«=CNUGM / 2KGRG, JGSKS =UDNKTTGF HPR TJG /GIRGG PH ;J/ CT TJG ?OKVGRSKTY PH =T,OFRGWS &$$) 1UMM NGTCFCTC HPR TJKS KTGN KS CVCKMCDMG KO ...»
Cf. Spec. 3.169-170. K. Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005) has a helpful summary of Philo's attitudes about women. (136-137) It is worth noting that Philo makes further reference to Day One in the section immediately following this, though without intertextual markers. Speaking about the first six days of creation in Genesis 1, he notes that they are divided equally – the first three before the sun (ta.j pro. h`li,ou) are dedicated to eternity, the last three are dedicated to time, a copy (mi,mhma) of eternity. (Her 165).
The following Greek text is taken from M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, et Notes, (StPB 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 166-168, which uses the shorter mss tradition B as its base text.
Recent scholarship on the difficult textual history of Joseph and Aseneth is outlined by C. Burchard, “The Text of Joseph and Aseneth Reconsidered,” JSP 14 (2005) 83-96.
Mss traditions B and D include tw/n aivw,nwn, but it is absent in others.
o` qeo.j is included in B.
B reads qe,lhma, D reads pro,stagma.
This line is present in D, but absent in B.
D omits kai..
D inserts ku,rie after evxomologh,somai.
In the midst of this ancient romance,70 which may have spun out of the tangled web of views regarding intermarriage within late Second Temple Hellenistic Judaism, the above pericope is the beginning of a prayer of confession placed upon the lips of Aseneth, a model proselyte and the daughter of Potiphar, the Egyptian priest at On (MT)/Heliopolis (LXX).71 These few lines are Aseneth's address to the Lord,72 which is tied directly to creative power; and it is here that we see an intertextual connection with LXX Gen 1.1-5 (avo,ratoj( poie,w( ouvrano,j&gh/( u[dwr( fw/j).73 In particular, the titular phrase – o` evxene,gkaj ta. avo,rata eivj to. fw/j (12.2) – can be read as a summary of the E.S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, (Hellenistic Culture and Society 30;
Berkely: University of California Press, 1998) correctly identifies the dual nature of Jos.Asen. – ‘love story’ (chs 1followed by ‘an adventure tale’ (chs 22-29). (92) Also, C. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1985) 2.182.
Jos.Asen. is an expansion of the brief mentions of Aseneth in Gen 41.45, 50-52, 46.20.
Strictly speaking, the pericope could be 12.2-3, as the address to the Lord ends with v.3 and Aseneth's confession begins with v.4. However, I am following the punctuation of Philonenko, Josesph et Aséneth, who does not end the initial sentence until the end of v.4. (168) Joseph's prayer (8.10-11) bears a significant resemblance to Aseneth's.
An argument could be made to include this text on its own, as it is quite likely referring to the creation of light (LXX Gen 1.3) from darkness (Gen 1.2). At the same time, sko,toj&fw/j is a commonplace, oft employed metaphor.
Suffice it to note that (1) there is a similarity between Aseneth's prayer and Joseph's, (2) both prayers begin with titular addresses to God as creator, (3) Joseph's prayer in its address of God appears to reflect the author's desire to –168 –
CHAPTER FOURwhole of Day One, with the precreated earth represented by ta. avorata and God's creative activity with the titular, reference o` evxene,gkaj ))) eivj to. fw/j. In addition, there is an intertextual connection between Jos.Asen. 12.2 and LXX Isa 42.5,74 which reads didou.j pnoh.n tw/| law/| tw/| evpV auvth/j kai. pneu/ma toi/j patou/sin auvth,n – who gives breath to the people who are upon it (earth) and spirit to those who walk on it. This phrase shares both participial forms of di,dwmi and the common object pnoh, with o` dou.j pa/si pnoh,n zwh/j – the second line of Aseneth's prayer.
There is also a common use of ph,xaj (ph,gnumi) with reference to the founding of the earth in both Jos.Asen. 12.2 and LXX Isa 42.5.
Finally, Philonenko suggests that the phrase o` u`yw,saj to.n ouvrano.n (12.3) is particular to Egyptian (specifically Heliopolitan) cosmogony, specifically resembling language used about the Heliopolitan deity, Shou, god of the air or atmosphere. Shou, who with partner, Tefnut, gave birth to Geb (earth) and Nout (sky), raised Nout, (sky), above him, while Geb (earth), is under his feet.75 It is quite an interesting intertextual convergence, seemingly à propos to the literary character of Aseneth – the placement of uniquely Heliopolitan cosmogonical language in the penitential prayer of the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis upon conversion to the cult of the Hebrews.
4.2.8 Addition to Esther A.4-11 kai. tou/to auvtou/ to. evnu,pnion\ kai. ivdou. fwnai. kai. qo,ruboj( brontai. kai. seismo,j( ta,racoj evpi. th/j gh/j) 5kai. ivdou. du,o dra,kontej mega,loi e[toimoi proh/lqon avmfo,teroi palai,ein( kai.
evge,neto auvtw/n fwnh. mega,lh( 6kai. th/| fwnh/| auvtw/n h`toima,sqh pa/n e;qnoj eivj po,lemon w[ste polemh/sai dikai,wn e;qnoj) 7kai. ivdou. h`me,ra sko,touj kai. gno,fou( qli/yij kai. stenocwri,a( ka,kwsij kai. ta,racoj me,gaj evpi. th/j gh/j( 8kai. evtara,cqh di,kaion pa/n e;qnoj fobou,menoi ta.
e`autw/n kaka.( kai. h`toima,sqhsan avpole,sqai( 9kai. evbo,hsan pro.j to.n qeo,n) avpo. de. th/j boh/j auvtw/n evge,neto w`sanei. avpo. mikra/j phgh/j potamo.j me,gaj( u[dwr polu,\ 10fw/j kai. o` h[lioj avne,teilen( kai. oi` tapeinoi. u`yw,qhsan kai. kate,fagon tou.j evndo,xouj) And this was his dream: [There were] voices and confusion, thunder and earthquake – an uproar on the earth. 5And behold, two great dragons came forward, both prepared to wrestle, and they produced a great noise. 6At their noise every nation prepared for war so as to fight against the righteous nation. 7And behold, it was a day of darkness and gloom; tribulation and anxiety, misfortune and uproar [were] on the earth. 8And the whole righteous nation was stirred up fearing the evils that threatened them, and they were prepared to die. 9Then they cried out to God. And from their outcry, as though from a tiny spring, came a great river with much water, 10light [came], and the sun rose, and the lowly were exalted and devoured the honorable ones.
portray Joseph in the patriarchal lineage of Israel, and (4) Joseph's prayer ends with a series of petitions on Aseneth's behalf asking that God might make her a new creation, cf. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 61.
See above, p. 61.
Philonenko, Josesph et Aséneth, 60. There is another similar Heliopolitan text (Coffin Text 2.19), quoted by R.J.
Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, (CBQMS 26; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Assocation of America, 1994), though in this text Shou appears passive in the placement of Nout above.
(109) –169 –
CHAPTER FOURThis pericope76 is an account of a dream from among the Greek additions to the Hebrew book of Esther.77 The dreamer is Mordecai, a Benjaminite Jew serving in the court of Artaxerxes and a captive of Nebuchadnezzar's exile.78 His dream anticipates a horrible conflict, which prompts the people to ask God for help. God then intervenes, the conflict ends, and order is restored.79 This text is less a creation account, and more a vision of an eschatological reversal and restoration of creation. In this account of a dream, both a conflict, symptoms of which threaten the cosmic order, and a restoration of order and righteousness are recorded. With the common vocabulary (sko,toj( gh/( u[dwr( fw/j) this text is included in the Greek intertextual tapestry of LXX Gen 1.1-5.
In relation to LXX Gen 1.1-5, of particular interest is the place of light and dark in the pericope. Not unlike LXX Job 3.3-10,80 Mordecai's dream envisions a reversal of the created order.81 In the wake of dragons (drako,ntej) wrestling and nations warring, darkness (sko,toj), among other nasty things, comes over the earth. From the darkness the righteous nation cries out to God, at which point God sends a tiny spring of water (u[dwr) out of which light (fw/j) comes, evidently empowering the lowly, and thus restoring proper order. Add Esth 4.4-11 does provide an intertext with LXX Gen 1.1-5 where the creative order is both reversed and restored.
A more compact version of the story comes in the Alpha-text or Lucianic recension of Greek Esther. The version of the story in the Alpha-text of Esther, preserved in four medieval manuscripts, is by and large the same as the Old Greek version with the exception of the final verse of the dream. The Alpha-text ending reads: kai. o`i potamoi.
u`yw,qhsan kai. kate,pion tou.j evndo,xouj (The rivers were lifted up, and they swallowed up the honorable ones.) While an interesting variation, it does not affect this inquiry into intertextuality. K.H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text, (SBLDS 153; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996) suggests that the Alpha-text of Esther is an earlier version than the Old Greek version, but adds that given the gaps in information about the Alpha-text few hard conclusions can be drawn (223-233). Given all the question marks punctuating the conclusions about the Alpha-text of Esther, I defer to the Old Greek version of Esther as critically represented in R.
Hanhart, ed., Esther, (Septuaginta - Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Acadamiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, VIII,3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rurprecht, 1966) ad loc.
Of the additions to Esther, first identified and placed at the end of the work by Jerome, additions A and F, Mordecai's dream and its interpretation, because of their place at either end of the book and their lack of integration into the rest of the text (cf. Jobes, Alpha-Text of Esther, 183ff) and because of the late ‘tendency to attribute prophethood to bygone heroes and the desire to monotheize,… where terrible trial and deliverance alike are attributed to the one God – o` qeo,j,’ (cf. C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity, (JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 334) were likely added toward the end of LXX Esther's redactional history, which would likely place their addition to Esther in the first century BCE.
The explanation of the dream is found in Add Esth F, found at the end of the book.
According to Jobes, Alpha-Text of Esther, Add Esth A and F, as bookends of Esther, have the literary effect of changing the focus of the story from Esther to Mordecai, placing him in a league with other prophetic dreamers like Joseph and Daniel. (183ff) See above, p. 86.
Jobes, Alpha-Text of Esther, calls the contents of the dream ‘apocalyptic’ and sees a connection to Rev 12. (185Also of interest is the connection that Jobes sees between the dream and LXX Jer 27.1-28.19, Jeremiah's prophecy against Babylon. She notes that nowhere else is a hero of Israel referred to as a dragon other than the reference to Mordecai (Add Esth A.5, confirmed by F.7). The connection to LXX Jer 28, begins with the reference in LXX Jer 27.8 where Jeremiah calls God's people in Babylon to become as dragons (ge,nesqe w[sper dra,kontej), a piece absent from MT Jer 50.8, the corresponding verse in the Hebrew. (186-193) Also of interest on a methodological level is the term ‘metaleptic’ used by Jobes (via R.B.Hays) for the connection between LXX Jer 28 and Add Esth A. What she drives at is more of a deliberate echo by one text of another. While the uniqueness of the use of dra,kwn for Mordecai between LXX Jer 27.8 and Add Esth A and F is of note, it seems as likely that this is more an intertextual connection, a connection less driven by direction in authorship and more by readership. Along the lines of this study, one can see a portion of the intertextual tapestry that includes threads common to LXX Gen 1.1-5, LXX Jer 28.15-16, and Add Esth A.4-11.
4.2.9 Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.190-192 ti,nej ou=n eivsin ai` prorrh,seij kai. avpagoreu,seij* a`plai/ te kai. gnw,rimoi) prw,th dV h`gei/tai h` peri. qeou/ le,gousa o[ti qeo.j e;cei ta. su,mpanta ( pantelh.j kai. maka,rioj( auvto.j auvtw/| kai.
pa/sin auvta,rkhj( avrch. kai. me,sa kai. te,loj ou-toj tw/n pa,ntwn( e;rgoij me.n kai. ca,risin evnargh.j kai. panto.j ou`tinosou/n fanerw,teroj( morfh.n de. kai. me,geqoj h`mi/n a;fatoj) 191pa/sa me.n ga.r u[lh pro.j eivko,na th.n tou,tou ka'n h=| polutelh.j a;timoj( pa/sa de. te,cnh pro.j mimh,sewj evpi,noian a;tecnoj) ouvde.n o[moion ou;tV ei;domen ou;tV evpinoou/men ou;tV eivka,zein evsti.n o[sion) e;rga ble,pomen auvtou/ fw/j( ouvrano,n( gh/n( h[lion( u[data( zw,|wn gene,seij( karpw/n avnado,seij) tau/ta qeo.j evpoi,hsen ouv cersi,n( ouv po,noij( ou; tinwn sunergasome,nwn evpidehqei,j( avllV auvtou/ qelh,santoj kalw/j h=n euvqu.j gegono,ta) tou/ton qerapeute,on avskou/ntaj avreth,n) tro,poj ga.r qeou/ qerapei,aj ou-toj o`siw,tatoj) What, therefore, are the instructions and prohibitions? They are simple and evident. The first one that speaks concerning God holds that God, who is complete and blessed, has everything together, he is sufficient for himself and for all; he is the beginning and middle and end of all.