The Tongues of Angels

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE TONGUES OF ANGELS:

THE CONCEPTUAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF
ANGELIC LANGUAGES IN CLASSICAL JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TEXTS
John Christopher Poirier
Submitted in partial fulfillment

o f requirements for
The degree o f Doctor o f Hebrew Literature
in
Ancient Judaism
The Graduate School

of
The Jewish Theological Seminary o f America
2005
UMI Number: 3178985
Copyright 2005 by
Poirier, John Christopher
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3178985
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
This dissertation by John Christopher Poirier has been approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor o f Hebrew Literature
Dissertation Sponsor
Dr. Seth Schwartz
"f
ind Reader
Dr. Richard Kalmin
THE TONGUES OF ANGELS:

THE CONCEPTUAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF
ANGELIC LANGUAGES IN CLASSICAL JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TEXTS
ABSTRACT
JOHN CHRISTOPHER POIRIER
The concept o f angelic languages appears in a number o f Jewish and Christian

writings from the second century BCE until the Italian Renaissance. In some o f these
writings the angels speak Hebrew, while in others they speak an unearthly esoteric
language. A number o f questions arise from this: How did the view that angels speak an
esoteric language develop and spread in the first place, especially in the apparent absence
o f such a view in the Hebrew Bible? Why did the view that angels speak an unearthly
esoteric language make so little impact upon rabbinic Judaism before the fifth century
CE, despite the existence o f this view in indisputably Jewish apocalyptic writings? And
why did the idea o f Hebrew-speaking angels make so little impact on developing
Christianity?
This study discusses every Jewish and Christian source (including epigraphy)
known to the author that fits into the period beginning with the writing o f Jubilees (midsecond century BCE) and ending with the main redaction o f the Babylonian Talmud
(seventh century CE). Although it intends to collect and comment on these sources as an
end in itself, it also pursues a particular problem that arises from their study: How are we
ii
to explain the rise o f these two views, and how are we to explain their respective careers?
In particular: How does one account for R. Yochanans dictum (b. Sot. 33a; b. Shab. 12b)
that the angels, implicitly understood to speak Hebrew, do not understand Aramaic (a
proposition that seems to be a matter o f some rhetorical urgency)? This study suggests
that R. Yochanan sought to proscribe extra-synagogal prayer, thereby placing all liturgical
activity under the control o f whatever group was running the synagogue, and that he also
sought to exalt Hebrew as way o f empowering the literati (i.e. the rabbis). At the same
time, this study also recognizes that the tenability o f these explanations lies more in thenexplanatory power than in their historical necessitythat is, that there is no way to get
beyond their pairing as mutual possibilities to the question o f which is the real (or more
dominant) reason.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction
A. Purpose and Organization of this Study
B. The Pseudepigraphic Evidence: Methodological Preface
C. Rabbinic Writings as Historiography: Methodological Preface
D. Conclusion
13
Chapter Two: Hebrew as the Language of the Angels
14
A. Jubilees (and 4Q464)
16
B. R. Yochanans Dictum: The Ministering Angels do not Understand

Aramaic (b. Sot. 33a; b. Shab. 12b)
24
C. Christian Writings: The Apocalypse o f Paul and the Coptic Wizards

Hoard
38
D. Conclusion
40
Chapter Three: The Esoteric Heavenly Language: Fairly Certain Cases
42
A. 1 Corinthians 13:1
42
B. New Testament Continued (2 Cor 12:1-7)
56
C. The Testament o f Job
62
D. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah
81
E. The Ascension o f Isaiah
88
F. The Apocalypse of Abraham
99
G. The Rabbinic Evidence (Gen. Rab. 74.7)
104
H. Ephrem Syrus, Hymn 11
119
I. The Book o f the Resurrection (attributed to Bartholomew the Apostle)
125
iv
J. Conclusion
132
Chapter Four: The Esoteric Heavenly Language Continued: Less Certain Cases
134
A. The Qumran Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice
134
B. The Rabbinic Evidence Continued (b. b. Bat. 134a || b.Suk. 28a)
152
C. The Nanas Inscription
166
D. The Liturgical Jubilatio
171
E. Conclusion
181
Chapter Five: The Sociological and Ideological Foundations o f Hebrew-Speaking

Angels
183
A. The Linguistic Situation o f Jewish Palestine
184
B. The Hebraic Setting o f Rabbinic Piety
208
C. The Proscription of Extra-Synagogal Prayer
227
D. The Direct Empowerment o f the Hebraeophone Literati
234
E. Conclusion
242
Chapter Six: Angeloglossy and the Linguistic Ideology o f Early Christianity
244
A. The Antiquity o f Greek-Speaking Christianity
245
B. Language and the Missionary Impulse: Christianity as a Translation

Phenomenon
253
C. Conclusion
258
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
260
Appendix One: The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine
264
A. Aramaic
265
B. Greek
273
C. Hebrew
291
Appendix Two: Two Other Possible Solutions for the Speech o f Palm Trees
302
A. The Palmgeister in T.-S. K 1.56 and 1.147
302
B. Palm Trees as Neoplatonist Representatives o f Heliotropes
304
Bibliography
314
vi
Chapter One:
Introduction
What language do angels speak? From the standpoint of the modem mindset, the
question seems quaint. For the historian, however, it connects in suggestive ways to other
questions, not only about early Jewish and Christian beliefs about angels, prophecy, and
mystical ascents, but also about language ideology and the role and political strategy o f
rabbinic groups within society. This study attempts to make the most o f this
arrangement. In the first part o f this study, I focus on deciding which writings belong
with which view of angelic speech. In the second part, I discuss the religious and social
aspects o f those views.
Among Jews in late antiquity, there were two main views about which language
angels spoke. It is not clear what the majority view was during the Second Temple
period, but, during the rabbinic era, the view that angels spoke Hebrew appears to have
been in the ascendency. (This goes hand in hand with the heightened importance of
Torah during the late tannaitic/early amoraic period.) For the sake o f convenience, I call
this view hebraeophone. The other major view is that the angels spoke an esoteric
heavenly language, normally unintelligible to humans. In the investigation of primary
sources that occupies chapters two through four, the esoteric-language view occupies over
five times as much space as the hebraeophone view, but that does not indicate the relative
degree to which this view might have dominated ancient Judaism and early Christianity.
It merely represents the difficulty o f discerning the esoteric-language view in certain
cases.
Angeloglossy is the term that I use to denote the language of angels, whether
that language is also native to humanity or not. I also use angeloglossy to denote
human speaking in an esoteric angelic language. The question o f which of these views of
angelic languages is the earlier of the two is difficult, and I do not attempt to answer it in
this study. I begin with the hebraeophone view simply because the evidence for it is
much more straightforward. Although we cannot confidently state that the hebraeophone
view o f angels is older than the esoteric-language view, the earliest extant source attesting
to this view (viz. Jubilees) is undoubtedly older than any o f the sources attesting to an
esoteric angelic language. In discussing the notion o f a specifically angelic language, I
should perhaps mention that there is a wealth o f speculation about the language o f heaven
in Jewish tradition in general, including a widespread tradition that Hebrew is the
language o f creation and/or heaven, thereby implicitly denying that the heavenly language
is esoteric. In these sources, it is often assumed that the earliest human tongue was also
the heavenly tongue.1
A. PURPOSE AND
ORGANIZATION
OF T H I S
STUDY
The purpose o f this study is to investigate an important topic that has been unduly
neglected: the topic of angelic languages has never before received a book-length
treatment. I seek first to establish that there are two principal views concerning what
1 See Concepcion Gonzalo Rubio, La Angelologia en la Literatura Rabinica y Sefardi

(Biblioteca Nueva Sefarad 2; Barcelona: Ameller Ediciones, 1977) 40-41; Andre Paul,
LaBible grecquedA quilaetlideologie dujudalsme ancien, m AN RW 2.20A (1987)
221-45, esp. 235-43.
language angels speak, and that both views are in evidence over a long stretch of time.
The larger burden of this project, however, is to apply the information that we gather
from the sources to what we already know about the groups holding these views, giving
special attention to the rabbis for whom it was apparently of some importance that the
angels spoke Hebrew. The chronological bounds of this study are far-flung. I begin with
Jubilees (mid-2nd c. BCE), the earliest text to touch upon the issue of angeloglossy.3 As
a lower bound, I have selected the main redaction o f the Babylonian Talmud (ca. 550-650
CE), which I take to mark the end of the classical period o f rabbinic Judaism. These
bounds mark o ff a period o f about 700 to 800 years.4
This study is organized in the following way: chapter two surveys the
documentary evidence for the hebraeophone view, found primarily in Jubilees, 4Q464,
various rabbinic and targumic texts, and in a tiny minority o f Christian texts. Chapters
three and four look at a number of Jewish and Christian writings that may refer to an
2 Whether the mental-communication understanding (represented much later by Thomas

Aquinas and Dante) is a third view, or only a species of the esoteric-language view, is an
interesting question, but due to the chronological limits of this study, it is not germane to
this study. I will note, however, that Ephrem Syruss gradation o f languages according to
their rarefication suggests the latter.
3 The frequent claim that 1 Enoch 71.11 (= 70.14-15 in Richard Laurences translation)
refers to angeloglossy, much less human participation in angeloglossy, fails of
demonstration.
4 For Jewish antiquity, the classical period is usually thought to end with the main
redaction o f the Babylonian Talmud, around 650 CE (perhaps earlier). For Christian
antiquity, the classical period is often thought to end earlier: with the death o f
Augustine o f Hippo, in 430 CE. The proposed study uses classical period in the first
sense, but it should be noted that the Christian sources that are named in section headings
all happen to fall into the period defined by the latter sense, with the exception o f parts o f
the Coptic wizards hoard, said to have been written in five hands dating from the
fourth to seventh centuries CE.
esoteric angelic language. Chapter three treats the more certain references at length,
including those found in 1 and 2 Corinthians, the Testament o f Job, the Apocalypse o f
Zephaniah, the Ascension o f Isaiah, the Apocalypse o f Abraham, Genesis Rabbah, and
the Coptic Book o f the Resurrection o f Jesus Christ (attributed to Bartholomew). Chapter
four turns to the cases which are more difficult to decide, including possible references to
angeloglossy in the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, the Babylonian Talmud, a fourthcentury Christian inscription from Kotiaeion (Asia Minor), and the jubilatio hymn from
the Christian liturgical tradition. These sources represent a wide variety o f movements
within Judaism and Christianity, which shows the pervasiveness o f the esoteric-language
view.
For many o f the Jewish groups holding to a hebraeophone angelology, the use o f
Hebrew in the community was both religiously and sociologically significant. Chapter
five extends the investigation in a more social-scientific direction by showing the
connection between the linguistic situation and the Palestinian rabbinic view, exploring
how third-century rabbis used their linguistic circumstances to their advantage. It begins
V frying to establish that Hebrew was a minority language in third-century Jewish
Palestine, and argues that the hebraic underpinning o f rabbinic theology and ideology,
combined with the privilege ofbeing able to read Hebrew in a largely non-hebraeophone
and illiterate society, culminated in R. Yochanans attempt to proscribe the practice o f
praying outside the synagogue, and that the bare fact of the aforementioned privilege
empowered the rabbis within their society. Chapter six contrasts the lack of any serious
commitment to Hebrew within Christian tradition, and explains this contrast in negative
terms (viz. through the historical accident of Christianitys early propagation among the
Greek-speaking sector of Jewish Palestine, and through the early churchs drive to
proselytize Gentiles on non-Jewish terms). The study ends with a summary conclusion
(chapter seven).
B . THE P S E U D E P I G R A P H I C E V I D E N C E :
METHODOLOGICAL PREFACE
Several o f the works I will be discussing are pseudepigraphic. One o f the main
concerns o f any study comparing elements from the pseudepigrapha is that it is often
difficult to tell whether a given writing should be classified as (primarily) Jewish or
Christian. An earlier generation of scholars was quick to assume that every Jewishsounding pseudepigraphon with no distinctively Christian elements w;as bound to be
Jewish in origin, but scholarship has recently come to terms with the fact that even those
works that contain no distinctively Christian elements may, in fact, be largely or entirely
the products o f a Christian writer.5 The tide of opinion of late has been to reverse the
burden of proof sefup by an earlier generation. According to the new emerging
consensus, if a given writing was preserved solely by the church, then, barring clear
indications to the contrary, it should be assumed to be a Christian composition.
Robert Kraft has addressed these issues in two important methodological essays.
He notes that, prior to the eighth century CE, almost all o f the texts that we possess,
5 For a recent persuasive argument that a Jewish-sounding writing is actually Christian in

origin, cf. James R. Davilas paper, Is the Story ofZosimus Really a Jewish
Composition?, presented at the 2003 meeting of the Society o f Biblical Literature in
Atlanta.
6
[a]part from the DSS and some early Rabbinic materials, were transmitted through
Christian channels.6 These pseudepigrapha are, first of all, Christian materials, and
recognition of that fact is a necessary step in using them appropriately in the quest to
throw light on early Judaism. [This is] the default position-sources transmitted by way
o f Christian communities are Christian, whatever else they may also prove to be. To a
bygone generation, such a position might have sounded hypercritical, but scholars today
recognize that Christians and Jews often wrote in the same styles, and drew from the
same material. Kraft writes, I expect that there were self-consciously Christian authors
who wrote new works that focused on Jewish persons or traditions and contained no
uniquely Christian passages, listing the rather innocent homily on the heroic life of a
Job or a Joseph as a prime example.8 Kraft does not think it impossible for the church to
have transmitted authentic Jewish writings without altering them-he points out that we
have positive evidence of faithful transmission in a number o f cases9-but the burden of
proof regarding the churchs handling o f Jewish writings, as well as the presumption that
6 Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions, JSJ 32 (2001) 371-95, esp.
384. See idem, The Pse ^d^grapha in Christianity, in Tracing the Threads: Studies in
the Vitality o f Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves (SBLEJL 06; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1994) 55-86.
7 Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions, 372.
8 Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions, 375. See Jean-Daniel
Kaestli, Les Ecrits Apocryphes Chretiens: Pour une Approche qui Valorise leur
Diversity et leurs Attaches Bibliques, in Le Mystere Apocryphe: Introduction a une
Litterature Meconnue, eds. J.-D. Kaestli and D. Marguerat (Essaia Bibliques 26; Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1995) 27-42.
9 Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions, 379. Kraft notes a famous
case (Philos discussion o f the Therapeutae in De Vita Contemplativa) in which the
Jewish origin o f a writing has been rehabilitated (ibid, 382-83).
a given writing is Jewish, is (he argues) to be assigned differently than once assumed.
This recognition that a Jewish-sounding pseudepigraphon may actually be Christian is
both the product and the spur of recent attempts, made by many scholars, to rethink the
so-called parting o f the ways between the two religions. Yet it is imporant to note that
these are two separate issues: (1) How does one tell the difference between a Jewish
writing and a Christian writing? and (2) Is there really a solid dividing line between
Judaism and Christianity?10
10 Scholars have become more sensitive to the problem o f separating Christianity from
Judaism. As Peter J. Tomson writes, Christianity developed as a separate religious
community out o f Judaism not so much by adhering to a specific messianic confessionwhich could have kept its place among other Jewish dissenters-but by integrating masses
o f non-Jews who in the course of history quickly ended up setting themselves off from
the mother religion (Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse,
Semeia 86 [1999] 193-211, esp. 193). See Joan E. Taylor, The Phenomenon o f Early
Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly Invention?, VigChr 44 (1990) 313-34; Anthony
J. Saldarini, Matthews Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1994) 3; Reuven Kimelman, Identifying Jews and Christians in Roman SyrioPalestine, in Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence o f Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers
(Duke Judaic Studies 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 301-33. Daniel Boyarin
suggests that the border between Judaism and Christianity was so fuzzy that one could
hardly say precisely at what point one stopped and the other began {Dying for God:
Martyrdom and the Making o f Christianity and Judaism [Figurae; Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1999] 10-11). As Kraft notes, Boyarin comes close to totalizing the
lack o f distinction between many forms o f Judaism and o f Christianity. Judith Lieus
essay on the inadequacy o f the parting of the ways model has been, in some ways,
programmatic for the current flurry o f revisionist studies, but she is more interested in
showing that many early Jews and Christians viewed the separation in more caustic terms
than is implied by the ecumenical-sounding parting o f the ways (The Parting o f the
Ways: Theological Construct or Historical Reality?, JSNT 56 [1994] 101-19, esp. 117).
The Christians that she names in connection with this are those that were subsequently
canonized as the voice o f orthodoxy. In this respect, Lieu seems to be arguing that the
parting o f the ways model is not violent enough. She questions whether New Testament
scholars are correct in appealing to the Aphrodisias inscription pertaining to God-fearers:
They need the God-fearers both to establish continuities leading into the Christian
church-it was from this group o f synagogue adherents that the earliest Christians were
drawn-and to demonstrate the fuzziness of first-century ideas o f being a Jew-thus
Christian redefinition falls within this internal debate (ibid, 107). Her point is the
But do the drawbacks of putting ail ones egg in a particular basket justify putting
them all in a different basket? And how does the fact that a given writing was preserved
by the church make it more likely that it was originally Christian? My purpose in this
methodological preface is to register my dissent from the view argued by Kraft and
others. It is far from clear that the church preserved more Jewish-sounding
pseudepigrapha o f Christian origin than o f Jewish origin, therefore it is not at all clear
that a Christian origin is a safer assumption than a Jewish origin. The safest procedure is
to leave the question non liquet. In my view, after we have expended every effort to
determine whether a given writing is Jewish or Christian, the safest position is to discuss
the writing without referring at all to its religious provenance, and to give a slight,
tentative, and qualified favor to a position o f Jewish provenance with respect to those
questions where it might make a difference. The Christian-until-proven-otherwise
position cashes in on some good points, but ultimately it is not a better position.
C. R A B B I N IC WRI TI NGS
AS H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y :
METHODOLOGICAL PREFACE
precise opposite of that o f some more recent revisionists, who emphasize the fuzziness
o f first-century ideas of being a Jew vis-a-vis being a Christian. According to Lieu,
[Djespite its adoption by Jewish scholars-notably Alan Segal in his Rebeccas Children
which works with the related idea o f sibling rivalry-the parting o f the ways is
essentially a Christian model. Its concern is to maintain the Christian apologetic o f
continuity in the face o f questions about that continuity from a historical or theological
angle (ibid, 108). For an example of a non-violent revisionist account, based on Justin
Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho and the (now lost) Controversy between Jason and
Papiscus regarding Christ (mentioned by Origen), see Francis Watson, Text and Truth:
Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 310. See now the papers
collected in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the
There are two basic problems with using rabbinic writings as historiography: (1)
there is no guarantee that a saying attributed to a rabbi was really said by him, and (2)
sayings do not transparently reveal the social reality behind them: one must grapple with
the ideological content o f a saying before accepting what it says about the situation in
Jewish Palestine at a given time.11 My approach to rabbinic writings is a mediating
position between the hermeneutic o f good-will of Zionist and Israeli scholarship12 and
the documentary approach of Jacob Neusner. It is mainly in response to the former
approach that Neusner has turned rabbinic documents in upon their own editorial
voices, and it is mainly in response to latter that scholars have honed useful and
responsible approaches to the rabbinic writings.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Neusner made the editorial voice of any given rabbinic
document so deafening that the contents of that document could not be used to determine
the prior shape o f any traditions taken up into that document.
11
His overcompensation for
Early Middle Ages, eds. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (TSAJ 95;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003).
11 As Gabriele Boccaccini writes, rabbinic documents are not chatoic collections o f
ancient material and parallels; they are consistent ideological documents (Targum
Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systemic Analysis, in The Aramaic Bible:
Targums in their Historical Context, eds. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara
[JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994] 254-63, esp. 255).
12 For this description, see Seth Schwartz, Historiography on the Jews in the Talmudic
Period (70 - 640 CE), in The Oxford Handbook o f Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 79-114.
1%
Neusners approach to constructing history from rabbinic writings can be divided into
three distinct stages: (1) in the 1950s and 1960s, Neusner used rabbinic literature to
write rabbinic biography, (2) in the 1970s, he denounced his earlier biographical studies,
and honed a method whereby attributions to a particular figure were to be assumed as
the role o f the editor has resulted in an uncontrolled multiplication of Judaisms (his
term): since each document is but an expression of its editors own thoughts, each
constitutes a carefully constructed form and distinctive expression of Judaism.14 This
takes things way too far: the claim that there are multiple forms of Judaism is of course
one that should be accepted and applied intuitively as an explanatory grid for much that
we find, but the claim that each rabbinic document represents its own narrow Judaism
goes far beyond a judicial use of such a grid.
To be sure, Neusners infusion o f historical skepticism has served well: the
credulity of an earlier day has been replaced by afl awareness that much of the rabbinic
tradition is tendentious. But scholars today are moving beyond the extreme and
restrictive premises upon which Neusner built his system. It is now widely realized that
accurate attributions only at the level o f that figures circle o f influence (i.e. to that
figures generation), and (3) in the 1980s and 1990s, he attributed so much to the editors
o f the rabbinic writings that a form-critical study o f the rabbinic corpus became a vain
gesture. The fact that Neusner believes so strongly in absorbing his earlier writings into
new books (verbatim!) sometimes plays havoc with the attempt to write Neusners
intellectual biography. When what is essentially a reissue o f a 1970s book by Neusner
appears in the 1980s, it becomes difficult to decide what Neusner really believed in the
1980s. For the sometimes funny results ofNeusners disgregation o f older works into new
works, see his Judaism States its Theology: The Talmudic Re-presentation (USFSHJ 88;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), in which Max Kadushin is sometimes castigated as one of
die most detrimental voices in criticism, and sometimes praised as the one o f the most
wonderful scholars o f the century. Ironically, one might even say that the editorial voice in
Judaism States its Theology (or in a number ofNeusners other books) is not nearly as
powerful as Neusner assumes the editorial voice to be within rabbinic works, even though
the former is not advertised as a compilation of earlier material, while the latter are!
14 In Neusners words: Each o f the score of documents that make up the canon o f Judaism
in late antiquity exhibits distinctive traits in logic, rhetoric, and topic, so that we may
identify the purposes and traits of form and intellect o f the authorship o f that document. It
follows that documents possess integrity and are not merely scrapbooks, compilations made
with no clear purpose or aesthetic plan (The Mishna in Philosophical Context and Out of
Canonical Bounds, JBL 112 [1993] 291-304, esp. 301).
11
careful methods, based on reasonable assumptions about form history (the type of form
history that Neusner himself exemplified in the early 1970s), can often separate the
different strata o f rabbinic material. The trademark of this mediating position is the
caveat that, while rabbinic history is a possibility, biography always lies beyond our
reach.15 The possibility o f rabbinic history, no matter how gapped that history might end
up being, provides the methodological underpinning for my own use of rabbinic writings.
David Goodblatt contends that the debiographization of rabbinic literature16 has
had a liberating effect on the task of history. He argues that the amoraic stratum o f the
Talmud is not hopelessly lost in the medley o f voices: the final editors o f the Babylonian
Talmud did not attempt to homogenize the two strata [i.e., amoraic and saboraic], but
rather left the amoraic material essentially intact.17 It is this unhomogenized state o f the
15 The move away from biography is traced in Anthony J. Saldarini, Reconstructions of

Rabbinic Judaism, in Early Judaism and Its Modem Interpreters, eds. Robert A. Kraft
and George W. E. Nickelsburg (The Bible and Its Modem Interpreters 2; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986) 437-77, esp. 451-54. In light of the now general warning that rabbinic
biography cannot be done, many o f the old introductions (e.g., M. Mielziners
Introduction to the Talmud) stand in need o f rewriting. William Scott Green notes that
the biographical approach is evident in virtually every article on an early rabbinic figure
in the recent Encyclopedia Judaica (Whats in a Name?-The Problematic o f Rabbinic
Biography in Approaches to Ancient Judaism:Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott
Green [BJS 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978] 77-96, esp. 87).
16 Towards the Rehabilitation ofTalmudic History, in History o f Judaism: The Next Ten
Years, ed. Baruch M. Bokser (BJS 21; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 33-38, esp. 35.
17 Towards the Rehabilitation ofTalmudic History, 37. Similarly, David C. Kraemer
contends that the superficial characteristics o f the amoraic stratum can help the
historian o f rabbinics determine which attributions are authentic (On the Reliability of
Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud, HUCA 60 [1989] 175-90). In this connection,
Lawrence M. W illss discussion of the ancient authors lack of concern for editorial
inconcinnities is instructive: Scribal culture is usually the subculture o f literate
professionals in an illiterate society who reflect so-called craft literacy. Their drive to
eliminate clumsy transitions and repetitions was probably less exercised than that of, say,
the letter writers o f eighteenth-century England who were part o f an emerging literate
12
rabbinic sources that allows the possibility of getting behind whatever editorial agendas
may be operating. Richard Kalmin has also wrestled with the problem of writing rabbinic
history. He argues for what we referred to above as the mediating position: [T]he
Talmud is comprised o f diverse sources which were not completely homogenized in the
process of ed itin g . 18 Redaction criticism has traditionally relied upon the extreme
difficulty posed to an editor who tries to make a document thoroughly tendentious in a
direction different from its sources. Kalmin uses this principle to good effect: Early
material bears the stamp o f tradition and is difficult to systematically expunge, even when
considered inappropriate from the standpoint o f later generations.19 The principle of
applying leverage to an unhomogenized text involves paying attention to instances in
which the Babylonian Talmud has not completely Babylonianized Palestinian
tradition.20
culture.. . . Scribes in oral culture are often content to conflate texts and insertions
without being overly concerned for transitions and narrative flow {The Jewish Novel in
the Ancient World [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995] 215).
18 Richard Kalmin, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (BJS 300;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 10.
19 Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia, 57. Kalmin notes that it is
unlikely that a document as variegated as the Babylonian Talmud was subjected to the
tightly controlled and consistent editorial manipulation that would result in the
characteristic distinctions that one finds between strata (ibid, 53).
Kalmin notes that hostility between rabbis inheres mostly in attributed sources.
Anonymous commentary has a tendency to make peace between hostile parties, to
ameliorate the amount of insult that an attributed source might contain. Kalmin suggests
that the amoraim tended to be less insulting to their forbears and colleagues when editing
in the guise o f the anonymous voice. He compares the situation to that o f the modem
journal editor, whose duties extend to a neutral presentation {Sages, Stories, Authors, and
Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia, 166-67).
13
D. CO NCL US IO N
Bearing these methodologems in mind, I turn first to the book o f Jubilees, the first
and perhaps clearest writing to assert that Hebrew was the primordial language, and to
imply that Hebrew was also the native language o f the angels. The texts that we will
study in connection with that position are fewer in number than those that (either certainly
or possibly) posit an esoteric angelic tongue, but they are not less important in any way.
Indeed, they preserve the earliest traces o f a view that would become dominant in
Judaism.
Chapter Two:
Hebrew as the Language of the Angels
Jewish and Christian writings from late antiquity give witness to two different
views concerning what language the angels speak. One set of writings claimed or implied
that the angels spoke Hebrew,1while another set claimed or implied that the angels spoke
an esoteric heavenly language. In this chapter and the next, I introduce these two views.
That a dominant stream within Judaism attached special religious significance to
Hebrew should cause no surprise for the student o f religion. Many religions attach a
religious significance to their foundational languages: John F. A. Sawyer lists Arabic,
Sanskrit, Latin, and Avestan as examples o f languages holding religious significance in
modem times.2 The motivation for such a view, or for the renewed strength that it might
receive at a particular juncture, is often transparently sociological.3 The special status o f
the sacred language was often represented by attributing that language to the angels or
gods, and it was widely held that the most ancient human tongue was also necessarily
divine. A much-cited passage of the Neoplatonist Iamblichus (c. 240 - c. 325 CE) makes
this logic explicit: [B]ecause the Gods have shown that the whole dialect o f sacred
1 This set writings also contains claims that the angels speak Aramaic, but that view
appears to be a reaction to the view that the angels speak Hebrew.
2 Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; London:
Routledge, 1999) 24. See Eugenio Coseriu, Einjuhrung in die allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft (Tubingen: Francke, 1988) 78-79.
3 Sawyer lists communal isolation, bilingualism, nationalism, literacy, and political
infrastructure as contributing factors in the development o f a sacred-language ideology
(SacredLanguages and Sacred Texts, 25).
nations, such as those of the Egyptians and Assyrians, is adapted to sacred concerns; on
this account we ought to think it necessary that our conference with the Gods should be in
a language allied to them.4 Philodemos argues, on similar grounds, that Zeus speaks
Greek.5 As we will see, a number o f rabbis had their own form o f this argument6 Within
various streams o f Judaism, die pairing o f Hebrew-speaking angels with the use of
Hebrew at creation seems to be done as a matter o f course, although there was a potential
conflict with the view, also widely held, that each of the 70 (or 72) heathen nations
speaks the language o f its representative angel.7
This chapter examines various references to angels speaking Hebrew. The
hebraeophone view o f angeloglossy is most explicitly propounded in Jubilees and in a
saying attributed to R. Yochanan. The ideology driving this view was also apparently
embraced by the Qumran community, as demonstrated by 4Q464, although one searches
in vain for an explicit reference to angels speaking Hebrew among the Dead Sea scrolls.
4 De Mysteriis 7.4 (trans. Thomas Taylor [3rd ed.; London, 1883] 293). See Jan
Assmann, Unio Liturgica: Die kultische Einstimmung in gotterweltlichen Lobpreis als
Grundmotiv esoterischer Uberiieferung im alten Agypten, in Secrecy and
Concealment: Studies in the History o f Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, eds.
Hans G. Kippenberg and Guy G. Stroumsa (SHR 65; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 37-60, esp. 3746.
5 Concerning the Gods, book 3 (ed. Diels) p. 37. See Amo Borst, Der Turmbau von
Babel: Geschichte der Meinungen iiber Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Volker
(6 vols.; Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1957-63) 1.140.
6 See Concepcion Gonzalo Rubio, La Angelologia en la Literatura Rabinica y Sefardi
(BibliotecaNueva Sefarad 2; Barcelona: Ameller Ediciones, 1977) 40-41; Andre Paul,
La Bible grecque dAquila et Pideologie dujudaisme ancien, in AYR IT2.20.1 (1987)
221-45, esp. 235-43.
7 See Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel, 194-95.
The attaching of religious significance to Hebrew goes back at least to the time of
Nehemiah and Ezra, but we do not know how early the specific belief in hebraeophone
angeloglossy is. For chronological reasons, I discuss Jubilees first, then the talmudic
references, and finally a few stray references from Christian writings.
A. JUBILEES (AND 4Q464)
The church fathers referrred to the book o f Jubilees as the Little Genesis,
because it retells the biblical narrative from Genesis 1 through Exodus 15. It was
probably written in Palestine (in Hebrew) in the second century BCE, but a few fragments
from Qumran cave four are all that survive of the Hebrew original.8 For the entire book,
we are dependent on an Ethiopic version, which in turn was probably based on a Greek
version, and is fragmentarily supported by Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions.
Because Jubilees exalts the Torah, R. H. Charles thought that the book was
written by a Pharisee,9 but the discovery of the Qumran scrolls has made that view
8 James C. VanderKam argues for a date between 161 and 152 BCE {Textual and
Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees [HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977]
207-85). See idem, The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4, in in The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, eds. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (2 vols.;
STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 2.635-48.
9 R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament (2 vols.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 2.1.
17
untenable. The books many affinities with Qumran beliefs have been the subject of
many several studies.10 James C. VanderRam writes,
[I]t can be said with confidence that Jub. and the specifically sectarian texts from
Qumran show an extraordinary similarity in their teachings on predestination, the
two moral ways, and the future state o f the righteous------Since Jub. and, in most
cases, the Qumran texts date from approximately the same time, one is almost
required to see them as products o f a common and unique theological tradition...
. [Tjhe fact that they adhered to a unique calendar makes the case
overwhelming.11
Fragments of Jubilees were found in Qumran caves 1,2,3,4, and 11, and clear echoes
from it are found in the sectarian writings.12 Ben Zion Wacholder even suggests that
Jubilees and some other works should be reclassified as sectarian documents.
1^
Although Wacholders suggestion seems to exaggerate the amount o f sectarian

distinctiveness that Jubilees evinces, the point it was a centrally important text at Qumran
10 For a bibliography o f studies drawing parallels between Jubilees and the Qumran
scrolls, see VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees, 259 n.
95. VanderKam compares the two corpora in respect to their theological doctrines o f
predestination, the two moral ways, and the postmortem state o f the righteous; their
calendar; and their exegesis of Gen. (ibid, 260). Compare also the Qumran self-title
plant of righteousness, with Jub. 1.16; 7.34; 16.26; 21.24; 36.6. See Witold Tyloch,
Quelques Remarques sur la Provenance Essenienne du Livre des Jubiles, RevQ 13
(1988) 347-52.
11 VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees, 270.
12Jubilees is almost certainly mentioned in CD 16.2-4. See VanderKam, Textual and
Historical Studies in the Book ofJubilees, 255-56. On the influence o f Jubilees at
Qumran, see Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting o f the
Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 86-98.
13 Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus Torah-Commandment, in
Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings o f the Second Meeting o f the International
Organization fo r Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in Honour o f Joseph M.
Baumgarten, eds. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and John Kampen
(STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 195-211, esp. 210.
18
needs to be taken seriously. The book obviously has some connection to Qumran,
although scholars are divided on whether it was written there14 or is a product o f the
communitys prehistory. Gene L. Davenport sees two stages in the writing of the book: it
was first composed before Qumran came into existence, and then a second edition was
produced at Qumran (ca. 140-104 BCE).15 Joseph Fitzmyer has shown that the Qumran
Genesis Apocryphon is dependent on Jubilees, and Gershon Brin has recently argued that
the Temple Scroll (1 lQTemple) and Jubilees are connected in some way.16 Jubilees also
14 For a bibliography o f studies arguing that Jubilees was written at Qumran, see
VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees, 258 n. 94. See also
Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966) 607-8.
VanderKam disagrees with the Qumran-authorship view: There are. . . some noteworthy
differences which require that one not assign Jub. to the pen of a Qumran exile. For
example, while the sectarians awaited two messiahs, one from Aaron and one from Israel,
one looks in vain for a messianic hope in Jub.. . . Another example is that Jub. requires
the death penalty for sabbath violations (2:25-27; 50:13) in harmony with biblical law
(Exod. 31:14-15; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36), but CD explicitly rejects capital punishment for
such offences (12:3-6).... There is an unmistakable awareness in Jub. that within Israel
there is a chosen group (23:16; 26), but there is absolutely no evidence in the book that
the author and his party have gone into a Qumran-like exile (Textual and Historical
Studies in the Book o f Jubilees, 280-81).
15 The Eschatology o f the Book o f Jubilees (SPB 20; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 16. For a
similar two-edition view of Jubilees, see Russell Gmirkin, The War Scroll, the Hasidim,
and the Maccabean Conflict, in The Dead Sea Scrolls-Fifty Years After Their
Discovery: Proceedings o f the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, eds. Lawrence H.
Schiffinan, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 2000) 486-96. On possible Qumranic authorship, see also Frank M. Cross, Jr.,
The Ancient Library o f Qumran (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 44; Helmer
Ringgren, The Faith o f Qumran: Theology o f the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1963) 225-26.
16 See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon o f Qumran Cave I: A Commentary
(2nd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971) 16-17; Gershon Brin,
Regarding the Connection between the Temple Scroll and the Book o f Jubilees, JBL
112 (1993) 108-09. The Temple Scroll is almost certainly not a Qumran composition.
Hubert Lignee had seen the same connection before Brin, but he complicated it by
attributing both writings to the pre-Qumranic career o f the Teacher o f Righteousness (La
19
bears some relationship to Enochic literature (see the treatment of Enoch in Jub. 4.16-19;
10.17), parts of which presuppose the Jubilean/Qumranic solar calendar (1 Enoch 7282).17
Jubilees gives a historical and theological defense of some distinctive views on
the solar calendar, predestination, and other issues. Many o f these distinctive views bear
some relation to Jubilees's hostility toward the Gentiles. John J. Collins notes,
Abraham exhorts Jacob to Separate yourself from the gentiles and do not eat with
them, and do not perform deeds like theirs (22:16). Intermarriage with foreigners
is condemned at length (30:7-17). Levi and his sons are blessed because he was
zealous to do righteousness and judgment and vengeance against all who rose up
against Israel (30:18).18
According to Jubilees, God has appointed an angel over every nation (except Israel) in
order to lead them astray from him.19 The motif o f the angels governance over the
nations is widespread within Jewish writings, but it is usually not explained in terms o f
Gods hostility toward the nations.
Place du Livre des Jubiles et du Rouleau du Temple dans lHistoire du Mouvement

Essenien: Ces Deux Ouvrages ont-ils ete Ecrits par le Maitre de Justice?, RevQ 13
[1988] 331-45).
17 The Qumran reception of Jubilees is evidenced in other texts from the Qumran cache
besides Jubilees itself: e.g., J. T. Milik classified 4Q225-4Q227 as Pseudo-Jubilees (J.
VanderKam and J. T. Milik, 4QpseudoJubileesa, in Qumran Cave 4, vol. 8:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, eds. Harold Attridge et al [DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995]
141-56, esp. 142), and the fragmentary text 4Q464 (see below) appears to be a sort of
pesher on Jubilees.
1R
Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (JSJSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1997)
175. See Jorg Frey, Zum Weltbild im Jubilaenbuch, in Studies in the Book o f Jubilees,
eds. Matthias Albani, Jdrg Frey, and Armin Lange (TSAJ 65; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
1998) 261-92.
19 See D. S. Russell, The Method and Message o f Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC - AD 100
(OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 246.
20
One of the things that Jubilees has in common with Qumran is its connection of
piety with the Hebrew language. This Hebrew-centered ideology is not surprising, given
the Jubilean view of Israels place among the nations. A Hebrew-speaking heaven comes
into view when Abraham is given the ability to speak and understand Hebrew (Jub.
12.25-27):
And the LORD God said to me, Open his mouth and his ears so that he might
hear and speak with his mouth in the language which is revealed because it ceased
from the mouth of all of the sons of men from the day of the Fall. And I opened
his mouth and his ears and his lips and I began to speak with him in Hebrew, in
the tongue o f creation. And he took his fathers books-and they were written in
Hebrew-and he copied them. And he began studying them thereafter. And I
cause him to know everything which he was unable (to understand). And he
studied them (in) the six months o f rain, (trans. Wintermute [OTP] 2.82)
Amo Borst understands the recovery of Hebrew to be an epoch event for the author o f
Jubilees: Mit diesem Satz tritt eine neue Vorstellung in die Geistesgeschichte ein.20
Day of the Fall refers to the fall of the tower of Babel (see 10.26). Hebrew had
been the universal language until that point. According to 3.28, all the animals in the
primeval garden spoke the same language.21 The text at that point does not specify that
the language was Hebrew, but the later indication that the first couple spoke Hebrew
(12.25), combined with the fact that Eve conversed with the serpent, makes it likely that
the term tongue o f creation implies not only that God used Hebrew to call the universe
20
Der Turmbau von Babel, 1.149. Mogens Miiller compares Abrahams recovery of his
fathers writings with the discovery o f the Law in the time o f Josiahs reform (Die
Abraham-Gestait im Jubilaenbuch: Versuch einer Interpretation, SJOT10 [1996] 23857, esp. 254).
21 See Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel, 1.147-48.
21
into existence, but also that every living creature originally spoke Hebrew.22 As R. H.
Charles notes, the tradition that Abraham reintroduced the lost language of Hebrew was
also known to the author of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.
23
A number o f aspects o f the Jubilean view are worth investigating. First, although
it is related that Hebrew is the heavenly language, that connection is made only to
establish the primacy o f Hebrew (and probably also o f Israel), rather than to speculate on
the nature of angels. However, this devaluation o f all other languages may also have
implied something about human interaction with God-vzz. that the heathen nations do not
have access to God, or that Jews must preserve Hebrew for religious purposes. It is a
matter o f reading between the lines. The angels in Jubilees are presented as Israels
coreligionists. As Steven Weitzman writes, In Jubilees Hebrew is also said to connect
22 Stone and Eshel take it as established that Jub. 3.28 refers to Hebrew as the primordial
language (4QExposition on the Patriarchs, 220). See Milka Rubin, The Language of
Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case o f Cultural Polemics in Antiquity, JJS 49
(1998) 306-33, esp. 309-10. The linguisticality o f animals was a regular feature of Greek
golden age accounts. See Deborah Levine Gera, Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech,
Language and Civilization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 29-32, 61-67. The
closest parallel with Jubilees is that found in Babrius introduction to Aesops fables,
since it depicts animals, humans, and gods all speaking the same language. F. M.
Comford compares the linguisticality o f animals in the golden age ofKronos (Plato,
Polit. 272b) with preaching to the animals, as purportedly practiced by Pythagoras and
Francis of Assisi (From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins o f Western
Speculation [New York: Harper & Bros., 1957] 201).
23 See Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament, 2.32 (note ad
12.25-26). James C. VanderKam mentions more Byzantine chronographers (The Book o f
Jubilees [CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989] 73). Anders Hultgard argues that the idea
o f an eschatological return to a universal language is derived from an Iranian myth
(L eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarchs, vol. 1: Interpretation des textes
[Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1977] 267). See Plutarch, Isis and Osiris,
47.
22
those who use it to the heavenly community.24 This is expressed in the way that the
highest order of angels in Jubilees keep the Sabbath (2.21,30) and Sukkoth (6.18), bear
the mark o f circumcision (15.27), so that, in the words of Carol Newsom, at least those
laws that regulate the calendar and holy days appear to be binding on the angels as well as
on Israel.25
It is also possible that Jubilees 's hebraeophone view o f heaven was meant to
displace the notion that the angels spoke an esoteric language. Weitzman spells out the
implications o f comparing Jubilees with the works evidencing a wholly different view o f
angeloglossy: the significance o f the angel from Jubilees having revealed the Hebrew
language to Abraham is sharpened by the widespread belief, found in many Jewish and
Christian texts, that angelic language is different from ordinary language and is, in fact,
beyond human linguistic capacities.26 He cites Apoc. Abr. 15.7,2 Enoch 17.1, and 2 Cor
12:4 as examples o f the esoteric nature o f angelic speech, and Test. Job 48-50, Apoc.
Zeph. 8, and b. B. Bat. 134a as examples o f privileged human acquisition of this
language. It should be noted, however, that all of the works that Weitzman cites as
evidence for a competing view are later than Jubilees, and the (probably) earliest passage
24 Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?, JAOS 119 (1999) 35-45, esp.
41.
25 Shirot *01at HaShabbat, in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1,
eds. Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel, Carol Newsom, Bilhah Nitzan, Eileen Schuller, and Ada
Yardeni (DID 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 173-402, esp. 180.
26 Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?, 41-42. Recension A o f 2
Enoch seems to locate the origin o f Hebrew in heaven: according to 2 En 23.2 (A),
Enochs angelic guide revealed the Hebrew language, every kind o f language o f the new
song o f the armed troops, and everything that it is appropriate to learn.
23
among them (2 Cor 12:4) is not as clear an example of esoteric angeloglossy as Weitzman
(and many others) think. Although Jubilees apparently rejects the idea of angels speaking
esoteric languages, it does not do so for reasons intrinsic to this alternative view. Its
enthusiastic embrace of Hebrew as an angelic language seems to be driven by its authors
self-understanding as part of a holy remnant rather than by a fear o f the sort of
enthusiastic piety associated with esoteric languages. This understanding fits with the
reception of Jubilees at Qumran.
The writing 4Q464 should also be mentioned in this section, since it appears to
hold the same view of Hebrew as Jubilees. It would seem to give a false account of the
evidence to give the fragmentary text 4Q464 its own completely separate discussion,
apart from the discussion of Jubilees, since it is best explained as a part o f Jubilees's
reception history.27 The Hebrew-first ideology displayed in 4Q464 is particularly
significant for understanding why the Qumranites depended so much upon the Hebrew
language, at a time when Aramaic was the dominant tongue of Palestinian Jewry. The
relevant section o f 4Q464, as restored by Michael Stone and Esther Eshel, is as follows:
3.1.1-11
O i r r a ^ [...] 6 r t a .[...] 5 i r m q \ ..] 4 n iJ .[...] 3 o^...] 2 [...] 1
crop rfsrm ...j 9 erripn ]wb tn[...] 8 ntvin m
i u .[...] 7
11 vacat [...] 10 m r a n s 0
nbw
271 have argued elsewhere that 4Q464 is not an eschatological text, as Michael Stone and
Esther Eshel would have it, but that it is essentially apesher on Jubilees (John C. Poirier,
4Q464: Not Eschatological, RevQ 20 [2002] 583-87; cf. Michael E. Stone and Esther
Eshel, An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two Other Documents (4Q464a and
4Q464b), Le Museon 105 [1992] 243-64; idem, The Holy Tongue in the Last Days in
the Light of a Fragment from Qumran, Tarbiz 62 [1992-93] 169-77 [Hebrew]; idem,
4QExposition on the Patriarchs, in Qumran Cave 4, vol. 14: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2,
eds. Magen Broshi et al [DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995] 215-30).
24
1 [...] 2
3 [...] servant 4 [...] in one 5 [...] confused 6 [...] to Abrah{ra}m
7 [...] for ever, for he 8
the holy language 9 [... Zeph 3:9 Then I will turn] to
the peoples a pure language 10 [...] Blank 11
Steven Weitzman, pointing out that 4Q464 contains the first known use of the phrase
holy tongue to refer to Hebrew, contrasts the view o f 4Q464 with that of Philo, who
rejects Babel as the origin of the earthly languages and accordingly accepts the validity of
other languages for Jewish expression (cf. De conf. ling. 191).28 Here I would simply
point out that 4Q464 is not the eschatological text that others have supposed it to be, and
its use o f Zeph 3:9 is not intended to invoke the promise of the worlds eventual return to
a pure language in the sense in which that biblical passage originally conveyed. Rather,
the fact that the next episode in 4Q464 refers to an event in Abrahams life suggests that
Zeph 3:9 is being used here merely as a.pesher-type prooftext to give scriptural backing
to the Jubilean account o f Abrahams recovery o f Hebrew. This interpretation is not only
in keeping with the principles o f Qumranic exegesis, but it is also in keeping with the
Qumranic understanding o f Hebrew. Although the term eschatological is relevant for
understanding the Qumranites historical self-understanding, it is not a necessary term in
that communitys ideology o f Hebrew. Rather, the eschatological and the hebraeophone
aspects o f Qumran thought appear to be independent facets of the Qumranic remnant
theology.29
B. R. Y O C H A N A N S DI CTUM:
THE M I N I S T E R I N G
28 Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?, JAO S119 (1999) 40.
29 For a more detailed argument, see Poirier, 4Q464, 583-87.
25
A N G E L S DO N O T U N D E R S T A N D
(B . S O T .
3 3 A; B . S H A B .
ARAMAIC
12B)
One of the more celebrated examples o f a claim the angels speak Hebrew is found
in a saying attributed to the third-century CE Amora R. Yochanan. Although R.
Yochanan does not say in so many words that Hebrew is the angelic language, he seems
to imply this view when he proscribes praying in Aramaic on the basis of angels
ignorance of that language. The tradition is found at two places in the Babylonian
Talmud:
b. Sot. 33a
m m m jitub bm nbsm ban ^mn

bn am Dm : nbsn
pnv
]wb2 vm n nitu bam b nbiub nmm
yxw âb ib pppTD mm nnbn pt* w k ]iobn vnnn bîcn bn
td jd
mmn an s^cp Kb
]ibn pm m m m abo
m bim ]nn prrr tnnm w k ]iobn pm m m en ^n^bn pai
amp KraKb ibm i j^bo inm iqik Kin menpn tznp rrnn p"2
mp mnn bip nn me pnan p im n ntma men irmtDjKb
abmn bimrrKb ntuB o n arrrm? rib1an idik Kin menpn
D is ]iE?bm uivm nm nnm mnm imimn ibnm mbpm nm i
rrm w mni: G iam bi
bipnn ketk m m kiqik rrn
: ]wb crm c imrbi bt*nm an no - o n mn bt*nm m^
The Tefillah: It is supplication, and may be said however one wishes. But may the
Tefillah be recited in any language? Rab Judah has said, A man should not pray
for his needs in Aramaic. For R. Yochanan said, If [he] prays for his needs in
Aramaic, the ministering angels will not attend to him, because the ministering
angels do not understand Aramaic! There is no difficulty: one pertains to an
individual and the other to a community. And do not the ministering angels
understand Aramaic? It has been taught: Yochanan, the high priest, heard a
heavenly voice from the Holy o f Holies, that it said The young men that went up
to fight against Antiochus have returned [victorious]. It happened with Simeon
the Righteous that he heard a heavenly voice from the Holy o f Holies, that it said,
Void is the decree that the enemy said to put upon the Temple, and Caligula
was slain and his decrees annulled. And they wrote down the time [of the
26
heavenly voice] and it agreed. And it was in Aramaic. You may say that a
heavenly voice [speaks] so that I will understand, or you may say that it was
Gabriel: that as a master said, Gabriel came and taught seventy languages.
b. Shab. 12b
'bvvb nybx x n n n ro ]?bix mn b rrn -n in nm im

xiam (r r ^ -m p x n mbvb -p p x mpan nm
nrvBra
nix bxvr ^ Qbwb m irr m oam Bn t x j t h nbvb -p n x r
pa ^nix
v x is bxim pm- b i - m i 'm x }wbn v x iu
me? b h k
p td q m m m t o y m 1*2 pppn m m 'ixbn
nbmn na ima n v zw p a x i im yy x i m x i ids? niBen nbm
xb nînn n ipnb o ix n B,n BDtnn m m\y bv ins?o' yn inxw
B n v b 1? 2w\i *ps?nD xbx xdd b s by
nm b : bvxb ncr
m mu by ins^r yn mxw nbin ê?rmejtnD
by ins?x 'n -owe? nbinn
nrnm
]t rrnpn p a p x i m x k x i "m i
' : m m\y
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said, When we went out after R. Eleazar to inquire after a
sick person, sometimes he said, May the Omnipresent visit you for health
(1 bb) [Hebrew], and sometimes he said (to him), May the Omnipresent
decree for you for be whole [Aramaic]. How did he do this, for did not Rab
Judah say, A man should never petition for his needs in Aramaic?, and [did not]
R. Yochanan say, Everyone who petitions for his needs in Aramaic, the
ministering angels will not attend to him, because the ministering angels do not
understand Aramaic! ? It is different for an invalid, for the shekinah is with him.
For R. Anan said in Rabs name, How do we know that the shekinah sustains the
invalid? As it says, The LORD sustains them on their sickbed (Ps 4:4[3]). It was
also taught: the one who enters to visit the invalid does not sit on a bed or on a
seat, but must wrap himself and sit in front o f him, for the shekinah is above the
pillow o f an invalid, as it says, The LORD sustains them on their sickbed. And
Raba said in Rabins name, How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He,
sustains the sick? As it says, The LORD sustains them on their sickbed.
The two pages leading up to the passage in b. Sotah deal with whether one may say
various blessings and invocations in any language one pleases, or only in Hebrew.30 The
30 See Jacob Neusner, A History o f the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 3: From Shapur I to
Shapur II (SPB 12; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 158-59. A competing doctrine ascribes first
place to Aramaic: see t. Ber. 3a; t. Shab. 12b; Peter Schafer, Synopse zur HekhalotLiteratur (TSAJ 2; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981) 348. Jakob J. Petuchowski surveys
27
context therefore implies that angels understand Hebrew. It should be pointed out,
however, that R. Yochanans dictum, which mentions only Aramaic, is assymetrical with
its talmudic context unless one has already ruled out prayer in Greek, etc. This makes it
likely that the situation to which R. Yochanan originally responded (if we can trust the
attribution) was concrete rather than theoretical: Jews were praying in Aramaic, and R.
Yochanan was trying to put a stop to that.31 Perhaps he would have put a stop to praying
in Greek as well, but we are at a loss to know for certain. Overall, the rabbis are less
concerned about Greek, but it is not clear whether that reflects greater openness toward
that language or simply less contact with it.
The notion that the angels take an active role in prayer was widespread in late
antiquity. The classic example o f this notion is found in Tobit 12:6-15:
6 Then Raphael called the two of them privately and said to them, Bless God and
acknowledge him in the presence o f all the living for the good things he has done
for you. Bless and sing praise to his name. With fitting honor declare to all people
the deeds o f God. Do not be slow to acknowledge hi m. . . .
12 So now when you and Sarah prayed, it was I who brought and read the record of
your prayer before the glory of the Lord, and likewise whenever you would bury
the dead.. . .
15 I am Raphael, one o f the seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory
of the Lord.
the history of Hebrew as the language o f Jewish prayer in Understanding Jewish Prayer
(New York: Ktav, 1972) 43-55. On the acceptability of Greek for Jewish prayer, seey.
Meg. 1.8; b. Meg. 9b; Gen. Rob. 36.8; Deut. Rab. 1.1.
31 R. Yochanan is mentioned as having spent thirteen (y. (Eruv. 5 .1 ,22b; y. San. 11.6,
30b) or eighteen (b. (Eruv. 53a) years in Caesarea, a largely Greek-speaking community.
He could not therefore have been oblivious to the use of Greek for the Shema and other
blessings. And yet he only makes the ministering angels ignorant o f Aramaic. This
would seem to detract from any attempt to generalize R. Yochanans motivation: more
likely, it was a specific practice that he had in mind to proscribe.
This role is also illustrated in Rev 8:1-5, where angels mediate the prayers of human
intercessors.32 Angels also present the prayers of humans to God in I Enoch (9.2-3; 99.3)
and 3 Baruch (11.3-4). This notion also holds the key to 1 Cor 11:10, in which women
are commanded to cover their heads while praying and prophesying because o f the
angels. The idea is also found in Exod. Rab. 21.4, and is known to Origen, who identifies
Michael (rather than Gabriel or Sandalfon) as the angel who mediates prayer (de Princ.
1.8.1). The connection between incense and prayer in many of these passages (see Test.
Levi 3.5-6) may be based upon Ps 141:2: Let my prayer be counted as incense before
you, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice.33 Daimons mediate the
prayers o f men to the gods within the Platonic corpus and its accompanying
commentary.34 It should be pointed out that, through a simple multiplication o f the idea
that angels mediate prayers with the widespread idea that angels are assigned to the
nations o f the world, we are met face to face with a scheme not unlike that of R.
Yochanan: if we suppose that the angels assigned to the nations speak the languages
respective to their assignments, and if we suppose that the ministering angels that R.
As Peter Wick argues, following a study by Israel Knohl, the enigmatic half hour o f
silence, the offering o f incense, and the prayers o f the people all combine to identify the
scene in Revelation 8 with practices surrounding the propitiatory offerings o f the Temple
(There Was Silence in Heaven (Revelation 8:1): An Annotation to Israel Knohls
Between Voice and Silence, JBL 117 [1998] 512-14). See Israel Knohl, Between
Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult, JBL 115 (1996)
17-30; Robert A. Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book o f Revelation (Studies in
Biblical Literature 10; New York: Peter Lang, 1999) 74-85.
33 See Briggs, Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book o f Revelation, 77-78.
34 See Guy Soury, La Demonologie de Plutarque: Essai sur les Idees Religieuses et les
Mythes d un Platonicien Eclectique (Collection dEtudes Anciennes; Paris: Societe
dEdition Les Belles Lettres, 1942) 20-27.
29
Yochanan mentions are none other than those angels who have been assigned to Israel,
then it would make sense that the ministering angels speak only Hebrew (viz. Israels
proper language). Yet in airing this possibility, it must be pointed out that, not only do
the rabbinic writings not make these connections for us, but they even evince a contrary
tradition: viz. each of the seventy nations is assigned to an angel, while Israel is under the
jurisdiction o f God directly.35 There are other factors mitigating against this scheme as
well, such as the fact that the tradition o f angelic jurisdiction over the nations implies that
one angel is given to each nation, while R. Yochanans dictum refers to a plurality of
ministering angels.
Louis Ginzberg apparently thought that the saying ascribed to R. Yochanan
reflected an idea found among the Babylonian rabbis, but not among the Palestinian
rabbis. According to Ginzberg, the Palestinian rabbis did not hold to the notion that
angels mediate prayer. That view belonged in a Babylonian milieu, populated more
35 See Deut. Rab. 2.34; Pes. de R. Eliezer 24. According to b. Hag. 16a (|| ARN31.2),
humans resemble the ministering angels in three respects: they possess understanding,
walk upright, and speak the holy language ( p r m
EHpH ]W b n O nBD O l).
Sacha Stem points out that [rjeference to Hebrew may indicate that this passage refers
exclusively to Israel (JewishIdentity in Early Rabbinic Writings [AGAJU 23; Leiden:
Brill, 1994] 41), and that the parallel passage in Gen. Rab. 8.11, which finds parallels in
human standing, speaking, understanding, and seeing, omits any mention of Hebrew.
Given its close parallelism with a formulation found in Ovid (Met. 1.76-86), the Genesis
Rabbah passage is more likely to represent the original form o f the tradition. On the
seventy nations, see James M. Scotts in-depth discussion o f the table o f nations in
biblical and Jewish sources (Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish
Background o f Pauls Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination o f
Galatians [WUNT 84; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995] 5-56). On the association o f
angels with nations, see Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jiidischen
Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992) 25762.
30
conspicuously by an intrusive lot of angels and demons, and it conflicted (Ginzberg

thought) with the Palestinian proscription of prayer addressed to angels:
The chief difference between the two Talmuds in the field of theology is to be
found in the fact that the Palestinian authors of the Talmud excluded, almost
entirely, the popular fancies about angels and demons, while in Babylonia
angelology and demonology, under popular pressure influenced by
Zoroastrianism, gained scholastic recognition and with it entrance into the
Talmud. Contrast these two sayings: The first, in the Palestinian Talmud, reads:
Cry not to Michael or Gabriel but to Me says the Lord. The second, found in
the Babylonian Talmud, recommends: One should never pray in Aramaic
because the angels do not attend to him. An intermidiary [sic] role for the angels
36
is obviously assumed in the latter statement.
36 On Jewish Law and Lore (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society o f America, 1955)
22. Seey. Ber. 9 , 13a. It should not be assumed that the contrast between the Palestinian
and Babylonian rabbis position on angelology and demonology was always so stark. As
Rimmon Kasher argues, the lack o f angelological speculation in Pseudo-Jonathan may
have been the product more of expurgating unwanted material from an existing tradition
than of suppressing ideas that were in the air. Kasher connects the need for this work of
expurgation with a change in attitudes occurring after the Mishnah was compiled: It is
not inconceivable that TJ reflects rabbinical views of the period following the end o f the
2nd century C.E., which tended to restrict the powers o f angels as far as possible,
objecting to angelic cults and to prayers directed toward angels. Where TJ nevertheless
introduces angels, it is careful to call them specifically angels o f the Lord, never
assigning them too independent a position. It seems very probable, therefore, that the
recension of TJ in our possession represents the greatest possible consideration of the
Sages overall attitude to the angelic world (Angelology and the Supernal Worlds in the
Aramaic Targums to the Prophets, JSJ27 [1996] 168-91, esp. 189). The evidence is
patient of different explanations, however, and it is difficult to know whether the change
in the Palestinian rabbinic view to which Kasher refers is a real change, brought about
perhaps by an increase in rabbinic power in the generations following the publication o f
the Mishnah, or whether such a stark contrast between Palestine and Babylonia had
always existed (but that the early Palestinian targums do not reflect the views o f the
[proto-]rabbis). Although Kasher is correct in stating that the scenario he favors is not
inconceivable, it is not more likely than the alternative view-viz. that the Rabbis of
Palestine and o f Babylonia had always seen things differently. Scholarship is now keenly
aware o f how little power the early rabbis actually wielded within the early synagogue, a
factor that makes the alternative to Kashers view somewhat attractive because it ties the
targumic traditions shift of attitude to the rise o f the rabbinic power. Avigdor Shinans
frequent claim that Pseudo-Jonathans preoccupation with angels is an illustration o f that
works connection to folk culture is best understood in this light. According to Shinan,
There is no doubt that PsJ is at base a Targum similar to the rest o f the Palestinian
Targumim and only at a later and secondary stage was expanded with late and non-
31
A moments reflection reveals that the two views that Ginzberg set in opposition are not
in fact logical opposites: one can easily believe that angels mediate prayer without
holding that one should address angels in prayer. (Such an arrangement of views found a
home in the Apostle Paul, among others.)37 IfPaiestinian rabbis strongly objected to the
practice of praying to angels (as in addressing angels through prayer, e.g. in the later
ushers of mercy piyyut), this did not mean that they dismissed angels from having any
role in prayer.38 The popular view that angels carried ones prayers to Gods throne could
well have been widespread among the rabbis, despite their opposition to any sort of cult
of angels. The angelologies of the two talmuds do not conflict as greatly as Ginzberg
thought. All things considered, one should not imagine the Babylonian rabbinic tradition
and the early Palestinian targumic tradition joining in common cause against the vague
and inactive angelology o f the Palestinian rabbis, and, as far as I can tell, there is nothing
in R. Yochanans dictum that was not perfectly at home in a Palestinian setting.
targumic additions in written form (The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the
Palestinian Targumim on the Pentateuch and its Place within Rabbinic Literature,
Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1977, p. iv). Cf. idem, The Angelology o f the
Palestinian Targums on the Pentateuch, Sefarad 43 (1983) 181-98, esp. 196-97
(Hebrew); idem, The Embroidered Targum (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 127.
37 That is, if Paul wrote Colossians: Pauls instructions for the Corinthian women to veil
themselves because o f the angels whenever they pray or prophesy (see 1 Corinthians
12) is best understood in terms o f the mediating role of angels, yet Colossians does not
represent a diminishing o f these views when it censures the worship o f angels.
38 See y. Ber. 9.1 (13a); b. Ber. 60b (a baraita); Meir Bar-flan, Prayers of Jews to Angels
and Other Mediators in the First Centuries CE, in Saints and Role Models in Judaism
and Christianity, eds. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz [J&CP 7; Leiden: Brill,
2004] 79-95).
32
Solomon Freehof, noting the widespread existence of Aramaic prayers from

gaonic and earlier times (esp. the kaddish), suggests that R. Yochanans dictum was
more academic than practical.39 There are real problems with this view. For one thing,
it seems to generalize R. Yochanans dictum, which, while given in a generalized form,
was probably aimed at the specific practice of praying outside the synagogue. At the
other end o f the spectrum, Joseph Yahalom writes that R. Yochanans statement about the
ministering angels inability to understand Aramaic surely won credence among the
simpler folk.40 It probably won credence among many of the sages as well (at least the
gemara takes it seriously),41 but Yahaloms implication that this dictum was aimed at the
non-scholarly is certainly on target. What better way to discourage vernacular prayers,
i.e. extra-synagogal prayers, than by theorizing that those who pray in Aramaic are at best
only speaking into the air? If putting it this way implies disingenuousness on the part o f
R. Yochanan, it would only be fair to call attention to that part of the theory that he and
most others in his circle appear to have agreed on with utter seriousness: that the angels
39 Devotional Literature in the Vernacular, CCAR Yearbook 33 (1923) 375-424, esp.

381 n. 3.
40 Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use o f Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic in Late Antiquity, JJS 47 (1996) 33-44, esp. 33. He writes that R. Yochanans
dictum must apparently be seen as part o f the ongoing battle which the sages ofEretz
Israel waged against the informal prayers o f the simpler Jews, who used their own
heartfelt words to speak to the Lord rather than the formally prescribed Hebrew prayers o f
the scholars.
41 Some later medieval authorities were perhaps too sophisticated for such a view: they
claimed that angels understand Aramaic but ignore it out of reverence for the holy tongue.
See the sources listed in David Malkiel, Between Worldliness and Traditionalism:
Eighteenth-Century Jews Debate Intercessory Prayer, Jewish Studies, an Internet
Journal 2 (2003) 169-98, esp. 178 n. 25. (I am loath to cite internet sources, but
Malkiels study is too important to let pass. Hopefully it will appear in print somewhere.)
33
understood Hebrew, presumably because it was their native language. That others
outside of rabbinic circles took R. Yochanans words seriously, however, does not imply
that private Aramaic prayer disappeared. As Milka Rubin notes, Jews continued to pray
for their needs in Aramaic until the end of the Byzantine era.42
The rabbis exaltation of Hebrew affected a constellation o f ideas: not only was
Hebrew considered the language of angels, but it was also the language by which God
created the world.43 That Hebrew was a potent enough medium for the work of creation
gave it mystical properties, so that permutations o f the Hebrew alphabet would become
forceful exercises in mysticism and magic.44 As in Jubilees, rabbinic tradition often
considered Hebrew to be the language o f Adam, and of the generations preceding the
tower o f Babel. This idea also surfaces at the relevant targumic passages: according to
Tg. Neof. Gen 11:1, [A] 11the inhabitants of the earth were (of) one language and (of)
just one speech, and they spoke in the language o f the Temple, for through it the world
was created, in the beginning.45 A similar wording is found in Pseudo-Jonathans
42 The Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 315.

43 Rubin notes that the belief that language played a role in creation was widespread in
the ancient Near East (The Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 308).
44 See Gershom Scholem, The Name o f God and the Linguistic Theory o f the Kabbala,
Diogenes 79 (1972) 59-80; 80 (1972) 164-94.
45 Quoted in Angel Saenz-Badillos, A History o f the Hebrew Language (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993) 2, based on the Spanish translation o f A. Diez Macho.
It should be noted, however, that the rabbinic writings also record competing ideas. The
belief that Hebrew was the universal language before the fall of Babel did not go
unchallenged. Borst writes, Rabbi Eliezer stiitt sich mit Rabbi Jochanan um die
Ursprache. Nach dem einen (Eliezer) redete man in 70 Sprachen die alle verstanden,
nach dem andem in der Sprache des Einzigen der Welt, das ist in der heiligen Sprache.
Hier ist die Idee von 70 Weltsprachen, die Eliezer sicher nicht erfunden bat
34
rendering of Gen l l : ! .46 (See also y. Meg. 1.2; Tanh. B. 1.55; Gen. Rab. 18.) Gen. Rab.
18.4 concludes that Hebrew was the language of creation, for otherwise the derivation of
woman (HCft) from man (STfc) would not be linguistically possible.47 As Rubin
ausgesprochen und in scharfe Antithese gesetzt zu dem zuerst vom Jubilaenbuch

formulierten Glauben an die heilige hebraische Ursprache (Der Turmbau von Babel,
191). See Rubin, The Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 311-12.
Some later Jewish writers, like Maimonides, even denied the divine origin of Hebrew.
See Moshe Halbertal, People o f the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1997) 35-36. The later fortunes o f the Hebrew-first view,
especially within early reconstructions o f the proliferation o f European languages, have
been traced in Borsts massive Der Turmbau von Babel (passim) and in Umberto Eco,
The Search for the Perfect Language (The Making of Europe; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995)
7-24, 73-116. Cf. the wider variety o f interpretations of the Babel story at this time,
discussed in Michael A. Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism An Argumentfor
Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996) 74-75.
On the original ideology of the Babel story, see Pierre Swiggers, Babel and the
Confusion of Tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner
Umwelt: Festschriftfur Hans-Peter Muller zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Armin Lange,
Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Romheld (BZAW 278; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999)
182-95, and the bibliography cited there.
46 See John Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish
Interpretations o f Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) 182-83; Seth
Schwartz, Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, Past & Present 148
(1995) 3-47, esp. 32; Rubin, T he Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language,
306-33.
47 Saenz-Badillos notes that this view o f Hebrew as a special language often created
conflicts in the realm o f philology, so that certain medieval linguists, for example
Menahem b. Saruq, refrained from comparing it with other languages (History o f the
Hebrew Language, 2 n. 4). Cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nevukhim, pt. 3, chap. 8; Judah HaLevi, Sefer ha-Kuzari 2.66; 4.25. Abraham b. Hananiahs 16th-century discourse on the
Mother o f All Languages (trans. David B. Ruderman, A Valley o f Vision: The Heavenly
Journey o f Abraham ben Hananiah Yagel [Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania
Press, 1990] 297-313) can be read almost as a bibliographic essay upon the Hebrew-first
tradition. See Avigdor Shinan, Language o f the Temple in the Aramaic Targums to the
Torah, Beth Mikra 21 (1975-76) 472-74 (Hebrew); David Winston, Aspects ofPhilos
Linguistic Theory, in Heirs o f the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early
Christianity: Festschriftfor Earle Hilgert (= Studia Philonica Annual 3), ed. David T.
Runia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 109-25, esp. 120-22 n. 30; Eco, The Searchfor the
Perfect Language, 7-24, 73-116.
35
notes, the idea that ail the world once spoke the same language, and that that language
was revealed by God, leads naturally to the preferment of whatever culture continued to
speak that language:
[W]hoever holds onto this unique divine language is in consequence the favourite
son, closest and most intimate to God, and therefore superior. It is the language
itself, not the message or revelation conveyed by it, that decides this question, the
winner claiming first and formost linguistic and cultural superiority over all other
languages and cultures. The question of the language of creation or the
primordial language serves therefore as a cultural yardstick o f different cultural
identities.48
To some degree, this use o f Hebrew as a means o f securing cultural ascendancy (at least
in ones own eyes) probably operates in the background during most o f the history of
Judaism. It may have been more o f concern during the Hasmonaean period, when the
threat ofhellenization called forth the need for national symbols, but it remained a fairly
active concern during the next century or two.49 For the third century C.E., when R.
Yochanan supposedly proscribed the use o f Aramaic in petitionary prayer, the ideological
use of Hebrew was probably different. It is often said that the ancients did not separate
life into religious and secular components, but that is not entirely true. Certainly, the
distinction between sacred and mundane activity was already a handy one (thanks
especially to the concept o f ritual purity), and it makes perfect sense to ask whether the

49 Cf. Ps.-Jonathan to Gen 11:1-8; Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 24. On Hebrew as a national
symbol, see Schwartz, Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, 3-47. Rubin
writes, National identity and language were so closely linked that Nation and
Language-w/n/na velashon-became a hendiadys meaning nation. . . . It may be
suggested, therefore, that the concept o f the primordial language was a direct
consequence o f the new national ideology which developed during the Second Temple
period, or more specifically, during the early part o f the Hasmonean era (The Language
o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 314).
36
ideological use of Hebrew in rabbinic times, in contradistinction to what Rubin theorizes
for the Hasmonaean period, fell along the lines of this division of activity. (That question
will occupy us later on in this study.) That is not to say that the same proofs of Hebrews
exalted status are not to found in rabbinic literature-they certainly are. (Note that Rabs
ascription of Aramaic to Adam [b. San. 38b] is not an exception to the Rabbis
sanctification of Hebrew, as it is commonly thought to be, but rather functions merely as
a proof that Adam was outside the covenant o f promise.)50 It should also be pointed out
50 Rubin cites Rabs belief as an exception to the ^promotion o f the concept o f Leshon
Haqodesh, noting that Rav is a Babylonian amora, while his opponent Resh Laqish is
Palestinian (The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language, 316 with n. 58; a
similar view is implied in W. Chomsky, What was the Jewish Vernacular During the
Second Commonwealth?, JQR 42 [1951-52] 193-212, esp. 206). The context ofRabs
saying (b. San. 38b), however, tells against this interpretation:
'mbn ba nm* ro **na nmn m ms*nab rrapn pats nmn t k rrnrr 3-1
nm
]nb nm vm n na snmn n a b inai* mabâ nm nmi ram n onb nm
nnm
rrn isid nm abirn spaa ]e*nn am* an nm nmm an n m ... i t o d
131 13
cram nup nm o^dect nnpabi pt*n by ant* Dmbt* **na nm nvn p b

nm w
nm\ anna anpi mm* nm w ibitdi rby i t t*in i n a mnpn mm m 00
]V3
no bi nmw nso Dm* ]wbn ]o*nn am* an nm rrnrr an na**i. . . psa
'by
rnpn now rrn pa jirnnn am* an na r m n 1 an na**i... irm i b**

j y n in p'
p b HDD ]** nm** ib nmn m m ba ambi* m
Rab Judah said in Rab's name, When the Holy One, blessed be He, sought to
create man, He created a company o f ministering angels and said to them: Is it
your will that we make a man in our image? They said before Him: Sovereign o f
the Universe, what will be his deeds? He said to them, Such and such will be his
37
that, notwithstanding the Mishnahs preference for Hebrew, R. Yochanan appears to have
been somewhat more insistent on the necessity of that language for proper piety. Sacha
Stem observes that the religious significance of language. . . is remarkably limited in
early rabbinic sources, by which she means exclusively the Mishnah.51
These third-century rabbinic uses and understandings of the importance of
Hebrew became staples within rabbinic Judaism. There are nuances to this understanding
that represent developments from earlier understandings, and which in turn were
developed further in later centuries. The fact that individual figures probably had
different understandings as well makes it risky to attempt an account o f the rabbinic
understanding. Nevertheless, R. Yochanans attitude and strategy can be regarded as
emblematic of third-century Palestinian rabbinism in general,52 if only because o f his
tremendous influence.
deeds. . . . Rab Judah said in Rab's name, The first man reached from one end of
the world to the other end, as it is written, Since the day that God created human
beings on the earth; from one end o f heaven to the other (Deut 4:32). But when
he sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, put His hand upon him and diminished
him, as it is written, You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon
me (Ps 139:5). . . . Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: The first man spoke in
Aramaic, for it is written, How weighty to me are your thoughts, O God! (Ps
1 3 9 :1 7 )... . And Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The first man was a Min, as it is
written, But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, Where are you?
(Gen 3:9), that is, where have your turned your heart?
Note that Rabs portrait o f Adam is unstintingly negative throughout this passage. It
would seem to follow that Adams use o f Aramaic instead o f Hebrew is intended to
deprecate Adam rather than the Hebrew language. Far from demoting Hebrew from its
status as the holy language, this passage rescues Hebrew from the sinful min named
Adam.
51 Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings, 80.
52 But see my discussion o f R. Hama b. Hanina in the next chapter for a possible
exception.
38
C. CHRISTIAN WRITINGS:
THE A P O C A L Y P S E O F P AUL
A N D T H E C O P T I C W I Z A R D S H O A R D
As far as we know, there was no Hebrew-only party among the early Christians.
A hebraeophone angelology therefore appears very sparingly within Christian sources.
Yet a couple of stray references to Hebrew-speaking angels can be found.
In the (fourth-century?) Apocalypse o f Paul, a book that Sozomen tells us was
commended by most monks (Eccl. Hist. 7.19), we read that Hebrew is the language o f
God and angels:
And I said unto the angel: Lord, what is Alleluia? And the angel answered and
said unto me: Thou dost examine and inquire o f all things. And he said unto me:
Alleluia is spoken in the Hebrew, that is the speech of God and o f the angels: now
the interpretation o f Alleluia is this: tecel. cat. marith. macha (Gr. thebel
marematha). And I said: Lord, what is tecel cat marith macha? And the angel
answered and said unto me: This is tecel cat marith macha: Let us bless him all
together, (chap. 30; trans. James)
The liturgical concern here is evident: in the immediate sequel to this passage, it is related
that anyone who does not? participate in the alleluia, but is physically able to do so, is
guilty o f a grave sin. The value o f saying alleluia is that one thereby speaks in the very
language of God and the angels. Even those who do not understand what alleluia
means bless God by saying it. It should be noted, however, that the different versions o f
this passage vary considerably. For example, while the Syriac version also refers to
39
alleluia as being Hebrew, it does not say that Hebrew is the language of God and the
angels.53
Another reference to Hebrew as the language of heaven deserves to be mentioned
here, albeit with a question mark as to whether the writing is Christian or Gnostic. The
writing is a magical text, published by William H. Worrell as a Coptic wizards hoard,
and recently discussed by Paul Mirecki under the same terminological rubric.54
According to Mirecki, the hoard was written during the fourth through seventh
centuries (by five different hands), somewhere in Egypt, and appears to be a compilation
o f traditional materials from a variety o f sources.55 In 1921, it was restored at the British
Museum and brought to the University o f Michigan. In a passage from 2.15b to 3.10, we
read,
Hear our / authority which is over you, all of his ministrants [3.1] who are called
(by name) by / those above them, even you great archangels / who are strong in
your power, you whose / names were first given to you, [3.5] that is, (you) angels
who call all o f the special names / which are written (here) in Hebrew, / the
language o f heaven, in order that they might hear the / one who will activate this
prayer / (and that) they might bring to pass for him everything which he will
perform [3.10] in purity and chastity of ritual.56
53 See Giuseppe Ricciotti, L A pocalisse di Paolo Siriaca (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1932) 64.
54 William H. Worrell, A Coptic Wizards Hoard, American Journal o f Semitic
Languages and Literatures 46 (1929-30) 239-62; Paul Mirecki, The Coptic Wizards
Hoard, HTR 87 (1994) 435-60. A treatment nearly identical to the latter can be found in
idem, The Coptic Hoard o f Spells from the University of Michigan, in Ancient
Christian Magic: Coptic Texts o f Ritual Power, eds. Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith
(San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994) 293-310.
55 Mirecki, The Coptic Wizards Hoard, 451. The translation given in Mirecki (The
Coptic Hoard o f Spells from the University o f Michigan, 304) is identical, except that
that is given in place of which (3x).
56 Trans. Mirecki, The Coptic Wizards Hoard, 441-42.
40
This passage illustrates the belief, prominent among practicioners o f magic in the ancient
world, that Hebrew was an especially potent language for use in magical recipes. This
belief was undoubtedly rooted in the antiquity of the language, but may also have had
something to do with the attraction o f Jewish rites. In this text, we see an example of
what we noted above: frank acknowledgement of Hebrew as the language of creation,
which drove some Jewish groups to make Hebrew the language of all religious activity,
had a completely different effect on at least some Christian groups. Presumably, this
Coptic magician has no plans to learn Hebrew: when he encounters a strange-sounding
word in the magical tradition, pure hocus-pocus to the magician, as Worrell writes, he
calls it Hebrew.57
It should be noted that these two examples o f a Hebrew-speaking angels are rare
exceptions to the understanding o f angelic languages found in Christian writings. The
works in which these two examples appear were not influential in any way. This
contrasts with the Jewish works discussed in this chapter, which were central selfdefinitional texts within major streams o f Jewish expression.
D. CONCLUSION
The texts that support a hebraeophone angelology are fewer in number than those
that seem to indicate a belief in an esoteric angelic language (discussed in the next two
chapters), but this does not necessarily mean that the hebraeophone view was only
57 A Coptic Wizards Hoard, 255 n. 2.
sparingly held. To the contrary, it appears to have been much more widespread, at least
within Palestinian forms o f Jewish piety. Indeed, within the rabbinic understanding,
Hebrew came to be closely tied to Jewish expression in general. As antiquity gave way to
the Middle Ages, the rabbis gained more power, and this view became more and more
representative of the mainstream.
To appreciate the idea that angels speak Hebrew within a historical perspective,
we need to look at it alongside the belief that angels spoke an unearthly language. This
view is found mostly in Christian writings, but it can also be found in a few Jewish
writings. The next two chapters examine the evidence for this view.
Chapter Three:
The Esoteric Heavenly Language:
Fairly Certain Cases
In this chapter and the next, I discuss texts that either claim or imply that angels
speak an esoteric language, that is, a language not normally spoken by humans. With
regard to the clarity o f their allusion to an esoteric angeloglossy, these examples fill a
spectrum, ranging from almost certain to dimly possible. In this chapter, I discuss
those texts that contain relatively certain references (viz. 1 Cor. 13:1,2 Cor 12:1-7,
Testament o f Job, Apocalypse ofZephaniah, Ascension o f Isaiah, Apocalypse o f
Abraham, a saying attributed to R. Hama b. Hanina (in Gen. Rab. 74.7), Ephrem Syrus
Hymn 11, and Book o f the Resurrection [attributed to St. Bartholomew]). In most o f the
pseudepigraphic texts in this list, reference to an esoteric angelic language is connected to
the protagonists participation in that language, often as a mark o f achieving isangelic
status (viz. o f being temporarily imbued with angelic qualitites).1 One must wonder to
what degree the authors of other pseudepigraphic works (viz. those devoid o f any such
descriptions o f a protagonist joining in angelic praise) might have accepted the view that
angels spoke an esoteric language.
A. 1 CORINTHIANS
13:1
1 The term isangelic status is taken from Alexander Golitzin, Earthly Angels and
Heavenly Men: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Niketas Stethatos, and the Tradition
43
1 Cor 13:1 is by far the most recognizable reference to the tongues of angels: If
I speak in the tongues o f humans and o f angels, but I do not have love, I am a sounding
gong or a clanging cymbal ( Eccv
T e d s yAcooocxis t c o v
cxvQpcoTrcov XctXco kou t c o v
dyysXcov, dydirqv 5s pp s'xco, ysyova xaXxos oxcov fj xuppaXov dXaXdtpv). The

question before us is What does Paul mean by tongues of angels?
1 Cor 13:1 is often confidently associated with glossolalia. Ceslas Spicq argues
that the construction o f this verse seems to imply a belief in angeloglossy of some sort:
the fact that XcxXcn interposes t c o v dvQpcorrcov and koci
tc o v
dyysXcov invites us to
read and even (kai) o f angels and to consider angelic language as real a language as
human speech, but o f a higher order.2 Jean Hering calls the wording o f 1 Cor 13:1 a
fuller and more correct expression for glossolalia (than XaXstv yXcoocai?).3 But this
view also has its detractors, as Hans Conzelmann and Nils Engelsen both think that the
fact that tongues will cease (13:8) controverts any attempt to identify the tongues o f
angels with glossolalia. They maintain that if the eschatological benefits include the
translation of the believer to the celestial realm, then speaking in angelic tongues would
o f Interiorized Apocalyptic in Eastern Christian Ascetical and Mystical Literature,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001) 125-53, esp. 131.
2 Ceslaus Spicq, Agape in the New Testament, vol. 2: Agape in the Epistles o f St. Paul, the
Acts o f the Apostles and the Epistles o f St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude (St. Louis: Herder,
1965) 145. See also Hans-Josef Klauck, Mit Engelszungen? Vom Charisma der
verstandlichen Rede in 1 Kor 14, ZTK 97 (2000) 276-99.
3 The First Epistle o f Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) 135.
44
not cease but rather multiply 4 But this can hardly be right: given that 13:8 also says
that prophecies will fail and knowledge vanish, it is evident that Paul construes these
charisms as ceasing by token of their reabsorption into the higher order of existence
that they signify. Tongues will cease, but only because the charism will one day give way
to a natural mode of speaking the same mysteries.
Christopher Forbes argues that the angeloglossic understanding of glossolalia is
based on an illegitimate reification of 1 Cor 13:1, suggesting that the Acts o f Paul and
(possibly) the Testament o f Job inherited the concept from this verse.5 But if we should
bracket the angeloglossic understanding of glossolalia found in these texts, based upon
their presumed dependence upon 1 Cor 13:1, why should we not also bracket the
xenoglossic understanding o f glossolalia found in the second-century church fathers
(which Forbes takes accepts as authoritative), based upon their presumed dependence
upon Acts 2? We are directed back to the account in Acts, and to Forbess attempt to
trace the xenoglossic aspect o f the Pentecost miracle back to a pre-Lukan source (rather
than to Lukes hand, as most commentators argue). Forbes objects: Why Luke should
consider a human language miracle more notev 'v*b / tbn. one o f divine languages, and
4 Conzelmann comments on 1 Cor 13:8, Paul is accordingly not thinking of these

[yXcoooat] as the language o f heaven (I Corinthians: A Commentary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975] 225 n. 73). Nils
(Ivar Johan) Engelsen writes, [TJhere is the indirect Pauline understanding that
glossolalia is not a heavenly language. It belongs to what is going to cease (I Cor. 13:8)
(Glossolalia and Other Forms o f Inspired Speech According to I Corinthians 12-14,
PhD . dissertation: Yale University, 1970, pp. 202-3). See also Max Turner, The Holy
Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today (rev. ed.; Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1998) 228.
5 Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment
(WUNT 75; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995) 71-72.
45
hence re-interpret Pentecost in this light is not explained.56 But it is not explained
because it scarcely needs explaining: a glossolalic community that understands glossolalia
as speaking in an angelic language would naturally hold the xenoglossic miracle o f Acts 2
in higher regard, due to the evidentiary value it holds for skeptics. From a thaumaturgical
standpoint, there is no question that a human language miracle is much more valuable
than a divine language miracle: the xenoglossy in Acts 2 functions as a proof for converts,
and Paul explicitly denies that mass glossolalia leads to conversion: Will they not say
that you are mad? (1 Cor 14:23).
Another question concerns whose understanding of angeloglossy is reflected in 1
Cor 13:1. Some scholars identify this verse with the view o f the Corinthian pneumatics,
while others identify it with Pauls own view. Gerhard Dautzenberg believes that 1 Cor
13:1 reflects the earliest Jewish-Christian understanding of glossolalia, and that Pauls
citation o f Isa 28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 reflects a subsequent understanding that displaced the
angeloglossic view.7 Of course, the angeloglossic and the Isaian understanding of
glossolalia are not logically exclusive, and even if they were, it would not prove that they
could not be concurrently held by the same person.
A possible source-critical conundrum also intrudes upon our already difficult
question about the tongues of angels. Some o f the more puzzling features o f 1
6 Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic
Environment, 155.
7 Glossolalie, in RAC, cols. 235,237. Luke Timothy Johnson refers to the
identification o f the tongues of angels with glossolalia as a rather odd hypothesis, but
fails to explain why (Tongues, Gift of, ABD 6.596-600, esp. 600). On the face o f it, I
see nothing really odd about it. Neither does Klauck: Warum. . . verstehe ich nicht
(MitEngelszungen? 278 n. 8).
46
Corinthians 13 can easily be explained as a result of Pauls adaptation of a preexisting
hymn. Nils Dahl points to a number of non-Pauline features in the so-called love hymn
in 1 Corinthians 13.8 Others have noted a possible connection with motifs later found in
neoplatonic sources, which may have been the property o f the postplatonic tradition
already in Pauls day, especially the striking agreement between the Pauline triad
maxis-EAms-otyotmi (1 Cor 13:13) and the neoplatonic triad maxis-eATTts-spcos.9 If
8Nils A. Dahl, Apostelen Paulus Hoisang om Kjaerligheten, Fortolkning av 1 Kor. 13

med Behandling av de Litteraere og Teologiske Problemer, NorTT 37 (1936) 5-135. See
Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul-One o f the Prophets? (WUNT 43; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
1991) 100-02. For the arguments against Pauline authorship, see Eric L. Titus, Did Paul
Write I Corinthians 13? JBR 27 (1959) 299-302. Literary parallels to 1 Corinthians 13 are
collected in Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 219-20. Jack T. Sanders argues against the
hymnic nature o f 1 Corinthians 13 (First Corinthians 13: Its Interpretation Since the First
World War, Int 20 [1966] 159-87).
9 A disconcerting number o f commentaries pass over the similarity between m a x islAms-ayaTTT] and Tnaxis'-iATns-Ipeos' in silence. According to Proclus (In Timaeum),
the triad maTis-sAirts-Ipoos goes back to the Chaldean Oracles, which were
supposedly brought to Rome in the 2nd c. CE by Julian the Theurgist. (In In Alcibiadem,
Proclus changes this triad to Tnaxis-aAqGsia-Ipcos'. Cf. the tetrad m crris-lA m sa y o c T T T ) - y v m o is in Ev. Phil. 115.) It would appear that Paul, or perhaps a Christian
source that he has drawn upon, has merely replaced the postplatonic Ipcos with the
distinctively Christian ocyaTrr]. Despite the attempts o f some scholars to trace the phrase
now we see through a glass dimly (1 Cor 13:12) to Jewish tradition, middle platonic
sources provide a much closer parallel, both conceptually and chronologically, for this
motif. See Frederick E. Brenk, Darkly Beyond the Glass: Middle Platonism and the *
Vision o f the Soul, in Platonism in Late Antiquity, eds. Stephen Gersh and Charles
Kannengiesser (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 8; Notre Dame: University ofNotre
Dame Press, 1992) 39-60. Richard Reitzenstein argued in several places that m axis'
sAms-ayanT] is Pauls replacement for a Corinthian tetrad: iriaxis-aAqQsia
(yvdoais')-Ipcos-sAm's. For bibliography for and against Reitzenstein, see Conzelmann,
1 Corinthians, 229 n. 109. See also the discussion in Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953) 135-40. Roman Garrison argues that the implicit
ayaTnr]-Ipcos contrast is aimed at the cult o f Aphrodite (The Graeco-Roman Context o f
Early Christian Literature [JSNTSup 137; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997]
27-40), but in my view the parallels he cites are more elusive and general than those with
middle platonic tradition. It is possible that the Pauline and the later neoplatonic
formulae are simply independent derivatives o f a more widespread topos in the Greco-
47
Dahl and others are correct about Pauls use of a source, then perhaps the terminology of
1 Cor 13:1 does not reflect Pauls preferred choice of words.10 Is it possible that the
tongues of angels originally referred to a pagan ideal?11 This suggestion is supported by
the possible pagan character of the hypothetical feats that Paul lists in v. 3. Most
commentators seem to think that Pauls reference to burning the body refers to the
cremation of the body after death-in fact, the possibility of misinterpreting the verse in
this way provides a likely explanation for the origin of the variant reading, in which
burning (Kccu0ipcopai) is replaced by boasting (Kcxuxnacopai)-but, as Oda
Wischmeyer points out in his discussion o f 1 Cor 13:2-3, Iamblichus tells of
neoplatonists (or perhaps Egyptians or Chaldeans in whom he sees neoplatonisms
forebears) who are able, by the energizing o f true enthusiasm, to withstand the most
torturous abuses to their bodies, including setting the body on fire, without the slightest
sensation of what is happening (De myst. 3.4).12 This interpretation o f give my body to
be burned makes more sense than the view that burning refers to a martyrs death,
Roman world, but in that case we are still dealing with a pre-Pauline complex in 1
Corinthians 13.
10 The judgment that some o f the words in 1 Corinthians 13 are pre-Pauline in no way
minimizes the importance o f this chapter for Pauls argument: as Morton Scott Enslin
writes, Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth is the key to the whole epistle
(Christian Beginnings [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938] 251).
11 On non-Christian glossolalia, see L. Carlyle May, A Survey o f Glossolalia and Related
Phenomena in Non-Christian Religions, American Anthropologist 58 (1956) 75-96; John
T. Bunn, Glossolalia in Historical Perspective, in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to
Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 165-78;
Hans-Josef Klauck, Von Kassandra bis zur Gnosis: Im Umfeld der frahchristlichen
Glossolalie, ThQ 179 (1999) 289-312.
12Der hochste Weg: Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (Studien zum Neuen
Testament 13; Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981) 83.
48
since burning is not known to have been a form o f punishment for Christians at the time
o f Pauls writing.13 (It is also perhaps unlikely that Pauls understanding o f the believers
resurrection could have made room for cremation.) On this account, 1 Cor 13:3 would
seem to refer to pagan spirituality-markers as an improper index o f what really counts.
No matter how Jewish or Christian the concept o f speaking in angelic tongues may
appear, we cannot exclude the possibility that the reference to this concept in 1 Cor 13:1
was taken over from a tradition that was neither Jewish nor Christian. (Cf. the angelic
languages in Corp. Herm. 1.26.) O f course, it should be noted that the middle section of
1 Corinthians 13 contains several verses that could only have been written by Paul or
another Christian, due to its perfect alignment with the list of charismata in 1 Corinthians
12.
The question of whether Paul has adapted a preexisting hymn is hardly a question
o f whether Paul would do such a thing: he evidently cares little about whose terms and
formulas he borrows, as long as they help him make his point. Most scholars, however,
think that Paul composed 1 Corinthians 13, whether some time prior to inserting it within
1 Corinthians, or during the actual writing o f the letter.14 This does not necessarily imply
that Paul identified glossolalia with angeloglossy, as he may simply be borrowing the
terminology of the Corinthians. The hypothetical i f at the beginning o f 1 Cor 13:1
13 See Wischmeyer, Der hochste Weg, 81-84; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 43. Cremation o f martyrs is found
in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.1.62-63.
14 To this end, see the argument ofN ils Johansson, 1 Cor 13 and 1 Cor 14, NTS IQ (1964)
383-92. See also Carl R. Holladay, 1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm, in
Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor o f Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David L.
Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 80-98.
49
provides the rhetorical space in which Paul can speak o f angeloglossy without signaling
his agreement with an angeloglossic understanding of glossolalia. Throughout the rest of
1 Corinthians, Paul prefers to identify glossolalia with the Holy Spirit (or the human
spirit) rather than with angels.
J. F. M. Smit and James G. Sigountos suggest that the reference to angels has a
hyperbolic function in this passage. Smit notes that angels fulfill such a function in 1
Cor 4:9, Gal 1:8; 4:14,15 while Sigountos argues that [t]he fact that Paul does not
elsewhere describe glossolalia in angelic or heavenly terms also tells against the realist
understanding.16 Here we must be careful: Pauls failure to describe glossolalia
elsewhere in these terms tells only against this being his view of glossolalia-it does not
tell against it being the Corinthians view.17 While Paul seems to oppose the idea that
15 J. F. M. Smit, Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3: A Rhetorical Solution,

NTS 39 (1993) 246-64, esp. 254 n. 20.
16 James G. Sigountos, The Genre o f 1 Corinthians 13, NTS 40 (1994) 246-60. Forbes
writes that the phrase and angels in 1 Cor 13:1 does look like a rhetorical flourish:
Or even those o f angels may well be the sense Paul intended here: clearly his \sic\ is
not really claiming all mysteries and all knowledge, or to have sold all that he has
{Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, 6162). It is not clear, however, that understanding all mysteries and knowledge is meant
to be hyperbole, and it is structurally possible that speaking in the tongues o f men and of
angels refers to the two utterance charisms of prophecy and glossolalia.
17 Pauls question Do all speak with tongues? is probably meant to limit glossolalic
outbursts to those that are interpretable, by associating glossolalia with other gifts that are
given to only a select few. Dale B. Martins otherwise exemplary study o f the Corinthian
glossolalia suffers from its supposition that a significant portion o f the community was
not glossolalic (Tongues o f Angels and Other Status Indicators, JAAR 59 [1991] 54789). Thus, Martin writes that Paul points out that he will give up speaking in tongues in
the assembly out o f respect for the interests o f the nonglossolalists (14:18-19) (ibid, 57879), but there are no nonglossolalists mentioned or implied in this passage. (Does
Martin presuppose that all the glossolalists understand their encoded messages?) Rather,
50
believers share in some sort o f angelic existence, the Corinthians themselves might have
been quite sold on just such a view. Gordon D. Fee argues that tongues is associated
with angels in 13:1:
[Tjhe Corinthians seem to have considered themselves to be already like the
angels, thus truly spiritual, needing neither sex in the present (7:1-7) nor a body
in the future (15:1-58). Speaking angelic dialects by the Spirit was evidence
enough for them o f their participation in the new spirituality^ hence their singular
enthusiasm for this gift.18
If speaking in the tongues o f angels were a prized experience in Corinth, its function
within 1 Cor 13:1 would not be any less rhetorically effective than if that verse had
contained a hyperbolic reference. A. C. Thiselton gives a weak objection to this
reconstruction: [I]n what sense, if any, could the use o f the language o f heaven be
described as childish? (cf. 1 Cor 13:11).19 This represents a serious misreading o f Pauls
argument: the childishness that Paul remonstrates is that o f a showy display, not
Paul refrains from uninterpreted glossolalia because it does not benefit the understandings
o f those present.
18
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 573, also 630-31. (This passage also appears
verbatim, with the exception of one word, in idem, God's Empowering Presence: The
Holy Spirit in the Letters o f Paul [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990] 150.) Similarly, James
B. Hurley, Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence ofWomen? A Consideration of 1 Cor.
11:2-16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b-36, WTJ35 (1973) 190-220, esp. 211. See also Martin,
Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators, 547-89; J. Louis Martyn, Theological
Issues in the Letters o f Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997) 98-99. Sanders apparently
disagrees with this reconstruction (First Corinthians 13, 170), as does Thiselton: The
suggestion is purely speculative, since with the possible exception o f xiii. 1 there seem to
be no traces in these chapters of any explicit claim by the Corinthians that they were
actually speaking the language o f heaven itself (The Interpretation o f Tongues, 32).
Max Turner thinks that Fees interpretation perhaps allows too much place for the
tongues o f angels (Tongues: An Experience for All in the Pauline Churches?, Asian
Journal o f Pentecostal Studies 1 [1998] 231-53, esp. 236). Holladay makes the unlikely
suggestion that speaking with the tongues o f men and o f angels refers hyperbolically to
speaking with rhetorical flourishes (1 Corinthians 13, 92).
19 The Interpretation o f Tongues, 32.
51
motivated by love.20 As Forbes notes, Paul could hardly call glossolalia a childish
practice if he also thanks God that he practices it more than all the Corinthians.
21
The
likeliest view appears to be that Paul does identify angeloglossy with glossolalia. The
fact that he refers to angeloglossy in the midst of a discussion about prophecy and AaAeiv
yAcoooais supports this view.

But then why is Paul so reticent about invoking the angeloglossic understanding
o f glossolalia elsewhere? One possible solution lies in the somewhat denigrating effect
that his christology has upon his angelology. Scholars have long noted that his attitude
toward angels is not uncritically positive.22 Some scholars, in fact, find in him an
unalloyed aversion to angels. Wilhelm Bousset compares Pauls angelology to the
Gnostic denigration o f the sidereal powers:
It is extraordinarily characteristic that on the whole, apart from some few passages
in which he is operating within the framework of customary language usage, Paul
really knows no good angelic powers. For him the angelic powers, whose various
categories he is accustomed to enumerating in the well-known stereotyped
manner, are intermediate-echelon beings, in part o f a pernicious kind. The
archons o f this aeon brought Christ to the cross, at the cross he battled with the
Contra James D. G. Dunn, who, misreading the text in the same way as Thiselton,
thinks that Paul regards glossolalia as a somewhat childish gift (Jesus and the Spirit
[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975] 243).
21 Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment,
70. Fee correctly writes o f interpretations that pit love against spiritual gifts: Taul would
wince (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 626).
00
Gerhard Kittel notes a tendency, particularly in Paul, to emphasise the comparative

unimportance o f angelology (otyysAos, in TDNT 1:74-87, esp. 85). On Pauls
angelology, see Martin Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909) 7-37; Maurice Jones, St. Paul and the Angels, The
Expositor 15 (1918) 356-70,412-25; Roman Heiligenthal, Zwischen Henoch und Paulus:
Studien zum theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes (Texte und Arbeiten zum
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 6; Tubingen: Francke, 1992) 97-103.
52
angels and powers and wrested from them their weapons. Angels and men watch
the drama which the apostle, despised and scorned by all, offers with his life (I
Cor. 4:9). Lascivious angels are a danger for unveiled women (I Cor. 11:10).
Paul is buffeted by an angel of Satan (II Cor. 1 2 :7 ).... It is especially
characteristic how Paul employs the tradition o f the proclamation o f the law
through angels, which the Jewish tradition had framed in order to glorify the law,
without hesitation and as though it were obviously in order to degrade the law:
The law is given only through angels (Gal. 3:19).23
Certain items in Boussets list are not necessarily as he reconstructs them. In particular,
his interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10 as a warning against lascivious angels is dubious, at
best, and should be rejected in the light of the Qumran finds.24 While the remaining
23 Kyrios Christos: A History o f the B elief in Christ from the Beginnings o f Christianity
to Irenaeus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970) 257. Michael Mach similarly writes, Die
Aussagen des Paulus, die die Engel erwahnen, sind iiberwiegend in negative Kontexte
eingebunden. Weder Engel noch Furstentumer werden ihn von der Liebe Gottes trennen
(Rom 8, 38); ohne Liebe nutzt auch das Reden in Engels-Zungen nichts (IKor 13, 1). Die
Christen sollen sich nicht an heidnische Gerichte wenden, denn sie werden eines Tages
die Engel selbst richten (IKor 6, 3). Besonders deutlich sind die drei angelologischen
Stellen des Galaterbriefs: Ein Engel vom Himmel, der den Galatem ein anderes
Evangelium verkiindigte, sei verflucht (1,8); der vdjiog ist durch die Engel angeordnet
und durch die Hand eines Mittlers gegeben ( 3 ,19)-im Gegensatz zur VerheiBung Gottes
an Abraham, die direkt erging. Doch Paulus selbst, der Verkunder des auf dieser
VerheiBung aufbauenden Evangeliums, wurde von den Galatem urspriinglich
aufgenommen wie ein Engel Gottes selbst (4,14). Mit einer Ausnahme sind die anderen
von Paulus genannten Engel Engel des Satans (2Kor 11, 14; 12, 7)
(Entwicklungsstadien des jiidischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit [TSAJ 34;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992] 285-86).
24 Joseph A. Fitzmyer is credited with pointing out the similarity between 1 Cor 11:10
and the views o f Qumran concerning purity and angels (A Feature o f Qumran
Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor 11:10, NTS 4 [1957-58] 48-58). See Michael
Newton, The Concept o f Purity at Qumran and in the Letters o f Paul (SNTSMS 53;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 106-9. Paul envisions the praying and
prophesying Christian to be in the company o f angels (cf. 1 Cor 4:9)-and all uncleanness
must be avoided in such a setting. See ibid, 49-51,106-9; Michael D. Swartz, Like the
Ministering Angels: Ritual and Purity in Early Jewish Mysticism and Magic, AJS
Review 19 (1994) 135-67; E. Cothenet, Prophetisme dans le Nouveau Testament, in
DBSup 8.1222-1337, esp. 1295; Kevin P. Sullivan, Wrestling with Angels: A Study o f the
Relationship between Angels and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New
Testament (AGAJU 55; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 167-71.
53
items in Boussets list impress upon the reader the negativity o f Pauls angelology, we
must note that not every negative aspect of Pauls angelology is absolute: he indeed
knows o f evil angels, but he also seems to know of angels present within the worshipping
community, whose holiness must be guarded from symbols o f impurity. It would be
bizarre if these angels were evil. Paul is fond of using angels as foils for the surpassing
glory o f Christ, and he uses the notion o f humans standing in angelic stations as a foil for
the heights to which the Christian redeemed are raised. Pauls injunction that women
cover their heads because o f the angels (1 Cor 11:10) is evidence enough that he does
not disbelieve the angelology of his day. It is not that he considers the angels to be, as
Martin Luther put it, useless human ideas . . . [and] hodge-podge,25 but rather that he
dismisses their importance for conceptualizing Christian existence. (Philo held a similar
view: as Lala Kalyan Kumar Dey writes, Being in touch with the angels . . . is in Philo a
lack of immediacy to God and hence an inferior status.)26 Thus Pauls view o f the
angels is not absolutely negative. Hering writes,
[T]he rough and ready distinction between good and bad angels does not take into
account the complexity o f the Pauline angelology. Nothing permits us to believe,
indeed^ that the angel descending from heaven to announce another Gospel (Gal
l 8) is a bad angel. On the contrary, it is because he is good in principle, although
not infallible, that his teaching runs the risk of leading men into error. Similarly it
is not said that the powers called iarchaV and stoicheia are powers o f darkness;
they are angels in the process o f failing because they oppose die Gospel.27
25 From The Babylonian Captivity, quoted in Steven Chases review o f David Keck,
Angels and Angelology in the Middle Ages (JR. 80 [2000] 138-39, esp. 138).
26 The Intermediary World and Patterns o f Perfection in Philo and Hebrews (SBLDS 25;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 93. See also the role o f angels in Hebrews,
discussed in Kenneth L. Schenck, A Celebration o f the Enthroned Son: The Catena o f
Hebrews 1, JBL 120 (2001) 469-85.
27 The First Epistle o f Saint Paul to the Corinthians, 108. Further evidence o f the
demotion of angels in the New Testament, apparently unconnected with christological
54
For Paul, the concept of existence in Christ bursts the soteriological categories of his
opponents.28 It is not surprising, therefore, that he should avoid the idea of humans
becoming angels (or like angels) in his attempts to describe existence in Christ. His
demotion o f (originally positive) angelic associations is also apparent in his critique of the
Law, in which he turns the tradition of its dispensation through angels into evidence of its
inferiority.29
Despite doubts about the authorship of Colossians, it is to be noted that the letter
appears to reflect Pauls view of angels.30 Col 2:18-19 has been the subject o f much
debate:
safeguards, has been turned up by those tracing the lines of transmission o f the biblical
text. A. R. C. Leaney writes, Barthelemy discusses briefly the translation ofyhwh
sebdoth in the Septuagint. The most usual is Kupios irocvTOKpccTcop (in Isaiah Kupios
aa(3cxco0). In the Psalms we meet Kupios t c o v Suvapscov which is adopted by the rai'ye
text.. . . In the NT Kupios TravTOKpocTcop occurs in 2 Cor 6:18 which is a conglomerate
ofLXX passages, and otherwise only in Revelation; the Suvdpeis are often the astral
powers but Kupios t c o v Suvocpscov does not occur, so that God is never closely
associated with the powers which in some OT passages are such that he appears as
primus inter pares among them (Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert, in
Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour o f George D. Kilpatrick
on the Occasion o f his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. J. K. Elliott [NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill,
1976] 283-300, esp. 297). If there is any significance to be attached to this phenomenon,
it is likely to hold a negative value for New Testament angelology in general.
28 See Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995) 155.
.
29
Some scholars deny that Pauls use of angels in the matan torah tradition is meant to be
denigrating. E.g., see Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology o f the Book o f Jubilees (SPB
20; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 12 n. 1.
30 For the arguments against Pauline authorship, see the commentaries, and also E. P.
Sanders, Literary Dependence in Colossians, JBL 85 (1966) 28-45; Norman Perrin and
Dennis C. Duling, The New Testament: An Introduction (2nd ed.; San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1984) 210-12; Mark Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (The
Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986).
55
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels [ev
TCCTmvo<|>po0 Uvrt teat epqoKeia t c o v ayyeXcov], taking his stand on visions,
puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head,
from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and
ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
The question of what the expression 0pqoK8i'a t c o v ayyeXcov denotes has brought to
bear no less than three widely subscribed solutions, none of which can be dismissed out
ofhand: (1)
tc o v
ayysXcov is an objective genitive, and the worship o f angels refers to
humans worshipping angels, as found in the pagan angel cults of Asia Minor,31 (2) t c o v
ayyeXcov is a subjective genitive, and the worship o f angels refers to angels
worshipping God, so that the misguided spirituality-marker that Colossians censures is a
striving after or reveling in mystical ascent experiences that bring the believer within
e a r sh o t o f th e a n g e lic h y m n o d y ,32 o r
(3) GpqoKEia
tc o v
ayyeX cov
re fer s to th e a n g e lic
institution of the Mosaic covenant, i.e. a substantially, and polemically, reformulated
31 This is the most time-honored o f the three views. The staunchest defender today is
Clinton E. Arnold: see his The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity
and Folk Belief at Colossae (WLINT 77; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995) 8-89.
32 See esp. Fred O. Francis, Humility and Angelic Worship in Col 2:18, ST 16 (1962)
109-34; idem, Visionary Discipline and Scriptural Tradition at Colossae, LexTQ 2
(1967) 71-81. Francis lists others who had interpreted SpqoKeta t c o v ayyeXcov as a
subjective genitive before him: Ephraem, Luther, Melanchthon, Wolf, Dalmer,
Hofmann, Zahn, Ewald. For lists o f scholars accepting Franciss view, see Loren T.
Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT 2/70; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1994) 116 n. 177; and Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism, 9 n. 7. See also
Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 34B; New York: Doubleday, 1994) 345; James D. G. Dunn, The
Colossian Philosophy: A Confident Jewish Apologia, Bib 76 (1995) 153-81; idem,
Deutero-Pauline Letters, in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context, eds. John
Barclay and John Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 130-44, esp.
136.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
version of the tradition of the angelic mediation of the Law.33 This is not the place to
solve the debate over the meaning o f 0pTiOKSi'a
tc o v
ayyeXcov. I would simply note that
all of these interpretations could contribute to ones suspicion of angelological

speculation.
There is also another reason for Pauls reticence to adopt the tongues o f angels
as the preferred terminology for discussing glossolalia: the angeloglossic model had
already, independently o f Paul, given way to a conceptualization centered upon the
technical term XaAeiv yAcoaaais (derived from proto-Aquila Isa 28:11-12), and Pauls
avoidance of the angeloglossic model might be explained by the currency o f another
model.34
B . NEW T E S T A M E N T
CONTINUED
(2 COR
12:1-7)
In response to the superapostles (2 Cor 11:5; 12:11), who apparently predicated
33 See esp. Marcel Simon, Remarques sur l Angelolairie Juive au Debut de lEre
Chretienne, CRAIBL (1971) 120-34. On the third view, t c o v ayysXcov can be either a
subjective or an objective genitive. As a subjective genitive, t c o v ayysXcov would refer
to the act o f the angels institution o f the Mosaic covenant. As an objective genitive, t c o v
ayyeXcov would refer to the homage paid to angels by dint o f the Colossians obeisance
to the angelically instituted covenant.
34 See Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971) 175; Roy
A. Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study, CBQ 38 (1976) 35-48;
William Richardson, Liturgical Order and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14.26c-33a,
NTS 32 (1986) 144-53, esp. 148-49. Klauck writes, Als Gottesrede verstanden und
eschatologisch interpretiert, diente die VerheiBung der fremden Zungen in Jes 28 als
Schriftgrundlage fur die Legitimierung prophetischer, ekstatischer Phanomene, die in
Kreisen der Jesusanhanger kurz nach Ostem aufbrachen (Mit Engelszungen?, 292).
57
their own authority upon their visionary experiences,35 Paul writes of one who ascended
into the third heaven (= Paradise) and heard a p p l e t p r ^ a r a : [Such a man] was
caught up into Paradise and heard unutterable words that no human can speak (o n
ipTrdyT] eis
to v
TrapaSetoov
k cu
fjKOUoev appTyra pppaxa a
ouk e^ ov
avQpcbtrcp
AaXfjoai).36 These appT)Ta pppaTa are presumably those o f the angels worshipping
God.37 As for the meaning of appTjros, we are confronted with two basic possibilities:
(1) that which, for reasons ofhuman physiology, is verbally inarticulable, and (2) that
which is too sacred to mention.38
35 Jack N. Lightstones description o f theurgists authority markers perfectly captures the

conception of authority that Paul combats in 2 Cor 12:1-7: to seek mystical
experiences grounds the authority o f the theurgist and provides the measure o f the extent
o f that authority (The Commerce o f the Sacred: Mediation o f the Divine among Jews in
the Graeco-Roman Diaspora [BJS 59; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984] 43).
36 See Helmut Saake, Paulus als Ekstatiker: Pneumatologische Beobachtungen zu 2 Kor.
xii 1-10, NovT 15 (1973) 153-60; L. W. Hurtado, Religious Experience and Religious
Innovation in the New Testament, JR 80 (2000) 183-205. Pauls uncertainty as to
whether this experience occurred in the body or out o f the body recalls Philos
discussion of Moses rapture during his forty days upon Mt. Sinai (Som. 1.33-37), in
which Moses hearing o f the heavenly hymns is connected with existence otocbpaTOs.
There have been numerous fine studies of the merkabah associations within 2 Cor 12:1-7,
o f which I will list only one of the latest and most complete: C. R , A, Morray-Jones,
Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background ofPauls
Apostolate, part 1: The Jewish Sources, HTR 86 (1993) 177-217, part 2: Pauls
Heavenly Ascent and its Significance, HTR 86 (1993) 265-92.
37 Pauls testimony o f one hearing the angelic host worshipping God, only to relativize
the value of such an experience in light o f the importance o f the apostolic vocation, calls
to mind Franciss similar interpretation o f SprjOKEig t c o v ayyeXcov in Col 2:18 as an
encounter with the angelic worship o f God (Humility and Angelic Worship in Col 2:18,
109-34), where glorying in such an experience is relativized in the light o f Christs
exalted station. In fact, the parallel is striking enough to serve as a support for Franciss
interpretation o f Colossians.
38 Cf. Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role o f the Heavenly
Dimension in P auls Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (SNTSMS 43;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 82. Lincoln gives several examples o f
58
For the philological aspect o f the meaning of appqxos, there is no shortage of

documentation: appqxos is a commonplace in the texts of all the Greek-speaking
mystical schools, and has accordingly become a commonplace in scholars efforts to
understand mysticism. It may be that something o f what this word means for Paul can be
retrieved from what we find in the neoplatonists writings and in the magical papyri.
Despite the frequency with which the neoplatonists use this word, it is not clear that they
use it as a technical term. It is often linked with a whole series of a-privatives strung
together in their description of the highest heaven.
39
In connection with Gen. Rab. 74.7 (below), we will discuss Hans Dieter Betzs
interpretation of appqxos (in the Greek magical papyri) as that which the human mouth
is not capable of articulating.40 We shall see that, for a general understanding o f the
voces magicae, there is much to commend Betzs understanding: humans can only
the latter meaning. Forbes also supports the latter meaning, claiming that nothing [in the
text] suggests a special angelic language {Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early
Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment, 62 n. 40). As I hope to show, that claim is
open to doubt.
39 Friedrich Wilhelm Horn writes, Âppqxos in 2. Kor 12,4 reflektiert die Distanz zu
Gott, die PI in der Entruckung iiberwunden hat, die aber fur den Nicht-Entruckten
bestehen bleibt (Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zurpaulinischen Pneumatologie
[FRLANT 154; Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1992] 214 n. 42). These strings
o f a-privatives epitomize the various forms o f apophatic theology prodcued by the
platonizing impulse. See esp. Deirdre Carabine, The Unknown God: Negative Theology
in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena (Louvain Theological & Pastoral
Monographs 19; Louvain: Peeters, 1995). See also A. Bohligs discussion o f the (Coptic)
a-privatives in the Gospel o f the Egyptians (Die himmlische Welt nach dem
Agypterevangelium von Nag Hammadi, Le Museon 80 [1967] 5-26, esp. 23).
40 Secrecy in the Greek Magical Papyri, in Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the
History o f Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, eds. Hans G. Kippenberg and Guy
G. Stroumsa (SHR 65; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 153-75, esp. 163.
59
approximate the divine language.41 This definition does not rale out the use of divine
language, as there is nothing inherent within the idea o f physical inexpressibility to
prevent humans from attempting to pronounce divine words: for example, appearing in
response to a theurgical invocation, Hecate states, After daybreak, boundless, full of
stars, I left the great undefiled house of God and descended to life-nourishing earth at
your request, and by the persuasion o f ineffable words [ t dppqxcov] with which a mortal
man delights in gladdening the hearts o f immortals.42 Voces mysticae that are described
as appqxos are manifestly not unvocalized marks on a page (or amulet). Rather, they are
spoken in syllables beyond human comprehension. If the transcription o f these words in
neoplatonic, Gnostic, and magical texts is any indication, they are made up mostly
(sometimes exclusively) of vowels-the idea behind their power involving a harnessing o f
the power of the seven vowels as primordial elements (oroiXEia).43
41 Forbes asserts that the nomina barbara found in the magical papyri are not conceived
as language (Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic
Environment, 153), but he provides no support for this view, which is certainly not selfevident.
42 Chaldean Oracle frag. 219 (quoted in Ruth Majercik, The Chaldean Oracles: Text,
Translation, and Commentary [SGRR 5; Leiden: Brill, 1989] 134-35).
43 On the voces mysticae in the neoplatonists, see Franz Domseiff, Das Alphabet in
Mystik und Magie (2nd ed.; IT01XE1A 7; Leipzig: Teubner, 1925); W. Speyer, in
Nachtrage zum Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum (RAC): Barbar, JbAC 10
(1967) 251-59, esp. 265-67; Maurus Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im
Neuplatonismus: M it einem Exkurs zu D emokrit B 142 (Beitrage zur klassischen
Philologie 96; Meisenheim am Gian: Anton Hain, 1979); Patricia Cox Miller, In Praise
of Nonsense, in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman, ed. A.
H. Armstrong (World Spirituality 15; New York: Crossroad, 1986) 481-505; Majercik,
The Chaldean Oracles, 25; Betz, Secrecy in the Greek Magical Papyri, 153-75; Birger
A. Pearson, Theurgic Tendencies in Gnosticism and Iamblichuss Conception of
Theurgy, in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, eds. Richard T. Wallis and JayBregman
(Albany: SUNY Press, 1992) 253-75. On the naming aspect o f language, see further
David Winston, Aspects o f Philos Linguistic Theory, in Heirs o f the Septuagint: Philo,
60
The idea o f words physically impossible for humans to pronounce is found in a

wooden translation o f the last words in the verse (a
ouk eôv
ocv0pcoTrco XaXfjoat; cf.
Basic English Bible: . . . which man is not able to say; Youngs Literal Translation: ..
. that it is not possible for man to speak). This way of translating a
o u k eôv
avSpcoirco
XaXqaai, however, supports an altogether different meaning for d p p q T C t prjpara as the

redundancy o f Pauls phrase would be too severe if we assigned the same meaning to
both modifiers o f p q j i a T a 44 Although a p p r|T O S is probably not a technical term, some
standardization o f its use nevertheless seems to have taken place. This standardization
brought the more general meaning of unearthly to the fore, so that something described
as cxpprjTOS was not necessarily physically inexpressible. Thus the word can denote the
type o f ineffability that William James associated with mysticism in general: This
incommunicableness o f the transport is the keynote of all mysticism.45 Theodore of
Mopsuestia seems to have understood the word in this sense: By ecstasy all o f the
Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity: Festschriftfor Earle Hilgert (= Studia

Philonica Annual 3), ed. David T. Runia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 109-25. A
ouppoXov in the ancient world was not merely /neawng-referential, but was also ejfectreferential. As Gustav Mensching writes, Symbol ist alles, was zu einer von sich selbst
verschiedenen Wirklichkeit in einem sachlich notwendigen Verhaltnis der Representation
steht, wobei das Reprasentierte je nach Art des Symbols in eine verschiedene Nahe zum
Symbol tritt (quoted in Franz-Norbert Klein, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von
Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schriften [Leiden: Brill, 1962] 4).
44 See Saake, Paulus als Ekstatiker, 153-60; Hurtado, Religious Experience and
Religious Innovation in the New Testament, 183-205.
45 The Varieties o f Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (Penguin American
Library; Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1982) 405. See ibid, 380-81.
61
prophets were receiving the knowledge o f the most unutterable things.
The pripctTa
are ocppr)TC( because they are too wonderful to repeat. They are inexpressible, either
because their referential aspects lack an earthly analogue or because they are prohibited.
The episode in 2 Cor 12:1-7, in fact, is reminiscent of the preface to 2 Enoch (rec. A):
From the secret book(s) about the taking away o f Enoch the just, a wise man, a great
scholar, whom the LORD took away
to see the variegated appearance and
indescribable singing of the army o f the cherubim (trans. Andersen [OTP 1.103-5]).48
Another factor, however, is more important to our immediate discussion than that
46 In Nahum 1.1, quoted in Dimitri Z. Zaharopoulos, Theodore ofMopsuestia on the

Bible: A Study o f his Old Testament Exegesis (New York: Paulist, 1989) 95.
47 See Helmut Kramer, Zur Wortbedeutung Mysteria, Wort undDienst 6 (1959) 12125, esp. 124-25. For the meaning o f apppTos in Jewish writings, see Mary Dean-Otting,
Heavenly Journeys: A Study o f the M otif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Judentum und
Umwelt 8; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984) 102-3. Cf. the differing use o f this term
in Clement of Alexandria, discussed in Louis Roberts, The Unutterable Symbols o f GeThemis Reconsidered, SBLSP 30 (1991) 207-14, esp. 212. As Claudia RohrbacherSticker writes, the motif of the secret, unspeakable name belongs to the basic repertory
o f magical traditions o f the most varied provenances (From Sense to Nonsense, From
Incantation Prayer to Magical Spell, JSQ 3 [1996] 24-46, esp. 33). Simon Pulleyn urges
that it is wrong to assume that this magical understanding o f the power o f names
charac
classical Greek religion in general: The idea that names are powerful is
really a phenomenon o f post-classical syncretism {Prayer in Greek Religion [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1997] 111). W. F. Howard writes, The unutterable utterances (v. 4) are not
the voiceless groanings of Rom. 8[:]26, but transcendent and incommunicable
revelations which left on Pauls mind a sense of assurance. In accordance with all ancient
mysticism it was regarded as irreverent to report such sacred sensations to the
unsympathetic (First and Second Corinthians, in The Abingdon Bible Commentary,
eds. Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey [New York: AbindgonCokesbury, 1929] 1169-1206, esp. 1205). Howards translation o f Rom 8:26s
OTEvaytiois aXaXqTOis as voiceless groanings is problematic.
48 As Alexander Altmann notes, There is no viewing of the merkabah without singing
(The Singing o f the Qedushah in the Early Hekhalot Literature, Melilah 2 [1946] 1-24,
esp. 2 [Hebrew]). See Karl-Erich Grozinger, Singen und ekstatische Sprache in der
ffiihen jtidischen Mystik, JSJ11 (1980) 66-77.
62
o f th e p r e c i s e m e a n in g o f a p p rjT O S .
fro m
translating a p p q T a
p q jia T a
I have
and a
a lr e a d y m e n tio n e d th e r e d u n d a n c y th a t r e s u lts
ouk eov
av0pcoTrcp XaXqaai in the s a m e way.
(Apposition and synonymous parallelism are probably out of the question.) This means
that the question o f whether a p p q x o s refers to the esoteric a s p e c t o f the heavenly words
is u l tim a te ly
beside the point: one way or another, the idea of an esoteric angelic language
almost certainly appears within 2 Cor 12:4, although we cannot tell whether it is found in
the modifier preceding pfpaTa or in the one following it.
C . TH E T E S T A M E N T
OF J O B
Scholars usually date the Testament o f Job to the period from the first century
BCE through the first century CE, but there is no compelling reason not to extend this
range another century or so forward in time.49 The importance of the Testament o f Job
49 Russell P. Spittler is representative in dating the Testament o f Job to the period from
100 BCE to 100 CE (Testament o f Job, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James
H. Charleworth [2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85] 1.829-68, esp. 833V
See the review o f scholarly opinion in John J. Gunther, St. Pauls Opponents ana i heir
Background: A Study o f Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup 35;
Leiden: Brill, 1973) 36-38. Philonenko, Kee, and Collins all argue for a date in the firstcentury CE. Collins (Structure and Meaning in the Testament o f Job, in SBLSP 13
[1974] 1.35-52, esp. 50) and Irving Jacobs (Literary Motifs in The Testament o f Job,
JJS 21 [1970] 1-10, esp. 1 n. 3) both think that the theme o f endurance points to a date
during a time o f persecution, but, although it is true that the figure o f Job was popularly
recast in the light o f present hardships, a simple theme of endurance seems too ordinary
to be necessarily attributed to a time o f persecution. As David Frankfurter writes, We
can no longer attribute the consistent references to martyrdom in early Christian
apocalyptic literature to historical religious persecution (Early Christian
Apocalypticism: Literature and Social World, in The Encyclopedia o f Apocalypticism,
vol. 1: The Origins o f Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins
[New York: Continuum, 1998] 415-53, esp. 436). See Cees Haas, Jobs Perseverance in
the Testament o f Job, in Studies on the Testament o f Job, eds. Michael A. Knibb and
63
for our study looms large in the last eight chapters of the work, in which Jobs daughters
are described as singing in angelic tongues. Before discussing these chapters, however, I
must devote a few pages to the difficult matter of its authors religious identity.50
Although I shall briefly canvass the arguments for the differing views, and decide
in favor o f a Christian origin (at least for the last eight chapters of the work), it should
emerge from my discussion below that the equivocality o f the evidence is too
overwhelming to treat a Jewish origin as either impossible or impractical. As I noted in
the introduction to this study, the recent trend of assuming a Jewish-sounding
pseudepigraphon preserved by the church to be Christian unless proven otherwise is
methodologically questionable. While this assumption offers a corrective to the long held
Pieter W. van der Horst (SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)
117-54. See also Philip Alexanders disqualification o f this method o f dating texts in his
discussion o f 3 Enoch (3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch, OTP 1.228). Albert-Marie
Denis dates the text to ca. 40 BCE, reading an allusion to the Parthian invasion of
Palestine into T. Job 17.2-18 {Introduction aux Pseudepigraphes Grecs d Ancien
Testament [SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970] 103), but the allusion is weak at best.
50 James H. Charlesworth, in dependence on Collins, calls the Testament o f Job a
midrash in the form o f a testament {The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a
Supplement [SBLSCS 7S; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981] 135). Charlesworths use o f
midrash is anticipated by Kaufmann Kohler, The Testament o f Job, an Essene
Midrash on the Book o f Job, in Semitic Studies in Memory o f Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut,
ed. Georg Alexander Kohut (Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1897) 264-338; and Montague
Rhodes James, Apocrypha Anecdota II (Texts and Studies 5; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1897) lxxxiv. A bibliography o f the history o f exegesis o f the book of
Job can be found in Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 544. Elias Bickerman notes that the Testament o f Job is
exceptional among the so-called testaments in that it is truly testamentary, i.e. it contains
the details o f the bequeathing o f an inheritance, and not just o f death-bed instruction
(The Date o f the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in his Studies in Jewish and
Christian History [3 vols.; AGAJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1980] 2.1-23, esp. 15-16). See also
Emil Schurer, The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.
135), eds. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (rev. ed.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1973-87) 3.552.
64
opposing assumption (viz. that a Jewish-sounding pseudepigraphon will invariably turn

out to be Jewish), it is counterproductive in many cases: given the fact that the church has
preserved so many indisputably Jewish writings (viz. Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Philos writings,
etc.), why should a Christian origin be the default position for any given Jewish-sounding
writing preserved by the church? A better course of action would be to withhold
judgment altogether. This makes working with a given text more difficult, but it also
offers a measure o f protection against ones own shortsightedness.
Scholarship has always been divided on the question o f the authors religious
identity. According to William Horbury, the Testament o f Job is probably even closer to
the world of Vetus Testamentum than to that of Vigiliae Christianae 51 The editors of
the new Schurer, revising the attribution o f this text to a Christian hand in the original
Schurer, similarly write, There is nothing indisputably Christian in any o f the work, and
its Jewish origin should be accepted.52 Some scholars have suggested that chaps. 46-53
(or just 46-52) were added to an earlier writing, so that the question o f Christian elements
might be asked about these chapters independent o f any impression that chaps 1-45 may
51 Review o f Michael A. Knibbs and Pieter W. van der Horsts Studies on the Testament
o f Job, in JT41 (1991) 381.
52 The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135 (rev.
ed.) 3.553. Cf. the original: Emil Schurer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter
Jesu Christi [4th ed.; 3 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909] 3.406-07). Schtirers view
was accepted by G. Beer, Hiobtestament, in RGG2, 2.1930-31. James also supports a
Christian origin, but that he was a Jew by birth is more than a probability (Apocrypha
Anecdota II, xcii). Dankwart Rahnenfuhrer notes that the Testament o f Job is included in
the database of G. W. Lampes Patristic Greek Lexicon and o f J. Michls Lexikon fu r
Theologie und Kirche (Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament, ZNW 62
[1971] 68-93, esp. 71 n. 9).
65
give.53 (Christian additions to Jewish pseudepigrapha are common.) Russell Spittler

suggests that the episode involving Jobs daughters is a Montanist addition, tagged on in
order to validate that movements emphasis on ecstatic speech.54
There are reasons, beyond the above discussion o f the default position for a given
pseudepigraphons origin, for regarding the Testament o f Job as the work o f a Christian
author. We may begin by noting that the book which is called the Testament o f Job is
listed among the 62 books or categories o f books that the Decretum Gelasianum (454 CE)
declares apocryphal, and that of the 61 other items listed, only three (the book about
Gog the giant.. ,,55 the book which is called the Repentance of Jamne and Mambre,
53 E.g., see Eckhard von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten, vol. 1: Das Testament als
Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-rdmischen Zeit (ALGHJ 13; Leiden:
Brill, 1980) 132.
54 Testament of Job, 834. Turner writes that chaps. 48-50 are probably a Christian
(perhaps Montanist) addition to the Testament' {The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the
New Testament Church and Today, cf. idem, Tongues, 247 n. 35), or even that they
may be a Gnostic addition (ibid, 236). Pieter W. van der Horst objects to Spittlers
suggestion, however, claiming that such a tactic would not have produced the type of
biblical warrant for Montanist practice that their detractors would have demanded
(Images of Women in the Testament o f Job, in Studies on the Testament o f Job, eds.
Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst [SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989] 93-116, esp. 107-109; see also Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired
Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, 184-85). But one must
question van der Horsts assumption that Montanist authorship o f the text would have
been motivated by the need for such a warrant. Contra Spittler, recent studies have
emphasized the literary unity of the Testament o f Job, those studies appear to depend
more on the recent trend in scholarship to presume a works unity-a presumption that is
easily overworked. See Bemdt Schaller, Zur Komposition und Konzeption des
Testaments Hiobs, in Studies on the Testament o f Job, eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter
W. van der Horst (SNTSMS 66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 46-92;
Collins, Structure and Meaning in the Testament o f Job, 48-49; Sullivan, Wrestling
with Angels, 129-30. On the change from first- to third-person narrative at 46.1, see
Richard Bauckhams review of the Knibb/van der Horst volume in JTS 42 (1991) 182-84.
55 Gog the giant is also mentioned in Sefer Sefirot.
66
and angel-invoking amulets) are at all open to question concerning their Christian
provenance (although the possibility of such is not problematic for any of them). On the
face of it, the Decretum Gelasianum appears to have compiled a list of works thought to
have been composed by Christians, but which do not meet the approval o f orthodox
circles. The Testament o f Job was apparently one of those works.56 It is possible that
Test. Job 33.1-9 holds clues to the religious identity o f the author. David M. Hay
connects Test. Job 33.3 with an early stage ofMerkabah mysticism.57 On the basis of
this passage and the purportedly late vocabulary compiled by Bemdt Schaller, however,
Martin Hengel argues for a late date:
B. Schaller proposes a date in the second century AD on the basis o f seldom and
in part late-Hellenistic or even Byzantine words and some borrowed Latin
words; I ask myself whether one doesnt have to consider the third or fourth
century as the Greek-speaking synagogue blossomed for the last time. Even if one
denies a Christian origin, which is argued by some interpreters even today, an
indirect or direct Christian influence cannot be ruled out; this is in my opinion
probable. A Jewish author could apply christological motifs to Job and his
children and thus rob them of their uniqueness. Since the text was transmitted in
later times only by Christians, a moderate Christian redaction o f the text is
56 Martien Parmentier perhaps tips his hand in favor of a Christian provenance, but
speaks directly only to the Christian use o f this work: Through the Septuagint and two
apocrypha, the the Testament o f Job and the Life o f Job, the dominant Christian view o f
Job also becomes that o f the pious sufferer (Job the Rebel: From the Rabbis to the
Church Fathers, in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, eds. Marcel
Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz [J&CP 7; Leiden: Brill, 2004] 227-42, esp. 230).
57 Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1973) 23. Dankwart Rahnenfuhrer similarly notes, Die erwahnen ntl.
Vorstellungen sowohl betreffs der Heiligen als auch der Throne sind nicht spezifisch
christlich, sondem entsprechen vielmehr wie im Hen. und THjudischer Eschatologie und
Apokalyptik,. . . gibt es die Vorstellung, daB die Gerechten von Gott den Thron der
Herrlichkeit zum Besitz erhalten werden (Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue
Testament, 81).
67
possible. Such a Christian influence may appear in the formula ek
6 e ic o v t o u
'5 8
TTCXTpOS.
The point about throne imagery and the point about late vocabulary (dated by Schaller to
the time o f Justin Martyr) are two separate matters. As Hengel is well aware, there is
nothing distinctively Christian about throne imagery.59 Walter Wink remarks that some
kind o f speculative ferment must have existed almost from the publication of Daniel, for
what crops up in the Book of Revelation is a full-blown and mature picture o f Gods
throne surrounded by twenty-four thrones, on which were seated twenty-four elders with
golden crowns (Rev. 4:4 [twice]; so also 4:2; 11:16; 20:4).60 Rahnenfuhrer further notes
58 Studies in Early Christology, 207. Cf. Rahnenfuhrer, Das Testament des Hiob und
das Neue Testament, 80-83; Bemdt Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs (JSHRZ 3/3;
Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979) 352-54.
59 E.g., the author o f 4Q491 (1st c. BCE) claims, I have sat on a [thronje in the heavens
(11.1.13); cf. also the throne in 4Q521 (also 1st c. BCE). See Morton Smith, Ascent to
the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa, in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea
Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory ofYigael Yadin, ed. Lawrence
H. Schiffinan (JSPSup 8/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 181-99;
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995) 136-53; idem,
Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997) 143-47; Martin G.
Abegg, Jr., Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q427, and the Teacher of
Righteousness, in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Craig A.
Evans and Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 61-73; Johannes
Zimmermann, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Konigliche, priesterliche und
prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT 2/104;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 285-310. On the apocalyptic seers claim to stand in
heaven already, see Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie derjudischen Gemeinde im
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und
apokryphen Literatur (2nd ed.; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1934) 354. On the throne in
4Q521, see Emile Puech, Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521), RevQ 15 (1991-92)
475-522, esp. 489-90.
fin
Naming the Powers: The Language o f Power in the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984) 18-19. In discussing the throne imagery o f Dan 7:9, Wink remarks, No
surviving documents allude to these thrones again prior to the New Testament (ibid, 18).
Besides begging the question o f the date of the Testament o f Job (which he does not
68
that Enoch, Seth (Rahnenfuhrer actually replaces Seth with Noah and Shem), Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob are all raised to the right hand with great joy in Test. Ben. 10.6 61
The combination of Ps 110:1 with the reference to Father (in ms. P), however,
suggests a Christian provenance (at least for that manuscript): My throne is in the upper
world, and its splendor and majesty come from the right hand o f the Father (apud ms. P;
cf. s [God] and V [Savior]). As is well known, Ps 110:1 is the most widely cited
passage in the New Testament.62 This in itself does not exclude the possibility that a
Jewish writer could have employed this verse. Neither does ms. Ps reference to God as
Father require a Christian influence by itself: a number of Jewish writings (especially
prayer texts) refer to God as Father.63 The combination o f Psalm 110 with a reference
mention in this context), Winks view runs aground on account o f Test. Levi 3.8.
Recognizing this threat from the Testament o f Levi, he appeals to text history: the
[throne] reading is lacking in one manuscript (Aa), and other manuscripts have been
variously interpolated in order to bring an earlier three-heavens view into line with a
seven-heavens concept (ibid, 18 n. 14). True enough, but the terminus a quo for this
development is the end o f the second century BCE. (See the discussion in Adela Yarbro
Collins, The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, in Death, Ecstasy,
and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane [Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1995] 59-93, esp. 62-66.) The passage from 4Q491
(quoted above) also overturns Winks judgment.
61 Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament, 84. In the light o f this comparison
between Test. Job 33.3 and Test. Ben. 10.8, it is interesting to note Marc Philonenkos
belief that the Testament ofJob was visibly inspired by the Testaments o f the Twelve
Patriarchs (Le Testament de Job et les Therapeutes, Semitica 8 (1958) 41-53, esp. 43).
As far as I know, Philonenkos opinion has not received support, nor do I see the
connection that he sees.
62 Hengel writes, If one includes all o f the passages about the exaltation o f Christ to the
right hand o f God. . . [t]here would then be twenty-one passages {Studies in Early
Christology, 133).
63 See Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell, nornrjp, TraTpoos, iraxpia, amxTcop,
TraTpiKOs, in TDNT 5.945-1022, esp. 978-82; Mary Rose D Angelo, Intimating Deity
69
to God as Father, however, almost certainly requires us to think of P s reading as the

product of a Christian writer or redactor.64 It is to be noted that Job does not claim to be
raised to the right hand o f the Father himself (a position reserved for Christ, according
to the earliest kerygma), but rather that the splendor and majesty of his own throne
come from the right hand o f the Father/God {Test. Job 33.3)65
Having established the likelihood o f a Christian provenance, I now turn to an
examination o f the intriguing reference to esoteric angelic languages appearing in chaps.
46-53. There we find Job distributing to his seven sons their inheritance, and his three
daughters complaining that they are being excluded. Job replies that he has an even better
inheritance in store for his daughters. He sends one o f them to fetch three golden boxes
(or three gold-carrying boxes [see below]) from a vault:
And he opened them and brought out three multicolored cords whose appearance
: was such that no man could describe, since they were not from earth but from
heaven, shimmering with fiery sparks like the rays o f the sun. And he gave each
in the Gospel o f John: Theological Language and Father in Prayers o f Jesus, Semeia
85 (1999) 59-82, esp. 69-70.
64 It appears that a distinctively Christian reading o f Psalm 110 sometimes (e.g., in Peters
Pe -?e *.'t speech [Acts 2]) activated the use o f Father and Son language for God and
Christ. In a recent article, John 3. Kilgallen calls attention to the way in which Peter, in
the Pentecost sermon (Acts 2), changes the language o f God and Christ to Father
and Christ for no apparent reason: there is nothing in the speech itself which warrants
this change o f vocabulary (With many other words (Acts 2,40): Theological
Assumptions in Peters Pentecost Speech, Biblica 83 [2002] 71-87, esp. 84). Kilgallen
fails to see that Peters appeal to Psalm 110 activates this change.
65 Engelsens argument for a relatively early date deserves mention. He argues that R.
Yochanan b. Zakkai, who died only ten years after the destruction o f the Temple, taught
that Job did all his good deeds only from fear o f God, in contrast to Abraham, whose
good deeds were motivated by love: His words may be a protest against the Testament,
which makes Job say that he will destroy Satans temple and image from the love of
God (Sotah V) (Glossolalia and Other Forms o f Inspired Speech According to I
Corinthians 12-14, 53). This is an interesting suggestion, but hardly convincing.
70
one a cord, saying, Place these about your breast, so it may go well with you all
the days of your life. (Test. Job 46.7-9 [trans. Spittler (OTP 1.864)].)
The daughters complain about the apparent uselessness o f these cords, but Job assures
them that these cords will provide a livelihood. They had been given to him by God,
when he had instructed Job, Arise, gird your loins like a man (Job 38:3; 40:2). Job
describes these cords in terms of their past usefulness to him:
And immediately from that time [when I began to wear the cords] the worms
disappeared from my body and the plagues, too. And then my body got strength
through the Lord as if I actually had not suffered a thing. I also forgot the pains in
my heart. And the Lord spoke to me in power, showing me things present and
things to come. (Test. Job 47.6b-9 [trans. Spittler (OTP 1.865)].)
These cords gave access to heaven for whoever wore them. Job describes them as
amulets o f the Father,66 and tells his daughters to gird themselves with them in order
that you may be able to see those who are coming for my soul, in order that you may
marvel over the creatures o f God:
[W]hen the one called Hemera arose, she wrapped her own string just as her father
said. And she took on another heart67-no longer minded toward earthly things6866 Rahnenfuhrer lists (general) studies on the history-of-religions significance o f girdles
as apotropaic devices (Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament, 90 n. 73).
Others have noted a functional similarity between these cords and the robe and the tw o.
girdles worn by Aseneth in Jos. Asen. 14.16 (Philonenko, Le Testament de Job et les
Therapeutes, 52; Angela Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der
hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von Joseph und Aseneth [AGAJU 26; Leiden:
Brill, 1995] 209; eadem, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des
Kolosserbriefs [NovTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 1999] 142 n. 214). Note also the mantic use
o f wristbands and veils by the prophetesses in Ezek 13:17-23. (See Abel Isaksson,
Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple [ASNU 24; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. 1965]
159-60.)
67 This change of heart, which happens to all three daughters, recalls the language of
Epiphanius discussion o f the Montanists (Pan. 48.4.1; also in Eusebius, HE 5.16.17).
Cf. esp. Wilhelm Schneemelchers interpretive translation o f Epiphanius: Behold, man
is like a lyre and I rush thereon like a plectrum [cf. the musical description o f the Delphic
oracle in Plutarch, Moralia 437d].. . . Behold, the Lord is he who arouses the hearts o f
men (throws them into ecstasy) and gives to men a new heart (Apocalyptic Prophecy o f
71
but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect [dyyeXiKfj 4>covrj], sending up a
hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke
ecstatically, she allowed The Spirit to be inscribed on her garment. 9
Then Kasia bound hers on and had her heart changed so that she no longer
regarded worldly things. And her mouth took on the dialect o f the archons
[S kxAektov tcov dpxovxcov] and she praised God for the creation of the heights.
Then the other one also, named Amaltheias Horn, bound on her cord. And her
mouth spoke ecstatically in the dialect of those on high, since her heart also was
changed, keeping aloof from worldly things. For she spoke in the dialect o f the
cherubim [ S ic c A e k t c o < t c o v > XEpou(3'ip], glorifying the Master o f virtues by
exhibiting their splendor. {Test. Job 48.1-50.2 [trans. Spittler (OTP 1.865-66)].)
The Spirif-inscription on Hemeras garment presumably effects her ecstasy in some
way. 70
the Early Church, in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm
Schneemelcher, vol. 2: Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related
Subjects [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965] 684-89, esp. 686). Frederick Charles
Klawiters conversionist interpretation o f the Montanist doctrine stretches the evidence
(The New Prophecy in Early Christianity: The Origin, Nature, and Development of
Montanism, A.D. 165-220, Ph.D. dissertation, University o f Chicago, 1975, p. 89).
68 Cf. Life o f Adam and Eve (Apocalypse) 33.1 (Georgian).
69 Several commentators have noted the similarity between e v o to Xt] (garment) and e v
OTT)Ar|, opting for the latter, although it is unattested in any manuscript, since it is a title
attributed to various gnostic and magical writings-e.g., the Three Steles o f Seth (NHC
VII, 7) and the PGM oipArj t o u Ie o u (Preisendanz no. 5.96). Cf. Schaller, Das
Testament Hiobs, 369 n. 3g. P. M. Fraser writes, imaginary stelai containing sacred
texts, instructions, and so on, are a common feature o f early Hellenistic romantic
literature {Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. 1: Text [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972]
498). (See A. Cowleys reference to the unnecessary discussion about the word ottiXti
[Aramaic Papyri o f the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923) 206-07]. He refers
esp. to r f|V AKiKapou orpXriv [the Story ofAhiqafl] in Clem. Alex., Stromata 1.15.69.)
Van der Horst writes, in view o f the fact that the words of the second and third
daughters are said to have been recorded in a book, it is very likely that here too there is a
reference to a piece o f writing (Images ofW omen in the Testament o f Job, 103 n. 28).
(Note, however, that when a stele is thought o f as a stone rather than a literary genre, the
normal Greek expression is etti oipXris.) Marc Philonenko reads ev <eni>aToAr| and
translates sur son Epitre (Le Testament de Job: Introduction, Traduction et Notes,
Semitica 18 [1968] 1-75, esp. 56). Cf. Spittler, Testament o f Job, 866 n. h.
72
The action o f wrapping oneself is significant Halperin has collected a wealth of

rabbinic passages that refer to wrapping as a gesture of approach to God (e.g., as
preparation for prayer). The one passage that he quotes is especially interesting when
compared to the death-bed scene in the Testament o f Job, and it happens to be a passage
that I quoted already in the previous chapter: It was also taught: the one who enters to
visit the invalid does not sit on a bed or on a seat, but must wrap himself and sit in front
o f him, for the shekinah is above the pillow of an invalid (b. Shab. 12b).71 It should be
noted, however, that the text is late, and that the Testament o f Job does not indicate any
connection between wrapping and visiting the sick.
The obvious parallel between this account and the New Testament description of
glossolalia has received a lot of attention, and has had a noticeable effect on how the
70 There are two possible explanations. (I leave aside the explanation of Kraft, first
proposed by James [Apocrypha Anecdota II, xcvii], that The Spirit is the title o f a poem
that was inscribed on Hemeras garment.) In the realm of magic, both Jewish and pagan,
the wearing of Gods name as a talisman is common. The so-called seal of Solomon is
a well known example. (See P. Perdrizet, lO P A fll lO A O M flN O I, REG 16
[1903] 42-61; Gershom G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and
Talmudic Tradition [2nd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1965]
60; Rohrbacher-Sticker, From Sense to Nonsense, From Incantation Prayer to Magical
Spell, 43; Rebecca Macy Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations,
and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism [HTS 44; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998] 31723. See also the discussion of the ideology o f the divine name in Naomi Janowitz, The
Poetics o f Ascent: Theories o f Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text [Albany: State
University o f New York Press, 1989] 25-28.) Alternatively, we may understand the
inscription of The Spirit as the key to an enacted metaphor: Hemeras enwrapping o f
herself in the girdle represents her being enwrapped by/in the spirit. The metaphor
exists already in Jdg 6:34: The spirit o f the LORD clothed Gideon. (The NRSV
unfortunately dismisses the metaphor.)
71 David J. Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1983) 125 n. 88. I quote the text according to my own translation from
the preceding chapter.
Testament o f Job is interpreted.72 One should not pass over the distinctiveness of the
account in the Testament o f Job. It should be noted, for example, that the designation of
the supematurally endowed language changes with each of the daughters. At first glance
this variation o f terms appears to be merely stylistic, like the variation found in the
several descriptions o f cords (46.6: xopSti; 47.11: <f>uXaKTiipiov;73 48.1: OTrdpxri; 52.1:
TETT^coais) and o f earthly things (48.2: [iriKETi <j>povetv t o t% y% ; 49.1: pqKETi
ev0upr|0r}vai t o KoapiKa; 50.1: atjncrraiiEVTi diro xcbv KOopiKcov), but the description
of the daughters response to the ascent o f Jobs soul in a chariot suggests that the
variation in terminology might also denote a variation in referents: And they blessed and
glorified God each one in her own distinctive dialect (52.7). The fact that the daughters
spoke successively, and not all together, is another indicator that their dialects may have
been distinctive. It is worth noting, in this connection, that the angelic ranks seem to
ascend: angel -> archon -> cherub. As Alexander Altmann has shown, in early merkabah
mysticism, the class o f angels encountered at each level of ascent has its own particular
language.74 Nothing in the narrative suggests that Jobs daughters had any sort o f
rapturous experience, i.e. that the angeloglossic utterances are connected with an
encounter o f angelic beings during a heavenly ascent, but the possibility that the
daughters are imagined to have seen some sort o f vision should not be quickly
72 E.g., Robert A. Kugler and Richard L. Rohrbaugh write of the daughters

transformation into a tongue-speaking choir of near-heavenly beings (The Women o f
the Testament o f Job Once More, to be published).
73 See Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs, 368 n. 11a
74 The Singing o f the Qedushah in the Early Hekhalot Literature, 1-24.
74
dismissed.75 In Test. Job 52.6-12, apparently only Job and Ms daughters are able to see
the angelic psychopomps with their gleaming chariots. This ability to see into the
angelic realm is apparently limited to those who bear the magic girdles, so that a
connection between speaking in angelic tongues and experiencing angelic visitations may
be in evidence.
Van der Horst translates Tpicc OKEudpia to u xpuaou as three boxes with gold
rather than three golden boxes.76 That is, the boxes are containers for golden objects,
implying that the girdles are golden, a detail that may be o f some angelologieal
significance: golden girdles are standard angelic wear throughout apocalyptic literature,
and beyond.77 Gold symbolized the divine throughout the Mediterranean world.78
75 It may be noted that Ithamar Gruenwald judges one part o f the Testament o f Job (36.838.8) to be anti-apocalyptic in outlook {Apocalyptic andMerkavah Mysticism [AGAJU
14; Leiden: Brill, 1980] 17).
76 He suggests that for three golden boxes we might have expected x p ia OKEudpia
Xpuoa (Images o f Women in the Testament o f Job, 104-105). Whatever the correct
rendering may be, it is perhaps significant to note that m. Megillah 4:8 identifies one who
overlays his phylacteries with gold as a sectarian (min). Alan F. Segal discusses this
passage in Rebeccas Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World
(Cambridge: HarvardTJciversity Press, 1986) 149.
77 Significantly, one o f these examples o f an angel wearing a golden girdle comes from
another apocalyptic episode o f humans speaking angelically (Apoc. Zeph. 6.12). Cf.
Apoc. Paul 12; Dan 10:5 (in MT and Theodotion); Rev 1:13; 15:6. Cf. also the
nondescript belt in Ezek 9:2. On the standard depiction o f angels girded with golden
belts, cf. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology, 228. Cf. also the description
o f those surrounding the divine throne in the Questions o f Ezra 27 (date unknown):
There are stations,. . . , hollows, fiery ones, girdle wearers, (and) lanterns (translators
ellipse; M. E. Stone, Questions o f Ezra, in OTP 1.27). Birger A. Pearson notes that
Michael is regularly presented in Coptic literature as girded with a golden girdle (The
Pierpont Morgan Fragments of a Coptic Enoch Apocryphon, in Studies on the Testament
o f Abraham, ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg [SCS 6; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976]
233 n. 14). W. Speyer lists magicians who wore golden girdles (Kirke, Kalypso, Abaris,
Empedocles) (Gurtel, RAC 12 [1983] 1232-66). Albert Henrichs discusses the
maenadic use o f girdles, but downplays their possible magical aspect (Greek Maenadism
75
from Olympias to Messalina, HSCP 82 [1977] 121-60, esp. 139,141 (esp. nn. 64-65),
156. David E. Aune notes that Mithras is three times depicted as wearing a golden belt
around his chest when he slays the bull at Marino (Revelation 1-5 [WBC 52A; Dallas:
Word, 1997] 94). Philonenko writes that the daughters cords are en tous points
identique with a sacred Iranian cord called a kusti (Le Testament de Job, 55 [n. to
47.3]), but Schaller calls this connection questionable (Das Testament Hiobs, 367 n. 7; cf.
also idem, 367 n. 9). Lawrence L. Besserman compares the daughters cords to the green
girdle in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (The Legend o f Job in the Middle Ages
[Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979] 41-51). Girdles also signify nobility. Cf.
the references to Girdle-wearers in the 3rd-century CE Apology o f the Potter to King
Amenophis (text in C. C. McCown, Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature, HTR
18 [1925] 357-411, esp. 398), which probably compares to Aeschyluss (aretalogical)
salute to the Persian Queen Atossa: most exalted o f Persias deep-girdled dames
(quoted in Calvin W. McEwan, The Oriental Origin o f Hellenistic Kingship [Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934] 19). See also Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956) 413 n. 2. In Jewish tradition, golden girdles are worn
both by kings (1 Macc 10:89) and priests (Josephus, Ant. 3.159,171; cf. Dan 10:5).
78 The wearing of gold often signified the divine. As Pindar writes, Gold is the child o f
Zeus: neither bug nor grub consumes it (fr. 223S). Frasers comment is more telling for
Egypt/Alexandria: In the Hymns Callimachus, like Pindar, sees gold as the reflection o f
the divine; in the hymn to Apollo the gods tunic and mantle, his bow and quiver, and his
sandals are all o f gold, and in that to Artemis the accoutrement o f the goddess is all gold:
gold her arms and gold her belt and gold her chariot, and gold the bridles o f her deer
(Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. 1: Text, 660-61; cf. esp. Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo 3235). Aune writes, The epiphanies of Zeus in Iliad 8.41-46 and o f Poseidon in Iliad
13.20-27 (both passages nearly identical verbally) became the model for the use of gold in
divine epiphanies (Revelation 1 -5 ,94). For Greek sources associating gold with the
divine, see F. Daumas, La Valeur de lOr dans la Pensee Egyptienne, RHR 149 (1956)
n Gregory M. Stevenson, Conceptual Background to Golden Crown imagery in the
Apocalypse o f John (4:4,10; 14:14), JBL 114 (1995) 257-72, esp. 261 n. 27; A. S.
Brown, From the Golden Age to the Isles o f the Blest, Mnemosyne ser. 4; vol. 51
(1998) 385-410, esp. 392-95. For examples from an earlier period (in the Near East), see
A. Leo Oppenheim, The Golden Garments o f the Gods, JNES 8 (1949) 172-93. There
may be an association o f gold with prophetic powers within the 12th-century testimony o f
Michael the Syrian, who writes that when the bodies o f the three leading Montanists were
exhumed, thin plates o f gold were found placed upon their mouths (Chron. 9.33 [p. 324
11.10-11]; published and discussed in William Tabbemee, Montanist Inscriptions and
Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History ofMontanism [NAPS Patristic
Monograph Series 16; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997] 35-47). It is more likely,
however, that it is the fact that these plates were a specific sort o f amulet that made them
work, and that the association with gold is derivative. (On the placing of amulets within
the mouth to induce prophecy, see Daniel Sperber, Some Rabbinic Themes in Magical
Papyri, JSJ16 [1985] 93-103, esp. 95-99.)
76
Moreover, golden girdles were also associated with inspired unintelligible speech: Lucian
describes Alexander of Abonuteichos as an ecstatic babbler wearing a golden girdle,
*V79
making such sounds as may also be heard among Hebrews and Phoenicians.
In other respects, the change wrought in Jobs daughter is more closely paralleled
in Joshuas resumption o f Moses office in Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum (based on Deut 34:9):
[T]ake [Moses] garments of wisdom [vestimenta sapientiae] and clothe
yourself, and with his belt o f knowledge [zona scientiae] gird your loins, and you
w ill be changed and become another man . . . And Joshua took the garments o f
wisdom and clothed himself and girded his loins with the belt o f understanding.
And when he clothed himself with it, his mind was afire and his spirit was moved,
and he said to the people.. .80
The phrase another man seeips to come from 1 Sam 10:6-9, where the notion involves
ecstatic speech,81 Pseudo-Philo makes the same connection between spiritual clothing
79 van der Horst, Images o f Women in the Testament o f Job, 112. On Alexander in
Lucian, see Hans Dieter Betz, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament:
Religionsgeshcichtliche undparanetische Parallelen, eine Beitrag zum Corpus
Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961) 140-47; Stephen Benko,
Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984)
108-13. Dieter Georgi objects to this interpretation: It is unlikely that only an
incomprehensible language is meant here (Gutbrod) or a language o f fantasy. The
narrator Lucian is, after all, o f Syrian origin. When Lucian adds that the words were
meaningless, that pertains to the content of the statements, not to the chosen language
{The Opponents o f Paul in Second Corinthians [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 71 n. 100).
80 LAB 20.2-3 (trans. van der Horst, Images of Women in the Testament of Job, 113).
81 The constellation o f concepts apparently retained its package form for a long time, as
we can see by a rather precise parallel in a much later writing that invokes the same
biblical verse as Pseudo-Philo: according to Maimonides twelfth-century Laws o f the
Principles o f the Torah: When the spirit rests upon him, his soul conjoins with the rank
o f angels called Hsham. He is transformed into a different individual. He understands
through an intellect that is not as it had been up to that point. He is elevated above the
rank o f the rest o f the sages, as it says o f Saul: You will prophesy with them and be
transformed into a different individual (1 Samuel 10:6) (7.1 [quoted in Howard Kreisel,
R eprod u ced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
and being changed into another man in his account o f Kenaz {LAB 27.10).
82
Terence E.
Fretheim notes the prominence o f this clothing imagery in describing the activity of the
Spirit in the Bible:
[I]n Judg. 6:34, the action o f the Spirit in taking possession of Gideon is described
as putting him on like a garment; 1 Sam. 10:6 speaks of such action of the Spirit
as turning Saul into another man. The clothing imagery is also used in 1 Chron.
12:18 and 2 Chron. 24:20. Micah 3:8 and Isa. 61:1 (cf. 42:1) are perhaps to be
understood in similar terms.
The description o f an inner change toward angelic likeness is a widespread mystical
theme.84 For example, we read in CMC 51.1-6 (quoting the so-called Apocalypse o f
Sethel): when I listened to these things, my heart rejoiced and my mind was changed,
and I became like one o f the greatest angels.85 Although there are many examples of
prophets being seized by the prophetic spirit, our text is not necessarily one of them.86
Prophecy: The History o f an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Amsterdam Studies in

Jewish Thought 8; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001) 185]).
82 See John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGAJU 29; Leiden: Brill,
1997) 99-101; Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des judischen Engelglaubens in
vorrahbinischer Zeit, 169.
83 The Suffering o f God: An Old Testament Perspective (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984) 151.
84 See Grozinger, Singen und ekstatische Sprache in der firuhen judischen Mystik, 7476.
85 The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon, inv. nr. 4780) "Concerning the Origin o f his
Body, trans. Ron Cameron and Arthur J. Dewey (SBLTT 15; Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1979) 39. See Jarl E. Fossum, The Image o f the Invisible God: Essays on the
Influence o f Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Freiburg:
Universitatsverlag/Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995) 85 n. 65. Fossum notes
that the change o f heart/mind recorded in the Cologne Mani Codex would seem to be the
result of a doctrinal impartation. For a general discussion o f the Apocalypse o f Sethel,
see John C. Reeves, Heralds o f that Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish
Traditions (NHMS 41; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 111-29, esp. 119-22; David Frankfurter,
Apocalypses Real and Alleged in the Mani Codex, Numen 44 (1997) 60-73.
78
The daughters changed hearts are described appositionally as a disregard for

earthly things. This description closely parallels Ezras confession o f earthly
mindedness in 4 Ezra 4.23. Ezras earthly concerns, however, are hardly unimportant
or ignoble: they concern the plight of Israel. The Testament o f Jobs intended contrast
between earthly and heavenly concerns is probably better illustrated by Luke 10:38-42, in
which Jesus reprimands Martha for allowing chores to distract her, while her sister Mary,
who had spent her time listening intently to Jesus teaching, has chosen the better part,
which will not be taken away from her.87 A closer look at what the Testament o f Job
means by earthly things is provided in 36.3 (Job is speaking): My heart is not fixed on
earthly concerns, since the earth and those who dwell in it are unstable. But my heart is
fixed on heavenly concerns, for there is no upset in heaven.88
86 See H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London:

Routledge, 1988) 216-20. Robert M. Price thinks that he sees a possible allusion to
Maenadism within the name o f Jobs third daughter, Amaltheias Horn (AmaltheiasKeras): the goat Amaltheias, according to legend, had suckled the infant Dionysus:
Conceivably the occurrence o f the name in the Testament o f Job may denote a nowuntraceable connection, perhaps some syncretism issuing in a kind o f Jewish Maenadism
{The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny [SBLDS 155; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997] 67). It is more likely, o f course, that the name Amaltheias-Keras
had its intended referent in the cornucopia as a symbol o f prosperity, and not in the myth
from which this association had originated.
87 See the lengthy history of the Mary-Martha contrast, in which Mary sumbolized the
contemplative life, in Giles Constable, Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social
Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 1-141. Cf. Pauls teaching on
the entanglement o f marriage, in 1 Cor 7:32-34.
88 See Susan R. Garrett, The Weaker Sex in the Testament o f Job, JBL 112 (1993) 5570.
79
Characters in this sort of revelatory text are often depicted as either writing down
their privileged insights or being given a book by a heavenly figure. Our episode
continues with Jobs brother, Nereus, completing the book after his death:
89
After the three had stopped singing hymns,

while the Lord was present as was I, Nereus, the brother o f Job, and while the
holy angel (ms. P: the holy spirit) also was present,
I sat near Job on the couch, And I heard the magnificent things, while each one
made explanation (uTtoariiJEiouiJEvqs) to the other.
And I wrote out a complete book o f most o f the contents o f hymns that issued
from the three daughters o f my brother, so that these things would be preserved.
For these are the magnificent things o f God ( t c x psyaXs'ia t o u 0 e o u ) .
After a period o f ecstatic praise, Jobs daughters begin to explain (or interpret?) to one
another the content o f their angeloglossic praises, as Nereus listens and writes out a
complete book of most o f the contents o f hymns that issued from the three daughters.90
According to an alternative translation, preferred by Kraft and van der Horst, the
daughters wrote down their own words.91 The former translation invites comparison with
the Pauline charism of the interpretation o f tongues,92 while the latter is similar to the
89 Cf. how the History o f the Rechabites continues after Zosimos death with Kruseos as
its purported author. Kruseos was a witness to the translation o f Zosimos dead body into
heaven, a scene with some similarities to the final scene in the Testament o f Job.
90 James H. Charlesworth apparently believes that the Hymns ofKasia {Test. Job 49.3)
and the Prayers o f Amaltheias Horn {Test. Job 50.3) were real texts (Jewish Hymns,
Odes, and Prayers (ca 167 B.C.E.-135 C.E.), in Early Judaism and Its Modem
Interpreters, eds. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg [Philadelphia Fortress,
1986] 411-36, esp. 423-24).
91 van der Horst, Images o f Women in the Testament of Job, 103.
92A. C. Thiselton points out that Pauls wording in 1 Corinthians 14 does not require us to
think o f the interpreter as a separate person (The Interpretation o f Tongues: A New
Suggestion in the Light o f Greek Usage in Philo and Josephus, JTS 30 [1979] 15-36).
Thiselton argues that the phenomenon described is not one of real interpretation, but cf.
Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 246-48; and esp. Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in
Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, 65-72.
80
seers experiences in the Ascension o f Isaiah and 4 EzraP The interpretation o f the
passage turns on the word UTroansiEioujjevps. Although it is not a Pauline term, Gerhard
Dautzenberg compares it with the charism of interpreting glossolalia.94 The content of
Nereus writing is described as t o peyaXs'ia
tou 0 e o u ,
a term also used to describe the
content o f the xenoglossic utterances in Acts 2:11.95 In both cases, the term t o psyaXETa
t o u 0eou
is used by listeners within the narrative, rather than by the narrator. The
simplest way to account for this parallel, of course, is to suppose the Testament o f Job's
93 Cf. the interspersed discussion o f readerly prophetic inspiration in Martin Hengels

excursus on Higher wisdom through revelation (Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in
their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period [2 vols.; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974] 1.210-18).
94 Gerhard Dautzenberg writes, yposemeioomai ist in Analogie zu ypokrinomai vom
Deuteausdruck semeioomai gebildet
Bei Anwendung einer anderen Terminologie
(dialektos yposemeioomai) als im 1 Kor (glossa diermeneuo), wird doch das gleiche
Phanomen beschrieben (Urchristliche Prophetie: Ihre Erforschung, ihre
Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief[BWANT 104;
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1975] 236-37).
95 Parallel re*-*4 by Gerhard Dautzenberg, Glossolalie, in RAC, col. 241. Krafts
translation-the magnificent compositions o f God-fits the context o f Test. Job chap. 51,
but obscures the parallelism with Acts 2:11 (The Testament o f Job, According to the SV
Text, 83). Conzelmann notes that this phrase is found in the LXX and also in IQS 1.21
(Acts o f the Apostles, 15), but the only verbatim parallel is that found in the angeloglossic
episode in the Testament o f Job, which Conzelmann does not cite. The only appearance
o f the expression in the Septuagint is 2 Macc 3:34. See also Acts 10:46, where
Cornelius households glossolalie praises are described as psyaXuvEiv xov 0sov. Contra
I. Howard Marshall (The Significance o f Pentecost, SJT 30 [1977] 347-69, esp. 359)
and his student Robert P. Menzies (The Development o f Early Christian Pneumatology
with Special Reference to Luke-Acts [JSNTSup 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1991] 211), the phrase the magnificent works o f God does not imply that the content of
glossolalia is proclamation, rather than praise. On Acts 2:11, see Jacob Kremer,
Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Apg 2, 1-13
(Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 63/64; Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1973) 142-43.
81
direct borrowing from Acts, although it is possible that t o peyaXs'ia
tou
0eou was also a
free-floating technical term for the content of glossolalie utterances.

With the exception of my acceptance of a Christian provenance for the work,
nothing in my examination of Test. Job 46-53 should be surprising to more casual readers
o f these chapters, armed as they invariably will be the idea that glossolalia was sometimes
viewed in angeloglossic terms. This passage is an important witness to the career of
angeloglossy, and for its narrative clarity is far less o f a puzzle overall than Pauls teasing
reference in 1 Cor 13:1. Given the probability that the passage was written by a
Christian, one must seriously consider that it was perhaps based on 1 Cor 13:1. Such a
scenario, however, does not imply that its presence within the work is purely unrelated to
charismatic activity within the authors community. Charismatic communities, both
Jewish and Christian, were more prevalent than the literary remains o f these two religions
ask us to believe.
D. T H E A P O C A L Y P S E
OF Z E P H A N I A H
The Apocalypse ofZephaniah is a fragmentary text reconstructed from three

sources: a quotation from Clement o f Alexandria (Strom. 5.11.77), a short Sahidic
fragment, and a longer Akhmimic fragment. These three sources together are generally
agreed to amount to only one fourth o f the original work.96 Some scholars doubt that the
96 See Carl Schmidt, Der Kolophon des Ms. orient. 7594 des Britischen Museums: Eine
Untersuchung zur Elias-Apokalypse, in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, vol. 1925 (Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Berlin: Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1925) 312-21, esp. 319-20.
82
Akhmimic fragment is part o f the Apocalypse ofZephaniah, since it does not overlap any
positively identified texts and never mentions Zephaniah.97 O. S. Wintermute finds such
reserve to be misplaced, however, noting that three ancient catalog witnesses associate
editions o f the Apocalypse ofZephaniah with the Apocalypse o f Elijah, and that the latter
appears together with the above-mentioned Sahidic and Akhmimic apocalyptic texts. He
also reproduces other minor arguments which have been put forth for identifying the
Akhmimic fragment as theylp0 cafyp.se ofZephaniah.
98
Lines o f literary dependence, running both to and from the Apocalypse o f

Zephaniah, allow us to date the document sometime between 100 BCE and 175 CE." Its
original language was Greek, and the strongest possibility for the documents place o f
97 E.g., John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1992) 19495.
98 Apocalypse of Zephaniah, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H.
Charleworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 1.497-515, esp. 499-500.
Texts of the catalog witnesses are collected in Georg Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des
Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstucke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (TU 2;
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899) 3a:22-23. An in-depth review of the mss. o f th<
Apocalypse ofZephaniah is found in Bemd Jorg Diebner, Literarkritische Probleme der
Zephanja-Apokalypse, in Nag Hammadi and Gnosis, ed. R. McL. Wilson (NHS 14;
Leiden: Brill, 1978) 152-53; idem, Bemerkungen zum Text des sahidischen und des
achmimischen Fragments der sog. Zephanj a-Apokalypse, Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten
Testament 14 (Oct 1979) 54-60.
99 Wintermute, Apocalypse ofZephaniah, 500-01. Martha Himmelfarb c o n firm s a
relatively early date for the Apocalypse ofZephaniah by source-critically locating its
descent into Hades within the first extant generation o f the Jewish and Christian
descensus tradition (Tours o f Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian
Literature [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 147-58, with a generational stemma on p. 171).
See Gunther, St. P auls Opponents and Their Background, 41-42. The Apocalypse o f
Zephaniah is listed as an apocryphal writing in the 7th-c. CE Catalogue o f the Sixty
Canonical Books.
83
origin is Egypt.100 Despite the Coptic dialects of the extant remains, scholars have noted
an absence of Christian elements.101 There have been attempts to draw a line of
dependence from the Book o f Revelation to the Apocalypse ofZephaniah, or vice versa,
but the parallels seem rather generic.
102
Apoc. Zeph. 8 follows upon a two-page lacuna in the manuscript, which

presumably had recounted the conclusion of the seers descent into Hades. The extant
fragment begins anew near the beginning of the seers adventure in heaven. It is at this
point that the text mentions an esoteric angelic language:
They helped me and set me on that boat. Thousands of thousands and myriads of
myriads o f angels gave praise before me. I, myself, put on an angelic garment. I
saw all o f those angels praying. L, myself, prayed together with them, I knew their
language, which they spoke with me. Now, moreover, my sons, this is the trial
because it is necessary that the good and the evil be weighed in a balance, (trans.
Wintermute [OTP 2.514].)
100 David Frankfurter calls attention to the extensive Egyptian symbolism in the
Apocalypse o f Elijah, a text that was circulated together with the Apocalypse o f
Zephaniah, both in the just-mentioned encyclopedia article and in his Elijah in Upper
Egypt: The Apocalypse o f Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993). Pearson thinks it possible that the Apocalypse ofZephaniah influenced a later
Coptic writing (The Pierpont Morgan Fragments o f a Coptic Enoch Apocryphon, 22783).
101 See Stuckenbruek, Angel Veneration and Christology, 78-79. Richard Bauckham
thinks that at least minor Christian editing seems probable, (The Worship o f Jesus in
Apocalyptic Christianity, NTS 27 [1980-81] 322-41). Mach, on the other hand, thinks
that the Christian element in the book is stronger (Entwicklungsstadien des judischen
Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, 295-96). See also Pierre Laeau, Remarques sur
le Manuscrit Akhmimique des Apocalypses de Sophonie et dElie, Journal Asiatique
254 (1966) 169-95, esp. 170-77.
102 See Wintermute, Apocalypse ofZephaniah, 504; Robert A. Briggs, Jewish Temple
Imagery in the Book o f Revelation (Studies in Biblical Literature 10; New York: Peter
Lang, 1999) 132-33.
84
Scholars have paid more attention to the role of the angelic garment-which has been
interpreted in terms of its role in other apocalyptic texts-than to the role of the tongues of
angels. By reducing the garment motif to its common elements in the Apocalypse o f
Zephaniah, the Ascension o f Isaiah (8.26; 9.9-13), 2 Enoch (9.2), and 3 Enoch (18),
Hitnmelfarb follows R. H. Charless suggestion that the garments represent spiritual
bodies.103 It is also possible, however, that Zephaniahs garment duplicates the function
o f Jobs daughters charismatic sashes in the Testament o f Job. It may well be that the
concept o f angeloglossy should be used to shed light on the interpretation of the garment,
rather than vice versa. This question bears on whether the author o f the Apocalypse o f
Zephaniah thought of angeloglossy, in hymnody and in intercessory prayer, as an
accessible phenomenon. Martha Himmelfarb comes close to disclaiming any
interpretation in which the authors experience figures largely, but the absence o f
techniques for ascent is not necessarily as complete as she claims.104
103 Himmelfarb, Tours o f Hell, 156. S.v. Kleider (der Seelen) in the index to P.
Athanas Recheis, Engel, Tod und Seelenreise: Das Wirken der Geister beim Heimgang
des Menschen in der Lehre der alexandrinischen und kappadokischen Vdter (Rome:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1958). Garments takes on a very different, but possibly
related, meaning in later Jewish mysticism. Cf. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah
Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 57-64. Yochanan Muffs discusses a wide range o f
religious/magical associations with garments {Love and Joy: Law, Language, and
Religion in Ancient Israel [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992] 49-60). See
also Stephen Benko, The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots o f
Mariology (Studies in the History o f Religions 59; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 95-108, esp. 10105.
104 The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean World, in Death, Ecstasy, and
Other Worldly Journeys, eds. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1995) 121-37, esp. 132. Himmelfarbs comment is in
response to Michael Stone. See now the latters A Reconsideration o f Apocalyptic
Visions, HTR 96 (2003) 167-80.
85
Perhaps the most important datum about human participation in angeloglossy in

the Apocalypse ofZephaniah is the use to which it is put: intercessory prayer and
hymnody. The theme of intercession is a constant (and urgent) one throughout
apocalyptic literature. This theme has its basis in the Bible,105 and, in many o f the
apocalyptic works that formed the continuation of the prophetic tradition, intercession is
affirmed as a real duty of the person who has Gods ear.106 For some heroes, the
constancy and insistence of their intercession occupies the foreground o f their heroic
status-cf. esp. Josephus, Philo, Pseudo-Philo, the Testament o f Moses on Moses,107 and
105 A. Z. Idelsohn writes, As we glance over the Scriptures, we find that almost every
outstanding figure in Israel was also an intercessor who would compose prayers on
certain occasions (Jewish Liturgy and Its Development [New York: Henry Holt, 1932]
5). See Henning Graf Reventlow, Gebet im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,
1986) 228-64; Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology o f
Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 262-80. According to Samuel E.
Balentine, only Abraham, the man of God in 1 Kgs 13:6, Nehemiah, Hezekiah, Moses,
Job, Samuel, and Jeremiah are described in the Hebrew Bible as intercessors (The
Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment, JBL 103 [1984] 161-73). Balentine notes that
this list is comprised mostly o f specifically northern figures, and concludes that the
tradition o f intercession is a product o f that geographical area. Millers list of intercessors
also includes Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Amos (They Cried to the Lord, 263).
106 John Barton notes that [t]he heroes o f pseudo-prophetic books written in [the
postexilic] period are generally skilled in intercession (Oracles o f God: Perceptions o f
Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile [London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1986]
102). See Richard Bauckhams many examples from Jewish and Christian texts (The
Fate o f the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses [NovTSup 93;
Leiden: Brill, 1998] 136-42).
107 Josephus, Ant. 3.298; Philo, Mut. 129; Pseudo-Philo, LAB 19.3; Test. Moses 11.17.
See also Ques. Ezra (A) 39-40. David Lenz Tiede writes, the most important role that
Moses plays for pseudo-Philo is his function as Gods spokesman and intercessor for the
people (The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker [SBLDS 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1972] 183, cf. 124,184). See idem, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 41; Howard M. Teeple, The Mosaic Eschatological
Prophet (SBLMS 10; Philadelphia: Society o f Biblical Literature, 1957). See also the
rabbinic texts discussed in Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old
86
the Prayer o f Jacob, the Prayer ofManasseh, and Psalms o f Solomon on Abraham.
108
In
addition to texts which depict the heroes o f the faith as great intercessors (Esther 13;
Daniel 9; Judith 9; Tobit 3; 1 Enoch 89.61-65, Test. Jacob 7.11), there are several109 in
which angels are depicted as interceding for humans (Tobit 12:12,15; Jub. 30.20; 1
Enoch 15.2; 39.5; 40.6; 47.1-4; 99.3; 104.1; Test. Dan 6.1-2; Test. Asher 6.6; Test. Levi
3.5-6; 5.5-7; Test. Adam 2.1-12).110 In some texts, humans are the spiritual heroes, while
angels are the ideals to which heroism attains.111 In the Christian Apocalypse o f Paul 43-
Synagogue, vol. 1: The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus (Cincinnati:
Jacob Mann, 1940) 515-21.
108 Prayer o f Jacob 2.270-271; Prayer o f Manasseh 2.628-35; Pss. Solomon 9.9, 18.3.
On the status o f Abraham as intermediary, see Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews:
Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 2427.
1091.e., more than a paucity, contra Harold B. Kuhn, The Angelology o f the NonCanonical Jewish Apocalypses, JBL 67 (1948) 217-32, esp. 227.
110 On angelic intercession in Jewish literature, see Norman B. Johnson, Prayer in the
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Study o f the Jewish Concept o f God (JBLMS 2;
Philadelphia: Society o f Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1948) 52-53; D. S. Russell, The
Method and Message o f Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC - AD 100 (OTL; Philadelphia:
VT- ; ster, 1964) 242; Peter Schafer, Rivalitdtzwischen Engeln undMenschen:
Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (SJ 8; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1975) 28-29, 62-64,70; Olle Christoffersson, The Earnest Expectation o f the Creature:
The Flood-Tradition as Matrix o f Romans 8:18-27 (ConBib NT 23; Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell, 1990) 119-20; Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative
Study o f 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 309-13. On angelic intercession in Test. Dan 6.2, see Dey, The
Intermediary World and Patterns o f Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, 89-90.
111 Enoch refuses to intercede in 2 Enoch. Paolo Sacchi attributes this to the book being
written in an era in which the problem of intercession was felt stron g ly (Jewish
Apocalyptic and its History [JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990]
243), but this inference is certainly not straightforward. Sacchi opposes the view of 2
Enoch to that of Apoc. Zeph. 2.9; 6.10; 7.8; and Rom 8:34. We may regard 2 Enoch as an
exception to the general rule, establishing a pattern that would eventually be vindicated
by the Islamic tradition, but comprising only a minority stance within Jewish apocalyptic.
87
44, an interceding archangel Michael urges humans to pray for themselves.
Tigchelaar
locates the phenomenon o f angelic intercession within an array o f angelic activities

modeled upon human activities,113 but angelic intercession stands out among these
activities as an idea with its own well-developed career. Both human and angelic
intercession are described in priestly terminology, the angelic somewhat more
consistently than the human.114
Himmelfarb has observed that it is possible to read the Book o f Zephaniah as
suggesting topics that an author with an apocalyptic bent might treat as they are treated in
the Apocalypse of Zephaniah.115 It is not difficult to discern a connection between
But cf. 4 Ezra 7.102-15- Dean-Otting opposes the stance of 4 Ezra 7 to that o f the
Testament o f Abraham {Heavenly Journeys, 244-45). Sacchi also notes, The stance of
the Book o f Parables is interesting {[1 Enoch] 38.6 and 40.6): a very high angel prays,
interceding for humans, but it is unclear whether this intercession is useful or not, and in
any case the intercession is destined to finish with the judgment {Jewish Apocalyptic and
its History, 244). I think that his skepticism is misplaced. If 1 Enoch, or one o f its
constituent parts, were against angelic intercession, we would hear the objection more
clearly.
112 On Michael as intercessor, see Beate Ego, Im Himmel wie a u f Erden: Studien zum
Verhdltnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum (WUNT 2/34;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989) passim, esp. the chart of texts on pp. 7-8. Majercik notes
that, in the Chaldean Oracles, the souls o f the theurgists are said to derive from the
angelic order, from which point they incarnate with the purpose o f aiding mankind {The
Chaldean Oracles, 20).
113 Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets o f Old and the Day o f the End: Zechariah, the Book
o f Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 249-51.
114 David C. Carlson surveys the connection between prayer and the sacrificial apparatus
(Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament o f Moses 9 and 10, JBL [1982] 8595).
115 Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 52. Harrisville believes that LXX Zeph 3:9 was
translated under the influence o f a charismatic rendering o fls 28:11 (Speaking in
Tongues, 35-48).
88
Apocalypse ofZephaniah 8 and (biblical) Zeph 3:9 (Then will I turn to the people a pure
language). But if we are right to hear an echo of Zeph 3:9, of course, then it should be
noted that the author of our apocalypse has changed the meaning of the verse from what
was originally a reference to the worldwide conquest o f the primordial universal language
(Hebrew) to the idea that access to the pure esoteric language o f the angels would be
made possible. The latter idea cashes in a couple of passages in Peter Schafers Synopse
zur Hekhalot-Literatur (390,637)116 in which speaking in a pure tongue (il"l[1]nC3
p ert) is demonstrated through a series o f voces mysticae based solely upon the letters in
the Tetragrammaton.
The Apocalypse ofZephaniah provides our first example o f angeloglossy in a
writing whose Jewish provenance is fairly (but not entirely) secure. We will later
examine another writing in this chapter falling under the same judgment {Apocalypse o f
Abraham), and one whose Jewish provenance is essentially set in stone {Genesis
Rabbah). A further mix o f Jewish and Christian writings in the next chapter will add to
the impression that the concept o f angeloglossy was current in both religions.
E. TH E A S C E N S I O N
OF I S A I A H
The Ascension o f Isaiah is another important text for studying the idea o f an
esoteric angelic languages in the pseudepigrapha, although the possible reference to
116 Peter Schafer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tttbingen: Mohr-Siebeck,

1981).
89
angeloglossy within that text, like that in the Apocalypse o f Abraham (to be discussed
below), is not as explicit as the references in the Testament o f Job m d Apocalypse o f
Zephaniah. Nevertheless, the reference is secure enough to belong in the present chapter.
The Ascension o f Isaiah is clearly a composite work.117 The sharpest division
within the work is that separating chapters 1-5 from 6-11. Chapters 1-5 can be divided
further, however, as 3.13-4.22 (the so-called Testament ofHezekiah) appears to be an
interpolation. 4 Baruch seems to know the narrative o f chapters 1-5 with the
interpolation already in place, thereby dating this development to the end o f the first
century CE, at the latest.118 The sawing o f Isaiah is a well established legend early on,119
and the material in 1.1-3.12 and 5.1-16 (the so-called Martyrdom o f Isaiah) was probably
composed in the first century CE, although it may be dependent upon an even earlier
narrative. This is the only stratum within the Ascension o f Isaiah that does not bear a
Christian imprint.
Pier Cesare Bori has argued that the prophetism of the Ascension o f Isaiah fits
best in a pre-Montanist movement, and, on those grounds, places the work in Asia
Minor.120 Others have objected to Boris thesis, noting the presence o f gnosticizing
117 See the discussion in M. A. Knibb, Martyrdom and Ascension o f Isaiah, in Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charleworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1983-85) 2.143-76, esp. 147-49; von Nordheim, DieLehre derAlten, vol. 1:
Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-romischen Zeit, 20819.
118 See Knibb, Martyrdom and Ascension o f Isaiah, 149.
119 See Schurer, The History o f the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B. G A.D. 135) (rev. ed.) 3.338-40.
120 Lestasi del profeta: Ascensio Isaiae 6 e lantico profetismo cristiano,
Cristianesimo nella Storia 1 (1980) 367-89, esp. 385-86.
90
Jewish-Christian elements within the work, and supposing these to exclude

Montanism.121 More recent work, however, has shown that Montanism shared a number
o f exegetical complexes with the more gnosticizing Jewish-Chnstian stream.
122
Nevertheless, there are no compelling reasons to associate the Ascension o f Isaiah with
the Montanists or their direct forebears in Asia Minor.
Robert Hall, seeking the community situation underlying the Ascension o f
Isaiah, notes that chapter 7 begins with what looks like an introduction (The vision
which Isaiah saw .. .),123 and points out that various details in chapter 6 presuppose the
compilation of chapters 1-5 together with 6-11.124 Thus Hall attributes chapter 6 to the
final redactor (a judgment that he notes is hardly controversial).
He contends that the
121 E.g., Manlio Simonetti, Note sulla cristologia dellAscensione di Isaia, in Isaia, II
Diletto e la Chiesa: Visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva ne//'Ascensione di
Isaia: Atti del Convegno di Roma, 9-10 aprile 1981, ed. Mauro Pesce (Testi e ricerche di
Scienze religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia, 1983) 185-209, esp. 204-05.
122 See J. Massyngberde Ford, Was Montanism a Jewish Christian Heresy?, J E H 17
(1966) 145-58; eadem, A Note on Proto Montanism in the Pastoral Epistles, NTS 17
(1970-71) 338-46; John C. Poirier, Montanist Pepuza-Jerusalem and the Dwelling Place
o f Wisdom, JECS 7 (1999) 491-507; Nicola Denzey, What Did the Montanists Read?,
HTR 94 (2001) 427-48.
123 Strangely, however, Hall thinks that the final author composed 7.1. I think that the
appearance of an incipit in the middle o f a work more likely betrays an earlier hand.
124 Robert G. Hall, The Ascension o f Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in
Early Christianity, JSL 109 (1990) 289-306.
125 The Ascension o f Isaiah, 290. Hall writes, Chapter 6 is isolated from its context...
. Since the early Christian apocalypse bears no essential connection with Isaiah and since
this chapter depends on the picture of Isaiahs activity in chaps. 1-5, the final author must
have written 6:1-17 to tie the two halves of the work together and to include the Vision
within its pseudepigraphical framework (ibid, 290-91). Darrell D. Hannah notes that it
is presently the trend to view the Ascension o f Isaiah as a unity (Isaiahs Vision in the
Ascension of Isaiah and the Early Church, JTS 50 [1999] 80-101, esp. 84).
91
final author composed the historical apocalypse in 3.13-31. This insert is aimed against
detractors: Asc. Is. 3:13-20 summarizes the doctrine o f the descent and ascent and
establishes it as the doctrine of the apostles. Asc. Is. 3:21-31 attacks those who reject this
doctrine of the apostles (3:21)-that is, the vision o f the descent and ascent o f the Beloved
ascribed to Isaiah (3:31).126 The author thus represents a prophetic school:
This description o f the prophetic school [in 6.1-17], more detailed and specific
than necessary for the story, probably reflects the authors idealized view ofh is or
her own group. If so, the Ascension o f Isaiah issued from an early Christian
prophetic school which periodically gathered from various early Christian
communities to form an outpost o f heaven in which senior prophets imparted the
gift o f prophecy by laying on of hands and offered instructions to refine the
technique and prophetic sensitivity o f their juniors. Although the authors school
participated with other early Christians in charismatic worship, it distinguished
itself from them in experiencing heavenly trips to see God. Probably the Vision
o f the Descent and Ascent of the Beloved typifies the accounts o f such heavenly
voyagers and stems from the authors community.127
Hall sees evidence of this community situation within retouched passages in chapters 1-5.
Belkiras argument against Isaiah (3.6-12) is particularly telling. Isaiah claims to have
seen the Lord and lived to tell it. According to Belkira, Isaiah must be a false prophet,
because Moses wrote that no one can see the Lord and live. Hall suggests that Belkira
represents die views- o f those Christians who object to heavenly ascents (a polemic
126 Hall, The Ascension o f Isaiah, 291. For the Ascension o f Isaiah's merkabah-mystical
associations, see Enrico Norellis discussion o f Asc. Isa. 9.1-2 (Ascensio Isaiae:
Commentarius [CCSA 8; Tumhout: Brepols, 1995] 449-51). See also idem,
L Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi (Origini 1 [new
series]; Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 1994) 234-48; Gruenwald, Apocalyptic
and Merkavah Mysticism, 57-62.
127 Hall, Thq Ascension o f Isaiah, 294. Jan Fekkes ID writes, An experience o f group
enthusiasm in a Christian gathering may lie behind the description in Asc. Isa. 6 {Isaiah
and Prophetic Traditions in the Book o f Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their
Development [JSNTSup 93; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994] 24 n. 4).
92
reflected also in John 3:13).128 (In this connection, it is instructive to read Irenaeuss
discussion of prophetic revelation in Adv. Haer. 4.20.8-10, in which the Isaian passage is
brought within the bounds o f Moses words. Irenaeus presumably would have agreed
with Belkira.) The author o f the Ascension o f Isaiah has therefore chosen a pseudonym
carefully-even the schools detractors will have to agree that the real Isaiah saw what he
claimed to have seen.129 As for the authors location and date, Hall suggests the region o f
Tyre and Sidon (see Asc. Isa. 5.13), and a date in the late first or early second century CE.
For purposes of this study, it is important to note the works mystical
associations.130 In attempting to place this writing within the streams o f early
Christianity, it should be noted that the Ascension o f Isaiah shares its angelomorphic
128 Hannah thinks, primarily on the basis o f 8.11-12, that the Ascension o f Isaiah presents
Isaiahs heavenly journey as possessing an unrepeatable nature (Isaiahs Vision in the
Ascension of Isaiah and the Early Church, 88). It is not unlikely, however, that Christian
merkabists would have stressed the uniqueness o f an Old Testament heros heavenly
journey for its own day, even while holding out the possibility of its being repeated.
Jonathan Knight understands Asc. Isa. 3.8-10 as an anti-Mosaic (and therefore antiJewish) polemic, since Moses had denied that anyone can see God (Disciples o f the
Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context o f the Ascension
o f Isaiah [JSPSup 18; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996] 190). As part o f his
explanation of 2 Cor 5:16, Martyn suggests that the Corinthian enthusiasts derided
seeing in a mirror as the old-age way o f seeing: there are good reasons for thinking
that in some sense they claimed to have seen God in their visions, perhaps even face to
face (Theological Issues in the Letters o f Paul, 103).
129 The Ascension o f Isaiah, 295.
130 See Richard Bauckham, The Climax o f Prophecy: Studies on the Book ofRevelation
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 140-42; Christopher C. Rowland, Apocalyptic: The
Disclosure of Heavenly Knowledge, in The Cambridge History o f Judaism, vol. 3: The
Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999) 776-97, esp. 791-92.
93
christology and pneumatology131 (cf. 3.15; 4.21; 7.23; 8.14 [ms. A]; 9.36, 39,40; 10.4;
11.4, 33) with Origen (.Deprincipiis 1.3.4; In Isaiam 1.2)132 and the Elkesaites (cf.
131 See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Worship and Monotheism in the Ascension o f Isaiah, in
The Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews
Conference on the Historical Origins o f the Worship ofJesus, eds. Carey C. Newman,
James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 70-89, esp. 78-82.
132 See Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, Le Couple de lAnge et de 1Esprit: Traditions Juives et
Chretiennes, RevBib 88 (1981) 42-61; Joseph W. Trigg, The Angel o f the Great
Counsel: Christ and the Angelic Hierarchy in Origens Theology, JTS 42 (1991) 35-51.
In 359 or 360 CE, Serapion, bishop o f Thmuis, warned Athanasius o f a group o f Egyptian
Christians who identified the Holy Spirit as a supreme angel. (See J. N. D. Kelly, Early
Christian Doctrines [5th ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1977] 256-57.) Shenoute
(5th c. CE) develops Origens interpretation o f the Isaian seraphim further (see Aloys
Grillmeier with Theresia Heinthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2: From the
Council o f Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604), pt. 4: The Church o f
Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451 [London: Mowbray, 1996] 182-83). For
the reaction against Origens view, see Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition,
vol. 1: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) (rev. ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1975)
52-53.
94
Hippolytus, R e f omn. haer. 9.13.2-3).133 This view was probably based upon the
identification o f Christ and the Holy Spirit as the seraphim of Isaiah 6.134
The evidence for angeloglossy is found in chapters 6-11. These chapters are
likely to have been written sometime later, and a date in the second century CE is often
given.135 Within this section of the pseudepigraphon, Isaiah is transported to the seventh
heaven, and praises God in unison with the angels and the revered saints o f the Bible.
136
133 See Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation ofElchasai: Investigations into the
Evidence fo r a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse o f the Second Century and its
Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists (TSAJ 8; Tflbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985)
123,196-99. (See also the heavy criticism ofLuttikhuizens views in F. Stanley Joness
review, in JbAC 30 (1987) 200-09.) The merkabah associations o f the Elkesaites have
been laid bare by J. M. Baumgarten (The Book o f Elchesai and Merkavah Mysticism,
J S J 17 [1986] 212-23). See Peter R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the
Christology o f the Apocalypse o f John (SNTSMS 95; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997) 104-6; Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirits Relation ot the Risen Lord in Paul: An
Examination o f Its Christological Implications (WUNT 128; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
2000) 133-38. James R. Russells attempt to show that the Ascension o f Isaiahs ascent
narrative is shaped by Iranian ideas is unconvincing in light o f his failure to mention the
close similarities with merkabah accounts (The Ascensio Isaiae and Iran, in IranoJudaica III: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture throughout the
Ages, eds. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer [Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994] 63-69,
esp. 66).
134 Trigg writes, Kretschmar elegantly demonstrates that an early identification o f the
Seraphim with the two Cherubim supporting the Ark o f the Covenant accounts for the
tradition, attested by both written and iconographic evidence, that there were two
Seraphim, an inference not justified by the actual text o f Isa. 6. Origens identification o f
the Seraphim with the Son and the Holy Spirit shows that this identification was already
taken for granted in his time (The Angel o f the Great Counsel, 39 n. 12)..
135 E.g., see J. Flemming and H. Duensing, The Ascension o f Isaiah, in Edgar
Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, vol. 2: Writings
Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects [Philadelphia: W e stm inster^
1965] 642-63, esp. 643.
136 See Stuckenbruck, Worship and Monotheism in the Ascension o f Isaiah, 74-78.
95
At the climax of his out-of-body experience, Isaiah is shown the heavenly record of mens
deeds:
Asc. Isa. 9.20-23
And I said to him what I had asked him in the third heaven, [Show me how
everything] which is done in that world is known here. And while I was still
speaking to him, behold one o f the angels who were standing by, more glorious
than that angel who had brought me up from the world, showed me (some) books,
and he opened them, and the books had writing in them, but not like the books of
th is world. And they were given to me, and I read them, and behold the deeds of
the children o f Jerusalem were written there, their deeds which you know, my son
Josab. And I said, Truly, nothing which is done in this world is hidden in the
seventh heaven. (trans. Knibb [OTP 2.171], emended to version Lat2)
loan P. Culianu understands these books filled with writing not like the books o f this
world to be written in alfabeto celeste.137 There is little room to doubt that Isaiah is
depicted here as interpreting an angelic language.
There are other possible indications o f an esoteric angelic language in the
Ascension o f Isaiah, although they are less clear. In 9.27-32, Isaiah joins with the angelic
praises, and finds that his praise is tranformed to be like theirs:
And I saw one standing (there) whose glory surpassed that o f all, and his glory
was great and wonderful. And when they saw him, all the righteous whom I had
seen and the angels came to him. And Adam and Abel and Seth and all the
righteous approached first and worshiped him^ and they all praised him with one
voice, and I also was singing praises with them, and my praise was like theirs.
And then all the angels approached, and worshiped, and sang praises. And he was
transformed and became like an angel. And then the angel who led me said to me,
Worship this one, and I worshiped and sang praises. And the angel said to me,
137 Culianu writes, Giunto nel settimo cielo, Isaia riceve da un angelo gloriosior
astantibus, che e indubbiamente Tangelo-scrivano di Dio, la scrittura contenente, in
alfabeto celeste-ma non in ebraico, benchequesto fosse spesso ritenuta lingua cleste-il
racconto della storia futura del m ondo.. . . Si noti che Isaia non ha nessuna difficolta a
leggere la scrittura divina, benche sia scritta in alfabeto ignoto (La Visione di Isaia e la
tematica della Himmelsreise, in Isaia, II Diletto e la Chiesa: Visione ed esegesi profetica
cristiano-primitiva ne//Ascensione di Isaia: Atti del Convegno di Roma, 9-10 aprile
1981, ed. Mauro Pesce [Testi e ricerche di Scienze religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia, 1983]
95-116, esp. 105).
96
This is the LORD of all the praise which you have seen (trans. Knibb [OTP
2.171])
In what sense does Isaiahs praise become like that of the angels? It is possible, of
course, that the similarity in Isaiahs and the angels praises consists simply of their
repeating the same words in Hebrew (e.g., 011p C lip ETHp as in the canonical
account).138 It is also possible, however, that the primary obstacle that Isaiah has
overcome is a language barrier: there are indications within Isaiahs ascent through the
lower heavens that succeeding companies o f angels speak different (presumably esoteric)
languages. As Isaiah enters the first heaven (7.13-15), he notices that the voices of the
angels on the left are different from the voices o f those on the right:
1^0
And afterwards [the angel] caused me to ascend (to that which is) above the
firmament: which is the (first) heaven. And there I saw a throne in the midst, and
on his right and on his left were angels. And (the angels on the left were) not like
unto the angels who stood on the right, but those who stood on the right had the
greater glory, and they all praised with one voice, and there was a throne in the
midst, and those who were on the left gave praise after them; but their voice was
not such as the voice o f those on the right, nor their praise like the praise o f those.
138 It is beyond me how Forbes can write that in the Ascension o f Isaiah at no stage is it
waggestef.tftat [Isaiah] takes on or leams the type o f praise, or the language o f praise, o f
the angels (Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic
Environment, 183 n. 2 [emphasis original]). Considering that Isaiah is explicitly said to
join in with the angels praise (Asc. Isa. 8.17), and when he is shown a tablet containing a
heavenly text, it turns out to be in an unearthly language, the natural inference is that the
angels praise God in a heavenly language, and that this is the language that Isaiah
employs when he joins the heavenly liturgy.
139 See Ugo Bianchi, UAscensione di Isaia: Tematiche soteriologiche di
descensus/ascensus, in Isaia, II Diletto e la Chiesa: Visione ed esegesi profetica
cristiano-primitiva nellAscensione di Isaia: Atti del Convegno di Roma, 9-10 aprile
1981, ed. Mauro Pesce (Testi e ricerche di Scienze religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia, 1983)
155-83, esp. 162 n. 24. Gruenwald points out the similarity o f this scheme to that o f
Hekhalot Rabbati 17, in which the gate-keepers on the right are more important than
those on the left (Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 59 n. 108).
97
This passage establishes a pattern for the first five heavens, so that by the t im e of Isaiahs
arrival in the sixth heaven, he has already heard ten different angelic voices. Since it is
universally agreed that the above passage was composed
in
Greek (the only part of the
work t o survive in Greek is 2.4-4.4), we may presume that <|>govii stood in the original
text.140 The first mention o f voice, in the phrase with one voice, almost certainly means
voice (i.e., in unison). This is the sense in which the concept o f an angelic <f>covT]
would eventually pass into Byzantine hymnology.141 In the remaining instances,
however, philological and history-of-religions considerations may support the rendering
language. It is first o f all worth noting that <j>covq is sometimes connected with
references to angels within mystical or magical texts. In one textual version o f the
Hermetic Corpus, the ascending mystic, upon entering the ogdoad, hears the supernal
powers <J)covf] t i v i iSioc upvouocov
to v 0eov
(1.26).142 Even if this version is not
original (the alternate version writes qSeTa for iSia, i.e. sweet voice for own
140 For the philological range, see Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire Etymologique de la
Langue Grecque: Histoire des Mots (4 vols.; Paris: Klincksieck, 1968-80) 1237-38; Otto
Betz, <J>covti, in TDNT 9.278-301. Ocovq as language is described there as a Gk.
concept, in listing the use of the word in translating DH in in Gen 11:Land pS?1? in
Deut 28:49 (ibid, 290). On <j>covq as language in Philo and Josephus, see Andre Paul,
La Bible grecque dAquila et lideologie dujudalsme ancien, m.ANRW2.2Q.l (1987)
221-45, esp. 236. The equivocality o f the word is perhaps best matched in English by
utterance: substituting this term for voice in the Ascension o f Isaiah accounts for its
otherwise baffling ability to change meanings.
141 See Rosemary Dubowchik, Singing with the Angels: Foundation Documents as
Evidence for Musical Life in Monasteries o f the Byzantine Empire, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 56 (2002) 277-96, esp. 293 with n. 94.
142 C. H. Dodd compares Corp. Herm. 1.26 to Ps 102:21; 148:2 (The Bible and the
Greeks [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935] 176). He writes, This id ea. . . arose
naturally in a period when the cults o f various countries, each with its own liturgical
language, were being assimilated and synthetized.
98
voice/language),143 its existence within a textual tradition still counts as a support for
translating <j>oovT] as language within an angelological context. Heavenly languages are
also presumably in view when the spellbinder, following the recipe in a Hermetic papyrus
(PGM 13.139-40), calls out I call on you who surround all things, I call in every
language and in every dialect
(ETriKCcAoupcu oe, xov roc TrdvTcc TTspisxovToc,
irdori 4>covrj Kai trccor} 8iaAsKTcp . . .).144 To be sure, there are counterexamples-e.g.,
Angelicus Kropps collection of Coptic magical texts contains references to an angelic or
divine ^covrj that can only be construed in terms o f voice.145 These examples are not
intended simply to show that (jjcovp can simply language, a fact that needs little
demonstration, but more precisely that (Jjcovrj is often used to denote angeloglossy in
particular. When Isaiahs praise is described as becoming like that of the angels,
therefore, the reader should perhaps imagine this primarily in terms of a miraculous
ability to speak in a heavenly language. The appearance of such a scheme in the
Ascension o f Isaiah finds possible support in the Testament o f Job (see above), a writing
that may come from the same circle: language differentiation, in the latter work, seems to
143 See Brian P. Copenhaver, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin
Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992) 118. This reading is accepted by Kurt Rudolph,
Gnosis: The Nature and History o f Gnosticism (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987)
187.
144 Trans. Morton Smith, in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the
Demotic Spells, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1986) 175. See Johannes Behm, yAwaoa, in TDNT 1.719-26, esp. 723.
145 See London Ms. Or. 6794 (Angelicus M. Kropp, Ausgewahlte koptische Zaubertexte
[3 vols.; Bruxelles: La Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1930-31] 1.29; 2.104),
Rossi Gnostic Tractate (ibid, 1.73; 2.186), and the comments in ibid, 3.42-43; Erwin
Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (Bollingen 37; 13
vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953-68) 2.166.
99
be a primary marker o f rank differentiation among the angels. In the Ascension o f Isaiah,
rank differentiation is clearly the reason for the references to each successive heavens
praise being unlike that o f the preceding heaven (chaps. 7-8), and yet that same
differentiation o f praise is also applied, just like the differentiation o f voice, in
comparing the angels on the right with those on the left, in each of the first five heavens.
Although the evidence o f the Ascension o f Isaiah is neither explicit nor
incontrovertible, it cannot be left out o f any discussion of possible allusions to
angeloglossy. The Ascension o f Isaiah is an important witness to the continuation o f
angeloglossy as a concept within Christian writings. It also demonstrates the degree to
which the Christian use o f this concept can follow the way in which it used in Jewish
apocalyptic texts.
F. THE A P O C A L Y P S E
OF A B R A H A M
The Apocalypse o f Abraham appears to date from the period between the
destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (related in chapter 27 of that work), and the
appearance of the fourth-century Ps.-Clementine Recognitions, which seems to allude to
the Apocalypse o f Abraham (ad loc. 1.32). Most scholars assign the text a date in the late
first century.146 The work survives today only in Slavonic manuscripts from the
146 E.g., Collins, The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 70. The
Apocalypse o f Abraham is divided into two major parts: chaps. 1-8 comprise one version
of the well known story o f the young Abrahams making sport of his fathers idol-selling
business-the rest o f the book (chaps. 9-32) constitutes a mystical ascent text. Recent
scholarship cautions against assuming that the extant work is a compilation o f two earlier
works (see also the early argument for this view in G. H. Box, The Apocalypse o f
100
fourteenth century and later, but the Slavonic is evidently based upon a Greek version. A
few scholars have speculated that the pseudepigraphon was composed in Hebrew, which
would perhaps favor a Palestinian provenance.147
In Apoc. Abr. 15.2-7, Abraham is taken into the seventh heaven, where he
encounters humanlike creatures, crying out in a language unknown to him:
And the angel took me with his right hand and set me on the right wing o f the
pigeon and he himself sat on the left wing o f the turtledove, (both of) which were
as if neither slaughtered nor divided. And he carried me up to the edge o f the
fiery flames. And we ascended as if (carried) by many winds to the heaven that is
fixed on the expanses. And I saw on the air to whose height we had ascended a
strong light which can not be described. And behold, in this light a fiery Gehenna
was enkindled, and a great crowd in the likeness of men. They all were changing
Abraham [London: SPCK, 1918] xxi-xxiv, responding to the view of Ginzberg; see
Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, La Vision de lHistoire dans lApocalypse dAbraham, in
ANRW2.19.1 [1979] 137-51, esp. 139-44), yet the verdict which one must give to this
question must be nuanced, because at least the core o f the story o f Abraham and his
fathers idols was not the invention o f our author. Certain details o f this story appear
already in Jubilees and in the works o f Philo.
147 Ryszard Rubinkiewicz comments that the work provides us with an insight into the
literary workshop of the Palestinian writers o f the first century A.D., but he cautions
that scholarly investigation of this matter is very incomplete (Apocalypse of Abraham,
OTP 681-83, 685-86). But Emile Turdeanu speaks confidently o f having found giveaway
clues in his philological study of the manuscripts: Lorigine macedonienne du texte [of
the Premiere Version Meridionale Abrdgee] est appnrejfte sw+out dans son vocabulaire
(Apocryphes Slaves etRoumains de VAncien Testament [SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1981]
194). He asserts that the Apocalypse o f Abraham was translated from Greek to Slavonic,
in Macedonia, in the twelfth or thirteenth century (ibid, 181). Rubinkiewicz dates the
Slavonic version to the eleventh or twelfth century A.D. in the south o f the Slavic world,
probably in Bulgaria (Apocalypse o f Abraham, 682-83; see idem, La Vision de
lHistoire dans lApocalypse dAbraham, 137-51). H. G. Lunt, however, argues on
philological and text-critical grounds that the date o f translation must be prior to 1050 (in
Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse o f Abraham, 686 n. 25). Rubinkiewiczs surprising
suggestion that the Apocalypse o f Abraham may have been translated directly from
Hebrew into Slavonic (Apocalypse o f Abraham, 683) is perhaps the reason that
Charlesworth commissioned a supplementary account of the works origins from Lunt,
although Arie Rubinstein appears to hold the same view as Rubinkiewicz (Hebraisms in
the Slavonic Apocalypse o f Abraham, JJS 4 [1953] 108-15; idem, Hebraisms in the
Apocalypse o f Abraham, JJS 5 [1954] 132-35).
101
in aspect and shape, running and changing form and prostrating themselves and
crying aloud words [ a io B e c v , Himmelfarb: in a language] I did not know.
Rubinkiewiczs translation does not clearly indicate that the angels spoke an esoteric
language: the reference to words that Abraham did not know could simply refer to his
inability to hear them clearly. Alexander Kulik, however, has recently reconstructed the
Greek behind the present semantic caique, finding there the term <J>cov4 denoting a
special angelic language. This reconstruction leads him to translate 15.7 as They [=
the angels] were shouting in the language the words o f which I did not know, listing the
Testament o f Job and 1 Corinthians as conceptual parallels.148 Himmelfarbs translation
(presented above in brackets) essentially agrees with the view o f Kulik.
In chapter 17 o f the Apocalypse o f Abraham, Abraham joins in the angelic
worship in heaven:
And while [the angel] was still speaking, behold the fire coming toward us round
about, and a voice was in the fire like a voice o f many waters, like a voice of the
sea in its uproar. And the angel knelt down with me and worshiped. And I
wanted to fall face down on the earth. And the place o f highness on which we
were standing now stopped on high, now rolled down low. And he said, Only
worship, Abraham, and recite the song which I taught you. Since there was no
ground to which I could fall prostrate, I only bowed down, and I recited the song
which had taught me. And he said, Recite without ceasing. And I recited,
and he himself recited the song.149
The text presents Abrahams act o f worship simultaneously as a heartfelt adoration, and
as an effectual gesture o f approach. Abraham is allowed to witness even higher glories,
148 Apocalypse o f Abraham: Towards the Lost Original, Ph.D. dissertation, Jerusalem:
Hebrew University, 2000. I would like to thank Dr. Kulik for sending me his dissertation.
149 Trans. Rubinkiewicz, Apocalypse o f Abraham, 696-97.
102
apparently through his obedience to the angels instructions.150 Gershom Scholem judges
the Apocalypse o f Abraham to be the point at which the apocalyptic tradition draws
closest to the merkabah tradition of the hekhalot texts, partly on the basis of this account
o f Abrahams hymning in communion with the angels.151 Scholem points to Abrahams
h y m n in g
in rn m m nn ion with the angels and notes, this is quite in harmony with the
characteristic outlook o f these hymns, whether sung by the angels or by Israel, in which
the veneration of God the King blends imperceptibly with the conjuring magic o f the
adept.152 Himmelfarb interprets Abrahams hymning with the angels as a status
symbol.153 Like Scholem, Himmelfarb also detects a theurgical element: [T]he
Apocalypse of Abraham treats the song sung by the visionary as part o f the means of
achieving ascent rather than simply as a sign of having achieved angelic status after
150 On prostration in worship, see Sirach 50:19-21; m. Tam. 7.3. Prostration following
the Amida is still practiced in some places today-it is not, as Alfred Guillaume thinks, a
relic . . . now only known from the Talmud (The Influence o f Judaism on Islam, in
The Legacy o f Israel, eds. Edwyn R. Bevan and Charles Singer [Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1927] 157). Anton Baumstark sees Jewish prostration as the liturgicalhistorical origin of Christian genuflection (Comparative Liturgy [London: A. R.
Mowbray, 1958] 75).
151 Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 23. See
Gruenwald, Apocalyptic andMerkavah Mysticism, 51-57; and David Halperin, The Faces
o f the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiels Vision (TSAJ 16; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1988) 103-14.
152 Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd ed.; New York:
Schocken, 1954) 61.
153 According to her, the Apocalypse o f Abraham shares this feature with other works:
[T]he Apocalypse o f Abraham has in common with the Apocalypse ofZephaniah, the
Ascension of Isaiah, and the Similitudes o f Enoch an understanding o f heavenly ascent in
which the visionarys participation in the angelic liturgy marks his achievement o f angelic
status (Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 61).
103
ascent.154 She may be correct in what she says about participation in the angelic liturgy
as a status indicator, but the point is not made explicit by the text. The text looks beyond
the recognition of whatever status Abraham has achieved, and on to the theurgical effect
o f his hymning.
Mary Dean-Otting argues that scholars have been too quick to find a connection
between the ascents o f the pseudepigrapha and those of merkabah mysticism: A major
difference between the Merkabah type of ascent and that o f the pseudepigraphical texts
has been overlooked: the Merkabah ascent comes about. . . as [a] result o f theurgic
practicies while the ascents depicted in our literature take the one ascending by
surprise.155 However, while this distinction obtains for most o f the works that
Gruenwald had classified as incipient merkabah speculation (i.e. 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, the
Ascension ofIsaiah, and Revelation), one should note that the Apocalypse o f Abraham
does not conform neatly to Dean-Ottings dichotomy between theurgic practices and
ascent by surprise: Abraham begins his journey as an ascent by surprise, but in the
angelic song episode he takes his first steps in the art o f theurgy. This is not to describe
the work as a hybrid o f two traditions* for the motif o f mystagogy by surprise is not
unknown in the major hekhalot texts. Scholem would appear to be justified in regarding
154Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, 64.

155 Heavenly Journeys, 25. Dean-Otting writes, we could not really refer to the men
ascending as shamans for they lack the theurgic practices o f those magicians o f flight
(ibid, 27).
104
the Apocalypse o f Abraham as an important milestone on the road to full-blown
merkabah mysticism.136
Soon after Abraham encounters fiery beings whose language he does not
understand, he is instructed to sing a hymn taught to him by an angel. We are not told
that Abraham himself ever speaks in an angelic language.157 After all, if Abraham does
not understand the words spoken by the angels in the seventh heaven, yet understands his
angelic guide perfectly well, there is little reason for the reader to infer that the angelic
hymn was taught to him in some language other than his native language. Yet the
evidence is fairly clear that Abraham heard angels speak a language he could not
understand. As such, the Apocalypse o f Abraham represents another important witness to
the idea o f angeloglossy.
G. TH E R A B B I N I C
EVIDENCE
( G E N . R AB.
74.7)
As we have already seen, the dominant view within rabbinic literature is that the
angels speak Hebrew. Passages referring to an esoteric angelic language are accordingly
156 This important qualification does not escape Dean-Otting. Indeed, she drives it home
with more than due attention, organizing her entire study as a looking-forward to the
important history-of-traditions event represented by the Apocalypse o f Abraham. It is at
this point, she writes, that we stand at the cross-section between the apocalyptic and
merkabah traditions (Heavenly Journeys, 255). She notes, the theurgic song and the
vision o f the throne-chariot which it brings about are more than vaguely related to the
later Merkabah speculation (ibid, 255), and [t]he combination o f throne and chariot i s .
.. one more aspect o f the ApocAbraham which binds it very closely to the Hekaloth
literature (ibid, 261 n. 65). See John C. Poirier, The Ouranology o f the Apocalypse o f
Abraham," JSJ, forthcoming.
157 As noted by Martin, Tongues o f Angels and Other Status Indicators, 560 n. 24;
Turner, Tongues, 247 n. 35..
105
few and far between. In the next chapter, we will examine the tradition o f R. Yochanan
b. Zakkais legendary mastery o f angelic speech (b. B. Bat 134a |j b. Suk. 28a). In
this chapter, we will discuss a possible reference to angeloglossy in the fifth- or sixthcentury Genesis Rabbah. We read in Gen. Rab. 14.1:
niDia w n ib bvnvr
tr a y i no nb'bn m 'm 'n m i pb b$ n 'ib x rcri
ktn mamn jr a bv
rrnpn pa i m rm n -n m n 'i ,nbim
rrrr ~p .hdd hedi -ocxzr '1 i m ,nvbn b$ crnb^ n p 'i'm m i j n
nm
b m b'b m p o i m ntn j i m m s ]wb

i p i mn prabn pa .-paen
pobpD m id 'mbD ptzta n:rm nemp ymbn nbv -nm m btnE"
t t q d p a n b 3 x b n m t r a i e m p o iip vnip - m i m b x m tnpi in
And God came to Laban the Aramaean in a night dream (Gen 31:24). What is the
difference between the prophets o f Israel and the prophets o f the nations o f the
world? R. Hama b. Hanina said, The Holy One, blessed be he, is not revealed to
the prophets of the nations except in half speech, as it says, And God called
O p',1, rather than &lp',1) to Balaam (Num 23:4). R. Issachar of Kefar Mandi
said, This is the most rewarding interpretation: lp,,1 means only the language of
uncleanness, as it says, (a man who will not be clean by) what happens (TflpD) at
night (Deut 23:11). But the prophets of Israel are addressed in full speech, in the
language o f holiness and honor, in the language in which the ministering angels
praise: And this one called (N lp l) to that one and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the
Lord o f hosts. The whole earth is full o f his glory (Isa 6:3).158
158 A note on this passages structure is in order, since Jacob Neusners translation
(Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book o f Genesis: A New American
Translation [3 vols.; BJS 106; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985] 3.80-81) is based upon a
misunderstanding in that area. Neusner connects the final sentence (beginning with But
the prophets. . . ) with the words of R. Issachar of Kefar Mandi, rather than with the
words o f R. Hama b. Hanina. He signifies this supposed connection in three ways: (1) he
does not put a closing quotation mark between R. Issachars reference to Deut 23:11 and
the final sentence, but includes it all under one quotation, (2) he altogether omits to
translate b(0 n i n i l in the final sentence, a phrase that clearly corresponds to TD'H
'HfO in the words o f R. Hama b. Hanina, and finally, (3) he translates
n rrm HtDllp ]123bn as in language of holiness, purity, clarity, thereby importing the
notion o f purity into a passage that contains no such reference, creating a link to R.
Issachars reference to language o f uncleanness. All o f these errors are easily
explainable by considering the text o f Lev. Rab. 1.13: Neusners translation of Gen. Rab.
106
Unfortunately, the reappearance of this tradition in Leviticus Rabbah complicates things,

and it is necessary to say a word or two on the relationship between these two versions.
Lev. Rab. 1.13 reads:
lacET m rtnn "xia m n 'i m b^n m m w z ib bmvr

p no
mot* ^ x bs
rrnpn pa n m i n n ^ x a m n h .ixo i s : x
^ v b m b x mnbx i p i nxm nm n inn
^ r a *b& nbvsn
- \ j m '~i - m nm~b m p i x in x ^ o ^ n x n bmvr *wx bm
nm idd ,nmv }wb Kb* i p i m )wb pt* m
arr p :iXD isdd
bm .n^b-nnpo ,-nrra m r t* 1? iek ,era p x rr-X nxia
men x n 'o t ,]i*x ;iiD ]iito .mno ]wb2 ,mxip p i r a - bmvr w x
nm'\ nrbx m tnpi non* ina inn ,m xo^po
What is the difference between the prophets o f Israel and the prophets o f the
nations o f the world? R. Hama b. R. Hanina and R. Issachar o f Kefar Mandu
[have commented]. R. Hama b. R. Hanina said, The Holy One, blessed be he, is
not revealed to the prophets of the nations except in half speech, as it says, And
God called O p l , rather than K lp T ) to Balaam (Num 23:4). But the prophets
o f Israel are addressed in M l speech, as it is written: And the Lord called (N ip '])
to Moses (Lev 1:1). R. Issachar o f Kefar Mandu said, This is the most rewarding
interpretation: I p l means only the language o f uncleanness, as it says, a man
who will not be clean by what happens (H lpQ ) at night (Deut 23:11). But the
prophets o f Israel, in the holy language, in the (ritually) pure language, in the
(genetically) pure language, in the language that the ministering angels converse
in, as it says, And this one called (N lp l) to that one and said (Isa 6:3).
Leviticus Rabbah was probably compiled later than Genesis Rabbah, but that in itself
does not decide the question of priority. The priority issue weighs upon the proper
interpretation o f these two rabbis words, as the wording o f Leviticus Rabbah makes it
74.7 seems to be a mere jumbling o f a prior translation o f Leviticus Rabbah. Haste makes
waste, and Neusners translation is without warrant in the text o f Genesis Rabbah (and it
hides precisely those features that point to the priority o f the Genesis Rabbah version).
The phrase Db^D 11X 13 clearly shows that the last sentence continues the view of R.
Hama b. Hanina. Happily, this is how Grozinger understands the passage (see below): he
replaces R. Issachars words with an ellipsis.
appear that R. Issachar of Kefar Mandu (Mandi) refers to the language of the ministering
angels, and by opposing it to the language of uncleanness (viz. the languages of the
nations), implies that the angels speak Hebrew.159 This differs considerably from the
wording o f Genesis Rabbah, in which these words expand upon the quite different view
o f R. Hamab. Hanina. Fortunately, the difference in the wording o f this expansion
contains redaction-critical direction indicators. There is little question that the Lev 1:1
prooftext used in Leviticus Rabbah corresponds perfectly (both morphologically and
literarily) with the Num 23:4 prooftext known to both versions, and on that grounds has a
good claim to being original. At the same time, however, the compiler o f Leviticus
Rabbah, seeking to record every (worthy?) rabbinic discussion of Lev 1:1 that he knows,
may have forged a connection between Lev 1:1 and the exegetical complex associated
with R. Hama b. Hanina, thereby dislodging the Isa 6:3 citation from its original
connection with the words o f that rabbi. While that scenario is not intrinsically
preferrable to the claim that Leviticus Rabbah gets it right, there are in fact some
redaction-critical direction indicators in its favor. For example, it is more likely that the
Leviticus Rabbah version has added a reference to a ritually pure language (TnnC3 ]1*2)
in answer to R. Issachars association o f the language of impurity (TT^DQ |1 0 ^ ) with
the prophets o f the nations than that Genesis Rabbah has deleted such a reference: there is
no discernible reason for Genesis Rabbah to delete it, and plenty o f reason for Leviticus
Rabbah to add it. It is furthermore unlikely that the compiler o f the tradition in Genesis
Rabbah would have failed to see the value in Leviticus Rabbahs use ofZeph 3:9s
159
See Burton Visotzky, Golden Bells and Pomegranates: Studies in Midrash Leviticus
Rabbah (TSAJ 94; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003) 139.
108
reference to a genetically (or technically) pure language (TIQ ]Wb"2) in connection
with angeloglossy (cf. the use o f this term in the hekhalot texts, where it describes nomina
barbara). Interestingly, the version that has the most to gain from the fact that Isaiahs
angels speak Hebrew stops short o f producing the angels words, while the version that
stands to lose from the angels words includes them.
It would appear, therefore, that Gen. Rab. 74.7 preserves an earlier form o f the
tradition than Lev. Rab. 1.13.160 It should be noted that Balaam represented a more
difficult case to resolve than pagan prophets in general, because the Bible explicitly says
that the spirit of God came upon him (Num 24:2; also in LXX Num 23:7), so that denying
Gods part in Balaams prophetic inspiration was excluded as an option.161 According to
R. Hama b. Hanina, God speaks to foreign prophets in half speech, while he speaks to
the prophets of Israel in full speech, in the language of holiness and honor, in which the
ministering angels praise.162 The midrash employs Num 23:4 for a prooftext: And God
160 For those who are not convinced o f the priority o f the Genesis Rabbah version, the
following discussion w ill fail to establish only that R. Hanina b. Hamas view of
prophetic inspiration lines up with his view of angelic languages, but it should not fail to
establish what that view o f prophetic inspiration is.
161 See Geza Vermes, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd
ed.; SPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1983) 144-45.
162 On rabbinic views o f the prophesying o f Gentiles, see Sifre Deut. 357; Sifre Zutta
7.89; Saul Lieberman, Two Lexicographical Notes, JBL 65 (1946) 67-72; Lee I.
Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 210 n. 253. In
Jewish writings from the Islamic centuries, the primary contrast is not between the
prophets of Israel and the prophets o f other nations, but between Moses and all other
prophets (most notably in that only Moses heard God without an intermediary). While
this contrast had always been present in Jewish tradition, its potential for polemic against
the claims o f Muhammads prophethood made it a central idea. See Kreisel, Prophecy,
passim; and the bibliography cited in ibid, 171 n. 48.
109
Ip"1! to Balaam. R. Hama b. Hanina reads Ip"! as a defective rendering o f the root
and accordingly infers, from the notion of a defective rendering, that God speaks to
foreign prophets (of whom Balaam is prototypical) in a "TD'H HPt, while he speaks to
the prophets of Israel in a D b T D 'T
The full, triliteral rendering is preserved when
God speaks to Moses (Lev 1:1) and when the angels call to one another (Isa 6:3).
Furthermore, in the Genesis Rabbah account, R. Hama b. Haninas description o f the
higher form of prophetic inpsriation as inovlving the language of holiness and honor is
also true to form for the interpretation I am suggesting-as Deborah Levine Gera notes,
Greek accounts of the language o f the gods typically describe this language as perfect,
true, accurate, euphonious, or majestic.163 By contrast, the Leviticus Rabbah account
looks for all the world like a retrofitting, in which an original description o f a divine
language as genetically or technically pure is turned into a description o f a ritually pure
language.
Karl Erich Grozinger is one o f the few scholars who has given serious attention to
the question of angeloglossy in rabbinic texts, although, as we will see, he probably did
not give enough attention to this text.164 Grozinger detects certain connections between
prophetic speech and angelic singing in rabbinic discussions o f the differences between
Israelite and foreign prophets. While discussing Gen. Rab. 74.7, he handily translates
163Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2003) 54.
164 Grozinger, Musik und Gesang in der Theologie der frixhen judischen Literatur, 99107.
^ 0 T I T ! as Vollform and H IT l UFl as Halbform.165 Unfortunately, he does

not attempt to link the notions of Halbform and Vollform to the concept of divine
language. Ifhe had, he might have recognized a possible allusion to esoteric
angeloglossy within this text. Instead, he concentrates solely on the possibility o f the
Israelite prophets participation in the liturgy, comparing this passage with others in
which the prophets are associated with liturgical singing (e.g., Shir ha-Shirim Zuta 1.1;
Mid. Ps. 45.6). This comparison is unfortunate, in my opinion, both because Midrash
Psalms is a very late text, and because it is not at all clear that Genesis Rabbah is
discussing the same thing as Shir ha-Shirim Zuta and Midrash Psalms. While the latter
two texts seem to leave the prophets participation in liturgical singing as a reference to
inspired singing, without indicating the involvement o f any sort o f angeloglossy, Genesis
Rabbah may, in fact, contain a specific allusion to an esoteric divine language. This
possibility rests on an explanation o f the concepts o f Halbform and Vollform. After
rendering T D 'H HfQ as halbem Wort, Grozinger inserts Sprechweise in
parentheses, but it is open to question whether this represents the correct understanding of
the Halbform! Vollform dichotomy that drives the midrashic device.
Another possible reading o f Gen. Rab. 74.7 emerges from a consideration o f the
notion o f divine language within the wider Mediterranean religious milieu. In attempting
to explain the similarity o f certain divine words (e.g., those found in Homers divine
toponyms or throughout the myriad texts o f voces mysticae) to human words, scholars
165 Grdzinger explains: Wayyiqqar (Nif.lpf.cons. von qrh) wird hier von der Wurzel qr(
abgeleitet und so als Kurzform, als Halbform empfunden, von den Engeln dagegen
heiflt es qara (Vollform) (Musik und Gesang in der Theologie derfruhen judischen
Literatur, 100).
I ll
have suggested that there is an irreducible difference between the language of heaven and
all earthly attempts to copy it.166 Alfred Heubeck argues that this forms the basis of
Homers divine words.167 The root notion is not that the heavenly language is necessarily
inaccessible, but rather that humans lack the linguistic ability to speak it correctly.
168
In
166 See Gilbert Hamonics remarks in Marcel Detienne and Gilbert Hamonic, La Deesse
Parole: Quatre Figures de la Langue des Dieux (Paris: Flammarion, 1995) 42-43.
167 Die homerische Gottersprache, Wurzburger Jahrbucher fur die
Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1949-50) 197-218. See also Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie und
Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus, 21-25; Gera, Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech,
Language, and Civilization, 52-53.
168 In this connection, we must bring to bear the portion o f Christopher Forbess
thoroughgoing revisionist study o f glossolalia that deals with Gnostic or pagan nomina
barbara. Forbes writes, The magical papyri may be rapidly dismissed, as having no
demonstrable link with early Christian glossolalia whatsoever.. . . It is true that a number
o f magical papyri are to be dated to the first century A.D. or earlier, and some o f these do
contain nomina barbara. It is also true that such magic is deeply traditional, and we
could safely presume such early documents even if they were not extant. But these
invocations and incantations which make up so much o f the magical papyri, are not
conceived as language, do not need, or receive interpretation, and neither are they seen as
in any sense revelatory.. . . Neither are they spontaneous: they are incantations to be
recited or inscribed precisely as they are written {Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early
Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment, 153-54). This passage is a mixture o f
invalid reasoning and irrelevant facts. How does Forbes know that the nomina barbara
are not conceived as language? And what does the need for interpretation have to
do with the linguistic nature o f nomina barbaral If the nomina barbara neither receive
nor express a need for interpretation, would that not be consistent with the use o f
uninterpreted glossolalia that Paul confronts in 1 Corinthians 12-14? And how does the
question o f spontaneity impinge upon the glossolalic nature o f these words? A
glossolalic utterance certainly expresses something when first spoken (even if it is
unknown to the glossolalist), and it presumably would express the same thing when
repeated by rote {viz. as nomina barbara within a magical recipe). In connection with
this last question, Forbes quotes T. W. Manson: The complicated mess o f alphabetic
permutations and combinations, interlarded with battered relics o f divine names, which
appears in the papyri is the product o f perverted ingenuity rather than religious ecstasy. It
is not glossolalia whatever else it may be (ibid, 154 n. 11). Perhaps, but the pertinent
question is whether the nomina barbara were intended to represent a species of
glossolalia in a transcriptional form.
112
reference to PGM 13.763-64, Hans Dieter Betz writes,

The expression t o Kpvrnrov bvopoc Kai appqxov is to be interpreted to mean that
the name cannot be pronounced by a human mouth (ev avSpcotrou axopaxt
AaXtiQirivai ou SuvaTai). The implication is, first, that the secret names do not
represent human but divine language, and that the human mouth is not capable of
articulating them, just as human reason cannot comprehend their meaning.
At first, Betzs understanding seems questionable in view o f the fact that the
pronunciation o f this seven-vowel name is actually attempted, as shown by PGM 13.2069
(Lord, I imitate [you by saying] the 7 vowels; enter and hear me, A EE EEE UH
OOOOO YYYYYY 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 ABROCH BRAOCH CHRAMMAOCH PROARBATH

OIAO OYAEEIOYO).170 Betz explains, however, that the attempt is limited to a crude
approximation o f the true divine name. His explanation is supported by a number of
neoplatonic passages, including Nicomachus of Gerasas Harmonikon Enchiridion:
169 Secrecy in the Greek Magical Papyri, 163. See Gerhard Delling, oxoixsiov, in
TDNT 7.670-87, esp. 671-72.
170 Trans. Morton Smith, in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the
Demotic Spells, vol. 1: Texts, 175. Forbes challenges the concept that one must pray to
the gods in their language: Men do not know divine languages, but there is no
suggestion at all that the gods do not know those o f men! {Prophecy and Inspired
Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment, 155). To the contrary: (1)
there are traditions that limit the divine beings (e.g., angels) abilities to understand
human languages (such as the claim, found in some rabbinic writings, that the angels do
not understand Aramaic), and (2) respecting ones ability to understand and observing the
correct gestures o f approach are two different things: the need to communicate in the
language o f the gods arises not from their ignorance o f human language, but rather from
the propriety and greater utility o f the divine language. In other words, voces mysticae
appear to have invoked divine potencies through their immediate signification. (On the
contrast between immediate and mediated signification, see Jan Assmann, Moses the
Egyptian: The Memory o f Egypt in Western Monotheism [Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1997] 102-3.) On the various concepts bound up in the notion o f a divine
language, see the four models discussed in Detienne and Hamonic, La Deesse Parole.
This book is the transcript o f a discussion between a moderator and specialists in the
traditions of Greece, Vedic India, the Cuna tribe, and Caucasus.
113
[TJfae tones of the seven spheres, each of which by nature produces a particular
sound, are the sources o f the nomenclature o f the vowels. These are described as
unspeakable in themselves and in all their combinations by wise men, since the
tone in this context performs a role analogous to that o f the monad in number, the
point in geometry, and the letter in grammar. However, when they are combined
with the materiality of the consonants, just as soul is combined with body, and
harmony with strings, (the one producing a creature, the other notes and
melodies), they have potencies which are efficacious and perfective o f divine
things.171
lamblichus writes, those who first learned the names o f the Gods, having mingled them
with their own proper tongue, delivered them to us, that we might always preserve
immoveable the sacred law of tradition, in a language peculiar and adapted to them (De
myst. 7.4).172 This understanding o f language had been developed by Plato (esp. in
Cratylus),173 and Philo may be counted as the Jewish representative o f this linguistic
171 Trans. Gregory Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism o f lamblichus
(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995) 184. For a spectacular
example o f the invocational power of vowel sequences, and their association with
planetary angels, see the so-called Miletus angel inscription (3rd - 5th c. CE), discussed
by Adolf Deissmann (Lightfrom the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by
Recently Discovered Texts o f the Graeco-Roman World [rev. ed.; New York: Doran,
1927] 453-60) and Arnold (The Colossian Syncretism, 83-85). See E. R. Dodds, The
Greeks and the Irrational (Sather Classical Lectures 25; Berkeley: University o f
California Press, 1951) 292-95. Planetary angels also figure prominently in 2 Enoch. On
the voces mysticae in the neoplatonists, see the bibliography listed in the discussion o f 2
Cor 12:1-7 above.
172
Trans. Thomas Taylor, lamblichus on The Mysteries o f the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and
Assyrians, p. 293.
173 See N. Kretzman, Plato on the Correctness o f Names, American Philological
Quarterly 8 (1971) 126-38; Susan B. Levin, Greek Conceptions o f Naming: Three
Forms o f Appropriateness in Plato and the Literary Tradition, Classical Philology 92
(1997) 46-57.
114
theory par excellence (see esp. his famous interpretation of Exod 20:18 [they saw the
voice] in De migr. Abr. 47-48).
174
In the light of this understanding of human language as a faltering attempt to

approximate the heavenly language, the terms TQ 'H Un and
TO 'H make a great
deal o f sense. God speaks to foreign prophets through the imperfect medium o f an
earthly language, while he speaks to the prophets o f Israel through the perfect medium of
the heavenly language. According to this understanding, the contrast between Halbform
and Vollform does not represent the difference between ciphers and plain speech, but
rather the difference between human and divine language. The implicit equation between
the language by which God reveals himself to the prophets and that in which the angels
sing suggests that ecstatic speech may be involved, although there are perhaps other ways
o f imagining the prophets encounter with the divine language. O f course, it remains
possible that T D 1! 'XU andD *2 T IT "! refer to ciphers and plain speech, but it is
difficult, on that view, to understand how Gods revelation to the prophets of Israel is in
the language in which the ministering angels praise. Although the notion might excite
some modem purveyors ofsem iotic theory, surely the midrash could not mean to imply
174 Philos notion that the Divine Metalanguage is strictly a language o f names also
correlates with the Homeric conception. See Maren R. Niehoff, What is ina Name?
Philos Mystical Philosophy of Language, JSQ 2 (1995) 220-52, esp. 221. On the
naming aspect in Philos theory o f language, see further Winston, Aspects ofPhilos
Linguistic Theory, 109-25; Steven Weitzman, Why Did the Qumran Community Write
in Hebrew?, JAOS119 (1999) 35-45, 39. On naming in Plato, see John F. A. Sawyer,
Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; London:
Routledge, 1999) 112. On the use of names in merkabah mysticism, see Rachel Elior,
Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology: The Perception o f Angels in Hekhalot Literature,
JSQ 1 (1993) 3-53, esp. 10-12. See also E. Adelaide Hahn, Naming-Constructions in
Some Indo-European Languages (Philological Monographs of the American Philological
Association 27; Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, 1969) 9-10.
115
that human speech in general is characterized by ciphers, while angelic speech is
transparent.
But is it not possible that Ub T Q H simply denotes Hebrew and " U T I
denotes other (human) languages? Not really: R. Issachars gloss (This is the most
rewarding interpretation: "IjT1 means only the language of uncleanness [HKEID ]W b ],
as it says, (a man who will not be clean by) what happens [FTTpD] at night [Deut
23:11]) would appear to make that option untenable, since he seems to be offering the
gentile-languages scheme as an alternative to what R. Hama b. Hanina imagines.
Notwithstanding the use o f pure tongue (mpjHED ]1 0 t7) in hekhalot writings to denote
meaningless combinations o f the letters o f the Tetragrammaton (cf. Schafer 390 and
637),175 it is hardly possible to take R. Issachars use ofiTNQlED
in a corresponding
175 Peter Schafer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,

1981). Rebecca Lesses writes concerning Schafer 637, The adjuration o f the Sar haPanim in the Hekhalot texts also mentions a special language that the angels
understand: the language o f purity (lashon taharah), or as it is also referred to, the
language ofYHWH {lashon YHWH). In this adjuration, a progressively more powerful
series o f voces mysticae is used to adjure and call upon the Sar ha-Panim to do the will o f
the adjurer, finally ending with his name itself, which lacks only one letter from the
divine name o f four letters by which He formed and established all and sealed with it all
the work o f His hands. This name appears in two versions; the first o f which is: ^ S
MQSTT MG MSSYY MNYQYY PYPG HWGWW HSS PSS YH S)MYNNSY) QTW
HWHS. This first version consists o f a seemingly random assortment o f Hebrew letters.
It also has an explanation in the language o f purity, with yod hey: YHWH YW HWH
HW HW YHWH YH HYH YHWH YHWH YHWH HY WHYY HYW HYH YH HHW
YW HY HWH YH YHWH YWH. This explanation {perush) translates, as it were,
the name into the letters o f the divine name, YHWH (paper read at the 2002 Society of
Biblical Literature meeting in Toronto).
116
direction, and Genesis Rahbah is not employing H T PH PIETnp
pp
and
as purely symmetrical opposites.

There are two further supports for my proposed reading ofT Q 'H HP! and D blD
T C H in Gen. Rab. 14.7, which, taken together, permit this purported example of
esoteric angeloglossy to be discussed in the present chapter (of relatively certain cases).
The first is found in a fascinating passage in a much later midrash, the thirteenth-century
Yemenite Midrash ha-Gadol. The tradition recorded in Midrash ha-Gadol adds an
interesting twist to the biblical account o f God appointing Aaron as Moses spokesperson:
God tells Moses, You shall speak in the holy tongue like an angel, and Aaron your
brother will speak in the Hebrew language, as it says, See, I have made you a god
( D ^ K ) unto Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet (Exod 7:1).176
Aarons designation as prophet is taken to imply that he interprets words spoken in the
angelic language, which, we are told, is not Hebrew. The envisioned scheme o f the full
oracular event, viz. that of a prophet rendering another functionarys unintelligible
utterance in an understandable language, is not unlike that o f an earlier (pre-Amandry)
176T nra
nna
"nv p e t o iiT
-prm prw s - p t t o
mp p t^ n
nm
PPPT "pn& p r w i 'S 1? PI^N (text from Midrasch ha-gadol zum Buche
Exodus, ed. David Zvi Hoffmann, vol. 1 [Schriften des Vereins Mekize Nirdamim 3/19;
Berlin: Itzkowski, 1913] 35). Judah Halevis reference to the giving o f the Decalogue
through pure speech (Kuzari 1.87) is too late and enigmatic to be o f much help in this
context.
understanding of how the Delphic oracle worked.177 This midrash says nothing about the
perfection o f the heavenly language or the imperfection of a given earthly language, but in
other respects it appears to invoke the same theory of prophetic inspiration that I suggest
lies behind Gen. Rab. 74.7. Moreover, based on its content, exegetical base, and
interpretive method, there is even a possibility that the tradition in Midrash ha-Gadol
stems from R. Hama b. Hanina himself-in fact, earlier rabbinic texts even represent him
deducing a different point from the same verse in Exodus (cf. Exod. Rab. 8.2)
178
although it is impossible to press such possibilities across so great a stretch o f time.

Midrash ha-Gadol contains much older material, much of which may have been
preserved in a written form prior to its incorporation into a Yemenite midrash, but it is
impossible to date that material on internal grounds alone. For those who are reticent
about citing undatable parallels from such late compilations, the passage from Midrash
ha-Gadol is still not without value: it at least tells us that such an understanding of the
inner workings of prophetic inspiration is, from a strictly conceptual standpoint,
eminently possible within rabbinic circles.
177 If pagan oracles really worked this way (contrary to what most current scholarship
thinks), then it would be worth noting that Aarons designation as a prophet could bear
a more technical sense o f the word.
178 Cf. also Exod. Rab. 21.8. By my count, roughly 40% of R. Hama b. Haninas
prooftexts preserved in the Babylonian Talmud come from Exodus, and the point of most
o f this 40% appears to be haggadic rather than halakhic (see b. Bab. Bat. 102a, 123b, b.
Bab. Mez. 86b, b. Ned. 38a, b. Shab. 10b, 88a, b. Sot. 11a, 12a, 12b, 13b, 14a), which
suggests that he was known for lecturing on the Exodus narrative. (He is said to have
presided over Rabbi Judahs academy shortly after his death [b. Ket. 103a], and perhaps
continually lectured on Exodus in the capacity.)
118
The second further support for my reading is found in the presence o f this same
theory of prophetic inspiration within early Sufism, a movement that spans much o f the
chronological gap between Genesis Rabbah and Midrash ha-Gadol. According to David
Christie-Murray,
In earlier times, the Sufi o f Islam continued a tradition of Gods unintelligible
speech. This had originated from the prophet Mohammeds telling that he had
heard sounds and confused speech which he understood only after they had
ceased, and that it was a great effort for him to pass to the state o f logical and
intelligible language. The later writers described such speech, and it is possible
that their descriptions relate to a practice comparable to tongues, although they
specify hearing and translating a speech beyond comprehension, not uttering
one. 179
It is not surprising that Jewish and Islamic thinkers should light upon the same
conceptions in their respective theories of prophetic inspiration, and when borrowing
from one to the other seems inevitable, it is not easy in many given case to tell which way
the borrowing went.180 O f course, if Genesis Rabbah is to be dated to the fifth or sixth
179 Voices from the Gods: Speaking with Tongues (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1978) 10. Unfortunately. Christie-Murray does not give references for these claims The
14th-century Shams al-Din Ah.mad-e Aflaki-ye (Arefi refers to the language o f states or
of being (.zabrn-e h.M) in at least four o f his nine descriptions o f famous Islamic holy
men (The Feats o f the Knowers o f God, trans. John OKane [Islamic History and
Civilization: Studies and Texts 43; Leiden: Brill, 2002] 53,121,272-73, 362,478,557
[ 2.24; 3.89, 90,329, 511; 4.98; 7.12]). The language o f states is opposed to the
language o f words in 2.24, but the episode o f an ox speaking to Mowlana in the
language o f states which the people o f ecstatic states (ahl-e h.M) understand ( 3.90)
suggests that it may be an audible phenomenon. This speaking in the language o f states
appears to be one type o f uttering higher meanings (= prophesying?; cf. 3.89), for
which Mowlana demanded silence from croaking frogs. The phenomenon of the
glorious Koran damning someone through the language of its being ( 3.511),
however, is difficult to understand on these terms.
1ftn
See Harry Wolfson, Repercussions o f the Ralam in Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1979).
119
century,181 then the theory of inspiration it attributes to R. Issachar of Kefar Mandi could
not be a borrowing from Sufism, all the less so if the idea should be traced back to R.
Hama b. Hanina. But the kinship in conceptions can perhaps be explained through a
more widespread understanding o f how prophetic inspiration worked.
R. Hama b. Haninas theory of prophetic inspiration appears to represent a rare
instance o f a Palestinian rabbi espousing an esoteric-language view of angeloglossy. One
does not have to assume that R. Hama b. Hanina believes in the angelic mediation of
prophecy to infer a connection with angels-he makes the connection himself in
appositionally referring to the full speech oflsraels prophetic inspiration as the
language of holiness and honor and the language in which the ministering angels
praise. It is thus impossible to take R. Yochanans view o f angelic languages, which I
discussed in the preceding chapter, as representative o f every rabbi (although it is
probably fairly representative o f the movement as a whole). R. Hama b. Hanina was
slightly earlier than R. Yochanan (with some probable overlap), and may represent a body
o f eclectic, unsystematized beliefs that R. Yochanans generation successfully effaced,182
although in this case it survived long enough to make it into a fifth-century midrash.
H. EPHREM
SYRUS, HYMN 11
181 See H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 303-05.
182 We would like to know more about the relationship between R. Yochanans circle and
the academy in Sepphoris, where R. Hama b. Hanina purportedly presided.
120
It is not my intention to treat merely literary echoes of 1 Cor 13:1 as examples of a
belief in angeloglossy, but the dividing line between literary echo and a more reflective
reemployment of that idea is sometimes difficult to draw. In this connection, we must
consider a stanza from a poem by Ephrem Syrus (c. 306-373), the most important
personage in the history o f early Syrian Christianity (Petersen).183 While the reception
history o f 1 Cor 13:1 is fairly full, there is reason to think that Ephrem Syruss reference
to angelic languages in his eleventh Hymn upon the Faith is more than just a clever
refurbishing ofPauls words. We read in stanza 8 o f that hymn (according to the newer
versification),
Lo! [the] ear [of the deceived] is not able to hear the mighty crash, neither can it
hear the still silence; how then shall he hear the voice o f the Son or the silence o f
the Father, when the silence too is vocal? The heavens declare the glory o f God.
Lo! a silence, the whole whereof muttereth among all languages to all languages!
This firmament, lo! it declareth day by day the glory o f its Maker. Man is too
little to be able to hear all languages, and if he sufficed to hear the tongue o f
Angels that are spirits, so might he life himself up to hear the silence which
speaketh between the Father and the Son. Our tongue is estranged to the voice o f
beasts; the tongue o f Angels is estranged to every [other] tongue. That silence
wherewith the Father speaketh with His Well-beloved, is strange unto the
Angels.184
This passage reads almost like a compromise between the view attributing a single
primordial language to God and angels alike, and the view attributing a purely mental
183 William L. Petersen, Tatians Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance,

and History in Scholarship (VigChrSup 25; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 114.
184 Trans. J. B. Morris, Select Works o f S. Ephrem the Syrian: Translated Out ofthe
Original Syriac (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1897) 149-50. Paul S. Russells translation
highlights the parallelism o f the last two sentences: The speech o f anim als is foreign to
our tongue. | The speech of angels is foreign to every tongue. | The silence by which the
Father speaks to His Beloved is foreign to the angels (Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility
o f Language and the Place o f Silence, JECS 8 [2000] 21-37, esp. 34).
121
means of communication to the heavenly beings. Put in these terms, Ephrem seems to
dovetail one view with the other, taking his view of divine communication from one, and
his view o f angelic communication from the other. Yet his scheme differs from other
schemes in another important way: Hebrew does not figure anywhere in it.
It might be supposed that the words Man is too little to be able to hear all
languages, and if he sufficed to hear the tongue o f Angels that are spirits,. . . is an echo
o f 1 Cor 13:1, but if it is, it has had a different design cast upon it. For one thing, 1
Corinthians 13 refers to (hypothetical?) speaking in angelic languages, while Ephrems
hymn refers merely to hearing angelic languages. What is most interesting is that
Ephrem presents angelic languages as an intermediary tier between human language and
divine communicative silence, and that the difference between our linguisticality and that
o f the angels is compared with the difference between us and the beasts. This comparison
may also imply a corresponding intellectual gap, but that is hardly clear: Ephrem is
addressing language, and the angels do not speak the same language(s) as humans.
Paul S. Russell has published a fascinating article on this passage. His approach
has the advantage o f appealing to a broad and deep in te n t m divine silence within
Ephrems writings, including a number o f applications o f the divine silence to the
propriety o f human silence as an element o f piety. Russell writes, We must not allow
ourselves to see Ephraem as an Eastern obscurantist. He never argues against the use o f
speech in theology, only against the inappropriate use of speech.185 This involves
recognizing that human speech is capable o f praising God, but only to an extent, beyond
185 Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility o f Language and the Place o f Silence, 29.
122
which true worship consists of silence, as in the high priests yearly approach to the Holy
of Holies {Hymn 8.7). According to Russell, the farther down the ontological scale of
existence any language is directed, the more fully that language will inherently be able to
address the task for which it is intended.
186
Unfortunately, however, Russell takes the significance o f the divine silence in

Hymn 11.8 in a direction not supported by Ephrems own explanation. According to
Russell, Ephrem here as well interprets the divine silence as expressing the limitation of
our sublunary perspective, and its orientation to a world completely unlike that o f the
highest heaven. While it is true that the idea that God speaks in silence was widespread,
and is especially noticeable in apocalyptic writings o f the time, in which the silence o f the
highest heaven (or innermost sanctuary) is contrasted with the loud praises of the
heavenly host throughout the other heavens (or sanctuaries). Of course, such an idea is
widespread within sources o f the period, but it is not clear that it represents the reason for
divine silence in our text. According to Ephrems own explanation, divine silence, as
communication, has nothing to do with the bursting of a given worlds grammar of
understandirg, h,,+
with a lack o f need for God to use nouns and verbs, either in
what he speaks to his creation, or in what he hears from that creation. Russell seems
to be confusing two different ideas: that o f the apophatic impasse faced by the ascending
mystic, and that o f Gods absolute non-objectifiability, which was interpreted (strangely)
within neoplatonic circles as a lack of Gods need to use objective references in
communication. The latter was famously held much later by Thomas Aquinas and Dante
186 Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility o f Language and the Place o f Silence, 31.
123
(for whom this mode o f communication was angelic), but it could also be found in our
period in Augustine (for whom this mode was strictly divine).187 Hymn 11.8 seems to
differentiate between the levels of creation according to the rarefication of their respective
languages (in which the use of a subject/object grammar is the coarseness from which
rarefication escapes).188 Thus I cannot follow Russell when he states that the silence
o f creatures can be genuinely communicative.189 He assumes that silence. . . is not
obviously differentiated in one instance from another, but it seems clear that we are
dealing with two different things: silence as an apophatic lack o f an adequate linguistic
resource, and silence as symbolic (rather than constitutive) of Gods superlinguistic way
o f communicating. While I agree that Ephrems . . . mind is [generally] clearly fixed on
what he is trying to say more than on how to say it beautifully. . . and that he has a
completely coherent theological understanding that rests on a foundation that has been
carefully considered and constructed,190 Ephrems intellectual rigor is not enough to
insure that every block he uses fits perfectly within its context.
187 On angelic communicative silence in Aquinas and Dante, see Gera, Ancient Greek
Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization, 50.
188 Russell writes, The speech o f animals and angels mentioned in the quotation from
Hymn 11 . . . should be thought o f as foreign languages we humans cannot understand
that have varied suitability for discussing elevated topics but are still inherently limited by
their nature as languages (Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility o f Language and the Place
o f Silence, 35). While animals and angels do speak in foreign languages, and Ephrem
may explain that fact through the topics they discuss, the point o f Hymn 11.8 is simply
that animals and angels do not speak the same language as God.
189 Russell, Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility o f Language and the Place o f Silence, 36.
190 Russell, Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility o f Language and the Place o f Silence, 23.
124
An Encomium falsely attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, and which served as the
source for Simeon Metaphrastess Life o f Ephrem, makes an apparent reference to his
communicating with the angels through silence as a desert hermit:
[Ephrem] despised all worldly things . . . fled the world and the things o f the
world, and, as Scripture says, he wandered far and dwelt I the desert, heedful of
only himself and God and there received a lavish increase in virtue for he knew
precisely that the eremitical life would free the one who desired it from the
turmoil o f the world and would provide silent converse with the angels.191
Gregory ofN yssa himself held to a notion o f angelic speech as silent communication, but
the translators o f the above passage insist that its attribution to Gregory is bogus, and
others have noted a lack o f any demonstrable influence of the Cappadocians on
Ephrem.192 More interesting, perhaps, is the fact that the above Encomium attributes to
Ephrems hermit life a mode of conversation belonging to the angels, suggesting that
Ephrem achieved the monastic ideal o f the vita angelica.
Ephrem Syrus is thus an important and independent witness to the idea that angels
speak nonhuman languages. While his intensely anti-Jewish theology may have
predisposed him against Hebrew-speaking angels, it is significant that he also does not
know of Aramaic-speaking angels. While the view he adumbrates could be dependent
191 (Pseudo-)Gregory ofNyssa, De Vita S. Patris Ephraem Syri, 832d (trans. Edward G.
Mathews, Jr. and Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, ed.
Kathleen McVey [The Fathers o f the Church; Washington, DC: Catholic University o f
America, 1994] 14).
192 See esp. Lucas Van Rompay, The Christian Syriac Tradition o f Interpretation, in
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History o f Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Saebo, vol. 1:
From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), part I: Antiquity (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996) 612-41, esp. 628.
125
solely upon 1 Cor 13:1, Ms use of Pauls concept of angelic languages is anything but
empty.
I.
T H E B O O K OF T H E R E S U R R E C T I O N
( A T T R I B U T E D TO B A R T H O L O M E W THE A P O S T L E )
According to Wilhelm Schneemelchers conjecture, the Book o f the Resurrection

o f Jesus Christ, narrated in the voice of the Apostle Bartholomew, goes back to a special
Bartholomew-tradition of the 3rd or 4th centuries.193 (The antiquity o f other
Bartholomew works can be established with relative certainty: the Decretum Gelasianum
[454 CE] lists the Gospel o f Bartholomew among the apocrypha, and Jerome had already
alluded to the same work.) Schneemelcher is properly cautious in how he says this: he
notes how much o f the extant Coptic work is likely to be a later development, and how
unsure we must be of its original shape.194 The original language o f this pseudepigraphon
is agreed, on all hands, to have been Greek. The Coptic version may have originated two
to four centuries later than the conjectured date for the Greek text. Although older works
often describe the Book o f the Resurrection as Gnostic, this judgment appears to have
been based on a few minor features (e.g., injunctions to secrecy, the use o f white
garments) that are more indicative o f the works general tenor than o f its relation to
193 Coptic Texts o f Bartholomew, in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed.
Wilhelm Schneemelcher, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (PMladelphia:
Westminster, 1963) 503-08, esp. 508.
194 See Felix Haases attempt to assemble the pieces o f the Bartholomaic-tradition puzzle
(Zur Rekonstruktion des Bartholomausevangeliums, ZNW 16 [1915] 93-112).
126
Gnosticism. The more intentional aspects of the works character are summarized well
by M. R. James: Th is writing may be better described as a rhapsody than a narrative.. . .
The interest o f the author is centred in the hymns, blessings, salutations, and prayers,. . .
which occupy a large part of the original text.195
The full Coptic text was first published, along with a translation, by E. A. Wallis
Budge, in 1913, although W. E. Crums translation (without the Coptic text) had been
made available earlier, as a part of Robert de Rustafjaells The Light o f Egyptfrom
Recently Discovered Predynastic and Early Christian Records (1909).196 Wallis Budges
text was taken from a manuscript in the British Museum (MS Oriental no. 6804), which
give a nearly complete copy o f the text (missing five leaves at the beginning). This
manuscript had been acquired by de Rustafjaell from an antiquities dealer in Egypt, and
the exact origin o f the writing cannot be determined, although it is purported to have been
held by the library o f the White Monastery near Achmim. In a letter from Crum to de
Rustafjaell (quoted by the latter), it is noted that the monastery would have acquired some
o f its holdings from other churches, making it even riskier to attribute the text to scribes
from that area. According to Wallis Budge, the manuscript dates probably^ from the
195 Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924)
181-86, esp. 186.
196 W. E. Crum, Translation (of Rustafjaells item no. 8), in Robert de Rustafjaell, The
Light ofEgyptfrom Recently Discovered Predynastic and Early Christian Records
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1909) 110-36; E. A. Wallis Budge, Coptic
Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt (Oxford: Horace Hart, 1913) 1-48 (Coptic text
o f MS 6804), 179-215 (translation of MS 6804 and other fragments). Wallis Budge
apparently had published a facsimile edition earlier, almost immediately on the British
Museums reception o f the manuscript (as mentioned by de Rustafjaell). James published
a translation o f select passages, which is not at all helpful for the discussion at band (The
Apocryphal New Testament, 181-86).
127
tenth or eleventh century, but James, following the verdict of Crum, states that it is
assigned to the twelfth century.197 The colophon pins it to the church in Illarte, but
that place name is a mystery. Portions o f the Book o f the Resurrection, extant in various
fragments (kept in Paris and Berlin), had been published earlier. The London, Paris, and
Berlin texts represent three separate recensions.
198
In the notes to his translation of the Testament o f Job, Spittler notes, more than
once, that there are similarities within certain isolated ingredients between the Testament
o f Job and the Book o f the Resurrection. Some of these similarities are particularly
interesting: Spittler has provided a series of shared ideas, all involving the same hymn
from Elihu in the Testament o f Job}99 He wisely avoids trying to account for these
similarities through direct literary dependence: both hymns must arise from the same
literary stock, the roots o f which reach through Job 18 LXX as far back as the mocking
197 Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, vi; James, The
Apocryphal New Testament, 186.
198 See the overviews in Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt,
xv-xvii; James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 181-82; Schneemelcher, Coptic Texts
o f Bartholomew, 503-08.
199 Spittlers list o f parallels (Testament of Job, 862 n. d) is as follows: Test. Job 43.5:
Elihu. . . will have no memorial among the living || Book o f the Resurrection: Judas
inheritance has been taken away from among the living; Test. Job 43.5: his quenched
lamp lost its luster || Book o f the Resurrection: the light departed and left him, and
darkness came upon him; Test. Job 43.7: His kingdom is gone, his throne is rotted, and
the honor ofhis tent lies in Hades || Book o f the Resurrection: his crown has been
snatched away. . . the worm has inherited his substance . . . his house hath been left a
desert; Test. Job 43.8: He loved the beauty of the snake and the scales o f the dragon.
Its venom and poison shall be his food || Book o f the Resurrection: His mouth was filled
with thirty snakes so that they might devour him. (For the Book o f the Resurrection,
Spittler uses Wallis Budges translation. The translation o f the Testament o f Job is
Spittlers own.)
128
dirges in Isa 14 and Ezek 28.200 For our purposes, another shared feature of these two
texts is more significant: that of virgins singing in the language of the cherubim. Even
in this, however, a comparison reveals a great difference: the virgins in the Book o f the
Resurrection are representative o f an angelic order. (See below.) Other surface
similarities can also be noted, but nothing strong enough to suggest direct literary
dependence. At most, there is a sharing of a general milieu.
At several places in the Book o f the Resurrection, we read o f the angels singing in
their own language. From the end o f the fifth folio, to the second half o f the sixth, we
read o f an exchange between Mary and Philogenes the gardener (Philoges in the Paris
fragments), concerning what transpired after Jesus body was placed in the tomb.
Philogenes is speaking:
Now in the middle o f the night I rose up, and I went to the door o f the tomb o f my
Lord, and I found all the armies o f the angelic host drawn up there.. . . And there
was a great chariot standing there, and it was formed o f fire [which sent forth
bright flames]. And there were also there twelve [Virgins, who stood upon the
fiery chariot], and they were singing hymns in the language of the Cherubim, who
all made answer unto them, Amen. Hallelujah!201
The purported reference to twelve virgins singing hymns in the language of the
Cherubim falls at the bottom o f fol. 6a and at the top of foL 6b, making reading the text
o f MS 6804 difficult. Crums translation therefore contains more dots at this point.
Wallis Budge, however, restores the text (as above) with help from fragments belonging
to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.202 The plausibility o f restoring the word Virgins
200 Spittler, Testament of Job, 862 n. d.

201 Trans. Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 188-89.
202 See Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 219-21.
129
is also supported by a later passage in MS 6804: fol. 1lb clearly refers to the Powers and
the Virgins singing to Eve in the celestial language (see below). There are also other
points o f difference between Crum and Wallis Budge: the former questioningly suggests
that the unidentified group sang in the language o f the Seraphim, rather than o f the
Cherubim, but the latter again has the benefit of the Paris fragments for his
restoration.203 Virgins apparently denotes an angelic order: the fourth rank o f heavenly
beings seen by Philogenes (in addition to cherubim, seraphim, and powers) consists of
30,000 Virgins (fol. 6a). This is an interesting variation on the creation o f angelic
orders in the image o f church offices, perhaps following upon the example o f the twentyfour elders in Revelation 5 (who may or may not be angelic).
When Philogenes finished relating his vision, Christ appeared in their midst, and
spoke to Mary in the heavenly language:
And the Saviour appeared in their presence mounted upon the chariot o f the
Father of the Universe, and He cried out in the language o f His Godhead, saying,
MARI KHAR MARIATH, whereof the interpretation is, Mary, the mother of
the Son o f God. Then Mary, who knew the interpretation o f the words, said,
HRAMBOUNE KATUIATHARIMIOTH, whereof the interpretation is, The
Son o f the Almighty, and the Master, and my Son.,204
We cannot know for sure whether the language o f the cherubim and the language o f
his Godhead are the same: in other texts, we have seen examples o f different angelic
orders apparently speaking different languages. The hints that the angelic language(s)
mentioned in this text may correspond to glossolalia appear to be stronger than in most
other texts (see below, in connection with Jesus ascension): it would be interesting, but
203 Translation (of Rustaâells item no. 8), 116.

204 Trans. Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 189.
130
difficult, to leam whether the belief in such a correspondence had the effect of
homogenizing the celestial languages, or whether the glossolalist was imagined to speak a
number of celestial languages.
On fol. 1lb (within the third hymn o f the angels), following a description o f
Adams glorious appearance, we read Eve herself was adorned with the adornments o f
the Holy Spirit, and the Powers and the Virgins sang hymns to her in the celestial
language, calling her Zoe, the mother o f all the living.205 Here the retention o f the
Greek word for life may simply be a matter of the Coptic translators understanding, so
that Zoe need not be taken as a pronouncement of angeloglossic speech (although it is
not impossible that Z6e had been part of a stream of nomina barbara). The reference
to adornments of the Holy Spirit is reminiscent of the Testament o f Job's reference to
the Spirit being inscribed on Hemeras garment (see above), but there is a crucial
difference: in the Testament o f Job, the one wearing a Spirit garment sings in a celestial
language, but, in the Book o f the Resurrection, the one wearing Holy Spirit adornments
has hymns sung to her in the celestial language.206
Cr, f" I 1>ih, we read of Jesus speaking in an unknown tongue immediately before
his ascension:
When the Saviour took us up on the Mount [of Olive], the Saviour spake unto us
[in a language] which we did not understand, but straightway He revealed it unto
us. [He said unto u s ...............] ATHARATH THAURATH. And [straightway]
the Seven Firmaments [were opened]. . . . . . . . . . our bodies
saw, and we
205 Trans. Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 197.
206 Immediately before Eve is introduced, we are told that the Name[s] o f the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit were written upon Adams body in seven [symbolic
signs?] (trans. Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 197).
131
looked and we saw our Saviour. His body was going up into the heavens, and His
feet were firmly fixed upon the mountain with us.207
The central significance of this passage perhaps lies in its connection with the power to
bestow the Holy Spirit: at the top of fol. 15a, after a break of five lines, we read,
[He who is ordained by any authority save] that of thy hand and thy throne [shall
be repulsed and shall not prosper]. Thy [breath shall be filled] with My breath,
and with the breath o f [My Son], and with the breath o f the Holy spirit, so that
every man whom thou shalt baptize................. shall receive a portion o f the Holy
Spirit, in [the Name of] the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then the
Cherubim, [and the Seraphim], and the Archangels, and [all] the angels answered
[and said, Amen. Hallelujah.]208
The giving of the Holy Spirit through breathing recalls the Johannine narrative, while the
delay in bestowing the Holy Spirit until after the ascension recalls the Lukan narrative.209
At any rate, Jesus last words are spoken in a strange language, which at once strikes a
common note from within the text (the theme of a celestial language), and a common note
from the ascension/Pentecost narrative in the New Testament (the disciples speaking in
other tongues). By incorporating the celestial language at this point in the narrative, the
author o f the Book o f the Resurrection hints very strongly that glossolalia is nothing other
than angeloglossy. The promise that every man whom thou shalt baptize. . . shall
207 Trans. Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 202. In the
Paris fragments, only one word in the heavenly language is written: Anetharath. See
ibid, 228.
208Trans. Wallis Budge, Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt, 202. I have
removed a single bracket from Wallis Budges translation, which was confused in its use
ofbrackets: Wallis Budge places a left bracket before Then the Cherubim (with no
corresponding right bracket anywhere). Cherubim is a certain reading in the Coptic.
(See ibid, 29.)
209 On the echoes of the canonical gospel tradition in the Book o f the Resurrection, see
Haase, Zur Rekonstruktion des Bartholomausevangeliums, 103.
132
receive a portion o f the Holy Spirit may suggest the continued existence o f glossolalia
within the circles that first used this text.
Even considering the earliest possible date for its composition, the Book o f the
Resurrection represents the latest classical Christian work whose reference to
angeloglossy can be considered certain or likely. (See the chart below.) It is
nevertheless an important witness, not least because it represents a monastic milieu more
clearly than the other works.
J. C O N C L U S I O N
The works discussed above all contain relatively certain references to the idea o f
an esoteric angelic language. The references in some o f the works are more sustained and
spectacular than in others. The following chart gives an overview o f the works, their
religious identity, the strength of their references to angeloglossy, whether they depict
humans participating in angeloglossy, and whether, from their authors standpoint, they
represent a fictionalized account.
Probably
Christian
Certainly Christian
Name of
work
1 Cor
13:1
2 Cor
Book of
Ephrem
12:1-7
Res.
Hymn 11
Strength of
reference
certain
likely
certain
certain
likely
Human
partici
pation?
yes
(hypo
thetical?)
no
unclear
no
Fictionalized
account?
no
no
yes
no
Probably Jewish
Apoc.
Abr.
Gen.
Zeph.
certain
certain
likely
likely
yes
yes
yes
unclear
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Asc. Isa. Test. Job
Apoc.
Certainly
Jewish
Rab.
133
In the next chapter, I discuss a number o f additional works that may refer to
angeloglossy, but whereas the chart for the works discussed above judges them to be
either certain or likely, the references discussed in the next chapter are all listed as
merely (but eminently) possible. Although we cannot speak about these works with as
much confidence as the works we have already discussed, we cannot leave them out
altogether.
Chapter Four:
The Esoteric Heavenly Language Continued:
Less Certain Cases
The cases that we examined in the preceding chapter represent fairly certain
references to the esoteric nature o f angelic languages. There remain a few less certain
references. These include the Qumran Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, R. Yochanan b.
Zakkais legendary mastery o f the conversation o f angels, demons, and palm trees {b.
B. Bat. 134a || b. Suk. 28a), the fourth-century Nanas inscription (from Kotiaeion, Asia
Minor), and the Christian liturgical Jubilatio. This chapter will examine these four cases.
A . TH E Q U M R A N S O N G S O F T HE S ABB A T H S A C R I F I C E
Before discussing possible references to an esoteric angelic language in the Songs

o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, we should devote a little space to the question o f whether the
Qumran community participated in glossolalic speech. The majority o f Qumran scholars
do not take such a suggestion seriously, but the fact that more than a handful o f scholars
have cautiously suggested such a scenario calls for a brief response. The main support for
a glossolalic Qumran community is found in the attention that the scrolls give to Isa
28:11-13, a text that the early church interpreted as a reference to glossolalia. This has
also been supported by reference to the intensity o f the Qumranic expressions o f piety, an
intensity that some believe suggests the type o f religious enthusiasm that often typifies
135
glossolalic communities.1 Roy Harrisville, attempting to reconstruct the readings of Isa
28:11-13 available to the Apostle Paul, writes of the sects preoccupation with that
passage.2 Although it is for him a side issue, Harrisville tentatively suggests that Qumran
might have furnished an atmosphere congenial to the emergence o f the technical terms
related to glossolalia.
1 The Qumran texts are filled with just the sort o f imminent angelology and towering
boundary markers that elsewhere typify glossolalic conventicles. Cf. Ita Sheres and Anne
Kohn Blau: But the angels speech [in the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice] is not
recorded. Why do we not hear what they are saying? One commentator has suggested
that the big difference between the tongues of men and of angels rendered their idiom
unintelligible. Perhaps also, at such auspicious moments the sectarians themselves spoke
in tongues (an ecstatic incomprehensible language), a chanting that would drown out
what was going on. The sectarians taste for the esoteric is evident elsewhere in their use
o f magical incantations written backwards and in circles {The Truth about the Virgin:
Sex and Ritual in the Dead Sea Scrolls [New York: Continuum, 1995] 84). Dale Allison
(see below) is the one commentator to whom Sheres and Kohn Blau refer.
2 Roy A. Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study, CBQ 38 (1976)
35-48, esp. 42. See Otto Betz, Zungenreden und suBer Wein: Zur eschatologischen
Exegese von Jesaja 28 in Qumran und im Neuen Testament, in Bibel und Qumran:
Beitrdge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft
(eds. Siegfried Wagner et al.\ Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968) 20-36.
For a review o f Isa 28:11 in Qumranic, Targumic, and New Testament texts, see Karl
Maly, Mundige Gemeinde: Untersuchungen zur pastoralen Fuhrung des Apostels Paulus
im 1. Korintherbriej (Smugarter Biblische Monographien 2; Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1967) 229-36. In connection with approaches that look for terminological
parity between Pauls discussion o f glossolalia and the discussion o f praise in the
Hodayot, mention should be made o f David Flussers comparison between Pauline prayer
with the spirit (1 Cor 14:14-15) and divine preordination o f the hymnists praise in
1QH 11.5-7 (The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity, in Scripta
Hierosolymitana, vol. 4: Aspects o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael
Yadin [2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965] 215-66, esp. 251). Flusser stops short of
suggesting that the Qumranites spoke glossolalically.
3 Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, 45. Sherman E. Johnson denies that there was
glossolalia at Qumran (The Dead Sea Manual o f Discipline and the Jerusalem Church o f
Acts, in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl [New York: Harper &
Bros., 1957] 129-42, esp. 131).
Harrisvilles suggestion that glossolalia stands behind the Qumranic use of Isa
28:11-13 has not been well received within scholarship, especially because the form of
this passage found in 1QH 2.18 and 4.16 is much closer to the septuagintal wording
(directed against false prophets) than it is to the proto-Aquilanic wording that provided
the prooftextual support for Pauls discussion.4 William Schniedewind has recently
suggested a more efficient interpretation of Isa 28:10-14 within Qumran ideology. He
writes that the term Ip (Isa 28:10) held a special significance for the Qumranites, as it
signified true revelation (cf. esp. Ps 19:2-5), in contradistinction to the teachings of
nonsectarians, within the Qumranic theology of the Word: Apparently, Qumranites
interpreted Isa 28:10 in two parts, with Qav being the divine word and Tzav, false
precepts. The use o f this particular code terminology. . . underscores the importance of
Isaiah 28 to the Qumran linguistic ideology.5 The scope o f Schniedewinds
reconstruction o f the Qumranic relexicalization of I p (esp. in 1QH) is impressive, and
his argument can perhaps be strengthened by noting extra-Qumranic evidence for a
(sometimes) nationalistic valuation of Hebrew, such as the prohibition o f gentile
languages in the eighteen items transmitted in a baraita attributed to R. Shimon b. Yohai."
4 See Gerd Theissen, Psychological Aspects o f Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1983) 290 n. 58.
5 William M. Schniedewind, Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, in Diggers at the
Well: Proceedings o f a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden:
Brill, 2000) 245-55, esp. 249-50.
6y. Shab. 1.3c. Peter J. Tomson writes, in connection with this baraita, that a
prohibition of non-Jewish languages is difficult to imagine in actual life (Aramaic, like
Greek, being spoken by many Jews including Sages) but reflects general resentment
(Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters o f the Apostle to the Gentiles [CRDSfT
137
Whether or not one accepts all of Schniedewinds reconstruction of the Qumranic

meaning o f Ip , or his anthropological interpretation of the Qumranites Hebrew ideology,
the most readily acceptable aspects of his discussion of Isa 28:10-14 appear to exhaust the
significance of that passage for Qumran. Despite the glossolalic associations that this
passage has for early Christianity, we will have to look elsewhere for evidence o f Qumran
angeloglossy/glossolalia.
Dale C. Allison, asking why the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice never discloses
the specific content o f the angels praise, lists the view that the angels spoke in esoteric
language as one possibility among several.7 According to Allison, certain features o f the
Qumran description o f the angelic realm may imply the existence o f an esoteric angelic
language:
Admittedly, 4QShirot (Olat Ha-Shabbat nowhere unambiguously or explicitly
states that the praise o f angels is made in an otherworldly tongue. Yet the several
references to wondrous words or songs might be so understood; and 4Q403,
frag. 1, col. i, 36 mentions the tongue o f all [godlike beings] who chant with
knowledge. These words could very well advert to the special language o f those
in heaven. For this reason one cannot exclude the possibility that the angelic
blessings and chants find no place in the Sabbath songs because their idiom would
be unintelligible.8
3/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990] 174 n. 134). Maybe so, but such a prohibition could
presumably have been actualized at a commune like Qumran.
7 Dale C. Allison, The Silence o f Angels: Reflections on the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice, RevQ 13 (1988) 189-97. See Anna Maria Schwemer, Gott als Konig und
seine Konigsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedem aus Qumran, in Konigsherrschaft Gottes
und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, eds.
Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer (WXJNT 55; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991)
45-118, esp. 97-99.
8 The Silence o f Angels, 190-91.
138
These words from Allison will concern us below, but I quote them here because he builds
on them in order to add another possible scenario, one a bit more speculative: the
Qumran sectarians may have spoken in tongues, that is, in inspired, incomprehensible
ecstatic utterance.9 Allison mentions this last scenario simply in order to have all the
options on the table. In the end, he argues that the common association of silence with
the most holy precincts explains the silence of the angels.10 It is worth noting that the
scenario that he counts as most likely is actually the least likely of those that he names, as
it is hard to imagine that the angels worshipped in silence if the text continually refers to
the psalm of praise in/by [?] the tongue of the nth chief prince, to the regular recitation
o f seven wonderful words, and to the fact that each chief angels praise is repeated
seven times louder by the succeeding angel. It is not surprising that others posing the
same question as Allison should think in terms o f an esoteric angelic language. Although
she does not mention angeloglossy in particular, Esther G. Chazon is not far off from this
interpretation when she writes that the qualitative distinction. . . drawn [in 4Q400 2.1-8]
9 The Silence o f Angels, 191-92.

10 On silence as worship, see Yehezkel Kaufinann, Generations o f Israelite Faith (Tel
Aviv: Dvir, 1927) 2.476-77 (Hebrew); Jean Potin, La fete juive de la Pentecote: Etude
des textes liturgiques (2 vols.; Lectio Divina 65a-b; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 1:187; Max
Wilcox, Silence in Heaven (Rev 8:1) and Early Jewish Thought, in Mogilany 1989:
Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory o f Jean Carmignac, vol. 2, ed.
Zdzislaw J. Kapera (Krakow: Enigma, 1991) 241-44; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary o f
Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 14852; idem, Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple
Cult, JBL 115 (1996) 17-30; Peter Wick, There was Silence in Heaven (Revelation
8:1): An Annotation to Israel Knohls Between Voice and Silence, JBL 117 (1998)
512-14. Silence was an aspect o f the highest order o f existence in Gnostic speculation.
E.g., cf. the Gnostic association o f silence with the three powers Father, Mother, and Son,
in the Gospel o f the Egyptians.
139
between angelic praise and human praise . . . may provide a clue to the Shirot s puzzling
omission o f the angels words in general, and o f the trishagion (Isa 6:3) and the blessing
o f Gods glory (Ezek 3:12) in particular.. . . Human inadequacy rather than angelic
silence appears to be the reason for the omission of the angels precise words.11 But
here we must beware o f asking a question ill-suited to the text, and we should first ask
whether the silence o f the angels is even hermeneutically significant. In this regard, Carol
Newsom plausibly suggests that the omission of the angels words results from the angels
themselves (rather than God) being the true focus of the text.12
11 Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran, in Sapiential, Liturgical and

Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings o f the Third Meeting o f the International
Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, eds. Daniel K. Falk, Florentino Garcia
Martinez, and Eileen M. Schuller (STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 95-105, esp. 99-101.
12 Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, 16. Rachel Elior refers to a similar shift from emphasis
upon God within Hekhalot literature: The Hekhalot traditions reflect a transition from a
religious conception focused on God to a worldview centered on the Merkabah
(Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literature,
JSQ 1 [1993] 3-53, esp. 27). It should be noted, however, that there is no paucity o f
angelic words in the Hekhalot texts. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis suggests, in support o f
his contention that the angels within the text are really the angelified Qumran
community, that the omission o f the angels words is readily explicable if those words
were well known to the Qumran sectarians. We know from a passage in Josephus {Ant.
20.216-18) that the temple singers could recite by heart the psalms for the daily liturgy...
. The Songs are a conductors or a lead choristers score. His call for angelic worship is
met by the response o f the community members themselves (Heavenly Ascent or
Incamational Presence?: A Revisionist Reading o f the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice,
SBLSP 37 [1998] 367-99, esp. 372). The most immediate problems with this
interpretation are found in carrying it to what is subsequently said about the chief princes
praise: this involves separating their seven wonderful words from the merkabahmystical tradition o f hearing heavenly voces mysticae that are illegal to repeat, and it is
difficult to imagine how the sevenfold volumizing o f each angels praise by a succeeding
angel is actually accomplished if the angels are really humans. There are also more
general problems with Fletcher-Louiss overall interpretation o f the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice: to note only one of the more strained claims, he writes that the notion o f angels
purifying themselves in 4Q400 1.1.15 could not possibly refer to suprahuman angels: I
do not know o f any instances of angels being sanctified, much less o f angels sanctifying
140
In addition to the occasional argument that the Qumranites themselves spoke in
tongues, one also encounters the argument that they made sport of other groups who
spoke in tongues. Thus Martin Hengel suggests that the Qumranites directed their
reference to Isa 28:10 against glossolalic activity among the Pharisees, and offers, as a
parallel to this, Hippolytus reference to the Naasenes use o f Isa 28:10.13 HengePs view
echoes that o f Isaiah Sonne, except that the latter thinks that the Gnostic sect mentioned
themselves (ibid, 377). Although the classic merkabah texts are centuries later than the
texts that Fletcher-Louis discusses, it should be pointed out that they prominently portray
the angels purifying themselves (e.g., Peter Schafer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur
[TSAJ 2; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981] pars. 54; 180-81; 196; Sefer haRazim, p. 108,
Vision o f Ezekiel, p. 126), which would seem to unsettle Fletcher-Louiss case to some
degree. See Elior, Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology, 47.
13 Hengel writes, [I]n CD 4.18ff. there is a sharp polemic against the builders o f the
wall who follow after a false prophet bearing the cover-name o f Zaw, taken from Is
2.10,13 (JiJ *nriK
"1E5K "pnn 'D'O) who falsifies the law as a deceiving
preacher
There are good reasons for the supposition of A. S. van der Woude and R.
Meyer that these opponents were the Pharisees
Might the designation Zaw as in is
28.10 refer to glossolalia among the builders o f the wall? Cf. perhaps also Hippolytus,
refut 8.4 GCS ed. Wendland 89.20ff (The Charismatic Leader and His Followers [rev.
ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996] 20). Hengel was preceded in this judgment by J. L.
Teicher, The Teaching o f the Pre-Pauline Church in the Dead Sea Scrolls, HI, JJS 4
(1953) 1-13, esp. 10-11. Teichers formulation of the matter is full o f uncontrolled
speculation and bizarre reasoning: he even
from the lack of any mention o f
glossolalia and prophecy in IQS that these two charismata were not pre-Pauline
phenomena within the church. (Two years earlier, Teicher had argued that the Qumran
scrolls represented the library ofEbionites, and had been placed in hiding seeking to foil
Diocletians book burning [The Dead Sea Scrolls-Documents o f the Jewish-Christian
Sect ofEbionites, JJS 2 (1951) 67-99, esp. 93-94].) On Hippolytus reference to the
Naasenes use o f Isa 28:10, cf. Bentley Layton: St. Hippolytus, writing in Rome A.D. ca.
222-35, reports in Against Heresies 5.8.4, that a gnostic-like sect named the Naasenes
spoke o f Adamas, the prototypical human being (cf. BJn 8:28f), as Kaulakau; of earthly
Adam as Saulasau; and o f the river that flows from earth back to the spiritual realm as
Zeesar. These three esoteric names ultimately correspond to Hebrew phrases occurring
in Is 28:10: Therefore the word o f the Lord will be to them precept upon precept (tsau
la-tsau), precept upon precept, line upon line (Jcau la-lau) [s/c], line upon line, here a little
(zîrsam), there a little (The Gnostic Scriptures [Garden City: Doubleday, 1987] 424 n.
m).
141
by Hippolytus is itself the target of the Qumranic polemic.14 It is interesting to note that
this view turns on the same piece o f Qumranic biblical exegesis as that o f Harrisville and
company, but that the argument is different. Whereas Harrisville considers an implicit
continuity between the use o f Isaiah 28 at Qumran and in Pauls letters, Hengel and
Sonne refer to an element not found in Paul, viz. the apparently nonsensical phrases in Isa
28:10. This biblical passage apparently had a fascinating career, but I am unable to find
any continuity between its use at Qumran and in Paul, while the similarity between
Qumran and the Naasenes is likely to be coincidental, especially since the reinterpretation
in both cases amounts to a simple pesher-hkQ adjustment of the object o f critique.
In light o f the above, the notion that there was glossolalia at Qumran should
probably be dismissed. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Qumran scrolls
are not open to the idea that the angels spoke an esoteric language. This, in fact, is the
view o f a few scholars discussing the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice.
14 Sonne writes, A reference to the same passage from Isaiah with the same polemical
import is to be found, I surmise, in the Damascus Document, ed. Schechter, p. 4, line 19:
iH n iH '~ \m
itan - m poon mn. The editor in his translation (p. xxxvi:. . . who walked after
the commandng one. - The commanding one etc.) separating IK from 1HH missed the
allusion to Isa. 28.10,13: Ip*? Ip IK1? IK. These words, according to Jerome in his
commentary, were used by certain heretics as glossalalia [sic] to impress the populace.
Those heretics may be identified with the Gnostic sect worshipping Jesus under the name
caulacau which is but the Hebrew Ip*? Ip (see Philastrius, De Haeresibus, 33, and Alb.
Fabricius notes). The passage in the Damascus Document seems to be directed against
the caulacau sect. The correct translation should read:. . . who followed the prophet of
(IK*? IK) IK*? IK, i.e. caulacau (A Hymn Against Heretics in the Newly Discovered
Scrolls, HUCA 23 [1950-1951] 275-313, esp. 302-3). It is instructive to note that the
Isaiah Targum redirects Isa 28:1-13 (along with 5:1-7 and 22:20-25) against first-century
priests. See Bruce Chilton, Glory o f Israel: The Theology and Provenience o f the Isaiah
Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983) 20-23.
142
On the basis o f the breadth o f the Qumran library, we should perhaps not be
surprised that texts witnessing to the notion of human-angelic communion should be
found there. What we find in the way o f Qumranic witnesses to this idea, however, is
much more impressive than what we find in a representative cross section o f other
Second Temple Jewish writings. Communion with angels was evidently a very important
idea at Qumran.15 The Damascus Document (CD), Community Rule (IQS), the Hodayot
(1QH), the War Scroll (1QM) and the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-407;
11Q17; MasShirShabb) are all replete with the notion o f righteous humans communing
with the angels.16 As Jacob Licht notes, the motif is used to support the sectarianism of
15 Although I accept the dominant view that the Qumranites were Essenes, I refer to them
here only as Qumranites. The question of their Essene identity does not affect my
discussion.
16 Bilhah Nitzan offers a helpful division o f the basic schemes o f human-angelic
communion: a scheme typically corresponds to the (1) the cosmological approach:
human and angelic praise of God is included within the praises o f all creation, (2) the
celestial approach: the heavenly liturgy proceeds at a level totally off-limits to human
participation, or (3) the communionist approach: humans and angels praise God together
in liturgical communion (Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in P<v*ti> and liturgical
Writings from Qumran, JQR 85 [1994] 163-83, esp. 166-68; also in eadem, Qumran
Prayer and Religious Poetry [STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 273-76). After a careful
consideration o f the relevant texts, Nitzan concludes that the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice reflects a mystical understanding o f the communion o f humans and angels.
Nitzans threefold division is further developed by Esther G. Chazon (Human and
Angelic Prayer in Light o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and
Poetry in Light o f the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings o f the Fifth International
Symposium o f the Orion Centerfo r the Study o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated
Literature, 19-23 January, 2000, ed. Esther G. Chazon [STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003]
35-47), who gives examples of each from the Qumran scrolls. See also eadem,
Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran, 95-105. Andre Caquot writes on
the inherent gulf between humans and angels: Mais cette communion esperee ou
anticipee de faqon mystique nest pas une assimilation. II reste une distance entre les
etres celestes qui servent Dieu dans ses palais et les creatures de chair et de sang que Dieu
a elues pour le servir sur terre (Le Service des Anges, RevQ 13 [1988] 421-29, esp.
143
Qumran: The companionship of the angels is claimed through membership o f the

sect.17
The writing that concerns us most is a thirteen-week liturgy called the Songs o f
the Sabbath Sacrifice. It is extant in hands dating from the late-Hasmonean period (i.e.,
from 75 BCE) to the end o f the Qumran era (ca. 68 CE). Carol Newsom argues that it
was used only for the first quarter of the liturgical year, and her view has been accepted
by many scholars,18 but David K. Falk suggests that it was repeated throughout the year,
which could explain why no separate liturgy survives for the other thirty-nine weeks o f
424). See also Igor R. Tantlevskij, Elements of Mysticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Thanksgiving Hymns, War Scroll, Text o f Two Columns) and their Parallels and
Possible Sources, Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997) 193-213.
17 The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll, IE J6 (1956) 1-13, 89-101, esp. 101. See
Bonnie Pedrotti Kittel, The Hymns o f Qumran: Translation and Commentary (SBLDS
50; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 79-80; Peter Schafer, Rivalitdt zwischen Engeln
undMenschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (SJ 8; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1975) 36-40. Stefan C. Reif writes, the members of [the Qumran] sect looked
upon their liturgies as reflections o f the angelological variety {Judaism and Hebrew
Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993] 51).
18 Carol A. Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985) 5, 9. Against Newsom, see Johann Maier, Shire Olat hashShabbat. Some Observations on their Calendric Implications and on their Style, in The
Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, eds. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner
(2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 543-60, esp. 544; John J. Collins, Apocalypticism
in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997) 136-37. Newsoms study brought to
light a number of important manuscripts whose contents had been previously revealed to
the scholarly public only fragmentarily by John Strugnell (The Angelic Liturgy at
Qumran-4Q Serek Sirot Olat HaSsabat, in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 [VTSup 7;
Leiden: Brill, 1960] 318-45), and, much later, by A. S. van der Woude (Fragmente einer
Rolle der Lieder fur das Sabbatopfer aus H5hle XI von Qumran (1 IQSirSabb), in Von
Kanaan bis Kerala, eds. W. C. Delsman et al. [AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1982] 311-37).
144
the year.19 Angels are depicted throughout the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice offering
their sacrifices o f praise to God, and their activities are described in cultic terms.20 The
participation of angels in the Qumran cult perhaps suggests a heavenly imprimatur upon
the worship apparatus at Qumran, or upon the Qumran community itself.21
Who wrotes the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice! The Qumran find consists o f
texts composed both at Qumran and elsewhere, so one cannot simply assume that a given
19 Prayer in the Qumran Texts, in The Cambridge History o f Judaism, vol. 3: The Early
Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999) 852-76, esp. 859-60.
20 On spiritual offerings at Qumran, and the biblical roots of this idea, see Georg
Klinzing, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen Testament
(SUNT 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 93-106. See Stanislaw Cinals
comparison between Qumrans angelic priests and the Mandaean (Utria (Les AngesPretres dans les Sirot (Olat has-Sabbat de Qumran (4Q400-407) et les (Utria dans le Diw'a
n Nahrawcfa des Mandeens, in Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered
in Memory o f Aleksy Klawek, ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera [Krakow: Enigma, 1998] 123-36).
The identification o f angels as priestly also appears in Christian sources: see Jean Hering,
The First Epistle o f Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) 106.
21 Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, 71-72; Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at
Qumran: A Comparative Study o f 1 Enoch 1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from
Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 237. Beate Ego interprets y. Yom 7.2 (44b)
along the same lines: Dieses Korrespondenzverh&ltnis fimgiert einerseits im Hinblick
auf eine Legitimation des irdischen Gottesdienstes, und begriindet andererseits eine
Kultusgemeinschaft von Engeln und Priestem (Im Himmel wie aufErden: Studien zum
Verhdltnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum [WUNT 2/34;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989] 62). So also Schwemer: Die Grundanschauung, dafi
sich himmlischer und irdischer Kult entsprechen und der irdische Kult seine Legitimation
durch den himmlischen erhalt, gait auch in Jerusalem (Gott als Konig und seine
Kdnigsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedem aus Qumran, 92). This use o f the communionwith-angels doctrine as a legitimation o f Qumran practices and piety could function both
positively and negatively. Positively, it lends assurance that God approves of, and
therefore will vindicate the Qumranites on account of the worship that they offer.
Negatively, it insinuates that the worship at Jerusalem is a waste o f time and material.
145
text found there reflects the religious genius of the Qumran community.22 Unfortunately,
the provenance of the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice is currently a matter of intense
debate. Newsom, who once argued in favor of the Qumran authorship of this text, now
doubts that position, as do Esther G. Chazon and James Davila.23 The fact that a copy o f
this text was found at Masada suggests to some scholars that it may have circulated in
various Palestinian circles.24 Adam S. van der Woude thinks it is not unlikely, however,
that a Qumranite brought the scroll to Masada after Qumran had been destroyed, and
22 Criteria for determining Qumran authorship are discussed by Hermann Lichtenberger,

Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 13-19.
23 See Carol Newsom, Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran, in The Hebrew
Bible and Its Interpreters, eds. W. H. Propp et al (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990)
167-87; Esther G. Chazon, Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Dead
Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, eds. Peter W. Flint and
James C. Vanderkam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-99) 244-70, esp. 260; and James
Davila, Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty
Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (2
vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 461-85, esp. 479. Norman Golb counts the discovery o f the
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice at Masada as a support for his view that the Qumran caves
were the repository o f a Jerusalem library (Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search
fo r the Secret o f Qumran [New York: Scribner, 1995] 130-50). Newsom now writes that
the evidence for Qumran authorship is ambiguous, but that on balance a pre-Qumran
origin seems most likely, and that one should probably seek its origin in the priestly
scribal circles that produced works such as Jubilees or Aramaic Levi (Songs o f the
Sabbath Sacrifice, in Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffinan
and James C. VanderKam [2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000] 887-89).
24 Lawrence H. Schiffinan writes, We now believe that the reason these sites share
literary remains is simply because the texts were widespread in Judaea at the time.
Hence, it may be that this angelic liturgy and the mystical approach it follows were not
limited to the Qumran sectarians in the last years o f the Second Temple but had spread
much farther among the Jewish community o f Palestine. If so, we can now understand
why ideas such as those reflected in this text appeared in rabbinic literature and in the
Merkavah mysticism o f the third through eighth centuries C.E. (Reclaiming the Dead
Sea Scrolls [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994] 403; cf. ibid, 355-60).
146
Kocku von Stuckrad thinks that there are strong reasons for viewing the Songs o f the
Sabbath Sacrifice as part of a much older pre-Qumranic priestly liturgy.25 In judging
supposed differences between this text and others written at Qumran, however, it would
be wrong to expect the level of thoroughgoing consistency that is sometimes expected.
Thus, while the seven princes of the liturgies o f weeks six and eight are archangels, it
probably matters little that that view is at variance with the four-archangel scheme of
1QM 9.14-16.26 I am persuaded by Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louiss study o f the Urim and
Thummim in that particular text, and its similarity in that regard with texts o f undisputed
25 Adam S. van der Woude, Fifty Years of Qumran Research, in The Dead Sea Scrolls
After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, eds. Peter W. Flint and James C.
Vanderkam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-99) 1-45, esp. 5; Kocku von Stuckrad, Jewish
and Christian Astrology in Late Antiquity-A New Approach, Numen 47 (2000) 1-40,
esp. 12 n. 24. As Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook write, There is no
mention o f YahacF in the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice (The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation [San Francisco: Harper, 1996] 365). See also J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know
Greek?: How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (NovTSup
19; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 174-75; Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library o f Qumran (3rd
ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 50-51. On the relationship between Masada and the
Qumran writings, see Emanuel Tov, A Qumran Origin for the Masada Non-Biblical
Texts?, DSD 7 (2000) 57-73.
26 On the seven princes in the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, see Newsom, Songs o f the
Sabbath Sacrifice, 34. For other examples o f the seven-archangel scheme, see Ezekiel 9;
Tob 12:15; T. Levi 8.2; 1 Enoch 20, and cf. the four-archangel scheme o f 1 Enoch 9;
40.1-10. See A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Gloucester, MA:
Peter Smith, 1973) 329-33; Schafer, Rivalitdt zwischen Engeln und Menschen, 20-23;
Andor Szabo, Die Engelvorstellungen vom Alten Testament bis zur Gnosis, in Altes
Testament-Friihjudentum-Gnosis: Neue Studien zu Gnosis und Bibel, ed. KarlWolfgang Troger (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980) 143-52, esp. 145-47; Jan Willem van
Henten, Archangel, in Dictionary o f Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. Karel van
der Toom, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1995) cols. 150-53.
On the number of archangels in Christian texts, see Angelicus M. Kropp, Ausgewahlte
koptische Zaubertexte (3 vols.; Bruxelles: La Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth,
1930-31) 3.70-83; Robert M. Grant, Chains o f Being in Early Christianity, in Myths
and Symbols: Studies in Honor ofMircea Eliade, eds. J. M. Kitagawa and C. Long
(Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1969) 279-89, esp. 286-89.
147
Qumranic origin (e.g., the Hodayot), that the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice is either
narrowly Qumranic or, at most, broadly Essene.
27
The texts discussed in this chapter were selected because they all give at least
partial evidence of angels speaking in heavenly languages. The case for placing the
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice in this category is one that needs to be made, rather than
read off the page (of the scroll). There is an important question o f translation in the
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice that has strangely been ignored, even within word-byword commentaries on the text. A formulaic phrase recurs in one part o f the songs that
may refer to a differentiation in language among the seven angelic princes, although most
scholars have translated the phrase in a way that obscures this possibility. If the text
intends to say that each o f the seven angels speaks a different language, then presumably
the text does not envision Hebrew as the language of the angels (or, at most, that it is one
angelic language among several). This would comprise a point o f contrast between the
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice and the Hebrew-speaking heaven(s) that one normally
expects, given the exalted status o f Hebrew at Qumran.
The words in question appear in several places in the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice (4Q401 29.1; 4Q403 1.1.2; 1.1.3; 1.1.4-5; 1.1.6; 1.2.36; 4Q406 3.3;
27 All the Glory o f Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42;
Leiden: Brill, 2002) 222-51. John J. Collins argues that the whole atmosphere o f the
work. . . and especially its putative function fit better with Qumran than with any other
context (Towers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in
Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 9-28, esp. 13).
148
MasShirShabb 2.12; 2.14; 2.16) as prayer headingSr-4Q403 1.1.2 is typical:.. "THU1?
psrpmn ]wb2 rac? n?nn.

n iT O -l I?n2D [0 ,m ^ ] i21D bV. These words have been rendered variously
by different translators:
Psalm o f praise by the tongue o f the fou[rth] to the Warrior who is above all
[heavenly beings] with its seven wondrous powers . . . (Newsom)28
Psalm of exaltation by the tongue of the fourth to the Warrior who is above all
heavenly beings with its seven wondrous powers . . . (Elior)29
Psalm o f praise by the tongue o f the four[th] to the Mighty One over all
[divinities] with its seven wondrous mighty acts
(Davila)30
Psalm o f praise, on the tongue o f the fou[rth], to the Powerful One who is above
all [the gods] with its11seven wonderful powers.. . . (Garcia
Martinez/Tigchelaar)
Psalm of praise (uttered) by the tongue o f the four[th] to the Mighty One above all
the [gods], seven wonderful mighty deeds
(Vermes)
28 Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, 193.
29 Rachel Elior, The Merkavah Tradition and the Emergence o f Jewish Mysticism: From
Temple to Merkavah, from Hekhal to Hekhalot, from Priestly Opposition to Gazing upon
the Merkavah, in Sino-Judaica: Jews and Chinese in Historical Dialogue: An
International Colloquium, Nanjing, 11-19 October 1996, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer (Tel
Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1999) 101-58, esp. 140.
30 James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls
6; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 118.
31 Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-98) 815. The translation that Florentino Garcia
Martinez gives in The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English ([2nd
ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1996] 421) differs in two respects: it removes the brackets from
fou[rth], and writes his for its.
32 Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Allen Lane,
1997)323.
149
A psalm o f praise will be spoken in the language of the four[th] to the Warrior
who is over all the godlike beings, incorporating his languages seven
wondrous warrior utterances.. . . (Wise/Abegg/Cook)
Newsom, Elior, Davila, Garcia Martinez/Tigchelaar, and Vermes all understand 'ITTin
] 10*23 in a different way from Wise/Abegg/Cook. But Wise, Abegg, and Cook are not
alone: Christopher Rowland writes, The mention of the different heavenly languages
(4Q403 1 i 1-29) suggests a peculiar language for different parts o f heaven that maybe
akin to the glossolalia mentioned in the New Testament and alluded to in works like the
Testament of Job 48.34 The virtues of both translations must briefly be considered.
Unfortunately, none o f the translators gives an explanation for the choices
reflected above. Even the commentaries (Newsom [two], Davila) are silent about their
reasoning.35 The rendering that does not imply a diversity o f angelic languages is clearly
the more widely accepted. I do not intend to show that the other view is preferable: I only
mean to show that it is more probable than the opinio communis seems to allow.
33 Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 369. Cf. the introductory remarks in
ibid, 365: The apostle Paul wrote of the tongues of men and of angels (1 Cor. 13:1),
and, indeed, our author supplies the angels with different languages, each endowed with
its own particular character, each singularly specialized to praise God.
34 Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament, in Geschichte-TraditionReflexion: Festschriftfu r Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. Hubert Cancik,
Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schafer (3 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 40530, esp. 406.
35 Newsom, Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, passim', eadem, Shirot ^Jlat HaShabbat,
173-402; Davila, Liturgical Works, 83-167. (In her 1998 commentary, Newsom borrows
so extensively from her 1985 work that parts of it are only a revised edition.)
Commenting on the same phrase within the Masada copy o f the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice, Newsom writes ITH'TI
is elliptical for by the tongue of the fourth
chief prince (Shirot tolat HaShabbat, 251).
150
Although the notion of seven different angelic languages may conflict with the
presumably official status of the Jubilees scheme at Qumran (viz. that Hebrew is the
heavenly language), the appearance of this notion within the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice may have been a trifle in the eyes o f the Qumranites who appreciated the text
for its more obvious features. The fact that this reading conflicts with Qumran ideology,
therefore, should not be taken as contradictory evidence for this reading, although it may
perhaps be admitted as evidence against Qumran authorship. It would be very strange if
they did.
In support o f reading -2 (in pB?b3) as in (apud Wise/Abegg/Cook), mention
should be made o f Altmanns discussion of early merkabah mysticism, where he points
out that the ascending mystic often encounters different orders o f angels speaking
different languages.36 This reading invokes the patent merkabah associations o f the
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: just as the ascending mystic encounters different angelic
languages, we should not be surprised to find different languages spoken among the seven
angelic princes. However, the fit is not perfect: language differentiation usually signifies
a difference o f angelic order, and there is no indication in the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice that the seven angelic princes belong to different ranks or orders.
In support o f reading
-2as with (or by or on), one must consider the
formulaic references to each angels p2?b in the continuation o f a given weeks liturgy:
[m m v m
p e;b i ib m o o prabn n i n e m m p e r m
p io b i...]
ib CDia njxnc m:i[n êrjben ptebi i]b er m a me;

36 Alexander Altmann, The Singing o f the Qedushah in the Early Hekhalot Literature,
Melilah 2 (1946) 1-24 (Hebrew).
151
-nan
qieftn nra m m cran n ]iobi "eronn ptobn n r a o
ib irnizn ]i0 ]b p n w c m m t o ]]iobi ib
... -n an ^mnoi ]i0bm
[ . . . The tongue o f the first will be strengthened seven times with the tongue of
the second to him. The tongue o f the second to him will be strengthened] seven
times with (that) o f the third compared to [him. The tong]ue o f the thi[rd will] be
strengthened seve[n times with (that) o f the fourth compared to him. The tongue
o f the fourth will be strengthened seven times with the tongue o f the fifth
compared to him. The tongue o f the fifth will be strengthened seven times with
the tongue of] the sixth compared to him. The tongu[e o f the sixth will be
strengthened seven times with the] to[ngue o f the seventh compared to him. The
tongue of the seventh will be strengthened. . . (trans. Garcia Martinez/Tigchelaar)
James Davila explains: Although the grammar is somewhat obscure, this passage
appears to state that the praise of each successive secondary prince resounds seven times
louder than that of his predecessor.37 The idea o f strengthening also implies that the
praise o f these seven angelic princes is in unison. In connection with seven heavenly
beings praising in unison, the content o f which praise is too wonderful to report (seven
wonderful words), see 2 Enoch 19.6: And in the midst of them are 7 phoenixes and 7
cherubim and 7 six-winged beings, having but one voice and singing in unison. And their
song is not to be reported (trans. Andersen [OTP 1.134]).
37 Davila continues, The idea is similar to the description o f the praise offered by the
many myriad chariots in the seven heavenly palaces in Ma(aseh Merkavah 554-55
{Liturgical Works, 134). Although his rendering o f what this passage appears to state is
probably correct, the example that Davila gives from Ma(aseh Merkabah is not very
instructive: Ma(aseh Merkabah 554 lists ascending figures for the angelic beings
inhabiting the successive heavens, while 555 lists what the beings in each heaven speak
in praise to God. By implication o f the fact that each successive heaven has more beings
offering praise, the sound o f praise presumably increases as one ascends. This
implication cannot be attached to our text from Qumran, however, in which there is no
account o f an increasing number o f angelic beings. The similarity between the two
passages, therefore, obtains only in the final effect. It is important to note that Ma(aseh
Merkabah 554-55 does not explicitly testify to the notion o f individual angels praising
louder than others.
152
B . THE R A B B I N I C
EVIDENCE
C O N T IN U E D
( B . B . B A T . 1 3 4 A 11 5 . S U K . 2 8 A )
Despite the rabbis clear preference for a hebraeophone angeloglossy, the concept
o f humans speaking in, or listening to, esoteric angelic languages can perhaps also be
found in rabbinic writings. Although an esoteric-language angeloglossy is scarce in the
Babylonian Talmud, two parallel references to the conversation of angels
n iT 0 ) are fairly well known.38 The tradition preserved in these passages gives a
spectacular list o f R. Yochanan b. Zakkais accomplishments:
b. B. Batra 134a (cf. b. Suk. 28a)
m n 'n m ra i snpa n u n ^ 0 'vat p p n v p~i bs vbv i - m

mum p io m ybpi n n aio p iip m rrnn p n p -r n M m rro^n
n i t o i o a i i a m 'r a i ra n o D n msipm n m
-am m m a u t o nrrisi c P p i nrr0i am nrr
38 An almost exact parallel to these references appears in the post-talmudic Otzar haMidv'"'Uiinn (Alpha Beta deBen Sira, keta 76). My information is based upon a search for
the phrases
a s te
0 1 2 0 ,0 ^ 0 p b ,
a 0 nui 0 *7, DnQ0 ns0, o b 0 ms, m on at* to nrrtB, rmw nrr0,
men a a to ]i0*?, men a a to rrm o^m en at* to ns0,m0n at*to

ms0, and
n*i0n o n t o n a n within the Davka textual database. (I wish to thank Mr. David
Bivin, who conducted the search on my behalf.) Christopher Rowland claims that there
is a clear reference to charismatic or ecstatic speech in m. Abot 2.8 (The Parting o f the
Ways: The Evidence of Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic and Mystical Material, in
Jews and Christians: The Parting o f the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, ed. James D. G. Dunn [rev.
ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999] 213-37, esp. 224), but the reference, if real, is
anything but clear. He is presumably referring to the phrase Eleazar b. Arak is an
ever-flowing spring (Danby).
153
tern " n tn n rin
im rm io m m
i m p p im i
They said of R. Yochanan b. Zakkai that he did not neglect Scripture and
mishnah, gemara, halakhot, aggadot, the minutiae of Torah and the minutiae of
the scribes, the arguments a minore ad maius, the arguments by catchword
association, astronomy and mathematics, fullers parables and fox parables, the
discourse of demons and the discourse o f palm trees and the discourse o f the
ministering angels, and the great matter and the small matter. Great matter
refers to ma aseh merkabah- small matter refers to the arguments o f Abaye and
Rava.
A number o f scholars have already discussed this tradition block. No one, however, has
satisfactorily explained its meaning or origin. The date of this tradition is difficult to
determine. Most of the abilities listed in this aretalogy certainly cannot be attributed to
the historical Yochanan b. Zakkai, and Christopher Rowland recently put forth a strong
argument against the founding rabbis involvement in the mystical tradition altogether.
^Q
We are not concerned here with the historical Yochanan b. Zakkai, however, but with the
tradition told about him. Our task is to determine what religious-historical developments
39 The Parting of the Ways, 222-26. According to Rowland, it was Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus and Eleazar ben Arak who represented the mystical-ascent trajectory within
early rabbinism. For the contrary view, see Jacob Neusner, A Life o/Yohanan ben
Zakkai: Ca. 1-80 C.E. (SPB 6; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 134-41; Nicolas Sed, Les traditions
secretes et les disciples de Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, RHR 184 (1973) 49-66;
Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGAJU 14; Leiden: Brill,
1980) 83-85; idem, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism: Studies in Apocalypticism,
Merkavah Mysticism and Gnosticism (BEATAJ 14; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1988) 141-42. Gedaliah Alon seems to accept b. Suk. 28as account o f Yochanan b.
Zakkais abilities as historical, although he fails to make specific mention o f the alleged
linguistic abilities (The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.), vol. 1
[Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980] 89-90). David J. Halperin has argued against any o f the
tannaim being involved in ecstatic mysticism (The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature
[New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1983]). Halperins view is argued further by
Michael D. Swartz (Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism
[Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996] 9-13). See Lawrence A. Hoffinan,
Censoring In and Censoring Out: A Function o f Liturgical Language, in Ancient
Synagogues: The State o f Research, ed. Joseph Gutmann (BJS 22; Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981) 19-37.
154
lay behind Yochanan b. Zakkais supposed mastery of the discourse of demons and the
discourse o f palm trees and the discourse of the ministering angels.40
It should be noted that the most peculiar item within Yochanan b. Zakkais
linguistic abilities, viz. the discourse o f palm trees, may provide us with a handle by
which we can determine the signifying context for the the discourse o f demons . . . and
the discourse o f the ministering angels. If we can discover a probable context for
understanding the reference to palm trees, then that same context may provide the correct
understanding for the references to angels and demons. This presumption depends upon
our viewing these three groups as related, and our solution will accordingly have to be
graded on the basis o f this presumption.
Ithamar Gruenwald and Burton Visotzky both think that the talmudic references to
the discourse o f palm trees can be clarified by accounts in the Cologne Mani Codex,
40 It should be noted that, in addition to containing a version o f the above tradition, the
Otsar haMidrashim also contains the only other rabbinic reference to angelic languages.
The passage in question has a kabbalistic tinge, and refers to two o f the above-mentioned
discourse circles: Become wise in the ascent, and in the uppermost step, to understand
the discourse o f demons [HE? nrT0] and the discourse o f angels who minister
pTTItDDn ftbD nrrttf] before the dignitaries (Otzer ha-Midrashim Maayan
Hahochmah, keta 6). The discourse o f demons also appears in Massekhet Soferim 16.7.
Since the Bavli comprises the late limit for classical Judaism, our investigation will not
consider the presence o f similar traditions in the Zohar, or in other later compilations.
Certain later Jewish legends appear to be patterned after Yochanan b. Zakkais abilities:
R. Chaim Vital (16th- 17th c.) writes that his master, R. Isaac Luria, was expert in the
language of trees, the language o f birds and the speech o f angels (Introduction to Etz
Chaim), and the Baal Shem Tov (18th c.) purportedly knew the language o f animals,
birds, and trees (in Sipurei Baal Shem Tov).
155
which depicts a palm tree vocally objecting to the harvesting of its dates.41 Two passages
in the codex employ this motif:
CMC 6.12-8.7
We went away to a certain [date-palm tree], and he climbed up . . .
. . . [The palm tree spoke:] If you keep the [pain] away from us (trees), you w ill
[not perish] with the murderer.
Then that Baptist, gripped by fear o f me [Mani], came down from it in confusion,
and fell at my feet and said: I did not know that this secret mystery is with you.
Whence was the [agony o f the date-palm tree] revealed to you?
(Mani is now speaking) . . [When the date-palm tree said] this to you, why did
you become [greatly] frightened and change your complexion? How much more
will [that one], with whom all the [plants] speak, be disturbed?
CMC 98.8-99.9
Again he (Mani) points out that a date-palm tree spoke with Aianos, the Baptist
from Koche, and commanded him to say to <its> lord: Dont cut (me) down
because my fruit is stolen, but grant me this [year]. And in [the] course o f this
year I shall give you [fruit] proportionate to [what] has been stolen, [and in all] the
[other years hereafter]. But [it] also commanded (him) to say to that man who
was stealing its fruit: Do not come at this season to steal my fruit away. If you
come, I shall hurl you down from my height and you will die.42
One obvious advantage o f this comparison is that both the Talmud and the Cologne Mani
Codex refer to palm trees, rather than generic trees. Although there are other speaking
trees in rabbinic and pseudepigraphic writings, there are no other references to speaking
palm trees. Another advantage, as Visotzky points out, is that the Cologne Mani Codex is
41 Gruenwald, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism, 253-77, esp. 275-77 (originally

published as Manichaeism and Judaism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex, ZPE 50
[1983] 29-45); Burton L. Vistozky, The Conversation of Palm Trees, in Tracing the
Threads: Studies in the Vitality o f Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves (SBLEJL
6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 205-14. On speaking trees in rabbinic literature, see A.
Marmorstein, Legendmotive in der rabbinischen Literatur, ARW 17 (1914) 132-38, esp.
132-33.
42 Trans. Ron Cameron and Arthur J. Dewey, The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon, inv.
nr. 4780): Concerning the Origin o f his Body" (SBLTT 15; Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1979) 98 1. 8 to 991. 9 (quoted in Visotzky, The Conversation o f Palm Trees,
208).
156
a product o f the same geographical area as the Babylonian Talmud.43 Although the
Cologne Mani Codex is extant only in Greek, most scholars agree that its original
language was Syriac. This means that both the Talmud and the Mani tradition relate
Semitic accounts o f speaking palm trees. There are, however, two disadvantages to
Gruenwalds and Visotzkys interpetation, and they seem to outweigh the advantages: (1)
as Albert Henrichss seminal article makes clear, Manis talking palm tree belongs to a
wider mythical motif o f trees that spoke when threatened, and not to the idea that trees
carried on conversations with each other,44 and (2) this interpretation seeks to interpet the
conversation of palm trees in isolation from the other two discourse circles that the
Talmud attributes to Yochanan b. Zakkai (viz. angels and demons). An interpretation o f
the discourse o f palm trees that can simultaneously account for the discourse o f
angels and the discourse of demons has the benefit of parsimony on its side. We
should also question the relevance o f Visotzkys claim that the Talmud, the Cologne
43 On this, see also Gruenwald, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism, 253-77; Burton

Visotzky, Rabbinic Randglossen to the Cologne Mani Codex, ZPE 52 (1983) 295-300.
Visotzky dates the redaction of the Tahnudic passage to the late fifth century, but it
could be either earlier or later. Gabrielle OberMnsli-Widmer thinks that most o f the
items in this Bildungskatalog come from the tannaitic period, and that only the
references to the 4th-century figures Abaye and Raba are later: the references to Abaye
and Raba belong to an attempt to explain the great and small matters (Biblische
Figuren in der rabbinischen Literatur: Gleichnisse und Bilder zu Adam, Noah und
Abraham im Midrasch Bereschit Rabba [Judaica et Christiana 17; Bern: Peter Lang,
1998] 53). Oberhansli-Widmer bases this judgment on the references to types o f
parables, and the assumption that these come from the tannaitic period.
44 Albert Henrichs, Thou Shalt not Kill a Tree: Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales,
BASP 16 (1979) 85-108. Cf. Carlo Severis discussion o f the Cuna belief in tree
languages, in Marcel Detienne and Gilbert Hamonic, La Deesse Parole: Quatre Figures
de la Langue des Dieux (Paris: Flammarion, 1995).
157
Mani Codex, and the Qumranic Genesis Apocryphon all connect the speech of palm trees
with the careers of towering religious figures: although this connection does exist in
every case, it is probably more the result o f pseudepigraphys attraction to figures of
exalted spiritual stature than o f any necessary connection between talking trees and
founders o f new religions.45
Gruenwald and Visotzky both give such a limited range of solutions for W1b p m1
rifTD, which may be due to the fact that HiTO primarily means conversation rather
than language. As such, they may not have searched for parallels involving esoteric
tree languages. But HIT can also refer to a particular groups distinctive language: e.g.,
according to Marcus Jastrows Dictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 3U3D n !T 0 means the language o f the
Canaanites.46 Accordingly, one cannot dismiss the possibility that O'* b p l HIT means
language o f palm trees-a possibility that admits solutions other than those explored by
Gruenwald and Visotzky.
The Talmud records that Yochanan b. Zakkai mastered the great matter and the
small matter. The great matter, we are told, is merkabah speculation. Although this
explanation has the appearance of a secondary accretion, the mystical tinge of the abilities
listed suggests that the interpretation fits. One obvious way in which the merkabah
tradition can illuminate the image o f a speaking palm tree lies in the frequent mention
45 Dale C. Allison, however, appreciates Visotzkys observation (Abrahams Oracular

Tree (T. Abr. 3:1-4), JJS 54 [2003] 51-61).
46 Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and
the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica, 1989 [reprint]) 977.
158
that merkabah texts make of trees praising God, a detail derived from the Bible. In
typical fashion, the merkabah texts narrativize the biblical description o f these trees into a
sampling o f the things one might encounter during the ascent to the highest heaven: some
o f the texts mention trees that break forth into songs o f praise for their creator, recalling
Ps 96:12,148:14, Isa 5:12,44:23.47 In both the Bible and the cultural and intellectual
47 E.g., y. Hag. 2.1 reads, And a fire descended from heaven and surrounded them. And
the Ministering Angels were leaping about them like guests at a wedding rejoicing before
the bridegroom. One angel spoke from out o f the fire and said: The Account o f the
Chariot is precisely as you described it, Eleazar ben (Arakh! Immediately all the trees
opened their mouths and began to sing Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy!
[Ps 96:12]. The account in b. Hag. 14b differs somewhat: Immediately, Rabbi Eleazar
ben (Arakh began the Account o f the Chariot and he expounded, and a flame descended
from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field. All broke out in song. Which
song did they utter? Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all
deeps...fruitful trees and all cedars Hallelujah. (Ps 148:7,9,14). An angel answered
from the flame and said: This indeed is the Account o f the Chariot!. This paragraph
(in either form) is not in the earlier t. Hag. 2.2 or Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon b. Yohai (p.
158; to Exod 21:1) which parallel this teaching (R. Yochanan b. Zakkai and R. Eleazar b.
(Arakh). Cf. Hekhalot Rabbati 25.1. On the singing o f trees in merkabah texts, see
Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 83-85. The Testament o f Abraham
also records that Abraham heard a cypress tree recite the thrice-holy in human voice
(3.1-3; see Allison, Abrahams Oracular Tree (71 Abr. 3:1-4), 51-61). J. Armitage
Robinson has suggested that a similar scene obtains in the Martyrdom ofPerpetua and
Felicitas: reading canebant (singing) for cadebant (falling) in 11.6, Robinson posits
that thefolia is described as canebant sine cessatione, and that this belongs together with
the subsequent detail that Saturus and his friends heard the sound o f voices in unison
chanting Holy, holy, holy! sine cessatione (The Passion o f S. Perpetua, in Texts and
Studies 1[2] [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891] 38). Robinsons
reconstruction is accepted by Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua,
Tertullian, and Cyprian (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1992) 76-77; and by the scholars listed in
ibid, 255 n. 27. G. W. Bowersock writes that Saturus vision is likely. . . to be an
authentic document both from the simplicity o f its narration and the social context within
which the action o f the dream takes place {Martyrdom and Rome [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995] 34). See also Timothy David Barnes, Tertullian: A
Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 263. On the liturgical context
o f this scene, see Bryan D. Spinks, The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991) 51.
159
milieu o f merkabah mysticism, this image would have found support in a general belief
that all creation worships its creator.48 Merely citing the theme of trees praising God,
however, still leaves too much in the dark, because it does not explain why palm trees are
specified (CT b p l niTtD) when relating Yochanan b. Zakkais abilities.
A better context for understanding the conversation o f palm trees is found in a
different component o f the merkabah tradition, the well known narrative conceit of
animating the heavenly Temples ornaments and accouterments. Just as merkabah texts
envision the four creatures of Ezekiel 1 and 10 comprising the very throne of God (as
opposed to merely carrying it), so also they imagine other elements o f the Temple
architecture and furnishings to be alive.49 The notion of the heavenly Temple itself
praising God is found throughout merkabah literature. The idea is prominent within the
Qumran Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice:
48 See the passages collected in F. Gerald Downing, Has Christianity a Revelation?

(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 24, and the discussion there (Ps 19:1-4; 30:9b; 50:6;
89:5; 97:6-7). The studies on Psalm 19 are numerous-see esp. James Barr, Biblical Faith
and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures for 1991 Delivered in the University o f
Edinburgh (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 85-89. On Psalms 19 and 104, see Johann Maier,
Die Sonne in religi6sen Denken des antiken Judentums, in ANR W 2.19.1 (1979) 346412, esp. 348-52. On Psalm 148, see Terence E. Fretheim, Natures Praise o f God in the
Psalms, ExAud 3 (1987) 16-30. Claus Westermanns description o f creations praise in
the Psalms is remarkably reminiscent o f the theurgical theory that we examined above:
All creatures can be called to praise because it is a much wider concept. It brings to
expression that joy o f existence which can be attributed to all creatures-one does not need
human language for it (Ps. 19:3: There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is
not heard). This joy o f existence alludes to their meaning for existence: turned towards
the creator (Elements o f Old Testament Theology [Atlanta: John Knox, 1982] 165). For
the praise of creation in rabbinic texts, see Karl Erich Grozinger, Musik und Gesang in
der Theologie derfrtthen judischen Literatur: TalmudMidrasch Mystik (TSAJ 3;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1982) 292-301.
49 See Grozinger, Musik und Gesang in der Theologie derfruhen judischen Literatur,
286-89.
160
4Q403 1.1.39b-41a
m m *7 n -E n ip
W m i *7^1*7 *HDT . . . 39
*7*D2 *7^1 Erm*7K mom npa?Qj*7 mi m i
moo 40
lp nD ]bii: n n o c n
o n m i *7 -0 1 * 7
mov m e m p
e m p o i c r *70 -i*7*7m n *7io 4 1

. . . im n a m o *701
39 . . . Chant to the powerful God

40 with the chosen spiritual portion, so that it is [a melo]dy with the joy o f the
gods, and celebration with all the holy ones, for a wonderful song in eter[nal]
happiness.
41 With them praise all the foundations o f the hol]y of holies, the supporting
columns of the most exalted dwelling, and all the comers of his building.. . .
(trans. Garcia Martinez/Tigchelaar)
4Q403 1.2.13b-16
[ . . . i r m k * 7 2 ^ n r a l e n m o i n o o o *7 0 1 . . . 13
[ .. .] 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 *71D1 ETTlp ' m i *71pH 1 1 1 ^ TO"! K*72 14
[ . . . o p r o if c i o n o n o k*72 o * o i im m n o m o in ' 1 *7 * 7 1 1 1 5
[.. .] vacat *10112 T X D 111*7*711 001*78 HD H
16
'm i
13 . . . And all the decorations o f the inner shrine hurry with wonderful psalms in
the inner sh[rine . . . ]
14 wonder, inner shrine to inner shrine, with the sound of holy multitudes. And
all their decorations [...]
15 And the chariots of his inner shrine praise together, and his cherubim and
the[ir] ofanim bless wonderfully [...]
16 the chiefs o f the construction of the gods. And they praise him in his holy
inner shrine. Blank [...]. (trans. Garcia Martinez/Tigchelaar)
Dale C. Allison notes a similarity between the Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice's depiction
o f parts o f a building as offering praise to God and certain passages in the book of
Revelation.50 Joseph Baumgarten mentions this use o f the Temples trappings for
constructing a list o f the heavenly choirs different sections: in 4Q405,
50 4Q403 Fragm. 1, Col. i, 38-46 and the Revelation to John, RevQ 12 (1985-87) 40914. Note that the Vulgate removes the scandal o f a speaking altar in Rev 16:7, by
substituting for it a speaking angel. Richard J. Clifford posits a similar understanding o f
161
[t]he figures embroidered in the vestibules of the royal chambers were capable o f
joining in hymns of praise: RWQMWTM YRNNW. Newsom has identified 1
Kings 6,29 m d Ezekiel 41,15-26 as the biblical sources for the image of angelic
figures carved on the walls and doors o f the Temple. However, in biblical
Hebrew the verb RQM is used for embroidering cloth and garments. In 1QM the
word RWQMH is extended to ornamental designs carved on shields or spears.
Yet the idea that such designs were capable of singing hymns seems quite strange.
In his study o f Merkabah mysticism Scholem referred to the song of the
kine who drew the ark of the covenant. According to the Talmud the song
depicted the ark as girdled in golden embroidery HMHWSQT BRQMY ZHB.
Scholem compared this with the hymn in Hekhalot Rabbati where God is
described as HMHWDR BRQMY SYR, he who is glorified with embroideries o f
song. He also speculated on a possible Greek source, hymnos as woven speech,
for this unusual phrase. We now recognise that the root RQM was already used at
an ancient Near Eastern text, which reads The speech o f wood and the whisper (?) of
stone, the converse (?) o f heaven with the earth, the deeps with the stars, speech which
men do not know, and the multitude o f the earth do not understand. Come and I will, seek
it. Clifford posits that the speech of wood and the whisper of stone may be related to
the cedar and precious stone that went into Baals temple {The Cosmic Mountain in
Canaan and the Old Testament [HSM 4; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972] 7374). Some scholars, taking their cue from 4Q405 and later merkabah texts, identify the
throne in Revelation 4-5 as comprised o/the four living creatures (e.g., Robert G. Hall,
Living Creatures in the Midst of the Throne: Another Look at Revelation 4.6, NTS 36
[1990] 609-13), but Robert A. Briggs correctly counters this view, noting that the throne
and the living creatures are differentiated in Rev 5:11, and that the living creatures are
described as falling down to worship the Lamb in Rev 5:8, making it difficult to imagine
them as comprising the throne {Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book o f Revelation
[Studies in Biblical Literature 10; New York: Peter Lang, 1999] 47 n. 5, 174-75 n. 113).
On the hymning altar in 4Q405, see Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book o f
Revelation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 89-91. Stanislav
Segert sees similarities between the poetic structures o f the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice and certain passages in Revelation (Observations on Poetic Structures in the
Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, RevQ 13 [1988] 215-23, esp. 223). Neil S. Fujita writes,
The [Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice} text. . . is not intended to be a commentary on
Ezekiels chapters
The structural portions o f the temple were mentioned not for the
sake o f offering a detailed blueprint but in order to summon the architectural parts to join
the chorus in praise o f God! {A Crack in the Jar: What Ancient Jewish Documents Tell
Us About the New Testament [New York: Paulist, 1986] 163). On the general
comparison o f Revelation with Qumran, see David E. Aune, Qumran and the Book o f
Revelation, in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment,
eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 2.622-48.
162
Qumran for the embroideries of angelic figures which uttered songs of
adoration.51
Since carved palm trees have always been a part o f the Temple s decorations (see 1 Kgs
6:29, 32, 35; cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.77-78, 84-85), and are frequently and prominently
mentioned in Ezekiels account of the heavenly Temple (40:16,26,31,34,37; 41:16-20,
23-26), the idea o f animating the Temples furnishings and decorations would appear to
be pregnant with meaning for the image of the discourse of palm trees.52 Presumably, the
51 Joseph B. Baumgarten, The Qumran Sabbath Shirot and Rabbinic Merkabah

Traditions, RevQ 13 (1988) 199-213, esp. 202-3. See Newsom, Shirot (01at
HaShabbat, 359. For the motif o f the throne praising God, see also Hekhalot Rabbati
3.2; 24.1 ;M a(aseh Merkabah 6; Annelies Kuyt, The Descent o f the Chariot: Towards a
Description o f the Terminology, Place, Function and Nature o f the Yeridah in Hekhalot
Literature (TSAJ 45; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995) 148-49. See the discussion o f the
gradual transformation of the 'OSIN into animate beings in Elior, The Merkavah
Tradition and the Emergence o f Jewish Mysticism, 154-56. On the mystical song o f
the kine, see Gershom Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic
Tradition (2nd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1965) 24-27; J.
Yahalom, Piyyut as Poetry, in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1987) 111-26, esp. 113-14.
52 Martin Metzger has shown that palm trees have always been a part o f the Temples
iconography (Keruben und Palmetten als Dekoration im Jerusalemer Heiligtum und
Jahwe, der Nahrung gibt aPera Fleisch, in Zion: Ort der Begegnung: Festschrift fur
Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres, eds. Ferdinand Hahn, FrankLothar Hossfeld, Hans Jorissen, Angelika Neuwirth [BBB 90; Bodenheim: Athenaum
Hain Hanstein, 1993] 503-29). See Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the
Greco-Roman Period (Bollingen 37; 13 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953-68) 4.132,
7.125. On palm trees in the iconography ofEzekiels eschatological Temple (see Ezekiel
40-48), see Th. A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem-Von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine
archaologisch-historische Studie unter Berucksichtigung des westsemitischen
Tempelbaus, vol. 2: Von Ezechiel bis Middot (SFSMD 3; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 754,76566; Metzger, Keruben und Palmetten als Dekoration im Jerusalemer Heiligtum und
Jahwe, der Nahrung gibt allem Fleisch, 503-29; Thilo Alexander Rudnig, Heilig und
Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40-48 (BZAW 287; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000)
130-33,247-50. On the relation o f Ezekiel 40-48 to Ezekiels other three visions, see
ibid, 55-58. L. Y. Rahmani suggests that the predominance of palm trees over other trees
in ossuary iconography has to do with the relative ease of its depiction (A Catalogue o f
Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections o f the State o f Israel [Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities
163
notion o f animated palm trees offering praise to God would have followed upon any
effort to animate the Temple, all the more so for the prominence that the sources give to
the palm tree decorations. It would not be strange, therefore, for a merkabah mystic to
refer to speaking or singing palm trees in the course of a relating an ascent to the heavenly
Temple.
This study is interested in the idea o f singing palm trees, not for its own sake, but
rather for the light it sheds on Yochanan b. Zakkais involvement with the HITO o f the
m inistering angels. The foregoing scenario invokes an interpretive context explicitly
mentioned elsewhere within the Talmuds listing o f Yochanan b. Zakkais abilities:

merkabah mysticism. If we suppose that Yochanan b. Zakkais abilities in the
conversation or tongues o f angels, demons, and palm trees are all part of the same
Authority, 1994] 48-50). Such an explanation, if plausible, could help explain the use o f
the palm tree in Temple iconography. On palm tree iconography in the ruins o f the
Temple Mount and in the synagogues excavated at Capernaum, Chorazin, Delos,
Eshtemoa (?), and Gamla, see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period,
1.184-86,196,235,246. On palm tree iconography at Gamla, see Donald D. Binder, Into
the Temple Courts: The Place o f the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS
169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 168-69. On palm tree iconography at Delos, see ibid,
306. Palm trees even appear in the iconography o f the Islamic Dome o f the Rock (built
on the Temple Mount in the 7th century CE), although one cannot be confident o f a
conscious attempt to revisit Temple iconography. See Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, The Early
Islamic Monuments of Al-Haram Al-Sharif: An Iconographic Study (Qedem 28;
Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1989) 21-24,61. The original exterior mosaics o f the
Dome o f the Rock were covered with ceramic tiles during the restoration work o f
Suleiman the Magnificent, but a report o f the original iconography has been left by Felix
Fabri (a visitor to Jerusalem in 1483), who, viewing the Dome of the Rock from afar,
claims to have seen . . . trees, palm trees, olive trees and angels. Rosen-Ayalon
surmises that the angels that Fabri saw were really winged crowns, like those that can
still be seen on the interior mosaics (ibid, 21-22), but also that these crowns may be a
schematized interpretation o f an angelic figure proper (ibid, 54-55). Even on the Dome
o f the Rock, therefore, the palm tree motif may have been depicted in an angelological
context.
164
package (as the Talmud seems to present them), then a context that best renders the
designation o f these three discourse circles comprehensible should be regarded as a more
likely context for understanding the reference to the language of angels. The merkabah
tradition provides such a context. That flTT of angels plays a role in the merkabah
tradition goes without saying: angels figure everywhere in these texts, and they are
usually not silent. That the ITT o f demons also plays a role in this tradition is certainly
less obvious, yet it unmistakably does play a role within the wider set o f heavenly ascent
traditions.53 (It is also possible, given the Babylonian Talmuds bent toward referring to
demons as often as angels, that HIT o f demons is a late addition.)54 And, as we have
shown, the notion of the ITIT of palm trees also makes sense, as palm trees are a
constant feature o f the Jewish Temples iconography, and the merkabah tradition liked to
bring this iconography to life.
53 According to the opening line o f the Testament o f Adam (2nd-5th c. CE), The first
hour of the night is the praise of the demons; and at that hour they do not injure or harm
any human being (trans. S. E. Robinson, OTP 1.993). Despite the fact that the
Testament o f Adam invokes the dominant Jewish and Christian understanding of demons
as creatures bent on destruction and devilment-and this in fact is the understanding bound
up in the term CPTO-the image o f demons worshipping God recalls the morally neutral
daimons ofNeoplatonic speculation. The latter do little more than occupy one o f the
lesser stations in the celestial order, and are often described performing the same acts of
worship as the angels. See M. Detienne, La Notion de Dalmon dans le Pythagorisme
Ancien (Bibliotheque de la Faeulte de Philosophic et Lettres de lUniversite de Liege 165;
Paris: Societe dEdition Les Belles Lettres, 1963) 25-29,38-42; Alan Scott, Origen and
the Life o f the Stars: A History o f an Idea (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1991) 59-61. Philo equates angels and demons in Somn. 1.141, Gig. 6.16, and
Quaest. Gen. 4.188 (see ibid, 70-71). An invocation to Harpokrates describes him as
praised among all gods, angels and daimons (PGM 4.1000).
54 See Louis Ginzberg, On Jewish Law and Lore (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society o f America, 1955) 22.
165
The investigation thus far leads us to suspect a particular context for
understanding Yochanan b. Zakkais mastery of the HITE) of angels, that o f the mystical
ascent, but I have done little to negotiate the meaning of HfTO, other than to note that it
possesses a wider range o f meaning than Gruenwald and Visotzky admit. The meaning
o f nrrO is a matter o f crucial importance for our study. Are Gruenwald and Visotzky
correct in understanding HITE} as conversation, or does it rather mean language?55
Perhaps we can extrapolate from the general nature of R. Yochanan b. Zakkais
superhuman abilities: They said of R. Yochanan b. Zakkai that he did not neglect
Scripture and mishnah, gemara, halakhot, aggadot, the minutiae o f Torah and the
minutiae o f the scribes, the arguments a minore ad maius, the arguments by catchword
association, astronomy and mathematics, fullers parables and fox parables, the discourse
o f demons and the discourse of palm trees and the discourse o f the ministering angels,
and the great matter and the small matter. All o f the items in the list that can be clearly
identified appear to represent bodies o f knowledge rather than supernatural abilities.
Thus Yochanan b. Zakkais knowledge o f the discourse of demons and the discourse of
palm trees and the discourse of the ministering angels would appear to be knowledge o f
the content of these discourses, content which probably ineffable and which is almost
55 Gruenwald notes the possibility that merkabah mystics spoke glossolalically:

commenting on the phrase Do not investigate the words of your lips in Hekhalot Zutreti
(in all likelihood the oldest Hekhalot text proper that we possess), he writes, The
phrase . . . can be interpreted as meaning that one should not venture explaining words
uttered as glossolalia. However, the more simple meaning, namely, that there are matters
relating to the secret lore which should not be discussed in public, cannot be ruled out.
See further S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah to Hagigah, p. 1295 (Apocalyptic and
Merkavah Mysticism, 142 n. 3).
166
certainly mysterious. This makes it unlikely (yet still possible) that Yochanan b. Zakkais
mastery of the HIT of angels refers to some species of glossolalia.
The evidence for the continuation of angeloglossy among lews beyond the
classical age ofpseudepigrapha is scarce and ambiguous, although, as we saw in the
preceding chapter, it is not altogether lacking. Yochanan b. Zakkais mastery o f the
discourse o f angels is a possible reference to angeloglossy, but is not as clear as we would
like it to be, and the use of HITtD instead of
makes it unlikely. It probably refers to
the privilege of listening in on what the angels say.
C. THE N A N A S
INSCRIPTION
The Nanas inscription is a fourth-century Montanist56 epitaph found a few miles

southeast ofKotiaeion, in the Tembris valley (Asia Minor). The inscription remembers
56 William Tabbemee lists the inscription as definitely Montanist {Montanist

Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History ofMontanism
[NAPS Patristic Monograph Series 16; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997] 575), yet
registers room for doubt by heading his main discussion Nanas, a Montanist(?)
prophetess (ibid, 419). The Montanist identification has been challenged by Robin Lane
Fox {Pagans and Christians [New York: Albert A. Knopf, 1987] 747 n. 11) and Christine
Trevett (Angelic Visitations and Speech She Had: Nanas ofKotiaeion, in Prayer and
Spirituality in the Early Church, eds. Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer, and Lawrence Cross,
vol. 2 [Brisbane: Centre for Early Christian Studies, 1999] 259-77 [reversing an earlier
judgment: eadem, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996) 171]), but see John C. Poirier, The Montanist Nature
o f the Nanas Inscription, Epigraphica Anatolica (forthcoming).
167
the prophetess buried there for continual prayer and intercession (Euy% KOt'1
Aixavips)57 and hymns and adulation (upvots rat
10
koAcckitis).
It reads as follows:
TTPOOHTICA
NANACEPMOrENOY
EYXHCKAIAITANIHC[TON]
TTPOCEH'NHTONANAKTA
YMNOICKAIKOAAKIHC
TONA0ANATONEAYCflTTI
EYXOMENHTTANHMEPON
T7ANNYXION0EOYOOBON
EIXENATTAP XIC
ANrEAIKHNETTICKOTTHN
KAIOflNHNEIXEMEriCTON
15
20
NANACHYAAOrHMENH
HCKHMHTHP[ION ]
MAE1T0ATTH[ ]CY58
neynonttoaycdiatatonan
APANHA0EMETA[ ]
ETTIX0ONIT7OY[AYBOTEIPH]
NOYCEPrON[
]
ANTETTOIHCE[
]
TTO0EONTEC[ ETIM]HC
ANTOMEriCTON[ ]
EICYTTOMNHMA
Two o f the lines in this inscription touch upon the topic of this study: according to 11.1011, Nanas is credited either with angelic visitations and speech. . . in greatest measure
(as read by Tabbemee, Trevett) or, reading peyioTOV as the equivalent o f peyiOTcov,
visitations from angels and voices. . . from the exalted ones (as read by Merkelbach,
57 On the perception o f women as especially effective intercessors, see Karen Jo Torjeson,

The Early Christian Orans: An Artistic Representation of Womens Liturgical Prayer
and Prophecy, in Women Preachers and Prophets through Two Millennia o f
Christianity, eds. Beverly Mayne Kienzle and Pamela J. Walker (Berkeley: University o f
California Press, 1998)42-56.
58 The conjectural siglum below the H in line 14 follows Tabbemees drawing of the
inscription, but departs from his edition of the text.
168
Haspels).59 On the terms of the first reading, one can readily appreciate the possibility
that this inscription refers to angeloglossy. Taking avyeXnarjv to modify both ETnoKonfjv
and $covf|V, and translating (})covfjv as languages, one might infer that Nanas spoke in
angelic tongues in greatest measure (peyiaTov).60 This, however, is not the only way
to understand the Tabbemee/Trevett rendering of this inscription: the intent could be that
Nanas heard angelic speech, that is, that she was adept at delivering prophecies
mediated by angels.61 Alternatively, the reference could very well be to Nanas holding
open conversations with angels (a la the desert fathers, Symeon the Fool, etc.),
presumably when they visited her (cf. smoKOTrfiv).62 By itself, therefore, the term
avyeXtxfiv . . . <j)covr|V could refer to any o f a variety o f activities.
59 Text from Tabbemee, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, 420-21 (cf. his edited
text as well as his fig. 77, and see there for epigraphical details). See also Reinhold
Merkelbach and Josef Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Band 3: Der
Feme Osten und das Landesinnere bis zum Tauros (Munich/Leipzig: K. G. Saur,
2001) 349-50 (no. 16/41/15).
60 August Strobel, who follows Emilie Haspelss parsing of the text (see below),
understands <f>covfjv by itself as a reference to glossolalia ((die Gabe der) Zunge), with
no connection to the mention of angels (Das heilige Land der Montanisten: Eine
religionsgeographische Untersuchung [Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und
Vorarbeiten 37; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980] 99-100).
61 O covt] can signify angelic voices (e.g., London Ms. Or. 6794 [Kropp, Ausgewdhlte
koptische Zaubertexte, 1.29; 2.104], Rossi Gnostic Tractate [ibid, 1.73; 2.186], and the
' comments in ibid, 3.42-43; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period,
2.166), but it can also signify angelic languages (e.g., PGM 13.139-40-cf. the reading
<j>covfj tivi iSicc upvouowv t o v 0sdv for Corp. Herm. 1.26: it is difficult to judge
whether the reading i5ux is more original than the alternative reading pSsia, but the latter
looks like it has been influenced by the sweet singing of the muses at the beginning o f
Hesiods Theogony: see 11. 7-14, 39-43, 68-70).
62 Cf. Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. 3.14 (on Pachomius); Symeon the Holy Fool 154 (tram
Derek Krueger, Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontius Life and the Late Antique City
[Transformation o f the Classical Heritage 25; Berkeley: University o f California Press,
Merkelbach and Haspels parse 11. 10-11 differently. Merkelbach translates these
lines as Wartung durch die Engel hatte sie und Stimme der Hochsten and Haspels
attributes to Nanas the gift o f hearing voices.63 This rendering is superior to that of
Tabbemee and Trevett, given the fact that this pairing of angelic visitations with
voices o f exalted ones closely parallels an apparently formulaic expression by which
Origen refers to the primordial humanity: And the divine word according to Moses
introduces the first humans as hearing divine voices and oracles, and often beholding the
angels of God coming to visit them (Kcu o 6eios 6s kcctcc McoOoea Xoyos slcnqyays
TOUS T rp c b x o u s CXKOUOVTCCS 0S lO T S paS <j>COVT]S K ai XPfiOMCOV K at O pcO V Tas 60 0 OTS
ayyeXcov 0eoG emSrmicxs ysysvripsvas irpos auxous; Con. Cels. 4.80 [authors
translation]; cf. 8.34). Thus we see that the protological glory is represented in Origen by
the same experiences attributed to Nanas. There is reason to believe that Origen is calling
upon a stock image o f the protological glory, which suggests that the formula he employs
was more widespread than appears at first.
This could shed light on the Nanas
inscription: the avysXiicriv ETTiaKOTrf|v Kat <j)covriv . . . psytoxov ascribed to Nanas may
1996]). In the latter, an artisan witnesses Symeon at the baths conversing with two
angels. Cf. also the Acts o f Paul, in which Paul speaks glossolalically with an angel face
to face.
63 Merkelbach and Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Band 3: Der
Feme Osten und das Landesinnere bis zum Tauros, 349; Emilie Haspels, The
Highlands o f Phrygia: Sites and Monuments, vol. 1: The Text (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1971) 216.
64 Origen uses these divine privileges in an argument that they do not precisely serve: they
symbolize Gods assistance before progress had been made toward understanding. . .
and the discovery o f the arts, and as a means o f subduing threatening beasts. He shows
no real interest in these privileges per se.
170
have served to identify her with a bygone era. That is, Nanas prophetic experiences
appear to be described in terms of Edenic access to God and the angels.65
The idea o f conversing with angels is already known from a probably Montanist
context: Tertullians well known reference to a woman in his congregation who
converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears
mysterious communications (conversatur cum angelis, aliquando etiam cum domino, et
uidet et audit sacramenta [De anima 9]). Although it is abundantly clear that glossolalia
was widespread among the Montanists,66 Martin Parmentiers claim that Tertullians
account refers to glossolalia is dubiout at best: his judgment seems to draw from an a
priori identification of all references to angelic speech, even conversatur cum angelis,\
65 Conversation with angels was a universal emblem o f blessed estate. E.g., this privilege
is dealt to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobs in the respective Testaments ascribed to their
names-see John J. Gunther, St. Pauls Opponents and Their Background: A Study o f
Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup 35; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 195-96.
66 See Emile Lombard, Le montanisme et linspiration: A propos du livre de M. de
Labriolle, RTF 3 (1915) 278-322, esp. 299-300; Ronald A. N. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts
in the Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984) 34-36; Trevett, Montanism, 8991, Poirier, The Montanist Nature of the Nanas Inscription. Christopher Forbess
denial o f this view is based on a bizarre line o f argument: he writes, the evidence o f
Eusebius, who knows o f collections o f Montanist oracles, and actually cites the contents
o f some of them, makes it luminously clear that these oracles were delivered in plain
Greek {Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic
Environment [WUNT 75; Tttbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995] 160). The supposition that a
community was not glossolalic if it also exhibited the gift of vernacular prophecy is
curious, to say the least, especially in the light ofPauls discussion o f the spiritual gifts in
1 Corinthians 12-14, in which Paul both describes and prescribes this precise mixture of
charismatic workings. (Karlfried Froehlich commits himself to the same problematic
either/or: the very existence [of intelligible Montanist oracles] contradicts the repeated
charge that the Montanist prophets uttered inarticulate speech [Montanism and
Gnosis, in The Heritage o f the Early Church: Essays in Honor o f the Very Reverend
Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (OCA 195; Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum
Orientalium, 1973) 91-111, esp. 97].)
171
as glossolalic.67 It is more likely that the references to angels and the Lord simply
denote different sources o f prophetic inspiration.
To the degree that the Origenist parallel does not mislead us in understanding the
Nanas inscription, Merkelbachs rendering of avyeXiKqv emaKOTifjv Ken <f>covfiv . . .
(isyiaTOV as Wartung durch die Engel hatte sie und Stimme der Hdchsten is preferable.
Although it would not be impossible to combine this rendering with the notion o f an
esoteric angelic language, it is scarcely possible to find that notion within this rendering
itself. This understanding o f the wording finds further support in another passage from
Tertullian, in which he cites the Montanist leader Priscas (Priscillas) claims that
Montanists see visions; and, turning their face downward, they even hear manifest
voices, as salutary as they are withal secret (visiones vident, et ponentes faciem
deorsum etiam voces audiunt manifestas tarn salutares quam et occultas [De exhort,
castitatis 10]). The Nanas inscription, therefore, is a possible but perhaps not probable
support for the notion of angeloglossy.
D . THE L I T U R G I C A L J UB I L A TIO
67 Martin Parmentier supposes that this passage illustrates a connection zwischen den
Gaben der Prophetie und der Zungen (Das Zungenreden bei den Kirchenvatem,
Bijdragen 55 [1994] 276-98, esp. 289). His ability to read glossolalia into the text so
easily-a reading that is not impossible but which requires more of an explanation than he
offers-is probably owed to his consistent use of the term Engelsprache to denote the
simple alternative to a xenoglossic understanding o f glossolalia.
172
68
Christian liturgists have always associated the alleluia with angelic praise. By
the Middle Ages-scholars have not determined exactly how early the development took
place-the alleluia had been expanded by a sequence o f nonsensical syllables called the
jubilatio, which was often said to represent the sounds o f angelic praise. In assessing the
existence o f angeloglossy in the early church, we must deal with the possibility that an
early form o f thejubilatio existed in the early Christian liturgy. The scenario o f an early
jubilatio is problematic, but it is assumed by a number of scholars, and must be
discussed.
Although the positive evidence for the liturgicaljubilatio dates from the Middle
Ages, the medieval musical theorists seeking a theological or traditional justification for
this development looked to Augustine. Two passages from Augustines commentary on
the Psalms were seminal for the medieval alleluia'.
Enarratio to Psalms 32.2
What is it to sing in jubilation? To be unable to understand, to express in words,
what is sung in the heart. For they who sing, either in the harvest, in the vineyard,
or in some other arduous occupation, after beginning to manifest their gladness in
the words of songs, are filled with such joy that they cannot express it in words,
and turn from the syllables o f words and proceed to the sound of jubilation. The
jubilus is something which signifies that the heart labors with what it cannot utter.
And whom does jubilation befit but the ineffable God?69
68 Eric Werner writes, [T]he Hallelujah is considered a song of human beings and
angels. It is from this aspect that the Hallelujah assumed both in Hellenistic Judaism and
in the Early Church a distinctly mystic-esoteric character, greatly enhanced through its
ecstatic musical rendition. This conception is reflected in countless statements,
explanations, poems, prayers, throughout Judaism and Christianity. The Targum of
Psalm 148, discussing the Hallelujah, is full o f angelological associations (The
Doxology in Synagogue and Church: A Liturgico-Musical Study, HUCA 19 [1945-46]
275-351, esp. 325-26). See esp. Reinhold Hammerstein, Die Musik der Engel:
Untersuchungen zur Musikanschauung des Mittelalters (Bern: Francke, 1962) 39-44.
69 Translated in James McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987) 155. Quid est in iubilatione canere? Intellegere,
173
Enarratio to Psalms 99.3-5

One who jubilates does not speak words, but it is rather a sort o f sound o f joy
without words, since it is the voice of a soul poured out in joy and expressing, as
best it can, the feeling, though not grasping the sense
When, then, do we
jubilate? When we praise what cannot be said.. . . Let us notice the whole
creation,. . . in all o f it there is something, I do not know what invisible, which is
called spirit or soul,. . . which understands God, which pertains to the mind
properly speaking, which distinguishes between just and unjust, just as the eye
does between white and black.7
Several other ancient authors discuss this phenomenon-e.g., Cassiodorus refers to the
jubilatio as singing non articulatis sermonibus, sed confusa voce (Expos, inps. 46.1).
References can also be found in Marcus Terentius Varro (pre-Christian), Lucius
Apuleius, Calpumius Siculus, Hilary o f Poitiers, and Sidonius Apollinaris.71 These
verbis explicare non posse quod canitur corde. Etenim illi qui cantant, sive in messe, sive
in vinea, sive in aliquo opere ferventi, cum coeperint in verbis canticorum exsultare
letitia, veluti impleti tanta letitia, ut earn verbis explicare non possint, avertunt se a
syllabis verborum, et eunt in sonum iubilationis. Iubilum sonus quidam est signiflcans
corparturire quod dicere non potest, et quern decet ista iubilatio, nisi ineffabilem Deum?
70 Translation partially based on McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature, 158.
Qui iubilat, non verba dicit, sed sonus quidam est letitie sine verbis; vox est enim animi
diffusi letitia, quantum potest, exprimentis affectum, non sensum comprehendentis.. . .
Quando ergo nos iubilamus? quando laudamus quod d id non potest.. . . Adtendimus
enim universam creaturam,. . . inque his omnibus nescio quid invisibile, quod spiritus vel
alma dicitur, ... quod intellegat Deum, quod ad mentem propriepertineat, quod sicut
oculus album et nigrum, ita aequitatem iniquitatemque discemat.
71 All o f these authors are discussed in Walter Wiora, Jubilare sine Verbis, in In
Memoriam Jacques Handschin, eds. H. Angles et al (Argentorati: P. H. Heitz, 1962) 3965. (Wiora views thejubilatio as a product o f pagan influences.) Parmentier also points
to the 5th-century Syriac father John o f Apamea as an eyewitnesse o f this phenomenon
(Das Zungenreden bei den Kirchenvatem, 276-98), but the text to which he makes
reference speaks only o f a purely silent mode o f prayer, typical o f Eastern Christian
spirituality. (On the text from John o f Apamea, see Sebastian Brock, John the Solitary,
On Prayer, JTS 30 [1979] 84-101. On John of Apameas angelology, see Werner
Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea [Patristische Texte und Studien 11; Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1972] 74-77, 86-88.) Eric Werner argues for the Jewish roots o f thejubilatio
(The Sacred Bridge: The Interdependence o f Liturgy and Music in Synagogue and
174
authors (esp. Augustine) are employed by medieval composers as supports for the
liturgical jubilatio, and they have been construed by modem scholars as early witnesses to
this feature o f the liturgy, but, as James McKinnon points out, when the patristic writers
mention singing in jubilus, they do not appear to have had the alleluia in mind. Rather,
they refer to a general (secular) practice o f singing nonsensical syllables, and relate that
practice to the wordless jubilation of the heart in praise to God. McKinnon writes,
Music historians continue to assume that authors like Augustine, Jerome and
were referring to the alleluia in their vivid descriptions o f the jubilus. They
identify the melismatic style o f the alleluia of the Mass as known from medieval
sources with the most striking characteristic o f the jubilus, its lack of text. This is
a completely arbitrary identification, however, not hinted at by the patristic
H ilary
Church during the First Millennium [London: Dennis Dobson, 1959] 169-70).
Elsewhere, he notes that the rabbis took a rather dim view o f songs without words
(The Genesis of the Liturgical Sanctus, in Essays Presented to Egon Wellesz, ed. Jack
Westrup [Oxford: Clarendon, 1966] 19-32, esp. 30 n. 2), but he may have had the rather
late figure of Solomon b. Adret (14th c.) in mind (cf. idem, The Sacred Bridge, 304).
Hanoch Avenary apparently thinks that the thesis o f thejubilatios Jewish origin conflicts
with the thesis o f its glossolalic origin: in arguing that the jubilatio was borne out of
glossolalie praise (which he defines as a psycho-physical behavior resulting from the
religious ecstasy or trance of the believers who are lost in transcendent visions
[Reflections on the Origins of the Alleluia-Jubilus, Orbis Musicae 6 (1978) 34-42, esp.
36]), he does not give a reasoned explanation for his assumption that this excludes the
relevance of Jewish models. His attempt to distance the jubilatio from Judaism causes
him to write some surprising things about Judaism, e.g., that the idea o f liturgical union
with the angels is not germane to Jewish imagination (ibid, 39; Avenary excepts
Qumran). Avenary attempts to meet the evidence for a Jewish origin head-on: he
interprets Laudes, hoc est Alleluia canere, canticum est Hebraeorum (Isidore of
Seville, 7th c.) to mean Singing the lauds, i.e. alleluia, is an utterance o f joy with the
Hebrews, rather than as Lauds, i.e. singing alleluia, is a Hebrew song (ibid, 34-35).
Avenary finds the use o f extended melisma to be rather exceptional within Judaism, but
see Edith Gerson-Kiwi, Halleluia and Jubilus in Hebrew-Oriental Chant, in Festschrift
Heinrich Besselerzum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Leipzig: Musik Leipzig, 1961) 43-49;
eadem, Der Sinn des Sinnlosen in der Interpolation sakraler Gesange, in FestschriftJur
Walter Wiora zum 30. Dezember 1966, eds. Ludwig Finscher and Christoph-Hellmut
Mahling (Basel: Barenreiter Kassel, 1967) 520-28, esp. 526-28. In the present discussion,
I deal only with thejubilatio in a Christian setting, for which the evidence of an
angeloglossic understanding is unambiguous.
175
authors themselves. On the contrary they describe the jubilus as a secular genre,
not an ecclesiastical chant; it is a kind of wordless song with which workers,
especially farmers, accompanied their labors (Wiora, 1962). They introduce it
into the psalm commentaries when the wordjubilare-not alleluia-appears in a
psalm, and then in the accustomed manner of allegorical exegesis they attempt to
discover in its wordlessness some facet of spiritual truth.
In noting that the connection between the alleluia and the jubilatio is not explicit in
patristic writings, McKinnon makes a good point-a necessary revision, in fact, o f a
widespread scholarly assumption. (The absence o f a connection is especially clear in
Hilary of Poitiers, an author often cited in support o f an early liturgical jubilatio.) It
should be noted, however, that the question of arbitrariness attaches not to whether the
identification was ever made, but to how early it had been made.
Four hundred years after Augustine, Amalarius ofM etzs discussion of the
jubilatio would have a defined liturgical moment in mind, and would seek the
phenomenons significance in the mental state it creates, rather than in the sound it
produces: This jubilatio, which singers call a sequentia, brings such a state to our mind
that the utterance o f words is not necessary, but by thought alone will show mind what it
has within itself (De eccl. offic. 3.16).73 It should be said that Amalarius was regularly
72 Music in Early Christian Literature, 10. Wioras note about the farmers jubilus is
reminiscent o f a passage in which Jerome describes the singing o f field hands near
Bethlehem, in which the farm hand grasping the plough handle sings Alleluia, the
sweating reaper cheers himself with psalms, and the vine dresser sings something of
David as he prunes the vine with his curved knife (Ep. 46 [translated in McKinnon,
Music in Early Christian Literature, 140]). On the alleluia's melismatic embellishment
(mostly later than Augustine), see Margot Fassler, Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and
Augustinian Reform in Twelfth-Century Paris (Cambridge Studies in Medieval and
Renaissance Music; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 30-43.
73
Hec jubilatio, quem cantores sequentiam vocant, ilium statum ad mentem nostram
ducit, quando non erit necessaria locutio verborum, sed sola cogitatione mens menti
monstrabit quod retinet in se.
176
given to mystical explanations of the churchs liturgy (as seen in his Eclogae de officio
missae).
Most scholars discussing the origins of the liturgical jubilatio simply had assumed
that Augustine, Hilary, etc. knew and wrote about a melismatic expansion o f the alleluia.
It is with this assumption in mind that several have suggested that the jubilatio represents
the liturgical routinization o f glossolalic praise-that is, that the singing o f the alleluia
originally represented a moment o f (semi-spontaneous?) glossolalia.74 Eric Werner
writes,
In Church and Synagogue, extended melismatic chant was regarded as an ecstatic
praise of God, sonus quidam est laetitiae sine verbis as St Augustine puts it.
Such a conception places this type of singing in close proximity to the glossolaly
o f the Paulinian age (I Cor. 12:30; 14:5; Acts 10:46; 19:6). Augustine in another
remark about Jubilus, seems to connect it with the early Christian practice of
talking in tongues. Jerome, too, attempts an explanation o f melismatic chant
along the very same lines. I venture to put forward my own conviction that the
whole concept o f the pure, wordless, melismatic jubilation should be considered
the last, jealously guarded remnant o f an organized musical form o f glossolaly, if
we permit ourselves a slight contradiction in terms.75
Werner further suggests that the churchs alleluia grew in an atmosphere of esoteric
exaltation, and that its separation [fjrom its original contexts, its use as spontaneous
74 E.g., Werner, The Sacred Bridge, 155,168-69; Avenary, Reflections on the Origins of
the Alleluia-Jubilus, 34-42; Parmentier, Das Zungenreden bei den Kirchenvfitem, 27698. See also Hammerstein, Die Musik der Engel, 39-44. Whether or not the theory o f a
glossolalic origin is correct, the routinization o f the jubilatio certainly would have ruined
that connection. As Werner notes, When, in the course of centuries, the melismatic
element became so predominant in the Alleluias that the melodies o f the Jubili (the
wordless parts) could no longer be kept in memory by the singers, these melismata were
provided with new, non-scripturai texts, made to fit these tunes in syllabic order-the socalled sequences (The Sacred Bridge, 201).
75 The Sacred Bridge, 168-69. See also idem, The Doxology in Synagogue and Church,
325-27.
177
acclamation, together with its pneumatic colour, led to a certain disembodiment, to a

spiritualization o f the Hallelujah, which finally resulted in the omission o f the word
Hallelujah itself, so that only certain vowels o f it were sung-AEOUIA.76 Although this
latter development was not dominant within the practice o f jubilatio, its pronounced
resemblance to voces mysticae provides further evidence that the melismatic tropes o f the
jubilatio were not merely a stylistic coloratura, but rather something of a presumed
esoteric nature. The title jubilatio would eventually be given (synonymously with
sequentia, neuma, and melodia) to an assortment o f melismatic compositions
accompanying the final syllable in the alleluia preceding the versus alleluiaticus.
Hanoch Avenary posits that the new song in Rev 14:3 that no one could learn.
.. but the redeemed o f the earth represents singing in an esoteric angelic language, and
calls attention to similar ideas in 2 Cor 12:2-4,2 Enoch 17 (A), and Apoc. Abr. 15.6.77
Glossolalia enabled the apocalyptic visionaries to join the heavenly hosts in their singing
o f sanctus and alleluia. As for the extended melismas of the Eastern branch o f the
church, Avenary reproduces transcriptions that recall the voces mysticae.n He suggests
76 The Sacred Bridge, 303.

77 Cf. also Ps. Sol. 15.3. See the discussion o f new song within the New Testament in
Esteban Calderon Dorda, Estudio sobre el lexico musical neotestamentario, Filologia
Neotestamentaria 12 (1999) 17-24. Wolfgang Fenske argues that the new song in Rev
14:3 is to be equated with the song o f Moses in Rev 15:3, which in turn is to be
identified with Deuteronomy 32 (Das Lied des Moses, des Knechtes Gottes, und das
Lied des Lammes (Apokalypse des Johannes 15,3f.): Der Text und sine Bedeutung fur
die Johannes-Apokalypse, ZN W 90 [1999] 250-64).
78 Viz. Alle-ye-ye / e-ye-e-ye e-ye / (etc. etc.) / ye ye lo-go / lo-go-lo guo-go uo guo . . . I
and so on (18th c. Coptic, apud G. A. Villoteau); ye, ye, ma, ma, etc. (Syrian, apud J.
Jeannin); ya, ye, yo, amma, meme, momo, etc. (Jacobite, apud J. Jeannin); eia, enga
178
that these nonsensical syllables represent the formalization of glossolalia. Combining this
formalized glossolalia with the self-identification o f the church singers with the angelic
choir in heaven,79 we are brought face to face with the concept of angeloglossy. Martin
Parmentier also argues that the jubilatio represents the attenuation o f glossolalia to a
purely liturgical role, and a consequent loss in the churchs awareness o f glossolalia.
80
He contends that the earliestjubilatio was indeed glossolalic, but that the widespread
mistake of associating glossolalia with xenoglossy caused the church fathers not to
recognize glossolalia when they witnessed it.
Certainly, one can scarcely read Augustines words without thinking of the spirits
wordless groaning in Rom 8:26.81 Furthermore, since the alleluia was thought to
(Chaldean, apud J. Jeannin); e - ye - ye - elu; oyemu, oya-yema (Syrians and Jacobites

at Epiphany, apud J. Parisot); A - a - u - u - u - a - a - kha - u - a / a - u - a - anga - a - na
- a , u - a - a u - a / l e - u - e - e / e - khe - khe, (etc., till the end) lu - - a - nga - a - nga - a ..
(Byzantine, apud E. Wellesz); a - ne - na (Russian [until ca. 1660], apud O. von
Riesemann). See Oskar von Riesemann, Der russische Kirchengesang, in Handbuch
der Musikgeschichte, ed. Guido Adler (2 vols.; Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1961) 140-48,
esp. 142-43.
79 Reflections on the Origins of the Alleluia-Jubilus, 41.
80 Das Zungenreden bei den Kirchenvatem, 276-98. See idem, The Gifts o f the Spirit
in Early Christianity, in The Impact o f Scripture in Early Christianity, ed. J. den Boeft
and M. L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk (VigChrSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 58-78, esp. 7173. Parmentier cites Paul Hinnebusch as an early (1976) proponent o f the equation of
jubilatio with glossolalia (ibid, 72 n. 52).
81 Robert Boenig writes, G iven. . .the new convert Augustines tendency to burst into
tears at the singing of hymns in church, we are not too far from the mark in assuming that
there is something autobiographical about these [Augustinian] passages (St Augustines
Jubilus and Richard Rolles C onorf in Vox Mystica: Essays on Medieval Mysticism in
Honor o f Professor Valerie M. Lagorio, ed. Anne Clark Bartlett [Cambridge: D. S.
Brewer, 1995] 75-86, esp. 81). To the contrary, I find that, although Augustine appears to
write as an eyewitness, he does not seem to write from first-hand experience.
179
represent angelic praise (see chap. 6), the theory of a glossolalic origin to the jubilatio
would appear to represent an understanding of glossolalia as an esoteric angelic language.
(Although Paul knows of a hymnic role for glossolalia [1 Cor 14:15], the jubilatio is
more reminiscent of the angeloglossic episodes in the pseudepigrapha than o f anything
found in the New Testament.) On the grounds o f a liturgical construal of Augustines
words (dismissed by McKinnon), the chronological component o f this theory coincides
roug h ly
with the gradual disappearance o f glossolalia in the first few centuries o f the
church, leading to the suggestion that the jubilatio represents the mode o f continuance o f
the glossolalic form.82 There is clear evidence that glossolalia was still around
throughout the second and most o f the third centuries, and the fact that some patristic
writers mistakenly equate glossolalia with xenoglossy does not controvert their claims to
be witnesses of it. (How could they tell the difference, and what else were they to think
after reading Acts 2?)83
82 One still encounters the view that glossolalia died out in the first century, only to be
carried on by the Montanists and other groups discounted by later orthodoxy. E.g., see
Stuart D. Currie, Speaking In Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament
Bearing on rX coaoais AaXstv, Int 19 (1965) 274-94.
83 The chief witnesses to the survival o f glossolalia are in no sense obscure. Irenaeus
writes, we do . . . hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts and who
through the Spirit speak all kinds o f languages, and bring to light for the general benefit
the hidden things o f men and declare the mysteries of God {Adv. Haer. 5.6.1). See
Stanley M. Burgess, The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1984) 61; Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 45; E. Glenn Hinson, The
Significance o f Glossolalia in the History o f Christianity, in Speaking in Tongues: A
Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)
181-203, esp. 184-85. Georg Schollgen notes, keine der antimontanistischen Quellen
des 2. und fruhen 3. Jahrhunderts die Legitimitat von Prophetie und Prophetentum
generell in Frage stellt (Der Niedergang des Prophetentums in der Alten Kirche, in
Prophetie und Charisma, eds. Ingo Baldermann et al [JBTh 14; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1999] 97-116, esp. 100). Novatian may also have been a witness to
180
glossolalia in the third century, although his remarks (in Concerning the Trinity 29) are
perhaps only based upon an exegesis of Paul. Tertullian challenges the Marcionites to
produce any o f a number of prophetic gifts, including glossolalia (Adv. Marc. 2.561, cf.
5.8). Such a challenge implies that Tertullian believes in the continuance o f glossolalia
within the true church. Clement of Alexandrias listing of the Pauline charisms as
evidence o f the true gnostic would have lost some of its force if these charisms (including
glossolalia) were not extant in the congregations that he knew. (See Burgess, The Spirit
and the Church, 72). In the fourth century, Eusebius (Comm. Isa. 6.2) and Hilary of
Poitiers (On the Trinity 2.33-34; 8.30) also comment on glossolalia in a way that may
imply its continued existence within the church. Justin Martyr writes that the
prophetical gifts remained in the church until his day, without, however, specifically
mentioning glossolalia (Dial. 82). A spectacular use o f xenoglossy is often attributed to
the monastic wonderworkers (e.g., in Palladius, Hist. Laus. 32.1; Jerome, Life o f St.
Hilarion, 22). Some patristic writers, including Hippolytus (De antichristo 2), Augustine
(De baptismo contra Donatistas 3.16.21 [see below]) and John Chrysostom (Horn, on 1
Cor. 29), denied the continued existence o f prophecy and/or glossolalia. The reasons for
the decline o f the charismatic gifts in the catholic church are debated. James L. Ash
argues that the rise o f episcopal power was construed as a theoretical challenge to the
authority o f charismatic utterances (The Decline o f Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early
Church, TS 37 [1976] 227-52). See also Heinrich Kraft, Vom Ende der urchristlichen
Prophetie, in Prophetic Vocation in the New Testament and Today, ed. J. Panagopoulos
(NovTSup 45; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 162-85; Etienne Trocme, Le Prophetisme chez les
Premiers Chretiens, in Oracles et Propheties dans I Antiquite: Actes du Colloque de
Strasbourg 15-17 Juin 1995, ed. Jean-Georges Heintz (Travaux du Centre de Recherche
sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece Antiques 15; Paris: de Boccard, 1997) 259-70; Schollgen,
Der Niedergang des Prophetentums in der Alten Kirche, 97-116. On the relationship
between prophecy and the epistemizing o f Scripture, see now the ground-breaking
contribution o f David Harold Warren, The Text of the Apostle in the Second Century: A
Contribution to the History o f Its Reception (PhD. dissertation; Cambridge: Harvard
University, 2001). (See also the works reflecting this view, as discussed by Ash,) More
generally, see Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in
the Church o f the First Three Centuries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969) 178212. Kydd thinks that no evidence exists for the continuation of the charismata after 260
CE (Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 57), but it seems hazardous to claim that
there was a definitive end. See esp. Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague,
Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight
Centuries (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991). The only drawback o f McDonnells
otherwise excellent discussion is that he uncritically dismisses the Montanists as an
aberration.
It is not certain whether the unintelligible utterances described by Celsus (Origen,
Contra Celsum 7.9), and whose continued existence Origen denies (7.11), should be
understood as glossolalia: as Celsus describes the utterances, they appear to follow, rather
than precede, a prophetic message. This makes them look more like (Gnostic?) nomina
barbara than Pauline glossolalia. See Nils Ivar Johan Engelsen, Glossolalia and Other
181
Is there a connection between the jubilatio and a belief in esoteric angelic
languages? Almost certainly. Is there also a connection between the jubilatio and an
angeloglossic understanding o f glossolalia? That is less certain. Did the jubilatio
develop from glossolalia? That is still less certain. The angelic associations of the
alleluia are patent, and the question of whether the jubilatio really developed from (once
spontaneous) glossolalia is unnecessary for our including the jubilatio in this discussion.
Even if the latter scenario was invented wholecloth by liturgists, the original significance
o f the jubilatio was probably still wrapped up in the notion o f an esoteric angelic tongue.
E.
CONCLUSION
The works I discussed in this chapter can be represented in a chart similar to the
one I provided for the preceding chapter:
Certainly Christian
Certainly Jewish
b.B.Bat./
Songs of Sab. Sacr.
b.Suk.
Name of work
Nanas inscription
Liturgicaljubilatio
Strength of
reference
Human
participation?
Fictionalized
account?
possible
possible
possible
possible
unclear
no
unclear
yes
no
no
unclear
no
We have seen, in the preceding and present chapters, numerous references to

esoteric angelic languages within Jewish and Christian sources. The clearest references
Forms o f Inspired Speech According to I Corinthians 12-14, Ph.D. dissertation: Yale

University, 1970, pp. 41-43; Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, 36-40; Robert
J. Hauck, The More Divine Proof: Prophecy and Inspiration in Celsus and Origen (AAR
Academy Series 69; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 83-84; John Granger Cook, The
Interpretation o f the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Studien und Texte zu
Antike und Christentum 3; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000) 77-79.
tend to be from Christian sources. This can be accounted for in a couple of ways: (1)
within Christianity, there was very little competition from a hebraeophone understanding
o f angeloglossy, and (2) the continuation (and democratization) of the prophetic spirit
was a more central and consistent part o f Christian than of Jewish theology.
Chapter Five:
The Sociological and Ideological Foundations
of Hebrew-Speaking Angels
In this chapter, we will examine the rabbinic tradition that the angels speak
Hebrew for clues as to its possible sociological and ideological foundations, not caring so
much for the origins o f this tradition as for the factors insuring its currency. The first
item to note in connection with this tradition is that it apparently represented a matter of
some insistence, and served not only a positive function for its proponents (viz. the
glorification o f Hebrew, and consequently also o f the Hebrew tradition and its tradents)
but a negative one as well (viz. the proscription of Aramaic in certain contexts). The
classic rabbinic statement attributing an understanding o f Hebrew to the angels is that of
R. Yochanan, which we examined in chapter two, and which also claims that the angels
do not understand Aramaic.
What is the motivation for R. Yochanans views? Are they merely the
adumbration o f a timeless element o f rabbinic thought, or are they better understood
within the specific setting o f third-century Galilee (assuming, that is, that they really do
represent the sentiments o f either R. Yochanan or his contemporaries)? To anticipate the
argument o f this chapter, it should be noted that a possible answer may incorporate both
lines o f explanation: perhaps something about the linguistic situation o f third-century
Jewish Palestine energized the linguistic component o f a timeless element o f rabbinic
thinking. The something implied in this suggestion is the vernacular status o f Aramaic,
184
and the timeless element, of course, would be the divine revelation to Israel (Torah)
and the associated liturgy. In combination with this straightforward and benign solution,
however, one should also .admit the possibility that a Hebrew-only policy helped the
rabbis achieve something of a political end, viz. that the proscription o f Aramaic prayer
beyond the synagogue was calculated to proscribe extemporaneous prayer beyond the
synagogue in general in order to restrict the highest exercise of Jewish piety to rabbiniccontrolled contexts, and/or it may have amounted to a more direct empowering o f the
rabbis through their ability to read and speak Hebrew (i.e., by making society more
dependent on them). These four items (the linguistic situation o f Jewish Palestine, the
hebraic setting o f rabbinic piety, the proscription of extrasynagogal prayer, and the direct
empowerment o f the hebraeophone literati) will occupy us for the remainder of this
chapter.
A . THE L I N G U I S T I C
S I T U A T I O N IN J E W I S H
PALESTINE
It is difficult to give an adequate statement about the linguistic situation o f thirdcentury Jewish Palestine within so brief a space, so in what follows I present more o f an
outline o f the arguments that impress me, and I give a more detailed discussion in an
appendix at the end o f this study. In addition to providing this outline, this section
responds to Steven Fraades defense o f Hebrew as a vernacular language during this
period.
185
It is widely recognized that Jewish Palestine, in the Second Temple and early
rabbinic periods, was at least to some degree trilingual, with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
all figuring in the mix. As James Barr notes, the distribution o f languages cannot be
mapped in terms o f one or two variables-it varied almost personally.1 Yet, this in itself
does not drain the meaning from the question o f which language(s) had vernacular status.
A full treatment would involve a progressive account of the fortunes o f Hebrew and
Aramaic, concentrating first on the Second Temple period, and then on the question of
whether axial events like the destruction o f the Temple or the Bar Kokhba revolt caused a
shift in this situation. Of those scholars who believe that Hebrew was the dominant
language for at least part o f the period under consideration, some think that it was
dominant in the pre-Bar Kokhba era, but that it retreated before the spread of Aramaic
and Greek after the revolt (e.g., Segal, Grintz, Gafiii),2 while others imagine the reverse:
that the nationalizing impulse o f the revolt marked the beginning o f brighter days for
1 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, in The Cambridge History o f
Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, eds. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 79-114, esp. 112.
2 E.g., M. H. Segal, A Grammar o f Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927) 15;
Jehoshua M. Grintz, Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of
the Second Temple, JBL 79 (1960) 32-47, esp. 44; Isaiah M. Gafiii, The World o f the
Talmud: From the Mishnah to the Arab Conquest, in Christianity and Rabbinic
Judaism: A Parallel History o f Their Origins and Early Development, ed. Hershel Shanks
(Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992) 225-65, esp. 234. Chaim Rabin
believes that the events o f 70 C.E. caused Hebrew to retreat (Hebrew and Aramaic in the
First Century, in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography,
Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, eds. S.
Safrai and M. Stem [CRINT 1/2; Assen: van Gorcum, 1987] 1007-39, esp. 1036), and so
apparently does Bernard Spolsky (Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: An Essay
in Historical Sociolinguistics, in Readings in the Sociology o f Jewish Languages, ed.
Joshua A. Fishman [Contributions to the Sociology o f Jewish Languages 1; Leiden: Brill,
1985] 35-50, esp. 40-41).
186
Hebrew as a spoken language (e.g., Yadin, Rosen).3 My own view is that Hebrew was a
minority language in Jewish Palestine throughout the entire period that I am discussing.
3 Yigael Yadin writes, possibly Hebrew had just lately been revived by a Bar-Kokhba
decree (Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery o f the Legendary Hero o f the Last Jewish Revolt
against Imperial Rome [London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971] 124). See also Haiim
B. Rosen, Die Sprachsituation im romischen Palestina, in Die Sprachen im romischen
Reich der Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium vom 8. bis 10. April 1974, eds. Gunter Neumann and
Jurgen Untermann (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbticher 40; Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag,
1980) 215-39, esp. 225-26. Harris Birkeland thinks that mishnaic Hebrew was nothing
else than a literary language created by Jewish religious-nationalistic extremists on the
basis o f [biblical Hebrew] and of dialects (The Language o f Jesus [Avhandlinger utgitt
av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1; Oslo: Jacob
Dybwad, 1954] 23). Gerard Mussies suggests that Yadins posited Hebrew revival did
not last beyond the failed revolt (Greek as the Vehicle of Early Christianity, NTS 29
[1983] 356-69, esp. 362-64). As Yadin notes, Bar Kokhbas strenuous effort to obtain
the four species o f Sukkoth during the war i s . . . a testimony to Bar-Kokhbas strict
religious piety (Bar-Kokhba, 128). A religious motivation behind Bar Kokhbas
insistence on Hebrew would seem to stick well. Yadin claims that Hebrew may have
become more important as the conflict matured, and that ones choice o f language
mattered less in the early years o f the revolt and in the time preparatory to it: It is
interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in
Hebrew (ibid, 181). Not everyone, however, is convinced o f Yadins claim: cf. the
revised Schurer: the available evidence does not altogether bear out this claim, and the
compl ete publication o f the finds must be awaited before a definite conclusion can be
reached (Emil Schurer, The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesus Christ (175
B.C.-A.D. 135), eds. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar [rev. ed.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1973-87] 2.28 n. 117). Fergus Millars hand-list o f the Bar Kokhba
documents (The Roman Near East: 3 1 BC - AD 337 [Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1993] 548-52) allows a view to Yadins contention that Hebrew became more
prominent as the revolt dragged on: Year One documents (dated): 1 Hebrew, 3 Aramaic,
0 Greek; Year Two documents (dated): 2 Hebrew (one with Greek signature on verso), 0
Aramaic, 0 Greek; Year Three documents (dated): 3 Hebrew, 2 Aramaic, 1
Hebrew(?)/Aramaic; 0 Greek; Year Four documents (dated): 1 Hebrew, 0 Aramaic, 0
Greek; documents not internally dated: 4 Hebrew; 9 Aramaic, 2 Greek. Although the
pattern o f the evidence lines up in the direction ofYadins claim, it does not do so in a
particularly demonstrative way. For Barr, the fact that Aramaic is found at all in the Bar
Kokhba correspondence is proof enough that the leader of the revolt did not invoke a
linguistic ideology (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, 98).
There are two principal arguments for viewing Aramaic as the main vernacular in
Jewish Palestine during the period we are considering. The first is based on the
preponderance o f inscriptional and documentary evidence. The second is based on the
prevailing custom o f providing an Aramaic translation o f Scripture in the synagogue.
Despite the strength o f the case that can be made on inscriptional and documentary
evidence (see the appendix), the second argument may be the more powerful o f the two.
This is not because o f any quantitative evidentiary advantage, but because of the
considerable difficulty o f accomodating the practice o f targum to a hebraeophone
scenario.4 Although a number of scholars have tried to float explanations for the practice
o f targum within a supposedly Hebrew-rich culture (see my discussion ofFraade and Tal
below), none o f their attempted explanations can challenge the simple beauty o f the most
practicable and obvious explanation, viz. that synagogue-goers needed a translation in
order to understand what was being said. That the general populace did not understand
Hebrew well enough to get anything out o f the weekly Scripture reading is by far the best
explanation for the widespread existence of this practice. Together, these two arguments
for widespread Aramaic (inscriptional/documentary remains and the practice o f
translating Scripture in the synagogue) make it difficult to indulge the insistence o f some
scholars that Hebrew was widely spoken among the populace.5
4 R. Le Deaut makes this same point {Introduction a la Litterature Targumique [Rome:

Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1966] 26-27).
5 This can be supplemented by other miscellaneous evidence as well. Consider, for
example, Josephus claim {Bell. 4.1.5) that Roman soldiers, native to Syria, could
understand the table talk o f Jews in Gamala (noted in GustafDalman, Jesus-Jesh.ua:
Studies in the Gospels [London: SPCK, 1929] 15). (Whether Josephus presentation is
factually correct is beside the point: it is enough that his account does not anticipate the
The view that Hebrew was widely spoken has enjoyed a wide following since the
time o f M. H. Segal, who pointed out changes wrought in the Hebrew language during the
time when it was widely thought to have been a dead language.6 These changes indicated
to Segal that Hebrew was still thriving in an oral environment. What are we to make o f
his contention that linguistic development takes place only in spoken languages? Does
linguistic development imply a spoken context? Scholars have usually assumed that it
does: twelve years before Segals Grammar appeared, Max Radin wrote that Hebrew
must have been constantly spoken among educated men, for the changes it continued to
exhibit are not such as would occur if it had been quite divorced from life.7 There are
two things that must be said in response to Segal. The first is a qualification: that Hebrew
was spoken somewhere does not mean that it was spoken everywhere. Would not
Hebrew have developed even if it were spoken only in the Temple? This a commonsense
qualification, and one with which Segal expressly agrees, although he does not allow it
run as far as it will go. As Barr notes, the recognition o f a colloquial basis for Middle
Hebrew, and the abandonment o f the idea that it is an artificial jargon, do not in
existence of a language barrier.) For a later period, Joseph Yahalom has called attention
to a tradition o f Aramaic nonliturgical poetry, filling the living space that remained out o f
touch with the stylized erudition of Hebrew liturgical poetry (Angels Do Not
Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use o f Jewish Palestinian Aramaic in Late
Antiquity, JJS 47 [1996] 33-44, esp. 44).
6 M. H. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic,
JQR 20 (1908-9) 647-737; idem, A Grammar o f Mishnaic Hebrew, 1-20.
The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society o f
America, 1915) 119.
189
themselves prove that Hebrew was still generally spoken in the tannaitic period8 The
second thing that must be said is not a qualification but a challenge: Is it really true that
only spoken languages exhibit the kind o f development that we find in mishnaic Hebrew?
Yohanan Breuer counts sixteen features that distinguish amoraic from tannaitic Hebrew,
demonstrating that development took place during a period when Hebrew is widely
agreed to have been more o f an academic than a vernacular language: We must conclude
that written, non-spoken languages can develop.9 According to Joshua Blau (responding
to Elisha Qimrons arguments for the spoken nature of Qumran Hebrew), even dead
languages, only used in literature, change.10 He supports this claim by examining
changes in Middle Arabic texts: The Neo-Arabic elements attested in the Middle Arabic
texts reflect, to be sure, a living language, yet many deviations from classical Arabic
proper exhibit changes that affected a language no longer spoken, yet still used as a
literary device, and depend on various traditions, genres, fashions, scribal schools, and
8 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, 83, Rabin thinks that Segals
argument for the spoken nature of mishnaic Hebrew poses a problem for those who pit
the practice o f targum against the view that Hebrew was the dominant language (Hebrew
and Aramaic in the First Century, 1022-23). But it is hard to see how the continuing
development o f Hebrew implies that Hebrew was the dominant language, or, more
specifically, how the argument from the practice o f targum is in any way undone.
9 On the Hebrew Dialect o f the Â m o rim in the Babylonian Talmud, in Scripta
Hierosolymitana, vol. 37: Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1998) 129-50, esp. 149.
10 A Conservative View o f the Language o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Diggers at the
Well: Proceedings ofa Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000)
20-25, esp. 20 (emphasis removed).
190
personal inclinations.11 These examples of linguistic development beyond an oral
environment show that Segals rule does not universally apply.

The belief that Hebrew was a principal language in Jewish Palestine is often
wedded to the belief that an extensive educational system was in place from an early date,
and that virtually all male Jewish youths were schooled in reading Torah. This was once
a universal belief among scholars, and is still a dominant view. Haiim B. Rosens
opinion was once typical: he wrote that illiteracy hardly existed among male Jews at the
time o f the Bar Kokhba revolt.12 Consider also the opinion o f Louis Feldman, who
assumes that the Talmud (Baba Batra 21a) is correct in stating that Joshua ben Gamla in
the first century introduced an ordinance requiring elementary education for boys.
1^
The
examples could be multiplied. The source o f this belief in widespread literacy (usually
translated into terms of widespread Hebrew fluency) is found in a number o f rabbinic
passages glorifying the supposed school system o f the first century CE. Although these
texts give wildly exaggerated counts o f the number of schools in Palestine-v/z. that
hundreds o f schools existed in pre-Destruction Jerusalem (y. Meg. 3.1 [73d] || b. Ket.
11 Blau, A Conservative View o f the Language o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, 21.
12Hebrew at the Crossroads o f Cultures: From Outgoing Antiquity to the Middle Ages
(Orbis Supplements; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 11. Alan Millard also thinks that most firstcentury male Palestinian Jewish youths received a formal education (Reading and Writing
in the Time o f Jesus [The Biblical Seminar 69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001] 157-58).
13 How Much Hellenism in the Land o f Israel?, JSJ 33 [2002] 290-313, esp. 303. See
also Robert Dorans argument in The High Cost of a Good Education (in Hellenism in
the Land o f Israel, eds. John J. Collins [Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre
Dame: University ofNotre Dame Press, 2001] 94-115), to which Feldmans article is a
response.
191
105b), and that even a small town like Betar had 500 elementary schools at the time of
the Bar Kokhba revolt, with at least 500 students in every one (y. Taan. 4.8 [69a])-most
scholars have assumed that they present essentially reliable information about a fairly
democratized school system (for males only) and a concomitantly high level o f Hebrew
literacy among male Jews.
Catherine Hezser has recently published a spirited and detailed response to the
supposition that accounts o f pre-amoraic elementary schools are trustworthy. She argues
that the rabbinic references to an extensive pre-amoraic school system were idealizations
based upon the amoraic school system and the image of a purely Torah-literate society.
According to Hezser, the argument in favor o f an early widespread school system
is usually based on an uncritical understanding o f later Talmudic texts which are
not only anachronistic in associating the educational institutions o f the amoraic
period with pre-70 times, but also vastly exaggerate with regard to the number o f
educational establishments likely to have existed at either time. An examination
o f the sources shows that references to teachers and schools rarely appear in
tannaitic documents and are much more prevalent in amoraic sources. It seems
that especially from the third century C.E. onwards rabbis promoted a particularly
Jewish type of primary education as an alternative to Graeco-Roman schools
which must have been widespread in Palestine at that time.14
14 Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001) 39.
Hezser is by no means the first scholar to recognize the idealized nature o f the rabbinic
accounts. Even a staunch proponent of the hebraic scenario like Birkeland had to confess
that, in some respects, the rabbinic accounts were more fiction than fact: When we read
the informations on Jewish schools collected e.g. byDalm an. . . , L. J. Sherrill. . . , and T.
Perlow. . . , we get the impression that almost everybody could read and write, or was at
least familiar with the Scripture. The rabbinic sources, however, do not reflect the real
life in Palestine as a whole (The Language o f Jesus, 28). Birkeland apparently intended
only a partial denial o f the widespread view (do not reflect. . . as a whole), but he puts
his finger on a real problem. See Seth Schwartz, Language, Power and Identity in
Ancient Palestine, Past & Present 148 (1995) 3-47, esp. 28. Schwartz elsewhere notes
that reverence for a religious text does not necessarily lead to literacy (Imperialism and
Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. [Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient
to the Modem World; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001] 11 n. 15). See also
Meir Bar-Ilan, Illiteracy in the Land o f Israel in the First Centuries C.E., in Essays in
192
Although amoraic sources refer to an organized educational system going back to Second
Temple times, the fact that these references are unsupported by tannaitic sources (or by
Josephus, the New Testament, etc.) severely challenges their credibility. (It is not
impossible, however, that a school o f this sort existed at Qumran.)15 The amoraic claims
appear to be idealizations, added to the tradition at a later date. Consider, for example,
the passage mentioned in the above quotation from Feldman (b. B. B. 21a), concerning a
supposed first-century ordinance making education compulsory. Hezser enlists the
verdict o f David Goodblatt, according to whom the reference to the development of
primary education. . . does not seem to be a continuation o f the statement attributed to R.
Yehudah in the name ofRav, but should rather be seen as an addition explaining the
words ofRav, attached by the Talmudic editors, which might be based on a baraita.16
The above-mentioned exaggerated counts o f schools show the ideal nature of such a
system. It is not until about the third century that synagogue-based schools began to
proliferate, but these schools were run by the rabbis, who aimed to equip their students
with the skill to read Torah, for the sake of Torah piety and also, as Hezser notes, in
the Social Scientific Study o f Judaism and Jewish Society, vol. 2, eds. Simcha Fishbane,
Stuart Schoenfeld, and Alain Goldschlager (Montreal: Concordia University, 1992) 4661.
15 See Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 47; Brian J. Capper, The New
Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest o f Jesus, in The Dead Sea Scrolls as
Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an
International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001 (ed. James R. Davila; STDJ 46; Leiden:
Brill, 2003) 90-116. Capper suggests that the (supposed) school at Qumran may have
educated the children o f non-Essenes for a fee.
16 Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 46.
193
order to create a support base for themselves.17 Even in the third century, the school
system served only the select minority o f students who had the time and money.
18
Barring this privilege, the duty of education remained with a boys father.19 Only parents
who could afford tuition and do without their sons share of the work burden were able to
send their sons to school.
In addition to the questions of targumic reading and elementary education, we
must consider the language used at Qumran and its implications for Palestinian Judaism
in general. Does the situation at Qumran reflect that o f the wider Palestinian milieu?
Many scholars point to the fact that there is little support for a Hebrew vernacular outside
o f Qumran. As Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes, if Hebrew were the dominant vernacular in
Judaea, one would expect more evidence of it to turn up-especially in the first century
and in more widespread locales.20 But other scholars regard the Qumran cache as
precisely the type o f evidence Fitzmyer demands. Thus Abraham Tal writes that [t]he
17 Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 39. Hezser writes, The increase of
references to schools and elementary teaching in amoraic texts may. . . be directly
connected with the emergence and spread o f synagogues especially in the Galilee at that
time (ibid, 54). See Lee I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late
Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1989) 25-28.
18 See Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society, in The
Cambridge History o f Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury,
W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 922-90,
esp. 934-35.
19 The father is named throughout tannaitic sources and other contemporary Jewish
writings as the normal teacher, only occasionally replaced by a hired instructor. See t.
Hag. 1.2; t. Qid. 1.1; SifreDeut. 46; y. Suk. 3.12(15) (54c); y. Qid. 1.7 (61a); y. Abod.
Zar. 4.4 (43d-44a); y. Qid. 1.7 (61a).
20 The Languages o f Palestine in the First Century A.D., in his A Wandering Aramean:
Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Chico: Scholars Press, 1979) 29-56, esp. 45.
194
cardinal discoveries in the Judean Desert. . . anchor the vitality of Hebrew in Palestine
during the Second Temple period, even to the point o f problematizing the existence of a
Palestinian targum during this period.21 This argument might find acceptance among
those who think that Qumran practices and beliefs reflect Palestinian religious-literary
conventions in general,22 but it is precisely this thought that must be rejected, especially
in
connection with lingustic policies. Qumranic writings attack their opponents for using
the wrong language (CD 5.11-12; 1QH 10.18; 12.16; see below), so it is not possible to
infer from the use o f Hebrew at Qumran that Jewish Palestine in general used Hebrew.
While many questions remain, the basic shape of the evidence suggests that the role o f
Hebrew at Qumran hardly represents the linguistic situation o f Jewish Palestine.
Some recent scholars have argued that the simple linguistic necessity o f an
Aramaic translation or paraphrase would not have been felt. Accordingly, they seek other
explanations for the practice of translating the lection into Aramaic. These alternative
explanations for the practice o f targum, however, fail for two reasons: (1) they mishandle
the evidence concerning the linguistic situation in first- to third-century Palestine, and (2)
21 Is There a Raison dEtre for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking Society? REJ

160 (2001) 357-78, esp. 357-58.
22 It also works for those few scholars who think that the Dead Sea scrolls do not
represent the library o f the Qumran community, but that position is problematic, to say
the least. As Emile Puech writes, Thypoth&se dune origine non essenienne des
manuscrits ne rend pas compte du nombre de copies doeuvres dopposition aux partis
religieux en place a Jerusalem et de labsence pour le moins surprenante de compositions
quon pourrait qualifier de pharisiennes et de sadduceennes! (Du Bilinguisme a
Qumran? in Mosaique de Langues, Mosaique Culturelle: Le Bilinguisme dans le
Proche-Orient Ancien: Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18 novembre 1995 organiseepar
VURA 1062 Etudes Semitiques , ed. Franqoise Briquel-Chatonnet [Antiquites
Semitiques 1; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1996] 171-89, esp. 174).
195
they offer overly intellectualizing explanations for the targums, which can hardly counter
the intrinsic likelihood of the much simpler explanation (viz. that the Aramaic translation
was made primarily for those who understood Hebrew either poorly or not at all).
Although evidence for Scripture reading is found in the New Testament (Luke
4:16-30; Acts 13:14-15; 15:21), Josephus (Ap. 2.175), and even as far back as the
translation ofLXX Ezekiel,23 there is no firm evidence for the practice o f targum reading
in the first century.24 Some scholars have assumed that some form o f translation o f the
23 See David J. Halperin, Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint, JBL 101 (1982) 351-63.
24 Scholarship today is filled with warnings that the extant targums are fairly late, but
these warnings impinge upon the present question only in a rather indirect way, if at all.
For the most part, these objections to the use of targumic evidence are aimed at a different
application altogether, viz. the use of targumic readings to illuminate the New Testament.
In this connection, we should own up to the fact that at least one o f the arguments that
was once offered for an early date for the targums is no longer convincing. It was once
commonplace to claim that the affinities of this or that targumic rendering with a
scriptural citation within the New Testament (e.g., Matt 27:46, Eph 4:8) proved that the
targum was either a very old one, or based on an older targum (e.g., Roger Le Deaut,
The Targumim, in The Cambridge History o f Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, eds.
W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990]
563-90, esp. 573; Schurer, The History o f the Jewish People in the Age of. Tesus Christ
(175 B.C.-A.D. 135) [rev. ed.] 1.102). Today, that explanation no longer convinces: it is
considered more likely that the New Testament and the targumic text share a common
(non-Masoretic) textual tradition. The fact that the Mishnah presupposes the practice o f
targumic reading (m. Meg. 4.4; cf. y. Meg. 74d-75a; b. Meg. 23a-b) supports the view
argued here, despite the fact that some o f the extant targums may have been connected
with the school rather than the synagogue. See Anthony D. York, The Targum in the
Synagogue and in the School, JS J10 (1979) 74-86; Philip S. Alexander, The
Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum, in Congress Volume:
Salamanca 1983, ed. John A. Emerton (VTSup 36; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 14-28; Charles
Perrot, The Reading o f the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue, in Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (CRINT 2/1; Assen: van Gorcum, 1990) 13759. Scholars pointing to the antiquity o f targumic reading often refer to Neh 8:8, but
however paradigmatic that verse might appear, it should probably be treated as a special
case. The procedure related in Neh 8:8 looks a lot like the later practice o f targum, but
196
biblical text into Aramaic must have been a part o f worship in the synagogue from the
beginning o f that institution,25 but there is good reason to suppose that the controlling
powers opposed that practice. Although our interest in this study is primarily on the
rabbinic era, some explanation of this state o f affairs is perhaps necessary. What should
one infer from the absence (or paucity) of targums in the first century?26 Those who view
Hebrew as a vernacular language in the first century seem to think that the absence o f
targums is telling evidence in their favor. In point o f fact, such an absence of targums is
perhaps to be expected, given the probability that the synagogues at that time were
probably controlled by priestly and/or scribal groups.27 For the centuries for which we
know that targums were used in the synagogues, we also know that not everyone was
there is little reason to allow this one ad hoc procedure to speak for the silence o f the
following centuries. Instead, we must work our way back from the surviving targumic
fragments and from the halakhic material in the Mishnah.
25 E.g., Martin McNamara, Some Targum Themes, in Justification and Variegated
Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities o f Second Temple Judaism, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T.
OBrien, and Mark A. Seifrid (WUNT 140; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001) 303-56, esp.
308.
26
Whether it is an absence or only a paucity depends on whether the Qumran Job targum
was an import from the East, as Takamitsu Muraoka has argued (The Aramaic o f the
Old Targum o f Job from Qumran Cave XI, JJS 25 [1974] 425-43; idem, Notes on the
Old Targum o f Job from Qumran Cave XI, RevQ 9 [1977] 117-25).
27
See the Theodotus inscription (Jean-Baptiste Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum:

Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du Ille siecle avant Jesus-Christ au Vile siecle de
notre ere [2 vols.; Vatican City: Pontificio Institute di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936-1952]
no. 1404). An early date for this inscription is defended in E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law
from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990) 341; Rainer Riesner, Synagogues in
Jerusalem, in The Book o f Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (The
Book of Acts in its First Century Setting 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 194-200;
Pieter W. van der Horst, Japheth in the Tents ofShem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in
Antiquity (CBET 32; Leuven: Peeters, 2002) 55-57. See Millar, The Roman Near East,
365.
197
happy about that fact. It is entirely in keeping with a linguistic necessity explanation
for the targum, therefore, to say that the practice of targumic reading could not be
instituted within the synagogue until control of the synagogue came to be more in the
hands o f private (non-priestly, non-scribal) individuals or groups. In the century or so
after the first revolt, the absence o f any strong controlling group allowed the synagogue
service to go in a more democratizing direction. It should also be noted that, given the
power scramble that apparently went on at this time, concessions to popular piety would
have been politically expedient.
Before examining particular examples o f the revisionist scenario, it should be
pointed out that certain aspects o f this scenario have been anticipated for half a century in
the form of scholars explanations for the continuance o f targum in a supposed post-third
century Hebrew-speaking setting. Harris Birkeland sought such an explanation in 1954,
and it was put forth again by Barr in 1970. According to Barr,
[Tjhough the Targum originated in communities in which the knowledge of
Hebrew was negligible, it came to spread by adoption to communities in which
both Hebrew and Aramaic were known. It functioned not simply as a straight
translation o f the Hebrew Bible, but as a paraphrastic interpretation... we have to
distinguish between two things: difficulty in understanding the Old Testament is
one thing, and complete ignorance o f Hebrew is another. A person who could
speak Hebrew in the first century, and even one who could writeor could even
speak! biblical Hebrew, as some o f the Qumran people could, could still be in
difficulty with the actual biblical text. The text was now holy, and it was not
possible to bring it up to date by a rewriting in a more contemporary Hebrew.
Hebrew commentaries (the pesher type) existed, but not modernizations o f the
actual text. For those who knew Hebrew, the Aramaic version functioned as a
more or less authoritative interpretation, which both elucidated the linguistic
obscurities of the original and smoothed out its religious difficulties.28
28 James Barr, Which Language did Jesus Speak? Some Remarks o f a Semitist, BJRL
53 (1970) 9-29, esp. 24-25. Birkeland writes, In the Mishnah the Aramaic translation
appears as an old traditional usage, no new institution. And we know that in the third
198
Thus the expansionist nature of targum is made the decisive feature, and the translational
nature is made either functionally secondary or is tied to a need to identify targum over
against Scripture for the sake o f allowing the expansions. The more recent revisionist
scenarios (discussed below) differ from Birkeland and Barr in their fixation on the origin
o f targum, rather than on the continuation of targum in the midst o f a more Hebrewconversant population. Whether Birkelands and Barrs insights about the continuation of
targum (if true) can be transmuted into an explanation for the rise o f targum in the first
place is the question at hand. (Birkeland, for one, supposes that targums functioned
primarily as a translation at a very early date, but that this function receded from view
when [he supposes] Hebrew became nearly universal in the late Second Temple period.)29
Steven Fraade is not the only scholar to write a revisionist account o f targumic
origins (cf. esp. Rabin30 and Tal),31 but his account is by far the most thorough. Although
century it was required that even one who knew Hebrew, when reading the Law privately,
should add the traditional Targum. But once this custom must have been provoked by a
real need (The Language o f Jesus, 30). Tal criticizes Barr for still pay[ing] tribute to
the conception of a Targum as a linguistic necessity and attribut[ing] its composition to
communities in which the knowledge of Hebrew was negligible (Is There a Raison
dEtre for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking Society?, 367). What is puzzling,
in this connection, is that Barr himself has provided a much more thorough survey o f the
evidence for and against the vernacular status ofHebrew in late antique Palestine than Tal
has, and Tal does not attempt to answer Barrs discussion of the evidence.
29 Birkeland admits that the targumic custom must have been provoked by a real need,
but he imagines this situation as existing very early, without any doubt as early as the
Persian era (The Language o f Jesus, 30). For a later time, when (Birkeland thinks)
Aramaic was not so widely understood, he explains the use o f targums (incredibly) as a
dignification of Scripture study through the use of a prestigious language (ibid, 32).
30 Rabin, Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century, 1007-39. Among other things,
Rabin suggests that the purpose o f the targum was to provide assistance with biblical
words that had passed out o f daily use (ibid, 1029-30)! Cf. John P. Meiers assessment of
199
the title of his article refers to the amoraic period and later (specifically, Third-Sixth
Centuries), much of his argument bears directly on the tannaitic period as well. He
argues that the practice of translating the weekly lection into Aramaic was not borne o f
communicative necessity. According to Fraade, Galilean Jews in the third to sixth
Rabins attempts to explain the practice o f targum on hebraeophone terms: Rabin

realizes that the existence o f Aramaic targums in and before the early 1st century A.D.
poses a major problem to his view that in Judea the major spoken language among Jews
was a type ofMisbnaic Hebrew. He struggles to answer the objection with various,
perhaps even contradictory, proposals (Aramaic-speaking Jews from elsewhere had
migrated to Judea; the targum was more of a guide for those who already understood the
Hebrew words), but he never really finds a solution to the problem posed by the relatively
literal Targum o f Job from Qumran (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus,
vol. 1: The Roots o f the Problem and the Person [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991]
296 n. 51).
31 See Tal, Is There a Raison dEtre for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking
Society? 357-78. Tals basic approach and position are in many ways similar to
Fraades (whom he never cites), but unfortunately his sweeping generalizations about the
linguistic situation at the time o f the first targums are given in lieu o f an account of the
evidence, and misrepresent both the evidence and the scholarly discussion of that
evidence. According to Tal, scholars involved in Aramaic studies were caused some
embarrassment by the discoveries at Qumran, Nahal Hever, and Wadi Muraba(at (ibid,
357), but he fails to tell us who these scholars were. And while it is true that these
discoveries helped to change the general attitude vis-a-vis the position o f Second
Temple Hebrew (ibid, 359), it is not at all true that these changes amount to the position
that everyone speaks Hebrew. Tal construes evidence that Hebrew was spoken
somewhere as a support for the universality o f Hebrew. According to the evidence that
he cites (the Copper Scroll and the Bar Kokhba letters), the most that can be said is that
Hebrew sometimes shows up in religious or nationalistic contexts. In response to Rashis
belief that the targum was aimed at women and commoners, Tal claims that the
masses were not unfamiliar with Hebrew at the time when Onqelos was composed
(ibid, 366), but he provides no real evidence to support this view. He also writes that, if
the targum was produced within a Hebrew-speaking community, then the Targum was
not imperative in order to make Scripture accessible to the masses. It was rather intended
to protect Scripture from the masses! (ibid, 368): since the Hebrew Scriptures could not
be glossed, the desire to insert explanatory glosses made it necessary to use an Aramaic
translation in lieu of Scripture. All that needs to be said at this point is that Tal badly
mishandles the argument for a Hebrew-speaking society, and his explanation for the use
of targums is too flimsy to stand without that argument.
200
centuries were thoroughly conversant in Hebrew, and the linguistic situation o f the
Galilee cannot explain the practice o f targum. He devotes the bulk of a 34-page study to
the linguistic evidence,32 yet how he handles this evidence, and the rather simplistic
models o f multilingualism that he fits it into, betray the better parts o f his analysis.
To clear space for a different explanation o f targum, Fraade argues that Hebrew
would have been understood by virtually all synagogue goers: the Galilee, Fraade writes,
was trilingual, speaking Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. By calling attention to the
multilingual situation of the Galilee, Fraade intends to call into question a conventional
view o f the function o f targum as serving a popular Jewish synagogue audience that no
longer understood Hebrew and needed to be provided with an Aramaic rendering of
Scripture as its substitute.33 Of course, it is one thing to say that a region was trilingual,
32 Steven D. Fraade, Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in

the Jewish Galilee of the Third-Sixth Centuries, in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee
I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1992) 253-86. Fraades
analysis is based on 46 passages from tannaitic texts (Mishnah, Tosefta, and tannaitic
midrashim), 20 from talmudic baraitot, 21 from the Palestinian Talmud, 20 from the
Babylonian Talmud, 6 from the amoraic midrashim, 10 from extra-canonical talmudic
tractates, 8 from post-amoraic midrashim, and 8 from geonic sources (ibid, 254-55 n. 4).
A number of Fraades observations concerning the linguistic evidence tell against his own
interpretation. E.g., before mentioning that at least seven synagogues feature Hebrew
inscriptions, he writes, It would be wrong to read such inscriptions as being simple
markers o f what language the people of a particular place actually spoke, since they are
stylized and often two or more languages are used within a single location, even within a
single inscription (ibid, 277). It is not clear why Fraade thinks that Hebrew inscriptions
reflect the vernacular o f those attending the synagogue, especially when he has just told
us that the choice o f language could be based on style. Certainly, stylization is more
likely in the case o f a religiously valuated language like Hebrew, and the fact that the
vast majority o f synagogue inscriptions are in Aramaic should be taken to reflect the
linguistic norm of the synagogue congregation.
33 Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee
o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, 255.
201
and quite another to say that virtually everyone in that region was trilingual. As Hezser
points out, the descriptors multilingual and triglossic are much too general to be
useful as a description o f the lingustic situation in Roman Palestine.34 Fraades careful
wording shows an awareness of the difference between a sort o f distributive
multilingualism and a multilingual vernacular, but he does not pay sufficient attention to
how the evidence might look different in these two cases. It is here where his argument
begins to break down: he takes evidence for the existence o f Hebrew to constitute
evidence that Hebrew was the vernacular o f the Jewish population:
Having examined all the rabbinic stories and sayings which, when interpreted as
simple representations, are said to prove that Hebrew had already died among all
except the sages, and among them it had weakened, I find that each and every one
can just as easily be interpreted to suggest that Hebrew and Aramaic continued to
coexist, even as they were in competition with one another, and therefore
significantly interpenetrated each other.
The position that Hebrew and Aramaic continued to coexist is by no means ruled out by
the majority of scholars who argue that Aramaic was the vernacular, and that Hebrew was
less widespread. Merely proving that Hebrew continued to be spoken by some does not
carry much force when seeking to overturn the view that targumic renderings were
intended to translate the lection into the vernacular o f the synagogue congregation.
Fraade writes that it is never stated or presumed in a single Galilean rabbinic
source that the Aramaic translation was intended for a common crowd which did not
understand Hebrew:
34 Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 227.

35 Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee
202
The idea that the Targum was intended for the unlearned women and (amme ha^ retz is a view commonly expressed since medieval times. See, for example,
Rashi to B Megillah 21b. Note also Qorban Ha-(edah to J Megillah 4,1, 74d, but
this view receives no expression in tannaitic sources. Only one amoraic source,
and a Babylonian one at that, raises this possibility, only for it to be rejected. See
B Megillah 18a,. . . See also Tosafot to B Berakhot 8a-b. The view that the
targumic translation was intended for the common people, the women, and the
children is also found in Tractate Soferim 18:6, Higger, p. 317, but as Higger
indicates in his introduction (p. 29), this is a later addition from a Babylonian
36
source.
In response: it might be asking too much to expect statements or presumptions to the
effect that the targum was intended for a stratum of the congregation that could not
understand Hebrew, and that, notwithstanding the silence o f the texts, such a scheme
continues to provide the most efficient explanation for the use o f an Aramaic translation.
The problem needs to be clearly understood: although the intrinsic likelihood that targum
was necessitated by the linguistic situation o f many Jewish communities is perhaps not
total, it is at least compelling enough to overturn the opposing argument from silence. It
is not enough to show that a given body o f evidence for an Aramaic vernacular is
equivocal: one must also be able to show that the Aramaic vernacular view is untenable.
Fraades argument fails not only for not respecting the difference between a distributive
multilingualism and a multilingual vernacular, but also for adopting a defensive strategy
(viz. I find that each and every one can just as easily be interpreted to suggest that
Hebrew and Aramaic continued to coexist) for an argument that needs to take the form
o f a frontal assault.
36 Rabbinic Views on the Practice o f Targum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee
o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, 258 with n. 10.
203
Fraade believes that Targum possesses a primarily symbolic value. It

symbolizes the mediation of Gods word: Rabbinic sources conceive of Targum . . . as a
a37
bridge and buffer between written Scripture and its oral reception and elucidation.
He
finds support for this theory in the rabbinic use ofM oses role at Sinai as a model for
Targum, a role which, he claims, does not support the view that the targum arose as a
linguistic necessity, since (according to Fraades rabbinic sources) both God and Moses
spoke Hebrew.38 If Moses act o f mediation does not involve a linguistic translation,
and if the sources set up that act as a model for targumic translation, then (according to
Fraade) it stands to reason that the purpose of the targum cannot be to bridge a language
gap. Fraade notes that other rabbinic writings refer to a multilingual revelation o f Gods
word at Sinai (alternatively in four or seventy languages), but he meets the challenge that
this poses for his interpretation with a symbolic rendering: Since the numbers four and
seventy are whole numbers, totality o f revelation is expressed in the totality o f its
linguistic expression, which is understood here as a multilingual expression:39
Thus, to translate a text o f Scripture into one of these languages may be thought of
not so much as a distancing from Sinai as a return to it. As one mishnaic passage
suggests, to fully comprehend the written record of revelation, in a sense, to
penetrate its seemingly unilingual writing, requires reverting it to the fullness o f
37 Rabbinic Views on the Practice ofTargum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish Galilee
o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, 267. For the revelation of Torah in seventy languages, see
t. Sotah 8.6-7; y. Sotah 7.5 (21d); b. Sotah 35b; b. San. 88b; b. Shab. 88b; Midrash
Psalms 92.3; Exod. Rabbah 5.9; 28.6; Tank Devarim 2. See also m. Sot. 7.5; Sacha
Stem, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings (AGAJU 23; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 211.
204
the seventy languages in which it was originally heard by Israel

Thus,
translation is itself a form of explication, and no less so for those who
understand the language of its source. In a sense, then, the original, pre-literary
text o f revelation is itself multilingual, and translation is one means o f
apprehending another one of its many jC
races. 40
n
As we can see, when the rabbinic account expresses no bridging o f a linguistic gap,
Fraade takes the act o f mediation to be the point of the account, and when the account
expresses the bridging o f multiple linguistic gaps, Fraade takes the totality o f revelation
to be the point. The upshot o f all this, for Fraade, is that the translation o f the lection into
Aramaic can serve a symbolic role quite independent o f any supposed need for translation
due to a simple language gap. Fraade writes,
Implicit in the Palestinian sources considered here is the rabbinic understanding
that Targum is intended for an audience, whether in worship or in study, that
comprehends both Hebrew and Aramaic but nonetheless is served in their
reception o f Hebrew Scripture through the mediating interpretation o f its Aramaic
translation. This is not to suggest that the rabbis or their students experienced no
language gap with the Hebrew o f Scripture. Quite the contrary, they admitted that
the Hebrew they employed in their discourse was different from that o f the Bible.
R. Yohanan is reported to have stated, The language o f the Torah is one thing
and the language o f the sages is another.41
Unfortunately, it is problematic to read rabbinic images as efficient extended metaphors,
especially when those images are used to make a particular point. In all probability, the
o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, 267. For sources, see ibid, 268.
o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, 272. The Toseftas explanation for the prohibition against
translating embarrassing passages (e.g., Gen 35:22 and Exod 32:21-25; see t. Meg. 4.37)vzz., that translating these passages might be seen as justifying the questionable actions
that they relate-is not opposite to the view that the public was kept in the dark as to
their content, as Fraade claims (ibid, 260), but rather works perfectly in tandem with this
view. Fraade points out (ibid, 260 n. 15) that Josephus skips the golden calf incident in
Ant. 3.5.8, but this probably reflects Josephus idealization o f Israelite history.
205
purpose of comparing Targum to Moses mediation of Gods word was to express the
practical importance of presenting the people with an accessible form o f that word, to
accompany the reading of that word in its pure form (i.e. Hebrew). It is doubtful that the
originators o f this comparison intended the lack of a God-Moses linguistic gap (in the
first rabbinic account) to bear on the meaning they wanted to convey. Likewise, when the
rabbis spoke o f the Law being revealed in seventy languages, it is more likely that this
was meant theologically to underwrite the practice of translating the Torah into other
languages. (The observation that numbers four and seventy are whole numbers is very
strange: Who in the world would have used a non-whole number within this context?) At
any rate, it is very unlikely that the fact that Moses understood Gods language in the
monolingual account o f the giving of the Law was ever intended as a hermeneutic key to
the interpretation o f the multilingual account.
Fraades attempt to hold the points o f the different rabbinic accounts o f the giving
o f the Law together points up one of the methodological problems with his argument: he
studiously avoids any sort o f conflictual understanding o f alternative rabbinic accounts, as
if all the rabbinic traditions agree in their basic intent. This refusal to read alternative
accounts as conflicting leads Fraade to seek a single overriding rabbinic policy that can
accomodate the different attitudes towards the use o f Aramaic in religious contexts. The
result is that Aramaic is changed from being a controverted language to being a language
with something o f an anomalous status.42 By this move, Fraade is able to make
conflicting statements concerning the status o f Aramaic support a single unified view:
42 Fraade, Rabbinic Views on the Practice ofTargum, and Multilingualism in the Jewish
Galilee o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, 271.
206
[T]he rabbis employed the instrument of Aramaic to distinguish the voice o f interpretive
paraphrase from that o f Scripture, so that the two might be heard and studied as distinct
voices in dialogical interrelation to one another, with neither swallowing the other.43 In
fact, Fraades resistance to a conflictual understanding o f rabbinic traditions is at times so
apparent that one wonders whether this resistance might explain his position on the
linguistic situation o f late antique Palestine.
Although I dissent from Fraades view that Hebrew was so widely understood at
an early date, I would point out that the degree and the manner in which Hebrew did
penetrate Jewish society was not necessarily a constant throughout the years o f Aramaic
ascendancy. As I read the evidence, Hebrew served different purposes to different
people, and the main motivation for its revival in the early Middle Ages perhaps had little
to do with R. Yochanans main motivation for proscribing Aramaic prayer outside the
synagogue (see below). Among other things, the messiness o f the scenario presented by a
lengthwise appreciation of the fortunes o f the holy language suggests that there may be
more messiness within the individual redactional complexes of rabbinic literature than the
traditional mining for attitudes to Hebrew and Aramaic would reveal: the importance and
role o f Hebrew to the redactor may have differed from that of the original tradents.
Furthermore, we might be inclined to understand Mekhilta de R. Ishmaels claim that God
207
told Moses to address Israel in the holy language (Bachodesh 9)44 differently according
to whether we date this writing to the Middle Ages, as Wacholder and Neusner suggest,
45
or assign it a more traditional (early) date. No matter how assertive the third century
rabbis were on the religious value of Hebrew, we should not automatically cast their
linguistic policies in the shape o f medieval or early modem policies.46 In this light, the
44 And God said to Moses, Thus you shall say to the children o f Israel, [that is], in the
language that I say [these things] to you, you shall speak to the children o f Israel, [that is]
in the holy language fDK
b tn c r DH
HD HOD % " "IDtn
cmpn
n n % nm n m pb
45 Ben Zion Wacholder, The Date o f the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, HUCA 39 (1968)
1 1 7 -4 4 ; Jacob Neusner, Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Introduction to
Judaism's First Scriptural Encyclopaedia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
46 Hezser writes, In the elementary school context the Aramaic-speaking pupils seem to
have needed to acquire a passive knowledge o f Hebrew only
The ruling in T. Hag.
1:2, that a minor, [if] he knows how to speak, his father teaches him the Shema, the
Torah, and the holy language, does not necessarily imply that the child learned spoken
Hebrew. The version o f the tradition in Siffe Deut. 46 (p. 104 in the Finkelstein ed.)
explicitly mentions the speaking o f Hebrew: When a child begins to speak, his father
speaks with him in the holy language [CTHpn
IQS? Q"IQ TDft], but this
speaking o f Hebrew is directly connected with-and was probably limited to-the loud
reading o f the Torah, since the text continues: teaching him Torah. But if he does not
speak with him in the holy languageJeaxhing him Torah, he is as if he would bury him
(.Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine [TSAJ 81; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001] 72).
But one need not understand the term holy language as suggesting that the use o f
Hebrew was geared primarily to religious contexts, as Hezser does (in the sequel to the
passage quoted above). The term holy language would also be useful within rhetoric
supporting the use o f Hebrew in daily contexts, playing on the idea o f Israel as a holy
people or holy remnant. The importance o f Hebrew for Palestinian Jews in the Byzantine
era is perhaps shown by the Rehob inscription, which reproduces in Hebrew what the
Palestinian Talmud gave in Aramaic (seey. Dem. 2; y. Shevi(it 6; cf. t. Shevi(it 4; Sifre
Deut. 51). On the inscription in general, see Yaakov Sussmann, An Halakhic Inscription
from the Beisan Valley, Tarbiz 43 (1974) 88-158; 44 (1975) 193-95 (Hebrew); idem,
The Inscription in the Synagogue at Rehob, in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. Lee I.
Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981) 146-51; Saul Lieberman,
Regarding the Halakhic Inscription from the Beisan Valley, Tarbiz 45 (1976) 54-63
(Hebrew); Aaron Demsky, Holy City and Holy Land as Viewed by Jews and Christians
in the Byzantine Period: A Conceptual Approach to Sacred Space, in Sanctity o f Time
208
best way to understand these policies according to their guiding motivations is through a
sociological analysis o f some sort.
B . THE HEBRAIC
S E T T I N G OF R A B B I N I C P I E T Y
There are a number of ways in which language usage can be an expression of an

ideology, most of which seem to be tied to recurring patterns in the history of any people.
I am reminded ofYigael Yadins report o f David Ben Gurions response to being shown
a cache o f Aramaic documents connected with the Bar Kokhba revolt: Why did they
write in Aramaic and not in Hebrew? was his immediate angry reaction, Yadin writes,
as if the scribes had been members o f his staff.47
and Space in Tradition and Modernity, eds. A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, and J.

Schwartz (Jewish and Christian Perspectives 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 285-96. For Fergus
Millar, the fact that the Rehob inscription provides in Hebrew what the Palestinian
Talmud had supplied in Aramaic shows that Jewish religious prescriptions could be
current in both an Aramaic, and. Hebrew version (Ethnic Identity in the Roman Near
East, 325-450: Language, Religion, and Culture, Mediterranean Archaeology 11 [1998]
159-76, esp. 173). If we follow the more widely accepted seventh century date for the
inscription, then its comparison with the text o f the Palestinian Talmud might accentuate
change more than static variety.
47 Yadin, Bar-Kokhba, 124. Bernard Lewis writes, Jewish history shows two contrasting
patterns o f cultural relations between Jews and their neighbors. In one the Jews are
culturally integrated into the society in which they live, using the same language and to a
large extent sharing the same cultural values as the surrounding majority.. . . The other
pattern is one in which the Jews are linguistically and therefore culturally separated, using
either Hebrew or, more commonly, some other language they brought from elsewhere and
transformed into a Jewish langauge used exclusively by Jews.. . . These two situations
produce different types o f Jewish life (The Jews o f Islam [Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1984] 77).
In a number of cases, rabbinic Judaism emphasized the priority or the exclusive

propriety of using Hebrew in religious contexts. For contemporary Jews, the association
of Hebrew with both the Temple and the Torah gave two reasons for identifying the
language as the holy language. Seth Schwartz identifies Temple and Torah as
repositories o f power around which related classes o f curators gathered: These men
used Hebrew to distinguish themselves from the rest of the population.48 The rabbis
represent, for their time, one of the main groups claiming to be the official custodians
(and interpreters) o f the Torah. As we will see below, the implementation o f the rabbis
linguistic ideology also benefited from those who thought o f Hebrew more in terms o f its
Temple associations. I should stress from the outset, o f course, that the rabbis were not
all uniform on this matter. While some apparently insisted that Hebrew should be the
exclusive language o f liturgy (including all forms of prayer) and Bible reading, others
emphasized the need for an Aramaic-speaking populace to understand at least certain
parts o f the liturgy and the words ofthe Bible. As Stefan C. R eif writes, The status of
the language of the Hebrew Bible as against the practical advantage o f a widely
understood vejpseular was destined to become a recurrent theme in the halakhic

discussions of the rabbis concerning the precise form in which various prayers were to be
recited.49 This shows just how divided the rabbis could be on issues that some
considered to be gravely important.
48 Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, 4.

49 Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 76.
Reproduced with permission o fth e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
Before outlining the elements of the Hebrew-only camp, I should point out that,
while these diverging views were in some sense institutionalized by opposing parties in
the Second Temple period, with the Qumranites50 propounding the necessity o f Hebrew
for proper piety, and the Pharisees promoting the greater need for meeting the people on
their own linguistic level,51 it is not generally helpful to think o f the rabbis linguistic
ideology as a precise parallel to that o f the Qumranites. The similarities are
sociologically telling, but so are the differences. Briefly looking at the Qumranites and
Pharisees respective approaches to language will help us find our bearing when we
consider the linguistic issues visited by the rabbis, but it will also be important to note
how the rabbinic approach is different still.
It is widely recognized that the use of Hebrew was a house rule at Qumran.52
Although it is not clear how the Aramaic and Greek components o f the Qumran cache
501 avoid using the label Essene in this connection simply because there is some
indication that extra-Qumranic Essenes did not embrace the same strict linguistic policy
as the Qumranites. Indeed, the best explanation for certain Aramaic texts found at
Qumran rich in Essene terminology (esp. the targum o f Job) is that they represent extraQumranic Essene piety.
51 Gedaliah Alons claim that the Pharisees left behind a durable Torah. . . accessible
to everyman is therefore true in more ways than he intended (The Jews in Their Land in
the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.), vol. 1 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980] 22). Martin Hengel
characterizes the opposing approaches o f the Qumranites (Essenes) and Pharisees as a
family conflict, the two groups developing in opposite directions (The Scriptures
and their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in
their Historical Context, eds. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara [JSOTSup 166;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994] 158-75, esp. 172).
52 Stanislav Segert refers to Hebrew as the Amtssprache ofthe Qumran community
(Die Sprachenffagen in der Qumrangemeinschaft, in Qumran-Probleme: Vortrage des
Leipziger Symposions iiber Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14. Oktober 1961, ed. Hans
Bardtke [Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 42; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1963] 315-39, esp. 330).
211
served the Qumran community, it is reasonably clear that they were not produced at
Qumran.53 The form o f Hebrew in which the Qumranites wrote, moreover, differs
considerably from that o f the Mishnah. This difference appears to have been
conventional rather than habitual, as shown by contrasting the language o f most of the
Qumran compositions with the more mishnaic Hebrew of 4Q229,34 the Copper Scroll
53 See William M. Schniedewind, Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage, JBL 118 (1999)

235-52, esp. 242. The Hebrew-only policy of Qumran may have been flexible enough to
accommodate a minority o f native Greek speakers. A. R. C. Leaney discusses the finding
o f Greek texts in caves 4 and 7, including the implications o f this find for Qumran
membership (Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert, in Studies in New Testament
Language and Text: Essays in Honour o f George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion o f his
Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. J. K. Elliott [NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976] 283-300). See
Leonard J. Greenspoon, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Bible, in The Dead Sea
Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, eds. Peter W. Flint and James C.
VanderKam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-99) 1.101-27, esp. 112-13. On the use o f Greek
at Qumran, see also J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?: How Much Greek Could the
First Jewish Christians Have Known? (NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 151-54. On
separating Qumran sectarian compositions from other works found at Qumran, see
Devorah Dimant, The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance, in Time to
Prepare the Way in the Wilderness Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows o f the
Institute fo r Advanced Studies o f the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-90, eds.
Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffinan (STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 23-58. For
a more precise breakdown o f Qumran manuscripts by language, and categorized as
biblical versus non-biblical, see Puech, Du Bilinguisme a Qumran? 176. If one accepts
E. W. Tuinstras argument that the Qumran Job targum was composed at Qumran
(Hermeneutische Aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot X I van Qumran [Th.D.
dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, 1970] 69-70), a view now made more
acceptable by Sally L. Golds contribution (Targum or Translation: New Light on the
Character of Qumran Job (11Q10) from a Synoptic Approach, Journal fo r the Aramaic
Bible 3 [2001] 101-20), but which still falls short o f proving that there is anything
specifically Qumranic (as opposed to generally Essenic) in the targum, this might alter the
picture somewhat.
54 Florentine Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar entitle this work
4QPseudepigraphic work in Mishnaic Hebrew {The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [2
vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-98] 1.484)
212
(3Q15)55 or 4QMMT (4Q394-399).56 Since 4QMMT is undoubtedly a Qumran

composition, we may presume that its departure from the more biblicizing style o f the
other Qumran writings represents a form of Hebrew more common among the Temple
priesthood (to whom it was addressed). Elisha Qimrons contention that Qumran Hebrew
55 j. t . Milik (Ten Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judaea [London: SCM, 1959]
130) refers to the Hebrew of the Copper Scroll as Mishnaic Hebrew. Rabin thinks that
the Copper Scroll is a form o f witnesses deposition, whether real or pretended, and its
language is meant to represent the ipsissima verba of those who gave the evidence
(Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century, 1018). Eric M. Meyers and James F.
Strange write, Presumably [the Copper Scroll] was intended to be a permanent record
that only a Jew could read, in fact, perhaps only a member of a priestly, or rabbinic,
family (Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity [Nashville: Abingdon, 1981]
67). Arguments for and against classifying the Hebrew of the Copper Scroll in
relationship to mishnaic Hebrew can be found in J. T. Milik, Le rouleau de cuivre
provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15), in Les 'Petites Grottes' de Qumran, eds. M. Baillet, J.
T. Milik, andR. de Vaux (DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962) 201-302, esp. 236-58; Jonas
C. Greenfield, The Small Caves o f Qumran, JAOS 89 (1969) 128-41; A1 Wolters, The
Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary o f Mishnaic Hebrew, RevQ 14 (1990) 483-95; Peter
Muchowski, Language o f the Copper Scroll in the Light o f the Phrases Denoting the
Directions of the World, in Methods ofInvestigation o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Michael O. Wise,
Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee (Annals of the New York Academy
o f Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 319-27; John F.
Elwolde, 3Q15: Its Linguistic Affiliation, with Lexicographical Comments, in Copper
Scroll Studies, eds. George J. Brooke and Philip R. Davies (JSPSup 40; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 108-21; John Liibbe, The Copper Scroll and I .mguagr
Issues, in ibid, 155-62.
56 William M. Schniedewinds explanation for the non-biblicizing Hebrew o f 4QMMT is
that the writing reflects a period before the community adopted a linguistic ideology
(Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings o f a
Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds.
Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde [STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000] 245-55, esp.
252). On the Hebrew o f 4QMMT, see Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave
4. V: Miqsat Mafase ha-Torah (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 65-108, esp. 101-08;
B. W. W. Dombrowski, 4QMMT after DJD 10, Qumran Cave 4, Part 5, Qumran
Chronicle 5 (1995) 151-170; Pablo-Isaac Kirtchuk, Some Cognitive and Typological
Semantic Remarks on the Language o f 4QMMTa, in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings
o f a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira,
eds. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 131-36.
213
is not an imitation of BH [= biblical Hebrew] but rather a continuation o f it57 does not
appear likely: among other things, it requires one to explain the language o f 4QMMT as a
conscious imitation of extra-Qumranic Hebrew (viz. that ofthe Temple administration)
rather than as a simple code-switching from an artificial literary Hebrew to a more
common dialect. It should also be noted that anticipators and supporters o f Qimrons
view have sometimes been forced to resort to some rather unlikely constructs as props for
certain corollaries, as with Rabins backward suggestion that the Pharisees abandoned
the use o f biblical Hebrew in order to set o ff their own teaching clearly from that of the
sectarians.58 The Qumranites attention to orthographical matters may also suggest that
they consciously shaped their writings at the linguistic level.59 Their efforts to biblicize
57 See Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1986) 116. Cf. Mayer Gruber, Language(s) in Judaism, in The Encyclopedia o f
Judaism, eds. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (3 vols.; New
York: Continuum, 1999) 2.783-97, esp. 785-87. Shlomo Morag gives eleven reasons for
thinking that Qumran Hebrew was spoken (Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological
Observations, VT 38 [1988] 148-64).
58 Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century, 1015. See idem, TheHistorioal
Background o f Qumran Hebrew, in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 4: Aspects o f the Dead
Sea Scrolls, eds. Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965)
144-61, esp. 160-61.
59 Schniedewind suggests that the The purpose o f the peculiar orthography seems. . . to
be to mark off the sectarian texts from other Jewish literature in their library (Qumran
Hebrew as an Antilanguage, 248). See the comments on the archaic orthography o f
Qumran Hebrew in E. Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background o f the
Complete Isaiah Scroll (IQIsa0) (Leiden: Brill, 1974) 4-8,96-125; David Noel Freedman,
The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography, in Qumran and
the History of the Biblical Text, eds. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975) 196-211; Emanuel Tov, The Orthography
and Language o f the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran and the Origins o f These Scrolls,
Textus 19 (1986) 31-57; Frank Moore Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library o f Qumran, (3rd
ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 174-77. See also the response to Kutscher in Arie van
214
their Hebrew is best explained along ideological lines: they saw themselves as an
exclusive remnant of Judaisms biblical heritage.60 In other words, they represent a form
o f introverted sectarianism.
61
der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des
Alten Testaments (OBO 35; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag Freiburg, 1981) 74-81. See
Mireille Hadas-Lebels remarks on Qumranic Hebrew (Histoire de la Langue Hebraique
des Origines a I Epoque de la Mishna [Paris: Publications Orientalistes de France, 1981]
105-08). Contra Tov, Eugene Ulrich is not convinced that orthography can be used to
determine whether a biblical manuscript was copied at Qumran: orthography was
expanding generally in Palestine in the latter Second Temple period; expanded use o f
matres lectionis was the tendency (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins o f the Bible
[Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999]
104). Ulrich is concerned to show that the tracing o f orthographic conventions is a red
herring for the delineation o f biblical text types. In the end, this concern is perhaps not
relevant to what Weitzman et al argue in connection with sectarian documents, but if
biblical orthography was as important to the Qumranites as Weitzman and Schniedewind
imply, then the Mishnahs inclusion o f later forms o f Hebrew within the holy language
would comprise a liberal attitude by comparison. See Segal, Grammar o f Mishnaic
Hebrew, 2. Cf. the use ofplene spellings in mishnaic Hebrew, on which see Moshe BarAsher, The Study o f Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar Based on Written Sources:
Achievements, Problems, and Tasks, in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 37: Studies in
Mishnaic Hebrew, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998) 9-42, esp. 17-18.
60 Jonathan Campbell writes, [T]here is evidence to "ggest that Hebrew was special for
the Qumran community and the preferred medium for expressing its history, identity,
worship and study of scripture. This doubtless reflects something real about the sect, at
least at the level o f its idealized self-understanding and its desire to from a link-exclusive
in its own eyes-with the biblical past (Hebrew and Its Study at Qumran, in Hebrew
Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, ed. William Horbury [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999]
38-52, esp. 47-48). The importance ofHebrew for Qumran identity is also noted in
Lawrence H. Schiffinan, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1994); Stanislav Segert, Hebrew Essenes-Aramaic Christians, in
Mogilany 1995: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory o f Aleksy Klawek,
ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera (Krakow: Enigma, 1998) 169-84. The question ofthe end to
which the Qumranites wrote in a biblical idiom held little currency for the earlier
generations of Qumran studies, so much so that Rabin could write As far as is known to
me, the question has never been asked why the non-Biblical Scrolls are written in BH at
all (The Historical Background o f Qumran Hebrew, 144).
215
There is universal agreement that the Hebrew of most o f the writings found at
Qumran is closer to the biblical idiom than to mishnaic Hebrew. There is little
agreement, however, on how one should explain this fact.
Some scholars think that
Qumran Hebrew was an artificial language, highly literary and hardly spoken at all.
others maintain that the Hebrew o f these scrolls represents what was spoken at Qumran.
O f course, the former scenario does not imply that the Qumranites did not speak Hebrew:
they may have spoken in the idiom represented by 4QMMT. Without insisting on one
position or another, I would only point out that a priestly community like Qumran could
have functioned in Hebrew, despite the artificiality of the scrollss language or the
(\X
likelihood that most o f the rest of Palestine spoke only Aramaic and/or Greek.
On the
basis o f an allusion to Zeph 3:9 in 4Q464, it has been argued that the Qumran community
enacted a return to Hebrew as a condition for the eschatological community. Steve
61 The term was coined by Bryan Wilson and applied to the Qumran community by Philip
F. Esler. See Esler, The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-scientific
Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1994) 70-91.
62 Steve Weitzman writes, the use o f Hebrew at Qumran [should] be viewed as part o f a
larger sociolmguistic trend in Judea in the Hellenistic period, one probably tied to the
increasingly central role o f biblical literature in the formulation o f Jewish identity (Why
Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?, JA O S 119 [1999] 35-45, esp. 36). See
also Stefan C. Reif, The Second Temple Period, Qumran Research, and Rabbinic
Liturgy: Some Contextual and Linguistic Comparisons, in Liturgical Perspectives:
Prayer and Poetry in Light o f the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings o f the Fifth
International Symposium o f the Orion Center fo r the Study o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000, ed. Esther G. Chazon (STDJ 48; Leiden:
Brill, 2003) 133-49. Segerts denial that Qumran had a clear Sprachpolitik stems from
his failure to differentiate between the sectarian and the nonsectarian works found in the
cache (Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumrangemeinschaft, 315-39).
63 As Puech notes, the number of copies of certain Qumran texts that have been found
suggests a great number o f readers at Qumran (Du Bilinguisme a Qumran?, 178).
216
Weitzman claims that the use of Hebrew [in 4Q464 and Jubilees] is represented as the
linguistic prerequisite for membership in a supernatural community, either the community
at the End of Days or that of the angels in the heavenly temple.64 But there is in fact no
indication that 4Q464 uses Zeph 3:9 in this way, or that 4Q464 is even an eschatological
text (as its modem editors have supposed).65 Although the image of the Qumran
community as a surrogate for the Temple may imply a realm in which the holy tongue is
spoken, and given the practical possibility o f achieving that ideal in a community
organized around a core o f priests, it is another question altogether whether the
Qumranites spoke in the artificial language in which they wrote. It is not impossible, but
it seems unlikely. The view that Qumran literary Hebrew was both artificial and
influenced by spoken Hebrew seems to fit with Avi Hurvitzs argument that Qumran
Hebrew preserves imprints of a spoken language yet should not be defined in terms o f
64 Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?, 45. See Esther Eshel and
Michael Stone, The Holy Tongue in the Last Days in the Light o f a Fragment from
Qumran, Tarbiz 62 (1992-93) 169-77 (Hebrew). Cf. idem, An Exposition on the
Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q4646), Le Museon 105
(1992) 243-64; idem, 4QExposition on the Patriarchs, in Qumran Cave 4, vol. 14:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, eds. Magen Broshi et al (DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995)
215-30. The upshot o f this reconstruction o f 4Q464, and o f the readings in parallel, is
(according to Eshel and Stone) that the Qumran community believed Hebrew to be the
eschatological language. The community insists upon using Hebrew because it sees itself
as the endtime community. Weitzman contrasts the view o f 4Q464 with that o f Philo,
who rejects Babel as the origin o f the earthly languages and accordingly accepts the
validity o f other languages for Jewish expression (cf. Conf. 191): In contrast to Philos
linguistic claims,. . . which amount to a justification o f the Jewish use o f Greek, 4Q464s
description of Hebrew seems to presuppose a deliberate rejection o f the need or utility o f
using languages other than Hebrew (Why Did the Qumran Community Write in
Hebrew? 40).
65 See John C. Poirier, 4Q464: Not Eschatological, RevQ 20 (2002) 583-87.
217
a spoken language.66 The sacred use to which the Qumranites put their language most
likely would have caused them to guard against Aramaic influences-Schniedewind points
to a studied avoidance o f . . . Aramaisms67-and it is this attempt to keep Hebrew pure
that led to the artificial language that we encounter in the Qumran writings.
66 Was QH a Spoken Language? On Some Recent View and Positions: Comments, in

Diggers at the Well: Proceedings o f a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde (STDJ
36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 110-14, esp. 113.
67 Schniedewind, Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage, 242; see also idem, Linguistic
Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, 245-55. James H. Charlesworth accepts Schniedewinds
characterization o f Qumran Hebrew as an antilanguage, claiming that the language of
the scrolls has been shaped by Qumranology and isolation (The Pesharim and Qumran
History: Chaos or Consensus? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002] 20). Schniedewind
compares the Qumranic Hebrew antilanguage, which he thinks was spoken at Qumran,
with the Jacobean dialect o f nascent Quakerism (a kind of God-talk), even comparing
the Quaker use o f thee and thou with the Qumranic use o filftin and rW H (for NTH
and
respectively, Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, 246). As far as I can
tell, however, the reasons he adduces for describing Qumran Hebrew as an
antilanguage would still hold if the language in question were merely literary. Hezser
writes, Schniedewind, 235, has recently called the form o f Hebrew found in some o f the
sectarian writings from Qumran an antilanguage used for ideological reasons, to set the
speakers and their language apart from others. It seems more likely, however, that such
an antilanguage was not spoken by the sectarians but used by their scribes in writing
only (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 228 n. 13).
68 This is not to say that Qumran Hebrew was totally uninfluenced by Aramaic. See M.
H. Goshen-Gottstein, Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents, in
Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 4: Aspects o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Chaim Rabin and
Yigael Yadin (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965) 101-37. Segert writes, Wahrend des
Bestehens der Qumrangemeinde wurden in Palastina zwei semitische Sprachen von den
Juden verwendet, das Aramaische als Umgangssprache und als Sprache zur
Verstandigung mit den anderen orientalischen Volkem und das Hebraische als Sprache
des Gottesdienstes und des Rechts, die Verwendung des Hebraischen im t&glischen Leben
ist fur diese Zeit nicht ganz eindeutig bezeugt (Die Sprachenfragen in der
Qumrangemeinschaft, 315-39, esp. 316). Segert points to a limited use o f Aramaic in
the Habbakukpesher (ibid, 330). On the influence o f Aramaic on Hebrew outside o f
Qumran, see Barr, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, 87; Bar-Asher,
The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar Based on Written Sources, 20; Baruch A.
Levine, Hebrew (Postbiblical), in Beyond Babel: A Handbookfo r Biblical Hebrew and
218
From what we know o f the Pharisees, on the other hand, they appear to have
geared their expressions of piety toward mass participation, and there is no a priori
reason to suppose that they would have exalted Hebrew in the same way as the
Qumranites. It needs to be said, therefore, that the long held view that the Pharisees
taught their halakhic system through Hebrew, a view specifically promulgated by Rabin,69
has little going for it. Rabin formulated this view in dependence on a hebraeophone view
o f Second Temple Jewish Palestine, and on the belief that the Mishnah, as the eventual
deposit of pharisaic thinking, represented the language o f the Pharisees. That Hebrew
Related Languages, eds. John Kaltner and Steven L. McKenzie (SBL Resources for
Biblical Study 42; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) 157-82, esp. 160.
69 Rabin held that the Qumranic references to the blasphemous tongue (ITST"n
CD 5.11-12), halting language (H32J 2[Sy\b; 1QH 12.16 [was 4.16]), and
uncircumcised language (TTSCD
1QH 10.18 [was 2.18]) o f their opponents were
aimed at the Pharisees, who (Rabin believed) used mishnaic Hebrew (as opposed to the
quasi-biblical Hebrew o f Qumran) as their language o f instruction (The Historical
Background o f Qumran Hebrew, 144-61). Schniedewind accepts Rabins view that
Qumrans opponents spoke Hebrew, but he argues that these opponents were not the
Pharisees but rather the Temple administration, who spoke and wrote in ajargoned and
orthographically corrupt form of Hebrew (Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage, 235-52;
see idem, Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, 245-55). Schniedewind believes that
the Qumranites use o f Isa 28:10-11 entailed an implicit appeal to Isa 28:14s reference to
those who govern . . . in Jerusalem, despite the fact this phrase from Isa 28:14 is
nowhere quoted or alluded to in 1QH, and despite the fact that there is a clear reference to
the Pharisees later within the same stream o f invective in 1QH (seekers o f smooth
things [10.30-32]). (Jacob Kremer also argues that 1QH 4.17 was directed against der
mafigeblichen Fiihrer Jerusalems [Pfmgstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine
exegetische Untersuchung zu Apg 2,1-13 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 63/64; Stuttgart:
KBW Verlag, 1973) 40].) Contrary to Rabins and Schniedewinds assumptions, it is
more likely that the blasphemous tongue o f Qumrans opponents is Aramaic, and that
what made it blasphemous was precisely the audacious act o f conveying holy traditions
with it. On the phrase seekers after smooth things as a reference to the Pharisees, see
Albert I. Baumgarten, Seekers after Smooth Things, in Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H. Schifftnan and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000) 857-59.
219
was widely spoken in Second Temple times is debatable at best (as I have tried to show),
and, as Catherine Hezser points out, the fact that the Mishnah was composed and written
in Hebrew does not necessarily imply that the statements and traditions it contains were
originally formulated in that language, i.e. this language could well have been (and
almost certainly was) Aramaic rather than Hebrew.70 Hezser has recently added support
for this scenario:
If informal and private written notes existed, the language o f these notes may have
been Aramaic rather than Hebrew. This phenomenon may be indicated by Y. Kil.
1:1,27a, where an Aramaic list o f various kinds of produce allegedly written on
the wall (of the house or study room?) ofH illel b. Alem is quoted, which appears
in Hebrew in M. Kil. 1:1.71
It would appear, therefore, that the Qumranites and the Pharisees represent
opposing tendencies in the debate over whether adherence to Hebrew forms o f expression
take precedence over forms that most synagogue congregations could understand.
Although the rabbis inscribed the Pharisees within their own historical identity, the
dominant language policy o f the third-century rabbis, at least on the surface, appears to
have had more in common with the Qumranites. As Hezser writes, The ritual reading
70 Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 242 n. 127. Hezser writes, Hebrew may have
been used for the formulation and writing o f the Mishnah and other tannaitic works, but it
was not necessarily the language in which the tannaim acutally spoke (ibid, 246). As
Schwartz argues, the decision to compose the Mishnah (the earliest rabbinic document,
c. 200 C.E.) in Hebrew-and in a type o f Hebrew which was especially associated with the
temple, as the Rabbis themselves knew-constituted an act o f appropriation, an assertion
o f rabbinic control over what was symbolically central to Judaism (Language, Power
and Identity in Ancient Palestine, 34). On the ideological aspect o f the use of Hebrew in
the Mishnah, see Andre Paul, La Bible grecque dAquila et lideologie dujudaisme
ancien, in ANRW2.20.1 (1987) 221-45, esp. 238-39.
71 Catherine Hezser, The Mishnah and Ancient Book Production, in The Mishnah in
Contemporary Perspective, eds. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner (Handbook o f
Oriental Studies: Near and Middle East 65; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 167-92, esp. 179.
and listening to the Hebrew original was obviously more important to the rabbis than the
audiences ability to understand what was read, as T. Meg. 2:6 and 3:13 already
suggest.72 The rabbis rejection of the Pharisees views on the matter is best explained
along sociological lines. Yet there was also a difference between the rabbis and the
Qumranites in connection with the use o f Hebrew, a difference that is sociological in its
main lines. There are, in fact, two very different types o f ideological commitments to
holy languages. The one that we find at Qumran is bome o f sectarian social dynamics
(Were in and youre out), and involves a righteous-remnant mentality calling forth
an antiquarianizing or scripturalizing approach to language. This is the dynamic at play
1500 years later in the Quaker community. (Cf. Schniedewinds comparison o f Qumran
Hebrew with Quaker English.) The rabbis represent another type of ideological
commitment, one that is motivated simply by a sort of Scripture principle (broadly
construed), having nothing to do with sectarian versus non-sectarian dynamics: it
involves a simple acceptance of the holy language as the language o f religion, without
any pretensions about antiquarian forms o f that language.73 This difference in the
sociological components o f the Qumranic and rabbinic approaches to Hebrew answers the
objection, sometimes voiced by those adhering to the modem Israeli understanding o f the
72 Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 248 n. 164.

73 It should be pointed out that the Qumranic approach actually represents a combination
o f both paradigms: the sectarian aspect o f Qumranic self-definition brought the former
paradigm into play, while the priestly aspect brought the latter. At any rate, the Qumran
model is a poor example for what we should expect from groups affirming a holy
language ideology per se, especially from groups (like the rabbis) that were socially
expansionist.
221
linguistic situation in classical Jewish Palestine, that the rabbis made no effort to biblicize
their Hebrew, or to keep it free of aramaisms and graecisms.
Our knowledge of the rise o f the rabbinic movement is both scanty and
circumstantial. Direct statements in rabbinic sources concerning the tannaitic movement
tend to misrepresent things for the sake of later politics, and it is not until our sources
refer to the amoraic era that we can trust some o f what they say regarding the rabbis
influence in Jewish society, and even then the sources cannot be read uncritically. Fraade
refers to a tannaitic tunnel:74 although we can speak with a measure o f certainty about
events and circumstances before and after the tannaim, we cannot speak about the
tannaim
themselves at the same level of detail or with same degree of certainty.
Fortunately, scholars have been attending to this problem ever since Goodenough shook
the guilds confidence an early rabbi-controlled society (what Seth Schwartz calls the
Alon- and Avi-Yonah-derived rabbinocentric historical narrative),75 and a judicial use
o f mirror-reading and a hermeneutic o f suspicion has begun to penetrate the darkness.
What has emerged from the sources is a cacophony of competing voices, all o f them
vymgifoF .power. What little we can gather about the fortunes of the different linguistic
approaches shows little agreement among the rabbis.
The Mishnah (m. Sot. 7.1-4) lists a set o f blessings and invocations that may be
said in any language, as well as a set that may only be said in Hebrew:
74 Steven D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the
Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (Albany: SUNY, 1991) 72.
75 Rabbinization in the Sixth Century, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman
Culture III, ed. Peter Schafer (TSAJ 93; Tfibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 55-69, esp. 56
n. 4).
222
,mw n r ip ,"toq aia ,rmio ner ,]wb bni

1
]npsn mraen ,myn mynici ,]iian mrai ,n^sni
rvD-n .nirbm ,nm3 n tnpo ,cmpn pt^n p a r
2
n^y ransn r\bnr\ nsnsi ,bii3 ]m rmm ,Daro rcra ,m^pi
.yrr1^ "ma k nyen nanba nm i ,nsny
rn ]bnî rpn1^ 'n asb m a r nayi tiitd om m tnpo 3
empn pe^n ]bnb mia^n nay na ,mar cribn ayi ,aam
.cmpn pt^n }Ka ^
P n ayi nan* r n ]bnbi ,nnar nrayi 7-nrD rorbn 4
.cmpn ]wb2 ]va *]&empn peftn
n-nat*n nay na ;inar
.mn }wbn nowie? ny ,naa nnar nmyi ,naiK rmrr -an
These may be said in any language: the paragraph o f the Suspected Adulteress
(Num 5:19-21), the Avowal concerning the [Second] Tithe (Deut 26:13-15), the
recital o f the Shema( (Deut 6:4), the Tefillah, the Benediction over food, the oath
o f testimony (Lev 5:1-3), and the oath concerning a deposit. These must be said
in the Holy Language: the paragraph o f the First-fruits, the words of halitzah, the
Blessings and the Cursings, the Blessings o f the Priests, and the blessings o f the
High Priest, the paragraph o f the king, the paragraph of the heifer whose neck is to
be broken, and [the words of] the Anointed for Battle when he speaks unto the
people. Why does this apply to the paragraph o f the First-fruits? [Here it is
written,] And thou shalt answer and say before the Lord thy God (Deut 26:5), and
there it is written, And the Levites shall answer and say (Deut 27:14); as there the
answering must be in the Holy Language, so here the answering must be in the
Holy Language. Why does this apply to the words of halitzahl [Here it is
written,] And she shall answer and say (Deut 25:9), and there it is written, And the
Levites shall answer and say, as there the answering must be in the Holy
Language, so here the answering must be in the Holy Language. R. Judah says:
And she shall answer and say thus; [therefore it is not valid] unless she speaks
according to this very language. (Danby [refs, added])
There is no discernible principle for determining which items may be said in Aramaic (or
Greek, etc.) and which must be said in Hebrew. Scriptural grounding does not appear to
be a deciding factor in favor o f Hebrew: o f the seven items that one may say in Aramaic,
only three, the Tefillah, the blessing over food, and the oath o f testimony, are not directly
prescribed or commanded by Scripture. Given the importance of Hebrew within the
223
Temple liturgy, it is not surprising to find a number of items connected with the
priesthood in the latter group. (The first item in the first group is spoken by a priest [see
Num 5:19-21], but it only makes sense to address the suspected adulteress in a language
she understands.)76 The revised Schurer suggests some schematization along the lines of
writing versus reciting: orally, certain blessings may be said in any language, but writing
was a different matter, as tefillin and mezuzot could only be written in Hebrew.
77
The Babylonian Talmud records the highlights o f debates surrounding these two
lists. Most o f what is said in b. Sot. 32a-33a (where these lists are discussed) merely
gives exegetical support for the placement o f these items on one list rather than the
other,78 but we are also told of real differences of opinion among the rabbis, especially
when it came to the language in which one may recite the Shema, certainly a central
symbol o f Jewish expression. We read, in b. Sot. 32b-33a:
m p p an m mm n r w
naa m n mm aa p e n
bm *aner m o zrnzn i ^ a -.urn m p

ben m naia m anm m n m r a r a a mv
dd p:m m m nnm ] i ^ bon m m p pnm in* jrvTnn vm m p

rp*D mmb
m v m i mmb npn xbv mnn rm m ra m
"D3 m i mb m m xb m nznn m n m p am m n m n n n m c mb psD
p x n pSQ trim nnm na j m b mamb
mom trnn s m m a n
m
-n o p
m'b t w
m n ]aa nb n a o
xp b o 'm nnatw ]mb tan m in n bo [33a]
a^nan m en p a i r m b w a r n a ron
idtn*? v m m Kbi
vm m aw enipn ]mbo prun

bo pan n n o p m 'b m o
mo m to ip n
76 b. Sot. 32b also adds that the woman who was coerced into adultery should be told
about both the discerning powers of the water of bitterness, so as not to discredit its
killing powers when she survives the trial.
77 Schurer, The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D.
135) (rev. ed.) 2.22 n. 78. Writs o f divorce were usually in Aramaic: see m. Git. 9.3.
78 See Solomon B. Freehof, Devotional Literature in the Vernacular, CCAR Yearbook
33 (1923) 375-424, esp. 380-81.
224
n nm m
}w b tan j u n p ta
m ow snip ]ic ta n*7D m m n
v m T n m u \ m - p o i r a ta n a b w o r n
Reciting the Shema: How do we know [that it may be recited in any language]?
As it is written: Hear, O Israel (Deut 6:4), viz. in any language that you
understand 0)W). The Rabbis taught, The Shema must be recited as it is
written [viz. in Hebrew]. These are [also] the words o f Rabbi but the Sages say,
In any language. What is Rabbi's reason? One reads, And [ these words] shall
be (Deut 6:6), they must remain in their state. And [what is the reason of] the
Rabbis? One reads, Hear, viz. in any language that you understand. But for the
Rabbis is it not written, And [these words] shall be? This means that one may not
read it in the wrong order (SHSQ b). And whence does Rabbi learn that one may
not read it in the wrong order? From the fact that the text uses these words. And
the Rabbis do not derive anything from these words. But for Rabbi is it not
written Hear1 This implies for him: Make audible to your ears what you
pronounce with your mouth. But the Rabbis agree with the one who said that if
one recites the Shema but not audibly to his ears, he is released from his
obligation. Hypothetically the Rabbis could hold [33 a] that the whole Torah may
be read in any language, for if your opinion is that it may be read only in the holy
tongue, why did the Merciful One write And [these words] shall bel It is
necessary because it is written Hear. Hypothetically the Rabbis could hold that all
the Torah must be read in the holy tongue, for if your opinion is that every
language [is permissible], why did the Merciful One write Hearl It is necessary
because it is written And [these words] shall be.
As Hezser observes, The texts suggest that for the rabbis the Hebrew language
was one o f the core values of Jewish religious life.79 Although the hebraicity of the
synagogue liturgy served the rabbis agenda, it would be a mistake to credit the rabbis
with the fact that the liturgy emerged from this period with only select portions of
79 Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 241. According to Joshua A. Fishman, the view
that ethnocultural loyalties . . . first required, then fostered and finally preserved
differences in language vis-a-vis the usage o f co-territorial populations . . . is so sensible
that its validity can certainly not be entirely rejected (The Sociology o f Jewish
Languages from a General Sociolinguistic Point o f View, in Readings in the Sociology
o f Jewish Languages, ed. Joshua A. Fishman [Contributions to the Sociology o f Jewish
Languages 1; Leiden: Brill, 1985] 3-21, esp. 12). In my view, the fact that certain groups
might exploit the latency o f this principle does not compromise its usefulness, but only
gives it depth.
225
Aramaic incorporated into i t 80 At least one other group (probably)81 vying for control of
the synagogue would have felt compelled to guard the hebraicity of the liturgy: the
priests. It should also be noted, in this connection, that the popular way of regarding the
synagogue as a sort of mini-temple or as a surrogate for the Temple was another factor
*
favoring the conservation o f a Hebrew liturgy, but one that the rabbis did not support.
82
This progressive templization83 o f the synagogue (which may or may not be connected
80 in light of what I wrote above concerning the Pharisees, I think it is not unlikely that
they were responsible for some of the early Aramaic elements in the liturgy.
81 Cohen writes that there is no indication that any organized groups competed with the
rabbis for power in the synagogues and the religious life of Jewry in the second-century
(The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society, 973), but whether or not the priests
were organized, it is a safe bet that they sought some measure o f control of Jewish
piety, and that this would have extended to their dealings with the local synagogue. I am
not claiming that their bid for control was anywhere overwhelming.
82 According to a baraita in b. Shab. 32a, R. Ishmael b. Eleazar taught, For two reasons
the (amei ha-aretz die: for calling the holy ark a chest and for calling the synagogue a
house o f the people 0QIJ Dl D r i i i ) ]T lin IQ1K
] 2
m m n
irn reran rrn1? ]mpe?
tuna empn ]M$b ]mpe? bs crna mm^n
U). See Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., 238. The
fact that Severus inscription (early 4th c.) from the Hammath-Tiberias synagogue
combines a reference to the synagogue as hagios topos with allegiance to the patriarch
only goes to show that the patriarch was not universally thought o f as a symbol o f
rabbinic power.
83 The term is Steven Fines, and is used throughout his This Holy Place: On the Sanctity
o f the Synagogue During the Greco-Roman Period (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity
11; University ofNotre Dame Press, 1997). See also idem, From Meeting House to
Sacred Realm: Holiness and the Ancient Synagogue, in Sacred Realm: The Emergence
o f the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996) 21-46; Kurt Hruby, Die Synagoge: Geschichtliche Entwicklung einer
Institution (Schriften zur Judentumskunde 3; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971) 72-79;
Kurt Schubert, Jewish Pictorial Traditions in Early Christian Art, in Heinz
Schreckenberg and Kurt Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and
Medieval Christianity (CRINT 3/2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992) 139-260, esp. 161-70;
Joan R. Branham, Vicarious Sacrality: Temple Space in Ancient Synagogues, in
Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, eds. Dan Urman
226
with priestly groups) would have helped to fix the propriety of Hebrew within the popular
view.84 It would thus appear that the rabbis benefited from the linguistic programs of
other groups vying for control of the synagogue, and they may even have benefited from
the linguistic implications o f a view of the synagogue that they did not accept. We should
not assume that the rabbis stood behind all the developments that played into their hands,
or that the stability of Hebrews role in the synagogue implies that the rabbis were in
control of most synagogues at an early date. Nor should we understand the rabbis bid to
replace the priests as the custodians of the Law, and their concomitant bid to control the
synagogue, within the framework of the templization of the synagogue. The rabbis
sought to replace the priests as power brokers, and in third and fourth century they even
and Paul V. M. Flesher (SPB 47; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 319-45; Donald D. Binder,
Into the Temple Courts: The Place o f the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period
(SBLDS 169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 122-51; Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Temple
and the Synagogue, in The Cambridge History o f Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman
Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1 9 9 9 ) 298-325; Tessa Rajak, Synagogue and Community in the
Graeco-Roman Diaspora, in Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. John R.
Bartlett (London: Routledge, 2002) 22-38.
84 Jonathan Z. Smith, commenting on the change from a permanent holy place to a more
mobile concept o f locative holiness, writes that the archaic language and ideology o f the
cult will be revalorized {Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History o f Religions [SJLA
23; Leiden: Brill, 1978] 187-88).
227
argued that Torah scholars were the rightful beneficiaries of the tithe system, but they
did not seek become the priesthood of a new era.
C . THE P R O S C R I P T I O N
86
OF E X T R A - S Y N A G O G A L
PRAYER
How intrusive of life in general did the rabbis intend their promulgation o f
Hebrew to be? More specifically, how did the rabbinic insistence on using Hebrew
within the synagogue translate into halakhic rules governing other, extra-synagogal
aspects o f piety? In the following pages, I look at one well known and centrally relevant
proscription o f Aramaic: R. Yochanans insistence that prayer cannot be said in Aramaic
because the angels do not understand that language (b. Sot. 33a; b. Shab. 12b).
85 See Levine, The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 71. On the
priests as holders o f scribal authority in Second Temple times, see Fraade, From
Tradition to Commentary, 73; Jack N. Lightstone, Mishnah and the Social Formation o f
the Early Rabbinic Guild: A Socio-Rhetorical Approach (Studies in Christianity and
Judaism 11; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2002) 68.
86 Lightstone correctly notes that with the demise o f the Jerusalem cult, rabbis presented
themselves through Mishnah as priest-like or priestly-scribe-like and, therefore, as the
direct inheritors o f priestly knowledge and priestly authority (Mishnah and the Social
Formation o f the Early Rabbinic Guild, 69). Unfortunately, Lightstone goes on to
identify the rabbis with the fallen Temple administration simpliciter, which he sets in
contrast to the more usual conclusion that early rabbinism was a hodge podge o f priestly
andpharisaic elements. Lightstone seems to think that every methodology not anchored
in the strongest type of structuralism is circular by definition, and it is mainly from that
working assumption that he tries to make the belief that the Mishnah inscribes many long
held tenets of halakic sagism appear naive and uncritical. E.g., the self-contradictory
propositions that Lightstone finds in Lester Grabbes work (ibid, 13) are not at all
contradictory by historical standards. Rather, they are only contradictory as defined by
the straightjacket brand o f structuralist analysis peddled by Burton Mack and others. As a
historical tool, this approach is practically useless.
228
We have already looked at R. Yochanans saying in our survey of texts assuming

that Hebrew is the language of angels, but a number of issues remain to be explored. The
relevant portions of the talmudic passages are as follows:
b. Sot. 33a
Rab Judah has said, A man should not pray for his needs in Aramaic. For R.
Yochanan said, If [he] prays for his needs in Aramaic, the ministering angels will
not attend to him, because the ministering angels do not understand Aramaic!
b. Shab. 12b
[D]id not Rab Judah say, A man should never petition for his needs in
Aramaic?, and [did not] R. Yochanan say, Everyone who petitions for his needs
in Aramaic, the ministering angels will not attend to him, because the ministering
angels do not understand Aramaic!?
My purpose in revisiting this saying is to probe its sociological and ideological
dimensions. In chapter two, where I provided an exegesis of the wider (talmudic) context
o f the above passages, I suggested that the situation to which R. Yochanan originally
responded (if we can trust the attribution) was concrete rather than theoretical, objecting
to Solomon Freehofs remark that R. Yochanans dictum was more academic than
practical. In the following pages I will carry that thought further.
GustafDalman thinks that the fact that the objection to praying in Aramaic
referred only to private prayers o f individuals means that Aramaic prayers must have
been used in the Synagogue worship.87 As a direct inference, this seems too strong: the
conclusion that Aramaic was used in the synagogue does not follow from the fact that R.
Yochanan refers to private prayers. Nevertheless, the Aramaic elements o f the synagogue
liturgy are often judged to be very old, and it would appear that R. Yochanans view of
87 Jesus-Jeshua, 19.
229
the angels linguistic abilities cannot easily accomodate all o f the liturgy as it has come
down to us. On the face of it, allowing corporate prayer but not private prayer in Aramaic
would appear to provide a flimsy base for the explanation that the angels do not
understand Aramaic. But would the flimsiness of a broader, systemic application o f R.
Yochanans words have been a serious detriment to the sort o f rhetorical solution that he
had in mind? It is in fact possible to save the broader system on the grounds o f R.
Yochanans view-e.g., perhaps R. Yochanan objected to the use o f all Aramaic in
religious contexts, or perhaps he thought that angelic mediation of prayer did not apply to
the corporate liturgy (so that God listened directly to the liturgy, but employed angels to
mediate outside prayers).88 The latter solution has the advantage o f making room,
within R. Yochanans overarching scheme, for the Palestinian Talmuds insistence on
reciting the tefillah in the vernacular so that one may add ones own personal petitions (y.
Sota 21b), a scheme that would appear to be necessitated by R. Yochanans scheme
. anyway, since it seems to presume that the would-be supplicant will end up praying in
Aramaic within the synagogue. But it is perhaps best to take the intent o f R. Yochanans
dictum seriously: he identified a problem and honed a brilliant rhetorical
tion, and he
perhaps neither sought nor cared about the systemic limitations o f the worldview that it
88 The latter solution would be consistent with the way in which apocalyptic and mystical
texts sometimes depict God descending to his throne in the seventh heaven at the prayer
time, for which see 3 Enoch 48.1 (ver. A); Hekhalot Rabbati 3.3. Ithamar Gruenwald
refers to this theme as one o f the more original ideas o f early mystical literature (From
Apocalypticism to Gnosticism: Studies in Apocalypticism, Merkavah Mysticism and
Gnosticism [BEATAJ 14; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988] 162). See Neil S. Fujita,
A Crack in the Jar: What Ancient Jewish Documents Tell Us About the New Testament
(New York: Paulist, 1986) 181. In a paper I delivered at the 2003 annual meeting o f the
Society o f Biblical Literature, I argued that this scheme also obtains in the Apocalypse o f
Abraham.
230
rendered. With this consideration in mind, I will limit the application o f R. Yochanans
dictum to the practice it was directly aimed at stopping: extra-synagogal prayer.
R. Yochanan lived in the third century. He was, in fact, a towering figure in that
century, so much so that Levine explains the increase in Babylonian sages living in
Palestine as due to R. Yochanans influence, and suggests that his longevity and stature
attracted students to his academy in Tiberias, sw elling] the ranks o f the subsequent
generation o f Palestinian sages.89 In speaking o f developments during R. Yochanans
lifetime, we are still in the long period leading up to rabbinic ascendancy over Palestinian
Jewish culture. At first blush, this fact would seem to place a question mark over the
very idea o f R. Yochanan curbing extra-synagogal prayer in order to increase rabbinic
control over popular Jewish piety. But the third century represents the beginning o f a
transition, and that transition was probably established in some locales long before it was
established in others. In other words, the well rehearsed warning that the rabbis did not
control the synagogue does not mean that, by the third century, they did not control
some local synagogues, and if the rabbinic movement located its headquarters in Tiberias,
it is reasonable to assume that at least a few o f the numerous synagogues attested in that
city were in fact controlled by the rabbis. As Schwartz notes, the Palestinian T almud
implies that the synagogues in certain locales were controlled by the rabbis, while those
in others were not. His point is to show that many synagogues were not under (some
level of) rabbinic control, but the text he cites also shows unequivocally that some were:
89 The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 67. Levine offers these
suggestions in partial explanation for placing the zenith o f rabbinic activity in the years
280-310 C.E. (= the third generation in Albecks classification).
231
Though many passages in the Palestinian Talmud unambiguousfy-indeed, perhaps
a bit too insistently-regard the synagogue as the most appropriate place for prayer
(e.g., Y. Berakhot 5:1, 8d-9a), others remind us that the synagogues the rabbis had
in mind were not the standard local synagogues, but their own. How else are we
to understand the law forbidding Jews from Haifa, Beth Shean, and Tivon to lead
the prayers (because of what the rabbis regarded as their imprecise pronunciation
o f Hebrew), obviously not an option in the synagogues o f Haifa, Beth Shean, and
Tivon (Y. Berakhot 2:4,4d)?90
If R. Yochanan really decreed that the townspeople are commanded to do the work of
sages (C rran 'T Q ^ n
bw j r o ^ o
H TO 1? CHUUD T i n "DD), as b. Yoma 72b
claims, and if we may assume that this saying had its desired effect, then presumably R.
Yochanans control o f the townspeople was great enough to allow him at least a hope
o f proscribing their private prayer habits.91
There is another factor that suggests the rabbis held greater control over the
synagogues in third-century Tiberias than elsewhere: there may have been less
competition with priestly groups in Tiberias. Antipas had built Tiberias on the site of
graves (Josephus, Ant. 18.38), and although R. Simeon bar Yochai had annulled the
burden o f purity issues related to life in Tiberias in the middle o f the second century CE,
90 Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., 238-39. Hezser writes, If the
synagogue was one o f the few realms where Hebrew was still used at that time, the strong
rabbinic opposition against its replacement by another language becomes understandable
(.Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 250).
91R. Yochanan may have had a gift for diplomacy, as suggested by the story o f his
successful buffering o f the conflict between the Patriarch R. Judah II and Resh Laqish
over the issue o f taxing the scholars. See Reuven Kimelman, The Conflict Between R.
Yohanan and Resh Laqish on the Supremacy o f the Patriarchate, in Proceedings o f the
Seventh World Congress o f Jewish Studies, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Perry Foundation for
Biblical Research, 1981) 1-20.
232
we cannot simply assume that priestly groups accepted his ruling.92 Not only did his
ruling fly in the face of priestly sensibilities, but priestly acceptance o f a ruling by R.
Simeon bar Yochai, especially on so visible and defining an issue, would have amounted
to their recognition of rabbinic authority. While some priests had already thrown their lot
in with the rabbis by this time, and therefore may have judged themselves free to settle in
Tiberias, the threat o f priestly opposition to the rabbis presumably did not obtain within
the synagogues o f Tiberias proper. This could be a contributing factor to the success o f
the rabbinic program at Tiberias, culminating in the advent of the Palestinian Talmud.
While there is clear evidence that not all of the synagogues at Hammath-Tiberias
(to name the larger metropolis) were under rabbinic control,93 there are good reasons, as
we have seen, for supposing that the rabbis effectively controlled some o f the synagogues
there, especially within Tiberias proper, where many priests presumably would not go.
This scenario provides a ready context for interpreting R. Yochanans proscription o f
extra-synagogal prayer as a sort of corraling of popular piety: in an area where the rabbis
92 Contra Moshe Dothan, who assumes that the priests who lived in Hammath {viz. the
Ma(aziah course) accepted R. Simeon bar Yochais ruling {Hammath Tiberias: Early
Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 1983] 4). On Tiberias in rabbinic times, see Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their
Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.), vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980) 147-48.
Tiberias and Hammath were separated by only a mile and were already a unified city by
the first century CE.
93 See Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period
(Bollingen 37; 13 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953-68) 12.185-86. Goodenough writes,
We have obviously no more right to assert that all the Jews at Tiberias were living by the
halacha o f the rabbis there than that all Jews in Alexandria at Philos time thought o f
Judaism as did Philo. See the links between the zodiac mosaic and the priestly courses
as discussed in Dothan, Hammath Tiberias, 48-49.
233
ran the synagogue, limiting expressions of piety to the synagogue was perhaps calculated
to increase the rabbis control of religious life itself.
R. Yochanans dictum was probably originally received mainly by certain
synagogues in Tiberias, but R. Yochanan had a strong influence on succeeding
generations o f rabbis. In the words of Levine, in many respects the world o f the later
third- and early fourth-century sages appears to be an extension o f [R. Yochanans] circle
o f colleagues and students.94 Through these developing lines of influence, R.
Yochanans proscription o f extra-synagogal prayer may have taken on more
significance.95 Although it resonated with rabbinic ideology from pre-mishnaic times, its
formulation as a saying of R. Yochanan suddenly became emblematic o f the communitys
increasing need for the rabbis. The loss of Judaisms cultic center could have resulted in
a fractured, over-democratized culture o f popular Jewish piety, but the rabbis took it upon
themselves (opportunistically?) to pick up the slack created by the loss o f the Temple.
Their way o f doing it was presumably not something they invented: it was likely the
strategy o f other groups as well, including priestly. (I am not implying that Torah
devotion was entirely a post-Destruction development, as some overstructuralizing
accounts would have it.) Fraade discusses the rabbis claim that Torah study now
constitutes the central religious act o f Jewish life: Implied in this claim is the
concomitant claim o f the sages to be that class which, through its dedication to such study
94 The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 67 n. 118.

95 Although it was aimed at proscribing extra-synagogal prayer, R. Yochanans dictum
presumably allowed prayer in the academy to continue, as long as it was in Hebrew. On
rabbis praying in the academy, see Lee I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (SJLA 7;
Leiden: Brill, 1975) 224 n. 477.
234
practice within Israel, now constitute the sole legitimate leadership-both religious and
s o c ia l-o f the people of Israel.96 The fact that the communitys need for the rabbis was
fostered by the ideology inscribed within a saying that expressed that need is not a piece
of irony: that development was every bit intentional.
D . T H E D I R E C T E M P O W E R M E N T OF T H E
H E B R A E O P H O N E L I T E R A TI
The pro-Hebrew outlook o f third-century rabbinism, whether couched in terms of

religious contexts or daily life, is patient of an alternative explanation: the exaltation of
Hebrew may have been calculated to increase the power of those who already knew how
to speak, read, and (possibly) write Hebrew. That is, rather than being intended as an
encouragement for others to learn Hebrew, the pro-Hebrew view might have been aimed
at increasing the communitys dependence upon those who understood Hebrew, a scheme
corresponding to one that appears regularly in sociological discussions o f reading skills as
empowerment.97 For the powers that be to make this latter scheme work might have
96 From Tradition to Commentary, 118-19.

97 Jack Goody writes, [Ujnder Christianity, Islam and Judaism teaching (at least the
promotion of advanced literate skills) continued to be dominated by religious specialists
until the advent o f modem secular education, a position that it was obviously in their
interests to preserve in order to maintain their role as gate-keepers o f ideas {The Logic o f
Writing and the Organization o f Society [Studies in Literacy, Family, Culture and the
State; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986] 17). See Hezser, Jewish Literacy
in Roman Palestine, 39.
235
required a certain policing of personal prayers and blessings, but, as we have seen, some
rabbis seem to have made an effort to restrict prayer to the synagogue.
The corraling of religious piety through the proscription o f extra-synagogal prayer
fits hand in glove with another development: tying piety to the Hebrew language (see b.
Ber. 13a; Si/re Deut. 32.43)98 served to increase the communitys reliance on the rabbis
by setting up the rabbis as the tradents and arbiters ofTorah, including but not limited to
the halakha of daily life. Although many o f the rabbis halakhic discussions are idealistic,
intent upon the proper way o f doing things in imaginary situations, there came a point
when the rabbis came to be recognized as halakhic authorities in daily activities."
98 See Karl E. Grozinger, Sprache und Identitat-Das Hebraische und die Juden, in
Sprache und Identitdt im Judentum, ed. Karl E. Grozinger (Judische Kultur 4;
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998) 75-90, esp. 80. In connection with Grozingers larger
argument, note the following rabbinic passages, which list Israels maintenance o f its
ancestral language as one o f the things that merited redemption from Egypt: Mekh. Bo 5;
Pes.dRK 11.6; Lev. Rab. 32.5; Song Rab. 4.13; Num. Rab. 20.22; Tanh. Balak 16; Mid.
Psalms 114. See Stem, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings, 192.
99 Fraade discusses the relationship between study for its own sake and service to the
community within rabbinic thinking (From Tradition to Commentary, 102). On the
absence of the rabbis influence with regard to daily halakha before the third century,
Cohen writes, If the topic profile fairly represents rabbinic activity, we can clearly see
the development o f rabbinic authority. The rabbis before Judah the Patriarch were
acknowledged experts in the laws o f purity and personal status, legal relics o f the
sectarian past o f the rabbinic movement. The rabbis also were sufficiently expert and
holy to be able to cancel oaths and vows. But in matters of personal piety, e.g. shabbat,
holidays, kosher food, prayer, and synagogue rituals, and in civil matters, the people
apparently did not need the rabbis (The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society,
969). See Levine, The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 24. In
discussing the growing importance ofHebrw for the Jews at the time o f Justinian
novella 146 (in the year 553), Schwartz writes, There is, to be sure, nothing inherently
rabbinic about the liturgical use ofHebrew-but [in] looking. . . for a complex o f subtle
changes which may then serve as tracers o f the early stages o f the process [of rabbinic
ascendancy in the Middle A ges],. . . it certainly seems reasonable to regard the spread of
Hebrew as one such change (Rabbinization in the Sixth Century, 67).
236
Beginning with a knowledge of Bible and the Mishnah, of course, taking part in halakhic
deliberations entailed the ability to read and speak Hebrew.100 Exclusive knowledge o f a
hallowed or privileged language held the key to social power. As Catherine Hezser
(citing Hamers and Blanc) writes, In societies where a number of different languages are
spoken, power relationships amongst social groups also tend to be transferred to the
languages which these groups represent.101 Those presented with the opportunity to
learn Hebrew had much to gain, at least within the world imagined by the rabbis and
which, with the help o f the patriarch, began to materialize in third-century Galilee.102 In
the instance at hand, however, specific formulations tended to magnify the social
boundaries set up by the privilege of linguistic access, turning the rabbis as a group into a
new wellspring o f revelation for Israel (replacing priests and prophets). Gabriele
Boccaccini writes,
In the Mishnah the legitimacy and consistency o f unwritten laws relies only on the
unifying authority o f the sages. They are acknowledged as the living trustees of
Israelite religion. Nobody but themselves may question their decisions; in
halakhic discussions they always have the last word. Their self-sufficient
authority affects scripture, too. The sages lay down the rules o f how to read,
interpret, and translate the scripture. If they cannot change a written law, they
have the power to suspend its effects (m. Hor. 1.3). Greater stringency applies to
100 As Goodenough observes, [T]here is no evidence. . . that the rabbis had any interest
in making their Mishnah available to outsiders (.Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman
Period, 12.185). Shaye J. D. Cohen makes a similar point (Judaism to the Mishnah:
135-220 C.E., in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History o f Their
Origins and Early Development, ed. Hershel Shanks [Washington DC: Biblical
Archaeology Society, 1992] 195-223, esp. 211).
102 Schwartz writes, The openness o f the curatorial class meant that mastery o f Hebrew
was not only a social marker, but also an important path to prestige (Language, Power
and Identity in Ancient Palestine, 43; see also ibid, 13).
237
the (observance of) the words-of the Scribes, than to (the observance of) the words
of the (written) law5 (m. Sank 11.3). People were to obey the sages even if the
decisions o f the sages were against scripture; people would not be guilty for that
(m. Hor. l.l) .103
In the light of such an elitist self-definition, the teaching of Hebrew may have served a
political end (although it would be unwise to dismiss the motivation o f piety altogether).
This does not necessarily mean that they sought to keep knowledge o f Hebrew away from
the populace: with certain controls, actually teaching Hebrew could have served these
same political ends.104 As Hezser suggests, in connection with the more widespread
appearance of schools in the third century, the rabbis may have promoted Torah-reading
sk ills
in order to create a support base for themselves.105 None of this is meant to imply
103 Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systemic Analysis, in The

Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, eds. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J.
McNamara (JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 254-63, esp. 257.
See also Lightstone, Mishnah and the Social Formation o f the Early Rabbinic Guild, 184.
But cf. the limited acceptance of the Mishnah, as discussed in David Weiss Halivni, The
Reception Accorded to Rabbi Judahs Mishnah, in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition,
vol. 2: Aspects o f Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period, eds. E. P. Sanders, A. I.
Baumgarten, and Alan Mendelsen (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 204-12, esp. 209. The
rabbis would soon lean on the theory o f oral torah to legitimate the Mishnahs view o f
their authority. See Alan J. Avery-Peck, Oral Tradition: Early Judaism, in The Anchor
Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5.3437, esp. 35.
104 Philip R. Davies writes, Cultures and societies may resist canons, or even ignore
canons, but while canons remain mechanisms of control, and their definition and
transmission in the hands o f the elite, they w ill exercise an attraction on any who seek
admission to that elite {Scribes and Schools: The Canonization o f the Hebrew Scriptures
[Library o f Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1998] 11).
105 Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 39. In some societies, literacy p e rse carries
religious clout. Joan E. Taylor writes, In some traditional societies where literacy is
poor, the man who can read is considered to possess spiritual or magical power. For
example, the Marabouts o f the Gambia and Senegal sometimes write out passages from
the Koran to be eaten in certain remedies. The ability to read the Koran in itself provides
the Marabout with considerable prestige, and his ability to know what passage might fit
238
that the rabbis deliberately schemed these designs: religionists have a way of fooling
themselves into thinking that their ideological compromises are really in line with a
higher form o f piety.
The empowerment o f the rabbis through their exegetical and halakhic energies
represented a shift from earlier times, when authority and expertise in the Law belonged
almost exclusively to the priesthood.106 Concomitant with this shift from priestly power
to (real or imagined) rabbinic power was the rabbis claim to priestly privilege.107 This
the requirements of the situation is tantamount to a spiritual power {The Immerser: John
the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997] 224 n. 18).
106 Johann Maier writes, Torah reading was perhaps one o f the means to demonstrate
power, both by groups/institutions and in front o f groups or factions, as far as both sides
pretended to have the obligatory Torah traditions at their exclusive disposal. As long as
the temple existed, the reading from the holy Torah scrolls proper remained restricted to
the respective sacred area, not accessible to laymen. Each reading o f this kind
represented a demonstration of the privilege to dispose o f the sacred master exemplars o f
the Torah. After the destruction o f the temple, this effect lost its persuasive power to the
extent that it had been dependent on the quality o f the holy space during the temple
period. The lay rabbinical authorities transposed the practice later definitively from
sacred space to sacred times (Self-Definition, Prestige, and Status o f Priests Towards
the End o f the Second Temple Period, BTB 23 [1993] 139-50, esp. 143). As Steven D.
Fraade notes (Priests, Kings, and Patriarchs: Yerushalmi Sanhedrin in its Exegetical and
Cultural Settings, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture III, ed. Peter
Schafer [TSAJ 93; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002] 315-33, esp. 317), the rabbinic
usurpation of priestly political privilege is symbolized in the disagreement between m.
San. 2.4 and the Temple Scroll on the apparatus o f divine approval on a kings
declaration of war, with the former identifying that apparatus with a court of 71 sages,
and the latter identifying it with the priestly oracles (urim and thummim). See idem,
Shifting from Priestly to Non-priestly Legal Authority: A Comparison o f the Damascus
Document and the Midrash Sifra, DSD 6 (1999) 109-25.
107 Jacob Neusner sees a sort of priestly claim implicit within the Mishnah, which he calls
a priestly document. . . without priestly sponsorship: Mishnah points toward a group
o f people who take over everything of the priestly legacy but the priesthood itself (Map
without Territory: Mishnahs System o f Sacrifice and Sanctuary, HR 19 [1979-80] 10327, esp. 120). In Lightstones words, the Mishnah m odelfs]. . . a priestly-scribal
239
displacement of the priests as the curatorial class both served and was served by the
growth of the patriarchs power, especially in the person of Rabbi Judah, whose line was
apparently not priestly and who is frequently credited with bringing the rabbinic
movement into relative prominence.108 Although certain privileges o f the priestly office
still obtained throughout tannaitic times and beyond,109 the fact that some priests would
seek power through rabbinic channels probably tells us something about the displacement
virtuosity o f comprehensively mapping the world {Mishnah and the Social Formation
o f the Early Rabbinic Guild, 28). See Reuven Kimelman, The Conflict between the
Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the Talmudic Period, Zion 48 (1983) 135-48
(Hebrew). The rabbis usurpation o f quasi-priestly status brought important privileges: in
the third and fourth centuries, ordination as a rabbi meant exemption from taxes, although
usurpation in that case consists o f laying hold o f religious-political power and not
necessarily o f specifically priestly status (see Lee I. Levine, The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi)
in Third Century Palestine, ANRW 2A9.2 [1979] 649-88, esp. 672-74). Saul Lieberman
suggests that the number o f scholars that the Patriarch could ordain to the rabbinate was
limited (Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, JQR 36 [1945-46] 329-70, esp.
360-61). The priests naturally dissented to the patriarchs power (see Alon, The Jews in
Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.), vol. 1,100-103).
108 On R. Judahs nonpriestly line, see the discussion in David Goodblatt, The Monarchic
Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (TSAJ 38; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1994) 132. Cohen enumerates several examples o f ways by which Rabbi Judah
sought to bring the rabbis into Jewish society at large (Judaism to the Mishnah, 21719): he (1) sought to increase the power of his office, which would also increase the
power o f the rabbinate; (2) increased the rabbis jurisdiction in the courts; (3) opened the
rabbinate to the poorer class; and (4) he made the rabbinic movement more urbanized.
On the Rabbis praise for R. Judah, see Levine, The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine
in Late Antiquity, 33-34. On urbanization, cf. Seth Schwartz: The rabbis probably
gravitated to the cities because their conviction that they constituted the true leadership o f
Israel made them not sectarian but expansionist (Gamaliel in Aphrodites Bath:
Palestinian Judaism and Urban Culture in the Third and Fourth Centuries, in The
Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture I, ed. Peter Schafer [TSAJ 71; Tubingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1998] 203-17, esp. 205).
109 On the continuation o f the tithe, see Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic
Age (70-640 C.E.), vol. 1, 254-60.
240
of the priestly guild by the rabbis."0 As is commonly noted, the chain of tradition in m.
Abot 1 passes over the priests as custodians o f the oral law, a striking and undoubtedly
ideological omission.111 Yet the frequent intensity of the rabbinic polemic against the
priestly notion o f genetic privilege, and o f the displacement of the genetic principle by
knowledge o f the Law (so that even the bastard sage has preference over the ignorant
high priest),112 suggests that some priests were still vying for power, as does the
mishnaic account of the priests setting the calendar (m. Rosh Hash. 1.7).113 According to
Levine, in spite o f the continuing presence o f the priests as a group, we have no evidence
that they constituted a significant pressure group in Jewish society at the time,114 but in
110 See the list o f priestly rabbis in Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics
(Columbia Studies in Classical Tradition 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 100-101. See also
Cohen, The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society, 943 n. 88.
111 See Moshe Herr, Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission, Zion 44 (1979)
43-56 (Hebrew); Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom o f Priests: The Democratization o f
the Priesthood in the Literature o f Second Temple Judaism, Journal o f Jewish Thought
and Philosophy 6 (1997) 89-104; Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art,
Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999) 176-211;
Albert I. Baumgarten, Literacy and the Polemics Surrounding Biblical Interpretation in
the Second Temple Period, in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001) 27-41, esp. 33.
112 See Levine, The Jewish Patriarch (Nasi) in Third Century Palestine, 659; Cohen,
The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society, 950.
113 Fraade argues that the Mishnah, with its privileging o f the king over the high priest,
[might] be an argument against contemporary priestly circles that surely would have also
resisted patriarchal claims to supreme authority (Priests, Bangs, and Patriarchs, 332).
On the priests o f the third and fourth centuries, see Stuart S. Miller, Studies in the
History and Traditions ofSepphoris (SJLA 37; Leiden: Brill, 1984) 116-27; Levine, The
Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 171-72; Schwartz, Josephus and
Judean Politics, 105-106.
114 The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 172.
241
light o f the limited significance of the rabbis themselves at this time, their pressure may
have been felt by some.115 As I suggested above, the success of using Tiberias as a
rabbinic headquarters in the third century may have been partially due to priestly
strictures against visiting that city.
What does all this mean for the main topic o f this study: angelic languages? My
discussion o f R. Yochanan, or of rabbinic rhetoric or politics in general, is not intended to
explain the origin o f a particular view. (The view upon which R. Yochanan based his
dictum preceded him by at least 400 years.) Rather, my discussion is intended to show
that not only did the hebraeophone angels scenario fit well with the rabbinic
understanding o f Torah piety (as a working out o f that understandings tacit assumptions),
but that it also involved the invoking o f the angelic language m otif for the purpose of
corraling popular piety. As a result of R. Yochanans use o f this device, the
hebraeophone angels view became a more visible part of the tradition.
The scenario obtaining in R. Yochanans dictum can be contrasted with that o f R.
Hama b. Hanina. In chapter three, I suggested that the theory o f prophetic inspiration
adduced in Lev. Rah. 1.1 and Gen. Rab. 74.7 presupposes that angels speak an esoteric
language, and that it is in this holy language that the angels bear prophetic messages to
the prophets of Israel (but not to the prophets o f other nations). As noted earlier, the
concept has a conceptual parallel in the thirteenth-century Yemenite Midrash haGadol.116 Whether this view actually goes back to R. Hama b. Hanina is a matter of
115 See Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 99-100.

116 Midrasch ha-gadol zum Buche Exodus, ed. David Zvi Hoffmann, vol. 1 (Schriften des
Vereins Mekize Nirdamim 3/19; Berlin: Itzkowski, 1913) 35.
242
importance for whether the variation of views should be understood in chronological

terms: he was a contemporary of R. Yochanan, and the two purportedly belonged to the
same circle. To the degree that R. Hama b. Hanina appears to be a proponent of an
esoteric language view of angelic speech, we must be prepared to envision both views
as competing on common ground. To be sure, there is nothing unlikely about this: by no
stretch of the imagination can we suppose that the question of angelic languages was
divisive. (We should also remember that R. Yochanans dictum may have become more
widely operational in later generations than it was in his own.) In truth, most rabbis
probably could not have cared less about what language the angels speak. But as we have
seen, in the case o f R. Yochanan, it was also a question with rhetorical potential for the
rabbis linguistic policy, and it is in the direction o f that rhetorical usefulness that we gain
a possible glimpse into the sociological and ideological aspects o f the third-century
amoraim.
E. CO NCL USION
To say that the two developments described (R. Yochanans corraling of piety to
synagogue contexts and the communitys dependence on Hebrew experts) above fit
together hand in glove implies that they are not mutually exclusive, but I would not want
us to lose sight o f how much of the above reconstruction relies upon a hermeneutic o f
suspicion, and may or may not correspond to what actually happened. Perhaps the reality
o f the situation is found in one or the other development rather than in both.
The presence o f the angelic language motif in early amoraic sources, therefore,
tends to reflect sociological and ideological factors, o f the same sort as those that scholars
have called forth in their efforts to reconstruct the rabbis rise to ascendancy. This is not
to say that Torah piety, with its ready implications for the value o f Hebrew, would not
have reserved an obvious role for Hebrew-speaking angels in and o f its own power. It is
merely to suggest that the particular use to which R. Yochanan put this motif was borne
o f the sort o f political jockeying that helped spread rabbinic influence in the third and
fourth centuries. When we consider the limited inroads made by an alternative view of
angelic languages, we are apparently viewing an idea with a lot less sociological and
ideological baggage, but one whose appearance within Palestinian rabbinic tradition is
nevertheless anomolous, given the privileged role o f Hebrew throughout that tradition.
Chapter Six:
Angeloglossy and the Linguistic Ideology of Early Christianity
The preceding chapter argued that R. Yochanans claim that the ministering
angels did not understand Aramaic, along with the implicit claim that they did understand
Hebrew, was part and parcel of the rabbinic attempt to quash the practice o f
extrasynagogal petitionary prayer, a move that, at least in some locales (esp. Tiberias)
would have meant an automatic increase in rabbinic control o f Jewish religious
expression. The present chapter attempts to show that, although western (i.e., non-Syriac)
Christian writers often enough affirmed that Hebrew was the language o f
creation/Adam/pre-B abel times, early Christianity by and large took a very different
position on the necessity o f tying religious expression to Hebrew, or to any language for
that matter. Although neither religion has been so monolithic in its approach, this
difference in the religions basic linguistic ideology has marked the contrast between
Judaism and Christianity throughout the ages.1
It is not that Christian leaders were innocent o f all attempts to corral popular
religious expression-the writings o f Ignatius o f Antioch show that they were not. Rather,
Christianitys apparent roots in the Greek-speaking segment o f Palestinian Judaism
brought forth a principled indifference to language, while its emphasis on the missionary
1 Joshua A. Fishman marks this difference by discussing the sociolinguistics o f Jewish

languages, and then observing that [t]he case for an international sociology o f Catholic
languages [and] Protestant languages . . . would seem to be exceedingly slight (The
Sociology of Jewish Languages from a General Sociolinguistic Point o f View, in
Readings in the Sociology o f Jewish Languages, ed. Joshua A. Fishman [Contributions to
the Sociology o f Jewish Languages 1; Leiden: Brill, 1985] 3-21, esp. 13).
245
recontextualization of the preached word brought forth a linguistic ideology almost

diametrically opposed to that o f second- and third-centuiy Palestinian rabbis. All this
probably only affected Christianitys understanding of angelic languages in an indirect
way. Although glossolalia was from time to time linked with the missionary impulse
(especially by those who had no direct knowledge of the gift), that linkage depended upon
a non-Pauline understanding of glossolalia as the supernatural ability to speak earthly
languages rather than as the ability to speak in an esoteric angelic tongue. All in all, the
Christian understanding of angeloglossy as an esoteric language is not to be positively
explained in sociological terms. At most, the connection is a negative one: the
relinquishing of any vital role for Hebrew (or any other language) allowed 1 Cor 13:1 to
enjoy a career within the history o f Christian speculative theology.
A . THE A N T I Q U I T Y
OF G R E E K - S P E A K I N G
CHRISTIANITY
Before discussing the Greek shape o f early Christian tradition, I should say a word
about the continuing understanding of Hebrew as the primordial language among
Christian writers, and o f the lack o f any corresponding hallowing o f the Greek language
among a religion whose canon centered upon books composed in that language. Why did
Christianity not attach the same significance to the language o f its scriptures that rabbinic
Judaism, Islam, and other faiths have traditionally attached to the language o f their
scriptures? The answer is that early Christianity did not consider the New Testament to
246
be inspired scripture in the same way in which the Hebrew Bible was scripture for
rabbinic Jews. Because Christian theology o f the last 500 years has seen an
unprecedented concentration on the so-called scripture principle of the Protestant
Reformation, it often comes as a surprise that the early church had a very different
conception o f the authority behind Christian scripture. Christians are so used to thinking
o f the concepts of Old Testament and New Testament in terms o f conceptual parity
that they are often ill prepared for the facts o f the matter: the early church did not regard
the New Testament as inspired Scripture in the same sense as the canonical writings that
the church inherited from Judaism.2 This is usually stated in terms o f Christianitys
failure to answer to the term book religion: while rabbinic Judaism linked the authority
o f the Hebrew Bible to the principle o f revelation, early Christianity linked the authority
o f the New Testament to the trustworthiness o f the apostles as eyewitnesses.3 As Guy
2 See Adolf Martin Ritter, Die Entstehung des neutestamentlischen Kanons:

Selbstdurchsetzung oder autoritative Entscheidung?, in Kanon und Zensur: Archaologie
des literarischen Kommunikation II, eds. Aleida Assmann and Jan Assmann (Miinchen:
Fink, 1987) 93-99; Christoph Dohmen and Manfred Oeming, Biblischer Kanon: Warum
und wozu?: Eine Kanontheologie (Quaetiones Disputatae 137; Freiburg: Herder, 1992)
46-47.
3 See Adolf Hamack, The Expansion o f Christianity in the First Three Centuries
(Theological Translation Library, 19; 2 vols.; New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1904-05)
1.353; Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation o f the Christian Bible (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1972) 1; James Barr, The Scope and Authority o f the Bible (Explorations in
Theology 7; London: SCM, 1980) 116-117; idem, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority,
Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 19; E. P. Sanders, Taking It All for Gospel
(review essay o f Brevard Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction), Times
Literary Supplement (Dec. 13,1985) 1431; Bernhard Lang, Buchreligion, mHandbuch
religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, eds. Hubert Cancik, Burkhard Gladigow, and
Matthias Laubscher (5 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988-2002), II. 143-65; Guy G.
Stroumsa, Early Christianity-A Religion o f the Book?, in Homer, the Bible, and
Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, eds. Margalit Finkelberg
247
Stroumsa succinctly puts the matter, Christianity was from the beginning, rather than a
religion o f the book, one o f the paperback.4
Seth Schwartz interprets the lack of Hebrew in Christian tradition as evidence that
Hebrew was part o f an ideological package,5 but this probably represents one o f two
major forces in play, since the question o f what one did with Hebrew also hinged on how
one viewed the scriptures written in that language, and what role the inspiration o f those
scriptures played within ones religion. The difference between the synagogue and the
early church in their respective understandings o f the ground of scriptural authority
appears to have led to different views o f the continuing importance o f Hebrew. For those
streams o f Judaism that we reviewed earlier, the fact that Hebrew was the language o f
revelation makes the role o f Hebrew an extremely important issue. For Christians, on the
other hand, theology was much more about an act o f redemption than o f revelation, and
the act o f affirming the divine acts of redemption (i.e., the kerygma), unencumbered by
epistemological supports o f any kind, occupied the same position within Christian
theology as acceptance o f the scriptures as a divinely gift occupied within most forms o f
Jewish theology.6 When Christians affirmed that Hebrew was the language of creation,
and Guy G. Stroumsa (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003)
153-73.
4 Early Christianity-A Religion o f the Book?, 173.
5 Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, Fast & Present 148 (1995) 3-47,
esp. 46. Milka Rubin notes that Christianity had no interest in supporting any issue on a
separatist linguistic or cultural ticket (The Language o f Creation or the Primordial
Language: A Case o f Cultural Polemics in Antiquity, JJS 49 [1998] 306-33, esp. 320).
6 Christian scholars who cut their teeth on postliberalisms inflated doctrine o f revelation
are not wont to agree with this description o f early Christianity, because it conflicts so
248
therefore, they did so either out of an antiquarian interest, or to vouch for the
trustworthiness of the Old Testament (which had been mined for prooftextual supports
for the New Testament kerygma).1 We do not find them concluding from the protological
nature o f Hebrew that Hebrew should play an active role in the church.
The relative lack o f references to Hebrew-speaking angels in Christian sources
does not mean that the church automatically rejected the claim that Hebrew was the first
language. It is true, as Deborah Levine Gera notes, that [t]he lack o f explicit information
in the Bible on the language spoken in the Garden o f Eden would eventually lead to
competition for the primordiality of Hebrew, including Greek, Latin, Syriac, [and even]
Flemish, French, [and] Swedish,8 but within the period I am discussing the primordiality
violently with the understanding o f Christianity bequeathed to them by Karl Barth. The
record speaks for itself: the doctrine o f revelation was at most a side issue for the early
church, and had no direct connection to the doctrine o f redemption. See F. Gerald
Downing, Has Christianity a Revelation? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964); James Barr,
Old and New in Interpretation: A Study o f the Two Testaments (London: SCM, 1966) 8384; idem, The Concept o f Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) 484; GustafWingren, Creation and Gospel: The New
Situation in European Theology (Toronto Studies in Theology, 2; Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen, 1989) 53; Carl E
Justification: The Article by Which the Church Stands
or Falls (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 65-66.
7 In this context, I deem it appropriate to retain the term Old Testament, since it best
conveys the role oflsraels scriptures within the churchs canon. On the early churchs
use o f the Hebrew Bible, see Marcel Simon, La Bible dans les premieres controverses
entre Juifs et Chretiens, in Bible de Tous les Temps, vol. 1: Le monde grec ancien et la
Bible, ed. Claude Mondesert (Paris: Beauchesne, 1984) 107-25, esp. 110; Mogens Muller,
The First Bible o f the Church: A Plea fo r the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 78-83. Herman Hailperin has demonstrated that there
were always important voices in the church urging that more attention be paid to the
Hebrew form of the Old Testament (Rashi and the Christian Scholars [Pittsburgh:
University o f Pittsburgh Press, 1963]).
8 Deborah Levine Gera, Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 21.
249
of Hebrew was challenged only by the primordiality of Aramaic, and that only by a
number of Syriac-speaking fathers who were fighting a rearguard action against the
Greek-speaking church.9 Jerome, echoing the rabbis, wrote that Hebrew was the
language o f creation and the progenitress o f all the other languages.10 Origen said
much the same thing, and it has been argued that his understanding o f Hebrew as a
natural language (in the sense o f constituting a nonarbitrary connection between
words and what they signify) left its imprint on the structure of the Hexapla}1 This view
can also be counted extensively among the great majority of church fathers who could not
read Hebrew. As Milka Rubin writes, It is clear that [the church fathers] are familiar
with many o f the Jewish sources and traditions, and that they concur with them.12 There
9 They were joined by at least one Greek writer: Theodoret o f Cyrrhus (393-466). See
Rubin, The Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 321-28.
10 In Sophoniam, ad 3:9. See Amo Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel: Geschichte der
Meinungen iiber Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Volker (6 vols.; Stuttgart:
Anton Hiersemann, 1957-63) 195; Benjamin Kedar, The Latin Translations, in Mikra:
Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism
and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (CRINT 2/1; Maastricht: Van Gorcum,
1990) 299-336, esp. 315; Dennis Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis
o f Saint Jerome (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992) 74-75. On Jeromes activity with and
embracing of the hebraica veritas, see Miiller, The First Bible o f the Church, 83-89.
11 See Origen, Con, Cels. 30; Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel, 238; Rubin, The Language
o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 317-18. On Origens view o f Hebrew as a
factor in the Hexapla, see the speculations o f Matthew J. Martin, Origens Theory o f
Language and the First Two Columns o f the Hexapla, HTR 97 (2004) 99-106. Martins
argument builds on Naomi Janowitzs discussion o f Origens view o f language
(Theories o f Divine Names in Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius, History o f Religions 30
[1991] 359-72). Janowitzs use o f natural language, which is adopted by Martin, seems
to correspond to Geras use o f Adamic language (Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech,
Language, and Civilization, 24-26).
12 The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language, 317.
250
also seems to be broad agreement among the church fathers13 that the whole earth spoke
Hebrew before God confused the languages at Babel. This view goes back at least to
pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones 1.30 (which mentions fifteen generations of Hebrew
but not the tower o f Babel). Augustines view is representative:
Hence, just as when all men spoke one language, the sons o f pestilence were not
lacking on that account-for there was only one language before the flood, and yet
all men except the single family of the righteous Noah were justly destroyed by
the flood-so also when the peoples were deservedly punished for their
presumptuous wickedness by diversity o f languages, and the city o f the wicked
received its name Confusion, that is, when it was named Babylon, one house
was still found, that ofHeber, in which the language formerly spoken by all men
might persist. This accounts for the fact. . . that in the enumeration o f the sons o f
Shem who individually founded separate tribes, Heber was mentioned first though
he was Shems great-great-grandson; in other words, he is found in the fifth
generation after Shem. Since, then, this language remained in use among his
family when the other tribes were divided by various tongues, the language that,
not without good reason, is believed to have served previously as the common
speech o f all mankind was thereafter called Hebrew on this account.14
Despite their usual agreement that Hebrew was the language o f creation, the church
fathers did not translate their conviction that the scriptures were written in Hebrew into
any sort o f concern to preserve Hebrew within the church, although the fact that Hebrew
13 Eusebius of Caesarea and Gregory ofNyssa are important exceptions-see Eusebius,

Prep. evan. 50.1; Gregory ofNyssa, Con. Eunom. 2; Rubin, The Language o f Creation
or the Primordial Language, 320-21.
14 Civ. Dei 16.11 (trans. Eva Matthews Sanford [LCL 5; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1965] 61-63). On Augustines changing views on the origins o f language, see John
M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994) 37-38.
251
was one o f three languages used in the superscription on the cross (along with Greek and
Latin) eventually earned it a special privilege as a language appropriate for liturgy.15
Without wishing to underestimate the influence that the linguistic situation of the
greater Mediterranean world had on Christianity, I would point out that early Palestinian
Christianity probably had a much greater debt to Greek than is usually acknowledged.
The view still persists that New Testament form criticisms proper task is that o f making
contact with an early Aramaic-speaking community o f believers, but this view owes more
to an outdated understanding about what language a Palestinian community must have
spoken. While the presence of words like Maranatha (1 Cor 16:22) in Paul alerts us to
the fact that the church has roots in the Aramaic language, that rootage should not be
thought o f in exclusive terms, as if the Greek form of the Christian message deserves
latecomer status. As Fergus Millar writes,
It is a fact o f the greatest importance for the earliest history o f Christianity that it
developed in a city, Jerusalem, in which Greek was in current use alongside
Hebrew and Aramaic. It was not only a matter of Greek-speaking Jews from the
Diaspora (like Simon from Cyrene or Paul from Tarsos) who were settled in
Jerusalem. If the texts found at Qumran included, as they did, at least some o f the
books of the Septuagint, we can be confident that the Bible could be read in Greek
translation elsewhere in Judaea also.16
15 Francis J. Thomson has recently shown that most o f the charges leveled against the
Latin churchs supposed censuring of the pse o f other languages within the liturgy are
baseless (SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy: Trilinguism: A
Contribution to the Study of Patristic and Mediaeval Theories o f Sacred Languages,
Analecta Bollandiana 110 [1992] 67-122). According to Thomson, the theory of
trilinguism does not begin with Hilary o f Poitiers (c. 310/320-367), or with Isidore o f
Seville (c. 560-636), two common allegations, but rather much later (ibid, 73-74). Yet he
admits, Already in the fourth century,. . . the idea that the three languages o f the
superscription on the Cross had special merit had been growing in the West (ibid, 80).
16 The Roman Near East: 3 1 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993)
352.
252
Appendix I sets out the evidence for the daily use of Greek in Jewish Palestine.17 Suffice
it to say here that the evidence that many Palestinian Jews spoke Greek as a first language
is overwhelming, although accurate figures are lost to history and would have varied
greatly from city to city. (Note that Appendix I rejects the view that Greek predominated
over Aramaic.) Scholars simply have not made enough of an allowance for strong and
vibrant Greek-speaking Jewish and Christian communities in Palestine, a shortcoming
which, as Simon Gathercole has suggested, has been perpetuated by an uncritical
tendency on the part o f scholars to assign a diaspora provenance to Greek works.18 In
point o f fact, although the percentages would have differed, the earliest Palestinian
Christian community (if the reader will permit this anachronistic use o f Christian) was
probably not unlike that found by Egeria in her pilgrimage to the holy land in the fourth
century: a mixture o f those who spoke only Greek, those who spoke only Aramaic, and
those who spoke both (see below). Moreover, a number of Greek-speakers may have
been followers o f Jesus from a very early date. As Gerard Mussies notes:
There is . . . nothing strange or unexpected in the Testimonium Flavianum when it
says about Jesus that besides many Jews he also won over many Greeks (AntJud.
XVm 63 . . . ), although the Gospels mention only casual contacts with Greek
speaking persons: the Greek Syrophenician [szc] woman (Mk. 7.26), and the
Greeks or Diaspora Jews who wanted to meet Jesus and characteristically first
17 See also Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time o f Jesus (The Biblical Seminar
69; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 112-13.
18 Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's
Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 27. See Johannes Tromp, The
Assumption o f Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill,
1993) 93-94,117-18; Albert C. Sundberg Jr., The Septuagint: The Bible o f Hellenistic
Judaism, in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002) 69-90, esp. 83-90.
253
turned with their request to one of the disciples who had a Greek name, to Philip
(Jn. 12. 20-22); for the rest it is stated that there were also people from the
Decapolis among Jesus followers: these probably included Greeks, but that is not
stated in so many words (Mt. 4. 25).19
From a sociological standpoint, it is not too surprising that early Palestinian Christianity
had less than its share of hebraeophone believers: in all likelihood, the earliest Palestinian
church drew its members from a relatively unempowered caste, and the percentage of
those who speak or read Hebrew was probably much lower in this caste than among those
<>n
who held the strings o f official Temple-based religion.
(This suggestion is consonant
not only with the linguistic profile of the earliest Palestinian Christian writings, but also
with the fundamental apocalyptic moorings o f New Testament theology.) It is not
unlikely that the ability to read and write Hebrew within the earliest Christian community
was such a rare commodity that its usefulness was entirely subsumed within the
usefulness of literacy in general (viz. Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc.).
B.
LANGUAGE
A N D THE MI S S I O N A R Y I M P U L S E :
C H R I S T I A N I T Y AS A T R A N S L A T I O N P H E N O M E N O N
19 Greek as the Vehicle o f Early Christianity, NTS 29 (1983) 356-69, esp. 359.
20 See Robert Murray, Disaffected Judaism and Early Christianity: Some Predisposing
Factors, in To See Ourselves as Others See Us Christians, Jews, Others" in Late
Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest Frerichs (Scholars Press Studies in the
Humanities; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 263-81.
254
As John F. A. Sawyer notes, early Christianity differed from most religions (not
just rabbinic Judaism) in its relative disregard for the original language o f its Scriptures.
21
Scholars have happened upon a few apt descriptions for the churchs linguistic ideology:
Andre Paul refers to it as centrifugal,22 while Julio Trebolle Barrera describes
Christianity as a translation phenomenon,23 and Rubin simply notes that Christianitys
aloofness from linguistic ideology was driven by an effort to be a world-embracing
religion.24 This view is well represented by Epistle to Diognetus 5.1-2: [T]he
distinction between Christians and other folk is neither in country nor language nor
customs. For they do not dwell in cities in some place of their own, nor do they use any
21 Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; London:
Routledge, 1999) 23-24. See also Guy G. Stroumsa, Barbarian Philosophy: The
Religious Revolution o f Early Christianity (WUNT 112; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999)
38-39.
22 He writes, Des les origines, dans le christianisme, la dimension linguistique ne fut pas
centripete, mais centrifuge (La Bible grecque dAquila et 1ideologic dujudaisme
ancien, in ANRW2.20.1 [1987] 221-45, esp. 245).
23 The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History o f the Bible
(Leiden: Brill, 1998) 125-26. Dohmen and Oeming (echoing Pierre Grelot) write, [D]as
Volk Israel im Laufe seiner Geschichte bis zur Zeit des Judentums hebrSischer (oder
aramaischer) und griechischer Sprache, dessen Erbe die Kirche antrat. Dann war es nach
der radikalen, in Jesus Christus gekommenen Umwandlung, die apostolische und
nachapostolische Kirche, deren praktische Uberlieferung sich hier ohne Unterbrechung
in den Ortsgemeinden fortgesetzt hat, trotz kleinerer Divergenzen iiber einige Bucher des
Alten und sogar des Neuen Testamentes, deren genaue Liste schwer festzulegen war
(Biblischer Kanon, 47 [emphasis original]). On Christianitys greater openness to
translation, see Lang, Buchreligion, 148-49.
255
strange variety o f dialect, nor practise an extraordinary kind of life (trans. Lake [LCL]).
25
Francis Thomson offers a handy summary of patristic pronouncements to this same

effect:
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130/140 - c. 202) declares that while languages vary, the
message remains the same [Con. haer. 1.10.2]; Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c.
215) defends the merits o f barbarous tongues and quotes the famous dictum
attributed to Anacharsis: Ejioi ttcxvtes "EXXpves o k u 0 i o u c h v [Strom. 1.16];
Origen (c. 185-c. 253/4) declares that God is the lord of every tongue and hears all
prayers as if they were said in one and the same language [Con. Cels. 8.37], while
the anonymous Ambrosiaster (fl. 4th century) considers that it is only pagans
who try to hid sacra in incomprehensibility and expressly condemns those who
use languages in church not understood by the congregation [Comm, in epist. b.
Pauli ad Cor. prim. 14 ]. For Theodoret o f Cyrrhus (c. 393-c. 466) all languages
are equal because human nature is one and the same and, as a Syrian whose native
language was Syriac, he attacks the idea o f the pretended superiority o f Greek by
pointing out that the Hebrew prophets knew no Greek, and anyway Latin and
Persian conciseness can be superior to Greek verbosity [Graec. affect, cur. 5].
Gregory the Great (c. 540-604) points out that there is nothing more transient than
language [XL horn, in evang. lib. 1.1.4].
'JC.
While a number o f early writers (beginning already with 1 Pet 2:9-10) defined
Christianity as an ethnos all its own, this view did not play out in linguistic policies.27
The idea that the early church was called to proclaim the gospel in all the
languages of the world has often been read into the Acts 2 account o f the disciples
xenoglossic enthusiasm. This was done, and continues to be done, on two levels: as an
25 See R. A. Markus, The Problem of Self-Definition: From Sect to Church, in Jewish

and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 1: The Shaping o f Christianity in the Second and Third
Centuries, ed. E. P. Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 1-15.
26 Thomson, SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy, 79-80.
27 See Denise Kimber Buell, Rethinking the Relevance o f Race for Early Christian SelfDefinition, HTR 94 (2001) 449-76; eadem, Race and Universalism in Early
Christianity, JECS10 (2002) 429-68; Aaron P. Johnson, Identity, Descent, and
Polemic: Ethnic Argumentation in Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica, JECS 12 (2004)
23-56.
256
interpretation o f the Acts 2 xenoglossy as a symbol o f what the empowerment o f the spirit
meant for the churchs mission, and also as a misinterpretation of glossolalia as a
missiological tool. The former is still widespread among interpreters o f Acts 2,
28
and has
somewhat to commend it, while the latter is a hopeless grasping at something not there at
all. Nevertheless, the idea that glossolalia enabled one to propagate the gospel in foreign
languages recurs throughout hagiographical tradition. Christopher Forbes quotes a
passage about St. Pachomius:
The Blessed Man left him and went to pray by himself. Stretching out his hands
to heaven, he prayed to God, saying, Lord Almighty, if I cannot profit the men
whom you send to me from the ends o f the earth because I do not know the
languages o f men, what need is there for men to come? If you want to save them
here through me, grant, O master, that I may know their languages for the
correction of their souls.
He prayed for three hours, entreating God earnestly for this. Suddenly
something like a letter written on a piece of papyrus was sent from heaven to his
right hand. Reading it, he learned the speech o f all the languages. Having sent up
praise to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he went back to that brother
with great joy, and began to converse with him faultlessly in Greek and Latin.29
How long did this missiological approach to language dominate? While the
characterization o f Christianity as a translation phenomenon is an apt description for
28 E.g., see F. W. Beare, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Survey o f the New Testament
Evidence, JBL 83 (1964) 229-46, esp. 237; David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (New
Foundations Theological Library, Atlanta: John Knox, 1979) 95. Thomson writes that, in
the New Testament, the equality o f all men [see Acts 17:26; Rom 10:12; 14:11; Gal
3:29; Col 3:11] implies the equality of all languages and the miracle o f Pentecost
consecrates their use (SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy, 79).
He gleans from the Pentecost miracle in Acts 2 that it is God who addresses us in our
own languages, not we who have to learn a special one to know Him (ibid, 79 n. 81).
29 Pachomius, Paralipomena 27, trans. A. Vieilleux (quoted in Prophecy and Inspired
Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment [WUNT 75; Tubingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1995] 82).
257
perhaps most o f the churchs history, a more nuanced statement (which could be nuanced
yet further) would plot Christian theologys reaction to language use as an ellipse, with
one axis representing the clothing o f the churchs message in the languages o f the world,
and the other representing the liturgical privileging o f a language held to be either sacred
or sufficiently decorous for worshipping God (e.g., Latin in the West; Greek, Armenian,
Slavonic, Coptic, etc. in the East), although Thomson would doubtless remind us that the
sacredness o f a given language derived from its status as a scriptural language. (He
insists that the churchs position on liturgical languages has always been pastoral rather
than theological.)30 The pattern o f liturgical language use within the church has been one
o f give and take between these two principles.
An easy compromise (if that is the right word) between the translation principle
and the decorous language principle could be effected in certain contexts: e.g., in the
liturgical service, scripture could be read first in the language o f the liturgy, and then
reread in the vernacular. For the antiquity of this practice in the church, we have Egerias
testimony on how things were done in the church in Jerusalem in the fourth century,
where not merely the scripture readings but the entire service was conducted in both
Greek (the liturgical language) and Aramaic, these languages being rendered by the
bishop and a presbyter respectively. (Although this does not represent a precise parallel
to the practice of conducting the service in an essentially dead language, since in the case
o f fourth-century Jerusalem there were some who benefitted directly from the Greek and
some from the Aramaic, the fact that the bishop always spoke Greek, regardless o f which
30 Thomson, SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy, 67-122.
258
language he spoke regularly, shows that the liturgical language principle really is at play.)
Fergus Millar compares the testimony ofEgeria with the closely related evidence o f
Jerome, describing the funeral o f St. Paula in Bethlehem in 404-Graeco, Latino, Syroque
sermone Psalmi in ordine personabant5.31 This was perhaps the easiest area in which a
compromise could be reached, but with proper tools, it could also be reached on the
Christian frontier.32
C. CONCL US ION
The stark contrast between the centripetal force o f Palestinian rabbinic Judaisms
strongly conservative (and ideologically loaded) approach to Hebrew, on the one hand,
that the centrifugal force o f the early churchs liberal, expansionist embrace of the
worlds languages is due to a variety o f factors. A variety o f forms o f Palestinian
Judaism (Jubilean, Qumranic, third-century rabbinism) embraced Hebrew as the language
o f either true Jewish religious identity or o f a pure and effective expression of piety,
31 Paul o f Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and Political
Allegiance in Third-Century Syria, JRS 61 (1971) 1-17, esp. 7.
32 Extending slightly beyond the bounds o f our study, we can point to Bede (7th-8th c.) as
the example par excellence o f how priests with no prior knowledge o f Latin could be
outfitted with a few bare essentials in their own language. Judith McClure has shown that
Bedes preparation of Anglo-Saxon priests (idiotae in the sense o f non-Latinist)
involved the bare essentials o f conversion: the Creed and the Lords Prayer in their own
tongue, yet she notes that Bede chose to focus his activities not on the provision of
vernacular material, but on the creation o f an Anglo-Saxon clergy educated to at least
some degree in the Latin exegetical tradition (Bedes Notes on Genesis and the
Training o f the Anglo-Saxon Clergy, in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in
Memory o f Beryl Smalley, eds. Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood [Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1985] 17-30, esp. 17).
whether for purposes of a sectarian ideology or for corralling popular piety and
empowering an establishment. Although some prominent forms o f Christianity were
sectarian in the same sense, the fact that the early church had little connection with those
groups who used Hebrew as a religious marker led to a different role for language in
general within Christian self-definition. The missionary impulse also led to a
proliferation o f languages within the church.
Chapter Seven:
Conclusion
Although the concept of angelic languages is recurrent in a number o f Jewish and

Christian writings beginning in the second century BCE, until now it has somehow
escaped receiving a book-length discussion. The need for such a discussion has been
made even greater by the fact that the scant scholarly references to the concept o f angelic
languages have hardly ever looked at the two views o f angelic language in mutual
perspective. This study has tried to fill that gap, providing both a survey o f the writings
in which this concept appears and a sociologically and ideologically attentive account of
the currency enjoyed by the two views of angelic languages (viz. [1] that they speak
Hebrew, and [2] that they speak an unearthly, esoteric language, which mystics and
charismatics are sometimes privileged to speak and understand). Hopefully, the survey
section o f this study has accomplished two things: (1) it has provided a sort o f religious
profile, as it were, for the two views, in the form o f a list of the writings adhering to each
view, and (2) it has allowed a clearer view of the concept of angelic languages itself, and
ofhow that concept is sometimes joined to other concepts. The sociological and
ideological analysis following the survey was intended to deepen both aspects o f the
survey, specifically in a direction that might shed light on broader questions.
Scholars have been exploring the relationship between the rabbis and rest of
Jewish society, including those groups who have been written into the self-histories o f the
rabbinic movement. In this connection, I have used R. Yochanans attempt to corral
popular piety by removing the theoretical supports o f extra-synagogal prayer as a window
onto the power relations between the rabbinic movement in the vicinity o f third-century
Tiberias and its potential circle of influence. This use o f R. Yochanan is partly
emblematic ofhow power relations might operate in other areas o f rabbinic social history,
partly an attempt to understand an important source o f rabbinic thought (given the
influence o f R. Yochanan on later generations), and partly a yielding to the way made
available by our limited evidence. While the central questions raised in the survey
section are characterized by a relative dearth of scholarly analysis, the sociological and
ideological discussion that this survey facilitates (in chaps. 5 and 6) raises questions from
an area characterized by intense research and debate among scholars, especially
concerning the ideological contours o f the tannaitic and amoraic interaction with the
rabbis religious and social environment. Although it would be going too far to say that
all angelic language concepts exist strictly for the sake o f one or another groups
ideology, these two areas come together in such a way that the mapping of these concepts
can function as a sounding board for current reconstructions o f rabbinic social history. In
a negative way, best viewed against the background o f Palestinian rabbinic Judaisms
embrace o f the Hebrew-speaking view o f angels, Christianitys general openness to the
esoteric-language view should be understood in terms o f the early churchs failure to gain
a significant following from the power brokers o f Palestinian Judaism (that is, from those
who had the most to gain from the use o f Hebrew as the language o f piety).
In chapter five, I argued that the hebraeophone view of angelic speech was
promulgated by groups who were ideologically invested in the use o f Hebrew. In arguing
that Hebrew was not the predominant spoken language among Palestinian Jews during
the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods, I showed that the attaching of religious
262
value to speaking, reading, or praying in Hebrew might be expressions o f a need rather

than a description of a dominant practice. (I pursued the argument against viewing
Hebrew as a vernacular language in Jewish Palestine at a certain level o f detail, because
an increasing number o f scholars hold that Hebrew was in fact widely spoken during part
or all o f our time period.) I then sought to establish the existence o f groups that pursued
the use o f Hebrew within religious contexts (and perhaps within nonreligious contexts as
well). These groups are mostly to be identified with the rabbinic movement, although the
rabbis were not all o f one mind on these matters. It would be difficult to provide any sort
o f timeline o f these developments, although it will appear that the last generation o f
tarmaim
and first generation of amoraim were principal players in the spread o f these
linguistic ideologies. The build-up toward this trend as well as the rabbinic movements
eventual wider acceptance o f Aramaic are difficult to treat in detail.
How should one account for the particular shape of R. Yochanans dictum that the
angels, implicitly understood to speak Hebrew, do not understand Aramaic (b. Sot. 33a; b.
Shab. 12b)? The rise of the idea that the angels speak Hebrew is not in itself terribly
problematic-after all, angels speak Hebrew throughout the Bible, even when they are
overheard in their praise o f God (Isa 6:3; Ezek 3:12), but when the idea that the angels
speak Hebrew is coupled with the idea that they do not speak Aramaic, we are met with a
double proposition that seemed to have been a matter of some rhetorical urgency. The
suggestion is ready to hand that R. Yochanan sought to censure the use o f Aramaic, at
least within a certain context. But why? In chapter five, I suggested a couple o f reasons:
(1) R. Yochanan sought to proscribe the practice o f extra-synagogal prayer (of which
petitionary prayer is the most representative), thereby placing all liturgical activity under
263
the control of whatever group was running the synagogue, and (2) he sought to exalt
Hebrew in general as way of empowering the literati (i.e. the rabbis). I take these reasons
to work together, but their tenability lies more in their explanatory power than in their
historical necessity. That is, while I think that one or the other reason is likely to be the
correct explanation for R. Yochanans insistence, I know of no way to get beyond their
pairing as mutual possibilities to the question o f which is the real (or more dominant)
reason. This is a limitation of social history (which does much o f its work through
models that are sometimes mutually compatible), but the results o f that approach remain
useful even when they are equivocal.
In chapters two and five, we saw that the view that angels speak Hebrew is more
widespread within Jewish sources for our period than the view that angels speak an
esoteric language all their own. One should not assume, however, that the former view
was predominant within all forms o f Jewish expression. The religion o f ancient Judaism
varied at different times and in different localities, social groupings, and schools of
thought. In fact, in the person o f R. Hama b. Hanina, we see that the belief that angels
speak an esoteric language was not unknown within rabbinic cimle* of the late
tannaitic/early amoraic period. Nevertheless, the idea that angels speak Hebrew appears
to have dominated most forms of Palestinian Judaism, and the reason for this has as much
to do with social history as with the history o f ideas.
Appendix One:
The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine
My aim in the following sections is to supplement the arguments that I presented

in chapter five that Hebrew was a minority language in Jewish Palestine. Although I will
concentrate on the primary evidence, it will also be important to engage the arguments o f
other scholars. I can hardly do justice to the many studies that have been written on the
question o f spoken languages in Palestine. At best, I can only attempt to represent the
trends and general arguments of these studies, and choose from among them the best
and/or most typical arguments that have been put forward on either side o f the debate. A
further complicating factor to any sort o f survey o f the secondary literature is that many of
these studies qualify their results as binding upon smaller time periods. For example, a
given scholar might argue that Aramaic was the principal spoken language during Second
Temple times, but that Hebrew became the vernacular during tannaitic times. My own
view o f the linguistic situation during this period is fairly static, but I believe there is an
evolutionary component to attitudes toward the various languages within rabbinic
literature.
Three languages are normally connected with Palestinian Judaism during the
Second Temple and early rabbinic periods: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.1 Every survey
1 The presence of Latin was so relatively slight, and so closely linked to administrative
and civil engineering contexts, that I do not need to discuss it here. See Fergus Millar,
The Roman Near East: 3 1 BC - AD 33 7 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993)
527-28; Joseph Geiger, How Much Latin in Greek Palestine? in Aspects o f Latin:
Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, April
1993, ed. Hannah Rosen (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft 86; Innsbruck:
265
of the linguistic situation in Palestine acknowledges the presence of these three

languages, and the variation between scholars accounts amounts to disagreements over
the degree to which each of these languages was more widespread than the others. Before
presenting my own argument for the relative scarcity of Hebrew within the Palestinian
Jewish populace, I will review the evidence for Aramaic and Greek as spoken and literary
languages.2 In order to make sense of the various rabbinic prohibitions in the next
chapter, we must have some idea ofhow these languages related to each other.
A. ARAMAIC
Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck, 1996) 39-57; Alan Millard,
Reading and Writing in the Time o f Jesus (The Biblical Seminar 69; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2001) 125-31,148-53; Werner Eck, The Language o f Power: Latin in
the Inscriptions ofludaea/Syria Palaestina, in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate
o f Creativity. Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the Retirement o f
Baruch A. Levine, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffinan (Culture & History o f the Ancient Near
East 14; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 123-44. On Jews and Latin more generally, see Jonathan J.
Price, The Jews and the Latin Language in the Roman Empire, in Jews and Gentiles in
the Holy Land in the Days o f the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud, eds.
Me^nohem Mor, Aharon Oppenheimer, Jack Pastor, and Daniel R. Schwartz (Jerusalem:
Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 164-180. Saul Lieberman noted an absence o f Latin among the
rabbis (Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and
Manners o f Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. [New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary o f America, 1950] 17).
2 Apart from the sources enlisted in this chapter, mention should be made o f a
forthcoming compendious collection o f inscriptions that promises to be a tremendous
boon to the study o f the lingustic situation in Jewish Palestine. The work is being carried
out by a team o f eleven scholars, under the project name Corpus Inscriptionum
ludaeae/Palaestinae, and will include inscriptions o f all languages except Arabic. See
Hannah M. Cotton, Leah di Segni, Werner Eck, and Benjamin Isaac, Corpus
Inscriptionum ludaeae/Palaestinae, Z P E 127 (1999) 307-08. See also Jonathan Price and
Ada Yardeni, Corpus o f Jewish Inscriptions from the Near East, from the Hellenistic
through the Byzantine Periods, forthcoming.
266
Aramaic entered Palestine at an early date. Already in Neh 13:24, the enlarging
presence o f Aramaic was a matter of concern for Israels national identity, although the
reasoning in Nehemiah is not directly concerned with linguistic corruption per se but with
the interreligious marriages signified by this corruption.3 Well before the first century
CE, Aramaic had established itself as the most widely used language in Jewish Palestine.
Although this view is contested by a number o f (esp. Israeli)4 scholars, it is supported by
a wealth o f evidence. As I noted in chapter five, there are two principal arguments for
taking Aramaic to be the main vernacular in Jewish Palestine: (1) inscriptional and
documentary evidence, and (2) the practice of translating Scripture into Aramaic for the
benefit o f synagogue congregations.
3 Seth Schwartz writes, There is in the entire Hebrew Bible a single passage in which
Hebrew-now for the first time identified as a language separate from its neighbours
(Judahite)-is definitely associated with Israelite identity (Neh. 13:23-30) (Language,
Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, Past & Present 148 [1995] 3-47, esp. 8).
Francis J. Thomson similarly notes, Nowhere [in the Hebrew Bible] is Hebrew referred
as a sacred language set apart from other tongues (SS. Cyril and Methodius and a
Mythical Western Heresy: Trilinguism: A Contribution ot the Study o f Patristic and
Mediaeval Theories o f Sacred Languages, Analecta Bollandiana 110 [1992] 67-122,
esp. 79). Of course, the joining o f Hebrew to national identity must lag behind the
emergence of that identity, and perhaps also o f its investment in the Torah (on which see
John G. Gammie, From Prudentialism to Apocalypticism: The Houses o f the Sages
Amid the Varying Forms o f Wisdom, in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East,
eds. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990] 479-97,
esp. 492-96). For evidence of Aramaic in Palestine in the biblical period, see Paul E.
Dion, Letters (Aramaic), in ABD 4.285-90, esp. 285.
4 On the zionist impulse behind this view, see the comments in Seth Schwartz,
Historiography on the Jews in the Talmudic Period (70 - 640 CE), in The Oxford
Handbook o f Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002)79-114.
267
Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek are all represented in Palestinian Jewish

inscriptions. As 1 have already noted, the ratio of one language to another changes
according to locale and context.5 A number of Aramaic ossuary inscriptions have
survived, including an impressive lot belonging to the Caiaphas family.6 Other types of
funerary inscriptions also appear in Aramaic, including the Abba inscription from Giv
(at ha-Mivtar, written in paleo-Hebrew script.7 According to Eric Meyers and James
Strange, 26% of inscribed Palestinian ossuaries are either Hebrew or Aramaic, and
another 9% are a combination o f Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic.8 Unfortunately, these
ossuaries cannot be neatly divided between Hebrew and Aramaic, because most o f them
preserve only names and stylized elements like ! *72?, but the balance appear to be
written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Seth Schwartz notes that Aramaic and Greek
are used almost to the exclusion o f Hebrew on the hundreds o f inscribed ossuaries from
first-century Jerusalem.9 Admittedly, it is a matter o f debate whether ossuary
5 J. Courtenay James writes, The conclusion based on the inscriptions and literary
documents found in one region, are often invalidated by inscriptions and other literary
remains found in anothf5,r rpion (The Language o f Palestine and Adjacent Regions
[Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920] 115).
6 See Ronny Reich, Ossuary Inscriptions o f the Caiaphas Family from Jerusalem, in
Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
1994) 223-25. Gustaf Dalman notes, concerning ossuaries, Hebrew and Aramaic seem
to interchange here without any fixed principle (Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels
[London: SPCK, 1929] 7).
7 See Eric M. Meyers and James F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early
Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981) 76.
8Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 65.
9 Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, 15. He notes this also o f the vast
collection of ostraca used at the southern Judaean fortress of Masada in 66-74 C.E. See
inscriptions bearing 13 should be bracketed from the list of Aramaic inscriptions, since it
is perhaps questionable whether the use of 3 3 rather than ] 3 can be taken as an
indication of Aramaic (since the former may have been adopted as a Hebrew
colloquialism).10 Gerard Mussies has shown that 3 3 and ] 3 can even be used together
within the same inscription.11 This sort o f bleeding over from Aramaic to lower level
Hebrew has led those who think that Hebrew was the principal vernacular to disregard the
use of 3 3 as an indication o f language use. One wonders how often this objection can be
made, however, before the linguistic situation that it masks begins to show through:
individual cases apart, a preponderance of 3 3 within a large collection o f inscriptions
certainly implies a preponderance of Aramaic, and L. Y. Rahmani reports that, among the
233 inscribed ossuaries in his Catalogue ofJewish Ossuaries in the Collections o f the
State o f Israel, bar and barath appear two or three times more often than ben and
bath.12 It should furthermore be noted what the direction o f bleeding over (viz. from
William F. Albright, The Nash Papyrus, JBL 56 (1937) 145-176, esp. 158-60; H. Ott,
Um die Muttersprache Jesu: Forschungen seit GustafDalman, NovT 9 (1967) 1-25, esp.
6.
10 Joseph A. Fitzmyer notes that texts from Murabba(at illustrate the use o f 3 3 in Hebrew
texts and o f | 3 in Aramaic texts (The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.,
in his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays [SBLMS 25; Chico: Scholars
Press, 1979] 29-56, esp. 45).
11 Greek as the Vehicle o f Early Christianity, NTS 29 (1983) 356-69, esp. 362.
12A Catalogue ofJewish Ossuaries in the Collections o f the State ofIsrael (Jerusalem:
Israeli Antiquities Authority, 1994) 13.
269
Aramaic to Hebrew) says about the linguistic situation: how did
become a
colloquialism for] 2 if Aramaic was not the more common language?

The language o f synagogue inscriptions presents a special problem, since there are
almost certainly religious motives behind the use of Hebrew in that setting. Many o f the
Hebrew inscriptions found in synagogues cannot be read as straightforward registers o f
the vernacular language. To take a rather obvious example, the words D1 b\D 1*20 ]QK
]DK in a synagogue at (Ein Nashot (in the Golan)13 no more reflect the language o f the
parties responsible for the inscription than the use of the word amen reflects the
language o f present-day American religionists.14 The most trustworthy records o f a
dedicants or builders language are probably those cases in which the language o f the
inscription switches when credit is being given, as in the following inscription found at
Dabbura (in the Golan):
|Dbin m pduinx?rap]... pn nubs

[PO]YCTJKOC EKT[ICEN . . . r T O l HS1 HHSD
El(azar the son o f . . . made the columns above
13 See Robert C. Gregg and Dan Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan
Heights (USFSHJ 140; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 95.
14 Francis E. Peters writes o f synagogue inscriptions, Neither the architecture, the
language o f the dedications, nor, indeed, the names of the donors, I submit, tell us
anything about the native or common language o f the people who worshipped in those
buildings, any more than similar dedications in English on the walls o f the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem say anything about the native language o f the students who study
inside. All authors crave readers, but the authors o f dedicatory plaques may have the
most limited readership in literature: themselves, their family, and the unseen epigrapher
(Response [to Jonas C. Greenfield], in Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations:
Proceedings ofRegional Conferences o f the Association fo r Jewish Studies Held at the
University o f Michigan and New York University in March-April 1975, ed. Herbert H.
Paper [Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978] 159-64, esp. 160-61).
270
the arches and beam s. . . Rusticus built (it).15

Here the inscription is Aramaic, but switches to Greek for the sake o f Rusticus. Another
example o f this same pattern (in which donors are named in Aramaic and builders in
Greek) can be found in the floor o f the Beth Alpha synagogue.16 Although we cannot
know in the case o f Rusticus, the names o f the builders at Beth Alpha (Marianos and his
son Hanina) would seem to suggest that they are Jewish. Of course, these diglossic
inscriptions are rare. For most inscriptions, we cannot know for certain whether the
language o f the inscription reflects the daily language of those attending the synagogue,
or a language deemed more appropriate for the synagogue.
A number o f archives discovered in the area o f the Dead Sea contain letters and
documents written in Aramaic. Excluding Qumran, the majority o f the writings in these
archives are in Aramaic. Even the Bar Kokhba archive, connected as it is with intense
nationalistic feelings, contains more letters in Aramaic than in Hebrew (a fact often
ignored by those who appeal to this archive as evidence of Hebrews ascendancy over
Aramaic).17 Taken together, the inscriptional and documentary evidence leads Meyers
15 Dan Urman, Jewish Inscriptions from Dabbura in the Golan, IE J 22 (1972) 16-23,
esp. 17.
16 Gregg and Urman, Jews, Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights, 126.
17 Meyers and Strange exaggerate, however, when they refer to Aramaic as by fa r the
most popular language of the [Bar Kokhba] letters {Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early
Christianity, 77 [emphasis added]). According to Fergus Millars hand-list, the Bar
Kokhba cache contains 14 writings in Aramaic, 11 in Hebrew, 2 in Greek, and 1 in a
mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew {The Roman Near East: 3 1 BC - AD 337 [Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1993] 548-52).
271
and Strange to the conclusion, based on overwhelming evidence, that Aramaic was far
more widely used in Palestine than Hebrew.
18
Aramaic documents from a later time have been found elsewhere in the Dead Sea
area. A contract or IOU from the second year o f Neros reign (56 CE) has been found at
Wadi Muraba(at, and an invoice on an ostracon has been found at Masada.19 Somewhat
later are the archives found at Wadi Habra and Wadi Seiyal. Other documents from Wadi
Muraba(at (those belonging to Yeshua b. Galgoula and his family) and the rich find from
the Cave o f Letters belong to the time o f the Bar Kokhba revolt. The latter contains the
archive ofBabatha, a woman who must have spent most o f her life in litigation and
whose stash o f documents is a matter o f particular interest. She left thirty-five
documents: three in Aramaic (including a marriage contract and a property deed), six in
Babathas native tongue ofNabatean, and twenty-six in Greek. The fact that none is in
Hebrew is significant, given the nature and multilingualism o f the archive, although the
late date o f Babathas transplantion from Mahoza to En Gedi probably bears upon the
absence o f Hebrew.21 It is possible that Aramaic functions within this archive as a
18Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 78. Meyers and Stranges more
complete verdict is that Greek was even more widely used than Aramaic.
19 Meyers and Strange assign special significance to the fact that Aramaic was found on
the most humdrum items {viz. various vessels) at Masada {Archaeology, the Rabbis,
and Early Christianity, 77).
20 Yigael Y adin, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery o f the Legendary Hero o f the Last Jewish
Revolt against Imperial Rome (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971) 222.
21 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 77-78; Fitzmyer,
The Languages o f Palestine in the First Century A.D., 39. Nine o f the Greek
documents contain subscriptions/signatures in Aramaic or Nabatean. On the Babatha
archive more generally, see Yadin, Bar-Kokhba, 222-53; G. W. Bowersock, Roman
272
official language for contracts, so as not to reflect Babathas own tongue (either Greek or
Nabatean). Nevertheless, the absence o f Hebrew may still count for something. O f
course, the fact that a significant portion o f the writings in most archives from this area is
in Greek or Hebrew might detract from the view that Aramaic was the dominant
language, but some o f these non-Aramaic writings actually support this view in their own
way. For example, a number of scholars have noted that the Hebrew o f the Bar Kokhba
archive has been heavily influenced by Aramaic.
Considering the statistical prominence and ideological importance ofHebrew at
Qumran (see discussion below), one can easily forget how much o f the Qumran corpus is
actually in Aramaic.23 Of particular interest are the two copies o f a targum of Job (4Q157
Arabia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983) 76-80; Seth Schwartz, Imperialism
and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the
Ancient to the Modem World; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) 69-71. Yadin
suggests that Babathas move from Mahoza to En Gedi was precipitated by the Bar
Kokhba revolt {Bar-Kokhba, 252), while Bowersock tentatively suggests that Babatha
fled from a pogrom conducted by the governor Haterius Nepos {Roman Arabia, 108). On
the location of Mahoza, see now Hannah M. Cotton and Jonas C. Greenfield, Babathas
Patria: Mahoza, Mahoz (Eglatain and Zo(ar, ZPE 107 (1995) 126-34.
22 See J. T. Milik, Une lettre de Simeon bar Kokheba, RevBib 60 (1953) 276-94;
Roland de Vaux, Quelques textes hebreux de Murabba(at, RevBib 60 (1953) 268-75;
Stanislav Segert, Zur Verbreitung des Aram&ischen in Palastina zur Zeit Jesu, Archiv
Orientalni 25 (1957) 21-37, esp. 31-33; Mussies, Greek as the Vehicle o f Early
Christianity, 363; J. C. Greenfield, Aramaic in the Achaemenian Empire, in The
Cambridge History o f Iran, vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, ed. Ilya
Gershevitch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 698-713, esp. 707.
23 Joseph A. Fitzmyers tally (now dated) lists 61 items (The Contribution o f Qumran
Aramaic in the Study o f the New Testament, NTS 20 [1974] 382-407, esp. 404-6). See
Devorah Dimant, 4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?, in Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and
Literature in Honor o f Jacob Milgrom, eds. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and
Avi Hurvitz.(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 805-13.
273
= 4QtgJob [Job 4:16-5:4] and 11Q10 = llQ tg Job [Job 17:14-42:11]), as well as
fragments o f a targum of Leviticus (4Q156). Palaeographically, 1lQtgJob dates from the
first century C.E., although its language is said by some scholars to be older than that of
the Genesis Apocryphon.24
The Qumran targum texts bring us to the second argument for Aramaic as the
vernacular of Palestinian Judaism: the practice o f translating synagogue Scripture
readings into Aramaic, a practice presumably based upon linguistic needs. While a good
case for the Aramaic scenario can be made on inscriptional and documentary evidence
alone, the regularity o f the practice of translating Scripture into Aramaic may represent a
more powerful argument that a large segment o f the population could not understand
Hebrew. The simplicity o f the linguistic necessity explanation is just too great to be
offset by the attempts to hold the targums in orbit around the hebraic scenario. By
comparison, the alternative explanations on offer (see my discussion in chapter five) look
like special pleading.
B. GREEK
24 See J. P. M. van der Ploeg, A. S. van der Woude, and B. Jongeling, eds., Le Targum de
Job de la Grotte 11 de Qumran (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen; Leiden: Brill, 1971). For a comparison between those who differentiate
Aramaic dialects on the basis o f chronological and geographical distinctions versus those
who differentiate on the basis o f generic (oral vs. literary) distinctions, see James Barr,
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, in The Cambridge History o f
Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, eds. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 79-114, esp. 91-92.
274
Although Aramaic appears to have been the most widely spoken language in
Jewish Palestine in the Second Temple, tannaitic, and amoraic periods, Greek was also
widely used. Indeed, some scholars speak almost in terms o f Greeks virtual conquest of
Palestine.25 Be that as it may, my comments on the use of Greek are mostly intended to
show that it was widely used, and as long as the reader w ill agree that Aramaic was more
widely used than Hebrew, it matters little to the present study whether in fact more people
spoke Greek in Jewish Palestine (although I certainly doubt that that was the case).
The linguistic situation outside o f Palestine appears to be much clearer than that
within Palestine: most Jews in the western diaspora spoke Greek as their first language.
James Barr notes that the Greek writings o f diaspora Jews are not filled with Semitic
interference, as we might expect if these authors first language was Aramaic or
25 E.g., according to Meyers and Strange, Aramaic . . . suffered a strong eclipse in favour
o f Greek {Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 91). According to M. Smith,
at least as much Greek as Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (Aramaic Studies and the
Study o f the New Testament, JBR 26 [1958] 304-13, esp. 310). Already in 1915, Max
Radin argued that Greek had replaced Aramaic as the urban language, and with the latter
becoming merely the language o f peasants {The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans
[Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society o f America, 1915] 119). Haiim B. Rosen also
thinks that Greek was the principal language o f Jewish Palestine {Hebrew at the
Crossroads o f Cultures: From Outgoing Antiquity to the Middle Ages [Orbis
Supplements; Leuven: Peeters, 1995] esp. 12). Isaiah M. Gafhi argues that, judging from
the intensification o f Greek cultural influence in the third and fourth centuries, it is a
good guess that the Amoraim knew more Greek than the Tannaim (The World o f the
Talmud: From the Mishnah to the Arab Conquest, in Christianity and Rabbinic
Judaism: A Parallel History o f Their Origins and Early Development, ed. Hershel Shanks
[Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992] 225-65, esp. 234).
26 See Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum,
1959) 348.
275
Hebrew, but that the authors of these works usually wrote Greek in its own idiom.27 This
makes sense, since there is no discernible reason for these authors, at least the ones
writing primarily for other Jews, to have chosen a language other than the one in which
they were most comfortable. I say this in order to contrast the views o f scholars who
limit the use o f Greek in Jewish Palestine more than the evidence warrants. It is still
often assumed that Greek was the language o f a tiny minority within Palestinian Jewry, so
much so that attributing a Greek writing to a Palestinian Jewish author (e.g., the epistle of
James) is often discussed in terms o f a problem that needs explaining.28 Simon J.
27 Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, 107. Gerard Mussies has argued
the case for Semitic interference in Revelation in detail (The Morphology o f Koine Greek
As Used in the Apocalypse o f John [NovTSup 27; Leiden: Brill, 1971]), but, as Barr (who
praises Mussiess study) points out, Revelation may be the product o f a religious upset
that entailed a change o f language (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age,
109-10). Sarah Grey Thomason and Terrence Kaufman refer to this as substratum
interference (Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguisitcs [Berkeley:
University o f California Press, 1988] 38-39). G. H. R. Horsley argues that Greek
speaking Jews in general did not have a distinctive language (New Documents Illustrating
Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic Essays [Macquarie University: The Ancient History
Documentary Research Centre, 1989] 5-40). According to Horsley, the only aspect o f
Jewish use o f Greek which may have been distinctive is that o f phonology (ibid, 6). His
argument was anticipated by Herbert C. Youtie, Response (to Jonas C. Greenfield), in
Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations: Proceedings o f Regional Conferences o f the
Association fo r Jewish Studies Held at the University o f Michigan and New York
University in March-April 1975, ed. Herbert H. Paper (Cambridge, MA: Association for
Jewish Studies, 1978) 155-57. On Jews writing in Greek in general, see Carsten Colpe,
Judisch-hellenistische Literature, in Der kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike (Stuttgart:
Daruckenmiiller, 1967)2.1507-12.
28 For those who reject the pseudepigraphy o f the Epistle o f James, the high quality o f the
Greek found there is often explained by the use o f helpers. Richard Bauckham offers a
corrective to this unwillingness to attribute quality Greek writings to Palestine: noting
that the phenomenon o f hellenization surely had more gradients than Martin Hengel
allows for, Bauckham writes, What can no longer be argued is that a work shows such
proficiency in Greek and such acquaintance with Hellenistic culture that a Palestinian Jew
could not have written it (James: Wisdom o f James, Disciple o f Jesus the Sage [London:
Routledge, 1999] 22). In an earlier work, Bauckham had noted, it is difficult to estimate
276
Gathercole notes that the two-volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. Charlesworth)
shows an uncritical tendency to attribute Greek works to a diaspora provenance simply
because they are written in Greek.29 This seems to be a case either of text-bound
scholarship failing to catch up with the archaeological record o f Jewish Palestine, or of
the blinding effect o f an ingrained dichotomizing o f the adjectives Greek and
Palestinian.
Scholarship is still coming to terms with the extent to which Greek was at home
in Palestine. P. J. B. Frey lists some 530 Palestinian inscriptions in his Corpus
how competent in Greek a Galilean Jew could have been (Jude and the Relatives o f
Jesus in the Early Church [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990] 177). J. N. Sevensters Do
You Know Greek?: How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known?
(NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1968) was organized around the question o f how James
Greek governs the question of the books pseudepigraphy. See also Martin Hengel,
Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early
Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). As Anders Gerdmar notes,
some aspects ofHengels analysis look like an attempt to make the hellenization o f
Judaism into apraeparatio evangelica (Rethinking the Judaism-Hellenism Dichotomy: A
Historiographical Case Study o f Second Peter and Jude [ConBibNT 36; Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001] 251-55). Similar suspicions regarding the Christian basis of
Hengels analysis can be found in Fergus Millar, The Background to the Maccabean
Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengels Judaism and Hellenism, JJS (1978) 1-21.
29 Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 27. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85). To note but one
example o f how scholarship has been effected by this question, Johannes Tromp
discusses the effect that such assumptions about the linguistic abilities and preferences o f
Palestinian Jews has had on attempts to discern the original language o f the Assumption
o f Moses (The Assumption o f Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary [SVTP 10;
Leiden: Brill, 1993] 93-94,117-18). See also Albert C. Sundberg Jr., The Septuagint:
The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism, in The Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and
James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002) 69-90, esp. 83-90.
277
Inscriptionum Judaicarum, o f which fully 52% are in Greek.30 Anyone who has observed
how often Greek shows up in inscriptions must therefore admit that somebody knew
Greek. But how representative are these inscriptional remains? Do they reflect only the
upper crust o f Jewish society? Or do they reflect only a widespread epigraphical
convention? Philip Alexander lists a number of considerations that might wreck our
confidence in what we can determine from the amount o f Greek used in inscriptions.
Citing the above figures from Frey, he notes that such crude statistical arguments must
30 P. J. B. Frey, ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum (Rome: Pontificio ftistituto di

Archeologia Christiana, 1936-52). Baruch Lifshitzs catalogue o f the Greek inscriptions
appearing in Palestinian synagogues is also helpful (Donateurs et fondateurs dans les
Synagogues Juives: Repertoire des dedicaces grecques relatives a la construction et a la
refection des synagogues [Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 7; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967] 5073). Lifshitz does not offer dates for seven o f the inscriptions that he discusses (68
[Caesarea], 69 [Azotos], 73 [Gaza], 77a [Beth-Shean], 77b [Beth-Shean], 77c [BethShean], 81 [Huldah]), but he dates the rest as follows:
64 (Caesarea): 4th c. CE
65 (Caesarea): 5th-6th c. CE
66 (Caesarea): 6th c. CE
67 (Caesarea): 4th-5th c. CE
70 (Ashkelon): 7th c. CE
71 (Azotos): 5th c. CE
72 (between Jaffa and Gaza): 6th c. CE
73a (Gaza): 5th c. CE
74 (Sepphoris-Diocaesarea): 5th c. CE
75 (Caphamaum): 3rd c. CE
76 (Tiberias): 4th c. CE
77 (Beth-Alpha): 6th c. CE
78 (Gerasa): 5th c. CE
79 (Jerusalem): 1st c. CE
80 (Salbit): 6th c. CE
Although nearly all o f these inscriptions are Amoraic or later, and could reflect a relaxing
o f the rabbinic language ideology in the centuries after the Mishnah, they at least show
the staying power o f Greek in Jewish Palestine. See also idem, Beitrage zur
palSstinischen Epigraphik, ZDPV7S (1962) 64-88; idem, Beitrage zur griechischjiidischen Epigraphik, ZDPV 82 (1966) 57-63.
278
be used cautiously. For example, ossuary inscriptions are often regarded as accurate
portrayals o f the daily language of the deceased,35 but we must take account of the fact
that the stone ossuaries found in museums and collectors living rooms represent only one
type of ossuary, and that a second type, namely wooden ossuaries, has disappeared
altogether, leaving only the nails that once held them together. These wooden ossuaries
presumably would have represented a lower class o f Jewry than the stone ossuaries did,
and Alexander wonders whether the distribution o f languages on these wooden ossuaries
would have matched the distribution o f languages among extant (stone) ossuaries: If we
had some inscriptions from the wooden artifacts, then the statistics might well change
significantly.32 Alexander also thinks that it is problematic to assume that the rump o f
the Greek inscriptions found in the necropolis at Beth She(arim necessarily represent the
daily language of Palestinian Jews. He points out that the burial o f Palmyrene Jews at
31 Meyers and Strange report the following distribution o f languages on ossuaries: out o f
194 inscribed ossuaries, 26% are Hebrew or Aramaic, 64% are Greek, and another 9% are
Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic {Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 65). The
appearance ofRahmanis A Catalogue o f Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections o f the State
o f Israel offers a base for a recount, but it unfortunately contains only ossuaries found in
collections within Israel today, and Alice J. Bij de Vaate notes that this excludes the
sizeable collection ofDominus Flevit ossuaries found on the Mount o f Olives (Note on
L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue o f Jewish Ossuaries, nos. 319 and 322, ZPE 113 [1996]
187-90, esp. 187 n. 1). On the other hand, the figures cited by Meyers and Strange
include the Dominus Flevit ossuaries. See Schwartz, Language, Power and Identity in
Ancient Palestine, 15 n. 22.
32 Philip S. Alexander, Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical
Categories, in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001) 63-80, esp. 74. Gerdmar comments, it is
adventurous to extrapolate that an equivalent percentage o f the population was Greek
speaking from the percentage of Greek inscriptions {Rethinking the Judaism-Hellenism
Dichotomy, 267).
279
Beth She(arim ceased when the Romans destroyed Palmyra (272/3 CE), which indicates
that these were probably imported burials rather than the burial of displaced Palmyrenes
who lived in Palestine. Another section o f the necropolis was reserved for Jews from
southern Arabia. It therefore follows that some o f the Jews whose epitaphs are in Greek
might also have been imported, so that the amount o f Greek found at Beth She(arim might
not be representative o f the Palestinian natives buried there.33 Alexander also suggests
that the amount o f Greek spoken in the coastal towns was inflated by the number o f Jews
who immigrated from the Greek-speaking diaspora.34
33 Lifshitz lists the following foreign places referred to in the Beth She(arim nekropolis:
Byblos, Tyrus, Sidon, Beirut, Antiochia, Phaine, Palmyra, Jahmur, Mischan in
Mesopotamien, Asia (Esion-Geber bei Aila), Himiar in Arabia Felix (Beitrage zur
palastinischen Epigraphik, 77).
34 Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical Categories, 74-75.
Shaye J. D. Cohen notes that the coastal cities are absent from the lives o f 2nd-century
rabbis in rabbinic literature (The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society, in The
W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999] 922-90,
esp. 937). Louis H, Feldman notes that the fact that one of the rabbis iny. Sot. 7.1 (21b)
was astounded when he witnessed the shema being recited in Greek in a Caesarean
synagogue (ca. 400 CE) shows that such an incident is not representative (How Much
Hellenism in the Land o f Israel?, JSJ 33 [2002] 290-313, esp. 302 [emphasis original]),
but it is helpful to reflect on the particular way in which the incident is not
representative. The scene may reveal something about how generally unacceptable
Greek was as a liturgical language (at least beyond the coastal cities), and it may even
reveal the existence o f coastal pockets of monolingual Greek speakers, but it certainly
does not reveal anything about how widespread Greek was among Palestinian Jews in
general. The incident that Feldman mentions dates from ca. 400 CE, however, at a time
when Caesarea had a much greater rabbinic presence. If historical, the incident may
reveal a rabbinic reaction to customs that took root before a rabbinic presence was
established, although such an explanation is hardly necessary. On the use o f Greek in
Caesarea, see Lee I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975)
70-71.
280
These are all worthy considerations, but how ruinous are they o f the conclusions
of crude statistical arguments? First, it is worth remembering that the question we are
seeking to answer differs slightly from the one that Alexander fields: viz. we want to
know how widespread Greek was in Jewish Palestine, while Alexander seeks to find out
how complex the phenomenon o f hellenization was there.35 It therefore matters little to
us that many o f the Greek-speaking Jews that we meet in the inscriptions might have
immigrated from elsewhere.36 We need to recognize, therefore, that one o f Alexanders
complicating factors affects our question tangentially at best. It should further be pointed
out that Tessa Rajak has recently challenged the view that the extra-Palestinian place
names in the Beth She(arim necropolis point to imported burials. She argues, for
35 On the relationship between the Greek language and hellenization per se, Gerdmar
writes, There is no Greek world-view, Greek Wesen or Greek spirit which generally
goes with the use o f the language. However, the knowledge of a language canfacilitate
the encounter with e.g., philosophical and religious thought (Rethinking the JudaismHellenism Dichotomy, 275-76). See James Barr, The Semantics o f Biblical Language
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) 278-79.
36 If we had a means o f controlling the data closely enough, we could provide a rough
estimate o f the number of Jews who immigrated to Palestine by means o f comparing the
ratio o f Greek to non-Greek funerary inscriptions, on the one hand, with the ratio of
Greek to non-Greek nonfunerary inscriptionsm, on the other hand. Assuming that most
immigrants who could write continued to write in Greek after moving to Palestine, a high
degree o f immigration would presumably result in a higher percentage o f Greek funerary
inscriptions than o f Greek nonfunerary inscriptions (since the writing career o f an
immigrant must be divided between their time in Palestine and their time elsewhere,
while the fact o f their being buried in Palestine is an indivisible datum). Although this
actually appears to be the case, too many pockets o f evidence are circumstantial to inspire
confidence that immigration is the best explanation. In fact, the actual figures might
equally support Alexanders suspicions that some o f the Greek-speaking Jews buried at
Beth She(arim represent imported burials.
example, that the word rendered. . . as laid, 6i]KaTO is translated misleadingly and
tendentiously as brought by Schwabe, and others have followed suit.
37
What o f Alexanders other two complicating factors (viz. the upper class
associations o f stone ossuaries, and the possibility of imported burials among the Greek
inscriptions at Beth She(arim)? At least some of the evidence of Beth She(arim, as
presented by Moshe Schwabe and Baruch Lifshitz, points in a different direction. For
example, the name recorded in inscription no.
197
bears the ethnicon M
s c o v ito v ,
signifying the Judean village of Ma(on (Mcccov). This perhaps shows that Jews who
lived in smaller settlements were also familiar with the Greek language.38
Further confusion over the place of Greek in Jewish Palestine arises from the
quality of the Greek found at Beth She(arim. Everyone agrees that the Greek found in
these inscriptions does not measure up to textbook Greek, but there is wide disagreement
on how to interpret this fact. Where Alon had appealed to the unlearned quality o f these
inscriptions as evidence that Greek was generally out o f place in Palestine, Schwabe and
Lifshitz pointed out that the prevalence o f phonetic and grammatical vulgarisms at Beth
SheWim is no different from Greek inscriptions of the same type and period that have
come to light in Syria, in Asia Minor, and in other parts o f the Hellenized Orient.39 In
37 The Rabbinic Dead and the Diaspora Dead at Beth She(arim, in The Talmud
Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture I, ed. Peter Schafer (TSAJ 71; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1 9 9 8 ) 3 4 9 - 6 6 , esp. 3 6 1 . See Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200
B.C.E. to 640 C.E., 1 5 4 - 5 5 .
38 Moshe Schwabe and Baruch Lifshitz, Beth She(arim, vol. 2 : The Greek Inscriptions
(New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1 9 7 4 ) 2 1 9 .
39 Schwabe and Lifshitz, Beth She(arim, vol. 2 : The Greek Inscriptions, 1 8 2 . Schwabe
and Lifshitz write, The inscriptions give no evidence of a systematic learning o f the
282
fact, they argue, the prevalence o f these vulgarisms suggests that Greek was not the
special province only of the intellectuals and urbanites. But this appears to swing the
pendulum too far in the other direction: there is little reason to expect consistent spelling
(as if the inscriptionists could have consulted a dictionary).40 As far as the evidence goes,
the burials at Beth She(arim may well represent the well educated. (We cannot tell.)
What is more certain is that these burials appear to represent the upper classes o f Jewish
society. As Lee I. Levine points out, even rabbinic literature refers to Beth She(arim as
the final resting place for the upper classes (seey. Mo(ed Qatan 3.5 [82c]).41 This class
distinction affects our interpretation of the Beth SheWim evidence in the greatest way: as
language and its grammar. It does seem as though the authors of the inscriptions learned
their Greek from their pagan neighbors and knew how to speak it, but only seldom did
they have a broader educational background (ibid, 221). Saul Lieberman makes the
same argument (Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners o f Jewish
Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1942] 30), as does Horsley (New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity,
vol. 5: Linguistic Essays, 21). W. W. Tam writes, Inscriptions from Doura have given
us some knowledge o f the sort o f Greek, alive enough but vulgarised, spoken by the less
educated classes in the decay of what had once been a Hellenistic city, and its most
marked feature is the substitution of genitive for nominative and the use o f the two in
agreement (The Greeks in Bactria and India [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1951] 355).
40 As Pieter W. van der Horst points out (in connection with Jewish inscriptions in the
city of Rome), orthographical confusion is not necessarily a proof o f lack o f education
(Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey o f a Millennium o f Jewish Funerary
Epigraphy (300 BCE - 700CE) [CBET 2; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991] 32).
41 The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad Tzhak BenZvi, 1989) 177-78.
283
scholars continually point out, the well-to-do comprise a class for whom the Greek
language was presumably attractive.
42
Understanding the extent to which Greek was used in Jewish Palestine is therefore
a matter o f striking a balanced interpretation o f the evidence. In all likelihood, Greek was
not the most widely used language, as Radin would have it. On the other hand, it would
be wrong to think of Greek as a comparative rarity, as others have argued (e.g., Alon,
Greenfield, Feldman).43 Once again, although hellenization and the spread o f the Greek
language are related phenomena, it helps to remember that they are not the same thing.
The desire to be numbered among the more hellenized segment of the population was
certainly one of the driving forces behind the initial and continuing spread o f Greek, but it
was hardly the only force.44 It is in every way probable that Greek was sufficiently rooted
42 Alexander writes, A knowledge of Greek was the Orientals indispensable entry-ticket

into the Hellenistic club (Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical
Categories, 73). See Amaldo Momigliano, Essays on Ancient and Modem Judaism, ed.
Silvia Berti (Chicago: University o f Chicago, 1994) 13.
43 Jonas C. Greenfield compares the situation o f Greek speakers in Jewish Palestine to
that o f English speakers in British India or Mandate-era Palestine (The Languages of
Palestine, 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E., in Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations:
Proceedings o f Regional Conferences o f the Association for Jewish Studies Held at the
University o f Michigan and New York University in March-April 1975, ed. Herbert H.
Paper [Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978] 143-54, esp. 145-46).
Greenfield is responding to the views o f Morton Smith and Martin Hengel.
44 The cultural ascendancy o f Greek is best revealed in its chauvinism: Greek papyri from
Roman Egypt reveal that an inability to write Greek passed under the terminology of
illiteracy, even when the party in question was folly capable o f writing in another
language. See Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic
Essays, 13.
284
in certain pockets o f the population to have worked up its own momentum, quite separate
from social and ideological forces.45
Feldmans more recent remarks are more directly aimed at the scholars who write
in qualified support of Hengel than at Hengel himself 46 One of Feldmans consistent
responses is that the written evidence o f Greek represents a small portion o f the
population:
Do these inscriptions belong to a very tiny upper class? Van der Horst concludes
that this is not so, since there are numerous very simple and poorly executed
tombstones with inscriptions in poor Greek that undeniably stem from lower strata
45 One o f the celebrated Bar Kokhba letters shows that the ability to write in Greek could
obtain in situations where the ability to write in Hebrew appears to have been
ideologically preferable. I accept the reconstruction o f G. Howard and J. C. Shelton
(The Bar-Kokhba Letters and Palestinian Greek, IEJ 23 [1973] 101-02):
Eypa<|)Ti
S[e]' EAqvicrri Sid
t [o ' Ep]pav pf| eupr|-[]
0 [q ]vat' E(3paEOTi
y[pd]v[Kxa0ai.
Their reading is a suggested correction to that offered by Baruch Lifshitz, who had read
opjpqv instead o f ' Ep]pdv. Howard and Shelton indicate two implications o f their
reading: First, the writer o f the letter, though a member o f Bar-Kokhbas army, was
unable to write in the Semitic tongues, though o f course he may have been able to speak
them; he required the help o f a translator when sending letters in languages other than
Greek. Second, only one man was available at the time he wrote the letter who was able
to write Hebrew or Aramaic, the man named [. .]pds. If the average soldier had had this
skill, there would have been no need to single out one individual by name or to write
Greek because that man was absent (ibid, 102). Horsley apparently approves of
Lifshitzs reconstruction: he refers to the plausible presence o f the noun opjiq (New
Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic Essays, 23).
46 Feldman, How Much Hellenism in the Land o f Israel?, 290-313. Feldmans article is
a review o f John J. Collins, ed., Hellenism in the Land o f Israel (Christianity and Judaism
in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press, 2001). Gerdmar refers to
Feldmans earlier work as an attempt to belittle Greek linguistic influence in spite o f
evidence for it (Rethinking the Judaism-Hellenism Dichotomy, 266).
285
o f Jewish society. But, we must remark, the fact remains that we have a very,
very small sample o f what ordinary Jews in Palestine felt about the Greek
language, let alone Greek culture.. . . [Van der Horst] notes that a letter from the
Bar Kochba archive bristles with errors and hence was not written by cultural
elite, but again we must ask how representative one letter is. To be sure, however,
he notes that ofthe thirty-six documents in the Babatha archive twenty-six are in
Greek. But, we must remark, this is a single archive.47
Although the historian should avoid overestimating the representativeness of the
evidence, it should be noted that Feldman leans too far in the other direction. Feldman
believes that it is enough to note that the troublesome Bar Kokhba letter is not
representative of the others in the collection, but we can see from his response to the
Babatha archive that if that Bar Kokhba letter were representative o f the whole lot, then
he would presumably try to accomodate the evidence to his own understanding o f the
linguistic situation in Jewish Palestine by remarking, This is a single archive. One
must ask, at what point does the evidence become useful?
Once again I must call attention to the nonrepresentativeness o f the Qumran
corpus. The fact that only 3% o f the Qumran corpus is in Greek may be significant for
our understanding of Qumran, but not for our understanding o f Palestinian Judaism
contemporary with Qumran. The most complete and nuanced appreciation o f the Greek
writings at Qumran is found in a recent article by Emanuel Tov. He notes that, with one
special exception, none o f the 27 Greek writings found at Qumran are documentary in
nature, although he admits that many o f these (e.g., 4Q119-122,126-127; 7Q1-19) are too
fragmentary to be completely certain.48 The one exception is 4Q350 (4QAccount gr), a
47 How Much Hellenism in the Land o f Israel?, 301-02.

48 The Nature o f the Greek Texts from the Judean Desert, NovT (2001) 1-11, esp. 1, 4;
see idem, The Corpus o f the Qumran Papyri, in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A
286
document o f unknown provenance and nature written on the verso o f a Hebrew literary
text (4Q460 frag. 9), but Tov notes that Ada Yardeni raised serious doubts about the
Qumran origin of 4Q342-360 in an appendix to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
edition o fth e text,49 and he combines these doubts with Erik Larsons suggestion that the
Qumranites would not have written a list o f cereals in Greek on the verso o f a scroll
containing the tetragrammaton on the recto (4Q460 9 i 10)-allowing also Larsons
suggestion that the cereal list might actually be evidence of a post-68 CE resettlement.50
As Tov notes, the linguistic profile of the Qumran cache contrasts sharply with that of
other archives in the Dead Sea area.51 That is, the Greek texts found in caves 4 and 7 at
Climate o f Creativity. Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the
Retirement o f Baruch A. Levine, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffinan (Culture & History o f the
Ancient Near East 14; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 85-103; James C. VanderKam, Greek at
Qumran, in Hellenism in the Land o f Israel, eds. John J. Collins (Christianity and
Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press, 2001) 175-81.
49 See Ada Yardeni, Appendix: Documentary Texts Alleged to be from Qumran Cave
4, in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other
Sites: With an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts (The Seiydl Collection II),
eds. Hannah M. Cotton and Ada Yardeni (DJD 27; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997) 283-317.
50 See Erik Larson, 4QNarrative Work and Prayer, in Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea,
Part 1, eds. Stephen J. Pfann et al. (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) 369-86, esp. 369.
51 The Nature o f the Greek Texts from the Judean Desert, 3. It should be noted that the
fragments that Tov identifies as Hev/Se? may actually be from a different vicinity
altogether. Although J. C. Greenfield asserts that there can be little doubt that Nahal
Hever is the source for the so-called Se)elim texts (The Texts from Nahal Se)elim
(Wadi Seiyal), in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International
Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, eds. J. Trebolle Barrera
and L. Vegas Montaner [STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992] 661-65, esp. 662), Hannah M.
Cotton registers exactly the doubt that Greenfield dissallows: One must never lose sight
of the fact that this group of papyri was not found in the course o f a controlled
archaeological excavation, and there is even a remote possibility that Nahal Hever and
the Judaean Desert are not the provenance o f this particular papyrus (Loan with
287
Qumran reflect a different attitude toward Greek than that found in other sites in the same
general vicinity but unrelated to Qumran.52 That the absence o f Greek at Qumran was a
matter o f a concerted effort is supported by the way in which the Hebrew writings from
Qumran seem deliberately to avoid the use o f Greek loanwords.
53
I have twice reminded the reader that the spread o f the Greek language in Jewish
Palestine is a separate question from the complexity ofhellenistic influence within the
same area. Yet these two questions are obviously materially related, and this leads us to
the prohibitions on teaching Greek wisdom and their relation to the teaching of the
Greek language. David Rokeah has argued that the sources equate these two, or rather
that the original form o f the rabbinic term often translated as Greek wisdom used a
construct form o f wisdom (T m V HDDin) that is seldom allowed to exert its force as a
construct. According to Rokeah, learning IT DTP HDDin denotes learning the Greek
language itself. He takes Lieberman to task for rendering the rabbinic term as Greek
wisdom, even to the point of allowing the term rPUTT HDDin to be used in the Hebrew
translations o f his own books (which were checked by Lieberman him self):
Hypothec: Another Papyrus from The Cave o f the Letters?, ZPE 101 [1994] 53-60, esp.
5 4 ).
52 Although Tovs contention that cave 4 was not a library does not reflect the views o f
scholars in general (e.g., cf. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A
History o f Early Christian Texts [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995] 193-95), he
is probably correct in denying a connection between caves 4 and 7.
53 See Hannah M. Cotton, Greek, in Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds.
Lawrence H. Schiffinan and James C. VanderKam (2 vols.; New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000) 1.324-26, esp. 324; Martin Hengel, Qumran and Hellenism, in
Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (Studies in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 46-56.
288
It is curious that Lieberman, a master of manuscript versions, did not wonder

about this extraordinary form [viz. m n T HOD) FI]. For there is no doubt that the
true version is hochmath. Apart from the fact that it has been preserved in
manuscripts, it is also to be found in the printed editions o f the Talmud, even
when it appears in shortened form (hochm.) in the manuscripts. It is clear that the
version hochmath, though the lectio difficilior, was left intact by the copyists
because they considered it to be equivalent to hochmah. The Rabbis o f the
Middle Ages were not confronted by the problem of whether to study the Greek
language, but rather of whether to study profane subjects. That is why they
always interpreted hochmath yevanith as hochmah yevanith, that is, Greek
philosophy and sciences. Lieberman accepts this interpretation, as well as their
unfounded distinction between teaching ones son and studying oneself; the
former, in their view, was prohibited, while the latter was permissable [sic].54
Rokeah contends that originally there was no distinction made at all between hochmath
yevanith and the Greek language. A distinction later crept into the tradition as a result o f
the Babylonian Talmuds attempt to reconcile a baraita in b. Sotah 49b, which uses the
term r m V flQDin in defining the content o f a mishnaic prohibition with R. Yehuda the
Patriarchs approval o f teaching Greek.55 The original mishnaic prohibition (m. Sotah
9.14) prohibited a man from teaching his son the Greek language, but the gemara
capitalized on the baraitas rendering o f this prohibition in terms o f rr3TT nQDHI,
resulting in the mishnaic prohibition being glossed in a way inconsistent with its original
meaning. Thus lYUTT riDDUl came to be defined as Greek wisdom rather than simply
as the Greek language (as the baraita would have it). To be sure, not all ofRokeahs
arguments against identifying r m V HDDin with Greek wisdom are strong. For
54 David Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (SPB 33; Jerusalem: Magnes,
1982) 202.
55 Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, 202-3. On the relation o f Greek wisdom to
the Greek language, see Sacha Stem, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings (AGAJU
23; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 176-81.
289
example, he regards the tradition, recorded in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel,
that 500 hundred children studied
HDDin in Yavneh as a support for his view,
since it would be unlikely that children could study the sort of philosophy that is usually
identified with Greek wisdom. But it is difficult to accept this tradition as historically
reliable: not only is the number 500 an obvious exaggeration, but traditions associating a
widespread study o f Torah with the Yavneh generation (as the corresponding other half o f
this tradition does) always look suspiciously like idealized accounts.56 Rokeahs other
attempts to equate the study of r m V HDDin with learning the Greek language show
that his understanding o f r m V rUDDlil is compatible with (entirely possible) the
language of the Talmud, but they do not show that the language of the Talmud demands
such an interpretation. In other words, if the above-mentioned baraita truly shows that
m i r r r n in once simply denoted the learning o f Greek (as Rokeah plausibly argues),
the talmudic evidence equally supports the supposition that this denotation had been
eclipsed well in advance o f the Babylonian Talmuds compilation.57 This goes for b.
56 Alexander, discussing b. Baba Qamma 83a, writes, The tradition hardly inspires
confidence. It comes from a late stratum o f a late source: the parallels in Bavli Gittin 58a,
Yerushalmi Ta(anit 4:8 (69a), and Eikhah Rabbati ID 51 9 (ed. Buber, 138) make no
reference to Greek wisdom, and it is clearly extraneous to the story. The two balancing
groups of five hundred have legendary ring (Hellenism and Hellenization as
Problematic Historiographical Categories, 78).
57 Alexander writes, Bavli Bava Qamma 83a. . . is uncertain whether Greek Wisdom
had ever been banned. It is inclined to think that it had. The evidence to the contrary
relates to special circumstances. But it is noticeably relaxed about the issue. Whether or
not there ever had been a ban seems to be a matter o f indifference to the redactor. This
indifference is most plausibly explained by supposing that no one in the redactors milieu
bothered to study Greek Wisdom. The question whether or not such study was permitted
290
Sotah 49b as well: Rokeah claims that the gemara attempts to extract itself from the
conflict between the original meaning o f the baraita and the Greek-friendly view of R.
Yehuda the Patriarch, but there is no reason to assume that the conflict was still
terminologically active at the time at which this gemara was composed. Alexander, in
particular, has emphasized that the difference between the Mishnahs and Toseftas
recorded bans on learning the Greek language and the Talmuds recorded bans on
learning Greek wisdom involved but a slight shift in vocabulary.58 (Greek wisdom is
prohibited in b. Men. 64b, 99b, b. Sot. 49b, and b. Bab. Qam. 82b. For an example of the
vocabulary shift, compare b. Men. 99b with t. Abod. Zar. 1.20.) It is very possible that b.
Sot. 49b presupposes this shift. In fact, since the distance between m. Sot. 9.14 and the
baraita recorded in b. Sot. 49b involves a substitution o f vocabulary at some point, why
must we accept, with Rokeah, that it was the baraita that made the substitution? It could
just as easily have been the Talmud itself, in which event Rokeahs whole case for
equating rPDTT HDD"!FT with the Greek language vanishes.
The ban on teaching Greek is important for understanding the rabbinic attitude
toward certain languages. This ban may originally have been a symbolic one and of
short duration, as Rokeah believes.59 Certainly m. Sot. 9.14 suggests that this ban may
have been limited to a couple of years at the most: During the war o f Quietus they
forbade the crowns o f the brides and taht a man should teach his son Greek (Danby,
was, therefore, no longer a burning issue (Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic

Historiographical Categories, 78).
59 Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, 204.
291
altered to reflect Cambridge text). As Alexander points out, however, t. Ahod. Zar 1.20
may preserve an attempt to extend this ban indefinitely.60
At the end o f the day, we cannot speak confidently about the spread o f Greek into
rural areas in Jewish Palestine. The best we can do is to take pot shots at the extreme
positions (Greek as the dominant language versus Greek as barely present). I basically
agree with the view o f Anders Gerdmar: once we bracket the Hellenistic cities from the
picture, there is . . . evidence for a linguistic patchwork with a ground of Aramaic
spread over almost all Jewish inhabitants, and both patches of Greek, and, all over this
patchwork were Greek speakers with different levels o f p ro fic ie n c y .According to
Gerdmar, the epigraphic evidence does not allow one to assume a general spread o f
Greek. This statement is true, as far as it goes, but a more balanced statement would
indicate that we cannot assume a total absence o f Greek in the rural parts either, although
we can assume that there was a smaller percentage o f Greek usage in these parts than in
the larger cities.61
C. H E B R E W

61 Rethinking the Judaism-Hellenism Dichotomy, 269. Benjamin Isaac has argued, on the
basis o f Eusebius Onomasticon, that even the smaller Palestinian villages in the early 4th
century CE were multicultural (Jews, Christians and others in Palestine: The Evidence
from Eusebius, in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Martin Goodman [Oxford:
Clarendon, 1998] 65-74).
292
Although scholars disagree on the role o f Greek and Aramaic, the more significant
disagreement has to do with the role ofHebrew. Was Hebrew a living vernacular at any
time between the first century BCE and the sixth century CE? Or was it used almost
exclusively in liturgical and academic contexts? If Hebrew was taught to male youths,
how widespread and inclusive was this program o f education? Opinions vary greatly on
all these questions. I hold a minimalist position on these matters, and in what follows I
give my reasons.
The prevailing view in the nineteenth century was that Aramaic had completely
replaced Hebrew as the daily spoken language during or shortly after the Babylonian
captivity, and that knowledge o f Hebrew was preserved mainly by priests and sages. The
confusion that ensued in the twentieth century has to do with the interpretation o f
apparent counterevidence to this view. As I noted in chapter five, M. H. Segal argued
that the Mishnah was written in a form ofHebrew that had evolved beyond the language
o f the Bible, a development (he claimed) that pointed to a vernacular context. According
to Segal, [i]t is clear from the facts presented by its grammar and vocabulary that MH [=
mishna' Hebrew] had an independent existence as a natural living speech, growing,
developing, and changing in accordance with its own genius, and in conformity with the
laws which govern die life o f all languages in general, and the Semitic languages in
particular.62 If Hebrew had been merely a liturgical or academic language, he argued, it
62 A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927) 9. Abba Bendavid argues

the same view in exhaustive detail in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (2nd ed.;
Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967) (Hebrew). See Moshe Bar-Asher, The Study ofM ishnaic Hebrew
Grammar Based on Written Sources: Achievements, Problems, and Tasks, in Scripta
Hierosolymitana, vol. 37: Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1998) 9-42.
293
could hardly have developed as far as the Mishnah showed. Segal apparently intended
the broadest sort of revisionism: Hebrew was widely spoken in the centuries preceding
the Mishnah: The home o f MH was Palestine. So long as the Jewish people retained
some sort o f national existence in Palestine, MH continued to be the language o f at least a
section o f the Jewish people living in Palestine.63 Hebrew only came to be isolated from
daily life as the Jewish nation came to be tom from the land o f Palestine, and towards
the end o f the Misnaic period, became confined to the learned in the schools and
academies. This conclusion was adopted by a number of scholars, and has found an
especially warm reception among Israeli scholars. Most scholars, however, accepted a
less sweeping accomodation o f Segals views: there were indeed contexts in which
Hebrew continued to be spoken, but these were localized, either geographically (i.e., in
the hills o f Judea), professionally (i.e., among priests and sages), or along sectarian lines
(i.e., among the Qumranites). The chronological dimension also opened up a multitude
of different scenarios: the equilibrium between Hebrew and Aramaic was for many a
punctuated equilibrium at best, with peaks in Hebrew activity coinciding with national
crises and triumphs (e.g., the Maccabean and the Bar Kokhba revolts).64 Although Segal
may have permanently displaced the Aramaic-only views of Abraham Geigers
63 A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew, 10. Segal correctly allows that Aramaic was more
widespread in the Galilee (ibid, 17).
64 Fitzmyer suggests (albeit with little conviction) that the prevalence ofHebrew at
Qumran may be related to the Qumran communitys possible connection with the
Maccabean revolt (The Languages o f Palestine in the First Century A.D., 29-30).
294
generation, his own view has won the day only in the form of the many attempts to
properly qualify Geigers opposing view.
Unfortunately, the discussion o f the role ofHebrew has often been driven by
ulterior concerns. Seth Schwartz has noted that the hebraeophone view o f Jewish
Palestine is often motivated by zionistic feelings.65 We make take W. Chomsky as an
extreme example o f this tendency. Chomskys importation o f zionistic ideals into his
view o f the matter is so heavy-handed that he even spells aramaic in all lower-case
letters (except on the first page o f his article) while capitalizing the first letter in
Hebrew.66 According to Chomsky, the belief that Jews began to speak Aramaic during
their exile in Babylonia and that this was a Jewish vernacular when the exile ended is
utterly without foundation: It is quite inconceivable that the exiles who, according to
the Psalmist, sat down by the rivers o f Babylon, weeping as they remembered Zion,
would in so short a time abandon their language and adopt the language o f their hated
captors, as their vernacular.
Chomsky continues: if the people left their native
language, why did Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah not remonstrate against this development,
especially in light o f the fact that Nehemiah coming from a less cohesive Jewish
community would later do so?
He further notes that Nehemiah imputes the use o f a

66 The same show o f disdain was used by Theodore Polikarpov against Latin, when listing
the three languages on the superscription o f the cross as Hebraeam, Graecam et
latinam (see Thomson, SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy, 84).
67 What was the Jewish Vernacular During the Second Commonwealth?, JQR 42
(1951-52) 193-212, esp. 195.
68 What was the Jewish Vernacular During the Second Commonwealth?, 195-96.
295
corrupt Hebrew speech only to the children of non-Hebrew mothers,69 but this only
shows that the real object of Nehemiahs scorn is not language, but bloodlines and
religious exclusivity. As for Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah, it is an anachronism of several
centuries to impute a linguistic ideology to these writers: as Schwartz notes, the
Israelites shared a language but tended not to consider it an essential component o f their
corporate identity.70 Chomsky explains the Jewish use of Aramaic as a strategic move,
uniting Jews universally through the use o f an international language, and even resorts to
the dubious idea that Aramaic was a prestige language (a position that would reappear
three years later in an essay by Harris Birkeland, who considered Aramaic a language o f
high reputation).71
69 What was the Jewish Vernacular During the Second Commonwealth?, 196.
71 What was the Jewish Vernacular During the Second Commonwealth?, 205-06. By
making Aramaic ideologically valuable, Harris Birkeland attempts to invert the reasoning
behind the debate over praying in Hebrew vis-a-vis Aramaic: Aramaic was a language o f
high reputation. Therefore, it was used for religious purposes, in divine sayings, in
prayers, and in religious speeches
Prayers are spoken in a more solemn and literary
language than everyday Hebrew (The Language o f Jesus [Avhandlinger utgitt av Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. H Hist-Filos. Klasse 1; Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1954]
12). Birkeland even thinks that this explains the use of Aramaic targums: For
interpretation of the Holy texts only a dignified language o f high repute could be
considered, not a simple dialect (ibid, 32). Bendavid also associates Aramaic with the
higher elements o f society (Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew). Horsley rightly
denounces Chomskys claim that Aramaic was a prestige language as baseless (New
Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic Essays, 22). Chaim Rabin
gets it right: Aramaic was a means of communication, no more (Hebrew and Aramaic
in the First Century, in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography,
Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, eds. S.
Saffai andM. Stem [CRINT 1/2; Assen: van Gorcum, 1987] 1007-39, esp. 1032).
296
What are the pros and cons o f Segals view? Whether there is a case to be made
for a widespread use ofHebrew in Palestine depends largely on how one counts evidence,
particularly regarding (1) synagogue inscriptions, (2) rabbinic traditions about widespread
Torah education in Jewish Palestine in tannaitic times (and earlier), and (3) the use of
Hebrew at Qumran. While these arguments are self-standing, however, they are also
merely supplementary to Segals guiding supposition: that linguistic development only
takes place in spoken languages. We noted in chapter five that this supposition does not
always hold: in the words of Joshua Blau, even dead languages, only used in literature,
change.72
I now turn to the three above-mentioned arguments supporting Segal: synagogue
inscriptions, traditions about widespread Torah education in Jewish Palestine, and the use
ofHebrew at Qumran. How well do these three arguments stand up? First, how should
one interpret the discovery ofHebrew in synagogue remains? Hebrew is used within
synagogue inscriptions throughout Palestine, alongside Aramaic and Greek inscriptions.
Does this mean that Hebrew was the normal language o f those who commissioned or
carved these inscriptions? Given the liturgical setting, as well as the sanctity of the
synagague (whether functional or permanent), it is only natural that Hebrew should be the
preferred language o f synagogue inscriptions.73 The same qualification applies to
72 A Conservative View o f the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Diggers at the
Well: Proceedings o fa Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000)
20-25, esp. 20 (emphasis removed).
73 Dalman writes, That Hebrew benedictions should be inscribed at entrances to
synagogues. . . is natural (Jesus-Jeshua, 29).
297
inscriptions from the Temple Mount: although Meyers and Strange are keen to point out
that the Temple inscriptions were intended to be read, reflecting the language habits of
at least some o f the people, it is reasonable to assume that the choice of language in
these inscriptions reflects the context and that the principal readers for many o f these
inscriptions were priests.74
Outside o f synagogues and the Temple, there is little in the way o f inscriptions to
suggest that Hebrew was known at all. Fitzmyer points to the sons of Hezir tomb in the
Kidron Valley as being almost the sole exception.75 From the amoraic period, we also
possess the Hebrew inscriptions from catacomb 20 at Beth She(arim, but the use of
Hebrew in this catacomb (alone o f all the burial chambers at Beth She(arim) probably
rests on the fact that it represents an important rabbinic family.76 It is hardly the case that
all rabbis were memorialized in Hebrew,77 but when one catacomb but o f several shows a
marked preference for Hebrew, its explicit rabbinic associations are probably the
determining factor.
The schools that became more common in the third century CE were run by the
rabbis and aimed to equip their students with the skill to read* Torah. The rabbis
74 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 69.
75 The Languages o f Palestine in the First Century A.D., 44. See Meyers and Strange,
Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, 69.
76 See Levine, The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity, 50. O f the
Hebrew used at Beth She(arim, Rajak writes, The language has been judged pure
Mishnaic, but the fragmentary texts do not permit confidence (The Rabbinic Dead and
the Diaspora Dead at Beth She(arim, 364 n. 40).
77 E.g., see the several examples in Lifshitz, Beitrage zur palastinischen Epigraphik, 6488 .
298
recognized the importance o f teaching reading skills, not only for the sake of Torah piety
itself, but also in order to create a support base for themselves.78 Even for the third
century CE, however, it would be a mistake to assume that a majority o f school-aged
males received any type of education outside the home, institutionalized or otherwise. As
noted in chapter five, only parents who could afford tuition and do without their sons
share o f the work burden were able to send their sons to school.79
There are a number of minor arguments for and against the vernacular status o f
Hebrew that I have not yet mentioned. One o f the more intriguing arguments turns on
Lukes three references to the Hebrew dialect (xfj'EPpouSi SiojAsktco; Acts 21:40;
22:2; 26:14), of which the first two refer to Pauls addressing a mob in Jerusalem in that
language, and the third refers to the language used by the heavenly Jesus when speaking
to Paul (Saul) in his Damascus road christophany. The most common rendering o f t q
' Ej3palSt SiaXeKTcp has been the language of the Hebrews, viz. not Hebrew but
Aramaic.80 Those who envision a more Hebrew-speaking Palestine have predictably

responded that this is special pleading: rr j' E(3pcct5i
SicxXektco
obviously means the
78 Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 2001) 39.
80 E.g., Dalman writes, The utterance o f the voice heard by Saul o f Tarsus on the way to
Damascus was in the Hebrew language (Acts xxvi. 14), i.e. in Aramaic, the language in
which our Lord used to speak, and which was also that o f Saul (Jesus-Jeshua, 18).
Ernst Haenchen, forgoing any philological niceties, flatly declares, that Jesus speaks
Aramaic to Paul is here expressly noted {The Acts o f the Apostles: A Commentary
[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971] 685). This interpretation is widespread, and has even
caused some modem New Testament translations (e.g., the NTV) to render to' EppouSt
SioAektco as Aramaic.
299
Hebrew language.81 It is the fact that this argument has been so poorly handled that
makes it so intriguing. At the philological level, the hebraeophone scenario has a clear
advantage, but the implication of rendering tq E(3pai5i SkxAektco as Hebrew has
apparently been lost on both sides: if Paul is careful to mention that Jesus spoke Hebrew,
would that not imply that Hebrew was not the language that Jesus was normally expected
to speak? Historical imagination has been at a premium in the debate. As it stands, the
side that wins the philological battle loses the battle over its implications for the linguistic
situation o f that time and place.82 The most interesting fact o f all is that interpreters of
81 E.g., Birkeland writes, The conclusion. . . seems to be unavoidable, that Hebrew

really means Hebrew (The Language o f Jesus, 13). For a similar argument, see
Jehoshua M. Grintz, Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of
the Second Temple, JBL 79 (1960) 32-47, esp. 42-45; Paul Ellingworth, Hebrew or
Aramaic? Bible Translator 37 (1986) 338-41; Ken Penner, Did Paul Speak Hebrew?
Ancient Names for Hebrew and Aramaic, paper delivered at the Canadian Society o f
Biblical Studies Annual Meeting, May 30,2003.
82 To take a similar case, Grintz refers to Josephus, Bell 6.96 as evidence that Hebrew
was the language o f the multitude o f Jerusalem, the vernacular: Thus it can be taken
for granted that when Josephus talks (Bellum Judaicum VI.2.1 96) about a speech he
delivered by the command of the emperor in Hebrew:- lcoor|iros cos av ei'T} pr| to o
Icoavvr) povov cxAXd r a i r o is rroAAois ev EmrjKoop e r a s O'c] t o t e t o u Katoapos
SirjyyeAAEV Ippat^cov . . . standing so that his words might reach the ears not only o f
John but also o f the multitude, (he) delivered Caesars message in Hebrew-h e means
precisely what he says: Hebrew and not Syrian. Hebrew then was not the language of the
literary circles or o f the learned few; it was also the language o f the multitude of
Jerusalem, the vernacular (Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last
Days o f the Second Temple, 44). Contra Grintz, it is not at all clear that Hebrew is used
in this instance out o f pure linguistic necessity, nor is it clear that everyone in the city
would have understood Josephus: the Romans probably instructed Josephus to use
Hebrew because o f the special attention Jerusalemites would have given that language.
This is the more natural inference, in my opinion, especially in view o f the fact that
Josephus bothers to specify which language he used. (If it were simply the normal
language for addressing Jerusalemites, there is little narratival need to mention it.) While
the Romans themselves could have addressed the multitude in Aramaic, only a fellow
Jew, and a Jew among Jews at that, could have addressed the crowd in Hebrew.
300
Acts 21-22 have universally missed the rather clear narrative clues to Pauls reason for
using Hebrew: after the Roman tribune gives Paul permission to address the crowd, he
does so in tt]' E(3patSi SiaXeiCTcp, which we are then given to understand represented a
backfiring on the tribunes patience, who is ready to scourge Paul in order to find out
what he said in the Hebrew dialect to incite the crowd. That neither the tribune nor any
o f his coterie could understand Paul is proof enough that T t)' EfJpatSi
S iccA ektcg
does not
mean Aramaic. But there is more: that Pauls use ofHebrew was at least partially
motivated by the secrecy it afforded in the presence o f Roman officials is suggested by
Pauls unwillingness to confess what he said.83 (He prefers to invoke his Roman
citizenship as a protection.) In other words, Pauls use ofHebrew was both tactical and
unexpected, and cannot be used as evidence that Hebrew was the vernacular o f firstcentury Jerusalem.
D. CONCLUSION
This appendix has sought to present a fuller argument for the linguistic situation
envisioned in chapter five. In the end, the question o f the linguistic situation o f Jewish
Palestine is not easily answered, but a judicious arrangement o f literally thousands o f bits
83 Johannes Muncks contention that Paul had been expected to address the crowd in
Greek cannot be upheld {The Acts o f the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Notes
[AB 31; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967] 217): the tribunes forging o f a possible
connection between Pauls ability to speak Greek and the crimes o f the Egyptian
strongly suggests that Greek-speakers were few on that occasion. This also implies that
the tribunes own direct questioning o f the crowd was probably in Aramaic.
301
and pieces to the p u z z le seems, to my mind, to support Pinchas Wechters well-nuanced

assessment I end this review of the question with his words:
With t he. . . ascendancy o f Aramaic as the vernacular of the people, Hebrew was
primarily reserved for study, scholarly discuss ions and prayer. The]SJ!D H 30
the language of Canaan, and m i l T the Jews language became ETfpFI
the s a c r e d tongue.
Although not necessarily arresting its development, as evidenced by the
emergence o f scholarly and technically precise Mishnaic Hebrew, such limited use
o f the language resulted in rendering many biblical words and phrases
unintelligible to scholars o f later generations. Occasionally preceded by the
phrase: KO ]]2 l piT T IIH tO Our teachers did not know the meaning o f . .
., these words are explained or taken as the basis for homiletical interpretations
by being compared to Aramaic, Persian, and Greek, which successively influenced
the cultural life of Palestinian Jewry.84
84
Pinchas Wechter, Ibn B a rm s Arabic Works on Hebrew Grammar and Lexicography

(Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1964) 1.
Appendix Two:
Two Other Possible Solutions for
the Speech of Palm Trees
The best way to understand R. Yochanan b. Zakkais mastery o f angelic speech,

in my view, is the one that I outlined in chapter four. Nevertheless, two other eminently
possible solutions to the problem o f speech o f palm trees deserve to be mentioned. The
first solution derives from a straightforward exegesis o f two magical texts from the Cairo
Geniza. The second is a construct involving the hermetic/neoplatonic art o f theurgy.
A . THE P A L M G E I S T E R
IN T . - S .
K 1.56 AND
1.147
An interesting passage appears in two Cairo Geniza texts, which Peter Schafer
and Shaul Shaked date, on palaeographic grounds, to the eleventh century:1
T.-S. K
1 .5 6 ,
fol. la,
1 1 . 13b-20a
]Q ]i*7cnnm jipm m
iTDK rrnK *78 c m [...] 13

ppsno nm mn ??? ??? 14
13 er c n n K niDcn m x m m d tik d ]di ??? ??? 15
rrax? Ta?m hdx? jn m rrax? ??? ??? 16

n a m m i p e r n p n n a i p ? ??? ??? ??? ??? 17
m anu m
rr rr n m ^ p i m ? ??? ??? ??? ??? is
n ^ n 8*71 o m 8*7
is ra n xbw r r m ??? ??? 19

[...] 0*71X23 OT???? 20
1 See Peter Schafer and Shaul Shaked, Magische Texte aus derKairoer Geniza, vol. 1
(Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994) 31,222.
303
13 [...] With the names }L )TYH ^SYH,

14 ??? ??? HWH )HH, that you come forth, and distance yourself, and desist from
15 ??? ??? and from the two hundred forty eight limbs that he has,
16 [and each, that dwells in him and stays] 2 in him and sits with him and lies with
him,
17 ??? ??? and evil idols and incubi,
18 [SBT-spirits, astral spirits] and palm tree [spirits] with the names YH YH YH
WH SB)WT
1 9 ??? ??? Y?W YH, that you not come upon him, either by day or by night,
2 0 or in any case. [...]
T.-S. K 1.147, fol. la, 11. 30-36
[...]
TK TT *231 H H nn 30
n irp y j r n i rrcrx? j r m
irm n
nni?Tn
^31
n ra
p crs p -a n si
1 1 1 ? r r 1?# i^ n n
8*71 D^1i?3 IT B
n iD i3 s b i m s* m
^31
31
ptOT3 p 'S D I 32
p s r s p p ^ io i p e r n 3 3
pET3 p m m pET3 ptDEn 3 4
k'ie? ^ p n ^ 3 1
^3135
DIED il'r *?3 8*71 3 V 3 fcb 36
o i3
ih j rrb a n n n 37
[...] 31X21 n^m H3H3 38

[...]
30 with her body and each, that dwells with her and stays with her
31 and sits with her and lies with her,
32 and evil ne[f]ilim,
33 and evil words and evil demons (of destruction)
34 and evil satans and evil spirits and evil idols and incubi and HSBT-spirits,
35 and astral spirits and palm tree spirits, that you no more come to her, and that
you no more confuse her mind,
36 either by day or by night, or in any case,
37 and that you appear to her no more, not in human form, and not in the form
38 o f a beast, wild animal, or bird. [...]
In these two roughly parallel texts, palm tree spirits f b p '1 33; Palmgeister) appear
alongside shades, incubi, and other demons of affliction. I can offer no explanation for
2 Reconstruction according to Schafer and Shaked, Magische Texte am der Kairoer

Geniza, 34.
304
why a Palmgeist belongs in such company,3 or what type o f affliction it might specialize
in, but these texts demonstrate that a connection between palm trees and demons existed,
at least by the eleventh century. To arrive at the threesome angels, demons, and palm
trees, we therefore need only to imagine a context in which angels are considered
together with these demonic powers. Imagining such a context, o f course, presents no
problem: the expression angels, demons, and palm trees simply signifies that the extent
ofYochanan b. Zakkais linguistic abilities extends to both good and evil invisible
powers. Of course, the greatest problem facing this solution is the fact that these two
texts belong to the eleventh century. Virtually all of the demonic species apart from
Palmgeist were known in late antiquity (for incubi, see Ev. Phil. 65.1-26), but we do not
know whether the Palmgeist was also known in late antiquity. Without a clearer link
back to an earlier demonology the argument is not very strong.
B.
PALM TREES
AS N E O P L A T O N I S T
REPRESENTATIVES
OF H E L I O T R O P E S
It is also possible to explain Yochanan b. Zakkais mastery o f the language o f

palm trees through the neoplatonic theurgy ofProclus (412-485 CE). On the Hieratic Art
3 Schafer and Shaked (Magische Texte aus derKairoer Geniza, 233) cite Joshua
Trachtenberg in connection with the medieval Jewish and German traditions that
associate demons with trees, but, on this explanation, it is not clear why these Cairo
Geniza texts refer to Palmgeister rather than Baumgeister. See Joshua Trachtenberg,
Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (New York: Behrman, 1939)
34, 276 n. 25.
305
is an extract from a lost work, presumably the Commentary on the Chaldean Oracles 4 In
it, Proclus describes the sound that heliotropes5 make as they turn toward the sun-a sound
imperceptible to (most) humans-as a hymn that these plants sing to their king:
4 Greek text from Joseph Bidez (ed.), Catalogue des Manuscrits Alchimiques Grecs (8
vols.; Brussels: Maurice Lambertin, 1924-32) 6.139-151. Thomas Taylors English
translations (in his edition o f Iamblichus On the Mysteries [1895] 343-347) is based
upon the Latin paraphrase ofMarsilio Ficino, De sacrificio et magia (Opera [Basel 1576]
pp. 1928-29). The translation that Brian Copenhaver presents (in Hermes Trismegistus,
Proclus, and the Question of a Philosophy o f Magic in the Renaissance, in Hermeticism
and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modem Europe, eds.
Ingrid Merkel and Allen G. Debus [Washington: The Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988]
79-110) is based upon the Greek text o f Bidez, which had been discovered subsequently
to Taylors translation.
5 The Proclean heliotrope may belong to a broader range of plants than modem botany
considers heliotropic-e.g., neoplatonists apparently regarded the mallow as a heliotrope
(see Gillian Clark, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life [Translated Texts for Historians
8; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989] 47 [note]) while Thessalus (a Hermetist)
writes, there are many kinds of heliotropes, and o f all these most efficacious is the one
called chicory (Thessalus, Power o f Herbs 2.1, trans. John Scarborough, in his The
Pharmacology o f Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots, in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek
Magic and Religion, eds. Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink [New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991] 138-74, esp. 155 [an almost verbatim discussion appears in idem,
Hermetic and Related Texts in Classical Antiquity, in Hermeticism and the
Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe, eds. Ingrid
Merkel and Allen G. Debus (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988) 19-44, esp.
36-31]; see the discussion in Armand Delatte, Herbarius: Recherches sur le Ceremonial
Usite chez les Ancienspour la Cueillette des Simples et des Plantes Magiques [3rd ed.;
Memoires du Academie Royale de Belgique 54/4; Brussels: Palais des Academies, 1961]
62-63). For other classical references to the heliotrope, see the explanatory note to
Proclus, On the Hieratic Art 8, in Copenhaver, Hermes Trismegistus, Proclus, and the
Question of a Philosophy of Magic in the Renaissance, 105. For the modem
classification, see Heliotropium, in Hortus Third: A Concise Dictionary o f Plants
Cultivated in the United States and Canada, compiled by Liberty Hyde Bailey and Ethel
Zoe Bailey (rev. ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1976) 553. In the ancient world, the
heliotrope had widely celebrated magical properties, some o f which are listed within the
pseudo-Solomonic Epistle to Rehoboam (7.4): see Lester Ness, Written in the Stars:
Ancient Zodiac Mosaics (Marco Polo Monographs 1; Warren Center, PA: Shangri-La,
1999) 151. Nesss dating o f the Letter o f Rehoboam to the first century CE or the early
second century (ibid, 149) echoes the judgment o f Scott Carroll (A Preliminary
Analysis of the Epistle to Rehoboam, JSP 4 [1989] 91-103). See also R. P. Festugiere,
306
On the Hieratic Art 7-14

Why do heliotropes move together with the sun, selenotropes with the moon,
moving around to the extent o f their ability with the luminaries o f the cosmos?
All things pray according to their own order and sing hymns, either intellectually
or rationally or naturally or sensibly (f\ voepcos f\ XoyiKcas q <j>uoiKcos 0
a ia0r|TGOs), to heads o f entire chains. And since the heliotrope is also moved
toward that to which it readily opens, if anyone hears it striking the air as it moves
about, he perceives in the sound that it offers to the king the kind o f hymn that a
plant can sing.6
A few paragraphs later, Proclus compares the opening and closing o f the lotuss petals, in
time with the suns circuit, with the opening and closing o f the human mouth in hymning.
La Revelation d Hermes Trismegiste (4 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950-54) 1.339-40. An

early dating of the Letter o f Rehoboam is purportedly helped by the first-century CE date
that Scarborough assigns to Thessalus Power o f Herbs, on the basis o f the inclusion of
exotic Eastern substances (Hermetic and Related Texts in Classical Antiquity, 31; cf.
Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance
[Pittsburgh Theological Monographs 15; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978] 144-48). Magical
recipes are not immune from literary forces, however, and the inclusion o f exotic
Eastern substances possesses an enduring literary value: e.g., Jerry Stannard writes, o f
medieval writing, that [Reference to Near Eastern species growing in a literary garden
was a common technique to indicate an exotic provenance (Botany, in Dictionary o f
the Middle Ages [New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1982] 2.344-49, esp. 348).
6 This is Copenhavers translation (see below), which renders the Greek but apparently
versifies according to the Latin. On this Proclean passage, see Maurus Hirschle,
Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus: Mit einem Exkurs zu
DemokritB 142 (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie 96; Meisenheim am Gian: Anton
Hain, 1979) 14-15; Copenhaver, Hermes Trismegistus, Proclus, and the Question of
Philosophy o f Magic in the Renaissance, 79-110; Wolfgang Fauth, Helios Megistos: Zur
synkretistischen Theologie der Spatantike (RGRW 125; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 143-44;
Gregory Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism o f Iamblichus (University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995) 48-49. On heliolatry in Proclus in
general, see the introduction in Bidez (ed.), Catalogue des Manuscrits Alchimiques
Grecs, 6.139-47, esp. 144-48; H. D. Saffrey, La devotion de Proclus au Soleil, in
Philosophie non chretiennes et Christianisme, eds. Jacques Sojcher and Gilbert Hottois
(Annales de llnstitut de Philosophie et de Sciences morales; Bruxelles: University de
Bruxelles, 1984) 73-86; Fauth, Helios Megistos, 121-64; Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul,
216-28. See also the discussion o f the simile o f light in S. E. Gersh, KINH III
AKtNHTOI: A Study o f Spiritual Motion in the Philosophy ofProclus (Philosophia
Antiqua 26; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 90-94.
307
Although the palm tree is neither a heliotrope nor a lotus,7 Proclus includes it within his
list o f plants that have a special association with the sun, in view o f the manner in which
its fronds radiate in imitation o f the suns rays:
On the Hieratic Art 65-69
In brief, then, such things as the plants mentioned above follow the orbits o f the
luminary; others imitate the appearance o f its rays (e.g., the palm) or the empyrean
substance (e.g., the laurel) or something else. So it seems that properties sown
together in the sun are distributed among the angels, demons, souls, animals,
plants, and stones that share them.
Proclus does not ascribe any sort o f motion to the palm tree, such as comprised the
physical singing of the heliotrope and lotus. It is possible, however, that Proclus, or at
least some of his readers, had such a concept in mind: Otzar ha-Geonim 67 (ad b. Sukk.
28a [a post-talmudic Jewish text]) would later describe the speech o f palm trees precisely
in terms o f the movement o f their fronds on a perfectly windless day: It is said that on a
day when no wind is blowing and if you spread a sheet it will not flap; then the one who
7 In ancient iconography, the palm and the lotus represent opposing stylized renderings o f
leafy plants. See Helene Danthine, Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacres dans
Viconographie de VAsie occidentale ancienne (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1937) 46-48. Magical
recipes often involve herbs, but seldom trees. There is a possible use o f the palm tree
within the Greek magical papyri, but the reference is problematic. One o f the recipes
found there calls for vsupa <{>oivikos, which can perhaps be translated as fibers o f the
palm. R. van den Broek prefers to translate the phrase as sinews o f the phoenix, citing
Dioscurides claim that magicians use this phrase to signify the habrotonon plant, and
that [i]t is highly unlikely that they would have given this plant a magic name that was
borrowed from another plant, viz. the palm (The Myth o f the Phoenix: According to
Classical and Early Christian Traditions [EPROER 24; Leiden: Brill, 1972] 56-57). If
van den Broek is right, then the herbal magical interpretation is left with no explanation
for the choice o f a palm tree-or o f any tree, for that matter. See Nathaniel Deutsch, The
Date Palm and the Wellspring: Mandaeism and Jewish Mysticism, Aram 11-12 (19992000) 209-23, esp. 217. The fact that both Mandaean and Manichaean sources find
religious symbolism in the palm tree may suggest the antiquity o f this symbolism.
308
knows stands between two date palms which are close to one another and observes how
the fronds sway (Finn HTK ]H D D U S nrMCTI HITtM 13
n w n m 1? m rmn o-anp ono n'bpi
UV D HDK
p ia\s irrrm r a w n o
HT*? HT [DH n n n ] is n r ) .8 This equation of a plants speech with its movement

recalls what Proclus wrote concerning the heliotrope and lotus. The connection between
motion and creations perpetual hymning is also found in Iamblichus, best known for his
theurgical theorizing: Sound and melodies are consecrated appropriately to each of the
gods, and a kinship with them has been assigned appropriately according to the proper
ranks and powers o f each, and (according to) the motions in the universe itself and the
harmonious sounds whirring as a result o f these motions (De myst. 118.6-119.4).9 The
extension of the hymn-singing ability to moving objects other than the mouth was an idea
known to Jews: the notion that bodies can hymn through the movement o f their parts is
familiar from merkabah speculations based upon the description o f the heavenly creatures
8 Translation adapted from Burton L. Vistozky, The Conversation ofPalm Trees, in

Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality o f Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C.
Reeves (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 205-14, esp. 206-7. Text from
Benjamin Manasseh Lewin (ed.), Otzar ha-Geonim, vol. 6 (Jerusalem: Central Press,
1934) 31. Gruenwald (Manichaeism and Judaism in Light o f the Cologne Mani Codex)
was the first to connect the passage from Otzar ha-Geonim with the Cologne Mani
Codex. This passage represents the most common attempt to explain the discourse o f
palm trees. E.g., see Oberhansli-Widmer, Biblische Figuren in der rabbinischen
Literatur, 54 n. 72. The Soncino translation o f b. B. Bat. 134a (quoted in Christopher
Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic
Environment [WUNT 75; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995] 186 n. 12) seems to
presuppose such an interpretation: it translates D1b p l niTE? as the whispering o f the
palms.
9 Trans. Birger A. Pearson, in his Theurgic Tendencies in Gnosticism and Iamblichuss
Conception of Theurgy, in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, eds. Richard T. Wallis and
Jay Bregman (Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1992) 253-75, esp. 265-66.
309
in Ezek 3:12-13 (cf. 10:5), in which the cherubim hymn God through the motion of their
wings.10 The (crudely correct) notion that sound is produced by moving objects vibrating
the air apparently extends even to the understanding o f how the tongue produces a voice.
In the Apostolic Constitutions, we read that God created living air for breathing in and
out and rendering sound by the tongue striking the air.11
10 See b. Hag. 13b; Ber. Rab. 65.21; Hekhalot Rabbati 11.4; Carol Newsom, Merkabah
Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot, JJS 38 (1987) 11-30, esp. 27-28; eadem, Shirot
(01at HaShabbat, in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1, eds.
Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel, Carol Newsom, Bilhah Nitzan, Eileen Schuller, and Ada
Yardeni (DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 173-402, esp. 353; David Halperin, The
Faces o f the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiels Vision (TSAJ 16; Tubingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1988) 52-53, 59, 388-89, 398; Moshe Weinfeld, The Angelic Song Over
the Luminaries in the Qumran Texts, in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness:
Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows o f the Institutefor Advanced Studies o f the
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990, eds. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H.
Schiffman (STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 131-57, esp. 137. Cf. Maimonides' doubts on
this matter (derived from Aristotle) in Guide o f the Perplexed 2.8, and the discussion of
his inconsistencies in Howard Kreisel, Prophecy: The History o f an Idea in Medieval
Jewish Philosophy (Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought 8; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001)
291. In the later Islamic speculations o f al-Suhrawardl, the sound o f Gabriels wings
would become the command that produces all things (see Annemarie Schimmel, Angel,
Islamic, in Dictionary o f the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph R. Strayer [12 vols.; New York:
Charles Scrib-r^
1988] 1.248-49). It is also possible that Proclus notion of the
palms theurgical sympathy comprises the true essence o f this physical singing.
Certainly, modem mystical appreciations o f Proclus do not see such an inference as
involving any sort of leap at all-cf. esp. Henry Corbins detailed use o f these Proclean
passages as a heuristic for understanding the sympathy o f Sufism {Creative Imagination
in the Sufism oflbn (Arabi [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969] 105-12). The
problem with resorting to these modem reappropriations, o f course, is that their
eclecticism compromises their usefulness for the history o f religions in late antiquity.
The assumption that Proclus predicated the praying ability o f all things upon their
ability to move is not totally secure, but, in the light o f the Otzar ha-Geonim, it is perhaps
better founded than Corbins attempt to equate prayer to the sun with an apparently
motion-independent heliopathy.
11 Trans. David A. Fiensy (in Prayers Alleged to Be Jewish: An Examination o f the
Constitutiones Apostolorum [BJS 65; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985] 101). The
characterization of sound as vibrating air remained prominent up until the Italian
310
The supposition that Yochanan b. Zakkai (according to his doxographers) might
have participated in neoplatonic theurgy is perhaps enhanced by the persistence of solar
imagery within certain streams of late antique Judaism.12 The Essene morning ritual
(Jos., Bell. 2 .128)13 and the pronounced presence o f Helios in third- and fourth-century
CE synagogues14 are two obvious examples o f how heliolatry influenced Jewish religious
Renaissance, and afterwards: see Marjorie ORourke Boyle, Erasmus on Language and
Method in Theology (Toronto: University o f Toronto Press, 1977) 20 (on Quintilian,
Varro, Erasmus).
12 On the importance of Helios for Neoplatonism, see Porphyry, Letter to Anebo 2.9;
Iamblichus, De mysteriis 7.2,4; and esp. Julians Hymn to Helios (in Wilmer Cave
Wright, The Works o f Julian the Apostate [3 vols.; London: Heinemann, 1913] 1.353-54).
See Laurence Jay Rosan, The Philosophy o f Proclus: The Final Phase o f Ancient Thought
(New York: Cosmos, 1949) 126, 188,212-14.
13 See Doron Mendels, Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes, HTR 72 (1979) 207-22, esp.
218-19; Morton Smith, Helios in Palestine, E l 16 (1982) 199-214; idem, The Case o f
the Gilded Staircase: Did the Dead Sea Scroll Sect Worship the Sun? BAR (Sept/Oct
1984) 50-55 (with a response: Jacob Milgrom, Challenge to Sun-Worship Interpretation
o f Temple Scrolls Gilded Staircase, BAR [Jan/Feb 1985] 70-73); Joseph M.
Baumgarten, The Sons of Dawn in CDC 13:14-15 and the Ban on Commerce among
the Essenes, IEJ33 (1983) 81-85; and Marc Philonenko, Priere au Soleil et Liturgie
Angelique, in La Litterature Intertestamentaire: Colloque de Strasbourg (17-19 Octobre
1983) (Bibliotheque des Centres dEtudes Superieures Specialises; Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1985) 221-28. See also Hakan Ulfgard, The Story o f Sukkot:
The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel o f the Biblical Feast o f Tabernacles (BGBE 34;
Tilbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 53-54. The Qumranic morning ritual echoed that of
pagans throughout the Mediterranean world. See Gaston H. Halsberghe, The Cult o f Sol
Invictus (EPROER 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 35-36 n. 10.
14 Among the many treatments o f the zodiac in synagogue mosaics, the following
emphasize the presence ofHelios: Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the
Greco-Roman Period (Bollingen 37; 13 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953-68) 8.214-15;
Moshe Dothan, The Representation ofH elios in the Mosaic o f Hammath-Tiberias, in
Atti del Convegno Intemazionale sul Tema: Tardo Antico eAlto Medioevo: La Forma
Artistica nelPassaggio dallAntichita alMedioevo (Roma 4-7Aprile 1967) (Quademo
105; Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1968) 99-104; Johann Maier, Die Sonne
in religidsen Denken des antiken Judentums, in ANRW2.19A (1979) 346-412, esp. 38285. See also Lawrence A. Hoffinan, Censoring In and Censoring Out: A Function o f
311
expressions.15 The most telling evidence for a possible Neoplatonic use ofH elios within
Jewish circles is found within the Sefer Ha-Razim, a manual of magic that includes spells
invoking H elios,16 along with the prayer to Helios in the so-called Eighth Book of
Moses (PGM 13.254-63), and in the elements ofH elios devotion embedded in the socalled Prayer o f Jacob found in the pseudepigraphic Ladder o f Jacob}1 This belief that
the sun was in some way identified with the highest God, perhaps as the face o f God or
Liturgical Language, in Ancient Synagogues: The State o f Research, ed. Joseph

Gutmann (BJS 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 19-37, esp. 22-23; Kocku von
Stuckrad, Jewish and Christian Astrology in Late Antiquity-A New Approach, Numen
47 (2000) 1-40.
15 Ross Shepard Kraemer argues that the solar imagery so prominent within Joseph and
Aseneth, together with other elements, suggests] some awareness, direct or indirect, o f
Neoplatonism and theurgy on the part o f at least some of Aseneths fashioners (When
Joseph Met Aseneth: A Late Antique Tale o f the Biblical Patriarch and his Egyptian Wife
Reconsidered [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998] 174-77). Kraemer argues for
Christian authorship of Joseph and Aseneth,
16 See Maier, Die Sonne in religiosen Denken des antiken Judentums, 375-80; Ness,
Written in the Stars, 155-58; Rebecca Lesses, Speaking with Angels: Jewish and GrecoEgyptian Revelatory Adjurations, HTR 89 (1996) 41-60, esp. 49-51. Cf. the numerous
appearances ofHelios in the Greek magical papyri, discussed in Fauth, Helios Megistos,
34-120. Cf. also the divine figure oepes eiXap, mentioned in numerous magical texts,
and whose name is taken by most scholars to be a transliteration o f *71JJ 0D 0 (Eternal
Sun)-but cf. the alternative view in Daniel Sperber, Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic
Literature (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture; Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan
17 On the Eighth Book ofM oses, see Albrecht Dieterich, Abraxas: Studien zur
Religionsgeschichte des spatem Altertums (Festschrift Hermann Usener zur feier seiner
25jahrigen Lehrtatigkeit an der Bonner Universitat; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1891) 137.
On Sefer ha-Razim and the Eighth Book ofM oses, see Rebecca Macy Lesses, Ritual
Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism
(HTS 44; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998) 292-96. On the Prayer o f Jacob, see Reimund
Leicht, Qedushah and Prayer to Helios: A New Hebrew Version o f an Apocryphal
Prayer of Jacob, JSQ 6 (1999) 140-76, esp. 153-59.
312
some similar manifestation o f divine glory,18 may be a holdover from heretical

expressions o f Yahwism during the days of the prophets (see 2 Kgs 23:5,11; Ps 18:5;
1 9 :6 ;
Jer 44:15-20; Ezek 8:16).19 The renewed interest that pagans took in the sun god
would also have been an influence in this direction. The role of this god within Roman
imperial policy is especially important for understanding the religious milieu o f the early
rabbinic (tannaitic and amoraic) period.
20
18 See Plutarch, To an Uneducated Ruler 781f-782a, and the discussion thereof in Glenn
F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and
Evagrius (2nd ed.; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986) 151-53.
19 See F. J. Hollis, The Sun-Cult and the Temple in Jerusalem, in Myth and Ritual:
Essays on the Myth and Ritual o f the Hebrews in Relation to the Cultural Pattern o f the
Ancient East, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 87-110; H. W. F.
Saggs, The Branch to the Nose, JTS 11 (1960) 318-29; Julian Morgenstem, The Fire
Upon the Altar (Leiden: Brill, 1963); Nahum Sama, Tsalm XIX and the Near Eastern
Sun-god Literature, in Fourth World Congress o f Jewish Studies: Papers, vol. 1
(Jerusalem: World Union o f Jewish Studies, 1967) 171-75; Hans-Peter Stahli, Solare
Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO 66; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag,
1985); Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1986) 733-38; Mark S. Smith, The Early History o f God: Yahweh and the Other Deities
in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990) 115-24; G. Taylor, YHWH and
the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence fo r Sun Worship in Ancient Israel
(JSOTSup 118; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Cameron Bovd-Taylor, A Place in the
Sun: The Interpretative Significance ofLXX-Psalm 18:5c, BIOSCS 31 (1998) 71-105.
On the possible connection between sun worship and Sukkoth, see the works listed in
Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The History o f Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods
(BJS 302; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 138-39 n. 133. Maier writes, Von der
Kulttheologie her bleibt die Sonne weiterhin das nfichstliegende Vergleichsobjekt fur die
Herrlichkeit Gottes (Sir 42,16) und dient somit als Theophanie-Symbol (vgl. Sir 50,7)
(Die Sonne in religiosen Denken des antiken Judentums, 354).
20 Ness notes the attention that emperors had given to this god: Vespasians soldiers
greeted the rising sun after the Syrian custom (first century CE), Aurelian named Sol
Invictus the official protector o f the Empire (third century CE), Constantine worshipped
Sol Invictus (fourth century CE), and Julian, writing as a popularizing Neoplatonist,
composed a Hymn to Helios (fourth century CE). On Julians hymn, see Fauth, Helios
Megistos, 121-64.
313
The principal shortcoming o f the neoplatonist interpretation o f the conversation

o f palm trees is that it is unable to account for the teaming of palm trees with angels
and demons. This alone makes the Temple iconography scenario more tenable.
These two solutions comprise competition for the Temple iconography scenario
argued in chapter four. The latter is still the strongest solution, but it is not the only one
that deserves scholars attention.
Bibliography
Abegg, Martin G., Jr., Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491,4Q427, and the Teacher of
Righteousness, in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Craig A.
Evans and Peter W. Flint (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 61-73.
Albright, William F., The Nash Papyrus, JBL 56 (1937) 145-176.
Alexander, Philip S., Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical
Categories, in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001) 63-80.
Alexander, Philip S., The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery o f the
Targum, in Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983, ed. John A. Emerton (VTSup 36;
Leiden: Brill, 1985) 14-28.
Alexander, Philip, 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch, in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1983-85) 1.223-316.
Allison, Dale C., Abrahams Oracular Tree (T. Abr. 3:1-4), JJS 54 (2003) 51-61.
Allison, Dale C., The Silence o f Angels: Reflections on the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice, RevQ 13 (1988) 189-97.
Allison, Dale C., 4Q403 Fragm. 1, Col. i, 38-46 and the Revelation to John, RevQ 12
(1985-87) 409-14.
Alon, Gedaliah, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70-640 C.E.), vol. 1
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980).
Altmann, Alexander, The Singing o f the Qedushah in the Early Hekhalot Literature,
Melilah 2 (1946) 1-24 (Hebrew).
Andersen, F. I. (trans.), 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch, in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday
1983-85) 1.91-221.
Arnold, Clinton E., The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface Between Christianity and
Folk Belief at Colossae (WUNT 77; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995).
Ash, James L., The Decline o f Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early Church, TS 37 (1976)
227-52.
315
Assmann, Jan, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory o f Egypt in Western Monotheism
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997).
Assmann, Jan, Unio Liturgica: Die kultische Einstimmung in gotterweltlichen Lobpreis
als Grundmotiv esoterischer Uberlieferung im alten Agypten, in Secrecy and
Concealment: Studies in the History o f Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, eds.
Hans G. Kippenberg and Guy G. Stroumsa (SHR 65; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 37-60.
Aune, David E., Qumran and the Book of Revelation, in The Dead Sea Scrolls After
Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, eds. Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam
(2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 2.622-48.
Aune, David E., Revelation 1-5 (WBC 52A; Dallas: Word, 1997).
Avenary, Hanoch, Reflections on the Origins o f the Alleluia-Jubilus, Orbis Musicae 6
(1978) 34-42.
Avery-Peck, Alan J., Oral Tradition: Early Judaism, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary,
ed. David Noel Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5.34-37.
Bailey, Liberty Hyde and Ethel Zoe Bailey (eds.), Hortus Third: A Concise Dictionary o f
Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada (rev. ed.; New York: Macmillan,
1976).
Balentine, Samuel E., The Prophet as Intercessor: A Reassessment, JBL 103 (1984)
161-73.
Bar-Asher, Moshe, The Study ofMishnaic Hebrew Grammar Based on Written Sources:
Achievements, Problems, and Tasks, in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 37: Studies in
Mishnaic Hebrew, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998) 9-42.
Bar-Ilan, Meir, Illiteracy in the Land o f Israel in the First Centuries C.E., in Essays in
the Social Scientific Study o f Judaism and Jewish Society, vol. 2, eds. Simcha Fishbane,
Stuart Schoenfeld, and Alain Goldschlager (Montreal: Concordia University, 1992) 4661.
Bar-Han, Meir, Prayers o f Jews to Angels and Other Mediators in the First Centuries
CE, in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, eds. Marcel Poorthuis and
Joshua Schwartz (J&CP 7; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 79-95.
Bames, Timothy David, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon,
1971).
Barr, James, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures fo r 1991
Delivered in the University o f Edinburgh (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).
316
Barr, James, The Concept o f Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999).
Barr, James, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age, in The Cambridge
History o f Judaism, vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age, eds. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 79-114.
Barr, James, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1983).
Barr, James, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study o f the Two Testaments (London:
SCM, 1966).
Barr, James, The Scope and Authority o f the Bible (Explorations in Theology 7; London:
SCM, 1980).
Barr, James, The Semantics o f Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1961).
Barr, James, Which Language did Jesus Speak?Some Remarks o f a Semitist, BJRL
53 (1970) 9-29.
Barrera, Julio Trebolle, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the
History o f the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998).
Barth, Markus, and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AB 34B; New York: Doubleday, 1994).
Barton, John, Oracles o f God: Perceptions ofAncient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile
(London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1986).
Bauckham, Richard, The Climax ofProphecy: Studies on the Book o f Revelation
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993).
Bauckham, Richard, The Fate o f the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian
Apocalypses (NovTSup 93; Leiden: Brill, 1998).
Bauckham, Richard, James: Wisdom o f James, Disciple o f Jesus the Sage (London:
Routledge, 1999).
Bauckham, Richard, Jude and the Relatives o f Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1990).
317
Bauckham, Richard, review of Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst (eds.),
Studies on the Testament o f Job, in JTS 42 (1991) 182-84.
Bauckham, Richard, The Worship o f Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity, NTS 27 (198081) 322-41.
Baumgarten, A. L, Literacy and the Polemics Surrounding Biblical Interpretation in the
Second Temple Period, in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2001) 27-41.
Baumgarten, Albert L, Seekers after Smooth Things, in Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffinan and James C. VanderKam (Oxford: Oxford
Baumgarten, J. M., The Book o f Elchesai and Merkavah Mysticism, J S J 17 (1986) 21223.
Baumgarten, Joseph M., The Qumran Sabbath Shirot and Rabbinic Merkabah
Traditions, RevQ 13 (1988) 199-213.
Baumgarten, Joseph M., The Sons of Dawn in CDC 13:14-15 and the Ban on
Commerce among the Essenes, /E /3 3 (1983) 81-85.
Baumstark, Anton, Comparative Liturgy (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1958).
Beare, F. W., Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Survey of the New Testament Evidence,
JBL 83 (1964) 229-46.
Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds., The Ways that Never Parted: Jews
and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (TSAJ 95; Tiibingen: MohrSiebeck, 2003)..
Beer, G., Hiobtestament, in EGG2, 2.1930-31.
Behm, Johannes, yXcooaa, in TDNT 1.719-26.
Bendavid, Abba, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew (2nd ed.; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1967)
(Hebrew).
Benko, Stephen, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1984).
Benko, Stephen, The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots o f
Mariology (Studies in the History o f Religions 59; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 95-108.
318
Besserman, Lawrence L., The Legend o f Job in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1979).
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic
Spells (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).
Betz, Hans Dieter, Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament:
Religionsgeshcichtliche undparanetische Parallelen, eine Beitragzum Corpus
Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961).
Betz, Hans Dieter, Secrecy in the Greek Magical Papyri, in Secrecy and Concealment:
Studies in the History o f Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions, eds. Hans G.
Kippenberg and Guy G. Stroumsa (SHR 65; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 153-75, esp. 163.
Betz, Otto, Zungenreden und suBer Wein: Zur eschatologischen Exegese von Jesaja 28
in Qumran und im Neuen Testament, in Bibel und Qumran: Beitrage zur Erforschung
der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft (eds. Siegfried Wagner et al.;
Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968) 20-36.
Betz, Otto, <J>cov4 in TDNT 9.278-301.
Bianchi, Ugo, L'Ascensione di Isaia: Tematiche soteriologiche di descensus/ascensusf
in Isaia, II Diletto e la Chiesa: Visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva
e//Ascensione di Isaia.- Atti del Convegno di Roma, 9-10 aprile 1981, ed. Mauro Pesce
(Testi e ricerche di Scienze religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia, 1983) 155-83.
Bickerman, Elias, The Date o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, in his Studies
in Jewish and Christian History (3 vols.; AGAJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 2.1-23.
Bidez, Joseph (ed.), Catalogue des Manuscrits Alchimiques Grecs (8 vols.; Brussels:
Maurice Lamertin, 1924-33),
Binder, Donald D., Into the Temple Courts: The Place o f the Synagogues in the Second
Temple Period (SBLDS 169; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
Birkeland, Harris, The Language o f Jesus (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske
Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1; Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1954).
Blau, Joshua, A Conservative View o f the Language o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, in
Diggers at the Well: Proceedings o f a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden:
Brill, 2000) 20-25.
Boccaccini, Gabriele, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting o f the Ways between
Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
319
Boccaccini, Gabriele, Targum Neofiti as a Proto-Rabbinic Document: A Systemic

Analysis, in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, eds. D. R. G.
Beattie and M. J. McNamara (JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994)
254-63.
Boenig, Robert, St Augustines Jubilus and Richard Rolles Canor in Vox Mystica:
Essays on Medieval Mysticism in Honor o f Professor Valerie M. Lagorio, ed. Anne Clark
Bartlett (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1995) 75-86.
Bohlig, A., Die himmlische Welt nach dem Agypterevangelium von Nag Hammadi, Le
Museon 80 (1967) 5-26.
Bori, Pier Cesare, Lestasi del profeta: Ascensio Isaiae 6 e lantico profetismo
cristiano, Cristianesimo nella Storia 1 (1980) 367-89.
Borst, Amo, Der Turmbau von Babel: Geschichte der Meinungen uber Ursprung und
Vielfalt der Sprachen und Volker (6 vols.; Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1957-63).
Bousset, Wilhelm, Kyrios Christos: A History o f the Belief in Christfrom the Beginnings
o f Christianity to Irenaeus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970).
Bowersock, G. W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995).
Bowersock, G. W., Roman Arabia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983).
Bowker, John, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish
Interpretations o f Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).
Box, G. H., The Apocalypse o f Abraham (I/wHom SPCK, 1918).
Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making o f Christianity and Judaism
(Figurae; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999).
Boyd-Taylor, Cameron, A Place in the Sun: The Interpretative Significance ofLXXPsalm 18:5c, BIOSCS 31 (1998) 71-105.
Braaten, Carl E., Justification: The Article by Which the Church Stands or Falls
Branham, Joan R., Vicarious Sacrality: Temple Space in Ancient Synagogues, in
Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, eds. Dan Urman
and Paul V. M. Flesher (SPB 47; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 319-45.
320
Brenk, Frederick E., Darkly Beyond the Glass: Middle Platonism and the Vision of the
Soul, in Platonism in Late Antiquity, eds. Stephen Gersh and Charles Kannengiesser
(Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 8; Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press,
1992).
Breuer, Yohanan, On the Hebrew Dialect of the}A m o r im in the Babylonian Talmud,
in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 37: Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998) 129-50.
Briggs, Robert A., Jewish Temple Imagery in the Book o f Revelation (Studies in Biblical
Literature 10; New York: Peter Lang, 1999).
Brin, Gershon, Regarding the Connection between the Temple Scroll and the Book of
Jubilees? JBL 112 (1993) 108-09.
Brock, Sebastian, John the Solitary, On Prayer? JTS 30 (1979) 84-101.
Brown, A. S., From the Golden Age to the Isles o f the Blest, Mnemosyne ser. 4; vol. 51
(1998) 385-410.
Brown, Dennis, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis o f Saint Jerome
(Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992).
Buell, Denise Kimber, Race and Universalism in Early Christianity, JECS10 (2002)
429-68.
Buell, Denise Kimber, Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian SelfDefinition, HTR 94 (2001) 449-76.
Bunn, John T., Glossolalia in Historical Perspective, in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to
Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 165-78.
Burgess, Stanley M., The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1984).
Busink, Th. A , Der Tempel von Jerusalem-Von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine
archaologisch-historische Studie unter Beriicksichtigung des westsemitischen
Tempelbaus, vol. 2: Von Ezechiel bis Middot (SFSMD 3; Leiden: Brill, 1980).
Cameron, Ron, and Arthur J. Dewey (trans.), The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon, inv.
nr. 4780): Concerning the Origin o f his Body" (SBLTT 15; Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press, 1979).
Campbell, Jonathan, Hebrew and Its Study at Qumran, in Hebrew Study from Ezra to
Ben-Yehuda, ed. William Horbury (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999) 38-52.
321
Campenhausen, Hans von, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church o f
the First Three Centuries (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969).
Campenhausen, Hans von, The Formation o f the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1972).
Capper, Brian J., The New Covenant in Southern Palestine at the Arrest o f Jesus, in
The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity:
Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001 (ed. James R. Davila;
STDJ 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 90-116.
Caquot, Andre, Le Service des Anges, RevQ 13 (1988) 421-29.
Carabine, Deirdre, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition:
Plato to Eriugena (Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 19; Louvain: Peeters,
1995).
Carlson, David C., Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament o f Moses 9 and 10,
JBL (1982) 85-95.
Carrell, Peter R., Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology o f the
Apocalypse o f John (SNTSMS 95; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Carroll, Robert P., Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).
Carroll, Scott, A Preliminary Analysis of the Epistle to Rehoboam, JSP 4 (1989) 91103.
Chantraine, Pierre, Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Grecque: Histoire des Mots
(4 vols.; Paris: Klincksieck, 1968-80).
Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha o f the Old Testament (2 vols.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1913).
Charlesworth, James H., Jewish Hymns, Odes, and Prayers (ca. 167 B.C.E.-135 C.E.),
in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, eds. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E.
Nickelsburg (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 411-36.
Charlesworth, James H., ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1983-85).
Charlesworth, James H., The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus?
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
322
Charlesworth, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modem Research with a Supplement
(SBLSCS 7S; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).
Chase, Steven, review of David Keck, Angels and Angelology in the Middle Ages, in JR
80 (2000) 138-39.
Chazon, Esther G., Human and Angelic Prayer in Light o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, in
Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and Poetry in Light o f the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings
o f the Fifth International Symposium o f the Orion Centerfor the Study o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Associated Literature, 19-23 January, 2000, ed. Esther G. Chazon (STDJ 48;
Leiden: Brill, 2003) 35-47.
Chazon, Esther G., Hymns and Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Dead Sea
Vanderkam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-99) 244-70.
Chazon, Esther G., Liturgical Communion with the Angels at Qumran, in Sapiential,
Liturgical and Poetical texts from Qumran: Proceedings o f the Third Meeting o f the
International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory o f
Maurice Baillet, eds. Daniel K. Falk, Florentino Garcia Martinez, and Eileen M. Schuller
(STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 95-105.
Chesnut, Glenn F., The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen,
Theodoret, and Evagrius (2nd ed.; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986).
Childs, Brevard S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979).
Chilton, Bruce, Glory ofIsrael: The Theology and Provenience o f the Isaiah Targum
(JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983).
Chomsky, W., What was the Jewish Vernacular During the Second Commonwealth?,
JQR 42 (1951-52) 193-212.
Christie-Murray, David, Voices from the Gods: Speaking with Tongues (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).
Christoffersson, Olle, The Earnest Expectation o f the Creature: The Flood-Tradition as
Matrix o f Romans 8:18-27 (ConBib NT 23; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).
Cinal, Stanislaw, Les Anges-Pretres dans les Sirot (6 la t has-Sabbat de Q um ran (4Q400407) et les (Utria dans le Diw'an Nahrawcfa des Mandeens, mMogilany 1995: Papers on
the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory o f Aleksy Klawek, ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera
(Krakow: Enigma, 1998) 123-36.
323
Clark, Gillian, lamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life (Translated Texts for Historians 8;
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989).
Clifford, Richard J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4;
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972).
Cohen, Shaye J. D., Judaism to the Mishnah: 135-220 C.E., in Christianity and
Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History o f Their Origins and Early Development, ed.
Hershel Shanks (Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992) 195-223.
Cohen, Shaye J. D., The Rabbi in Second-Century Jewish Society, in The Cambridge
History o f Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D.
Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 922-90.
Cohen, Shaye J. D., The Temple and the Synagogue, in The Cambridge History o f
Judaism, vol. 3: The Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John
Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 298-325.
Collins, Adela Yarbro, The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, in
Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane
(Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1995) 59-93.
Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1992).
Collins, John J., Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997).
Collins, John J., ed., Hellenism in the Land o f Israel (Christianity and Judaism in
Antiquity 13; Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press, 2001).
Collins, John J., Powers in Heaven: God, Gods, and Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in
Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 9-28.
Collins, John J., The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995).
Collins, John J., Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (JSJSup 54;
Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Collins, John J., Structure and Meaning in the Testament o f Job, in SBLSP 13 (1974)
1.35-52.
Colpe, Carsten, Judisch-hellenistisehe Literature, in Der kleine Pauly: Lexikon der
Antike (Stuttgart: Daruckenmuller, 1967) 2.1507-12.
324
Concerning the Gods, book 3 (ed. Diels).

Constable, Giles, Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Conzelmann, Hans, I Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975).
Cook, John Granger, The Interpretation o f the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism
(Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 3; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000).
Copenhaver, Brian, Hermes Trismegistus, Proclus, and the Question o f a Philosophy of
Magic in the Renaissance, in Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and
the Occult in Early Modern Europe, eds. Ingrid Merkel and Allen G. Debus (Washington:
The Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988) 79-110.
Copenhaver, Brian P., Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin
Asclepius in a New English Translation, with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge:
Corbin, Henry, Creative Imagination in the Sufism o f Ibn (ArabI (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1969).
Comford, F. M., From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins o f Western
Speculation (New York: Harper & Bros., 1957).
Coseriu, Eugenio, Einjuhrung in die allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Tubingen: Francke,
1988).
Cothenet, E., Prophetisme dans le Nouveau Testament, in DBSup 8.1222-1337.
Cotton, Hannah M., Greek, in Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H.
Schiffinan and James C. VanderKam (2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)
1.324-26.
Cotton, Hannah M., Loan with Hypothec: Another Papyrus from The Cave of the
Letters?, ZPE 101 (1994) 53-60.
Cotton, Hannah M., Leah di Segni, Werner Eck, and Benjamin Isaac, Corpus
Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae, ZPE 127 (1999) 307-08.
Cotton, Hannah M., and Jonas C. Greenfield, Babathas Patria: Mahoza, Mahoz
(EglatainandZo(ar ZPE 107 (1995) 126-34.
Cowley, A., Aramaic Papyri o f the Fifth Century B. C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923).
325
Cross, Frank Moore, The Ancient Library o f Qumran (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995).
Crum, W. E., Translation (ofRustafjaells item no. 8), in Robert de Rustafjaell, The
Light o f Egyptfrom Recently Discovered Predynastic and Early Christian Records
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1909) 110-36.
Culianu, loan P., La Visione di Isaia e la tematica della Himmelsreisef in Isaia, II
Diletto e la Chiesa: Visione edesegesiprofetica cristiano-primitiva nellAscensione di
Isaia- Atti del Convegno di Roma, 9-10 aprile 1981, ed. Mauro Pesee (Testi e ricerche di
Scienze religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia, 1983) 95-116.
Currie, Stuart D., Speaking in Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament
Bearing on fAcooacus AaAstv, Int 19 (1965) 274-94.
Dagron, Gilbert, Aux origines de la civilisation byzantine: Langue de culture et langue
d Etat, Revue Historique 241 (1969) 23-56.
Dahl, Nils A., Apostelen Paulus Hoisang om Kjaerligheten, Fortolkning av 1 Kor. 13 med
Behandling av de Litteraere og Teologiske Problemer, NorTT 37 (1936) 5-135.
Dalman, Gustaf, Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1929).
D Angelo, Mary Rose, Intimating Deity in the Gospel of John: Theological Language
and Father in Prayers o f Jesus, Semeia 85 (1999) 59-82.
Danthine, Helene, Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacres dans Viconographie de VAsie
occidentale ancienne (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1937).
Daumas, F,, La/Yafear de 1Qr dans la Pensee Egyptienne, RHR 149 (1956) 1-17.
Dautzenberg, Gerhard, Glossolalie, in Reallexikon furA ntike und Christentum, ed.
Theodor Klauser (23 vols.; Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1950-2003) 11.225-46.
Dautzenberg, Gerhard, Urchristliche Prophetie: Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen
im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief (BWANT 104; Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1975).
Davenport, Gene L., The Eschatology o f the Book ofJubilees (SPB 20; Leiden: Brill,
1971).
Davidson, Maxwell J., Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study o f l Enoch 1-36, 72-108
and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992).
326
Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools: The Canonization o f the Hebrew Scriptures
(Library o f Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1998).
Davila, James, Heavenly Ascents in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Dead Sea Scrolls
Vanderkam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 461-85.
Davila, James R., Is the Story ofZosimus Really a Jewish Composition?, paper
presented at the 2003 meeting of the Society o f Biblical Literature in Atlanta.
Davila, James R., Liturgical Works (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
de Vaate, Alice J. Bij, Note on L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue o f Jewish Ossuaries, nos.
319 and 322, ZPE 113 (1996) 187-90.
de Vaux, Roland, Quelques textes hebreux de Murabba(at, RevBib 60 (1953) 268-75.
Dean-Otting, Mary, Heavenly Journeys: A Study o f the M otif in Hellenistic Jewish
Literature (Judentum und Umwelt 8; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984).
Deissmann, Adolf, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by
Recently Discovered Texts o f the Graeco-Roman World (rev. ed.; New York: Doran,
1927).
Delatte, Armand, Herbarius: Recherches sur le Ceremonial Usite chez les Ancienspour
la Cueillette des Simples et des Plantes Magiques (3rd ed.; Memoires du Academie
Royale de Belgique 54/4; Brussels: Palais des Academies, 1961).
Delling, Gerhard, atoixeiov, in TDNT 7.670-87.
Demsky, Aaron, Holy City and Holy Land as Viewed by Jews and Christians in the
Byzantine Period: A Conceptual Approach to Sacred Space, in Sanctity o f Time and
Space in Tradition and Modernity, eds. A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, and J.
Schwartz (Jewish and Christian Perspectives 1; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 285-96.
Denis, Albert-Marie, Introduction aux Pseudepigraphes Grecs d A ncien Testament
(SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
Denzey, Nicola, What Did the Montanists Read?, iTTi? 94 (2001) 427-48.
Detienne, Marcel, La Notion de Daimon dans le Pythagorisme Ancien (Bibliotheque de la
Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de lUniversite de Liege 165; Paris: Societe dEdition
Les Belles Lettres, 1963).
327
Detienne, Marcel, and Gilbert Hamonic, La Deesse Parole: Quatre Figures de la Langue
des Dieux (Paris: Flammarion, 1995).
Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar, The Intermediary World and Patterns o f Perfection in Philo
and Hebrews (SBLDS 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975).
Dibelius, Martin, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1909).
Diebner, Bemd JSrg, Bemerkungen zum Text des sahidischen und des achmimischen
Fragments der sog. Zephanja-Apokalypse, Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament 14
(Oct 1979) 54-60.
Diebner, Bemd Jorg, Literarkritische Probleme der Zephanja-Apokalypse, in Nag
Hammadi and Gnosis, ed. R. McL. Wilson (NHS 14; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 152-53.
Dieterich, Albrecht, Abraxas: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des spatem Altertums
(Festschrift Hermann Usener zur feier seiner 25jahrigen Lehrtatigkeit an der Bonner
Universitat; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1891).
Dimant, Devorah, 4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?, in Pomegranates
and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and
Literature in Honor o f Jacob Milgrom, eds. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and
Avi Hurvitz.(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 805-13.
Dimant, Devorah, The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance, in Time to
Prepare the Way in the Wilderness Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows o f the
Institute fo r Advanced Studies o f the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-90, eds.
Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schifftnan (STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 23-58.
Dion, Paul E., Letters (Aramaic), in ABD. 4,285-90.
Dodd, C. H., The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935).
Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Sather Classical Lectures 25; Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1951).
Dohmen, Christoph, and Manfred Oeming, Biblischer Kanon: Warum undwozu?: Eine
Kanontheologie (Quaetiones Disputatae 137; Freiburg: Herder, 1992).
Dombrowski, B. W. W., 4QMMT after DJD 10, Qumran Cave 4, Part 5, Qumran
Chronicle 5 (1995) 151-170.
328
Doran, Robert, The High Cost of a Good Education, in Hellenism in the Land o f Israel,
eds. John J. Collins (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 2001) 94-115.
Dorda, Esteban Calderon, Estudio sobre el lexico musical neotestamentario, Filologia
Neotestamentaria 12 (1999) 17-24.
DomseifF, Franz, Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie (2nd ed.; 2TOIXEIA 7; Leipzig:
Teubner, 1925).
Dothan, Moshe, Hammath Tiberias: Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman
Remains (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983).
Dothan, Moshe, The Representation o f Helios in the Mosaic of Hammath-Tiberias, in
Atti del Convegno Intemazionale sul Tema: Tardo Antico e Alto Medioevo: La Forma
Artistica nel Passaggio dallAntichita al Medioevo (Roma 4-7 Aprile 1967) (Quademo
105; Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1968) 99-104.
Downing, F. Gerald, Has Christianity a Revelation? (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).
Dubowchik, Rosemary, Singing with the Angels: Foundation Documents as Evidence
for Musical Life in Monasteries o f the Byzantine Empire, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56
(2002) 277-96.
Dunn, James D. G., The Colossian Philosophy: A Confident Jewish Apologia, Bib 76
(1995) 153-81.
Dunn, James D. G., Deutero-Pauline Letters, in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish
Context, eds. John Barclay and John Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996) 130-44.
Dunn, James D. G., Jesus and the Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975).
Dupont-Sommer, A., The Essene Writings from Qumran (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith,
1973).
Eco, Umberto, The Search fo r the Perfect Language (The Making o f Europe; Oxford:
Blackwell, 1995).
Ego, Beate, Im Himmel wie aufErden: Studien zum Verhaltnis von himmlischer und
irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum (WUNT 2/34; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989).
Eissfeldt, Otto, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966).
329
Elior, Rachel, The Merkavah Tradition and the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism: From
Temple to Merkavah, from Hekhal to Hekhalot, from Priestly Opposition to Gazing upon
the M e r k a v a h in Sino-Judaica: Jews and Chinese in Historical Dialogue: An
International Colloquium, Nanjing, 11-19 October 1996, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer (Tel
Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1999) 101-58.
Elior, Rachel, Mysticism, Magic, and Angelology: The Perception o f Angels in Hekhalot
Literature, JSQ 1 (1993) 3-53.
Ellingworth, Paul, Hebrew or Aramaic? Bible Translator 37 (1986) 338-41.
Elwolde, John F., 3Q15: Its Linguistic Affiliation, with Lexicographical Comments, in
Copper Scroll Studies, eds. George J. Brooke and Philip R. Davies (JSPSup 40;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 108-21.
Engelsen, Nils Ivar Johan, Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech According to
I Corinthians 12-14, Ph.D. dissertation: Yale University, 1970.
Enslin, Morton Scott, Christian Beginnings (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938).
Eshel, Esther, and Michael Stone, 4QExposition on the Patriarchs, in Qumran Cave 4,
vol. 14: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, eds. Magen Broshi e ta l (DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon,
1995) 215-30.
Eshel, Esther, and Michael Stone, An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two
Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b), Le Museon 105 (1992) 243-64.
Eshel, Esther, and Michael Stone, The Holy Tongue in the Last Days in the Light o f a
Fragment from Qumran, Tarbiz 62 (1992-93) 169-77 (Hebrew).
Esler, Philip F., The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-scientific Approaches
to New Testament Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1994).
Falk, Daniel K., Prayer in the Qumran Texts, in The Cambridge History o f Judaism,
vol. 3: The Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 852-76.
Fassler, Margot, Gothic Song: Victorine Sequences and Augustinian Reform in TwelfthCentury Paris (Cambridge Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music; Cambridge:
Fatehi, Mehrdad, The Spirits Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination o f Its
Christological Implications (WUNT 128; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2000).
330
Fauth, Wolfgang, Helios Megistos: Zur synkretistischen Theologie der Spatantike

(RGRW 125; Leiden: Brill, 1995).
Fee, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987).
Fee, Gordon D., God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters o f Paul
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990).
Fekkes, Jan HI, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book o f Revelation: Visionary
Antecedents and their Development (JSNTSup 93; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994).
Feldman, Louis H., How Much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?, JSJ 33 (2002) 290313.
Fenske, Wolfgang, Das Lied des Moses, des Knechtes Gottes, und das Lied des
Lammes (Apokalypse des Johannes 15,3f.): Der Text und sine Bedeutung fur die
Johannes-Apokalypse, ZNW90 (1999) 250-64.
Festugiere, R. P., La Revelation d Hermes Trismegiste (4 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 195054).
Fiensy, David A., Prayers Alleged to Be Jewish: An Examination o f the Constitutiones
Apostolorum (BJS 65; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985).
Fine, Steven, From Meeting House to Sacred Realm: Holiness and the Ancient
Synagogue, in Sacred Realm: The Emergence o f the Synagogue in the Ancient World,
ed. Steven Fine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 21-46.
Fine, Steven, This Holy Place: On the Sanctity o f the Synagogue During the Greco-...
Roman Period (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 11; University o f Notre Dame
Press, 1997).
Fishman, Joshua A., The Sociology o f Jewish Languages from a General Sociolinguistic
Point o f View, in Readings in the Sociology o f Jewish Languages, ed. Joshua A.
Fishman (Contributions to the Sociology o f Jewish Languages 1; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 321 .
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic in the Study o f the New
Testament, NTS 20 (1974) 382-407.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., A Feature o f Qumran Angelology and the Angels o f 1 Cor 11:10,
M S 4 (1957-58) 48-58.
331
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Genesis Apocryphon o f Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (2nd
ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971).
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D., in his A
W andering Aram ean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press,
1979) 29-56.
Flemming, J., and H. Duensing, The Ascension of Isaiah, in Edgar Hennecke, New
Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, vol. 2: Writings Relating to the
Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 642-63.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T., All the Glory o f Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the
Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T., Heavenly Ascent or Incamational Presence?: A
Revisionist Reading o f the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, SBLSP 37 (1998) 367-99.
Flusser, David, The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity, in Scripta
Yadin (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965) 215-266.
Forbes, Christopher, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its
Hellenistic Environment (WUNT 75; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995).
Ford, J. Massyngberde, A Note on Proto Montanism in the Pastoral Epistles, NTS 17
(1970-71) 338-46.
Ford, J. Massyngberde, Was Montanism a Jewish Christian Heresy?, J E H 17 (1966)
145-58.
Fossum, Jarl E., The Image o f the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence o f Jewish
Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag/Gdttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995).
Fraade, Steven D., From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its Interpretation in the
Midrash Siffe to Deuteronomy (Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1991).
Fraade, Steven D., Priests, Kings, and Patriarchs: Yerushalmi Sanhedrin in its Exegetical
and Cultural Settings, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture III, ed.
Peter Schafer (TSAJ 93; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2002) 315-33.
Fraade, Steven D., Rabbinic Views on the Practice ofTargum, and Multilingualism in
the Jewish Galilee o f the Third-Sixth Centuries, in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee
I. Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1992) 253-86.
332
Fraade, Steven D., Shifting from Priestly to Non-priestly Legal Authority: A

Comparison o f the Damascus Document and the Midrash Sifra, DSD 6 (1999) 109-25.
Francis, Fred O., Humility and Angelic Worship in Col 2:18, ST 16 (1962) 109-34.
Francis, Fred O., Visionary Discipline and Scriptural Tradition at Colossae, LexTQ 2
(1967)71-81.
Frankfurter, David, Apocalypses Real and Alleged in the Mani Codex, Numen 44
(1997) 60-73.
Frankfurter, David, Early Christian Apocalypticism: Literature and Social World, in
The Encyclopedia o f Apocalypticism, vol. 1: The Origins o f Apocalypticism in Judaism
and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins (New York: Continuum, 1998) 415-53.
Frankfurter, David, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse o f Elijah and Early Egyptian
Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, vol. 1: Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1972).
Freedman, David Noel, The Massoretic Text and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in
Orthography, in Qumran and the History o f the Biblical Text, eds. Frank Moore Cross
and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975) 196-211.
Freehof, Solomon B., Devotional Literature in the Vernacular, CCAR Yearbook 33
(1923) 375-424.
Fretheim, Terence E., Natures Praise o f God in the Psalms, ExAud 3 (1987) 16-30.
-Fretheim, Terence E., The Suffering o f God: An Old Testament Perspective (OBT;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
Frey, Jorg, Zum Weltbild im Jubilaenbuch, in Studies in the Book o f Jubilees, eds.
Matthias Albani, Jorg Frey, and Armin Lange (TSAJ 65; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998)
261-92.
Frey, P. J. B., ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum (Rome: Pontificio Instituto di

Archeologia Christiana, 1936-52).
Froehlich, Karlfried, Montanism and Gnosis, in The Heritage o f the Early Church:
Essays in Honor o f the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (OCA 195; Rome:
Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973) 91-111.
333
Fujita, Neil S., A Crack in the Jar: What Ancient Jewish Documents Tell Us About the
New Testament (New York: Paulist, 1986).
Gafiii, Isaiah M., The World of the Talmud: From the Mishnah to the Arab Conquest,
in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History o f Their Origins and Early
Development, ed. Hershel Shanks (Washington DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992)
225-65.
Gamble, Harry Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History o f Early Christian
Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995).
Gammie, John G., From Prudentialism to Apocalypticism: The Houses o f the Sages
Amid the Varying Forms o f Wisdom, in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East,
eds. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 479-97.
Garcia Martinez, Florentino, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in
English (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1996).
Garcia Martinez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study
Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-98).
Garrett, Susan R., The Weaker Sex in the Testament o f Job, JBL 112 (1993) 55-70.
Garrison, Roman, The Graeco-Roman Context o f Early Christian Literature (JSNTSup
137; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
Gathercole, Simon J., Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response
in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
Geiger, Joseph, How Much Latin in Greek Palestine? in Aspects o f Latin: Papers from
the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Jerusalem, April 1993, ed.
Hannah Rosen (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft 86; Innsbruck: Institut fur
Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck, 1996) 39-57
Georgi, Dieter, The Opponents o f Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1986).
Gera, Deborah Levine, Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language, and Civilization
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Gerdmar, Anders, Rethinking the Judaism-Hellenism Dichotomy: A Historiographical
Case Study o f Second Peter and Jude (ConBibNT 36; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,
2001).
334
KINHIfl
Gersh, S. E.,
AKINHTOI: A Study o f Spiritual Motion in the Philosophy o f
Proclus (Philosophia Antiqua 26; Leiden: Brill, 1973).
Gerson-Kiwi, Edith, Der Sinn des Sinnlosen in der Interpolation sakraler Gesange, in
Festschriftfu r Walter Wiora zum 30. Dezemher 1966, eds. Ludwig Finscher and
Christoph-Hellmut Mahling (Basel: Barenreiter Kassel, 1967) 520-28.
Gerson-Kiwi, Edith, Halleluia and Jubilus in Hebrew-Oriental Chant, in Festschrift
Heinrich Besseler zum sechzigsten Geburtstag (Leipzig: Musik Leipzig, 1961) 43-49.
Ginzberg, Louis, On Jewish Law andLore (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society o f
America, 1955).
Gmirkin, Russell, The War Scroll, the Hasidim, and the Maccabean Conflict, in The
Dead Sea Scrolls-Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings o f the Jerusalem
Congress, July 20-25,1997, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffinan, Emanuel Tov, and James C.
VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000) 486-96.
Golb, Norman, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search fo r the Secret o f Qumran
(New York: Scribner, 1995).
Gold, Sally L., Targum or Translation: New Light on the Character o f Qumran Job
(11Q10) from a Synoptic Approach, Journalfo r the Aramaic Bible 3 (2001) 101-20.
Golitzin, Alexander, Earthly Angels and Heavenly Men: The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, Niketas Stethatos, and the Tradition o f Interiorized Apocalyptic in
Eastern Christian Ascetical and Mystical Literature, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001)
125-53.
Goodblatt, David, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in
Antiquity (TSAJ 38; Tubinge
ir-Siebeck, 1994).
Goodblatt, David, Towards the Rehabilitation ofTalmudic History, in History o f
Judaism: The Next Ten Years, ed. Baruch M. Bokser (BJS 21; Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1980) 33-38.
Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (Bollingen
37; 13 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953-68).
Goody, Jack, The Logic o f Writing and the Organization o f Society (Studies in Literacy,
Family, Culture and the State; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., Linguistic Structure and Tradition in the Qumran Documents,
in Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 4: Aspects o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. C haim Rabin
and Yigael Yadin (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965) 101-37.
335
Grant, Robert M., Chains of Being in Early Christianity, in Myths and Symbols: Studies
in Honor o/Mircea Eliade, eds. J. M. Kitagawa and C. Long (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1969) 279-89.
Green, William Scott, Whats in a Name?-The Problematic ofRabbinic Biography in
Approaches to Ancient Judaism:Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott Green (BJS 1;
Missoula, MN: Scholars Press, 1978) 77-96.
Greenfield, J. C., Aramaic in the Achaemenian Empire, in The Cambridge History o f
Iran, vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, ed. Ilya Gershevitch (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985) 698-713.
Greenfield, Jonas C., The Languages o f Palestine, 200 B.C.E.-200 C.E., in Jewish
Languages: Theme and Variations: Proceedings o f Regional Conferences o f the
Association fo r Jewish Studies Held at the University o f Michigan and New York
University in March-April 1975, ed. Herbert H. Paper (Cambridge, MA: Association for
Jewish Studies, 1978) 143-54.
Greenfield, Jonas C., The Small Caves of Qumran, JAOS 89 (1969) 128-41.
Greenfield, 1. C., The Texts from Nahal Se)elim (Wadi Seiyal), in The Madrid Qumran
Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid
18-21 March, 1991, eds. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (2 vols.; STDJ 11;
Leiden: Brill, 1992) 2.661-65.
Greenspoon, Leonard J., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Bible, in The Dead Sea
VanderKam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-99) 1.101-27.
Gregg, Robert C., and Dan Urman, Jews^ Pagans, and Christians in the Golan Heights
(USFSHJ 140; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1: From the Apostolic Age to
Chalcedon (451) (rev. ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1975).
Grillmeier, Aloys, with Theresia Heinthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2: From
the Council o f Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604), pt. 4: The Church o f
Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451 (London: Mowbray, 1996).
Grintz, Jehoshua M., Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days o f
the Second Temple, JBL 79 (1960) 32-47.
Grozinger, Karl-Erich, Musik und Gesang in der Theologie der firuhen jildischen
Literatur: TalmudMidrasch Mystik (TSAJ 3; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1982).
336
Grozinger, Karl-Erich, Singen und ekstatische Sprache in der fruhen judischen Mystik,
J S J 11 (1980) 66-77.
Grozinger, Karl Erich, Sprache und Identitat-Das HebrSische und die Juden, in
Sprache und Identitat im Judentum, ed. Karl E. Grozinger (Judische Kultur 4;
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998) 75-90.
Gruber, Mayer, Language(s) in Judaism, in The Encyclopedia o f Judaism, eds. Jacob
Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (3 vols.; New York: Continuum,
1999) 2.783-97.
Gruenwald, Ithamar, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGAJU 14; Leiden: Brill,
1980).
Gruenwald, Ithamar, From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism: Studies in Apocalypticism,
Merkavah Mysticism and Gnosticism (BEATAJ 14; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1988).
Gruenwald, Ithamar, Manichaeism and Judaism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex,
ZPE 50 (1983) 29-45.
Guillaume, Alfred, The Influence of Judaism on Islam, in The Legacy o f Israel, eds.
Edwyn R. Bevan and Charles Singer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927).
Gunther, John J., St. P auls Opponents and Their Background: A Study o f Apocalyptic
and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup 35; Leiden: Brill, 1973).
Haas, Cees, Jobs Perseverance in the Testament o f Job, in Studies on the Testament o f
Job, eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst (SNTSMS 66; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989) 117-54.
Haase, Felix, Zur Rekonstruktion des Bartholomausevangeliums, ZNW 16 (1915) 93112.

Hadas-Lebel, Mireille, Histoire de la Langue Hebraique des Origines a VEpoque de la
Mishna (Paris: Publications Orientalistes de France, 1981).
Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts o f the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1971).
Hahn, E. Adelaide, Naming-Constructions in Some Indo-European Languages
(Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 27; Cleveland: Case
Western Reserve University, 1969).
337
Hailperin, Herman, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh Press, 1963).
Halbertal, Moshe, People o f the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1997).
Halivni, David Weiss, The Reception Accorded to Rabbi Judahs Mishnah, in Jewish
and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects o f Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period,
eds. E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and Alan Mendelsen (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981)
204-12.
Hall, Robert G., The Ascension o f Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in
Early Christianity, JBL 109 (1990) 289-306.
Hall, Robert G., Living Creatures in the Midst of the Throne: Another Look at
Revelation 4.6, NTS 36 (1990) 609-13.
Halperin, David, The Faces o f the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiels Vision
(TSAJ 16; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988).
Halperin, David J., The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1983).
Halperin, David J., Merkabah Midrash in the Septuagint, JBL 101 (1982) 351-63.
Halsberghe, Gaston H., The Cult o f Sol Invictus (EPROER 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972).
Hammerstein, Reinhold, Die Musik der Engel: Untersuchungen zur Musikanschauung
des Mittelalters (Bern: Francke, 1962).
Hannah, Darrell D., Isaiahs Vision in the Ascension of Isaiah and fee Early Church,
JTS 50 (1999) 80-101.
Hamack, Adolf, The Expansion o f Christianity in the First Three Centuries (Theological
Translation Library, 19; 2 vols.; New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1904-05).
Harrington, Daniel J. (trans.), Pseudo-Philo, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.
James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 2.297-377.
Harrisville, Roy A., Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study, CBQ 38 (1976)
35-48.
Haspels, Emilie, The Highlands o f Phrygia: Sites and Monuments, vol. 1: The Text
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).
338
Hauck, Robert J., The More Divine Proof: Prophecy and Inspiration in Celsus and
Origen (AAR Academy Series 69; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
Hay, David M., Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity (SBLMS 18;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1973).
Heiligenthal, Roman, Zwischen Henoch und Paulus: Studien zum
theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes (Texte und Arbeiten zum
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 6; Tubingen: Francke, 1992).
Hengel, Martin, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (rev. ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1996).
Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
Hengel, Martin, Qumran and Hellenism, in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John
J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 46-56.
Hengel, Martin, The Scriptures and their Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism, in
The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, eds. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J.
McNamara (JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 158-75.
Hengel, Martin, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995).
Henrichs, Albert, Greek Maenadism from Olympias to Messalina, HSCP 82 (1977)
121-60.
Henrichs, Albert, Thou Shalt not Kill a Tree: Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales,
BASP 16 (1979) 85-108.
Hering, Jean, The First Epistle o f Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth,
1962).
Herr, Moshe, Continuum in the Chain o f Torah Transmission, Zion 44 (1979) 43-56
(Hebrew).
Heubeck, Alfred, Die homerische Gdttersprache, Wurzburger Jahrbucher fur die
Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1949-50) 197-218.
Hezser, Catherine, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tiibingen: MohrSiebeck, 2001).
339
Hezser, Catherine, The Mishnah and Ancient Book Production, in The Mishnah in
Contemporary Perspective, eds. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner (Handbook of
Oriental Studies: Near and Middle East 65; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 167-92.
Hill, David, New Testament Prophecy (New Foundations Theological Library; Atlanta:
John Knox, 1979).
Himmelfarb, Martha, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993).
Himmelfarb, Martha, A Kingdom o f Priests: The Democratization o f the Priesthood in
the Literature of Second Temple Judaism, Journal o f Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6
(1997) 89-104.
Himmelfarb, Martha, The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean World, in
Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, eds. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane
Himmelfarb, Martha, Tours o f Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian
Literature (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
Hinson, E. Glenn, The Significance o f Glossolalia in the History o f Christianity, in
Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand
Hirschle, Maurus, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus: Mit einem
Exkurs zu DemokritB 142 (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie 96; Meisenheim am
Gian: Anton Hain, 1979).
Hoffman, Lawrence A Censoring In and Censoring Out: A Function o f Liturgical
Language, in Ancient Synagogues: The State o f Research, ed. Joseph Gutmann (BJS 22;
Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 19-37.
Hoffmann, David Zvi (ed.), Midrasch ha-gadol zum Buche Exodus, vol. 1 (Schriften des
Vereins Mekize Nirdamim 3/19; Berlin: Itzkowski, 1913).
Holladay, Carl R., 1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm, in Greeks, Romans, and
Christians: Essays in Honor o f Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David L. Balch, Everett
Ferguson, and Wayne Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 80-98.
Hollis, F. J., The Sun-Cult and the Temple in Jerusalem, in Myth and Ritual: Essays on
the Myth and Ritual o f the Hebrews in Relation to the Cultural Pattern o f the Ancient
East, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) 87-110.
340
Horbury, William, review o f Michael A. Knibbs and Pieter W. van der Horsts Studies
on the Testament o f Job, in VT41 (1991) 381.
Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm, Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen
Pneumatologie (FRLANT 154; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1992).
Horsley, G. H. R., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 5: Linguistic
Essays (Macquarie University: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre,
1989).
Howard, G., and J. C. Shelton, The Bar-Kokhba Letters and Palestinian Greek, IEJ23
(1973) 101-02.
Howard, W. F., First and Second Corinthians, in The Abingdon Bible Commentary, eds.
Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey (New York: AbindgonCokesbury, 1929) 1169-1206.
Hruby, Kurt, Die Synagoge: Geschichtliche Entwicklung einer Institution (Schriften zur
Judentumskunde 3; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971).
Hultgard, Anders, L eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches, vol. 1:
Interpretation des textes (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1977).
Hurley, James B., Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of
1 Cor. 11:2-16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b-36, WTJ35 (1973) 190-220.
Hurtado, L. W., Religious Experience and Religious Innovation in the New Testament,
JR 80 (2000) 183-205.
Hurvitz, Avi, Was QH a Spoken Language? On Some Recent View and Positions:
'VH'-ioents, in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings o f a Third International Symposium on
the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F.
Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 110-14.
Iamblichus, De Mysteriis 7.4; trans. Thomas Taylor (3rd ed.; London, 1883).
Idelsohn, A. Z., Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York: Henry Holt, 1932).
Isaac, Benjamin, Jews, Christians and others in Palestine: The Evidence from Eusebius,
in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. Martin Goodman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 6574.
Isaksson, Abel, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (ASNU 24; Lund: C. W. K.
Gleerup. 1965).
341
Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary o f Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 148-52.
Jacobs, Irving, Literary Motifs in The Testament of Job, JJS 21 (1970) 1-10.
James, J. Courtenay, The Language o f Palestine and Adjacent Regions (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark, 1920).
James, Montague Rhodes, Apocrypha Anecdota II (Texts and Studies 5; Cambridge:
James, Montague Rhodes, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924).
James, William, The Varieties o f Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature
(Penguin American Library; Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1982).
Janowitz, Naomi, The Poetics o f Ascent: Theories o f Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).
Janowitz, Naomi, Theories o f Divine Names in Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius, History
o f Religions 30 (1991) 359-72.
Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and
the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica, 1989 [reprint]).
Johansson, Nils, 1 Cor 13 and 1 Cor 14, NTS 10 (1964) 383-92.
Johnson, Aaron P., Identity, Descent, and Polemic: Ethnic Argumentation in Eusebius
Praeparatio Evangelica, JECS 12 (2004) 23-56.
Johnson, Luke ^ ""thy, Tongues, Gift of, ABD 6.596-600.
Johnson, Norman B., Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Study o f the
Jewish Concept o f God (JBLMS 2; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and
Exegesis, 1948).
Johnson, Sherman E., The Dead Sea Manual o f Discipline and the Jerusalem Church o f
Acts, in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (New York: Harper &
Bros., 1957) 129-42.
Jones, F. Stanley, review o f Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation ofElchasai:
Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse o f the Second
Century and its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists, in JbAC 30 (1987) 200-09.
Jones, Maurice, St. Paul and the Angels, The Expositor 15 (1918) 356-70,412-25.
342
Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, Les Ecrits Apocryphes Chretiens: Pour une Approche qui Valorise
leur Diversite et leurs Attaches Bibliques, in Le Mystere Apocryphe: Introduction a une
Litterature Meconnue, eds. J.-D. Kaestli and D. Marguerat (Essaia Bibliques 26; Geneva:
Labor et Fides, 1995) 27-42.
Kalmin, Richard, Sages, Stories, Authors, and Editors in Rabbinic Babylonia (BIS 300;
Atlanta: Scholars, 1994).
Kasher, Rimmon, Angelology and the Supernal Worlds in the Aramaic Targums to the
Prophets, JSJ 21 (1996) 168-91.
Kaufinann, Yehezkel, Generations o f Israelite Faith (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1927) (Hebrew).
Kedar, Benjamin, The Latin Translations, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin
Jan Mulder (CRINT 2/1; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990) 299-336.
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black,
1977).
Kiley, Mark, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy (The Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1986).
Kilgallen, John J., With many other words (Acts 2,40): Theological Assumptions in
Peters Pentecost Speech, Biblica 83 (2002) 71-87.
Kimelman, Reuven, The Conflict Between R. Yohanan and Resh Laqish on the
Supremacy of the Patriarchate, in Proceedings o f the Seventh World Congress o f Jewish
Studies, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Perry Foundation for Biblical Research, 1981) 1-20.
Kimelman, Reuven, The Conflict between the Priestly Oligarchy and the Sages in the
Talmudic Period, Zion 48 (1983) 135-48 (Hebrew).
Kimelman, Reuven, Identifying Jews and Christians in Roman Syrio-Palestine, in
Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence o f Cultures, ed. Eric M. Meyers (Duke Judaic
Studies 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 301-33.
Kirtchuk, Pablo-Isaac, Some Cognitive and Typological Semantic Remarks on the
Language of 4QMMTa, in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings o f a Third International
Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Takamitsu
Muraoka and John F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 131-36.
Kittel, Bonnie Pedrotti, The Hymns o f Qumran: Translation and Commentary (SBLDS
50; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980).
343
Kittel, Gerhard, ocyyeXos, in TDNT1:74-87.

Klauck, Hans-Jose Mit Engelszungen? Vom Charisma der verstandlichen Rede in 1 Kor
14, ZTK 97 (2000) 276-99.
Klauck, Hans-Josef, Von Kassandrabis zur Gnosis: Im Umfeld der Mhchristlichen
Glossolalie, ThQ 179 (1999) 289-312.
Klawiter, Frederick Charles, The New Prophecy in Early Christianity: The Origin,
Nature, and Development ofMontanism, A.D. 165-220, Ph.D. dissertation, University
o f Chicago, 1975.
Klein, Franz-Norbert, Die Lichtterminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den
hermetischen Schriften (Leiden: Brill, 1962).
Klinzing, Georg, Die Umdeutung des Kultus in der Qumrangemeinde und im Neuen
Testament (SUNT 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971).
Knibb, M. A., Martyrdom and Ascension o f Isaiah, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
ed. James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 2.143-76.
Knight, Jonathan, Disciples o f the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and
Theological Context o f the Ascension o f Isaiah (JSPSup 18; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996).
Knohl, Israel, Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple
Cult, JBL 115 (1996) 17-30.
Kohler, Kaufmann, The Testament o f Job, an Essene Midrash on the Book of Job, in
Semitic Studies in Memory o f Rev. Dr
Kohut, ed. Georg Alexander Kohut
(Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1897) 264-338.
Kraemer, David C., On the Reliability o f Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud, HUCA
60(1989) 175-90.
Kraemer, Ross Shepard, When Joseph Met Aseneth: A Late Antique Tale o f the Biblical
Patriarch and his Egyptian Wife Reconsidered (New York: Oxford University Press,
1998).
Kraft, Heinrich, Vom Ende der urchristliehen Prophetie, in Prophetic Vocation in the
New Testament and Today, ed. J. Panagopoulos (NovTSup 45; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 16285.
344
Kraft, Robert A., The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,55 in Tracing the Threads: Studies
in the Vitality o f Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves (SBLEJL 06; Atlanta;
Kraft, Robert A., Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions, JSJ 32 (2001)
371-95.
Krdmer, Helmut, Zur Wortbedeutung Mysteria, Wort undDienst 6 (1959) 121-25.
Kreisel, Howard, Prophecy: The History o f an Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy
(Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought 8; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001).
Kremer, Jacob, Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu
Apg 2, 1-13 (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 63/64; Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1973).
Kretzman, N., Plato on the Correctness o f Names, American Philological Quarterly 8
(1971) 126-38.
Kropp, Angelicus M., Ausgewahlte koptische Zaubertexte (3 vols.; Bruxelles: La
Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1930-31).
Krueger, Derek, Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontius Life and the Late Antique City
(Transformation o f the Classical Heritage 25; Berkeley: University o f California Press,
1996).
Kuhn, Harold B., The Angelology of the Non-Canonical Jewish Apocalypses, JBL 67
(1948) 217-32.
Kulik, Alexander, Apocalypse o f Abraham: Towards the Lost Original, Ph.D.
dissertation, Hebrew University, 2000.
Kutscher, E. Y., The Language and Linguistic Background o f the Complete Isaiah Scroll
(1 QIsaa) (Leiden: Brill, 1974).
Kuyt, Annelies, The D escent o f the Chariot: Towards a Description o f the Terminology,
Place, Function and Nature o f the Yeridah in Hekhalot Literature (TSAJ 45; Tubingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1995).
Kydd, Ronald A. N., Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1984).
Lacau, Pierre, Remarques sur le Manuscrit Akhmimique des Apocalypses de Sophonie
et d5Elie, Journal Asiatique 254 (1966) 169-95.
345
Lake, Kirsopp (trans.), The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard
Lane Fox, Robin, Pagans and Christians (New York: Albert A. Knopf, 1987).
Lang, Bernhard, Buchreligion, in Handhuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe,
eds. Hubert Cancik, Burkhard Gladigow, and Matthias Laubscher (5 vols.; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1988-2002) 2.143-65.
Larson, Erik, 4QNarrative Work and Prayer, in Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1,
eds. Stephen J. Pfann et a l (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) 369-86.
Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures (Garden City. Doubleday, 1987).
Le Deaut, R., Introduction a la Litterature Targumique (Rome: Institut Biblique
Pontifical, 1966).
Le Deaut, Roger, The Targumim, in The Cambridge History o f Judaism, vol. 2; The
Hellenistic Age, eds. W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990)563-90.
Leaney, A. R. C., Greek Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert, in Studies in New
Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour o f George D. Kilpatrick on the
Occasion o f his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. J. K. Elliott (NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976)
283-300.
Leicht, Reimund, Qedushah and Prayer to Helios: A New Hebrew Version o f an
Apocryphal Prayer o f Jacob, JSQ 6 (1999) 140-76.
Lesses, Rebecca Macy, Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, and
Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (HTS 44; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998).
Lesses, Rebecca, Speaking with Angels: Jewish and Greco-Egyptian Revelatory
Adjurations, HTR 89 (1996) 41-60.
Levin, Susan B ., Greek Conceptions o f Naming: Three Forms o f Appropriateness in
Plato and the Literary Tradition, Classical Philology 92 (1997) 46-57.
Levine, Baruch A., Hebrew (Postbiblical), in Beyond Babel: A Handbookfo r Biblical
Hebrew and Related Languages, eds. John Kaltner and Steven L. McKenzie (SBL
Resources for Biblical Study 42; Atlanta: Society ofBiblical Literature, 2002) 157-82.
Levine, Lee I., The Rabbinic Class o f Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1989).
346
Levine, Lee I., Caesarea Under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975).
Levine, Lee I., The Jewish'Patriarch (Nasi) in Third Century Palestine, ANRW2.19.2
(1979) 649-88.
Levine, Lee I., The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1989).
Levison, John R., The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGAJU 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Lewin, Benjamin Manasseh (ed.), Otzar ha-Geonim, vol. 6 (Jerusalem: Central Press,
1934).
Lewis, Bernard, The Jews o f Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Licht, Jacob, The Doctrine of the Thanksgiving Scroll, IEJ 6 (1956) 1-13,89-101.
Lichtenberger, Hermann, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde
(SUNT 15; Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980).
Lieberman, Saul, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners o f Jewish
Palestine in the U-TV Centuries C.E. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f
America, 1942).
Lieberman, Saul, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission,
Beliefs and Manners o f Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.-IV Century C.E. (New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950).
Lieberman, Saul, Palestine in the Third and Fourth Centuries, JQR 36 (1945-46) 32970.
Lieberman, Saul, Regarding the Halakhic Inscription from the Beisan Valley, Tarbiz 45
(1976) 54-63 (Hebrew).
Lieberman, Saul, Two Lexicographical Notes, JBL 65 (1946) 67-72.
Lieu, Judith, The Parting of the Ways: Theological Construct or Historical Reality?,
JSNT 56 (1994) 101-19.
Lifshitz, Baruch, Beitrage zur griechisch-jtidischen Epigraphik, ZDPV 82 (1966) 57-63.
Lifshitz, Baruch, Beitrage zur palastinischen Epigraphik, ZDPV 78 (1962) 64-88.
347
Lifshitz, Baruch, Donateurs etfondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives: Repertoire des
dedicaces grecques relatives d la construction et a la refection des synagogues (Cahiers
de la Revue Biblique 7; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967).
Lightstone, JackN., The Commerce o f the Sacred: Mediation o f the Divine among Jews in
the Graeco-Roman Diaspora (BJS 59; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984).
Lightstone, Jack N., Mishnah and the Social Formation o f the Early Rabbinic Guild: A
Socio-Rhetorical Approach (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 11; Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, 2002).
Lignee, Hubert, La Place du Livre des Jubiles et du Rouleau du Temple dans lHistoire
du Mouvement Essenien: Ces Deux Ouvrages ont-ils ete Ecrits par le Maitre de Justice?,
RevQ 13 (1988) 331-45.
Lincoln, Andrew T., Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role o f the Heavenly
Dimension in Pauls Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology (SNTSMS 43;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
Lombard, Emile, Le montanisme et Tinspiration: A propos du livre de M. de Labriolle,
RTP 3 (1915) 278-322.
Lubbe, John, The Copper Scroll and Language Issues, in Copper Scroll Studies, eds.
George J. Brooke and Philip R. Davies (JSPSup 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2002) 155-62.
Luttikhuizen, Gerard P., The Revelation ofElchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for
a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse o f the Second Century and its Reception by JudeoChristian Propagandists (TSAJ 8; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985).
Mach, Michael, Entwicklungsstadien des jiidischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer
Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992).
Maier, Johann, Self-Definition, Prestige, and Status o f Priests Towards the End of the
Second Temple Period, BTB 23 (1993) 139-50.
Maier, Johann, Shire Olat hash-Shabbat. Some Observations on their Calendric
Implications and on their Style, in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the
International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, eds. Julio
Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner (2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 54360.
Maier, Johann, Die Sonne in religiosen Denken des antiken Judentums, mANRW
2.19.1 (1979) 346-412.
348
Majercik, Ruth, The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation, and Commentary (SGRR 5;
Malkiel, David, Between Worldliness and Traditionalism: Eighteenth-Century Jews
Debate Intercessory Prayer, Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 2 (2003) 169-98.
Maly, Karl, Miindige Gemeinde: Untersuchungen zur pastoralen Fuhrung des Apostels
Paulus im 1. Korintherbrief (Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien 2; Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967).
Mann, Jacob, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, vol. 1: The
Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus (Cincinnati: Jacob Mann, 1940).
Markus, R. A., The Problem of Self-Definition: From Sect to Church, in Jewish and
Christian Self-Definition, vol. 1: The Shaping o f Christianity in the Second and Third
Centuries, ed. E. P. Sanders (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 1-15.
Marmorstein, A., Legendmotive in der rabbinischen Literatur, A R W 17 (1914) 132-38.
Marshall, I. Howard, The Significance of Pentecost, SJT 30 (1977) 347-69.
Martin, Dale B., Tongues o f Angels and Other Status Indicators, JAAR 59 (1991) 54789.
Martin, Matthew J., Origens Theory o f Language and the First Two Columns o f the
Hexapla, HTR 97 (2004) 99-106.
Martyn, J. Louis, Theological Issues in the Letters o f Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997).
Mathews, Edward G., Jr. and Joseph P. Amar (trans.), St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected
Prose Works, ed. Kathleen McVey (The Fathers o f the Church; Washington, DC:
Catholic University o f America, 1994).
May, L. Carlyle, A Survey o f Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian
Religions, American Anthropologist 58 (1956) 75-96.
McClure, Judith, Bedes Notes on Genesis and the Training o f the Anglo-Saxon Clergy,
in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory o f Beryl Smalley, eds. Katherine
Walsh and Diana Wood (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985) 17-30.
McCown, C. C., Hebrew and Egyptian Apocalyptic Literature, HTR 18 (1925) 357-411.
McDonnell, Kilian, and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the
Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,
1991).
349
McEwan, Calvin W., The Oriental Origin o f Hellenistic Kingship (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1934).
McKinnon, James, Music in Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge
McNamara, Martin, Some Targum Themes, in Justification and Variegated Nomism,
vol. 1: The Complexities o f Second Temple Judaism, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. OBrien,
and Mark A. Seifrid (WUNT 140; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001) 303-56.
Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1: The Roots o f the
Problem and the Person (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991).
Mendels, Doron, Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes, HTR 72 (1979) 207-22.
Menzies, Robert P., The Development o f Early Christian Pneumatology with Special
Reference to Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).
Merkelbach, Reinhold, and Josef Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten,
Band 3: Der Feme Osten und das Landesinnere bis zum Tauros (Munich/Leipzig: K.
G. Saur, 2001).
Metzger, Martin, Keruben und Palmetten als Dekoration im Jerusalemer Heiligtum und
Jahwe, der Nahrung gibt allem Fleisch, in Zion: Ort derBegegnung: Festschriftfur
Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres, eds. Ferdinand Hahn, FrankLothar Hossfeld, Hans Jorissen, Angelika Neuwirth (BBB 90; Bodenheim: Athenaum
Hain Hanstein, 1993) 503-29.
Meyers, Eric M., and James F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity
(Nashville: ' 'htgdon, 1981).
Milgrom, Jacob, Challenge to Sun-Worship Interpretation o f Temple Scrolls Gilded
Staircase, BAR (Jan/Feb 1985) 70-73.
Milik, J. T., Une lettre de Simeon bar Kokheba, RevBib 60 (1953) 276-94.
Milik, J. T., Le rouleau de cuivre provenant de la grotte 3Q (3Q15), in Les 'Petites
Grottes' de Qumrdn, eds. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux (DJD 3; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1962) 201-302.
Milik, J. T., Ten Years o f Discovery in the Wilderness o f Judaea (London: SCM, 1959).
Millar, Fergus, The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin
Hengels Judaism and Hellenism, JJS (1978) 1-21.
350
Millar, Fergus, Ethnic Identity in the Roman Near East, 325-450: Language, Religion,
and Culture, Mediterranean Archaeology 11 (1998) 159-76.
Millar, Fergus, Paul o f Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture and
Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria, JRS 61 (1971) 1-17.
Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East: 3 1 B C - A D 337 (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1993).
Millard, Alan, Reading and Writing in the Time o f Jesus (The Biblical Seminar 69;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
Miller, Patricia Cox, In Praise o f Nonsense, in Classical Mediterranean Spirituality:
Egyptian, Greek, Roman, ed. A. H. Armstrong (World Spirituality 15; New York:
Crossroad, 1986) 481-505.
Miller, Patrick D., They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology o f Biblical Prayer
Miller, Stuart S., Studies in the History and Traditions o f Sepphoris (SJLA 37; Leiden:
Brill, 1984).
Mirecki, Paul, The Coptic Hoard o f Spells from the University o f Michigan, in Ancient
Christian Magic: Coptic Texts o f Ritual Power, eds. Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith
(San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994) 293-310.
Mirecki, Paul, The Coptic Wizards Hoard, HTR 87 (1994) 435-60.
Momigliano, Amaldo, Essays on Ancient and Modem Judaism, ed. Silvia Berti (Chicago:
University o f Chicago, 1994).
Morag, Shlomo, Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations, VT 38 (1988) 14864.
Morgenstem, Julian, The Fire Upon the Altar (Leiden: Brill, 1963).
Morray-Jones, C. R. A., Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical
Background o f Pauls Apostolate, part 1: The Jewish Sources, HTR 86 (1993) 177217, part 2: Pauls Heavenly Ascent and its Significance, HTR 86 (1993) 265-92.
Mowinckel, Sigmund, He That Cometh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1956).
Moyise, Steve, The Old Testament in the Book o f Revelation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
351
Muchowski, Peter, Language of the Copper Scroll in the Light of the Phrases Denoting
the Directions of the World, in Methods ofInvestigation o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects, eds. Michael O. Wise,
Norman Golb, John J. Collins, and Dennis G. Pardee (Annals o f the New York Academy
o f Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 319-27.
Muffs, Yochanan, Love and Joy: Law, Language, and Religion in Ancient Israel (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992).
Muller, Mogens, Die Abraham-Gestalt im Jubilaenbuch: Versuch einer Interpretation,
S J O T 10 (1996) 238-57.
Muller, Mogens, The First Bible o f the Church: A Plea fo r the Septuagint (JSOTSup 206;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Munck, Johannes, The Acts o f the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 31;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967).
Muraoka, Takamitsu, The Aramaic o f the Old Targum o f Job from Qumran Cave XI,
JJS 25 (1974) 425-43.
Muraoka, Takamitsu, Notes on the Old Targum o f Job from Qumran Cave XI, RevQ 9
(1977) 117-25.
Murray, Robert, Disaffected Judaism and Early Christianity: Some Predisposing
Factors, in To See Ourselves as Others See Us Christians, Jews, Others in Late
Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest Frerichs (Scholars Press Studies in the
Humanities; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 263-81.
Mussies, Gerard, Greek as the Vehicle olEarly Christianity, NTS 29 (1983) 356-69.
Mussies, Gerard, The Morphology o f Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse o f John
(NovTSup 27; Leiden: Brill, 1971).
Ness, Lester, Written in the Stars: Ancient Zodiac Mosaics (Marco Polo Monographs 1;
Warren Center, PA: Shangri-La, 1999).
Neusner, Jacob (trans.), Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book o f
Genesis: A New American Translation (3 vols.; BJS 106; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985).
Neusner, Jacob, A History o f the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 3: From Shapur I to Shapur II
(SPB 12; Leiden: Brill, 1968).
352
Neusner, Jacob, Judaism States its neology: The Talmudic Re-presentation (USFSHJ 88;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).
Neusner, Jacob, A Life ofYohanan ben Zakkai: Ca. 1-80 C.E. (SPB 6; Leiden: Brill,
1970).
Neusner, Jacob, Map without Territory: Mishnahs System o f Sacrifice and Sanctuary,
HR 19 (1979-80) 103-27.
Neusner, Jacob, Mekhilta According to Rabbi Ishmael: An Introduction to Judaism's First
Scriptural Encyclopaedia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
Neusner, Jacob, The Mishna in Philosophical Context and Out of Canonical Bounds, JBL
112(1993)291-304.
Newsom, Carol, Merkabah Exegesis in the Qumran Sabbath Shirot, JJS 38 (1987) 1130.
Newsom, Carol, Sectually Explicit Literature from Qumran, in The Hebrew Bible and
Its Interpreters, eds. W. H. Propp et al (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 167-87.
Newsom, Carol, Shirot kDlat HaShabbat, in Qumran Cave 4, VI: Poetical and
Liturgical Texts, Part 1, eds. Esther Eshel, Hanan Eshel, Carol Newsom, Bilhah Nitzan,
Eileen Schuller, and Ada Yardeni (DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 173-402.
Newsom, Carol A., Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice, in Encyclopedia o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls, eds. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford
Newsom, Carol A., Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1985).
Newton, Michael, The Concept o f Purity at Qumran and in the Letters o f Paul (SNTSMS
53; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
Niehoff, Maren R., What is in a Name? Philos Mystical Philosophy ofLanguage, JSQ 2
(1995) 220-52.
Nitzan, Bilhah, Harmonic and Mystical Characteristics in Poetic and Liturgical Writings
from Qumran, JQR 85 (1994) 163-83.
Nitzan, Bilhah, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Nordheim, Eckhard von, Die Lehre derAlten, vol. 1: Das Testament als Literaturgattung
im Judentum der hellenistisch-rdmischen Zeit (ALGHJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1980).
353
Norelli, Enrico, L Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo aI crocevia dei cristianesimi

(O rigini [new series] 1; Bologna: Centro Editoriale Dehoniano, 1994).
Norelli, Enrico, Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius (CCSA 8; Tumhout: Brepols, 1995).
Nygren, Anders, Agape and Eros (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953).
Oberhansli-Widmer, Gabrielle, Biblische Figuren in der rabbinischen Literatur:
Gleichnisse und Bilder zu Adam, Noah und Abraham im Midrasch Bereschit Rabba
(Judaica et Christiana 17; Bern: Peter Lang, 1998).
Oppenheim, A. Leo, The Golden Garments of the Gods, JNES 8 (1949) 172-93.
Ott, H., Um die Muttersprache Jesu: Forschungen seit GustafDalman, NovT 9 (1967)
1-25.
Parke, H. W., Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London: Routledge,
1988).
Parmentier, Martin (Martien), The Gifts o f the Spirit in Early Christianity, in The
Impact o f Scripture in Early Christianity, ed. J. den Boeft and M. L. van Poll-van de
Lisdonk (VigChrSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 58-78.
Parmentier, Martien, Job the Rebel: From the Rabbis to the Church Fathers, in Saints
and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, eds. Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua
Schwartz (J&CP 7; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 227-42.
Parmentier, Martin, Das Zungenreden bei den Kirchenvatem, Bijdragen 55 (1994) 27698.
Paul, Andre, La Bible grecque dAquila et 1ideologie dujudaisme ancien, in ANRW
2.20.1 (1987) 221-45.
Pearson, Birger A., The Pierpont Morgan Fragments o f a Coptic Enoch Apocryphon, in
Studies on the Testament o f Abraham, ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg (SCS 6; Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1976).
Pearson, Birger A., Theurgic Tendencies in Gnosticism and Iamblichuss Conception o f
Theurgy, in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, eds. Richard T. Wallis and Jay Bregman
Penner, Ken, Did Paul Speak Hebrew? Ancient Names for Hebrew and Aramaic, paper
delivered at the Canadian Society o f Biblical Studies Annual Meeting, May 30, 2003.
Perdrizet, P., lOPA!"!!
lOAOMflNOI, REG 16 (1903) 42-61.
354
Perrin, Norman, and Dennis C. Duling, The New Testament: An Introduction (2nd ed.;
San Diego: Hareourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984).
Perrot, Charles, The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue, in Mikra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and
Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (CRINT 2/1; Assen: van Gorcum, 1990) 13759.
Peters, Francis E., Response (to Jonas C. Greenfield), in Jewish Languages: Theme and
Variations: Proceedings o f Regional Conferences o f the Association fo r Jewish Studies
Held at the University o f Michigan and New York University in March-April 1975, ed.
Herbert H. Paper (Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978) 159-64.
Petersen, William L., Tatians Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance,
and History in Scholarship (VigChrSup 25; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Petuchowski, Jakob J., Understanding Jewish Prayer (New York: Ktav, 1972).
Philonenko, Marc, Priere au Soleil et Liturgie Angelique, in La Litterature
Intertestamentaire: Colloque de Strasbourg (17-19 Octobre 1983) (Bibliotheque des
Centres dEtudes Superieures Specialises; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985)
221-28.
Philonenko, Marc, Le Testament de Job et les Therapeutes, Semitica 8 (1958) 41-53.
Philonenko, Marc, Le Testament de Job: Introduction, Traduction et Notes, Semitica 18
(1968) 1-75.
Poirier, John C., 4Q464: Not Eschatological, RevQ 20 (2002) 583-87.
Poirier, John C., The Montanist Nature o f the Nanas Inscription, Epigraphica
Anatolica, forthcoming.
Poirier, John C., Montanist Pepuza-Jerusalem and the Dwelling Place o f Wisdom,
JECS1 (1999) 491-507.
Poirier, John C., The Ouranology o f the Apocalypse o f Abraham, JSJ, forthcoming.
Potin, Jean, L afetejuive de la Pentecote: Etude des textes liturgiques (2 vols.; Lectio
Divina 65a-b; Paris: Cerf, 1971).
Price, Jonathan J., The Jews and the Latin Language in the Roman Empire, Jews and
Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days o f the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud,
355
eds. Menachem Mor, Aharon Oppenheimer, Jack Pastor, and Daniel R. Schwartz
(Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2003) 164-180.
Price, Jonathan, and Ada Yardeni, Corpus o f Jewish Inscriptions from the Near East,
from the Hellenistic through the Byzantine Periods, forthcoming.
Price, Robert M., The Widow Traditions in Luke-Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny
(SBLDS 155; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
Puech, Emile, Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521), RevQ 15 (1991-92) 475-522.
Puech, Emile, Du Bilinguisme a Qumran? in Mosai'que de Langues, Mosai'que
Culturelle: Le Bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient Ancien: Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18
novembre 1995 organisee p a r l URA 1062 Etudes Semitiques , ed. Franijoise BriquelChatonnet (Antiquites Semitiques 1; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1996) 171-89.
Pulleyn, Simon, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997).
Qimron, Elisha, The Hebrew o f the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1986).
Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma(ase ha-Torah (DJD
10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 65-108.
Rabin, Chaim, Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century, in The Jewish People in the
First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious
Life and Institutions, vol. 2, eds. S. Safrai and M. Stem (CRINT 1/2; Assen: van Gorcum,
1987) 1007-39.
Rabin, Chaim, The Historical Background o f Qumran Hebrew, in Scripta
Yadin (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965) 144-61.
Radin, Max, The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society o f America, 1915).
Rahmani, L. Y., A Catalogue o f Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections o f the State o f Israel
(Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority, 1994).
Rahnenfuhrer, Dankwart, Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament, ZNW 62
(1971)68-93.
Rajak, Tessa, The Rabbinic Dead and the Diaspora Dead at Beth She)arim, in The
Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture I, ed. Peter Schafer (TSAJ 71; Tubingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 349-66.
356
Rajak, Tessa, Synagogue and Community in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora, in Jews in

the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. John R. Bartlett (London: Routledge, 2002) 22-38.
Rebenich, S., Jerome: The vir trilinguis and the Hebraica veritas, VigChr 47 (1993)
50-77.
Recheis, P. Athanas, Engel, Tod und Seelenreise: Das Wirken der Geister beim
Heimgang des Menschen in der Lehre der alexandrinischen und kappadokischen Vater
(Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1958).
Reeves, John C., Heralds o f that Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish
Traditions (NHMS 41; Leiden: Brill, 1996).
Reich, Ronny, Ossuary Inscriptions o f the Caiaphas Family from Jerusalem, in Ancient
Jerusalem Revealed, ed. Hillel Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994) 22325.
Reif, Stefan C., Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical
History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Reif, Stefan C., The Second Temple Period, Qumran Research, and Rabbinic Liturgy:
Some Contextual and Linguistic Comparisons, in Liturgical Perspectives: Prayer and
Poetry in Light o f the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings o f the Fifth International
Symposium o f the Orion Center fo r the Study o f the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated
Literature, 19-23 January, 2000, ed. Esther G. Chazon (STDJ 48; Leiden: Brill, 2003)
133-49
Reitzenstein, Richard, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance
(Pittsburgh Theological Monographs 15; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1978).
Reventlow, Henning Graf, Gebet im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1986).
Ricciotti, Giuseppe, L A pocalisse di Paolo Siriaca (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1932).
Richardson, William, Liturgical Order and Glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14.26c-33a,
NTS 32 (1986) 144-53.
Riesemann, Oskar von, Der russische Kirchengesang, mHandbuch der
Musikgeschichte, ed. Guido Adler (2 vols.; Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1961).
Riesner, Rainer, Synagogues in Jerusalem, in The Book o f Acts in its Palestinian
Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (The Book o f Acts in its First Century Setting 4; Grand
357
Ringgren, Helmer, The Faith o f Qumran: Theology o f the Dead Sea Scrolls
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963).
Rist, John M., Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994).
Ritter, Ado If Martin, Die Entstehung des neutestamentlischen Kanons:
Selbstdurchsetzung oder autoritative Entscheidung? in Kanon und Zensur: Archaologie
des literarischen Kommunikation II, eds. Aleida Assmann and Jan Assmann (Miinchen:
Fink, 1987) 93-99.
Robeck, Cecil M., Jr., Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian
(Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1992).
Roberts, Louis, The Unutterable Symbols o f Ge-Themis Reconsidered, SBLSP 30
(1991)207-14.
Robinson, J. Armitage, The Passion o f S. Perpetua (Texts and Studies 1[2]; Cambridge:
Robinson, Stephen Edward (trans.), Testament o f Adam, in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1983-85) 1.989-95.
Rohrbacher-Sticker, Claudia, From Sense to Nonsense, From Incantation Prayer to
Magical Spell, JSQ 3 (1996) 24-46.
Rokeab, David, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (SPB 33; Jerusalem: Magnes,
1982).
Rompay, Lucas Van, The Christian Syriac Tradition o f Interpretation, in Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History o f Its Interpretation, ed. Magne Saebo, vol. 1: From the
Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300), part 1: Antiquity (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1996) 612-41.
Rosan, Laurence Jay, The Philosophy ofProclus: The Final Phase o f Ancient Thought
(New York: Cosmos, 1949).
Rosen, Haiim B., Hebrew at the Crossroads o f Cultures: From Outgoing Antiquity to the
Middle Ages (Orbis Supplements; Leuven: Peeters, 1995).
Rosen, Haiim B., Die Sprachsituation im romischen Palestina, in Die Sprachen im
romischen Reich der Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium vom 8. bis 10. April 1974, eds. Gunter
Neumann and Jurgen Untermann (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbucher 40; Cologne:
Rheinland-Verlag, 1980)215-39.
358
Rosen-Ayalon, Myriam, The Early Islamic Monuments ofAl-Haram Al-Sharf: An

Iconographic Study (Qedem 28; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1989).
Rowland, Christopher, Apocalyptic, Mysticism, and the New Testament, in
Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift fa r Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, eds.
Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schafer (3 vols.; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1996) 405-30.
Rowland, Christopher C., Apocalyptic: The Disclosure ofHeavenly Knowledge, in The
W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 776-97.
Rowland, Christopher, The Parting of the Ways: The Evidence o f Jewish and Christian
Apocalyptic and Mystical Material, in Jews and Christians: The Parting o f the Ways
A.D. 70 to 135, ed. James D. G. Dunn (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 213-37.
Rubenstein, Jeffrey L., The History o f Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods
(BJS 302; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
Rubenstein, Jeffrey L., Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999).
Rubin, Milka, The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case o f
Cultural Polemics in Antiquity, JJS 49 (1998) 306-33.
Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard, Apocalypse of Abraham, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
ed. James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 1.681-706.
Rubinkiewicz, Ryszard, La Vision de lHistoire dans 1Apocalypse dAbraham, in
ANRW2.19A ( 1979)437'5L
Rubinstein, Arie, Hebraisms in the Apocalypse o f Abraham, JJS 5 (1954) 132-35.
Rubinstein, Arie, Hebraisms in the Slavonic Apocalypse o f Abraham, JJS 4 (1953)
108-15.
Rubio, Concepcion Gonzalo, La Angelologia en la Literatura Rabinica y Sefardi
(Biblioteca Nueva Sefarad 2; Barcelona: Ameller Ediciones, 1977).
Ruderman, David B., A Valley o f Vision: The Heavenly Journey o f Abraham ben
Hananiah Yagel (Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press, 1990).
Rudnig, Thilo Alexander, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40-48
(BZAW 287; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000).
359
Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: The Nature and History o f Gnosticism (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1987).
Russell, James R., The Ascensio Isaiae and Iran, in Irano-Judaica HI: Studies Relating
to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture thorughout the Ages, eds. Shaul Shaked and
Amnon Netzer (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994) 63-69.
Russell, D. S., The Method and Message o f Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC - AD 100 (OTL;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).
Russell, Paul S., Ephraem the Syrian on the Utility o f Language and the Place of
Silence, JECS 8 (2000) 21-37.
Saake, Helmut, Paulus als Ekstatiker: Pneumatologische Beobachtungen zu 2 Kor. xii 110, NovT 15 (1973) 153-60.
Sacchi, Paolo, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History (JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1990).
Saenz-Badillos, Angel, A History o f the Hebrew Language (Cambridge: Cambridge
Saffrey, H. D., La devotion de Proclus au Soleil, in Philosophie non chretiennes et
Christianisme, eds. Jacques Sojcher and Gilbert Hottois (Annales de 1'Institut de
Philosophie et de Sciences morales; Bruxelles: Universite de Bruxelles, 1984) 73-86.
Saggs, H. W. F., The Branch to the Nose, JTS 11 (1960) 318-29.
Saldarini, Anthony J., M atthews Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University o f
Chicago Press, 1994).
Saldarini, Anthony J., Reconstructions ofRabbinic Judaism, in Early Judaism and Its
Modem Interpreters, eds. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg (The Bible and
Its Modem Interpreters 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 437-77.
Salisbury, Joyce E., Perpetuas Passion: The Death and Memory o f a Young Roman
Woman (New York: Routledge, 1997).
Sanders, E. P., Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990).
Sanders, E. P., Literary Dependence in Colossians, JBL 85 (1966) 28-45.
Sanders, E. P., Taking It All for Gospel (review essay o f Brevard Childs,T/ze New
Testament as Canon: An Introduction), Times Literary Supplement (Dec. 13, 1985) 1431.
360
Sanders, Jack T., First Corinthians 13: Its Interpretation Since the First World War, Int 20
(1966) 159-87.
Sandnes, Karl Olav, Paul-One o f the Prophets? (WUNT 43; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
1991).
Sanford, Eva Matthews (trans.), Augustine, De Civitas Dei (LCL 5; Cambridge: Harvard
Sama, Nahum, Tsaim XIX and the Near Eastern Sun-god Literature, in Fourth World
Congress o f Jewish Studies: Papers, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: World Union o f Jewish Studies,
1967)171-75.
Sawyer, John F. A., Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (Religion in the First Christian
Centuries; London: Routledge, 1999).
Scarborough, John, Hermetic and Related Texts in Classical Antiquity, in Hermeticism
and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modem Europe, eds.
Ingrid Merkel and Allen G. Debus (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988) 1944.
Scarborough, John, The Pharmacology o f Sacred Plants, Herbs, and Roots, in Magika
Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, eds. Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 138-74.
Schafer, Peter, Rivalitdt zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur
rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (SJ 8; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975).
Schafer, Peter, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,

1981).
Schafer, Peter, and Shaul Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, vol. 1
(Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994).
Schaller, Bemdt, Das Testament Hiobs (JSHRZ 3/3; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1979) 35254.
Schaller, Bemdt, Zur Komposition und Konzeption des Testaments Hiobs, in Studies
on the Testament o f Job, eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst (SNTSMS
66; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 46-92.
Schenck, Kenneth L., A Celebration o f the Enthroned Son: The Catena o f Hebrews 1,
JBL 120 (2001) 469-85.
361
Scfaiffmaa, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1994).
Schimmel, Annemarie, Angel, Islamic, in Dictionary o f the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph R.
Strayer (12 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988) 1.248-49.
Schmidt, Carl, Der Kolophon des Ms. orient. 7594 des Britischen Museums: Eine
Untersuchung zur Elias-Apokalypse, in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, vol. 1925 (Philosophisch-Historische Klasse; Berlin: Akademie der
W issenschaften, 1925) 312-21.
Schmithals, Walter, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971).
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, Apocalyptic Prophecy o f the Early Church, in Edgar
Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, vol. 2: Writings
Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1965) 684-89.
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, Coptic Texts of Bartholomew, in Edgar Hennecke, New
Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 503-08.
Schniedewind, William M., Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew, in Diggers at the
Well: Proceedings o f a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew o f the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde (STDJ 36; Leiden:
Brill, 2000) 245-55.
Schniedewind, William M., Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage, JBL 118 (1999) 23552.
Sc}i~ r C --shom G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition
(2nd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1965).
Scholem, Gershom G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd ed.; New York: Schocken,
1954).
Scholem, Gershom, The Name o f God and the Linguistic Theory o f the Kabbala,
Diogenes 19 (1972) 59-80; 80 (1972) 164-94.
SchOllgen, Georg, Der Niedergang des Prophetentums in der Alten Kirche, in Prophetie
und Charisma, eds. Ingo Baldermann et al (JBTh 14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1999) 97-116.
Schrenk, Gottlob, and Gottfried Quell, nornip, iraTpdoos, T ra rp ia , a ira T co p ,
TraTpiKOs, in TDNT 5.945-1022.
362
Schubert, Kurt, Jewish Pictorial Traditions in Early Christian Art, in Heinz

Schreckenberg and Kurt Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and
Medieval Christianity (CRINT 3/2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992) 139-260.
Schurer, Emil, Geschichte desjiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (4th ed.; 3 vols.;
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909).
Schurer, Emil, The History o f the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (175 B. C.A.D. 135), eds. Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (rev. ed.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1973-87).
Schwabe, Moshe, and Baruch Lifshitz, Beth She(arim, vol. 2: The Greek Inscriptions
(New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1974).
Schwartz, Seth, Gamaliel in Aphrodites Bath: Palestinian Judaism and Urban Culture in
the Third and Fourth Centuries, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture
I, ed. Peter Schafer (TSAJ 71; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 203-17.
Schwartz, Seth, Historiography on the Jews in the Talmudic Period (70 - 640 CE), in
The Oxford Handbook o f Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman (Oxford: Oxford
Schwartz, Seth, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B. C.E. to 640 C.E. (Jews,
Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modem World; Princeton: Princeton
Schwartz, Seth, Josephus and Judean Politics (Columbia Studies in Classical Tradition
18; Leiden: Brill, 1990).
Schwartz, Seth, Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine, Past & Present 148
(1995)3-47.
Schwartz, Seth, Rabbinization in the Sixth Century, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and
Graeco-Roman Culture III, ed. Peter Schafer (TSAJ 93; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998)
55-69.
Schwemer, Anna Maria, Gott als Konig und seine Konigsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedem
aus Qumran, in Kdnigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum,
Urchristentum und in der hellenistischen Welt, eds. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria
Schwemer (WUNT 55; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991) 45-118.
Scott, Alan, Origen and the Life o f the Stars: A History o f an Idea (Oxford Early
Christian Studies; Oxford: Clarendon, 1991).
363
Scott, James M., Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background o f
Pauls Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination o f Galatians
(WUNT 84; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995).
Sed, Nicolas, Les traditions secretes et ies disciples de Rabban Yofaanan ben Zakkai,
RHR 184 (1973) 49-66.
Segal, Alan F., Rebeccas Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).
Segal, M. H., A Grammar ofMishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927).
Segal, M. H., Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic,
JQR2Q (1908-9)647-737.
Segert, Stanislav, Hebrew Essenes-Aramaic Christians, in Mogilany 1995: Papers on
the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory o f Aleksy Klawek, ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera
(Krakow: Enigma, 1998) 169-84.
Segert, Stanislav, Observations on Poetic Structures in the Songs o f the Sabbath
Sacrifice, RevQ 13 (1988) 215-23.
Segert, Stanislav, Die Sprachenffagen in der Qumrangemeinschaft, in QumranProbleme: Vortrage des Leipziger Symposions iiber Qumran-Probleme vom 9. bis 14.
Oktober 1961, ed. Hans Bardtke (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 42;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963) 315-39.
Segert, Stanislav, Zur Verbreitung des Aramaischen in Palastina zur Zeit Jesu, Archiv
Orientalni 25 (1957) 21-37.
Sevenster, J. N., Do You Know Greek?: How Much Greek Could the First Jewish
Christians Have Known? (NovTSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1968).
Shams al-DIn Ah.mad-e AflakS-ye (A refi, The Feats o f the Knowers o f God, trans. John
OKane (Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 43; Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Shaw, Gregory, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism oflamblichus (University Park,
PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995).
Sheres, Ita, and Anne Kohn Blau, The Truth about the Virgin: Sex and Ritual in the Dead
Sea Scrolls (New York: Continuum, 1995).
Shinan, Avigdor, The Angelology o f the Palestinian Targums on the Pentateuch,
Sefarad 43 (1983) 181-98.
364
Shinan, Avigdor, The Embroidered Targum (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992).
Shinan, Avigdor, The Form and Content of the Aggadah in the Palestinian Targumim
on the Pentateuch and its Place within Rabbinic Literature, Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew
University, 1977, p. iv).
Shinan, Avigdor, Language of the Temple in the Aramaic Targums to the Torah, Beth
Mikra 21 (1975-76) 472-74 (Hebrew).
Sigountos, James G., The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13, NTS 40 (1994) 246-60.
Siker, Jeffrey S., Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991).
Simon, Marcel, La Bible dans les premieres controverses entre Juifs et Chretiens, in
Bible de Tous les Temps, vol. 1: Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. Claude Mondesert
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1984) 107-25.
Simon, Marcel, Remarques sur l Angelolatrie Juive au Debut de lEre Chretienne,
CRA1BL (1971) 120-34.
Simonetti, Manlio, Note sulla cristologia dellAscensione di Isa ia f in Isaia, 11 Diletto e
la Chiesa: Visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva nell Ascensione di Isaia.- Atti
del Convegno di Roma, 9-10 aprile 1981, ed. Mauro Pesce (Testi e ricerche di Scienze
religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia, 1983) 185-209.
Smit, J. F. M., Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3: A Rhetorical Solution, NTS
39 (1993) 246-64.
Smith, Jonathan Z., Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History o f Religions (SJLA 23;
Smith, Mark S., The Early History o f God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient
Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).
Smith, M., Aramaic Studies and the Study o f the New Testament, JBR 26 (1958) 30413.
Smith, Morton, Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QM3, in Archaeology and
History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory o f
Yigael Yadin, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffinan (JSPSup 8/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1990) 181-99.
Smith, Morton, The Case o f the Gilded Staircase: Did the Dead Sea Scroll Sect Worship
the Sun? BAR (Sept/Oct 1984) 50-55.
365
Smith, Morton, Helios in Palestine, E l 16 (1982) 199-214.

Sonne, Isaiah, A Hymn Against Heretics in the Newly Discovered Scrolls, HUCA 23
(1950-51)275-313.
Soury, Guy, La Demonologie de Plutarque: Essai sur les Idees Religieuses et les Mythes
d un Platonicien Eclectique (Collection dEtudes Anciennes; Paris: Societe dEdition
Les Belles Lettres, 1942).
Sperber, Daniel, Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near
Eastern Languages and Culture; Tel Aviv: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1994).
Sperber, Daniel, Some Rabbinic Themes in Magical Papyri, J S J 16 (1985) 93-103.
Speyer, W., Gurtel, RAC 12 (1983) 1232-66.
Speyer, W., in Nachtrage zum Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum (RAC): Barbar,
JbAC 10 (1967) 251-59.
Spicq, Ceslaus, Agape in the New Testament, vol. 2: Agape in the Epistles o f St. Paul, the
Acts ofthe Apostles and the Epistles o f St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude (St. Louis: Herder,
1965).
Spinks, Bryan D., The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer (Cambridge: Cambridge
Spittler, Russell (trans.), Testament o f Job, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.
James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 1.829-68.
Spolsky, Bernard, Jewish Multilingualism in the First Century: An Essay in Historical
Sociolinguistics, in Readings in the Sociology o f Jewish Languages, ed. Joshua A.
Fishman (Contributions to the Sociology o f Jewish Languages 1; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 3550.
Stahli, Hans-Peter, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (OBO 66;
Freiburg: Universitatsverlag, 1985).
Standhartinger, Angela, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein

Beitrag anhand von Joseph undAseneth (AGAJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995).
Standhartinger, Angela, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und Intention des
Kolosserbriefs (NovTSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 1999).
R eprod u ced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
366
Stannard, Jerry, Botany, in Dictionary o f the Middle Ages (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1982) 2:344-49.
Steindorff, Georg, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und
Bruchstiicke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (TU 2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1899).
Stem, Sacha, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings (AGAJU 23; Leiden: Brill,
1994).
Stevenson, Gregory M., Conceptual Background to Golden Crown Imagery in the
Apocalypse o f John (4:4, 10; 14:14), JBL 114(1995) 257-72.
Stone, M. E., Questions of Ezra, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H.
Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 1.591-99.
Stone, Michael, A Reconsideration of Apocalyptic Visions, HTR 96 (2003) 167-80.
Stone, Michael E., and Esther Eshel, 4QExposition on the Patriarchs, in Qumran Cave
4, vol. 14: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, eds. Magen Broshi et al (DJD 19; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1995) 215-30).
Stone, Michael E., and Esther Eshel, An Exposition on the Patriarchs (4Q464) and Two
Other Documents (4Q464a and 4Q464b), Le Museon 105 (1992) 243-64.
Stone, Michael E., and Esther Eshel, The Holy Tongue in the Last Days in the Light o f a
Fragment from Qumran, Tarbiz 62 (1992-93) 169-77 (Hebrew).
Strack, H. L., and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992).
Strobel, AugusVDas heilige Land der Montanisten: Eine religionsgeographische
Untersuchung (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 37; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1980).
Strothmann, Werner, Johannes von Apamea (Patristische Texte und Studien 11; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1972).
Stroumsa, Gedaliahu [= Guy] G., Le Couple de lAnge et de lEsprit: Traditions Juives
et Chretiennes, RevBib 88 (1981) 42-61.
Stroumsa, Guy G., Barbarian Philosophy: The Religious Revolution o f Early Christianity
(WUNT 112; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999).
Stroumsa, Guy G., Early Christianity-A Religion o f the Book?, in Homer, the Bible,
and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, eds. Margalit
367
Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 2; Leiden:
Brill, 2003) 153-73.
Strugnell, John, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran-4Q Serek Sirot Olat Hassabat, in
Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 318-45.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Angel Veneration and Christology (WUNT 2/70; Tubingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 1995).
Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Worship and Monotheism in the Ascension o f Isaiah, in The
Jewish Roots o f Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on
the Historical Origins o f the Worship o f Jesus, eds. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila,
and Gladys S. Lewis (JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 70-89.
Stuckrad, Kocku von, Jewish and Christian Astrology in Late Antiquity-A New
Approach, Numen 47 (2000) 1-40.
Sullivan, Kevin P., Wrestling with Angels: A Study o f the Relationship between Angels
and Humans in Ancient Jewish Literature and the New Testament (AGAJU 55; Leiden:
Brill, 2004).
Sundberg, Albert C., Jr., The Septuagint: The Bible o f Hellenistic Judaism, in The
Canon Debate, eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody: Hendrickson,
2002) 69-90.
Sussmann, Yaakov [= J.], An Halakhic Inscription from the Beisan Valley, Tarbiz 43
(1974) 88-158; 44 (1975) 193-95 (Hebrew).
Sussmann, Yaakov [= J.], The Inscription in the Synagogue at Reh.ob, m Ancient
Synagogues Revealed, ed. Lee I. Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981)
146-51.
Swartz, Michael D., Like the Ministering Angels: Ritual and Purity in Early Jewish
Mysticism and Magic, AJS Review 19 (1994) 135-67.
Swartz, Michael D., Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
Swiggers, Pierre, Babel and the Confusion o f Tongues (Genesis 11:1-9), in Mythos im
Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt: Festschriftfur Hans-Peter Muller zum 65.
Geburtstag, eds. Arinin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Rdmheld (BZAW
278; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999) 182-95.
368
Szabo, Andor, Die Engelvorstellungen vom Aiten Testament bis zur Gnosis, in Altes
Testam ent-Fruhjudentum -G nosis: Neue Studien zu Gnosis undBibel", ed. KarlWolfgang Troger (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980) 143-52.
Tabbemee, William, Montanisi Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources
Illustrating the History ofMontanism (NAPS Patristic Monograph Series 16; Macon:
Mercer University Press, 1997).
Tal, Abraham, Is There a Raison dEtre for an Aramaic Targum in a Hebrew-Speaking
Society? R E J 160 (2001) 357-78.
Tantlevskij, Igor R., Elements o f Mysticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Thanksgiving
Hymns, War Scroll, Text o f Two Columns) and their Parallels and Possible Sources,
Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997) 193-213.
Tam, W. W., The Greeks in Bactria and India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1951).
Taylor, G., YHWH and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence fo r Sun Worship
in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 118; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Taylor, Joan E., The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).
Taylor, Joan E., The Phenomenon o f Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly
Invention? VigChrAA (1990) 313-34.
Tcherikover, Victor, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1959).
Teeple, Howard M., The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet (SBLMS 10; Philadelphia:
Society o f Biblical Literature, 1957).
Teicher, J. L., The Dead Sea Scrolls-Documents o f the Jewish-Christian Sect o f
Ebionites, JJS 2 (1951) 67-99.
Teicher, J. L, The Teaching of the Pre-Pauline Church in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in, JJS
4 (1953) 1-13.
Theissen, Gerd, Psychological Aspects o f Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1983).
Thiselton, A. C., The Interpretation o f Tongues: A New Suggestion in the Light of
Greek Usage in Philo and Josephus, JTS 30 (1979) 15-36.
369
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman, Language Contact, Creolization, and
Genetic Linguisitcs (Berkeley; University of California Press, 1988).
Tiede, David Lenz, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS 1; Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1972).
Tiede, David Lenz, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1980).
Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., Prophets o f Old and the Day o f the End: Zechariah, the Book o f
Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996).
Titus, Eric L., Did Paul Write I Corinthians 13? JBR 27 (1959) 299-302.
Tomson, Peter J., Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Community Discourse, Semeia
86 (1999) 193-211.
Tomson, Peter J., Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters o f the Apostle to the
Gentiles (CRINT 3/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990).
Toijeson, Karen Jo, The Early Christian Orans: An Artistic Representation o f Womens
Liturgical Prayer and Prophecy, in Women Preachers and Prophets through Two
Millennia o f Christianity, eds. Beverly Mayne Kienzle and Pamela J. Walker (Berkeley:
University o f California Press, 1998) 42-56.
Tov, Emanuel, The Corpus of the Qumran Papyri, in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A
Climate o f Creativity. Papers from a New York University Conference Marking the
Retirement o f Baruch A. Levine, ed. Lawrence H. Schiffinan (Culture & History o f the
Ancient Near East 14; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 85-103.
Tov, Emanuel, The Nature o f the Greek Texts from the Judean Desert, NovT (2001) 1-
Tov, Emanuel, The Orthography and Language of the Hebrew Scrolls Found at Qumran
and the Origins o f These Scrolls, Textus 19 (1986) 31-57.
Tov, Emanuel, A Qumran Origin for the Masada Non-Biblical Texts?, DSD 1 (2000)
57-73.
Trachtenberg, Joshua, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (New
York: Behrman, 1939).
Trevett, Christine, Angelic Visitations and Speech She Had: Nanas ofKotiaeion, in
Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, eds. Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer, and
Lawrence Cross, vol. 2 (Brisbane: Centre for Early Christian Studies, 1999) 259-77.
370
Trevett, Christine, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge:
Trigg, Joseph W., The Angel of the Great Counsel: Christ and the Angelic Hierarchy in
Origens Theology, JTS 42 (1991) 35-51.
Trocme, Etienne, Le Prophetisme chez les Premiers Chretiens, in Oracles et Propheties
dans VAntiquite: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 Juin 1995, ed. Jean-Georges
Heintz (Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece Antiques 15;
Paris: de Boccard, 1997) 259-70.
Tromp, Johannes, The Assumption o f Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP
10; Leiden: Brill, 1993).
Tuinstra, E. W., Hermeneutische Aspecten van de Targum van Job uit Grot XI van
Qumran (Th.D, dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, 1970).
Turdeanu, Emile, Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains de IAncien Testament (SVTP 5;
Turner, Max, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and
Today (rev. ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998).
Turner, Max, Tongues: An Experience for All in the Pauline Churches?, Asian Journal
o f Pentecostal Studies 1 (1998) 231-53.
Tyloch, Witold, Quelques Remarques sur la Provenance Essenienne du Livre des
Jubiles, RevQ 13 (1988) 347-52.
Ulfgard, Hakan, The Story ofSukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel o f the Biblical
Feast o f Tabernacles (BGBE 34; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998).
Ulrich, Eugene, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins o f the Bible (Studies in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Urman, Dan, Jewish Inscriptions fromDabbura in the Golan, IEJ22 (1972) 16-23.
van den Broek, Roelof, The Myth o f the Phoenix: According to Classical and Early
Christian Traditions (EPROER 24; Leiden: Brill, 1972).
van der Horst, Pieter W., Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey o f a
Millennium o f Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE - 700CE) (CBET 2; Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1991).
371
van der Horst, Pieter W., Images o f Women in the Testament o f Job, in Studies on the
Testament o f Job, eds. Michael A. Knibb and Pieter W. van der Horst (SNTSMS 66;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 93-116.
van der Horst, Pieter W., Japheth in the Tents ofShem; Studies on Jewish Hellenism in
Antiquity (CBET 32; Leuven: Peeters, 2002).
van der Kooij, Arie, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitragzur
Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO 35; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag Freiburg,
1981).
van der Ploeg, J. P. M., A. S. van der Woude, and B. Jongeling, eds., Le Targum de Job
de la Grotte 11 de Qumran (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen;
van der Woude, Adam S., Fifty Years of Qumran Research, in The Dead Sea Scrolls
Vanderkam (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998-99) 1-45.
van der Woude, Adam S., Fragmente einer Rolle der Lieder fur das Sabbatopfer aus
Hohle XI von Qumran (1 lQSirSabb), in Von Kanaan bis Kerala, eds. W. C. Delsman et
al. (AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982) 311-37.
van Henten, Jan Willem, Archangel, in Dictionary o f Deities and Demons in the Bible,
eds. Karel van der Toom, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1995)
cols. 150-53.
VanderKam, James C., The Book o f Jubilees (CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
VanderKam, James C., Greek at Qumran, in Hellenism in the Land o f Israel, eds. John
J. Collins (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 13; Notre Dame: University o f Notre
Dame Press, 2001) 175-81.
VanderKam, James C., The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4, in in The Madrid
Qumran Congress: Proceedings o f the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Madrid 18-21 March, 1991, eds. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (2 vols.;
STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 2.635-48.
VanderKam, James C., Textual and Historical Studies in the Book o f Jubilees (HSM 14;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977).
VanderKam, J., and J. T. Milik, 4QpseudoJubilees3, in Qumran Cave 4, vol. 8:
Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, eds. Harold Abridge et al (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995)
141-56.
372
Vermes, Geza, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Alien Lane,
1997).
Vermes, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd ed.; SPB 4;
Vistozky, Burton L., The Conversation of Palm Trees, in Tracing the Threads: Studies
in the Vitality o f Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta:
Visotzky, Burton, Golden Bells and Pomegranates: Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah
(TSAJ 94; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2003).
Visotzky, Burton, Rabbinic Randglossen to the Cologne Mani Codex, ZPE 52 (1983)
295-300.
Volz, Paul, Die Eschatologie der judischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter
nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur (2nd ed.;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1934).
Wacholder, Ben Zion, The Date of the Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, HUCA 39 (1968)
117-44.
Wacholder, Ben Zion, Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus TorahCommandment, in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings o f the Second Meeting o f
the International Organization fo r Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, Published in
Honour o f Joseph M. Baumgarten, eds. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino Garcia Martinez,
and John Kampen (STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 195-211.
Wallis Budge, E. A., Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect o f Upper Egypt (Oxford: Horace
Hart, 1913) 1-48.
Warren, David Harold, The Text o f the Apostle in the Second Century: A Contribution
to the History of Its Reception (Ph.D. dissertation; Cambridge: Harvard University,
2001 ).
Watson, Francis, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997).
Wechter, Pinchas, Ibn B a rm s Arabic Works on Hebrew Grammar and Lexicography
(Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, 1964).
Weinfeld, Moshe, The Angelic Song Over the Luminaries in the Qumran Texts, in
Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows o f
373
the Institute fo r Advanced Studies o f the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990, eds.
Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffinan (STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 131-57.
Weitzman, Steven, Why Did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?, JAOS 119
(1999) 35-45.
Werner, Eric, The Doxology in Synagogue and Church: A Liturgico-Musical Study,
HUCA 19 (1945-46) 275-351.
Werner, Eric, The Genesis o f the Liturgical Sanctus, in Essays Presented to Egon
Wellesz, ed. Jack Westrup (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 19-32.
Werner, Eric, The Sacred Bridge: The Interdependence o f Liturgy and Music in
Synagogue and Church during the First Millennium (London: Dennis Dobson, 1959).
Westermann, Claus, Elements o f Old Testament Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982).
White, L. Michael, Building God's House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation
among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (ASOR Library o f Biblical and Near Eastern
Archaeology; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990).
Wick, Peter, There was Silence in Heaven (Revelation 8:1): An Annotation to Israel
Knohls Between Voice and Silencef JBL 117 (1998) 512-14.
Wilcox, Max, Silence in Heaven (Rev 8:1) and Early Jewish Thought, in Mogilany
1989: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory o f Jean Carmignac, vol. 2, ed.
Zdzislaw J. Kapera (Krakow: Enigma, 1991) 241-44.
Williams, Michael A., Rethinking Gnosticism : An Argumentfo r Dismantling a
Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
Wills, Lawrence M., The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1995).
Wingren, Gustaf, Creation and Gospel: The New Situation in European Theology
(Toronto Studies in Theology, 2; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1989).
Wink, Walter, Naming the Powers: The Language o f Power in the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
Winston, David, Aspects ofPhilos Linguistic Theory, in Heirs o f the Septuagint:
Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity: Festschriftfo r Earle Hilgert (= Studia
Philonica Annual 3), ed. David T. Runia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 109-25.
374
Wintermute, O. S. (trans.), Apocalypse o f Zephaniah, in Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY; Doubleday,
1983-85) 1.497-515.
Wintermute, O. S. (trans.), Jubilees, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H.
Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-85) 2.35-142.
Wiora, Walter, Jubilare sine Verbis, in In Memoriam jacques Handschin, eds. H.
Angles et al (Argentorati: P. H. Heitz, 1962) 39-65.
Wischmeyer, Oda, Der hochste Weg: Das 13. Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (Studien
zum Neuen Testament 13; Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981).
Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation (San Francisco: Harper, 1996).
Wolfson, Harry, Repercussions o f the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard
Wolters, Al, The Copper Scroll and the Vocabulary ofMishnaic Hebrew, RevQ 14
(1990) 483-95.
Worrell, William H., A Coptic Wizards Hoard, American Journal o f Semitic
Languages and Literatures 46 (1929-30) 239-62.
Wright, Wilmer Cave, The Works o f Julian the Apostate (3 vols.; London: Heinemann,
1913).
Yadin, Yigael, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery o f the Legendary Hero o f the Last Jewish
Revolt against Imperial Rome (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971).
Yahalom, Joseph, Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use o f Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic in Late Antiquity, JJS Al (1996) 33-44.
Yahalom, J., iiPiyyut as Poetry, in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine
(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 1987) 111-26.
Yardeni, Ada, Appendix: Documentary Texts Alleged to be from Qumran Cave 4, in
Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites:
With an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts (The Seiyal Collection II), eds.
Hannah M. Cotton and Ada Yardeni (DJD 27; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997) 283-317.
York, Anthony D., The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School, JSJ10 (1979) 7486 .
375
Youtie, Herbert C., Response (to Jonas C. Greenfield), in Jewish Languages: Theme
and Variations: Proceedings o f Regional Conferences o f the Association for Jewish
Studies Held at the University o f Michigan and New York University in March-April
1975, ed. Herbert H. Paper (Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1978) 15557.
Zaharopoulos, Dimitri Z., Theodore ofMopsuestia on the Bible: A Study o f his Old
Testament Exegesis (New York: Paulist, 1989).
Zimmermann, Johannes, Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Konigliche, priesterliche und
prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftjunden von Qumran (WUNT 2/104;
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998) 285-310.

The Tongues of Angels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tongues of Angels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

THE TONGUES OF ANGELS:

John Christopher Poirier

Submitted in partial fulfillment

The Graduate School

UMI Number: 3178985

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

THE JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE TONGUES OF ANGELS:

JOHN CHRISTOPHER POIRIER

The concept o f angelic languages appears in a number o f Jewish and Christian

Chapter One: Introduction

A. Purpose and Organization of this Study

B. The Pseudepigraphic Evidence: Methodological Preface

C. Rabbinic Writings as Historiography: Methodological Preface

Chapter Two: Hebrew as the Language of the Angels

A. Jubilees (and 4Q464)

B. R. Yochanans Dictum: The Ministering Angels do not Understand

C. Christian Writings: The Apocalypse o f Paul and the Coptic Wizards

Chapter Three: The Esoteric Heavenly Language: Fairly Certain Cases

B. New Testament Continued (2 Cor 12:1-7)

C. The Testament o f Job

D. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah

E. The Ascension o f Isaiah

F. The Apocalypse of Abraham

G. The Rabbinic Evidence (Gen. Rab. 74.7)

H. Ephrem Syrus, Hymn 11

I. The Book o f the Resurrection (attributed to Bartholomew the Apostle)

A. The Qumran Songs o f the Sabbath Sacrifice

B. The Rabbinic Evidence Continued (b. b. Bat. 134a || b.Suk. 28a)

C. The Nanas Inscription

D. The Liturgical Jubilatio

Chapter Five: The Sociological and Ideological Foundations o f Hebrew-Speaking

A. The Linguistic Situation o f Jewish Palestine

B. The Hebraic Setting o f Rabbinic Piety

C. The Proscription of Extra-Synagogal Prayer

D. The Direct Empowerment o f the Hebraeophone Literati

Chapter Six: Angeloglossy and the Linguistic Ideology o f Early Christianity

A. The Antiquity o f Greek-Speaking Christianity

B. Language and the Missionary Impulse: Christianity as a Translation

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

Appendix One: The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine

A. The Palmgeister in T.-S. K 1.56 and 1.147

B. Palm Trees as Neoplatonist Representatives o f Heliotropes

1 See Concepcion Gonzalo Rubio, La Angelologia en la Literatura Rabinica y Sefardi

2 Whether the mental-communication understanding (represented much later by Thomas

5 For a recent persuasive argument that a Jewish-sounding writing is actually Christian in

His overcompensation for

15 The move away from biography is traced in Anthony J. Saldarini, Reconstructions of

A. JUBILEES (AND 4Q464)

Although Wacholders suggestion seems to exaggerate the amount o f sectarian

Place du Livre des Jubiles et du Rouleau du Temple dans lHistoire du Mouvement

m m m jitub bm nbsm ban ^mn

'bvvb nybx x n n n ro ]?bix mn b rrn -n in nm im

m mu by ins^r yn mxw nbin ^e?rmejtnD

by ins?x 'n -owe? nbinn

conspicuously by an intrusive lot of angels and demons, and it conflicted (Ginzberg

Solomon Freehof, noting the widespread existence of Aramaic prayers from

39 Devotional Literature in the Vernacular, CCAR Yearbook 33 (1923) 375-424, esp.

42 The Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 315.

ausgesprochen und in scharfe Antithese gesetzt zu dem zuerst vom Jubilaenbuch

48 The Language o f Creation or the Primordial Language, 308.

cram nup nm o^dect nnpabi ptn by ant Dmbt* **na nm nvn p b

rnpn now rrn pa jirnnn am* an na r m n 1 an nai... irm i b