The Concept of Authority in Early Jewish Literature (2010), conference

From 4 Enoch: : The Online Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, and Christian and Islamic Origins
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Concept of Authority in Early Jewish Literature (2010) is a conference in the series of International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, chaired by Géza G. Xeravits.

History

The conference is organised by the Department of Bible, Sapientia College of Theology, Budapest (Hungary), in 18-21 May, 2010.

Official Program

Heinz-J. Fabry: Dealing with the Secular Authorities in the Late Books of the Old Testament -- Beate Ego: Authority in the Book of Esther -- Karin Schöpflin: Tobit as Example and Teacher of Authority -- Gary A. Anderson: The Authority of Torah in the Book of Tobit -- Michael Wojciechowski: Authority and Canonicity of the Book of Tobit -- Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar: Issues of Authority in S (Serekh ha-Yahad), D (Damascus Document), and other Dead Sea Scrolls, Compared and Revisited -- John C. Endres: The Book of Jubilees and the Authority of Moses -- Bradley C. Gregory: Ben Sira as Negotiator of Authoritative Traditions -- Friedrich V. Reiterer: Ben Sira’s Way(s) of Reading his Bible -- Stefan Schorch: Which Kind of Authority? The Authority of the Torah in the Hellenistic Period -- Benjamin G. Wright: Pseudonymous Authorship and Structures of Authority in the Letter of Aristeas -- Moyna McGlynn: Authority and Sacred Space: Concepts of the Jerusalem Temple in Aristeas, Wisdom and Josephus -- Eric F. Mason: Angels, Authority, and Origins: Developments in the Understanding of Angels in Second Temple Judaism -- Stefan Beyerle: The Potter’s Oracle -- Balázs Tamási: The Authority of Second Baruch -- Levente Balázs Martos: Authority of a Forgiven King—David’s Psalms in the Letter to the Romans -- Tobias Nicklas: Playing with Scriptural Authority in the Book of Revelation

Abstracts of the Lectures

  • Gary A. Anderson (Notre Dame University): The Authority of Torah in the Book of Tobit

It would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of charitable deeds in the Jewish tradition. My thesis is that the rise of almsgiving as a defining practice of Jews in the Talmudic era had its origins in the Second Temple period. And even though most of the important sources did not find their way into the Rabbinic Bible their authoritative influence on subsequent Jewish thought is undeniable. I will organize my thoughts around three themes: charity as a means of atonement, as a replacement for sacrifice; and as the very summation of what it means to keep the Torah.

The old Greek text of the "Oracle of the Potter" consists of different textual strata. One of the later editions is clearly Anti-Ptolemaic and dates around 116 BCE. A closer look at the provenance, structure and arguments of the text highlights the generally Anti-Hellenistic character of the "Oracle," Insofar, this composition of Greek papyri represents a strong case in "political theology" and includes several aspects of how "authority" is conceptualized in Hellenistic Egypt. The paper analyzes different concepts of authority within the "Potter’s Oracle" and compares especially those arguments of authorization that are related to "apocalyptic style," especially in ancient Jewish sources.

  • Beate Ego (Universität Osnabrück): Authority in the Book of Esther

Although the Hebrew Book of Esther does not contain a semantic equivalent for the English term "authority," the concept of authority plays an important role in this biblical Book. Greek Esther with its additions and slight changes has underlined and embellished this concept. A thorough analysis of this tradition shows clearly that the theme of authority as shown in the Book of Esther has to be perceived and described in several strands. Indeed, we can find three different clusters dealing with authority—namely: a) the Haman, Mordechai and Ahasverosh cluster dealing with the imperial authority b) the Vashti, Esther and Ahasverosh cluster dealing with the King´s authority over women c) the Mordechai, Esther and Purim cluster dealing with the authority of Ester and Mordechai and the institutional festival authority. In the Greek additions, further aspects of authority should be underlined: in general, the Greek additions polarise the already existing characterisation of the plot´s figures. Moreover, it also emphasises Mordechai´s and Esther´s authority. Through the narrative element of Mordecai´s dream, which frames the Greek Esther story, Mordecai is depicted as a prophet with a close relationship to God. Furthermore, Esther´s authority increases as well since she mentions in her prayer that living at the king´s court as a queen did not affect her obedience towards the Torah and the purity rules. Finally, the Greek version also stresses the authority of the festival of Purim.

  • John C. Endres, S.J. (Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University): The Book of Jubilees and the Authority of Moses

This paper examines the ways in which the aura of Moses invests the author’s interpretive re-telling of the Scriptural tradition of Genesis 1–Exodus 15 with a particular authority for the community of hearers. Jubilees integrates into the narrative retelling of Genesis some religious practices that were not mentioned in the comparable biblical traditions (e.g. Sabbath, Feast of Weeks, and solar calendar). These were revealed by the angel of presence to Moses, who was to write them down. Similarly, certain social and sexual prohibitions known from biblical law codes (and associated with Moses at Sinai) emerge in these narratives about the earlier times. Moses’ role in this revelatory schema provides new perspectives on the religious and moral behavior in the era of the patriarchs and matriarchs of Israel. Even those details about family matters which emerge fresh in Jubilees (e.g. names of women not included in Genesis) are connected with Moses’ reception of revelation at Sinai, and thus they are subtly strengthened by his authority.

  • Heinz-Josef Fabry (Universität Bonn): Dealing with the Secular Authorities in the Late Books of the Old Testament

The present lecture consists of 5 parts. The first, introductory section of the lecture focuses on an overview of the basic doctrines promulgated by Augustinus ("Civitas Dei"), Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Theologica"), and Martin Luther ("Zwei-Reiche-Lehre"). The second section provides a general review of the dichotomy between secular and religious authorities in the ancient Israelite-Judaean history and culture. This section specifically deals with the issue of the monarchy, especially (a) with its reception by the prophets and (b) with its role in the development of messianic expectations. The third section investigates the issue of the relationships with secular authorities as the late books of the Old Testament reflect them. The fourth section especially focuses on the on the apocalyptic writings: the lecture will firstly refer to the book of Daniel and its conception of the “Four Kingdoms” and subsequently to the Daniel-reception in the Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246). In the last section of the lecture some general conclusions will be drawn.

  • Bradley C. Gregory (Notre Dane University): Ben Sira as Negotiator of Authoritative Traditions

As a contribution to the larger question of how Ben Sira handles and interprets the texts which he held to be authoritative, this paper investigates a rare but suggestive phenomenon in Sirach: What happens when Ben Sira is confronted with conflicts within these authoritative texts? How does he negotiate the diversity of positions found in the Hebrew scriptures? This paper explores a few case studies in order to shed light upon how Ben Sira understood textual authority vis-a-vis its diversity.

  • Levente Balázs Martos (Theological College of Győr): Authority of a Forgiven King – David’s Psalms in the Letter to the Romans

The apostle Paul often had problems of authority with the communities founded by him. The number of quotations in the Letter to the Romans—a community founded by others—strengthen not only the argumentative character of the letter but also the authorithy of Paul as a „Teacher of the Scriptures” and as a „Prophet”. This study aims to show how the Psalms of David cited in the letter play a significant role in building a new authority of Paul, who does not only preach the Gospel with Isaiah, but also prays and praises the Lord with David. By means of the psalm quotations, the Letter to the Romans does not only proclaim the Gospel of salvation, but also begs and gives thanks for it—in the community of the writer and the addressees of the letter.

  • Eric F. Mason (Judson University): Angels, Authority, and Origins:

Developments in the Understanding of Angels in Second Temple Judaism Angels play numerous roles in the Hebrew Bible and are mentioned quite frequently, yet the biblical traditions are rather ambiguous about their origins. The specificity of the descriptions of angels, their identities, and their activities increases significantly in many Second Temple period Jewish texts, and some authors (like that of Jubilees) can now describe them very explicitly as created beings. This paper considers the diversity of thought about the origins of angels that may be discerned in Second Temple period Jewish literature, along with possible correlations between these assumptions and variations in the functions and authority exercised by angels in particular texts.

Concepts of the Jerusalem Temple in Aristeas, Wisdom and Josephus. The Temple in Jerusalem held iconic status for Jews in the Diaspora and maintained its status even after its destruction in 70CE. What were the concepts of holiness attached to place and religious ritual which made it significant as part of the religious imagination for centuries? This paper explores the relationship between the ideas of sacredness and the regulations of Temple authority as seen through the eyes of three writers from the Diaspora: the author of the Letter of Aristeas; the author of the Wisdom of Solomon; and the historian, Josephus.

  • Tobias Nicklas (Universität Regensburg): "The Words of the Prophecy of This Book:" Playing with Scriptural Authority in the Book of Revelation

The Book of Revelation shows an immense claim for authority. Much clearer than other New Testament texts, this book wants to be understood as God’s and Christ’s Word respectively, which had been revealed to John, the Seer of Patmos. At the same time, the text almost continuously works with allusions, images, motifs, and structural analogies to Old Testament intertexts, whereas explicit quotations are completely missing. The more precise analysis of exactly that correlation — the play with prophetic texts like Isaiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel and Daniel on the one hand, and on the other hand the emphasised statement that the own text is God’s unalterable Word,whose adherence is necessary for salvation — allows a very interesting insight into the question: what kind of literary techniques the text of the Revelation applies in order to communicate its claim to be read as an “authoritative” Scripture. My thesis, which I am going to work out, is that, starting with Rev22:18-19, two lines can be worked out, with the help of which the text of the Revelation makes its claim to authority:(i) reference to the authority of the Torah (ii) reference to Israel’s prophets. Furthermore, it becomes clear that the text even takes a step further: At least in decisive parts, it claims to be God’s Word or Jesus Christ’s Revelation respectively.

In recent years the relationship between Ben Sira to the protocanonical Bible was examined several times. Although the grandson writes that the grandfather studied intensively the law, the prophets and other writings, there are no lengthy quotations in the book of Ben Sira. It is therefore the question how Sira has dealt with the writings of the ancients, how he handles the scriptures, what authority they possessed this writings for him. The questions are investigated with several examples (eg, topic: creation).

  • Karin Schöpflin (Universität Göttingen): Tobit as Example and Teacher of Authority

The paper will examine Tobit’s autobiographical account (Tob 1,3-3,6) and the instruction addressed to his son (4,3-19) in order to answer the following questions: On which authorities does Tobit rely, i.e. to which (deutero)canonical writings does he refer either explicitly or implicitly? How does Tobit deal with the authority of scriptures? For what purpose does the author have Tobit proceed in this way? What is the effect on the readers’ reception of and theological outlook on the story the author is going to tell?

  • Stefan Schorch (Universität Halle-Wittenberg): Which Kind of Authority? The Authority of the Torah in the Hellenistic Period

That the Torah, in Late Second temple Judaism, owned authority, seems to be a commonplace. Generally speaking, however, the same may be said regarding almost every period of Jewish history. Thus, the paper will endeavour to describe the authority features owned by and ascribed to the Torah in that period as well as the ways in which this authority was effective.

  • Balázs Tamási (Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Piliscsaba): Authority of 2 Baruch

In my presentation I intend to focus on the text of 2 Baruch which survives complete only in a Syriac manuscript (Cod. Ambrosianus), dated to the sixth or seventh century CE. This work came into being at the end of the first century CE, some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. The Book of 2 Baruch is an apocalyptic writing whose narrator and pseudonymous author is Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah. First of all we assume that the authority and the prestige of the writing originate in the name of the scriptural character and the traditions (biblical and extra-biblical) attributed to Baruch. The ancient Jewish and Christian writings—e.g. Book of Jeremiah (MT and LXX), 1 Baruch, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, Paralipomena Jeremiou, and etc.—show us how the early Jewish and Christian communities reshaped the Baruch-traditions in accordance with their own interest. Turning to the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch we recognize the complex character of Baruch as scribe, sage and seer. Investigating the features of the character of Baruch may shed light into the sources of our author’s authority: the connection with the Jeremiah-story and the destruction of the Sanctuary; the proverbial teachings of the sage; and last but not least the use of typical prophetic oracles and dream visions. There is another way to establish the authority of the writing for Jews: in 2 Baruch the Mosaic Law is a central concern for the Torah-observant author. This fit in well with the original message of the biblical Jeremiah prophecies and the other contemporaneous apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings, e.g. Jubilees, Jeremiah Apochryphon from Qumran, etc. A great number of passages deal with eschatological questions, divide the end-time into twelve periods (2Bar 27:1-15, cf. 4Ezra 14:10-11) and appear to calculate the date of the end. The author writes on a proleptic history of events from the creation to the eschaton (ch. 53). The "Vision of the Cloud with black and bright waters" of Baruch symbolizes the six positive and six negative epochs of the History (2Bar 53:11; 56-74; 70-71). Another revelation regarding to the epochs appears in the "Vision of the Forest, the Vine, the Fountain and the Cedar." This presumably echoes the prophecy of the four empires as it is shaped in the Book of Daniel. In the course of analysis I try to show the aforementioned themes and motives from the point of view of authority.

  • Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (University of Leuven): Issues of Authority in S (Serekh ha-Yahad), D (Damascus Document), and other Dead Sea Scrolls, Compared and Revisited

In her comparison of 1QS vis-à-vis the Cave 4 Rule of the Community manuscripts, Sarianna Metso has highlighted the issue of authority in two different respects. First, the argument is made that 1QS attributes authority to the Sons of Zadok, the priests, the manuscripts 4Q256 and 4Q258 preserve a different version of this section of the Rule, and attribute authority to the rabbim (“the Many”) or the general assembly. Second, the presence of two explicit scriptural references in 1QS 5 lines 15 and 17, against the absence of those references in the Cave 4 manuscripts, present a later justification of community rules on the basis of the highest authority possible: the Torah. These cases raise a series of issues—apart from the mooted relationship between the different versions of manuscripts—namely about the locus of authority in the community, the relationship between priestly authority, scriptural authority, and interpretive authority, all of which have been examined extensively in the last decade. The paper will review this scholarship in relation to theoretical approaches of the concept of authority.

  • Michael Wojciechowski (University of Olsztyn): Authority and Canonicity of the Book of Tobit

Judaism has never recognized Tobit as a canonical book, perhaps because of its roots in the northern Israel. Its reflections in the New Testament are scarce. Ancient Christian witnesses are usually favorable to the canonicity of the book of Tobit. It is represented in many ancient biblical manuscripts (S, B, A, more then 30 minuscules). It is quoted by at least 79 authors, by many as Scripture. Some canon lists include it, other ones does not—when they are influenced by the Jewish canon. Some authors who failed to list Tobit in the canon have quoted it as Scripture. Accordingly, arguments for the canonicity prevail. Later ages accepted Tobit as canonical book. Protestants, despite some initial positive interest, have eliminated it. It is canonical in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It contains valuable teachings, especially on family and marriage—it is the only biblical book concentrated on these subjects. Without Tobit, the Bible would be in this respect incomplete.

  • Benjamin G. Wright (Lehigh University): Pseudonymous Authorship and Structures of Authority in the Letter of Aristeas

Scholars have universally recognized that the Letter of Aristeas is a pseudonymous document, written by an Alexandrian Jew who masquerades as a certain “Aristeas,” a member of the court of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. The entire story is told from the perspectiv of this Gentile courtier. When we look at the array of works that make up Early Jewish literature, we find that this kind of pseudonymity characterizes very few of them. Among the several goals of Aristeas, one is to put forward a myth of origins for the Greek translation of the Pentateuch that authorizes it as an independent replacement for the Hebrew text among Alexandrian Jews. The goal of this paper is to look at the way that using the pseudonymous device of a Gentile author contributes to claims to authority that this Jewish author is making on behalf of the Septuagint.

External links

Retrieved from "https://4enoch.org/wiki5/index.php?title=The_Concept_of_Authority_in_Early_Jewish_Literature_(2010),_conference&oldid=128543"