 1978.
MIDDENDORP, Theophil, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und
Hellenismus. Leiden 1972.
MlTTMANN-RlCHERT, Ulrike, "Einfiihrung zu den Jtidischen Schriften aus hellenistischrdmischer Zeit. Historische und legendarische Erzahlungen", JSHRZ Supplementa 6
(2000), 2001, 156-171
MOEHRING, H., "Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus", TU
112(1973), 376-383.
- , Moses and Pythagoras: Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in Philo", Studia Biblica I:
Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, ed. by E.A. LIVINGSTONE. JSOTS 11
(1979), 205-208.
- , "Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian",
ANRW 2.21.2, 864-944.
MONDESERT, C , "Philo of Alexandria", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The
Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 877-900.
Cambridge 1999.
MONTANARI, Franco, "Alexander [23, Polyhistor]", Der Neue Pauly 1 (1996), 478-479.
MOORE, Rick Dale, God Saves. Lessons from the Elisha Stories. Sheffield 1990. JSOT.S.
95
MURPHY, F.J., "Divine Plan, Human Plan: A Structuring Theme in Pseudo-Philo", JQR
77(1986), 5-14.
- , "God in Pseudo-Philo", JSJ 18 (1988), 1-18.
- , "Retelling the Bible: Idolatry in Pseudo-Philo", JBL 107 (1988), 275-287.
- , "The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo", JSP 3 (1988), 43-57.
-, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York 1993.
Bibliography
313
NESTLE, E., "Die dem Epiphanius zugeschriebenen Vitae Prophetarum in doppelter

griechischer Rezension", Marginalien und Materialien, 1-64. Tubingen 1893.
NEWSOM, Carol A., "4Q378 and 4Q379: An Apocryphon of Joshua", Qumranstudien.
Vortrdge und Beitrdge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen
Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Munster, 25.-26. Mi 1993. Ed. by HeinzJosef FABRY, Armin LANGE and Hermann LICHTENBERGER, 35-85. Gflttingen 1996.
Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitschianum.
NICKELSBURG, G.W.E., "Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum", Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by J.J.
COLLINS and G.W.E. NICKELSBURG, 49-65. Chico 1980. Septuagint and Cognate
Studies 12.
-, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia 1981.
- , (1984a) "Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical times", Jewish Writings of the
Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings,
Philo, Josephus, ed. by Michael E. STONE, 33-87. Philadelphia 1984.
- , (1984b) "The Bible Rewritten and Expanded", Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed.
by Michael STONE, 89-156. Philadelphia 1984.
NIKIPROWETZKY, Valentin, "Sur une lecture demonlogique de Philon d' Alexandrie. De
Gigantibus, 6-18", Etudes philoniennes, 217-242. Paris 1996.
NOACK, B., "Qumran and the Book of Jubilees", SEA 22-23 (1957-58), 191-207.
NUTTON, Vivian, "Medizin". Der Neue Pauly 1 (1999), 1103-1117.
OBERHANSLI-WIDMER, Gabriele, "Mose / Moselied / Mosesegen / Moseschriften. Ill
Apokalyptische und judisch-hellenistische Literatur", 7ftE23 (1994), 347-357.
QHLER, Markus, Elia im Neuen Testament. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des
alttestamentlichen Propheten im friihen Christentum. Berlin - New York 1997. BZNW
88.
OLYAN, Saul M., "The Israelites Debate their Options at the Sea of Reeds": LAB 10:3, its
Parallels and Pseudo-Philo's Ideology and Background", JBL 110 (1991), 75-91.
-, A Thousand Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient
Judaism. Tubingen 1993 (TSAJ 36).
OSSWALD, Eva, "Erzahlung von Abrahams Aufenthalt in Agypten", ZAW 72 (1960), 725.
PAUTREL, Raymond, "Ben Sira et le stoicisme", RSR 51 (1963), 535-549.
PEARSON, Brook W.R., "Dry Bones in the Judean Desert: The Messiah of Ephraim,
Ezekiel 37, and the Post-Revolutionary Followers of Bar Kokhba", JSJ 29 (1998), 192201.
PERES, Jacques-Noel, "Erkki Koskenniemi, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (rec.)", Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses 3 (1995), 447-448.
PERROT - BOGAERT 1976 = Pseudo-Philon, Les antiquites bibliques 2. Introduction
litteraire, introduction, texte critiques et commentaire par Daniel J. HARRINGTON,
Jacques CAZEAUX Charles PERROT et Pierre-Maurixe BOGAERT. Paris 1976. Sources
chretiennes 229-230.
PESCH, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium, Freiburg im Breisgau 1976-77. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2.
PETIT, M., "La cachette de 1' arche d' alliance: A partir de la 'Vie de J6r6mie' 9-15 dans
les 'Vitae Prophetarum', La litterature intertestamentaire (Colloque de Strasbourg 1719 octobre 1983, 119-113/ Paris 1985.
PHILONENKO, M., "Remarques sur un hymn ess^nien de caractere gnostique", Semitica
11 (1961), 43-54.
314
Bibliography
PHILONENKO-SAYAR, Belkis and PHILONENKO, Mark, "Die Apokalypse Abrahams"

JSHRZ 5,5 (1980).
PlLGAARD, Aage, "The Hellenistic Theios Aner - a Model for Early Christian
Christology?", The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. by Peder Borgen and
Sdren Giversen, 101-122. Aarhus 1995.
PREISENDANZ, Karl, "Salomo", PRE Suppl. 8 (1956), 660-704.
RIEST, J., "Ben Sira 45,25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature", RQ 5 (1964-66), 111118.
PROPP, William H. C , Exodus 1-18. A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. New York 1999. The Anchor Bible 2.
RAD, Gerhard von, Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970.
RAJAK, Tessa, Josephus. The Historian and His Society. London 1983.
REINMUTH, Eckart, "Beobachtungen zum VerstSndnis des Gesetzes im Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo)", JSJ 20 (1989), 151-170.
-, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas.Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner
Bedeutung fur die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. Tubingen 1994.
WUNT 74.
REITERER, Friedrich Vinzenz, "Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira.
Review and prospects", The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the
First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July Soesterberg, Netherlands, ed. by
Pancratius C. Beentjes, 23-60. B e r l i n - N e w York 1997. BZAW 1997.
REITZENSTEIN, Richard, Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen. Leipzig 1906.
-, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen.
Leipzig 1910.
RENGSTORF, Karl Heinrich, "onueTov, ThWNTl (1964), 199-261.
- , "Tepas", ThWNTS (1969), 113-127.
ROBERTSON, R.G., "Ezekiel the Tragedian", OTP 2 (1985), 803-819.
ROCHETTE, Bruno, "Juifs et Romains. Y a-t-il eu un antijudaism romain?", Revue des
Etudes Juives 160 (2001), 1-31.
ROKEAH, David, "Tacitus and the Ancient Antisemitism", Revue des Etudes juives 154
(1995), 281-294.
DE ROMILLY, J., Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Cambridge 1975.
RONCACE, Mark, "Josephus' (Real) Portraits of Deborah and Gideon: A Reading of
Antiquities 5.198-232", JSJ31 (2000), 247-274.
RUBINKIEWICZ, R., "Apocalypse of Abraham" OTP 1 (1983), 681-719.
VAN RuiTEN, Jacques T.A.G.M., "The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-12 in Jubilees 5:119", Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by Mattias ALBANI, J5rg FREY, Armin LANGE,
59-75. Tubingen 1997. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 65.
- , "Visions of the Temple in the Book of Jubilees", Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. by Beate
EGO, Armin LANGE and Peter PlLHOFER, 215-227. Tubingen 1999. WUNT 118.
-, Primaeval History Interpreted. The Rewriting of Genesis I-II in the Book of Jubilees.
Leiden - Boston - KOln 2000. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
66.
RUNIA, D.T., "God and Man in Philo of Alexandria", Journal for Theological Studies 39
(1988), 48-75.
- , /RADICE, R., Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1937-1986. Leiden
1988.
- , "Was Philo a Middle Platonist", Stadia Philonica Annual 5 (1993), 112-140.
SANDERS, E.P., Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66 CE. 2 ed. London Piladelphia 1994 (repr. 1998).
n d
Bibliography
315
SANDMEL, Samuel, "Philo Judaeus: An Introduction of the Man, his Writings, and his
Significance", ANRW2,2l,\
(1984), 3-46.
SATRAN, David, "Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy Man", Ideal Figures in Ancient
Judaism. Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by John J. COLLINS - George W.E.
NlCKELSBURG, 33-48. Ann Arbor 1980. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12.
- , "The Lives of the Prophets", Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period:
Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by
Michael Edward STONE, 56-85. Assen - Philadelphia 1984 (CRI2/2).
-, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine. Reassesing the Lives of the Prophets. Leiden
- New Y o r k - K8ln 1995. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 11.
- , "The 'Life of Ezekiel' (Vitae Prophetarum)", The Apocryphal Ezekiel, ed by Michael E.
STONE, Benjamin G. WRIGHT and David SATRAN, 69-75. Atlanta 2000. SBL Early
Judaism and its Literature 18.
SAUER, Georg 2000 = Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira. Ubersetzt und erklart von Georg Sauer.
GSttingen 2000. Das Alte Testament Deutsch Apokryphen 1.
SCHAPER, Joachim, "The Pharisees" The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early
Judaism,
ed. by
William
HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY,
402-42.
Cambridge 1999.
SCHERMANN, T., (1907a) Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices Apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo Epihpanio Hippolyto aliisque vindicatae. Leipzig 1907.
- , (1907b) Propheten und Apostellegenden nebst Jungerkatalogen des Dorotheus und
verwandter Texte. Leipzig 1907. TU 31.3.
SCHMIDT, Karl Ludwig, "Paulus und die antike Welt", Vorrtage der Bibliothek Warburg,
Vortrage 1924-1925, Leipzig, Teubner 1927, 38-64, repr. in Das Paulusbild in der
neueren Deutschen Forschung, ed. by Ulrich LUCK and Karl Heinrich RENGSTORF,
214-245. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1969. Wege der Forschung
24.
SCHMIDT, Werner H., Exodus. Neukirchen - Vluyn 1995. Biblischer Kommentar. Altes
Testament II/2.1.
SCHOTTROFF, Willy, "Gottmensch I", RAC 12 (1983), 155-234.
SCHREIBER, Stefan, Gesalbter und Konig. Titel und Konzeptionen der koniglichen
Gesalbtenerwartung in fruhjudischen und urchristlichen Schriften. Berlin - New York
2000. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde
der Alteren Kirche 2000.
SCHORER, Emil, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi 1-3. 3. und 4.
Aufl., Leipzig 1901-1909.
-, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135) 1-3.
ed by Geza VERMES, Fergus MILLAR et al. Edinburgh 1973-1986.
SCHWARTZ, "Artapanus", PRE 2.1. (1895), 1306.
SCHWARTZ, D., "Josephus on Jewish Constitutions and Community", SCI 7 (1983-84),
30-52.
SCHWEMER, Anna Maria, "Elija als Araber. Die haggadischen Motive in der Legende
vom Messias Menahem ben Hiskija (yBer 2,4 5a; EkhaR 1,16 51) im Vergleich mit
den Elija- und Elischa-Legenden der Vitae Prophetarum", Die Heiden ed. by Reinhard
FELDMAIER und Ulrich HECKEL, 108-157. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 70.
-, Studien zu den fruhjudischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum /-//. Tubingen
1995-1996. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 49.
- , "Vitae Prophetarum" JSHRZ 1,7 (1997).
316
Bibliography
- , "Die Verwendung der Septuaginta in den Vitae Prophetarum", Die Septuaginta

zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. by Martin HENGEL and Anna Maria
SCHWEMER, 62-91. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 72.
SELAND, Torrey, "Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13-14 in Light of
Philo's Writings", Biblica 83 (2002), 449-471
SlEGERT, Folker, Drei hellenistisch-jiidische Predigten Ps.-Philon, "Uber Jona", Uber
Jona" (Fragment) und "Uber Simson". I. Ubersetzung aus dem Armenischen und
sprachliche Erlduterungen. Tubingen 1980. II. Kommentar nebst Beobachtungen zur
hellenistischen Vorgeschichte der Bibelhermeneutik. Tubingen 1992. WUNT 60-61.
-, Zwischen Hebrdischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einfuhrung in die
Septuaginta. Munster - Hamburg - Berlin - London 2001. Munsteraner Judaistische
Studien 9.
SlEVERS, Joseph, "Josephus and the Afterlife", Understanding Josephus. Seven Per
spectives, ed. by Steve MASON, 20-34. Sheffield 1998. JSOT Suppl 32.
SlPlLA, Seppo, Between Literalness and Freedom. Translation Technique in the Septua
gint of Joshua and Judges regarding the clause connections introduced by J and D.
Helsinki - GSttingen 1999. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75.
SKA, Jean Louis, "L' eToge des Peres dans le Siracide (Si 44-50) et le canon de 1' Ancient
Testament", Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Treasures of Wisdom:
Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. GILBERT, ed. by N.
CALDUCH-BENAGES and J. VERMEYLEN, 181-193. Leuven 1999.
SMEND, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebrdisch und Deutsch. Berlin 1906.
-, Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebrdischer
Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin 1907.
SMITH, Morton, "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels
and Jesus", JBL 90 (1971), 174-199.
- , "The Occult in Josephus", Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, ed. by Louis H.
FELDMAN und Gohei HATA, 236-256. Leiden 1987.
- , "The Troublemakers", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed.
by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 501-568. Cambridge 1999.
SNAITH, John G., Ecclesiasticus of the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach. Cambridge 1974.
The Cambridge Bible Commentary.
SNELL, Bruno, "Die Jamben in Ezechiels Moses-Drama", Glotta 44 (1966), 25-32.
- , Szenen aus griechischen Dramen. Berlin 1971.
- , "Ezechiel's Moses-Drama", Antike undAbendland 13 (1967), 150-164.
SPOERRI, W., "Nikolaos (2) von Damaskos", Der Kleine Pauly 4 (1979), 109-111.
STADELMANN, Helge, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild
des vormakkabdischen Sofer unter Beriicksichtigung seines Verhdltnisses zu Priester-,
Propheten und Weisheitslehrertum. Tubingen 1980. WUNT 2.6.
STEMBERGER, Giinter, "Salomo. II Judentum", TRE 29 (1998), 727-730.
STEUDEL, Annette, "God and Belial", The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their
Discovery. Proceedings of the Jeusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, ed. by Lawrence
H. SCHIFFMAN, Emanuel Tov and James C. VANDERKAM, 332-340. Jerusalem 2000.
STOLZ, F., "mm", ThWANT 1 (1984), 91-95.
STONE, Michael E., "Prophets, Lives of the", Encyclopaedia Judaica 3 (1972), 11491150.
TABOR, J.D., "'Returning to the Divinity': Josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of
Enoch, Elijah, and Moses", JBL 108 (1989), 225-238.
TALMON, Shemaryahu, "Fragments of a Joshua Apocryphon - Masada 1039-211 (Final
Photo 5254)", JJS 47 (1996), 128-139.
TESTUZ, Michel, Les idees religieuses du livre de Jubiles. Geneva 1960.
y
Bibliography
317
THACKERAY, H. St. J., Josephus, the Man and the Historian. The Hilda Stich Stroock
Lectures at the Jewish Institute of Religion, New York 1929. Repr. New York 1967
THACKERAY - MARCUS 1934 = Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books IV-VI with an
English translation by H. St. J. THACKERAY and Ralph MARCUS. London 1930. Loeb
Classical Library 490.
THEISSEN, Gerd, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten. Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen
Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. Gutersloh 1974. StNT 8; transl. The
Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia, 1983.
THRAEDE, K., "Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich)", RAC 5 (1962), 1191-1278.
- , "Exorzismus", RAC 7 (1969), 44-117.
THUMMEL, Hans Georg, "Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in der
neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterfiihrung der Diskussion"
(rec.) Theologische Literaturzeitung 120 (1995), 801-802.
TIEDE, David Lenz, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle-worker. SBLDS 1.
TORREY, Charles Cutler, The Lives of the Prophets. Greek Text and Translation.
Philadelphia 1946. JBL Monograph Series 1.
Tov, Emmanuel, "The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada",
Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for
the Study of the Deas Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996, ed. by
Michael E. STONE and Esther G. CHAZON, 233-256. Leiden - Boston - K6ln 1998.
TWELFTREE, Graham H., Jesus the Exorcist. Tubingen 1993. WUNT 2.54.
UHLIG, Siegbert, "Das Sthiopische Henochbuch", JSHRZ 5 (1984), 461-780.
VAN UYTFANGHE, Marc, "Biographie II (spirituelle), RAC Suppl. 1 (2001), 1088-1364).
VANDERKAM, James C , Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Missoula
1977. HSM 14.
- , (1989a) The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, ed. by James C. VANDERKAM. Leuven
1989. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 87.
- , (1989b) The Book of Jubilees, translated by James C. VANDERKAM. Leuven 1989.
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 88.
- , "The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees," Studies in the Book of Jubilees,
ed. by Matthias ALBANI, Jorg FREY and Armin LANGE, 3-24. Ttibingen 1997. Texte
und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 65.
- , "The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees", Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the
International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997, ed. by Esther G CHAZON. and Michael
Edward STONE,. 151-170. L e i d e n - New York-Koin 1999.
- , "Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees," The Pseudepigrapha and Early
Biblical Intepretation, ed. by James C. CHARLESWORTH and Craig A. EVANS, 96-125.
Sheffield 1993. JSP.S.
- , "The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees", Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Esther G.
CHAZON and Michael STONE with the collaboration of Avital PINNICK. Leiden Boston - Koln 1999. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31.
-, An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids 2001.
VOGEL, Manuel, "Geschichtstheologie bei Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum", Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Munster 1997. Vortrage aus dem
Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, ed. by Folker SIEGERT - Jurgen U. KALMS.
Munsteraner Judaistische Studien 2 (1998), 175-195.
318
Bibliography
- , "Tempel und Tempelkult in Pseudo-Philos Liber antiquitatum Biblicarum", Gemeinde

ohne Tempel. Community without Temple, 251-263, ed. by Beate EGO, Armin LANGE
und Peter PiLHOFER. Tubingen 1999. WUNT 118.
VOGT, Ernst, "Tragiker Ezechiel", JSHRZ 4.3 (1983).
TER VRUGT-LENTZ, J., "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. II Vorhellenistisches
Griechenland", RAC 9 (1976), 598-615.
WAGNER, W.H., "Philo and Paideia", Cithera 10 (1971), 53-54.
WALTER, Nikolaus, "Fragmente judisch-hellenistischer Historiker". JSHRZ 1,2 (1976).
- , "Jewish-Greek Literature of the Greek Period, The Cambridge History of Judaism. II
The Hellenistic Age, ed by. W.D. DAVIES and Louis FINKELSTEIN, 385-408.
Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester - Melbourne - Sydney 1989.
WANDREY, Irina, "Ezechiel", Der Neue Pauly 4 (1998), 353-354.
WEBER, Reinhard, Das Gesetz im hellenistischen Judentum. Studium zum Verstandnis
und zur Funktion der Thora von Demetrios bis Pseudo-Phokylides. Frankfurt a.M. Berlin - Bern - Bruxelles - New York - Oxford - Wien 2000. Arbeiten zur
Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 10.
-, Das "Gesetz" bei Philon von Alexandrien und Flavius Josephus: Studien zum
Verstandnis und zur Funktion der Thora bei den beiden Hauptzeugen
des
hellenistischen Judentums. Frankfurt a.M. - Berlin - Bern - Bruxelles - New York Oxford - Wien 2001. Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 11.
WEINREICH, Otto, "Gebet und Wunder, II: TttrQffhung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und
Zauberglauben der Antike, des Judentums", Genethliakon W. Schmid, 200-452.
Stuttgart 1929. TUbinger BeitrSge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5.
WETTER, Oillis Prson, "Der Sohn Gottes". Eine Untersuchung tiber den Charakter und
die Tendenz des Johannes-Evangeliums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der
Heilandsgestalten der Antike. GGttingen 1916.
WHYBRAY, R.N., "Ben Sira and History", Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and
the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert, ed. by N. CALDUCH-BENAGES and J.
VERMEYLEN, 137-145. Leuven 1999.
WlENEKE, J., Ezechielis Judaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Quae Inscribitur Exagoge
Fragmenta. Diss. Minister 1931.
WILLIAMSON, Ronald, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge 1989. Cambridge
Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200 1,2.
WlNDISCH, Hans, Paulus und Christus. Ein biblisch-religionsgeschichtlicher
Vergleich.
Leipzig 1934.
WINTER, Bruce, Philo and Paul among the Sophists. Cambridge 1997. NT.S 96.
WINTERMUTE, O.S., "Jubilees" OTP 2 (1985), 35-142.
WOLFF, Christian, Jeremia im Fruhjudentum und im Christentum. Berlin 1976. TU 118.
-, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8-16.
Berlin 1982. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 7/2.
WOLFSON, Harry Austryn, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam. Cambridge 1947. 1,121-126.347-356.
WRIGHT, Benjamin G., "The Apocryphal Ezekiel Fragments", The Apocryphal Ezekiel,
ed. by Michael E. STONE and Benjamin WRIGHT, 8-60. Atlanta 2000. Society of
Biblical Literature 18.
ZELLER, Dieter, "New Testament Christology in its Hellenistic Reception", NTS 47
(2001), 312-333.
ZERON, A., "Erwagungen zu Pseudo-Philos Queilen und Zeit", JSJ 11 (1980), 38-52.
ZlEGENAUS, Anton, "Erkki Koskenniemi, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (rec.)", Forum Katholische Theologie 11 (1995), 154-155.
Bibliography
319
ZlMMERMANN, Johannes, Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Konigliche, priesterliche und

prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. Tubingen 1998.
WUNT 2.104.
Index of References
Old Testament
Gen
46,53
2:18
2:18-3:1
3
3:1
3:15
6
11:1
11:2
12
12:7
12:10-20
12:15
12:17
15:2-3
15:5
15:11
15:12
15:14
15:18
20
20:1-18
20:12-16
20:2
20:4
20:5
20:7
20:16
20:17
22
36:7-11
36:11
37
41:7
41:8
44:33
48:19
154
133
52,58,62
130
141
52,221
137
136
48, 49, 109
194
48,282
48
49
137
53,282
47,49,282
47,282
61
135
48, 49, 150, 152
49,282
49
49
49
49
150
49
20
52,57
84
206
135
134, 135
100
100
128
Exod
106, 157, 158,278
1:1-2:25
1:21
1:22
3:1
3:1-4:17
3:2
3:4
3:6
3:8
3:12
3:16
3:18
3:20
4
4:1-4:17
4:3
4:6
4:7
4:8
4:8-9
4:9
4:10
4:16
4:17
4:20
4:21
4:28
4:30
4:23
4:24
4:24-26
4:27-31
4:29-5:4
4:30
4:31
5:1-5
5:1-23
6:12
6:30
66, 92, 110, 192, 232,

282, 292
92
92
66
6 6 , 9 4 , 111,283,290
55,112,234
55,67,112
67
67
67
67, 123
67, 123
1,67
69,155,235,281
133
68,99
67,235,281
67,72
67
155
68
133
23,26,154
103
76
67
217
67,235
56
57
57, 113,235
99,292
68
113,123
235
235
99
155
155
322
6:28-7:13
7:1
7:3
7:9
7:9-12
7:8-13
7:10
7:11
7:14-24
7:14-12:36
7:15
7:19
7:19-20
7:20
7:21
7:24
7:26-8:11
7:27
8:1
8:3
8:4
8:6
8:11
8:12-15
8:13
8:16-28
8:14
8:15
8:16-28
8:17
8:19
8:21
8:22
8:26
9:1-11
9:3
9:4
9:28
9:8
9:8-12
9:11
9:12
9:13-16
9:13-35
9:14
9:14-35
10:1-20
10:10-11
10:12
Index of References
99,235,283,292
23, 25, 26, 42, 86, 99,
153, 154, 159, 247, 271,
298
99
99
68
236
70
100,113,134
7 0 , 7 1 , 7 2 , 114,237,284
55, 70, 99, 100, 114, 193,
237, 284
70
70
100
76
237,284
114,237,284
70, 71, 115,237,284
102
70
70
70
70
70
7 0 , 7 1 , 115,237,284
102
71,238
70
155
70, 102, 117
76
70
70
238,240
131
70,71,72,238,284
68, 70, 71
114
118
70
238,285
61
70
115
70,71,238,285
70
55
7 0 , 7 1 , 116,238,285
237
102
10:13
10:21-29
10:26
11:1-12:36
11:2-3
11:4
12
12:13
12:23
13:1-3
13:13-15
13:17
13:17-18
13:18
13:17-14:31
13:26-27
14
14:10-14
14:12
14:13-15
14:14
14:16
14:17
14:17-18
14:18
14:19
14:19-20
14:20
14:21
14:24
14:25
14:25-26
14:26-27
14:28
15
15:8
15:11
15:22
15:22-27
15:25
15:26
16:1-36
16:6
16:8
16:9
16:13
16:23
16:33
17:1-7
70
70, 1 1 6 , 2 3 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 5
238
70, 71, 102, 117, 239, 285
104
70
80
70
57
119
240
74,119,
240
74,75,240,281,282
61, 73, 74, 119, 136, 194,
240, 282, 291
241
56, 105, 170
136
240
119
136
75
76
155
74
56,74
120
74
25,74,75,76
105
136
74
241
75,282
195
195
67
20
42, 122, 138,196, 242,
286, 290, 291
22, 197
20,51
105, 123, 141, 173, 242,
286, 291
123
123
76
123,291
123
123
124, 139, 197,243,291
Index of References
17:4
17:6
17:7
17:8
17:8-16
17:9
17:10
17:15
17:15
19:16-18
20:18
21:18-19
22:17
22:22
22:25
22:25-27
22:27
22:28
23:28
24:9-10
33:11
240
124
124
126
76, 125, 141, 243, 286,
291
125
125
125
125
85
67
21,22
100
109
130
135
267
266
122,253
82
55,112
Lev
24:10-16
149
Num
198
3:13
11:4
11:4-36
136
123
105, 123, 141, 173, 244,
291
123
123
27,123
123
123
238, 141, 233, 235, 245,
286
142
142
142
142
142
142
149
198
198
126
24, 126, 198, 244, 286,
292
198
11:5
11:14
11:28
11:30
11:32
12:1-16
12:4
12:6
12:8
12:10
12:12
12:15
15:32-36
15:37-41
16
16:1
16:1-17:31
16:2
323
16:3 126, 244

16:5
126
16:10
126
16:11
126
16:14
126
16:15
126
16:16
126
16:20-21
244
16:24
126
16:27
126
16:29
126
16:30
126
16:32-50
127
17:1-5
244
17:1-13
244
17:2-3
126
17:16-28
239
17:23
126
17:26
126
20:1-13
124, 139, 197, 243, 245,
282,291
20:4
124
20:5
124
20:8
125
20:22-29
203
21
197
21:4
142
21:4-9
128, 142, 166, 246, 287,
290
21:5
142
21:6
142
21:10-18
242
21:16-18
124, 139, 197
33:4
102
Deut
4:19-20
5:5
5:24
7:20
8:3
10:21
13:1-6
18:9-12
18:10-11
18:18
25:6-15
26:5-11
26:8
32:8
32:39
98
152
217
122,253
140
1
215
21
54
26,29, 148, 162
224
18,67
67, 74, 193
98
20
Index of References
324
Jos
28,281
1:1
3:1
3:1-5:1
3:5
3:7
3:7
3:7-8
3:9
3:10
3:13
3:14; 16
4:2
4:3
4:6
4:7
4:10
4:13
4:14
4:21
4:24
5:1
5:13-6:27
5:13-15
6:15
6:20
10:8
10:8-14
10:10
10:11
10:12
10:12-13
10:13
10:14
11:11
14:6
22
24:2
24:12
28:29
27
249
27,203,249,287,291
249
249
250
250
249
249
249
228
249
249
249
249
249
249
249
249
249
249
12, 27, 203, 249, 287, 291
249
249
249
27,250
27,203,250,287
250
250
250
27,205,291
250
27
251
152
224
18
122,253
67
5:20
6:1
6:34
13
13:1-16:31
13:1
13:4
13:5
13:6
13:7
132:12
13:14
13:15
13:19
13:25
14:2
14:5
14:5-6
14:6
14:7
14:8
14:19
14:10
14:11
14:19
15:6
15:7
15:8
15:12
15:14
15:14-15
15:15
15:16
15:19
16
16:1-3
16:2
16:5
16:13
16:14
16:16
16:17
16:19
16:26
16:26-30
16:27
20:28
Judg
2,225
Ruth
1:13
3:10
206
206
1 Sam
33:1
34:1-8
34:4
34:5
34:7
34:9
152
127, 128,282
127
201,268
287
203
210
215
208
217
216,287,291
216
216
217
216
255
216
216
216
216
204,208,216,256
216
216
255
216,256
216
216
256
216
216
208,216,256
216
216
216,256
216
208,256
256
258
217
217
218
217,256
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
256
217,218
224
227,295
Index of References
10:6
11:6-11
16:14
16:14-23
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:21
16:23
17:34-36
17:41
17:41-51
17:43
17:45
17:46
17:49
17:50
28
325
149,204,208
204,208
219
181,219,259,288
219
219
219
219
219
222
223
222,288,291
223
223
223
223
223
215
18:36
18:40
18:41-45
18:46
19
19:1-21
19:5
19:7
19:12
19:14
19:15-16
19:16
19:17
19:18
19:19-21
19:20
19:21
21:19
21:21-29
265
266
32
266
267
265
265,281
265,267
265
265
36
33
267
265
267,272
265
265
268
36
7
24:1
24:15-17
233
58
57
2 Kgs
37, 38, 40, 259, 265, 271,

276, 281
/ Kgs
259, 265
4:29-34
5:9-14
11:4-10
17
17:1-6
17:1-16
17:6
17:7-16
17:8
17:12
17:16-39
17:17; 22
17:17-24
18
18:1-19
18:10
18:12
18:16-45
18:18
18:19
18:21
18:22
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:29
260
260
263
109, 185
32,264
173,265
264
32,264,292
109
32,264
32
174
32,264,265,290
150
266
264
265,266,273
265,266
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
1:1-8
1:3;15
1:5-2:17
1:9-15
2
2:1-18
2:7-8
2:9
2:9-18
2:19-22
2:23-25
22:24
2-13
3:1-27
3:13
13:15
3:18
3:19
3:27
4:1-7
4:8-17
4:8-37
4:8-6:8
4:18-37
4:20
4:25
4:27
4:35
4:38-41
32,33,268
268
268
32,292
269
32, 37,268
170
38
292
37,271,272,292
37, 176,271,273
150
37
37,271,273
271
271
271
271
273
37, 1 7 3 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 , 2 9 2
37,271
271,273
277,278
37,290
271
271
271
271
37, 173,271,273
2 Sam
326
4:41
4:42
4:42-44
5:1-18
5:1-27
5:11
5:17
5:19-27
5:20
5:24-27
6:1-7
6:8
6:8-23
6:11
6:14
6:18
6:24-7:20
6:30
6:31
7:2
7:14
7:17
8:1-6
8:4
8:7-15
8:8
8:10
8:13
8:15
9:1-13
9:4
9:6
9:7
9:8
9:11
9:13
13:14-19
13:20-21
17:1-6
18:13-20
18:40
18:41-45
19
19:8
19:10; 14
19:14-20
19:14-37
19:35-37
19:37
19:38
20
20:1-6
Index of References
271
271
37, 173,271,274
37
271,274
49,271,272,282
271
38
272
150
38,271,274
272
38,271,274
272
274
272
38,274
272
272
272
272
272
271
1
38,271,275
272
272
36,272
272
271,275
272
36
272
272
272
272
271,275
38, 174, 270, 275, 290
292
39
270
270,292
270,271
270
270
40
163,288
40
40
40
269
40
20:1-11
21
40, 163,288,290
269
/ Chr
259
4:13
4:15
21:1
21:14-17
206
206
58,294
57
2 Chr
16:12
17
19
21
32
20,21
269
269
269
40
Ezra
3:2
152
Neh
9
18
Job
5:9
9:10
20:15
20:19
37:5
37:14
1
1
56
166
1
1,67
Ps
13,225
8:6
71:19
77:16-20
77:17-19
77:17-21
78:50
78:105-106;
135-136
90:1
91
92:5
106:9
106:21
107:10-14
110
114
114:4
114:5-8
26
1
241
102
77
72
18
18
152
220
47
195, 196
1
97
84
77,195
25
196
Index of References
Prov
16:22
Dan
138
Isa
40
1:4-9
11:2
11:15
25:2
36:39
36:1-38:22
37:4-19
37:14
37:14-20
37:14-37
37:38
38:1-6
38:1-8; 21-22
38:1-22
38:8
44:24-25
45:2
49:6
61:1-3
21
208
76
102
40
39
40
40
39,40
163,288
40
40
40,288
290
40
54
97
35
40
Jer
8:19
15:2
33:3
45:5
43
166
71
1
1
166
1:20
3:54-55
4
4:1-34
4:1-3
4:2
4:4
4:6
4:9
4:10
4:15
4:15
4:21
4:25
4:29
4:30 b
4:30c
4:34
4:34
4:34a-c
7
7:9; 13-14
100
85
177, 178. 179, 281, 288,
294
178
178
178
178
100, 178
100, 178
179
178
178
178
178
178
179
178
178
178
178
86
84
Hos
38
9:7
50
Joel
3:3
Amos
Ezek
1
1:1-28
20
37
37:1
37:1-14
37:3
37:5:
37:6
37:7
37:9
37:10
37:12
47:10
327
85
84
18
173, 175, 176,291
173
172,289
173
173
173
173
175
175
175
172,289
38
Zech
6
10:11
30
76
Mai
3
3:23-24
4:5-6
185,288
35
35, 170
Index of References
328
Apocrypha and
Apoc. Ab.
48, 49, 63, 205, 282
1-12
7:13
47
261
10:8
13:4-14
85
50,201,290,291
Pseudepigrapha
3,33
3.35
3.36
60
103, 104
95
3,36-37
3,28
103, 104,291
105
As. Mos.
Apoc. Adam
289
10:1
7:13
261
2 Bar.
312-316
77
48:42
6:3-9
60:1
51, 189,289
168,291
214
Aristobulus
56, 58
2,8
3-4
4.5
20
53,93
84
66:2
77:25
214
261
4 Bar.
Artap.
89-107
168,291
1
1,1
1-2
3.3
3.4
3,5-19
3.6
3.21
3,21-22
3.22
3.23
3,25
3,24-26
3,27
3,27-33
3,28-30
3,28-31
3,28-33
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
54
92
92
233
93
93
93
95, 105, 106
94,291
104, 106
106
106
96, 97, 292
99,292
291
103
100
101
102
236
102,117
103,200
De Sampsone
(Pseudo-Philo)
1
19
20
23-24
24
27-28
218, 257, 286

218,257
258
218,257
216,257
218,257
256,258
Arist.
183
Dem.
Fr. 3
Fr.4
Fr. 5
19
19
75
1 En.
58, 84
4:18-20
7:1
6-13
15:8-9
15:11-16:1
85
21
51
221
51
Index of References
329
45:3
51:1-3
2 En.
85
85
7:1
8:3
18:3
24:1
29
31
51,262
51
51
85
221
52
203
204-219
210
220-221
224-226
230
243-269
250
294-315
3 En.
85
4Ezr.
170,172,189
(Euseb. praep.
ev. 9,39,2-5) 168
6:4
7:1
12:32-33
13:39-50
221
51
85
170,291
Ezek Trag.
64-88, 298
Hist. Rech
1-58
36-38
65
67
68-69
68-72
68-89
83-89
85
90-93
102
113-115
114-119
120-131
121
124-125
132
132-151
132-174
133
135
137
138
139-140
141-142
144
145-146
147-148
149
159
175-192
193-242
66
80
78
80
65
81,291
84
81
83
74
86
68
68
66,68
76
83
73,76
70
69
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
70
57
80
73
10:5
14
Eup.
62,75
74,291
75
74
74
77
80
81,291
291
97,291
183
Jan. Jam.
284
26
61
Jos. Asen.
80, 97
27:11
177,195,291
Jub.
11, 12, 1 4 , 2 2 , 4 4 - 6 3 , 7 3 ,
80, 82, 93, 102, 112, 145,
152, 164, 189, 202, 227,
234, 262, 282-286, 293300
1:7-15
1:20
1:23
3
4:15
4:19
5:1-11
7:21-27
7:27
8:3
10
10:2
10:7-9
10:8
10:10
10:11-14
10:12-13
252
59
59
58
51
85
52
52
59
54
52,60
181
58
51
51
262
181
Index of References
11:4-5
11:5;11
11:9-13
11:11-13
11:11-24
11:18-22
11:18-24
12:16-21
12:17-18
12:19-20
15:25-32
15:31-32
15:32
15:33
16:12-14
17:5-17
17:15-18,19
17:16
18:9; 12
19:28
23,22-31
40:2
40:10
46:2
47
47:1-2
47:5
47:9
48:2-3
48:2.9.12.15
48:4-8
48:8-12
48:9-11
48:9-10
48:12
48:12-19
48:14
48:15-19
48:16
48:19
59
50
63
46
46
46,290
63
60
54
52,59
181
58,59
59
58
61
52
57
50
50
50,59
181
183
59
59
92
54
94,233
54
58
50
291
121
12,55
56,290
57,59
291
75,194,240
57
57
104
49
49:1-16
49:2
50
80
55
57
183
L.A.B.
3 , 9 , 10, 11, 13, 14,75,77,

109, 150, 189-227, 234,
238, 240, 245, 252, 254,
257, 258, 262, 279, 280,
283-288, 294, 296-300
6,9
6-8
9
9-19
9,1-16
9,3
9.9
9.10
9,13
9,15
10,1
10,3
10,7
11.15
16
16.1
16.3
16,5
16,14
17
18.9
18.10
19
19.5
19.7
19.13
19.14
19.16
20.2
20,2-3
20.6
20.7
20.8
22.8
23.9
23,9-10
25-26
25,1-3
25,4-26,5
25.6
25.9
25,9-13
25,10-13
26.4
26,13; 6-13
26.15
27.7
27.10
27.11
28,6-9
97
47
195,292
192
192
210
194
192
193
192
117,193,291
194
196,291
139, 196, 197,291
292
198
199,225
199
219
199
199
209,210
199,201,205,292
197
190,200,201
201
200
200
208
203
207
203
197
190
201
196
207
207
207
207
214
198
214
214
168, 190
190
192,207,211
207,223,291
214
209
Index of References
30,5
30,9-10
31.4
32,1
32,1-3
32,7-8; 17
32,10
32,11; 17
33,5-7
34
34-35
38
38,4-8
42
42.1
42.5
42,9
43.2
43,2-3
43.4
43.5
43,5-8
46,1
47,1
47.9
48
48.1
48.10
53.2
54,3-4
56,2-3
57.4
59.5
60
60,1-3
60,5
61
61,5
6 1 , 5 ; 7-8
62,2
64,7
203,291
204
210
210
52
196
223
210
50
215
223
224
183
255,292
217
217
255
218,291
256
217
218
218,291
162
61,207
207
185
225
170
196
222
212,211
211
222
220,261
219,290
223
2,291
208
223
211
215
The Life of Adam and Eve

14
52
Liv. Pro.
10,11,189-227, 292, 298,

299
1
1:4
163-164,288
161
331
1:2-4
2
2:2
2:2-4
2:2-7
2:5-7
2:10
2:9-15
3
3:6-10
3:11a
3:11b
3:12-13
3:18
4
4:1-3
4,7
4:10
4:12-17
4:17
4:20-23
4:6; 22
4:17
10:9
17:2
21
21:1
21:2-3
21:3
21:4-15
21:5
21:12
21:20
22
22:4-17
163,292
165-169, 176, 289
166
165
165,291
165
165
167,292
169-177,180,289
169
172
173,290
174,290
176, 195
177-183,289
178
179, 183
179,290
179
178, 183
178
164
177
213
164
184-185,288
161,185
184
185
184
290
290
290
186,288
186
LXX
12, 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 3 , 2 5 , 2 7 , 3 2 ,
38, 40, 46-49,55-58,61,
64, 66, 67, 68, 70-76, 85,
86, 87, 89, 92, 94, 99,
100, 102, 104, 110-117,
119, 121-127, 130, 134,
138, 140, 142, 145, 153,
162, 163, 166, 172,175,
178, 179,183,192-195,
198-199, 203,208,216,
217,219, 223,232-235,
237, 238, 240, 242, 244,
249, 250,255-257, 264-
332
Index of References
273,281-283,285- 288,
293, 294
1 Mace
1:1
45
2 Mace
2:4
15:13-16
168,292
165,289
3 Mace
6:4
207
Mart. Ascens. Isa.

l:l-2a
1:7-13
1-5
5:1-14
164
164
164
164
Pseudo-Eupolemus
45:2
45:3
45:18
45:24
46
46:1
46:1-8
46:2-3
46:4
46:6
46:8
47:25-48:11
48
48:1-11
48:2-3
48:5
48:6
48:6-7
48:9
48:10
48:11b
48:12-16
48:13
48:13-14
49:14
48:20-25
48:23
25
25,55
24
224
205
26
27,29
291
27,41,291
29,251,252
27
31
290
32
292
290
36
36
292
35,36,39
32
37,290
38
290
18
39
291
FGrHist
Fr. 1
3,724
54
Sib. Or.
2:187-202
5:256-259
35
252
Sir.
12, 17-43,203,270
Tob.
22
16:10
34:5
36
36:1-12
36:5
36:6
36:14
38:1-15
38:4-8
38:5
41:8
43:1-16
43:15
43:16
43:17a
44:23b
44:23-45:5
44-50
45:1-5
45:1-2
45:2-3
18,20
18
38,42
34
18
43
39
21,22,51
183,290
18
29
18
27
25,
25
25
23
18
24
26
24,25
3:1-7
3:16-17
11:7-8
181
21
22,51
T. Abr.
11:9
12:4
13:2
85
85
85
T. Isaac
2:7
85
T. Job
33
T. Jos.
20
85
166
116
Index of References
T. Judah
25:3
1
1,7
183
180,
T. Sim.
8
8
T. Sol.
25
26
1:1-13
3:1-5
Wis
15, 193,237,238,285,
298
7:16-21
10:15-16
10:17-19
11:5-8
16:20
16:5-14
16:15-23
17:1-21
17-18
18:10-19
19:7-9
260
204
137
194
141
142
115
116
135
117
77
183
T. Reu.
116
238
264, 289
333
61
264
261
261
Qumran
1QM
59
13,10-12
50
4Q504
20
4Q434
20
4Q511
57
4Q558
35
4QApcrJer
168,292
4QPrNab
182,290
1QS
3,17-4,1
51
lQSb
4,25 sqq
85
4Q226
20
4Q365
J1Q11
51,222,261,290
20
2,3-4
3,2-9
5,4-10
57,220
220
220
4Q377
20
CD
4Q378
252,291
5,17-19
4Q379
Genesis Apocryphon 48, 49, 63, 109, 189
4-13
4Q385
2
12
252,291
175,290
175
175
20
20,28-29
60
180,181
48, 181,282,290
Index of References
334
Philo and Josephus

Philo
Abr.
66-69
70-71
82-83
92-98
93-106
95-96
96-98
132
109
111
150
152
109
49
Aet
8
13
14-16
27
38
52
144
154
154
154
154
154
3,38
3,45
3,81
3,94
3,90-93
3,162-172
3,165
3,167
3,169
3,175
3.185
3.186
3,202
Cher.
15
32-36
74-77
Agr.
Conf.
65
79-83
82-83
88-89
95-98
96-97
2
2-3
30
36
60-82
70
88
132
138
137
131
143,290
146
Alleg. Inter p.
1,6
1,40
1,105-108
1,108
2,1-11
2,4-5
2,6
2,19
2,34
2,242
2,65-67
2,74-75
2,76-84; 87
2,81
2,86
2,90-93
3,12-13
3,37-39
21
153
128
53
133
154
139
143
117,136
225
142
142
142
143
139, 140
133
131
131
131
141
131,
131
130
140
117,136
138
140
131
141
141
117
139
146
131
144
146
137
137
136
136
131,133
Congr.
85-88
163-167
173-174
131
138
140
Contempl.
3-6
7-8
83-85
83-87
Decal.
15-18
52-55
114
131
120
121, 158
156
114
Det.
1; 72
8
38-40
134
114
133,134
335
Index of References
118
161-162
177
140
153
112
Deus
1-2
31-32
51-68
136-139
148-161
155
128
132
112
109
132
140
Ebr.
11-153
111
112-113
136
136
139
Fug.
60-64
82
138
145
183
132
154
140
126
139
Her.
14
14-19
95
152-153
173-174
203-204
249-259
255
258
259-260
260-266
304
66
137
150
114
140
137
148
136
150
149
150
113
Hypoth.
144
110
6,2-7
los.
11,63
Legat.
118
21
153
132
162-173
131
Migr.
9-10
14
26
34-35
36-38
70-117
76-85
78-85
82-85
83-85
85
151-155
154
178-179
195
132
66, 131
136
139
139
133
134
133
113
134
115
131
138
111
132
Mos.
136, 144, 158
1,1-3
1,4
1,5-7
1,13
1,19
1,19-33
1,21-24
1,23-24
1,26
1,45-46
1,62
1,63-64
1,65-64
1,66
1,67-70
1,71
1,74
1.76
1.77
1,77-81
1,79
1,82
1,83-84
1,87
1,90
1,91-94
1,92-94
1.94
1.95
144
13,128,300
110
111
111
111
155
111
237
111
111
111
291
111
133
115111
113
156
112
111
112
111
112
118
113,156
292
134
113,156
156
Index of References
336
1,96-98
1,98-101
1,98-139
1,103-105
1,107-112
1,112
1,113-117
1,144
1,120-122
1,123-125
1,126
1,127-129
1,130-132
1,133
1,134-139
1,143-146
1,44
1.146
1.147
1,156
1,158
1,167-180
1,173-174
1,173-175
1.176
1.177
1,180
1,181-187
1,185-187
1,191-209
1,200
1,200-207
1,201-202
1,207
1,209
1,210-213
1,211
1,212-213
1,214-219
1,217-218
1,258-267
1,169-275
1,288-291
1,302
114
114
291
115
115
115
115
115
116
116,146
116
116
117
117
117
118
237
118
138
119
153, 154
119,291
119
175
119,146
121
120
122,291
122, 146
123
124
291
147
124
123,291
124,291
125,146
147
125,291
126
291
146
121
224
2,5
2,43-44
2,52-53
2,187-188
2,192-212
2,213-220
153
110,118
119
148
149
149
2,288
2,246
2,249-255
2,250
2.253
2,253-257
2.254
2,258
2,258-263
2,258-267
2,262
2,263-269
2,263-269
2,264
2,270
2,270-274
2,272
2.274
2.275
2,275-287
2.277
2.278
2,278-287
2,280
2,288-291
2,291
153
149
121
209
120
149
195
149
149
124
156
149
149
149
131
149
149
209
149
149
126
127
126
127, 149
127,292
127, 148
Mut.
19
20-21
125
125-129
124
259-260
153
135
114
153
122
140
Op.
1-3
3
52
58-60
105
119
124
131
144
93
119
114
111
122,139
154
122,139
114
154
Plant.
10
114
Index of References
Post.
35
124-157
155-156
155-157
165
182
134
138
131
138
131
225
Praem.
55
75-78
93-97
148
126
121
Prob.
2-3
13
42
53-57
74
99-103
154
154
153, 154
53, 155
114
117
Prov. 2
2,60
122
QE
1,32
146
QE 1 Fr. 1 Marcus
p. 258
154
2,3
109
2.5
266
2,13
132
2,24
122,253
2,27
134
2,37
112
2,40
154
2,44
134
2,47
112
2,40
154
QO
1,86
2.6
2,62
3,3
Sacr.
109, 127
53, 155
112
154
5
8-10
128
153
337
9
51
62-63
134
135
153
115,131
136
136
131
Somn.
1,33-156
1,72
1,72-119
1,87-135
1,102-104
1,114
1,117
1,220
2,255-258
2,182-183
2,221-222
2,234
2,266
2,269-270
2,279-280
2,279-282
130
135
135
135
130
135
66,135
135
135
131
140
152
135
137
137
137
Spec.
1,64-65
1,116
2,217-219
2,225
3,22-23
3,29
3,100-103
4,47
4,126-130
4,128-130
4,188
148
152
79, 120, 158
152
1553,64-65
142
114
117
123
141
154
Virt.
35-36
72-79
177
128, 143, 152,
142
127
151,152
154
148
Josephus
Ant.
189, 228, 232, 276
1,17
1,24
278
229
Index of References
338
2,205
2,205-237
2,205-4,331
2,11-216
2,216
2,218
2,219-213
2,219-227
2,223
2,232
2,232-237
2,236
2,238-253
2,253
2,267
2.270
2.271
2,271-272
2,272-274
2.273
2.274
2.275
2,275-276
2.276
2,279
2,279-280
2,281-287
2,284
2.286
2.287
2,292
2,294-295
2,294-315
2,296-299
2,300-302
2.302
2.303
2.304
2.305
2.305
2.306
2,307-310
2,311-315
2,313
2,314-315
2,320-348
2,321
2,322-323
2,324
2,329-337
233,246
292
232
233
233
233
94
233
246
233
233
234
233
233
235
235
235
291
274
68,239
235,248
248
98
235
235
235, 246, 248
236,292
236
236,248
236
237
237
291
237
237
237
117,238
238
238
238
238
238
239,248
239
240
240,291
240
240
240
240
2,337
2.343
2.344
2.346
2.347
2,347-348
2.348
3,1-8
3,7-8
3,13-22
3,14; 16
3,17-18
3,18
3,25
3,26-28
3,26-32
3,31
3,33-38
3,38
3,39-62
3,53-54
3,62
3,81
3,86
3,88
3,180
3,265-268
3,299
3,322
3,925
4,11-66
4.12
4.13
4,13-21
4,18
4,43-47
4.44
4.45
4,51
4,54-58
4,63-66
4,104-130
4,109
4,145-155
4,149
4,152-155
4,158
4,165
4,191
4,207
241
241,246,248
241
241
170
241,246
229
242,291
242,246
242
228
237
241
242,246,291
243,291
242
243,246
243
241,243
243,246
243
240
229
237, 240, 247
242
245
232
244
229
248
244,292
244
244
241
244
244
241
242
244,248
244,248
244,248
246
247
267
267
267
247
28,251
249
267
Index of References
4,326
5,7
5,16
5,16-20
5,17-19
5,20
5,22
5,22-27
5,24
5,27
5,58-61
5,60-61
5,61
5,67
5,182-184
5,276
5,276-285
5,278
5.276
5.277
5,280-284
5,284
5,287
5,294
5,297
5,300
5,301-303
5,304
5,304-305
5,306
5.316
5.317
5,309-312
5,316
6,168
6,37
8,32
8,42-45
8,44
8,44-46
8,46-48
8,47-49
8,166-168
8,211
8.318
8.319
8,319-323
8.320
8,320-323
8,324
245, 268, 292

257
250
291
250
250
250
291
250
251
251,291
251
251
251
206,207
233
255,292
255
255
255
255
255
255,256,
256
291
256,258,291
256
257
291
257
256, 291
257,258
256
255
259
213
291
259,290
259
181
279
260
219
264
266
265
292
265
292
270
8,325-327
8,326
8,328-337
8,328-346
8,335
8,338
8,338-348
8.342
8.343
8,347-352
8,349
8,352
8,353-354
8,355-392
8,360-362
8,393-397
8,408
9,1-17
9,20
9,20-21
9,22-26
9,28
9,29-43
9,35
9,47-50
9,51
9,51-59
9,56
9,60
9,61-86
9,70
9,74
9,78
9,87-92
9,99
9,105-111
9,135-139
9,179-180
9.182
9.183
9,346
10,79
11,133
12,113
15,240-246
18,195-202
20,97-98
20,98
20,141-143
20,170-171
339
265
266
266
292
266
266
266
270
266, 270, 292
267
267,270
267
267,272
269
268
269
269
269
270
268,292
268
268,292
273
273
273,929
277
274
274
274
274
274
274
274
275
269
275
266
275
275
275,290
266
175
170
77
181
246
171
253
7,279
253
Index of References
340
B.J.
228, 230, 276
2,136
2,258-260
2,261-263
3,307-315
4,462-464
5,411
6,300-309
7,180-185
7,437-450
262
171
171
171
272, 276, 292
164
230
262
158, 171
c. Ap
228, 232, 247, 279
1,162-165
1,168-171
93
270
1,229
2,89-102
2,135
2,145
2,257
232
118
53
232
93
Vita
228
147
404
421
423-425
432-435
276
21,262
21
171
158
Targums and Rabbinica

Gen. R.
1:3
55:4
Ber.
221
52
233
68
124
Deut. R.
3:8
11:10
166
t. Sank
Exod. R.
1:26
3:16
25:2
3:20
76, 115,237,284
199,233,245
2:9
14:10
277
277
/. Sot.
3
4:7
8:1-6
8:6
12:5-6
253
277
170
253
277
Mek.
t. Yoma
16:4
124
1:6
277
Num.R.
10:5
217
Sifr. Deut.
42
b. Sank
92b
173
200
b. Taan.
m. Rosh HaSh
3:8a-b
126
m. Sank
6:4
214
10a
Tg. Ps.-J.
200
1:15
233
Index of References
Greek and Latin Literature

Greek Authors
Diogenes Laertius
Aeschylus
3,1
7,46
8,67
233
221
97
Dionysius of
Halicarnassus
1,64,4
2,56,2
245
245
Pers.
64, 78, 79
184
84
Aeius Aristides
2,43
209
Apollodorus
epit. 5,17-18
165
Appian
fr. 19
Aristophanes
Frogs
Aristotle
184
66
67
hist. anim.
7,16 597b
123
metaph.
114
Protr. fr.
10 c
Bacchae
567 sqq
Iph. Aul.
122 117
154
1,60
1,107-108
1,209
2,3-4
229
241
84
104
2,102-106
2,107
2,121
5,56
7,12
7,19
93
97
261
84
84
84
Hist. Alex. Magni 167

1,4,8
170,241
Callimachus
4,249-259
233
Z)/o Cassius
71,8-9
234
Homer
Anabasis
1,26,1
96
66,78
Herodotus
gen. an.
770b
983b,7
Euripides
II.
17,377
17,98
9
83
83
258
Od.
6,129
83
Diodorus Siculus
Iamblichus
1,53-56
1,54,3
1,57,7-8
34
v.P.
36
93
93
97
9
172
Index of References
342
Julianus
epist.
12
Lucian
Timaeus
24-25
32
33
41
90c
141
154
154
154
154
154
154
154
Alex.
24
32,13
97
98
Plutarch
Peregr.
mor.
421a-b
Philops.
26
97
Plut. Alex.
75,1 706a-b
67
Quomodo historia
sit scribenda
60
229
De defectu
oraculorum
209
Numenius
fr. 18
98
Polybius
PGM
98
3,112,18
Pompeius Trogus
Philostratus
her.
45
234
VA
1,4-6
1,20
4,20
4,38
234
184
180
183
7,38
8,30
96
96
Historiae
libri
Philippicae
36
epitoma
2,5
15
Proclos
Krat.
72,10
rep.
2,123,12
9,232
Plato
Sophocles
apol.
Ant.
22c
209
910
Ion
534b-c
67
209
Strabo
14,3,9
Meno
99c
209
rep.
587b 589b
Theaetetus
176a-b
183
157
154
83
170
Theognis
1,5-10
233
Zctfw Authors
Index of References
Apuleius
apol
90
90,5
9
61
flor.
19
97
metam.
2,28-29 97
Arnobius
nat.
15,1-2
15,3-8
Latro
decl. in Cat.
19
262
262
171
Livy
1,16
268
perioch
56
Ovid
fast.
1,52
Celsus
2.6
97
2,481-509
268
metam.
14,805-885
268
Pliny
1,36
262
Quintus Cicero
Pet.
20
205
nat.
7,124
8,160
26,12-15
30,
30,2,11
97
108
97
61
98
Damigeron
Tacitus
De lapidibus
F/or.
9, 214
ann.
6,20-21
279
2.7
hist.
5,3,2
232
>4w/tt.y Gellius
8,3
9
12,11
9
//wf. Aug.M. Aur.
24,4
Vergil
229,270
A en.
2,40-46
2,199-231
6,42-54
165
165
165
eel.
8,64-109
263
Horace
sat.
1,5,97-103
Juvenalis
6,544-547
The Law of the Twelwe

Tablets
111
98
New Testament
344
Index of References
Matt
4
11:10
11:14
12:22
17:10-13
23:29-30
John
52
35
35
181
35
161
Mark
1:34
2:5
6:31-44
8:1-10
9:2-8 par
181
182
173
173
128
6
9
173
163
Acts
5:17-26
5:36
12:6-17
16:23-30
3
97
171,253
97
97
19:12
19:13
167
181
1 Cor
Luke
1:17
4 52
4:27
11:48-49
24:49
35
52
277
161
208
10
197,286
2 Cor
1 Thess
Phil
Early Christian Authors

Acts of Thomas 166
170
167
Apocryphon Johannis
15-17
208
Athenagoras
suppl
26,3-5
Augustine
civ.
2,22
262
Catena Severi 47
Clement of Alexandria
strom.
1,23,153
1,23,155-156
1,154,2
64
64
89
Epiphanius
Panarion
64,70,5
(CGS 15,515) 175
Eusebius
hist. eccl.
13,12,1-8
53
praep. ev.
9,17
9,17,3-4; 8
9.18.1
9.18.2
9,23
9,28-29
9,29,6-7
9,39,2-5
9,39,2-5
9,8
89
92
89
92
89
64
82
168
292
61
345
Index of References
Hippolytus
Prudentius
haer.
6,7-8
per.
4,165-168
Ireneus
Pseudo-Eustathius
haer.
PG
18,729
Vulgate
5,34,1
175
Meliton
22-24
193
Afag Hammad
Nicephorus
Stichometry
64
75
Orig. World
2,5 105-106
261
Gos. Truth
9,3 70
261
175

Subjects
Aaron 24, 26, 30, 55, 60, 68, 73, 76,
82, 93, 94, 96, 100, 101, 106, 109,
112, 113, 114, 116, 125, 128, 133,
134, 141, 142, 152, 156, 157, 167,
168, 184, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203,
223, 224, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239,
240, 243, 244, 248, 283, 286
Abaddon 50
Abihu 82
Abiram 24
Abraham 11, 26, 46-63, 83, 85, 87, 91,
92, 93,97, 109, 111, 128, 132, 133,
137, 138, 139, 150, 152, 154, 156,
180, 181, 194, 201, 205, 220, 222,
223, 229, 282, 290-296, 299
- his extraordinary position 49-50,
201,291
- his early years 46, 282-283
- as exorcist 46-53, 282
- asprotos heuretes 53, 63, 282, 292,
293,
Achan 207
Achill 258
Acropolis 79
Aelius Aristeides 149
Aeneas 2 4 5 , 2 6 8 , 2 8 7
Aeschylus 64, 77, 78, 79, 87, 292
Ahab 3 6 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 8
Ahaziah 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 6 , 184,268
Alexander
- the Great 35, 165, 167, 170, 234,246
- Polyhistor 19, 64, 89, 94, 100, 105,
106
Alexandria 64, 65, 80, 87, 89, 108, 118,
129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 145, 157,
158, 165, 167, 190, 257, 289, 297
allegorical method 129-131
Amalek 24, 75, 76, 125, 141, 208, 246,
286, 291
Amalekites 125, 240, 243, 248, 296
Ammonites 204,208
Amorite 207,214
Amram 54, 192, 202, 210, 233, 247
Ancient of Days 84
angels 21, 23, 25, 26, 50-63, 69, 74,85,
94, 97 111, 112, 117, 119, 120, 128,
141, 178, 179, 183, 194, 197, 200,
201, 205, 207, 208, 213-215, 217,
221-224, 281, 284, 285, 288, 292,
294,298
Angel of Presence 44, 55, 56, 61, 63,
69, 112, 120, 208
anthropomorphism 112, 118, 157, 225226, 294
anti-Jewish propaganda 72,90, 107,
144, 157-158, 231-232, 278
Apella 229, 270, 279
Apollo 82, 233, 234
Apollonius V, VI, 4, 232
Apollonius Molon 232
Apsethus 9
Apuleius 97
Arabic 160
Arabs 184
Aramaic 48, 178, 288
Aristobulus 20, 53, 56, 58, 84, 93, 112,
124, 294
Aristotle 1, 123
- hiding of the ark through different
agents 167-168
Armenian 160
Arnuphis 9
Arrian 170,241
Artapanus 3, 5, 9, 14, 15, 20, 31, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 69, 73, 76, 77,
80, 89-107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113,
114, 117, 120, 122, 125, 129, 133,
146, 152, 166, 193, 195, 196, 200,
202, 226, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239,
241, 246, 268, 275, 282, 283, 284,

285, 286, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296,
297, 298, 299
Asa 20, 21
Ascalonites 256
Asclepiades 97
Asclepius 21
Aseneth 80,97, 177, 195,291
Asher 97, 194, 195,214
ass 146,247
Assyria 111, 170
astrology 50, 53, 54, 92, 109, 111, 295
Athanos 259
Athenian 79, 87, 229
Athens 79, 87
Atossa 84
audience 14, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31, 33, 41,
65, 69, 78, 79, 83, 85, 87, 98, 105,
106, 110, 113, 118, 124, 144, 145,
150, 156, 157, 162, 168, 171, 177,
187, 197, 199, 210, 225, 226, 227,
229,248, 251, 254, 263, 264, 276,
279, 280, 289, 296, 297, 298, 300
Aulus Cornelius Celsus 97
Azazel 49, 50
Baal 33, 150, 184, 224, 265, 266, 270,
276
Baaras 181, 182,262
Babylon 176
Babylonian 100, 173
Balaam 16, 109, 121, 146, 199, 246,
247
BarKochba 176
Baruch 168
Beelzeboul (Beelzabub) 50,261
Beer 197
Behemoth 179, 180
Belial 50, 60, 183
Beliar 58, 164, 179, 180, 183
Ben Sira 10, 12, 16, 17-43, 69, 86, 87,
98, 99, 120, 122, 148, 151, 158, 161,
162, 163, 164, 170, 185, 197, 203,
205, 225, 227, 251, 254, 262, 286,
287, 288, 290, 292, 293,295, 296,
297, 298, 299, 300
Benjamin 194
Betel 176
Biographies 18, 19, 110, 161, 187,292
BNP see roles in miracles
Cain 112, 135
347
Cainan 54
Caleb 27, 206
Caligula 108, 132
Callimachus 233
Canaan 78,240
Catena Severi 47
Chaldea 46, 111, 132
Chaldean 111
Chaldeans 46, 169, 171
Chalkeos 259
Chanethothes 93
Chebar 169
Chenephres 92
Cleanthes 53
Clement 64, 89, 96
Cornelius Nepos 18
contemporization
- of miracles 132-133, 144, 157-158,
195,204, 212, 223, 226, 244-245,
266, 295-296, 300
Dagon 256
Damigeron 9,214
Daniel
- the healing of Nebuchadnezzar 177183
Dardanos 259
Dathan 24
David 219
-hishymn 219-222,288
- his fight against
Goliath 222-223, 288
Davidic 4 1 , 8 5 , 2 1 2 , 2 9 9
Deborah 10, 196, 201, 204,215
Delilah 218,256,257
Delphi 82
Demetrius 19,75
demons see spirits
desert 14, 18, 78, 81, 91, 103, 105, 118,
119,122, 123, 138, 139, 158, 168,
173, 180, 196, 197, 202, 224, 242,
248, 252,254, 265, 281,286
divine man 3-6, 151-155,231,241,298
divine voice 66, 69, 94, 95, 104, 105,
106, 112, 226, 234, 267,283
dualism 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 164, 183
ecstasy 119, 120, 123-125, 149 127,
203-204, 209
Edom 132,206
348
Edomite 206
education 65, 80, 108, 129, 133, 138,
140, 145, 158, 165, 234, 283
Egypt, Egyptian passim Egyptian gods
destroyed 60-61, 102,285
Eleazar 203, 224, 245, 260, 262, 279
elements (stoicheia, rizomata) 114,
119, 124, 126, 157, 237, 299
Eli 222
Elijah 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42,
43, 98, 109, 127, 128, 150, 156, 161,
164, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177,
184, 185, 186, 187, 203, 224, 225,
226, 245, 249, 252, 254, 255, 264,
265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271,
272, 275, 276, 278, 281, 287, 288,
290, 291,292, 295, 296, 298
- miracles of 31-36, 173, 184-185,
264-271,288
- identification with Phinehas 185,
223-225
- Elia redivivus 35, 43, 185, 225, 269
- for details see the biblical index
Elijahu 21
Elim 81, 87, 122, 139,248,286
Elisha 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 33, 36, 37,
38, 3 9 , 4 1 , 4 2 , 98, 150, 164, 170,
171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 184, 186,
187, 203, 230, 252, 254, 265, 267,
268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275,
276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 288, 290,
292, 298
- miracles of 37-38, 186, 271-278,
288
- for details see the biblical index
eloquence 68, 95, 112-113, 129, 133,
134, 158, 235, 240, 248,283
emigration 131, 132, 138, 139, 145,
154, 157, 158,286
Empedocles 97, 114
EnEglaim 172
EnGedi 172
Endor 215
Enoch 18, 83, 85, 86, 87, 109, 245,
268, 287
Epicurus, Epicureans 143, 145, 158,
229, 247, 279
Epiphanius 160, 175
Essenes 44, 45, 121, 191, 220, 262
Esthaol 208
ethical use of Ethiopia, Ethiopian 44,
114, 142, 233
Eunus 9
Eupolemus 5, 168, 292
Eusebius 64, 89, 91, 94, 96
exaggeration of miracles 75, 100, 104,
114, 116, 118, 122, 157, 170, 178,
195, 246, 272-273,286, 294
exaltation 82,205
exorcisms 46-53,63,180-183,219222, 259-264, 273, 288- 290
Ezekiel (prophet) 11,168-174,187,
289
- the Crossing of Chebar 169-172,289
- the abundant supply of fish 172-173,
289
- healings 173-174, 177-183,289,290
- the miracle of dry bones 174-176,
289
- the cursing of Dan and Gad 176-177
Ezekiel the Tragedian 13, 62, 64-88,
103, 121, 207, 235, 240, 282-286,
292-296. 298
Fadus 253
feedings 172-173, 273-274, 291-291
- see also manna and quails
firstborn 55, 57, 70, 101, 102, 117, 135,
136, 157, 193,239, 285
fish 72, 100, 114, 135, 169, 172,289
flies 55, 102, 117, 193
frogs 55, 70, 72, 101, 102, 103, 115,
135, 193,237, 284
Gad 97, 176, 194, 195
Gaius 118, 133, 144, 157
garment 50, 135, 192,203
Gaza 256
Gehazi 38, 150, 186, 271, 274, 276,
277
Gibeon 2 7 , 2 0 5 , 2 5 1 , 2 9 1
Gideon 1 0 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 2 3
gnats 55, 115, 193
Gnostic 166
golden calf 136, 149, 150,246
Goliath 2, 205, 222, 223, 288, 291, 294
Gomorrah 14
Greece 111, 155, 180

Greek passim
349
Iamblichus 172
Iaoel 49, 56
idols, idolatry 46, 50, 54, 60, 62, 64,
65, 184, 214, 222, 264, 269, 272, 280
Idumean 206
Ingethel 207,208
Intermarriage 138, 142, 218, 264
Isaac 85, 150, 156,223
Isaiah 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 163, 164, 165,
177, 187, 231,288, 290, 298
- the healing of Hezekiah 39-41, 163164
- turning the sun back 41, 288
- his death 163-164,288
Isis 101, 103,262
Issachar 194
JabeshGilead 204
Jeremiah 160, 165-169, 176, 187,289,

290,292
- protection against animals 165,289
- miracles at his grave 165
- hiding of the ark 167-168,289
Jericho 12, 27, 37, 186,203, 207, 249,
250, 272, 275, 278, 279, 287, 291,
292
Jerusalem 17, 44, 79, 150, 163, 167,
169, 184, 200, 230, 252, 253, 289
Jesus ben Ananja 230
Jezebel 33
John the Baptist 30
Jonah 168, 184,206
Jonathan 158, 1 6 9 , 1 7 1 , 2 5 2 , 2 7 9 , 2 8 7
Jordan 27, 37, 42, 170, 171, 184, 186,
196, 203, 228, 249, 250, 252, 253,
254, 269,287, 291
Joseph 59, 64, 80, 84, 91, 92, 93, 97,
116, 134, 177, 194,218, 232, 238
Josephus 5, 7, 10-16,21, 28, 30, 42, 47,
53, 55-59, 68, 69, 72, 74-77, 90-96,
98, 101, 103-106, 110-117, 120, 121,
126, 127, 144, 146, 148, 151, 157,
162, 163, 164, 166, 170, 171, 175,
181, 189, 191, 193, 195, 197, 198,
199, 203, 206, 207, 210, 213, 215219, 225, 228-280, 283-289, 291-300
Joshua 11, 26-34, 36, 38, 42, 98, 109,
203-208, 212, 213, 222, 245, 249255, 257,279, 287, 295, 296, 298,
299
- the crossing of Jordan 203, 250-251,
287
- the conquest of Jericho 203, 250251,287
- the battle of Gibeon 2 0 3 , 2 5 1 , 2 8 7
- filled with spirit 203-204, 287, 299
- Joshua redivivus 171, 254
Judah 37, 38, 65, 165, 170, 183, 194,
206
Judges 29,211-212
Juvenalis 98
Jabis 208
Jacob 85, 156, 180, 196,223,290
Jacob of Edessa 4 7 , 4 8
Jambres 5 7 , 6 1 , 2 3 3 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 6
Jannes 57, 60, 61, 233, 284, 296
Jehu 33, 36, 266, 267, 275, 276
Kenaz 11, 189, 198, 204, 206, 207,

208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214,
215, 218, 222, 223, 226, 227, 279,
289, 291,299
- the tradition 206-207, 289
- his ecstasy 208-210
Hagar 129, 138

hail
2 7 , 3 1 , 5 5 , 6 0 , 7 0 , 101, 102,
115, 135, 193,238,251
Haimanos 259
Haninaben Dosa 166, 174, 180
Hasmonean 2 2 4 , 2 4 4 , 2 6 4
Hazael 3 6 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 4
healings 39-41, 173-174, 177-183
Heliopolitans 104
Hemaon 259
Heracleitus 53
Hercules 4 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 8
Hermes 93
Herodes 181
Herodotus 79, 84, 91, 104, 229, 261
Hezekiah 21, 39, 40, 163, 288, 290,
291
Hippocrates 122, 139
Homer 19, 180
Horace 229, 270, 279
Horeb 32, 55, 87, 92, 99, 111, 119, 197,
235, 267, 283
hornets 122,253
350
Korah 24, 126, 149, 150, 198, 199, 202,

2 3 6 , 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 , 248, 286,292
Latin 45, 160, 185, 189, 195, 197, 198,
2 0 5 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 3 , 2 3 1 , 2 5 6 , 284
Laus patrum 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 30, 31,
33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 161, 292, 293, 298
Law 2 4 , 4 2 , 110, 118, 119, 131, 132,
155, 158, 167, 168, 171, 176, 196,
198, 199, 201,215, 218, 225, 244,
245,287, 289,292
legitimisation 38-39,95, 155-156, 157,
172, 203-204, 248, 254, 280, 296
Levi 45, 194
Lion 122, 179, 222, 255, 256, 258, 296
Livestock 70, 71, 117, 193, 238, 239,
284
Locusts 55, 70, 71, 101, 102, 103, 116,
193,237, 238, 285
Lucian 97,98, 180,229,262
Lysimachus 232
Maccabean 28, 34, 35, 90, 164,231
magic 102, 113-114, 118, 134,214215, 236, 260-261, 272, 279, 284,
289, 294
magician 3 , 4 , 4 8 , 5 6 , 6 1 , 113-115, 118,
134, 215, 237, 238, 240, 248, 260
Manasseh 164
Manetho 90,231
manna 105, 108, 119, 123, 124, 140,
149, 157, 173, 197, 200, 242, 243,
246, 286, 291
Manoah 217,255
Marah 24, 138, 139, 196, 197, 242,
246, 286
Mariamne 181
Masada 170,252,287
Masoretic 12, 70, 123, 178,249,281
Mastema 11, 46,47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70,
179, 208, 215, 284,294, 295, 299
Melitoof Sardes 116,238
Memphians 104
Menander 265, 270
Meribah 197
merkabah 82, 84
Merris 92, 94, 233, 283
Messiah 85, 176, 211-213, 221, 227
Messiah of Ephraim 176
miracle
- definition and concept of 1-3, 22
- words used 1, 67
- militant miracles 28-30, 33-36, 42,
203-212, 222-223, 226, 230-231,
250-251, 269-270, 279, 288
- punishing miracles (see also plagues)
32, 33, 38, 48-49, 55, 60, 96-97, 123,
128, 141-142, 149, 176-177, 268, 292
- see also healings, exorcisms,
- on different themes, see 290-292
Miriam 128, 138, 141, 142, 192, 197,
233, 234, 235, 245, 248, 278, 283,
286, 295
Mishna 22, 35, 120, 126, 141, 252, 257,
277, 286, 293
MNP, see roles
Moses, passim
- his extraordinary position 25-26,
151-155, 199, 204-205, 245, 279,
291,298
- his early years 92-94, 110-111, 192193,232-234
- his Egyptian opponents 56-57, 100101,113-114, 134, 158, 236,283285, 296
- his rod 76-77, 105, 194, 200, 285
- the dialogue at the burning bush 6669, 74, 94-96, 111-112, 133-134, 144,
152, 200, 234-235, 268,283
- plagues 55-56,69,99-103, 114-119,
134-136, 193, 237-240, 284
- the Passover 136
- Red Sea 61-62,73-80, 103-105, 119121, 136-138, 149, 194-196,240-241
- t h e sweet water 122,138-139,196197,242,286, 291
- the water from the rock 124-125, 139140,243, 291
- manna 105, 123, 140-141, 149,242243,286, 291
- quails 123-124; 141, 196, 242-244,
286,291
- the battle against Amalek 125-126,
141,243
- the punishment of Miriam 141 -142,
286
- the venomous snakes 142-143, 246,
287

- the revolt of Korah 126-127, 149,
198-199, 244-246, 286-287
- his death 127-128, 153, 199,245,
287
- his birth foretold 192-193, 233-234,
283
- as Egyptian general 94,233-234
- his dream 81-86
- freed from prison 96
- Moses redivivus 171, 174,254
Mount Carmel
32, 33, 266
Musaios 93
music 221,259,288
Naaman 37, 186, 274, 276, 277, 281
Nabatean 161
Naboth
268
NagHammadi
208,261
name of God 98
Naphtali 97,214
Nathan 164,233
Nathaniel 224
Nebuchadnezzar 177, 179
Neryllinus 9
Nicephorus 175
Nigidius Figulus 9
Nile 68, 76, 99, 100, 114, 134, 135,
247,293
Noah 50, 51, 53, 60, 150, 181, 200
Numenius 61, 98
Obadiah 273, 275
Obedias 266
Oedipus 245, 263, 268
the origin of evil 51-52
Orpheus 93,292
Orphic 84
Palestine 7, 14, 35, 45, 49, 53, 75, 94,
123, 158, 160, 171, 191, 195, 200,
212, 2 9 5 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 0
Pamphylian Sea 241
Paradise 146,200
Passover 55, 57, 65, 79, 80, 87, 117,
118, 120, 136, 144, 239, 250
Peisistratus 229
Peregrinus Proteus 9
Persian 51, 7 8 , 7 9 , 8 7 , 1 8 2 , 2 4 1
pestilence 67, 70, 71, 72, 87, 112, 117,
144, 239, 284, 293
351
Pharisee 44, 195

Philistines 207, 216, 223, 255, 256,
257,291
Philo
passim
Philosopher 14, 145, 155, 266, 298
philosophy 1, 93, 106, 128, 132, 139,
143, 145, 152, 263
Physicians 3, 20-23, 41, 48, 97, 101,
102, 107, 122, 139, 183, 197, 259,
262, 283, 285, 295
plagues, see Moses
Plato 52, 110, 119, 130, 132, 149, 154,
180, 209, 233,234, 261,286
Platonic 130, 134, 145, 154, 155, 158,
159, 201
Pliny 97, 98, 108, 229
Plutarch 9,209
PNP, see roles
Polyhistor 20,68, 82, 91, 102
Pompeius Trogus 98,232
Priest 17, 90, 97, 98, 101, 103, 184,
185,224, 231,244, 292
Priesthood 24, 44, 126, 224, 244, 286,
292
prison 96,97, 106,291
prophet 7, 10, 11, 24, 267-43, 65, 83,
97, 109, 127, 148-150, 150, 155, 158,
161-177, 183-188, 203, 208-213, 215,
224, 225, 227, 231, 250, 253-255,
264-277, 282, 288, 289
Protagoras 134
protos heuretes 53, 92, 93, 100, 292295
Prudence 71
Pseudo-Eupolemus 54
Ptolemaic 21, 34, 64, 97
Ptolemy 64, 165
Pythagoras 4, 9, 172
quails 123, 141, 157, 173, 196, 242,
243,246, 286, 291
Qumran 21, 30, 35, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52,
57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 161, 170, 181,
191, 215, 220, 223, 252, 262, 287,
288, 294, 299, 300
rabbinical miracle-workers 8
Rahab 257
Raphael 2 1 , 5 1 , 5 6
352
rationalisation 22, 104, 146-148, 157,

228-231, 242, 246, 262-263, 267-271,
275-279, 295
ravens 32, 33, 46, 47, 53, 63, 184, 185,
265, 270
resurrection 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 , 2 0 1 , 2 7 3
resuscitation 97, 265-266, 273, 290
rewritten Bible 90, 110, 189, 212, 216
rod 24, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 87,
95, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
120, 125, 126, 133, 134, 157, 194,
195, 199, 200, 201, 235, 236, 237,
239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 246, 249,
255, 283, 285, 294
roles of God and his agents
- BNP 15, 16, 23, 31, 36, 38, 57, 69,
98, 101, 106, 152, 171, 205, 239, 298
- MNP 15, 23, 31, 38, 41, 57, 69, 76,
98, 152, 159, 163, 177, 205,213,236,
239, 247, 251,266
- PNP 15, 23, 30, 42, 49, 57, 69, 98,
152, 159, 163, 172, 174, 177, 180,
205, 239, 247, 266
Romulus 245, 268, 287
Ruth 222, 288
Sabbath 124, 140, 145, 149, 158, 286
sacrifice 47, 75, 115, 116, 117, 118,
126, 131, 144, 158, 184, 190, 238,
239, 248, 267, 278, 282, 284
Salamis 79, 87
Samaritan 25, 44, 65, 128, 195
Samson 2 , 1 1 , 1 5 0 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 ,
217, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 233,
255, 256, 257, 258, 266, 278, 279,
287, 291,292, 294, 295,296
- birth 217,255
- deeds 217-218, 255-258
- Samson and spirit 149-150,208,
256-258
- ethical criticism of 217-218, 256258, 296
Samuel 2 9 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 5
Sarah 48, 129, 138, 139, 181, 282
Satan 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 62, 181,
183,218, 257, 294
Saul 149, 1 8 9 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 5 ,
219, 222, 224, 226, 227, 259, 288
Seleucidic 34, 44
serpent 100, 143, 234, 235
Sesostris 93, 97, 106

she-ass 199
shinar 136
sickness 32, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182,
183, 188, 239
Simeon 116, 194
sin and sickness 182-183
Sinai 32, 58, 81, 82, 167, 229, 267
Sisera 210
snake 66, 69, 70, 87, 95, 99, 102, 112,
113, 128, 133, 134, 141, 142, 143,
145, 146, 147, 157, 165, 166, 236,
287, 295
Socrates 53, 134, 155, 180,261
Sodom 14
Solomon 9, 10, 53, 181, 221-222, 228,
259-264, 278, 279, 289, 290, 294,
295, 299
- as exorcist 221-222,259-264,289
Son of Man 83, 86, 87
sophists 113, 131, 134, 135, 137,145,
283
Sophocles 77, 78, 245, 263, 268
sorcerer 57, 60, 103, 113, 117, 118,
134, 145, 155, 158,214, 231,237,279,
284, 293, 296
Speusippus 130,234
Spinoza 1
spirits 43-53, 56-59, 62, 180-182, 214215, 219-223, 226, 259-264, 287-288,
294
staff 31, 73, 76, 113, 125, 200, 234
Stoic 155
Syria 155, 186
Syriac 45, 160
Syrian 3 7 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 186,274
Tabernacle 200
Tacitus 232,279
Talmud 173,255
Taphnai 167
Terah 46, 63
Tetragrammaton 76
Tharmuth 94, 106, 233, 234, 283
- themes 16, 17, 290-292
Theodectes 77
Theognis 28
theophany 66, 87, 94, 95, 99, 105, 111,
119, 125, 127, 133, 229, 234, 266,
267, 270, 283

Theopompus 77
Thermuthis 9 4 , 2 3 3 , 2 8 3
Theudas 9, 169, 171, 172, 187,230,
253, 254, 269, 279, 280, 287, 296
throne 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 226,
291,298
Thucydides 91,229
Torah 93, 110, 124
Tosefta 22, 170, 252, 257, 277
Tree of Life 139, 196, 197
353
wasps 122
Watchers 21, 85
widow 32, 33, 37, 109, 173, 184, 264,
265, 273, 275, 277, 288, 292
witch 215
Xenocrates 52, 180
Ur 243
Utopias 81, 87
Vergil 149,209,263
Vespasian 1 7 1 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 , 2 5 8 , 2 5 9 , 2 8 0
visions 39, 84, 85
Zambri 61
Zatchlas 97
zealots 6, 7, 224-226, 225, 270, 288
Zebulun 194
Zeno 53, 155
Zeruel 207, 208, 223
Zervihel 5 6 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 3
Zion 29, 39, 167
Zorah 208
Scholars
Achtemaier 37
Albertz 1, 67, 178
Alexander 50, 51, 57, 58, 64, 89, 181,
220, 221,260, 262
Attridge 78
Aune 171,254
Barclay 64, 80, 90, 91, 98, 109, 155
Barnett 7 , 1 7 1 , 2 5 4
Bauckham 190, 194, 195, 198,206,
207,212
Becker 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 22, 29, 49, 58,
109, 126, 164, 166, 170, 174, 180,
214, 220, 221,253
Beegle 109, 151,231,232,245
Beentjes 17, 18, 1 9 , 2 5 , 3 9
Begg 1 0 , 2 3 0 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 4 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 7
Berger 4, 6, 9, 15, 16, 44, 45, 52, 57,
58, 90, 252
Betz, H.D. 5
Betz,0. 9,214,264,270,271,273
Beyer 49
Bieler 4, 151
Bilde 228, 230
Billerbeck 189
Birnbaum 56, 129, 132, 133
Blackburn 2 , 4
Bogaert 189, 190, 191, 192, 197,203,

207, 208, 214, 216, 219, 220, 221,
224
B6id 128
Bonneau 57
Booth 130, 143
Borgen 83, 85, 108, 110, 112, 118,
121, 124, 128, 129, 130, 132, 138,
140, 141, 144, 145, 151, 153
Bowie 4
Brock 47,48
Bultmann 5, 8, 15, 160
B6cher 8, 166, 180,221,273
van Cangh 21
Cazeaux 189, 190
Charles 44, 45, 47, 54, 60, 189
Charlesworth 6, 90, 183
Christiansen 129, 130, 133, 135, 141,
142
Cohn 189
Collins 19, 51, 64, 65, 80, 81, 82, 83,
85, 89, 90, 91, 96, 100, 177,229,
230, 252, 260, 279
Colpe 166, 180, 181
Colson 117, 127
354
Corrington 5
Crossan 8
Danker 4
Dassmann 175
Dawson 108, 110, 130, 132, 142, 145
deJonge 160, 161
deRomilly 134
Delcor 45
Delling 1 9 9 , 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 ,
246, 247, 249, 251
di Leila 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 3 1 , 3 2 ,
33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39
Dibelius 8, 15
Dietzfelbinger 61, 189, 190, 197, 205,
221,224
Dillon 172
duToit 4 , 1 5 1 , 2 3 1 , 2 4 5
Duhaine 57
Duling 2 3 6 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 3
Dupont-Sommer 182
Durham 70
Dzielska 4
Endres 44, 45, 47, 50
Eskola 81, 82, 83, 85, 86
Evans 9
Eve 2, 10, 15, 19, 22, 24, 31, 34, 37,
39, 46, 48, 49, 57, 92, 93, 98, 99,
100, 103, 109, 146, 147, 152, 155,
162, 190, 192, 202, 205, 214, 229,
230
Feldman 5, 10, 13, 77, 109, 126, 146,
189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198,
207, 210, 212, 213, 216, 218, 224,
228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234,
235, 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243,
244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251,
255, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263,
264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270,
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277,
279, 280, 295
Flinterman 4
Fossum 6, 82
Fraser 6 4 , 6 5 , 7 1 , 89,90, 104
Freudental 102
Frey 44, 45, 52, 59, 60, 143
Gabba 7, 171,230,231,253
Gager 98,231
Gauly 6 4 , 6 5 , 7 7 , 7 8
Georgi 89, 104, 110, 146, 147, 151,
231,260
GlSckner 8, 9, 15
Goldenberger 267
Goodenough 84
Goodman 7, 160, 161
Goulder 8, 37
Goulet 133, 153
Green 8
Grelot 182
Gruen 65, 72, 80, 83, 84, 90, 95, 231,
232
Gutman 83
Hadot 212
Hahn 5,23
Halpern-Amaru 44
Hare 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169,
173, 176, 177, 180, 183, 184
Hata 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 5
Hay 110, 144
Hayward 224
Helleman 112, 132, 151, 153, 154
Hemer 171,253
Hengel 4, 6, 7, 12, 17, 19, 28, 29, 30,
34, 35, 52, 56, 59, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85,
86, 90, 171, 197, 214, 223, 224, 252,
253, 254
Holladay 5, 10, 19, 26, 53, 64, 65, 66,
68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82,
83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97,
98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, 129,
151, 154, 231,232, 245
van der Horst 65, 72, 78, 82, 83, 84, 86
Houtman 100
Hfiffken 1 9 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 2 3 1
Jackson 221
Jacobson 10, 13, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,
69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 117, 121, 189,
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196,
197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204,
205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212,
214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221,
224, 235, 245
James 189,200,205
Jellinek 45

Jenni 1
Jeremias 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169
Jervell 171,253
Kahl 2 , 4 , 9, 15, 16, 23, 31, 49, 73, 87,
101, 106, 152, 168, 172, 202, 205,
226
Kaiser 21
Kasher 90,231
Kautsch 189
Kieweler 17, 18,28
Kister 220
Klauck 4
Kleingunther 53
Knibb 44, 164
Koskenniemi 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21, 89, 90,
94, 97, 98, 101, 103, 131, 151, 166,
172, 174, 214, 220, 234, 236, 266,
287
Kottek 22,51
Kraft 114,126
Kuhn 179
Kuiper 65
K5ster 3, 151
Laato 40
Ladouceur 229
Lange 50, 51, 54, 84, 182, 220, 262
Lee
18,35
Levison 149, 193, 198, 199, 209, 256
Lichtenberger 171,253,254
Liddell - Scott 123
Lierman 81, 82, 84, 86, 201
Long 130,211
Mack 18, 19, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34, 39
MacRae 228,261
Maier 2,48, 166,219,260
Marcus 1 5 4 , 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ,
267, 268, 273, 274, 275, 277
Martin 30, 35
Mayer 71
Meeks 83, 109, 111, 129, 132, 133,
144, 148, 151
Meier 2, 8
Merkel 252
Michl 56
Middendorp 19, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35
Milik 182
Mittmann-Richert 161, 168
355
Moehring 146, 154, 228, 229, 230, 235,

242
Mondesert 108, 110, 121, 143, 150
Montanari 64, 89
Murphy 19, 29, 34, 190, 191, 192, 196,
198, 199,203, 207, 216, 218, 219
MUller 166, 182,260
Nauck 64
Nestle 160
Nutton 21
Oberhansli-Widmer 11, 26, 83, 90, 109,
151,201,232, 234, 245,246
Ohler 12,31, 184,224
Olyan 50, 195, 212
Osswald 4 8 , 4 9
Pautrel 28, 29
Pearson 176
Pfres 4
Perrot 189, 190, 191, 192, 197,203,
207, 208, 214, 216, 219, 220, 221,
224
Pesch 172,253
Pfister 167
Philippson 64
Philonenko 49,220
Pilgaard 4
Preisendanz 260
Propp 70
vonRad 18, 1 9 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 4 2
Reinmuth 190, 192, 194, 198, 203, 207,
218,219
Reiterer 17, 18,28
Reitzenstein 3 , 4 , 151
Rengstorf 67, 74,217
Riessler 189
Robertson 64, 65, 77, 78, 83
Roncace 10,271
Rubinkiewicz 49
van Ruiten 44, 45, 51
Runia 81, 132, 151, 153, 154, 155
Sandelin 137, 138, 139, 140, 141
Sanders 138,218,264
Satran 160, 161, 162, 163, 169, 170,
172, 173, 178, 182, 183
356
Sauer 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31,
32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39
Sayar 49
Schaper 7
Schermann 160
Schottroff 5, 9, 10, 11, 90, 109, 130,
151,231
Schreiber 35, 171, 184, 230, 252, 253
Schwartz 90,244
Schweizer 151
Schwemer 10, 19, 160, 161, 162, 163,
164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170,
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177,
178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185,
186, 198, 206, 253
Schurer 29, 34, 45, 46, 65, 78, 90, 91,
160, 161, 189, 190, 191,260
Siegert 40, 67, 142, 178, 216, 255, 257,
258, 2 6 5 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 2
Sieker 182
Sievers 245
Siker 53, 54, 92
Ska 24, 28
Smend 17,29
Smith 3 , 7 , 171
Snaith 17, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33,
3 4 , 3 7 , 3 8 , 39,51
Snell 64, 65, 66, 78
Spoerri 78
Stadelmann 17, 19, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40
Stemberger 260
Steudel 58
Stone 160, 175
Strugnell 65
Tabor 245
Talmon 252
Thackeray 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 , 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 3 ,
246, 247, 250, 257, 259
Thraede 53, 180
Thummel 4
Tiede 10, 19, 20, 25, 26, 54, 90, 91, 93,
96, 98, 103, 104, 109, 110, 114, 130,
147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154,
156, 192, 230, 231, 232, 237, 243,
245, 247, 258
Torrey 150, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166,
173, 180, 184
Twelftree 182
vanUytfanghe 91
VanderKam 29, 44, 45, 51, 52, 54, 57,
58, 60, 181
Vermes 7, 160, 161, 182
Vogel 190, 194, 198
Vogt 64, 65, 78, 83
Walter 19, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 102, 104
Weber 90,262
Weinreich 4, 89, 90, 96, 97
Weiss 124
Wetter 3 , 4
Whybray 1 8 , 2 9 , 3 4
Windisch 151,231
Winter 134
Wintermute 44, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 58,
60
Wolff 160, 162, 165, 197
Wolfson 143, 146
Wright 17, 175
Zeller 82
Ziegenaus 4
Zimmermann 20, 35
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Alphabetical Index of the First and Second Series
Adna, Jostein: Jesu Stellung zum Tempel.

2000. Volume 11/119.
- (Ed.): The Formation of the Early Church.
2005. Volume 183.
- and Kvalbein, Hans (Ed.): The Mission of
the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. 2000.
Volume 127.
Alkier, Stefan: Wunder und Wirklichkeit in den
Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 2001.
Volume 134.
Anderson, Paul N.: The Christology of the
Fourth Gospel. 1996. Volume 11/78.
Appold, MarkL.: The Oneness Motif in the
Fourth Gospel. 1976. Volume II/1.
Arnold, Clinton E.: The Colossian Syncretism.
1995. Volume 11/77.
Ascough, RichardS.: Paul's Macedonian
Associations. 2003. Volume 11/161.
Asiedu-Peprah, Martin: Johannine Sabbath
Conflicts As Juridical Controversy. 2001.
Volume 11/132.
Avemarie, Friedrich: Die Tauferzahlungen der
Apostelgeschichte. 2002. Volume 139.
Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Lichtenberger
(Ed.): Auferstehung - Ressurection. 2001.
Volume 135.
Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann
Lichtenberger (Ed.): Bund und Tora. 1996.
Volume 92.
Baarlink, Heinrich: Verkiindigtes Heil. 2004.
Volume 168.
Bachmann, Michael: Sunder oder Ubertreter.
1992. Volume 59.
Bachmann, Michael (Ed.): Lutherische und
Neue Paulusperspektive. 2005. Volume 182.
Back, Frances: Verwandlung durch Offenbarung
bei Paulus. 2002. Volume 11/153.
Baker, William R.: Personal Speech-Ethics in the
Epistle of James. 1995. Volume 11/68.
Bakke, OddMagne: 'Concord and Peace'.
2001. Volume 11/143.
Baldwin, Matthew C: Whose Acts of Peter]
2005. Volume 11/196.
Balla, Peter: Challenges to New Testament
Theology. 1997. Volume 11/95.
The Child-Parent Relationship in the New

Testament and its Environment. 2003.
Volume 155.
Bammel, Ernst: Judaica. Volume 1 1986.
Volume 37.
- Volume II 1997. Volume 91.
Bash, Anthony: Ambassadors for Christ. 1997.
Volume 11/92.
Bauernfeind, Otto: Kommentar und Studien zur
Apostelgeschichte. 1980. Volume 22.
Baum, Armin Daniel: Pseudepigraphie und
literarische Falschung imfruhenChristentum.2001. Volume 11/138.
Bayer, Hans Friedrich: Jesus' Predictions of
Vindication and Resurrection. 1986.
Volume 11/20.
Becker, Michael: Wunder und Wundertater
im fruh-rabbinischen Judentum. 2002.
Volume 11/144.
Bell, Richard H: The Irrevocable Call of God.
2005. Volume 184.
- No One Seeks for God. 1998. Volume 106.
- Provoked to Jealousy. 1994. Volume 11/63.
Bennema, Cornelis: The Power of Saving
Wisdom. 2002. Volume 11/148.
Bergman, Jan: see Kieffer, Rene
Bergmeier, Roland: Das Gesetz im Romerbrief
und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament.
2000. Volume 121.
Betz, Otto: Jesus, der Messias Israels. 1987.
Volume 42.
- Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. 1990. Volume 52.
Beyschlag, Karlmann: Simon Magus und die
christliche Gnosis. 1974. Volume 16.
Bittner, Wolfgang J: Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium. 1987. Volume 11/26.
Bjerkelund, Carl J: Tauta Egeneto. 1987.
Volume 40.
Blackburn, Barry Lee: Theios Aner and the
Markan Miracle Traditions. 1991.
Volume 11/40.
Bock, Darrell L.: Blasphemy and Exaltation in
Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus.
1998. Volume 11/106.
Bockmuehl, Markus N.A.: Revelation and
Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline
Christianity. 1990. Volume 11/36.

Bee, Sverre: Gog and Magog. 2001.
Volume II/l 35.
Bohlig, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus.
Teil 1 1989. Volume 47-Teil 2 1989.
Volume 48.
Bohm, Martina: Samarien und die Samaritai bei
Lukas. 1999. Volume 11/111.
Bottrich, Christfried: Weltweisheit - Menschheitsethik-Urkult. 1992. Volume 11/50.
Bolyki, Jdnos: Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. 1997.
Volume 11/96.
Bosman, Philip: Conscience in Philo and Paul.
2003. Volume 11/166.
Bovon, Francois: Studies in Early Christianity.
2003. Volume 161.
Brocke, Christoph vom: Thessaloniki - Stadt
des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus.
2001. Volume 11/125.
Branson, Andrew: Psalm 118 in the Gospel of
John. 2003. Volume 11/158.
Biichli, Jorg: Der Poimandres - ein paganisiertes Evangelium. 1987. Volume 11/27.
Buhner, Jan A.: Der Gesandte und sein Weg im
4. Evangelium. 1977. Volume II/2.
Burchard, Christoph: Untersuchungen zu
Joseph und Aseneth. 1965. Volume 8.
- Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt
des Neuen Testaments. Ed. von D. Sanger.
1998. Volume 107.
Burnett, Richard: Karl Barth's Theological
Exegesis. 2001. Volume 11/145.
Byron, John: Slavery Metaphors in Early
Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2003.
Volume 11/162.
Byrskog, Samuel: Story as History - History as
Story. 2000. Volume 123.
Cancik, Hubert (Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984.
Volume 33.
Capes, David B.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in
Paul's Christology. 1992. Volume 11/47.
Caragounis, Chrys C: The Development of
Greek and the New Testament. 2004.
Volume 167.
- The Son of Man. 1986. Volume 38.
- see Fridrichsen, Anton.
Carleton Paget, James: The Epistle of Barnabas.
1994. Volume 11/64.
Carson, D.A., O'Brien, Peter T. and Mark
Seifrid (Ed.): Justification and Variegated
Nomism.
Volume 1: The Complexities of Second
Temple Judaism. 2001. Volume 11/140.
Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. 2004.
Volume 11/181.
Ciampa, RoyE.: The Presence and Function of

Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. 1998.
Volume 11/102.
Classen, Carl Joachim: Rhetorical Criticsm of
the New Testament. 2000. Volume 128.
Colpe, Cars ten: Iranier - Aramaer - Hebraer Hellenen. 2003. Volume 154.
Crump, David: Jesus the Intercessor. 1992.
Volume 11/49.
Dahl, Nils Alstrup: Studies in Ephesians. 2000.
Volume 131.
Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im
Reich des Messias. 2004. Volume 177.
- Judische SteingefaBe und pharisaische
Frommigkeit. 1993. Volume 11/52.
- Die Pharisaer. 1997. Volume 101.
- and Karl- Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Philo und
das Neue Testament. 2004. Volume 172.
Dettwiler, Andreas and Jean Zumstein (Ed.):
Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament.
2002. Volume 151.
Dickson, John P.: Mission-Commitment in
Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline
Communities. 2003. Volume 11/159.
Dietzfelbinger, Christian: Der Abschied des
Kommenden. 1997. Volume 95.
Dimitrov, Ivan Z., James D.G. Dunn, Ulrich
Luz and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Das
Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in
orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. 2004.
Volume 174.
Dobbeler, Axel von: Glaube als Teilhabe. 1987.
Volume 11/22.
Du Toit, DavidS.: Theios Anthropos. 1997.
Volume 11/91
Dubbers, Michael: Christologie und Existenz im
Kolosserbrief. 2005. Volume II/191.
Dunn, James D. G.: The New Perspective on
Paul. 2005. Volume 185.
Dunn, James D.G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians.
1992. Volume 66.
- Paul and the Mosaic Law. 1996. Volume 89.
- see Dimitrov, Ivan Z.
Dunn, James D.G., Hans Klein, Ulrich Luz and
Vasile Mihoc (Ed.): Auslegung der Bibel in
orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. 2000.
Volume 130.
Ebel, Eva: Die Attraktivitat friiher christlicher
Gemeinden. 2004. Volume 11/178.
Ebertz, Michael N: Das Charisma des Gekreuzigten. 1987. Volume 45.
Eckstein, Hans-Joachim: Der Begriff Syneidesis
bei Paulus. 1983. Volume 11/10.
- VerheiBung und Gesetz. 1996. Volume 86.
Ego, Beate: Im Himmel wie auf Erden. 1989.
Volume 11/34

Ego, Beate, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer
(Ed.): Gemeinde ohne Tempel - Community
without Temple. 1999. Volume 118.
- und Helmut Merkel (Ed.): Religidses Lernen
in der biblischen, fruhjudischen und fruhchristlichenUberlieferung. 2005. Volume 180.
Eisen, UteE.: see Paulsen, Henning.
Ellis, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in
Early Christianity. 1978. Volume 18.
- The Old Testament in Early Christianity.
1991. Volume 54.
Endo, Masanobu: Creation and Christology.
2002. Volume 149.
Ennulat, Andreas: Die 'Minor Agreements'.
1994. Volume 11/62.
Ensor, Peter W.: Jesus and His 'Works'. 1996.
Volume 11/85.
Eskola, Timo: Messiah and the Throne. 2001.
Volume 11/142.
- Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline
Soteriology. 1998. Volume 11/100.
Fatehi, Mehrdad: The Spirit's Relation to the
Risen Lord in Paul. 2000. Volume 11/128.
Feldmeier, Reinhard: Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. 1987. Volume 11/21.
- Die Christen als Fremde. 1992. Volume 64.
Feldmeier, Reinhard and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.):
Die Heiden. 1994. Volume 70.
Fletcher-Louis, CrispinH.T.: Luke-Acts:
Angels, Christology and Soteriology. 1997.
Volume 11/94.
Forster, Niclas: Marcus Magus. 1999.
Volume 114.
Forbes, Christopher Brian: Prophecy and
Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its
Hellenistic Environment. 1995. Volume 11/75.
Fornberg, Tord: see Fridrichsen, Anton.
Fossum, Jarl E.: The Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord. 1985. Volume 36.
Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in
Matthew's Gospel. Volume II/177.
Fotopoulos, John: Food Offered to Idols in
Roman Corinth. 2003. Volume 11/151.
Frenschkowski, Marco: Offenbarung und
Epiphanie. Volume 1 1995. Volume 11/79Volume2 1997. Volume 11/80.
Frey, J org: Eugen Drewermann und die
biblische Exegese. 1995. Volume 11/71.
- Die johanneische Eschatologie. Volume I.
1997. Volume 96. - Volume II. 1998.
Volume 110.
- Volume III. 2000. Volume 117.
Frey, J org and Udo Schnelle (Ed.): Kontexte
des Johannesevangeliums. 2004.
Volume 175.
and Jens Schrdter (Ed.): Deutungen des

Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2005.
Volume 181.
Freyne, Sean: Galilee and Gospel. 2000.
Volume 125.
Fridrichsen, Anton: Exegetical Writings. Edited
by C.C. Caragounis and T. Fornberg. 1994.
Volume 76.
Gdckle, Volker: Die Starken und die Schwachen
in Korinth und in Rom. 2005. Volume 200.
Garlington, Don B.: 'The Obedience of Faith'.
1991. Volume 11/38
- Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance. 1994.
Volume 79.
Garnet, Paul: Salvation and Atonement in the
Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Volume II/3.
Gemunden, Petra von (Ed.): see Weissenrieder,
Annette.
Gese, Michael: Das Vermachtnis des Apostels.
1997. Volume 11/99.
Gheorghita, Radu: The Role of the Septuagint
in Hebrews. 2003. Volume 11/160.
Grdbe, Petrus J.: The Power of God in Paul's
Letters. 2000. Volume 11/123.
Grdfier, Erich: Der Alte Bund im Neuen. 1985.
Volume 35.
- Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte. 2001.
Volume 137.
Green, JoelB.: The Death of Jesus. 1988.
Volume 11/33.
Gregory, Andrew: The Reception of Luke and
Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. 2003.
Volume 11/169.
Grindheim, Sigurd: The Crux of Election. 2005.
Volume 11/202.
Gundry, RobertH: The Old is Better. 2005.
Volume 178.
Gundry Volf, Judith M.: Paul and Perseverance.
1990. Volume 11/37.
Hafemann, Scott J.: Suffering and the Spirit.
1986. Volume 11/19.
- Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. 1995.
Volume 81.
Hahn, Johannes (Ed.): Zerstorungen des
Jerusalemer Tempels. 2002. Volume 147.
Hannah, DarrelD.: Michael and Christ. 1999.
Volume 11/109.
Hamid-Khani, Saeed: Relevation and Con
cealment of Christ. 2000. Volume 11/120.
Harrison; James R.: Paul's Language of Grace
in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 2003.
Volume 11/172.
Hartman, Lars: Text-Centered New Testament
Studies. Ed. vonD. Hellholm. 1997.
Volume 102.

Hartog, Paul: Polycarp and the New Testament.
2001. Volume 11/134.
Heckel, rô^.DerlnnereMensch. 1993.
Volume 11/53.
- Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium. 1999. Volume 120.
Heckel, Ulrich: Kraft in Schwachheit. 1993.
Volume 11/56.
- Der Segen im Neuen Testament. 2002.
Volume 150.
- see Feldmeier, Reinhard.
- see Hengel, Martin.
Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983.
Volume 11/9.
Hellholm, D.: seeHartman, Lars.
Hemer, Colin J.: The Book of Acts in the Setting
of Hellenistic History. 1989. Volume 49.
Hengel, Martin: Judentum und Hellenismus.
1969, 1988. Volume 10.
- DiejohanneischeFrage. 1993. Volume 67.
- Judaica et Hellenistica.
KleineSchriftenl. 1996. Volume 90.
- Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana.
KleineSchriftenll. 1999. Volume 109.
- Paulus und Jakobus.
Kleine Schriften III. 2002. Volume 141.
Hengel, Martin and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Paulus
und das antike Judentum. 1991. Volume 58.
Hengel, Martin and Hermut Lohr (Ed.):
Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und
im Urchristentum. 1994. Volume 73.
Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer:
Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien.
1998. Volume 108.
- Dermessianische Anspruch Jesu und die
Anfange der Christologie. 2001. Volume 138.
Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer
(Ed.): Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischerKult. 1991. Volume 55.
- Die Septuaginta. 1994. Volume 72.
Hengel, Martin; Siegfried Mittmann and Anna
Maria Schwemer (Ed.): La Cite de Dieu /
Die Stadt Gottes. 2000. Volume 129.
Herrenbriick, Fritz: Jesus und die Zollner. 1990.
Volume 11/41.
Herzer, Jens: Paulus oder Petrus? 1998.
Volume 103.
Hoegen-Rohls, Christina: Der nachosterliche
Johannes. 1996. Volume 11/84.
Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard: The Destroyer
and the Lamb. 2005. Volume 11/203.
Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Volume 11.
- Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. 1972.
Volume 14.
- Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11.1976,
1991. Volume 17.
3
- Paulusstudien. 1989, 1994. Volume 51.

- Neutestamentliche Studien. 2000. Volume 132.
- Paulusstudien II. 2002. Volume 143.
Hofius, Otfried and Hans-Christian Kammler:
Johannesstudien. 1996. Volume 88.
Holtz, Traugott: Geschichte und Theologie des
Urchristentums. 1991. Volume 57.
Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Volume 1 1983.
Volume 31 - Volume 2 1984. Volume 32.
Hvalvik, Reidar: The Struggle for Scripture and
Covenant. 1996. Volume 11/82.
Jauhiainen, Marko: The Use of Zechariah in
Revelation. 2005. Volume 11/199.
Johns, Loren L.: The Lamb Christology of the
Apocalypse of John. 2003. Volume 11/167.
Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor. 2000.
Volume II/l 24.
Jungbauer, Harry: Ehre Vater und Mutter".
2002. Volume 11/146.
Kdhler, Christoph: Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie
undTherapie. 1995. Volume 78.
Kamlah, Ehrhard: Die Form der katalogischen
Paraneseim Neuen Testament. 1964. Volume 7.
Kammler, Hans-Christian: Christologie und
Eschatologie. 2000. Volume 126.
- Kreuz und Weisheit. 2003. Volume 159.
- see Hofius, Otfried.
Kelhoffer, James A.: The Diet of John the
Baptist. 2005. Volume 176.
- Miracle and Mission. 1999. Volume 11/112.
Kieffer, Rene and Jan Bergman (Ed.): La Main de
Dieu/Die Hand Gottes. 1997. Volume 94.
Kim, Seyoon: The Origin of Paul's Gospel.
1981, 1984. Volume 11/4.
- Paul and the New Perspective. 2002.
Volume 140.
- "The ' Son of Man '"as the Son of God.
1983. Volume 30.
Klauck, Hans-Josef: Religion und Gesellschaft
im fruhen Christentum. 2003. Volume 152.
Klein, Hans: see Dunn, James D. G..
Kleinknecht, Karl Th.: Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. 1984, 1988. Volume 11/13.
Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes.
1988. Volume 11/32.
Koch, Michael: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau.
2004. Volume 11/184.
Koch, Stefan: Rechtliche Regelung von
Konflikten im fruhen Christentum. 2004.
Volume 11/174.
Kdhler, Wolf-Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus. 1987.
Volume 11/24.
Kohn, Andreas: Der Neutestamentler Ernst
Lohmeyer. 2004. Volume 11/180.
2

Kooten, George H. van: Cosmic Christology in
Paul and the Pauline School. 2003.
Volume 11/171.
Korn, Manfred: Die Geschichte Jesu in
veranderterZeit. 1993. Volume 11/51.
Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in
der neutestamentlichen Exegese. 1994.
Volume 11/61.
-: The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early
Judaism. 2005. Volume 11/206.
Kraus, Thomas J.: Sprache, Stil und historischer
Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes. 2001.
Volume 11/136.
Kraus, Wolfgang: Das Volk Gottes. 1996.
Volume 85.
- and Karl- Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Fruhjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont
Biblischer Theologie. 2003. Volume 162.
- see Walter, Nikolaus.
Kreplin, Matthias: Das Selbstverstandnis Jesu.
2001. Volume 11/141.
Kuhn, Karl G.: Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser
undderReim. 1950. Volume 1.
Kvalbein, Hans: see Adna, Jostein.
Kwon, Yon-Gyong: Eschatology in Galatians.
2004. Volume 11/183.
Laansma, Jon: I Will Give You Rest. 1997.
Volume 11/98.
Labahn, Michael: Offenbarung in Zeichen und
Wort. 2000. Volume 11/117.
Lambers-Petry, Doris: see Tomson, Peter J.
Lange, Armin: see Ego, Beate.
Lampe, Peter: Die stadtromischen Christen in
den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987,
1989. Volume 11/18.
Landmesser, Christof: Wahrheit als Grundbegriff neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft. 1999.
Volume 113.
- Jungerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott.
2000. Volume 133.
Lau, Andrew: Manifest in Flesh. 1996.
Volume 11/86
Lawrence, Louise: An Ethnography of the
Gospel of Matthew. 2003. Volume 11/165.
Lee, Aquila H.I.: From Messiah to Preexistent
Son. 2005. Volume 11/192.
Lee, Pilchan: The New Jerusalem in the Book of
Relevation. 2000. Volume 11/129.
Lichtenberger, Hermann: see Avemarie,
Friedrich.
Lichtenberger, Hermann: Das Ich Adams und
das Ich der Menschheit. 2004. Volume 164.
Herman, John: The New Testament Moses.
2004. Volume 11/173.
2
Lieu, Samuel N.C.: Manichaeism in the Later

Roman Empire and Medieval China. 1992.
Volume 63.
Lindgdrd, Fredrik: Paul's Line of Thought in 2
Corinthians 4:16-5:10.2004. Volume 11/189.
Loader, William R. G.: Jesus' Attitude Towards
the Law. 1997. Volume 11/97.
Lohr, Gebhard: Verherrlichung Gottes durch
Philosophic 1997. Volume 97.
Lohr, Hermut: Studien zumfruhchristlichenund
fruhjudischen Gebet. 2003. Volume 160.
- see Hengel, Martin.
Lohr, Winrich Alfried: Basilides und seine
Schule. 1995. Volume 83.
Luomanen, Petri: Entering the Kingdom of
Heaven. 1998. Volume 11/101.
Luz, Ulrich: see Dunn, James D.G.
Mackay, Ian D.: John's Raltionship with Mark.
2004. Volume 11/182.
Maier, Gerhard: Mensch undfreierWille. 1971.
Volume 12.
- Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche.
1981. Volume 25.
Markschies, Christoph: Valentinus Gnosticus?
1992. Volume 65.
Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social
Conventions in Paul's Relations with the
Corinthians. 1987. Volume 11/23.
Mayer, Annemarie: Sprache der Einheit im
Epheserbrief und in der Okumene. 2002.
Volume 11/150.
Mayordomo, Moises: Argumentiert Paulus
logisch? 2005. Volume 188.
McDonough, Sean M.: YHWH at Patmos:
Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish
Setting. 1999. Volume 11/107.
McGlynn, Moyna: Divine Judgement and
Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom.
2001. Volume 11/139.
Meade, David G.: Pseudonymity and Canon.
1986. Volume 39.
Meadors, Edward P.: Jesus the Messianic
Herald of Salvation. 1995. Volume 11/72.
Meifiner, Stefan: Die Heimholung des Ketzers.
1996. Volume 11/87.
Mell, Ulrich: Die anderen" Winzer. 1994.
Volume 77.
Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief.
1982. Volume II/8.
Merkel, Helmut: Die Widerspriiche zwischen
den Evangelien. 1971. Volume 13.
- see Ego, Beate.
Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesus und Paulus.
Volume 1 1987. Volume 43. - Volume 2
1998. Volume 105
2

Metzdorf, Christina: Die Tempelaktion Jesu.
2003. Volume 11/168.
Metzler, Karin: Der griechische Begriff des
Verzeihens. 1991. Volume 11/44.
Metzner, Rainer: Die Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief. 1995.
Volume 11/74.
- Das Verstandnis der Sunde im Johannesevangelium. 2000. Volume 122.
Mihoc, Vasile: see Dunn, James D.G..
Mineshige, Kiyoshi: Besitzverzichtund
Almosen bei Lukas. 2003. Volume 11/163.
Mittmann, Siegfried: see Hengel, Martin.
Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike: Magnifikat und
Benediktus. 1996. Volume 11/90.
Mournet, Terence C: Oral Tradition and
Literary Dependency. 2005. Volume 11/195.
Mufiner, Franz: Jesus von Nazareth im Umfeld
Israels und der Urkirche. Ed. von M.
Theobald. 1998. Volume 111.
Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paranese.
1987. Volume 11/28.
- Heidenapostel aus Israel. 1992. Volume 62.
- see Deines, Roland
- see Dimitrov, Ivan Z.
- seeKraus, Wolfgang
Nielsen, Anders E.: "Until it is Fullfilled". 2000.
Volume 11/126.
Nissen, Andreas: Gott und der Nachste im
antiken Judentum. 1974. Volume 15.
Noack, Christian: Gottesbewufitsein. 2000.
Volume 11/116.
Noormann, Rolf: Irenaus als Paulusinterpret.
1994. Volume 11/66.
Novakovic, Lidija: Messiah, the Healer of the
Sick. 2003. Volume 11/170.
Obermann, Andreas: Die christologische
Erfullung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. 1996. Volume 11/83.
Ohler, Markus: Barnabas. 2003. Volume 156.
Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to
Mission. 1988. Volume 11/31.
Onuki, Takashi: Heil und Erlosung. 2004.
Volume 165.
Oropeza, B. J.: Paul and Apostasy. 2000.
Volume 11/115.
Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich: Taufe und Typos.
2000. Volume 11/118
Paulsen, Henning: Studien zur Literatur und
Geschichte des fruhen Christentums. Ed. von
Ute E. Eisen. 1997. Volume 99.
Pao, David W.: Acts and the Isaianic New
Exodus. 2000. Volume 11/130.
Park, Eung Chun: The Mission Discourse in
Matthew's Interpretation. 1995.
Volume 11/81.
Park, Joseph S.: Conceptions of Afterlife in

Jewish Insriptions. 2000. Volume 11/121.
Pate, C. Marvin: The Reverse of the Curse.
2000. Volume 11/114.
Peres, Imre: Griechische Grabinschriften und
neutestamentliche Eschatologie. 2003.
Volume 157.
Philip, Finny: The Origins of Pauline
Pneumatology. 2005. Volume 11/194.
Philonenko, Marc (Ed.): Le Trone de Dieu.
1993. Volume 69.
Pilhofer, Peter: Presbyteron Kreitton. 1990.
Volume 11/39.
- Philippi. Volume 1 1995. Volume 87. Volume 2 2000. Volume 119.
- Die fruhen Christen und ihre Welt. 2002.
Volume 145.
- see Ego, Beate.
Pitre, Brant: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End
of the Exile. 2005. Volume 11/204.
Pliimacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschichten. Aufsatze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu
den Johannesakten. Herausgegeben von Jens
Schrdter und Ralph Brucker. 2004.
Volume 170.
Pdhlmann, Wolfgang: Der Verlorene Sohnund
dasHaus. 1993. Volume 68.
Pokorny, Petrmd JosefB. Soucek: Bibelauslegung als Theologie. 1997. Volume 100.
Pokorny, Petr and Jan Roskovec (Ed.):
Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical
Exegesis. 2002. Volume 153.
Popkes, Enno Edzard: Die Theologie der Liebe
Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften. 2005.
Volume 11/197.
Porter, Stanley E.: The Paul of Acts. 1999.
Volume 115.
Prieur, Alexander: Die Verkiindigung der
Gottesherrschaft. 1996. Volume 11/89.
Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991.
Volume 11/45.
Rdisdnen, Heikki: Paul and the Law. 1983,
1987. Volume 29.
Rehkopf, Friedrich: Die lukanische Sonderquelle. 1959. Volume 5.
Rein, Matthias: Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen
(Joh 9). 1995. Volume 11/73.
Reinmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas.
1994. Volume 74.
Reiser, Marius: Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums. 1984. Volume 11/11.
Rhodes, James N: The Epistle of Barnabas
and the Deuteronomic Tradition. 2004.
Volume 11/188.
Richards, E. Randolph: The Secretary in the
Letters of Paul. 1991. Volume 11/42.
2

3
Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981, 1988.

Volume II/7.
- Die FrUhzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994.
Volume 71.
Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebraerbriefs.
1987. Volume 41.
Roskovec, Jan: see Pokorny, Petr.
Rohser, Giinter: MetaphorikundPersonifikation
derSunde. 1987. Volume 11/25.
Rose, Christian: Die Wolke derZeugen. 1994.
Volume 11/60.
Rothschild, Clare K.: Baptist Traditions and Q.
2005. Volume 190.
-: Luke Acts and the Rhetoric of History. 2004.
Volume 11/175.
Riiegger, Hans-Ulrich: Verstehen, was Markus
erzahlt. 2002. Volume 11/155.
Ruger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der
Kairoer Geniza. 1991. Volume 53.
Sanger, Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die
Mysterien. 1980. Volume 11/5.
- Die Verkundigung des Gekreuzigten und
Israel. 1994. Volume 75.
- see Burchard, Christoph
Salier, Willis Hedley: The Rhetorical Impact of
the Semeia in the Gospel of John. 2004.
Volume 11/186.
Salzmann, J org Christian: Lehren und
Ermahnen. 1994. Volume 11/59.
Sandnes, Karl Olav: Paul - One of the
Prophets? 1991. Volume 11/43.
Sato, Migaku: Q und Prophetic 1988.
Volume 11/29.
Schdfer, Ruth: Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil.
2004. Volume 11/179.
Schaper, Joachim: Eschatology in the Greek
Psalter. 1995. Volume 11/76
Schimanowski, Gottfried: Die himmlische
Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes.
2002. Volume 11/154.
- Weisheit und Messias. 1985. Volume 11/17.
Schlichting, Giinter: EinjudischesLeben Jesu.
1982. Volume 24.
Schnabel, Eckhard J.: Law and Wisdom from
Ben Sira to Paul. 1985. Volume 11/16.
Schnelle, Udo: see Frey, Jorg.
Schroter, Jens: see Frey, Jorg.
Schutter, William L.: Hermeneutic and
Composition in I Peter. 1989. Volume 11/30.
Schwartz, Daniel R.: Studies in the Jewish
Background of Christianity. 1992.
Volume 60.
Schwemer, Anna Maria: see Hengel, Martin
Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons of God.
1992. Volume 11/48.
- Paul and the Nations. 1995. Volume 84.

Shum, Shiu-Lun: Paul's Use of Isaiah in
Romans. 2002. Volume 11/156.
Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-judische
Predigten. Teil 1 1980. Volume 20 - Teil II
1992. Volume 61.
- Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Volume 26.
- Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Volume 34.
- Philon von Alexandrien. 1988. Volume 46.
Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son
contexte religieux I/II. 1981. Volume 23.
Snodgrass, Klyne: The Parable of the Wicked
Tenants. 1983. Volume 27.
Soding, Thomas: Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997.
Volume 93.
- see Thiising, Wilhelm.
Sommer, Urs: Die Passionsgeschichte des
Markusevangeliums. 1993. Volume 11/58.
Soucek, JosefB.: see Pokorny, Petr.
Spangenberg, Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen
Bundes. 1993. Volume 11/55.
Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999.
Volume 11/110.
Speyer, Wolfgang: Frtihes Christentum im
antiken Strahlungsfeld. Volume 1:1989.
Volume 50.
- Volume II: 1999. Volume 116.
Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. 1980. Volume II/6
Stenschke, Christoph W.: Luke's Portrait of
Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith.
Volume 11/108.
Sterck-Degueldre, Jean-Pierre: Eine Frau
namens Lydia. 2004. Volume 11/176.
Stettler, Christian: Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000.
Volume 11/131.
Stettler, Hanna: Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefc 1998. Volume 11/105.
Stokl Ben Ezra, Daniel: The Impact of
Yom Kippur on Early Christianity. 2003.
Volume 163.
Strobel, August: Die Stunde der Wahrheit. 1980.
Volume 21.
Stroumsa, Guy G.: Barbarian Philosophy. 1999.
Volume 112.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T.: Angel Veneration and
Christology. 1995. Volume 11/70.
Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und
die Evangelien. 1983. Volume 28.
- Biblische Theologie und Evangelium. 2002.
Volume 146.
Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Sunden.
1993. Volume 11/57.
Tajra, Harry W: The Trial of St. Paul. 1989.
Volume 11/35.

-
The Martyrdom of St.Paul. 1994.

Volume 11/67.
Theifien, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des
Urchristentums. 1979, 1989. Volume 19.
Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Romerbrief.
2001. Volume 136.
Theobald, Michael: see Mufiner, Franz.
Thornton, Claus-Jiirgen: Der Zeuge des
Zeugen. 1991. Volume 56.
Thiising, Wilhelm: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. von Thomas Soding.
1995. Volume 82.
Thuren, Lauri: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000.
Volume 124.
Tolmie, D. Francois: Persuading the Galatians.
2005. Volume 11/190.
Tomson, Peter J. and Doris Lambers-Petry
(Ed.): The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in
Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature.
2003. Volume 158.
Trebilco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus
from Paul to Ignatius. 2004. Volume 166.
Treloar, Geoffrey R.: Lightfootthe Historian.
1998. Volume 11/103.
Tsuji, Manabu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung. 1997. Volume 11/93
Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993.
Volume 11/54.
Urban, Christina: Das Menschenbild nach dem
Johannesevangelium. 2001. Volume II/13 7.
Visotzky, Burton L.: Fathers of the World. 1995.
Volume 80.
Vollenweider, Samuel: Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie. 2002. Volume 144.
Vos, Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei
Paulus. 2002. Volume 149.
Wagener, Ulrike: Die Ordnung des Hauses
Gottes". 1994. Volume 11/65.
Wahlen, Clinton: Jesus and the Impurity of
Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. 2004.
Volume 11/185.
Walker, Donald D.: Paul's Offer of Leniency
(2 Cor 10:1). 2002. Volume 11/152.
Walter, Nikolaus: Praeparatio Evangelica. Ed.
von Wolfgang Kraus und Florian Wilk.
1997. Volume 98.
Wander, Bernd: Gottesfurchtige und Sympathisanten. 1998. Volume 104.
3
Watts, Rikki: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark.

1997. Volume 11/88.
Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Baptism and Resurrection.
1987. Volume 44.
Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum.
1985. Volume 11/14.
Weissenrieder, Annette: Images of Illness in the
Gospel of Luke. 2003. Volume 11/164.
- Friederike Wendt and Petra von Gemiinden
(Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005.
Volume 11/193.
Welck, Christian: Erzahlte ,Zeichen'. 1994.
Volume 11/69.
Wendt, Friederike (Ed.): see Weissenrieder,
Annette.
Wiarda, Timothy: Peter in the Gospels. 2000.
Volume 11/127.
Wifstrand, Albert: Epochs and Styles. 2005.
Band 179.
Wilk, Florian: see Walter, Nikolaus.
Williams, Catrin H.: I am He. 2000.
Volume 11/113.
Wilson, Walter T: Love without Pretense. 1991.
Volume 11/46.
Wischmeyer, Oda: Von Ben Sira zu Paulus.
2004. Volume 173.
Wisdom, Jeffrey: Blessing for the Nations and
the Curse of the Law. 2001. Volume 11/133.
Wold, Benjamin G.: Women, Men, and Angels.
2005. Volume 11/2001.
Wright, Archie T: The Origin of Evil Spirits.
2005. Volume 11/198.
Wucherpfennig, Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus.
2002. Volume 142.
Yeung, Maureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002.
Volume 11/147.
Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen
Lehrer. 1984, 1988. Volume 11/12.
Zimmermann, Johannes: Messianische Texte
aus Qumran. 1998. Volume 11/104.
Zimmermann, Ruben: Christologie der Bilder
im Johannesevangelium. 2004. Volume 171.
- GeschlechtermetaphorikundGottesverhaltnis. 2001. Volume 11/122.
Zumstein, Jean: see Dettwiler, Andreas
Zwiep, Arie W: Judas and the Choice of
Matthias. 2004. Volume 11/187.
2
For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher

Mohr Siebeck P.O. Box 2030 D-72010 Tubingen/Germany
Up-to-date information on the internet at www.mohr.de
Erkki Koskenniemi analyzes the most

important early Jewish texts, which attribute miracles
to people mentioned in the Old Testament. His study
is relevant for everyone investigating the miracles
in early Judaism or early Christianity.
ISBN 3-16-148604-8
Mohr Siebeck

Erkki Koskenniemi Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism 2005 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Erkki Koskenniemi Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism 2005 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI

The Old Testament

The Old Testament

ISSN 0 3 4 0 - 9 5 7 0 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)

a. Preliminary definition of the task

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

Index of Subjects and Scholars

definition of the task

It may be considered problematic that a modern category including dispa

or his agent allegedly causes.

The theme, of necessity, must be discussed

c. Competing miracle-workers and a story

19 and early 20 centuries. Some recent scholars have regarded the

Hengel 1989b, xiii-xvii; 380-404.

Just as the Graeco-Roman miracle-workers known to us were either his

Many studies contain valuable material on the Old Testament heroes in

(1983). However, he only observes the "divine men" (^GottmenscherT) of

above. However, there is still much to do before the Jewish tradition is

e. A more precise definition of the task and method

thoroughly. An alternative, which has been chosen here, is to study the

See below e.g. p. 195.

On Artapanus see p. 104, on Philo see p. 109-110, on Josephus see p. 228.

Kahl 1994, 62-65.

New Testament belong to several narrative genres. Recently, Kahl (1994)

Berger 1984a, 305-307.

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past:

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

De viris illustribus, although long before Nepos the philosophical tradition

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

"God makes the earth yield healing herbs,

Moses' miracles, but contain no new interpretations. Appparently comparing Demetrius

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

clearly more complicated. We know that medical treatment could be com

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

See Kottek 2000, 9.

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

included several positions, most of which combined medical cures with

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

The Greek text reads

Skehan translates the Greek as "wrought swift miracles at his words",

See Mack 1985, 49.

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

journey in the wilderness is reported extensively: An allusion is enough,

Alan Lowe, who is working on the manuscripts of Ben Sira, kindly

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

See below p. 153 and Holladay 1977, 124-125.

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

when he fought the battles of the Lord?

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Mcouafj ev TTpo^riTEiais). Joshua is not only a helping hand, but also

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

period. Middendorp's book was immediately and severely criticised in a

See below p. 34-36.

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira