manahem kister, some early jewish and christian exegetical problems and the dynamics of monotheism

7/28/2019 Manahem Kister, Some Early Jewish and Christian Exegetical Problems and the Dynamics of Monotheism

1/47

* This is a slightly revised form of the major part of an article in Hebrew publishedin Issues in Talmudic Research ([ed. Y. Sussmann]; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciencesand Humanities, 2001), 28-65, an elaboration of a lecture delivered on 2.12.96 at theIsrael Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Memory of Prof. E. E. Urbach. Theessential English form of this article was presented in a lecture at Cambridge Facultyof Divinity on 16.2.04, at a joint meeting of the Patristic Seminar and the Seminar inHebrew, Jewish and Early Christian Studies.

SOME EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIANEXEGETICAL PROBLEMS AND THE

DYNAMICS OF MONOTHEISM*

by

MENAHEM KISTER(The Hebrew University)

In memory of Prof. E. E. Urbach

SummaryThe thesis of this article is that a Jewish theological formula or an inter-pretation of biblical passages which, in one period, successfully served oneside of a polemic, became, in a later period and in another context, aspringboard for an adversarys attack, or an insidious internal theologicalproblem. The author attempts to illuminate the inner dynamics of Judaismas a monotheistic religion, and to observe the potential of inherent the-ological tensions in Judaism of the Second Temple period and rabbinicJudaism for the emergence of Christian and Gnostic theological conceptsand interpretations which were in conflict with the Jewish ones.

Much has been written regarding the polemical element in the ser-mons and exegesis of the rabbis. An interesting feature of the Christian-

Jewish polemic, namely the usage of key biblical proof-texts of theopponent for contradictory and polemical interpretations, has also notpassed unnoticed. However, in this paper a far more complex and lesswell-observed phenomenon will be investigated, namely a formula orinterpretation which, in one period, successfully served one side of a

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Journal for the Study of Judaism, XXXVII, 4Also available onlinewww.brill.nl

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 548


2/47

dynamics of monotheism

549

1 I am well aware of the recent dispute concerning the question, Was Judaism [inthe late Second Temple period] monotheistic? (see conclusion at the end of the pre-sent article). I hope to shed some light on this complicated question by a careful analy-sis of theological formulae and passages of biblical interpretation in Judaism in relationto Christianity and Gnosticism. I will try to demonstrate that inherent tensions within

Jewish monotheism are the cause for the emergence of some traits of Judaism andChristianity.

polemic, but became, in another period and in another context, dangerousfrom a theological point of view, when the struggle was against differentadversaries. What was once a good defence and an overwhelming argu-ment in one context became, in a different context, a springboard foran adversarys attack, or an insidious internal theological problem. Aswe shall see below, an idea which was created in response to a theologicalattack from one direction often contained the potential of an attackfrom a different quarter. Often the problem was not originally apparentat the first stages of the new idea, but when the idea was further devel-oped, the theological difficulties it contained became overt: He [i.e.,

the heretic] thinks he is extolling [God], but in reality he is denigrating[Him] (y. Hag. 2:1 [77c]). In such cases interpretations and theologicalsolutions alternate between opposing poles. The polemical argumentswith which I shall deal in this article were not static, and I shall attemptto uncover the dynamics of their development, reflecting, in fact, thedynamics of Jewish monotheism (and its complex relationship toChristianity and Gnosticism).1

The most complex manifestation of this is scrutinized in Part Threeof this article, concerning the use of the plural form in the verse Letusmake man (Gen 1:26). Prior to that discussion, I shall present twoother brief examples of the phenomenon. Part One will deal with the

transfi

guration of a polemical verse from the Bible and its function ininter-faith polemics; in Part Two we shall see the transition of a legalformula in the Bible and in rabbinic literature in conflicting theologicalcontexts.

II form light and create darkness . . .

In Second Isaiah we read the prophets announcement to Cyrus:

I am the Lord and there is none else; besides Me, there is no god. Iengird you, though you have not known me. So that they may know,from east to west, that there is none but Me. I am the Lord and there

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 549


3/47

550menahem kister

2 David Kimhi (ReDaK) in his commentary to the verse, citing Rav Saadya Gaon.3 See M. Weinfeld, God the Creator in Gen. 1 and in the Prophecy of Second

Isaiah, Tarbiz37 (1968): 123 [Hebrew], and, drawing different conclusions, M. Haag,Ich mache Heil und erschaffe Unheil ( Jes 45, 7), Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift

fr Joseph Ziegler(FB 1-2; ed. J. Schreiner; Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972), 179-85.4 See Haag, Ich mache; B. J. Schwartz, Peace in Jewish Sources, Presidents Seminar

for Bible and Jewish Sources11 (1997): 11-12 [Hebrew]. See also Kutscher, The Languageand Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 240,308.

5 I am grateful to Prof. Shaul Shaked for providing me with the information con-cerning Zoroastrian terminology.

6 D. W. Parry and E. Qimron, The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition (STDJ32; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 77.

7 Contrast E. Y. Kutscher, The Language, 240, 308. Kutscher does not recognise thetheological motive behind this reading. See also Haag, Ich mache.

8 Tertullian,Adversus Marcionem 1.2 (ed. A. Kroymann [CCSL 1], Turnholt: TypographiBrepols editores pontificii, 1954, 443).

is none else. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and createevil [[r arwbw wl hw[]I the Lord do all these things (Isa 45:5-7).

Some commentators believe that this statement was made against theideas of those who believe in two gods, one benign and one evil,2 i.e.,against the Zoroastrian faith of Cyrus, who did not recognize the Lord(vv. 4-5). Others interpret the verse in a different manner and see itagainst the backdrop of Israelite faith.3 At any rate, it seems clear thatthe prophet excluded in this verse any thought of dualism. The contrastbetween I make peace and I create evil is striking. Some scholars

conclude that the evil referred to is not moral evil, but rather the woewhich befalls men, i.e., the opposite of wl (which can also meanwell-being).4 On the other hand, one should take notice of the impor-tant Zoroastrian term peace, which also has the meaning of har-mony and goodness.5 Be that as it may, later generations read a versein which it had been explicitly stated that God had created evil, whilethe creation of, or making of, good by God was not spelled out. Thereading in the Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa), [r hrwbw bwf hw[(I make [the] good and I create [the] evil)6 tries to tackle preciselythis difficulty. The exegetical-theological problem, the reaction to whichis manifested in the emendation of the biblical text, was probably par-ticularly severe for a sect in whose thinking there was such an extreme

contrast, a dualism within a monotheistic system, between light anddarkness and between good and evil.7

In stark contrast to these interpretations, Marcion used the verse (aswe are informed by Tertullian)8 to prove from the Old Testament that

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 550


4/47


551

9 See recently W. Lhr, Did Marcion Distinguish between a Just God and a GoodGod?, Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung / Marcion and His Impact on ChurchHistory (eds. G. May and K. Greschat; TUGAL 150; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002),131-46. Similar theories were common in Gnostic systems, and some Gnostics mayhave used the verse as a proof-text for dualistic systems according to which the demi-urge, the God of Israel, declares that He is the source of evil.

10 Part of the prophets intention could well have been to argue against a dualisticsystem. But even if not, the verse certainly functioned as an anti-Zoroastrian polemicin later generations (see above, n. 2).

11 In Sifre Num. 42 (ed. Horovitz, 47) there is a similar exposition which is based noton the conclusion of the verse, but rather on its beginning: Who creates light andmakes darkness, who makes peace (thus also in MS Vatican 32 ofSifre). However, inthe Sifra all the text witnesses have the same reading as we have presented. This isconfirmed by the wording of the exegesis in the Sifra.

12 This is the reading of MS Parma; Schechters edition has the secondary readingwdwbk (His honor) in place of wrwkb (His first-born).

it is the God of the Law who creates evil. This was an importantprinciple in Marcions dualistic system, according to which the evilworld had been created by this god, as distinct from the supreme,benign, unknown god.9 Thus the biblical verse which had formulatedan anti-dualistic principle and which could have served as an effectiveargument against Zoroastrian dualism,10 became extremely dangerousfor monotheism in combating another kind of dualism, that of Marcionand perhaps also of some Gnostic sects.

It is plausible that the heretics use of the verse as proof of thenature of the God of Israel was one of the factors that prompted the

change of the text as it appears in the Yozerbenediction in the liturgy:Blessed are you the Lord who forms light and makes darkness, whomakes peace and creates all. The words creates evil, which are theo-logically very dangerous, were emended to creates all.

It should be noted that the new version of the verse, Who createslight and makes darkness, who makes peace and creates all, led tonew interpretations which presumably never entered the minds of thosewho formulated the altered text. The new liturgical formulation wastreated in the Sifra (Behuqotai, ch. 1; ed. Weiss, 111a) as if it were thebiblical text of Isaiah;11 it is interpreted there as stating that the valueof peace is equal to everything. The verseeither in its original bib-

lical wording or in the liturgical versionalso occurs in inter-faithpolemics in two accounts of a dispute with a pagan philosopher:(1) According toAvot de-Rabbi Nathan Version B(ch. 24, ed. Schechter,

49) the philosopher Oenomus of Gadara asked Rabban Gamaliel, Whois the first-born of the world?,12 a cosmogonical question. Rabban

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 551


5/47

552menahem kister

13

When He took over all that was visible, of discordant and disorderly notion(Plato, Tim. 30a), For these reasons and out of these materials, such in kind and fourin number, the body of the Cosmos was harmonized (molghsan) by proportion andbrought into existence. These conditions secured for it Amity (fila) (Tim. 32c; trans-lation of both passages according to R. G. Bury, Plato in an English Translation [CambridgeMass.: Harvard University Press, 1942; LCL], 9.55, 61). Cf. also Ovids description ofthe opposites struggling one against the other (pugnabant) before the creation of the world,Creation being the end of their struggle and bound them fast in harmonious peace(concordi pace ligavit; Ovid,Metam. 1.18-31). Several midrashim expound (in various man-ners) our verse as well as another verse in which God is described as making peacein His heights ( Job 25:2) as referring to the imposition of harmony among the ele-ments (y. Ber. 8:7, 12c;y. Rosh haSh. 2:5, 58a; Gen. Rab. 3:6 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 23];Lev. Rab. 9:9 [ed. Margulies, 193]; Pesiq. Rab Kah., Kallot Moshe[ed. Mandelbaum, 5-6];Tanhuma VaYiggash 6; Deut. Rab. 5:12; Deut. Rab. Shofetim [ed. Lieberman, 100]; Cant.Zuta1:1, and more). All these are reminiscent of the idea expressed in Timaeus. Luzsanalysis of this dispute between the pagan philosopher Oenomus of Gadara and thesages does not seem to me to be well-founded. (M. Luz, Oenomus and TalmudicAnecdote,JSJ23 [1922]: 66-74).

14 In his edition ofAvot de-Rabbi Nathan (49 n. 9), Schechter remarks on the similarityof the tradition recorded there and that ofGenesis Rabbah: Perhaps there is some con-fusion and conflation here [i.e., inAvot de-Rabbi Natan]. The preceding analysis of thesource in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan and an analysis of the aggadah in Genesis Rabbah (seen. 15) makes such confusion improbable.

15 For a discussion of this source, see M. Kister, Ancient Jewish Traditions con-cerning Creatio ex Nihilo (forthcoming).

Gamaliel answered, The first-born of the world is peace, and broughtsupport from our verse, Who makes peace and creates everything,which indicates that only after He had created peace did God createall the rest. An account of dialogues between this Oenomus and theSages in matters of cosmogony is given in Exodus Rabbah (13:1, ed.Shinan, 254). In the account ofAvot de-Rabbi Nathan Version Bthe answergiven was apparently in the realm of human morality, rather than inthat of speculative cosmogony. However, the answer may also be under-stood as cosmogonical, for according to Platos Timaeus the beginningof the act of creation is the imposition of order on chaos and the bring-

ing of the elements into harmony.13 Thus, the secondary version of thebiblical verse (a version which may have come into existence partlybecause of polemics) is utilized in this account as a rebuttal to a paganphilosopher, perhaps on common Platonic ground.

(2) Another use of our versethis time in its biblical formoccursin Genesis Rabbah (1:9, ed. Theodor-Albeck, 8)14 to answer the claimsof a philosopher that God did not create the universe ex nihilo, but wasaided by the elements.15

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 552


6/47


553

16 Hebrew: hrwm whmk ymw. The last word was correctly interpreted by the Septuagintas derived from arm in Aramaic, meaning owner, sovereign.

IIHe has authority over His world to do in it whatever He wishes

The verse discussed above, in Part One, is not the only instance ofexpressions which, after being employed in the polemic against non-monotheistic concepts, became problematic in different religious contexts.Here the use of one formula, referring to Gods sovereignty over theworld, will be discussed.

Legal categories are used in several biblical passages in order toexpress Gods relationship with His creatures. Some verses in the Book

of Job refer to a quasi-legal argument between Job and God. At thecore of this book is the problem of Gods justice, and justice, whenreferring to human beings, is the aim of jurisprudence. Elihu representscommon theology when he says, See, God is beyond reach in Hispower; who is a sovereign like Him?16 Who (ever) reproached him forHis conduct? Who (ever) said, You have done wrong? ( Job 36:22-23).Gods sovereignty is clearly related to His being uncondemnable. Job,on the other hand, argues that Gods absolute power over His crea-tures and the lack of symmetry between God and himself render anyhypothetical fair trial with God impossible. Job says: I have followedin His tracks, kept His way without swerving . . . He is one; who candissuade Him? Whatever He wishes, He does ( Job 23:11-13). Elsewhere,

Job says that there is no one who can judge between God and a humanbeing:

Indeed I know that it is so: Man cannot win a suit against God. If heinsists on a trial with Him, He would not answer one charge in a thou-sand . . . Who ever challenged Him and came out whole?Him whomoves mountains without their knowing it . . . who shakes the earth fromits place . . . He snatches away (tjy)who can stop Him? Who can sayto Him, What are you doing?. . . He is not a man, like me, . . . that wecan go to law together. No arbiter is between us to lay His hand on usboth ( Job 9:2-33).

Gods absolute sovereignty means that He may act as an arbitrary

ruler, doing whatever He wishes, even if this is unjust. According tothis argument, Gods omnipotence and His absolute will mean that Hecannot be legally justified. Jobs conclusion is not Who can say toHim You have done wrong? (because God never does wrong), but

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 553


7/47

554menahem kister

17 See J. J. Rabinowitz, Jewish Law (New York: Bloch, 1956), 17-23, 124-29;J. C. Greenfield, The Legal Terminology of the Nabatean Funerary Inscriptions,Henokh Yalon Memorial Volume (eds. E. Y. Kutscher, S. Lieberman and M. Kaddari;Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1974), 67-70 [Hebrew]; idem, The GenesisApocryphon: Observations on Some Words and Phrases, Studies in Hebrew and SemiticLanguages in Memory of E. Y. Kutscher(eds. P. Artzi et al.; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan UniversityPress, 1980), xxxii-xxxiv; A. Hurvitz, The History of a Legal Formula, VT32 (1982):257-67.

18 Nahal Seelim 9, 8-7; 23, 3; see A. Yardeni, The Nahal Seelim Documents ( JudeanDesert Studies; Jerusalem: Ben Gurion University Press and Israel Exploration Society,1995), 10, 16, 28, 53 [Hebrew]. Regarding the first document Yardeni comments,According to the script, this document may be from the end of the Herodian period (13).

rather who can say to Him What are you doing?, even in cases ofunjust acts of God.

Since sovereignty and justice are both legal concepts, the adap-tation of jurisprudence for theological purposes is less surprising thanit may seem at first. We shall presently see how a legal formula con-cerning the absolute authority of an owner over his property is appliedto the problem of the relationship between Gods absolute power andthe justice of His acts.

In the Book of Daniel the sovereignty of God is expressed as follows:

Whose dominion is an everlasting dominion and whose kingdom enduresthroughout the generations. All the inhabitants of the earth are of noaccount. He does as He wishes with the host of heaven, and with theinhabitants of the earth. There is none to object and say to Him, Whathave you done? (tdb[ hm hl rmayw hydyb ajmy yd ytya alw; Dan 4:31-32).

The terminology of this adoration of God expresses his absolute domin-ion, in much the same way as the royal sovereignty of the great king,Nebuchadnessar, is described in the same book: He put to deathwhom he wished and whom he wished he let live; he raised high whomhe wished and whom he wished he brought low (5:19). The kingsauthority is described rather similarly by Qoheleth: he can do any-thing he pleases inasmuch as a kings command is authoritative, andno one can say to him, What are you doing (Eccl 8:3-4 wl rmay ymwh[t hm, precisely the same formula as Job 9:12). It has already beendemonstrated that these expressions are based on legal formulae.17 A billof sale from Nahal Seelim (first c. C.E.?) reads: [hd]why flw (?) yrhbxt yd lk hb db[[m]lw hn[b]zmlw hnqml d hn[bzb yt]ryw anbz, You,

Judah, the buyer, and your heirs have authority over this propertyto possess it and to sell it and to do in it whatever you wish. 18 ASyriac bill of sale of the year 243 C.E. from Dura Europos reads:

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 554


8/47


555

19 J. A. Goldstein, The Syriac Bill of Sale from Dura Europos,JNES25 (1966):2, lines 11-12.

20 A document from Elephantine (Kraeling 3.10-12; B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbookof Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt [ Jerusalem: Akademon, 1989], 64 [text B3.4]).For the relationship between the two formulae, see above, n. 17.

21 The Hebrew word rav means both master of a slave and a teacher of a disciple(see most recently M. Kister, Words and Formulae in the Gospels in the Light ofHebrew and Aramaic Sources, in H.-J. Becker and S. Ruzer [eds.], The Sermon on the

Mount and its Jewish Setting(CahRB 60; Paris: Gabalda, 2005), 123-27.

abxtd lk hb db[mlw . . . l tnbzd adh htmab fyl . . . tna You . . .shall have authority over this maidservant I have sold you . . . and todo with her whatever you wish.19 A similar formula is documented asearly as the Elephantine archives: tnml tybx yz mlw . . . fyl . . . tnaYou . . . shall have authority . . . and to whomever you wish, you maygive it).20 It has also been demonstrated that the theological formulaein the Book of Daniel are legal expressions transferred to the theolog-ical sphere. It may be added that the same formula of the Syriac billof sale is documented in the midrash: l br (Deut 3:26) you have amaster (br), and the master has authority to do with his student what-

ever he wishes (hxwr awh hm dymltb tw[l fyl brhwMidrash ha-Gadolto Deut 3:21, ed. Fisch, 66). Clearly, we have here an exact parallelto the legal formula in the Syriac document, and it may well be thatthe original reading was and the master has authority to do with hisslave whatever he wishes.21 The application of the concept of legalabsolute authority to the realm of theology, as found in the Book ofDaniel and elsewhere, means that every action of God in His worldis justified ab initio because of His absolute ownership of the world.One may compare the midrash when a blind man came to you . . .

you used to comfort him saying, had you built a house and you wouldnot wish to open windows, who would object to you? (hnwb tyyh a

dyb hjmm hyh ym, ynwlj jwtpl hxwr tyyh alw tyb; Tanh. Buber, Wayyishlah8). This religious formulation was in use for many generations to expressthe adoration of the King of Kings as opposed to temporal sovereigns.The legal expression of the authority of the owner to do whatever hewishes cannot be distinguished from another expression, stressing Godsabsolute will and omnipotence in contradistinction to the impotence ofidols: For I know that the Lord is great, that our Lord is greater thanall gods. Whatever the Lord wishes He does (Ps 135:5-6; cf.: what-ever the Lord wishes He does, Job 23:13).

In a fragment of the Testament of Qahat, preserved at Qumran, we read:whb db[ml alwkb fylw aydb[m lwk armw hyml[ hla awh yd hnw[dntw

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 555


9/47

556menahem kister

22 . Puech, Le Testament de Qahat en aramen de la grotte 4 (4QTQah) RQ15 (1991): 33; . Puech, 4Q257, in . Puech (ed.), Qumrn grotte 4.XXII: Textes Aramens,Premire Partie, DJD XXXI (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 268.

23 J. T. Milik, Les modles aramens du livre dEsther dans la grotte 4 de Qumran,RQ15 (1992): 351; K. Beyer,Die aramischen Texte vom toten Meer, Ergnzungsband(Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 116. The translation suggested in the article (on thebasis of its similarity to other formulae, see below) differs considerably from the ren-derings of Milik and Beyer. The sentence is put in the mouth of a gentile, who (finally?)comes to believe in the God of Israel.

24 N. Avigad and Y. Yadin,A Genesis Apocryphon ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1956). Greenfieldhas discussed the legal background to the formula in the Genesis Apocryphon (TheGenesis Apocryphon, xxxii-xxxiv).

25 Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst theSamaritans( Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967), 3/2.62-64 [Hebrew].For the date of the poet, see Ben-Hayyim, ibid., 12-13. A similar sentence occurs in theprologue to the first section (apparently the original) ofTibat Marqe(ed. Z. Ben-Hayyim,

Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1988, 40): wgl hlkwrbl yrwj tylw yhlah awh h .hl y[my lky fl alw lm alw y[b wd hm dwb[ whw . . . hnflhnm Everything is in His dominion . . . and He does as He wishes and neither kingnor ruler can object. YHWH is God and there is none other. This section belongs tothe earliest strata ofTibat Marqe.

htw[rk, and know Him, for He is the eternal God and the Lord ofevery creature, and He has authority over everything to do with themwhatever He wishes.22 A similar expression occurs in another Aramaicfragment from Qumran: lwk]b fyl wh yjl[p]w yljd wtna yd ayl[byrq abxy yd lwk a[[ra, The Most High God, whom you adore andworship, has authority over [the whole ea]rth, and whomever He wishesHe draws near (to Him).23 The formula occurs also in the Genesis

Apocryphon, where God is addressed in the following words: hrm htnayd whlwkb db[ml fyl htna a[ra yklm lwkbw alwk l[ fylw You areLord (literally: owner) and master of all, and you have authority over

all the kings of the earth to punish all of them (20:13). 24 A similarformula in a similar context (the contrast between God and the kingsof the earth) underlies the martyrological story of2Maccabees. Accordingto this story, one of the martyrs says to the wicked king who tortureshim: holding authority (jousa) among men, you do what you wish,being mortal . . . Go on and you shall find how His sovereign powerwill torture you and your seed (2 Macc 7:16-17). A mortal king hassovereignty, absolute authority, to do whatever he wishes with his sub-

jects, but God has the authority to punish him, who is Gods subject.The Samaritan liturgical poet, Amram Dara (fourth c. C.E.) articu-

lated the idea very similarly:25

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 556


10/47


557

26 The Aramaic text reads: hyklm lkw . . . hkmbw hmwrb hnflw hlkm l[ld hklm

y[my rw[ alw y[b wd hm dwb[. . .

y[b wd h wl dbamw wl yad fyl hnflb. Ben-Hayyims

translation is slightly different; it reads: The ruler judges them and destroys them ashe wishes. However, in view of the legal provenance of such formulae, as discussedabove, it seems more correct to translate: He has the authority to judge. Indeed, theformulation in the Genesis Apocryphon (cited above n. 24) is very similar.

27 Kahana has suggested a Gnostic background to Pappias views in this passage(M. Kahana, The Critical Edition of Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael in the Light of theGenizah Fragments, Tarbiz55 [1986]: 512, n. 119; 514, n. 123 [Hebrew]). It is doubt-ful, however, whether such views may be labelled Gnostic, since the emphasis in themidrash is on the arbitrary omnipotence of onegod, unlike Gnostic dualistic systems.

The King who is above all and who rules heavens and earth, and inwhose rule are all the kings, has authority to judge them and destroythem as He wishes.26 He does as He wishes and none can object.

The poem was written as a polemic against those who did not trustGod and believed in a deity other than the true, monotheistic God(idol worshippers? Christians?). The Samaritan poet forcefully negatesthe idea that such a god exists. The terminology follows that of Daniel,although an ancient Samaritan poet can hardly be directly influencedby the Book of Daniel. In Amrams poem the formula clearly servesas an argument against non-monotheistic beliefs, as is apparent fromthe context of the whole poem.

However, according to the Mekhilta Pappias expounded the verse,He is one; who can dissuade Him. Whatever He wishes, He does( Job 23:13) in the following words: He judges alone all the inhabitantsof the world and none can contradict His decision, and Rabbi Akivaretorted: That is enough, PappiasThere is no possible argumentagainst the words of Him who spoke and the world came into being,for every [decision] is in accordance with truth and with justice (Mekhiltade-Rabbi Ishmael Va-Yehi, Section 6, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, 112). Both RabbiAkivas sharp reaction to Pappias interpretation of the verse and the

juxtaposition of this conversation with other bold sayings of Pappias in

the Mekhilta reflect the suspicion of the sages concerning a hereticalpoint (or at least heretical potential) in Pappias statement.27

The omnipotence of the Deity according to the monotheistic systemcan be considered arbitrary. As we have just seen, God is exalted andreproached by the same formula; contrast the exaltation there is noneto object and say to Him, what have you done? (Dan 4:32) with

Jobs reproach of God, who can say to Him, what are you doing?( Job 9:12). Protests against Gods acting in an arbitrary fashion wereraised by non-Jews in relation to Jewish monotheism, according to some

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 557


11/47

558menahem kister

28 On the reading and the syntactical pattern of this sentence see M. Kister, Studiesin Avot de-Rabbi Nathan: Text, Redaction and Interpretation ( Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute andthe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998), 104-5 [Hebrew]. The meaning of this sen-tence is: (If Moses had not predicted Israels exile as a punishment for their sins), allthe inhabitants of the world would have said to Moses etc.

29 This is the reading of MS Munich 222 and of the partial quotation of this pas-

sage in MS Munich 210 (see Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 104-5, 234). In MSParma and in the citation of the passage in the commentary of R. Yom Tov Zahalonthe reading is: flw. However, the text clearly reflects the general legal formula whichincludes the term fyl.

30 For the reading, see Kister, Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 104-105.31 See also Sifre Deut. 307 (ed. Finkelstein, 345): [The Rockthe Powerful One]

whose work (or: reward;poolo) is perfectHis reward (peullato) is perfect regarding allthe inhabitants of the world and none may criticize His deeds in even the slightest wayand none may observe [history] and say, Did the people in the generation of the Flooddeserve (ma rau) being washed away in water? Did the people of the Tower of Babeldeserve being scattered to all ends of the earth? Did the people of Sodom deserve beingdestroyed by fire and brimstone? Did Aaron deserve taking the priesthood? Did Daviddeserve taking the monarchy? Did Korah and his company deserve being swallowedup by the earth?The verse says, All His ways are justHe judges each one ofthem and gives each one what he deserves (ma she-rauy lo). For the phrase wtlw[p

lw[ yab lb [ hml, which I rendered by His reward is perfect cf. the parallel in

Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Version A (Ch. 1, ed. Schechter, 3): wlb wytwyrb lk rk ayxwhWho dispenses perfectly (be-shalom) the reward of every creature (see Kister, Studies in

Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 47). Peullato [literally: His action] here means His reward or rec-ompense, as in Sifre Deut. 307 (ed. Finkelstein, 345). Marmorstein interprets Section 311in Sifre Deut. as an anti-Marcionite polemic (A. Marmorstein, The Background of theHaggadah, HUCA 6 [1926]: 149-50). It seems to me, however, that the preciseidentification of the opponents as Marcionites has not been proved. Cf. also a similarwording (in a difficult context) attributed to the nations of the world in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, ed. Epstein and Melamed, 2.

rabbinic sources. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan Version B (Ch. 1, ed. Schechter,3-4) contains the following passage:

All the inhabitants of the world would have said to Moses,28 BecauseHe has authority29 over His world, He kills whomever He wishes andleaves (untouched) whomever He wishes. What did the people of the gen-eration of the Flood do to Him that He [washed them away and] floatedthem like water skins? What did the people of the generation of theTower of Babel do to Him that He scattered them over the earth? Whatdid the people of Sodom do to Him that He destroyed30 them with fireand brimstone? And what did His people do to Him that He exiled them

from His land?!31

This argument is very similar to one expressed in Genesis Rabbah: Thusif one says, Whomever He wishes to enrich, He enriches; whomeverHe wishes to impoverish, He impoverishes; whomever He desires Hemakes a king. When He so wished (arbitrarily), He made Abraham

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 558


12/47


559

32 Emphasis is occasionally put on Gods unlimited capacity to forgive and abrogatepreviously decided just punishments, as in Rabbi Akivas statements: [You whose pow-erful deeds] no god in heaven or on earth can equal (Deut 3:24)Gods behaviour isnot like that of humans. In the human system of things the more important personcan abrogate the decisions of the less important; but who can object to what You do?Therefore Scripture says: He is one; who can dissuade Him ( Job 23:13) (Sifre Num.134 [ed. Horovitz, 180]); and: A [human] prefect who rules over his province fearsthat his co-prefect may revoke his decision, but You, who has no co-prefect, why do

you not forgive me? When a human ruler judges he is afraid that the other judges willargue against him, but You, who has no other judges with You, why do you not for-give me? (Sifre Deut. 27). It is interesting to note that the proof verse cited in this

wealthy, and when He so wished He made him a king (Gen. Rab.55:1, ed. Theodor-Albeck, 585; compare to Dan 5:19). Similarly aMatron asked Rabbi Jose, Your God draws near whomever He wishes(Midr. Sam. 8:2, ed. Buber 70; cf. the wording in the Testament of Qohatcited above: whomever He wishes He draws near [to Him], and cf.

Jobs criticism of Gods behaviour: whatever He wishes He does [ Job23:13]).

In a relatively late midrashic source we read:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: had I killed them [i.e., the wicked]

when they were young, I would have given the inhabitants of the worldthe excuse to argue against Me, saying What He wishes to do He doesand none can object, as it is written He does as He wishes with thehost of heaven, and with the inhabitants of the earth. There is none toobject and say to Him, What have you done? (Dan 4:32). The HolyOne, blessed be He, said: . . . I knew Haman[s wickedness] and I couldkill him when he was young, but I delayed [his death] and made himgreat in the [whole] world in order to manifest to all the inhabitants ofthe world how wicked he was (Panim Aherim to Esth 3:1, Version B, ch.6, ed. Buber, 80).

In this passage the positive verse, Dan 4:32, turns into a possible argu-ment against Gods actions. The formula of Dan 4:32 is perceived as

summarizing an attack on God because of His arbitrary conduct. Thus,the emphasis on the unlimited power of Godwhich came, inter alia,as a reaction to non-monotheistic systems of thoughtopened the doorfor the argument that the one God behaved arbitrarily and acted inan uncontrolled manner. Such a view had to be moderated by thewriters of the Second Temple period and by the Sages. 32

A sage could answer the claim of the heathen that the Land ofIsrael was stolen property in the hands of the Jews by pure legal rea-soning: The whole world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He.

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 559


13/47

560menahem kister

midrash is Job 23:13 rather than Gods exaltation in Dan 4:32. See also M. Kahana(A Critical Edition, 489-524).

33 From the premise that the whole world belongs to the Holy One, blessed beHe it follows that legal ownership formulae may be applied to God. In this case thelegal formula according to which the owner may do whatever he wishes with his prop-erty, buy and sell it to whom he wishes is applied to God (see above; see also Greenfield,Nabataean Legal Grave Inscriptions, 67 n. 21). This formula is rather current in theQuran. See especially: Say: O Allah! Owner of sovereignty! You give sovereignty untowhom You wish, and seize sovereignty from whom You wish, You exalt whom Youwish and abase whom You wish. In Your hand is the good; You are able (qadir; cf.Greenfield, Nabataean, 72-73) to do all things . . . You bring forth the living fromthe dead, and You bring forth the dead from the living and You give sustenance towhomever You wish, without reckoning (Quran 3:26). This verse should be comparedto Dan 5:19 (referring to Nebuchadnezzars sovereignty): You bring forth the livingfrom the dead, and You bring forth the dead from the living (cf. 6:95, 10:31, 30:19)is an elaboration of the words in Daniel: He put to death whom he wished and whomhe wished he let live. The originally legal formula discussed here is used in the Quran

also in the context of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish polemic. (1) Anti-Christian polemic:according to Muhammad the Messiah cannot be God because God can do whateverHe wishes with His creatures, including the Messiah (5:17); (2) anti-Jewish polemic: the

Jews are flesh and blood and as such they do not have a permanent Grace from God,because God forgives whom He wishes and chastises whom He wishes, Allahs is thesovereignty of heaven and earth and all that is between them (5:18), and He can for-give the Muslims and chastise the Jews. Note that the legal formula is expressed herein religious terms (forgive).

Elsewhere, the Quran deals with the decrees against Israel in Egypt. Moses says tothe Children of Israel: And Moses said unto his people, Seek help in Allah and bepatient. The earth is Allahs. He gives it for an inheritance to whom He wishes amongHis servants . . . It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you suc-cessors in the land . . . and We caused the folk who were abased to inherit the eastand the west of the land We have blessed, and perfectly was ful filled the fair word of

your Lord for the Children of Israel for what they have endured patiently (7:127-28,

137). This is a metamorphosis of the saying in Genesis Rabbah, The whole world belongsto the Holy One, blessed be He. When He so wished, He gave [the land] to you andwhen He so wished He took it away from you and gave it to us. The Egyptians pun-ishment is linked here with the conquering of Canaan.

Similar formulae are quite current in the Quran: God leads astray whomever Hewishes, and guides whomever He wishes (e.g., 14:4; 16:93; 35:8; 39:32), but these for-mulae seem to be derived from the legal formula with which we are dealing. The rela-tion of Quranic formulae to this Aramaic legal formula has been noted, from a differentangle, by Greenfield ( J. C. Greenfield, The Verb sallata in the Quran in the Lightof Aramaic Usage,JSAI9 [1987]: 36-41).

When He so wished, He gave [the land] to you and when He sowished He took it away from you and gave it to us (Rabbi Joshuaof Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi, Gen. Rab. 1:2, ed. Theodor-Albeck, 4-5).33 However, the author ofThe Wisdom of Solomon felt a needto qualify this answer by stressing in addition divine justice:

For who shall say to you, What have you done? or who shall take issuewith your decision? Who shall bring a charge against you for having

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 560


14/47


561

34 Translation according to D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (New York: Doubleday,1979; AB), 237-38.

35 Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 242, has already pointed to the parallel in GenesisRabbah, but did not discuss the conceptual connection between the two sources.

36 The word davar denotes word, thing, but it also has the meaning of legalact.

37 Similarly, later in that source: What is the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He?Rabbi Bibbi said in the name of Rabbi Reuben: Truth. We may note that an ancient

Jewish seal (probably of Babylonian provenance) bears the word Truth, apparently

destroyed nations of your own making? Who shall come as an avengerof the unrighteous to plead their cause before you? For neither is thereany God beside you who cares for all to induce you to demonstrate thatyour verdict was not unjust . . . But being just you manage all thingsjustly . . . (Wis 12:12-18).34

According to Rabbi Levi, Gods authority over the world is sufficientto justify the uprooting of the Canaanites, for the owner can do what-ever he wishes with his property, and there is no need of any otherethical and theological justifications. The author of the Wisdom ofSolomon, on the other hand, begins by using the formula who shallsay to you, what have you done?, but feels the need to emphasizethat God is by His essence just, and that there can be no doubt thatHe would not apply His infinite strength arbitrarily.35

These two elements, divine authority on the one hand and divinejustice on the other hand, are combined in the benediction to be recitedin a house of mourning: God of truth, true judge, judges in right-eousness, takes away justly and has authority over His world to do init as He wishes. (b. Ber. 46b). The formulation, God of truth, a truth-ful judge, who judges in righteousness and takes away justly was putbefore the second formulation, has authority over His world, to doin it as He wishes, in order to prevent any thought that the death

being mourned was an arbitrary act on the part of God.It is against the background of the protests of opponents and sensi-tivities of believers regarding God judging alone that one can under-stand the motivation for a saying of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi and Rabbi

Johanan recorded in the Palestinian Talmud:

Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said: Even the Holy One, blessed be He, doesnot judge alone, as it is written [I call upon you to hear the word ofthe Lord! I saw the Lord seated on his throne] with all the host of heavenstanding in attendance (1 Kgs 22:19), . . . Rabbi Johanan said, TheHoly One, blessed be He, does nothing in His world until He consultswith the heavenly court. Why is this? and the legal act (?)36 was truthful37

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 561


15/47

562menahem kister

under the influence of parallel Sassanian seals (S. Shaked, Jewish and Christian Sealsof the Sassanian Period, in Studies in Memory of G. Viet[ed. M. Rosen-Ayalon; Jerusalem:Magnes, 1977], 26). It seems to me worthwhile drawing attention to this seal as a pos-sible background to R. Reuvens midrash, notwithstanding the distance between Babyloniaand Palestine.

38 The wawmay be interpreted as meaning when (i.e., when [there is] a greathost), or as an alternative for beth (waw and beth are interchangeable in MishnaicHebrew (i.e., [decided] by a great host).

39 The translations of Berman and Townsend are erroneous; see S. A. Berman,Midrash TanhumaYelamdenu (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), 1.336-37; J. T. Townsend,Midrash Tanhuma (S. Buber Recension) (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav 1997), 13.

and38 a great host (Dan 10:1)when is the seal of the Holy One truth?At the time He consults with the heavenly court (y. Sanh. 1:1, 18a).

Aggadic midrashim that were redacted later than the Palestinian Talmudconnect the saying of R. Judah ben Pazi with the dispute betweenPappias and Rabbi Akiva which was discussed above. A classical midrash,Cant. Rab., already contains a combination of the expositions. In thissource Rabbi Akiva answers Pappias:

Enough, Pappias. No one can argue against Him who spoke and theworld came into being, because everything [He does] is true and all is

just, as it is written, I saw the Lord seated upon His throne with all thehost of heaven standing in attendance to His right and His left (1 Kgs22:19), . . . some ruling to acquit and some ruling to convict. RabbiJohanan in the name of Rabbi Aha brought proof from this verse: andthe legal act (?) was truthful and a great host (Dan 10:1) . . . (Cant. Rab.1:9).

An integral combination of the two sayings occurs in the Tanhuma toExodus (Shemot, 18 = Shemot, ed. Buber, 14):

R. Pappias expounded: Because He is single in His world and none canobject to his (actions), He does whatever He wishes to do, as it is writ-ten: [He is one; who can dissuade Him,] Whatever He wishes, He does

( Job 23:13). R. Akiva retorted: Enough, Pappias! One should not soexpound. What is the meaning of [the verse] He is one; who can dis-suade Him? Just like one asks (law) below [on earth], He asks above[in heaven] . . . The Holy One, blessed be He, conducts a debate on thecase and asks, How should the verdict on so-and-so be decided? Andthey [the angels] answer, Thus should it be decided! and the Holy One,blessed be He, agrees.39

This section began with a very clear-cut monotheistic formulation andit is concluded with formulations according to which angels are active

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 562


16/47


563

40 Although, according to biblical source criticism, this verse belongs to anothersource, the verses reflect the same phenomenon, and therefore can still be discussed inconjunction. See also Weinfeld, God the Creator, 115-16.

41 (a) The Septuagint translates wntwmdk (Gen 1:26) kay movsin, and see below inthe body of the paper; yhla twmdb (Gen 5:1) is translated kat efikna yeo (= thetranslation oflx in Gen 1:26), and wtwmdb dlwyw wmlxk (Gen 5:3) kat tn fidan atoka kat tn efikna ato; yhla lxb (Gen 9:6): n efikni yeo (note the differenceof preposition; n in the last verse is closer to the Hebrew). (b) Onkelos leaves theHebrew words and does not translate them into Aramaic (see A. Geiger, Ha-Miqra ve-Targumav, Hebrew appendices to Geigers Urschrift [ Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972],

partners in Gods management of the world and in the divine dis-pensation of justice. The external objections to monotheism and theinternal need to prove that Gods infinite power does not cause Himto decide arbitrarily in His judgments or actions brought about theneed to find a counter-balance to Gods judging alone within the frame-work of monotheism, even if the process involved a sharp paradox.

The general theological issue is exceedingly complicated, and itsnumerous aspects (e.g., God as king, the nature of the divine justice,the ideal conduct of a king) can hardly be exhausted. Instead of try-ing to do so, we traced a specific religio-legal formula in its various

contexts, observing the dynamics of the interrelationship between setsof ideas. It has enabled us to observe the dialectic development of anidea in the religious world of the rabbis.

IIILet us make man in our image

Gen 1:26-27 reads:

And God said, Let us make man in our image and our likeness (h[nwntwmdk wnmlxb da), and they shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds ofthe sky, the cattle . . . And God created man in His image, in the image

of God (yhla lxb wmlxb) He created him; male and female He createdthem.

For readers of Genesis, there are two major theological problems inthis passage: (a) the plural form in Gods statement, which seems tosuggest some sort of plurality in the divine: vestiges, perhaps, of ancientmyths, as also seems to be the case in another verse, namely And theLord God said, Now that man has become like one of us . . . (Gen3:22);40 and (b) the significance of image and likeness when thesewords refer to God. Several versions treat only the second problem,41

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 563


17/47

564menahem kister

332-34 [Hebrew]). (c) The Palestinian Targumiun (MS Neofiti and the Fragment Targum)translate Gen 1:27: In an image from before the Lord, the words from before beingadded (as many other additions of the same character) out of respectful piety.(d) Symmachus translates Gen 1:27: ka ktisen yew ton nyrvpon n efikni diaforryion yew ktisen atn (= And God created man in a special form, upright didGod create him). This translation is extraordinary in its interpretive changes when com-pared to Symmachus literal translation of v. 26. For a wide discussion of this transla-tion, see: A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch ( JSSM 15; Manchester: University of

Manchester, 1991), 6-7. Regarding the connection of upright walking with the imageof God, the closest parallel is in Ovids Metamorphoses, where the creation of man isdescribed thus; . . . and moulded into the form (in effigiem) of the all-controlling gods.And, though all other animals are prone, and fix their gaze upon the earth, he gaveto man an uplifted face and bade him stand erect (erectos) and turn his eyes to heaven.(Ovid, Metam. 1.83-86 [tr. F. J. Miller; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,1977; LCL]). The general similarity between Ovids description and that of the Biblehas been realized for quite some time (for parallels to these lines from the classicalworld, see the commentary to Metamorphoses, F. Bmer, Metamorphosen [Heidelberg:C. Winter, 1969], 1.42-46); it appears that Symmachos incorporated a Hellenistic ideainto his interpretation of the biblical verse. On the other hand, Symmachus understoodthe word God to be in the nominative and not in the genitive, i.e., he believes thatthe phrase yhla lxb is not a construct phrase. (e) Pseudo-Jonathan follows Symmachuson this last point as do, apparently, some manuscripts of Targum Onkelos; Geigersnote (Ha-Miqra, 332-34) is instructive. See also A. Aptowitzer, La cration de lhomme

daprs les anciens interprtes, REJ75 (1922): 1-4. (f ) The Samaritan Targum man-uscripts translate lxb yhla (in the image of God) in various ways: In Gen 1:26-27both MS J and MS A offer a translation close to the plain meaning (although the for-mer copies the Hebrew words wnmlxb wntwmdk without translating them), but in Gen 5:1MS A has hyklm tybtb, i.e., in the form of angels). The ancient tri-lingual Samaritandictionary Ha-Melis testifies to the existence of a similar translation for Gen 1:26 (tybtykalf; Z. Ben-Hayyim, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst theSamaritans[ Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957], 2.444 [Hebrew]. Seealso Ben Hayyims note to his edition ofTibat Marqe, 116, n. 4 to fol. 62b). Ha-melisalso testifies to the existence of free, interpretive translations of the word lx: ability,knowledge (Ben-Hayyim, Hebrew, 2.569). In v. 26 MS D reads nflb and in v. 27the words yhla lxb wmlxb are translated yhlad atr[wxb hnflb. (in His sovereignty,in the image of God). All the textual data regarding the Samaritan Pentateuch trans-lations are derived from the edition of A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch (TelAviv: Tel Aviv University, 1980), 1.4. See also Tibat Marqe, 2:1 (ed. Ben-Hayyim, 110,n. 1 to fol. 57a). However, according to Ben-Hayyim, this section, as well as Tibat

Marqe3:51 (ed. Ben-Hayyim, 200-201), are of the younger strata of this composition.To sum up: there are indeed only very few translations which did not address them-selves to the problem of the image of God.

Dealing with Samaritan translations to this verse, it is worth noting that the inter-pretation that image refers to the image of the angels (see: A. Tal, Un fragmentinedit du Targum Samaritain, Salvacin en la palabra: Targum, derash, berith, en memoriadel profesor A. Dez Macho [ed. D. Muoz Leon; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1986], 537;H.-M. Schenke, Der Gott Mensch in der Gnosis[Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1962], 120-43, especially 132. The latter work contains also a survey of Jewish, Christian

trying to avoid a literal translation of the phrases in our image,in the image of God and after our likeness, while all the knownancient versions retain the plural form (us) at the beginning of the

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 564


18/47


565

and Gnostic interpretations of Gen 1:26; J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel ofthe Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism [WUNT36; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985], 94 n. 45, 204 n. 38). A similar interpretation canbe found in the medieval commentary of Rav Saadya Gaonsee M. Zucker,Rav Saadya Gaons Commentary to Genesis(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1984),51-53 [Arabic]; 253-54, 256 [Hebrew translation and notes; the translation should beused cautiously]. See also: Aptowitzer, La cration, 4 n. 1. However, ancient pay-tanic works demonstrate that this interpretation was common in ancient times: Youcarved him out in wisdom in the image (lxb) of the sons of God (i.e., the angels) andmade him a little less than the image (twmdm) of his Maker (Az be-Ein Kol ed.

J. Yahalom [ Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997], 84-85, lines 197-98); You commanded Letus make man in the image (twmdb) of those whose faces are the face of man. (anunpublished piyyutof Yanai cited by Yahalom in his notes). The creation of man inthe image of the angels seems to be alluded to in a Qumran fragment ( J. J. Collins,In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text

from Qumran, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls [STDJ 30; eds.D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 609-18. The fragment still needs adetailed interpretation). Indeed, if we assume that God was addressing the angels, it islogical to say that the plural form (our image, after our likeness) refers to both Godand the angels, assuming that they share some common image. (It is easy to under-stand that the phrase according to our image was interpreted as referring solely tothe angels in order to avoid such a problematic assumption; see also Rav Saadya Gaon,in his commentary to Gen 1:26 cited above). For the translation hykalm tybtk cf. MSA of the Samaritan translation to Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God; and wasno more, for the angels(Hebrew yhla) took him. The tradition that the Hebrew yhlain this verse means angels is very ancient and can be traced back to the Second Templeperiod (as should be discussed at length elsewhere). Another Samaritan interpretation(ny[dmb), in our wisdom, is to be found in Rav Saadya Gaons commentary, andthe Church Fathers interpretations of the verse are replete with it. (See also in a frag-ment ofDivre ha-Meorot from Qumran ]- - - You created [Adam] in the image of

[Your] glory- - -[- - -] You breathed into his nostril, and understanding and wisdom[You filled him] [4Q504 8 4-5; M. Baillet, Qumrn grotte 4.III (4Q482-4Q520)(DJD VII; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 162]; it is unclear, however, to whatextent these lines are related to Gen 1:26-27.) For an interesting interpretation of otheraspects of the image of God problem see Y. Lorberbaum, Tselem Elohim: Halakhave-Aggada(Tel-Aviv: Schocken 2004; Hebrew).

42 Only Pseudo-Jonathan explains the plural form; see below.43 See, for example, Gen. Rab. 8:8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 61); 8:9 (63).44 The source of the interpretation that the image of God has something to do

with rulership is ancient. In Jewish literature it is first explicitly suggested by Rav Saadya

verse.42 On the other hand, in the aggadic rabbinic material the exegeticaland conceptual focus was on interpreting the plural form in Gen 1:26(at times in the course of open confrontation with heretics,43 but morefrequently in covert polemics against them), whereas the expressionimage of God was not seen as presenting a major theological problemwhich required explanation. The Church Fathers were particularly con-cerned with the image of God problem, continuing Jewish traditions,both Hellenistic (Philo, Paul) and Palestinian.44

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 565


19/47

566menahem kister

Gaon in his commentary to Gen 1:26 (ed. Zucker, 257; see also MS D of the Samaritantranslation [above, n. 41, sect. f ]). However, the interpretation can also be found inthe writings of several Church Fathers (see Aptowitzer, La cration, 4-6), and, indeed,is hinted at as early as Ben Sira (17:3). The Hebrew text of the passage has not sur-vived (Zucker has noted the similar interpretation of the image of God in Ben Siraand Saadya [Zucker, ibid., 257, n. 286*]). The Hebrew Vorlageof the Greek version ofBen Sira can be reconstructed as following: *Like Him* He clothed them with strengthand in His image He created them. It seems that the Greek translation is to be pre-ferred over the Syriac (where the end of the verse is entirely di fferent), and that theverse should be considered as evidence of the biblical interpretation of Ben Sira, thePalestinian sage. But even if this is not the case, the Greek version of Ben Sira is cer-tainly evidence of such interpretation in the verse. The same notion also appears inancient Piyyutim (liturgical poems). An ancient piyyut reads: To weave the unformed(lwg) in the image of His fear, to make him a little less than God (yhla) (Az be-DaatHakar in: A. Mirsky, The Piyyutim of Jose ben Jose [2d ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,

1991], 225). It is also possible that the piyyut of Jose ben Jose, Atta Konanta Olambe-Rov Hesed, should be interpreted in this manner: To be like God, an officer and aruler (ibid., 181, line 23; the idiom officer and ruler is taken from Prov 6:7). In Gen.Rab. 8:12, too, the term lx is associated with authority, but, it seems, from a differentaspect. As an adjunct to this discussion I would mention the suggestion of S. E.Loewenstamm (Beloved is Man that He was Created in the Image, in idem, ComparativeStudies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures[AOAT 204; Neukirchen Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1980], 48-50), that the image of God was a metaphor for kingdom in theancient East, which is indeed the direction of the interpretation we have discussedabove. It should be noted, however, that Gen 5:3 can only bear a literal interpreta-tion (but this passage may be considered a later layer of P). See also Weinfeld, Godthe Creator, 113-16. It appears that the ancient meaning of twmdw lx image andlikeness was icon; see J. C. Greenfield and A. Shaffer, Notes on the Curse Formulaeof the Tell Fekherye Inscription, RB92 (1985): 49.

45 The Greek word movsiw, like the Hebrew twmd, can be understood as likenessor form (synonym to image) Septuagint rendering of

twmdin Gen 5:1 (note also

the different translation of Gen 5:3) may be another indication that the rendering ofthis word in Gen 1:26 was influenced by theological considerations in omitting the pos-sessive pronoun. See also: G. Veltri, Eine Tora fr den Knig Talmai: Untersuchungen zumbersetzungsverstndnis in der jdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur(TSAJ 41; Tbingen:Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 35-36.

46 Cf. other aggadic passages in which God says: Behold, I am like you or Behold,You are like Me; see S. Lieberman, Shekiin (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books,1970), 14, 99 [Hebrew]. (S. Eli. Rab., ch. [13] 14 [ed. Friedmann, 68] should be addedto the list of sources cited by Lieberman.)

The Septuagint shrank from translating the word wntwmdk (in ourlikeness) literally and instead gave kay movsin, i.e., according tolikeness without the possessive pronoun, perhaps because it felt thatit was too daring to state that man was created not only in the imageof God but was also actually like Him.45 (Likeness of human beingsto God can bear an extremely daring interpretation, cf. the Neophititranslation: b qpn dk [like us].46) The various talmudic traditions con-cerning deviations from the biblical (Masoretic) text by the translators

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 566


20/47


567

47 Mek. R. Yish. Pisha14 (to Ex. 12:40; ed. Horovitz-Rabin, 50); y. Meg. 1:11, 71d;b. Meg. 9a.

48 The alteration of the plural suffix of the verb in Gen 11:7 to the singular, accord-ing to the rabbinic list of alleged alterations in the Septuagint (cf. above, n. 47), sug-gests that the alteration from plural to singular in Gen 1:26, according to the samelist, reflects the same theological sensitivity.

49 It is interesting to note that these words were not altered, according to these tra-ditions, into my image and likeness in the singular.

50 See above, n. 41.51 E. Tov, Rabbinic Tradition Regarding the Changes which were made in the

Septuagint of the Torah and the Question of the Original Version of this Translation,Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays in the Bible and the Ancient World, Hebrew Section I (eds.A. Rof and Y. Zakovitch; Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983), 389 [Hebrew]. Tovs sugges-tion that the omissionaccording to rabbinic sourcesof the personal pronoun in theSeptuagint to this verse was based on an ancient Hebrew Vorlage does not seem rea-sonable to me. (On this point Tov follows, tacitly, Geiger, Ha-Miqra, 332-34). Tovsgeneral view (ibid., 371-93) to the effect that the rabbinic tradition reflects an earlierstage of the Septuagint does not seem to me to be well-founded, since the rabbinic listcontains mainly alterations which are of theological and contextual significance, or wereso regarded by the rabbis, and such changes may well reflect a reworked version ofthe Septuagint rather than its otherwise unattested original version.

52 This question can be posed particularly because the second possessive pronounwas not rendered in the Septuagint. It could therefore be argued that the rabbinic tra-dition reflects this in a somewhat inaccurate manner.

of the Septuagint47 report that Gen 1:26 was rendered in the SeptuagintLet Me make man in image and likeness. This involved two changes:(a) the plural form, Let us make was changed to the singular (whichis not the case in the Septuagint text as far as it is known to us);48 and(b) the removal of the possessive pronoun from both our image andour likeness.49 It seems that the removal of the pronouns stemmedfrom a feeling of uneasiness at the extreme anthropomorphism in theverse, uneasiness shared by many other ancient Bible translations.50 Thephenomenon of not translating possessive pronouns relating to God isattested elsewhere in the Septuagint;51 moreover, the Septuagint as we

know it did not retain the possessive pronoun in rendering the wordwntwmdk (in our image), although the pronoun of wnmlxb (in our like-ness) was retained.

One may raise the question whether a version of the Greek Biblewhich read in image and likeness (or according to image and accord-ing to likeness) ever existed.52 A clue to the answer can be found inthe Gnostic myths relating to the verse in question, as narrated bysome Church Fathers. Epiphanius tells of the system of Satornilusaccording to which the seven angels who rebelled against the supremeGod created the world and made man in the form of the lustrous

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 567


21/47

568menahem kister

53

Epiphanius, Panarion, 23.4-7, ed. K. Holl, (GCS 25; Berlin: Akademie Verlag,1915), 1:248-49 (E.T.: F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis[NHS 35; Leiden:Brill, 1987], 1.64). Holl points to the omission of the pronoun in the citation of theverse from Genesis also in Irenaeus and Hippolytus. I chose to cite Epiphanius becauseof his explicit mention of the problem of the pronouns in the verse. Later (23.5)Epiphanius returns to this argument and emphasizes that in our verse God spoke tohis Logos, and that nothing resulted from His consultation with the angels (ode kattn tn gglvn sumboula ti ggonen).

54 Indeed, in the Gnostic work titled On the Origin of the World this verse is quotedand interpreted according to the extant wording of the Septuagint. According to thiswork, the archons said to each other, Let us make man from the earth according tothe image of our bodies and according to the likeness of that one [i.e., of the Man ofthe Light, their enemy] (On the Origin of the World112-113, ed. J. M. Robinson, The

Nag Hammadi Library [Leiden: Brill, 1977], 170). Here in our image is put in oppo-sition to likeness, not our likeness. This is a heretical interpretation of the Septuaginttext as we have it. It can be argued that the version cited by Epiphanius (and others)reflects a heretical interpretation of another version of the Septuagint to Gen 1:26.Compare to this analysis O. Wintermute, A Study of Gnostic Exegesis of the OldTestament, The Use of the Old Testament in the New and other Essays: Studies in Honor ofW.F. Stinespring (ed. J. M. Efird; Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972), 263-64.For additional parallels to this myth see: Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Cyprus,1.64 n. 6.

55 It should be noted, however, that the plural in the words let us make at thebeginning of the verse was retained in Satornilus account, unlike the rabbinic list ofSeptuagint translations allegedly deviating from MT.

image (efikn, rendering selem), which looked down from above, thenature of which they did not fully understand. As Epiphanius puts it:

The charlatan [Satornilus] dramatically represents the angels as saying,Let us make man in an image and after a likeness. To give his impos-ture plausibility he [Satornilus] falsified the word our, spoken in Genesisby the holy God, retained in an imageas though other per-sons were making an image, if you please, and that itwas someone elses image saying, Let us make man in an imageand after a likeness.53

This passage54

allows us to hypothesize that it is a Gnostic interpretationof a reading in a Greek translation, in an image after likeness, with-out possessive pronouns, a reading similar to the alleged reading of theSeptuagint in rabbinic sources.55 Such a reading could originally haveemerged within the Jewish community in order to avoid anthropo-morphism. In the course of time it was utilized by heretics as the basisfor an alternative creation story, according to which the angelsandnot the supreme and true Godcreated the world.

*

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 568


22/47


569

56 Note especially the alleged alteration of plural to singular in Gen 11:7 (above,n. 48).

57 Indeed, in the course of time Julian the Apostate did give a pagan interpretationto Genesis 11:7 and, apparently, also to our verse; see Contra Galilaeos146B (The Worksof the Emperor Julian, ed. W. C. Wright, [LCL; London: W. Heinemann, 1923], 3:356-359); cf. also 58A-D (Wright, 334-37).

58 D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses:Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 65, 239.

59 On the midrash of this verse, see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 51-52.

As mentioned above, the translators of the Septuagint (according totalmudic sources) allegedly altered the plural form naase (let us) tothe singular, eese (let me). This alteration, as well as similar ones,56

reveals sensitivity to pagan arguments.57 From Philos remark, onlyGod knows the truest reason for this (Opific. 72),58 it is clear that thedifficulty as to why only in the case of the human being he attributedhis coming into existence not to a single creator . . . but as if to plu-rality (ibid.) engaged his attention. Bearing in mind also Gnostic inter-pretations drawing support from our verse, according to which divineforces played a special role in the creation of man and the world, as

well as the Christian interpretation, for which the verse is evidence forthe cooperation of the Father and the Son, the attention given to theplural form in ancient Jewish interpretation is easily understandable.59

As early as Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho two interpretations bythe Jewish sages (ofl didskaloi mn) of the plural form are recorded,and, of course, rejected (Ch. 62): (1) God said Let us make to Himself;and (2) God said it to the elements (stoixea), i.e., to the earth andthe other elements from which man was created. Justin also mentionsanother opinion (3) which is considered by you to be heretical (par mn legomnh aresiw), that God said Let us make man to theangels, and created the physical body of man. Such an opinion is,

according to Justin Martyr, considered heretical by the Jews. Justinhimself claims that the phrase Let us make man was stated by Godthe Father to the Son, who is identified with the wisdom with whichGod created the world, as is written in the Book of Proverbs: TheLord created me at the beginning of His course as the first of Hisworks of old . . . I was with Him as a confidant . . . (8:22-35). AncientChristian commentators after Justin follow this interpretation.

A comparison of the interpretations mentioned above with opinionsin the Midrash is interesting. In Gen. Rab. 8:3-8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck,

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 569


23/47

570menahem kister

60 E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (E.T., Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979)205. Later, we shall see that the term consultation served for this matter from ancienttimes. See also below, 579 and nn. 93-96.

61 J. Fossum, Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,JSJ16 (1985): 202-39. A considerable part of Fossums discussion relates to later sources,both Samaritan and Jewish. However, even if we ignore the later sources, his mainthesis is sound. Urbach (The Sages, 207) considers the rabbinic interpretation concern-ing the consultation with the angels as a reaction to Christian interpretation, whereasFossum (The Name of God, 201-20) considers it as a remnant of an ancient exegesis cen-sured because of Gnostic speculations (220). I shall try to suggest a more complex modelof development.

62 Notwithstanding the enormous difference between them, the Gnostic system andPhilos system are based on a common concept: a differentiation between the creationby the Supreme God and that by the inferior powers (and apparently also the dichotomybetween body and soul, shared by some Hellenistic schools, by some Jewish groups inPalestine of the Second Temple period, and by Gnostics [cf. D. Flusser, The DualismFleshSpirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament, Tarbiz27 [1958]:158-65 [Hebrew]). The essential difference between Philo and the Gnostics is that inPhilos system the Supreme God is the God of Israel whereas according to the Gnosticsthe latter is one of the inferior powers (see Wintermute, Gnostic Exegesis, 259-60;compare Fossum, The Name of God, 217-18 [his argument that the God of the Jewsin gnostic sources is Michael rather than YHWH does not convince me]). The dis-similarity between the two systems should not hinder us from noting the commonelements shared by both (compare Runia, On the Creation, 238).

58-62) the question Let us make manwith whom did He takecounsel? is asked. Many answers are given, among them: (1) He con-sulted with the works of heaven and earth, which is parallel to theopinion that God said let us make to the elements; (2) He consultedwith the angels. This view, prevalent in midrashic literature, is parallelto what Justin called the heretical opinion; (3) He consulted with Hisheart, on which I shall elaborate below.

It should be emphasized that even those answers which are paral-lel to the interpretations given by Justin are not identical to them.Attention should be paid to the fact that the question in the midrash is

With whom did God take counsel (as Urbach has emphasized),60 andnot To whom did God say Let us make man (as Justin formulatedit, a wording implying a partnership, however minimal). It has alreadybeen demonstrated61 that the expositions regarding Gods consultationwith the angels are, in fact, efforts at refining a tradition according towhich the angels had an active role in the creation of man, i.e., inthe creation of the human body. This view is indeed prevalent inGnostic literature. Both Philo and the Gnostics divide the creation ofman between two forces: the angels and God.62 The description of thecreation of living beings in Platos Timaeus (41b-d), where the act of

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 570


24/47


571

63 For a detailed comparison between Plato and Philo see Runia, On the Creation,237-38.

64 See D. T. Runia, Where, tell me, is the Jew: Basil, Philo and Isidore of Pelusium,VC46 (1992): 179. I am grateful to Dr. David Satran for drawing my attention to thisarticle.

65 Fossum has suggested (Gen 1, 26) that the dichotomy posited by the Gnosticsand perhaps also by Philo (but cf. Runia, On the Creation, 237-38) between body andspirit and between good and evil reflects the division of roles between God and theangels who aided Him in the creation of man according to a more ancient version ofthis tradition (note also Machs general observation: Philo is very careful not to intro-duce any angel into his text . . . Yet, he introduces the divine powers approximately400 times into exploration! . . . The language may sound more philosophical, but thephenomenon looks rather the same; cf. M. Mach, Concepts of Jewish Monotheismin the Hellenistic Period, The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St.

Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (eds. C. C. Newman,J. R. Davila and G. S. Lewis; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 21-42, especially 41-42. For a descrip-tion of the creation of mans body in Jewish and Christian art in the Middle Ages andits possible source in ancient Jewish art, see: M. Friedman, The Angelic Creation ofMan, Cahiers archologiques39 (1991): 79-94.

66 Thus, rightly, Aptowitzer, La cration, 6-10.

creation is divided between God and the secondary gods He created,played some role in the formation of this view.63 The difference in for-mulation between that of JustinsDialogue, according to which God saidto the angels Let us make man (God creating the soul and the angelscreating material man), and that of Genesis Rabbahs wording Withwhom did he consult? is precisely the difference between the Jewishheresy mentioned by Justin (not necessarily Gnostic,64 as is appar-ent from Philo)65 and the aggadic expositions of the rabbis accordingto which the plural form of Let us make man refers to the angels.These views are not as similar as they seem at first glance.

The opinion which attributes the plural form to the involvement ofthe elements in the act of creation was also refined greatly in themidrash: In Justins formulation it is clear that God said to the elementsthat He and they would create man, i.e., the elements would createthe human body whereas God would create the human soul (it is forthis reason that God specifically addressed the earth).66 This ancient

Jewish interpretation of the plural form which Justin mentions is, withinthe Jewish framework, an attempt to play down the power of the pluralform in Gen 1:26, an attempt of demythologization (the basic assump-tion being that the elements cannot compete with God). It is also anattempt to combine the narratives of Gen 1 and 2, by incorporating

into the description given by thefi

rst chapter of Genesis the dualism

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 571


25/47

572menahem kister

67 See 4 Ezra 3:4-5: O sovereign Lord, did you not speak at the beginning whenyou formed the earthand that without helpand commanded the dust and it gaveyou Adam, a lifeless body? Yet he was the workmanship of your hands, and youbreathed into him the breath of life and he was made alive in your presence. SeeM. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Mineapolis: Fortress, 1990), 67 (translation afterStone). There can be little doubt that this is an interpretation of Gen 2:7, but 4 Ezra8:44 combines the creation of man by God (the source of which is Gen 2:7) and thecreation of man in the image and likeness of God (the source of which is Gen 1:26)and treats them as one unified idea. It is therefore possible that the words of God to

the earth reflect a midrash on the plural form in Gen 1:26 (see also Kugel, Traditions ofthe Bible, 52). Moreover, even if that was not the intention of the author of4 Ezra, itcan certainly demonstrate the exegetical background of one of the Jewish interpretationscited by Justin to the plural form of Gen 1:26). No less important than its content isthe tone of the passage in 4 Ezra: the sentence when you formed the earth, and thatwithout help seems to bar any attribution ofpartnership in the creation of Adam to theearth, or any other element (see J. Licht, Sefer Hazon Ezra [Dorot; Jerusalem: MosadBialik, 1968], 21-22 nn. 4, 5 [Hebrew]).

68 Cited by Fossum, Gen 1, 26, 218, n. 46. He connects it with a passage in theZohar, but not with the Jewish opinion cited by Justin. According to Fossum (217),Ezniks account of the Marcionite creation myth is a remnant of the mythological con-ception that the earth was the spouse of the creative god, a conception which was wide-spread among various peoples. It seems to me, however, that the ancient Jewish tradition,at least as it is transmitted by Justin, has no mythological colouring whatsoever, andis probably an effort at de-mythologizing. (This trend is quite clear in the first inter-pretation of Justins Jewish sages.) It is not impossible that Basil was hinting at this

Jewish interpretation when he described the craftsman as talking, according to theabsurd interpretation of the Jews, while sitting before his tools (i.e., the elements?). SeeHexameron, sermon 9; S. Giet (ed.),Basil de Cesaree, Homlies sur lhexameron (SC 26; Paris:Cerf, 1968), 514.

69 C. S. C. Williams, Ezniks Resum of Marcionite Doctrine, JTS 45 (1944);65-73, especially 70-71; Eznik of Kolb, On God (tr. M. J. Blanchard and R. D. Young;Eastern Christian Texts in Translation 2; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 181-82. It is unclearto which extent the doctrine cited by Eznik reflects earlier Marcionite teachings, andto which extent it may have been influenced by other schools of thought.

(dust-soul [ruah]) of Gen 2:7 (which could be related to the Hellenisticdichotomy between body and soul).67 This Jewish interpretation, how-ever, was recast and re-mythologized in a dualistic manner by others.According to a myth which Eznik of Kolb reports as part of Marcionsdualistic system,68 two equal partners took part in the creation of manthe creative God and matter (represented by earth); God said to theearth, Let us make man in our image.69 The wording of GenesisRabbah, He consultedwith the work of heaven and earth . . . He con-sultedwith the action of each day, would not allow such dualistic views,and they constitute an additional and more decisive stage in solving

the problem of the plural form in our verse by de-mythologizing it, aprocess already discernible in Justins account of one of the Jewishopinions.

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 572


26/47


573

70 Although it may well be that the parable was originally on Gen 6:6 (Cf. Gen. Rab.27:4, [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 258 and variae lectionisthere]) at least the compilers ofGenesisRabbah (if not earlier sages, see below) considered it as a solution to the plural formused in Gen 1:26.

71 The root bx[ has also the meaning to be angry at. The preposition la couldbe interpreted as synonymous to l[, He was angry with His heart.

72 I follow here mainly Epsteins translation (I. Epstein, Midrash Rabbah [London,1959] 1.56-57).

73 Ginzberg was of the opinion that His heart in the midrash means Himself, butthat this wording created the potential for Christian speculations (L. Ginzberg, DieHaggada bei den Kirchenvter, [Amsterdam: [s.n.], 1898], 1.20-21); Similarly Urbach, TheSages, 207: The Church Fathers . . . adopted the Jewish interpretations, namely thatGod addressed Himself, His heart, or in their terminology (bileshonam), His Sophia,Logos, or handsexpressions that they identified with the son or the holy ghost;thus also Fossum, Gen 1, 26, 210: his heart (i.e., himself ). Baer, however, takes adifferent track and claims that in Gen. Rab. 1:1 and Gen. Rab. 8:3 the architect is thedemiurge, the result of an ancient mythical doctrine (I. Baer, Israel among the Nations:

An Essay on the History of the Period of the Second Temple and the Mishnah and on the Foundationsof the Halachah and Jewish Religion [ Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1969], 131, n. 3 [Hebrew];but I have reservations concerning many of his arguments). Liebes is close to my ideaswhen he argues: The heart of God appears here to be a separate entity, which medi-ates between Him and the Creation ( J. Liebes, de Natura Dei: On the Jewish Mythand Its Metamorphoses, Masuot: Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in

Another solution to the plural form in Gen 1:26 recorded in GenesisRabbah and mentioned above is that God consulted with His ownheart. The significance of this view may be illuminated by the fol-lowing parable, illuminating it in Genesis Rabbah:70

It may be compared to a king who had a palace built by an architect,but when he saw it, it did not please him. With whom is he to be indig-nant? Surely the architect! Similarly, And He was grieved at His heart(wbl la bx[tyw;71 Gen 6:6). R. Yassi said: This may be compared to aking who did some business through an agent and suffered loss: withwhom is he to be indignant? Surely with the agent! Similarly, and Hewas grieved at His heart (Gen. Rab. 8:3, ed. Theodor-Albeck, 59).72

It seems that the expression He consultedwith His own heart is notidentical with the Jewish view recorded in Justins dialogue that Godspoke to Himself. According to the latter solution offered by some ofthe Jewish sages, in Justins account, the problem of the plural formin Gen 1:26, was merely a question of semantics, of a way of speak-ing, whereas in the solution He consulted with His own heart inGenesis Rabbah the plural form is explained by some sort of distinctionbetween God and His heart, comparable to the distinction betweenthe king and his architect or agent.73 To be sure, Gods heart is anindivisible part of God himself.

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 573


27/47

574menahem kister

Memory of Prof. E. Gottlieb [eds. M. Oron and A. Goldreich; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute,1994], 280 [Hebrew]). However, when Liebes continues and connects the issue toGnostic religion . . . the main core of which is the distinction between the supremeGod and the God of Creation, who is called the Demiurge and when he defines Hisheart as the spiritual inner self of God, I cannot agree. Nor can I agree with Liebesconnection of this statement with Gen. Rab. 31:7, and with his interpretation of earthin this midrash as a divine power.

74 The term hypostasis is problematic. Many scholars have used [this term] as adivine attribute that is identified with God, and yet has some degree of independentidentity (C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence[AGJU42; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 36). An abstract term is needed for what is, in my judgement,more than a personification (see the lucid discussion of Gieschen, 36-45). However,the lack of an abstract term in rabbinic Judaism for Gods hypostaseis should be

emphasized, and it is an important datum when the Jewish systems are compared tosimilar, contemporary Christian ones, and it should also be acknowledged that the termhas non-Jewish overtones. The usage of the term hypostasis has been a matter ofdebate (see Gieschens survey). The term is sometimes used for an intermediary divinebeing between the transcendent God and Creation. This may be valid for Philosthought, but not for rabbinic Judaism (and Palestinian Judaism in general). See alsobelow, n. 85. Often, the case is complex. Thus Gods word is sometimes a hyposta-sis (e.g., in the version of the Passover Haggadah that reads: not by means of angel,and not by means of the Word; see D. Goldschmidt, The Passsover Haggadah: Its Sourceand History [ Jerusalem: Schocken, 1960], 44-45 n. 60 [Hebrew]), but the usual usageof the term memra (word) in the targumim is motivated by translation techniquesrather than by Logos-theology, although the very choice of the term is significant.(Boyarin recently revived the argument that memrais akin to the Logos. He writes: Wefind theMemraworking as the Logos works in the following ways: Creating. . . . speak-ing to humans. . . . revealing himself . . . punishing the wicked . . . saving . . . redeem-ing . . . TheMemraperforms many, if not all, of the functions of the Logos of ChristianLogos theology, and therefore is evidence for Jewish binitarianism [D. Boyarin, TheGospel of theMemra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John, HTR94 (2001):243-84, esp. 256-57]. All these works, however, are simply the works of the biblicalGod; we can argue for memra theology in the targumim only if Memra were con-trasted with a transcendent God in targumic literature; my feeling is that the evidenceis to the contrary: YHWH and Memra freely interchange in the Palestinian targu-mim. This is not to exclude any hypostatization in Jewish thought, to which much ofthe present article is devoted, but it seems to me that the evidence from the targumimis meagre.)

75 See Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 51.

If we wish to put this notion in more abstract terms, we may saythat the heart [= wisdom] is similar to the Logos, an emanation orhypostasis of God74 with which He took counsel before He created theworld and Adam. The notion that God said Let us make man toHis wisdom, or to the Logos occurs already in writings of the SecondTemple period (Wis 9:1-2; 2 En. 30:8).75 Wisdom dwells in the heartsof humans, according to Semitic concepts, and therefore Gods heartis His wisdom. This interpretation of the creation of man and of theworld in general finds an echo in a piyyutof Jose ben Jose. He writesconcerning the creation of Adam: He spoke in His heart: who shall

JSJ 37,4_340_548-593 10/12/06 8:26 PM Page 574


28/47


575

76 Mirsky, The Piyyutim of Jose ben Jose, 133.77 The centrality of Prov 9:1-4 in speculations concerning the creation of the world

is clear from the very name Achamoth, in this particular form, occurring in variousGnostic myths, which certainly reflects hokhmoth of the Hebrew text of Prov 9:1.

78 Prov 9:1-4 is the direct continuation of Prov 8:2