RBL 11/2012 Henze, Matthias, ed. A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Pp. xvi + 568. Paper. $50.00. ISBN 9780802803887. Lester L. Grabbe University of Hull Hull, United Kingdom Encyclopedic entries and monographs on various aspects of biblical interpretation seem to have multiplied exponentially in recent years, but this Companion appears to be the first attempt to cover the various modes of biblical interpretation in ancient Judaism in a single handbook, filling a significant gap. The book is divided into eight parts covering the various sorts of literature (OT, rewritten Bible, apocalyptic literature and testaments, wisdom literature, etc.) and the types of interpretation associated with them; six parts have multiple chapters. Part 1, Introduction, has a single essay: the purpose of this introductory essay by James L. Kugel ( The Beginnings of Biblical Interpretation ) eludes me. He makes some miscellaneous points, some with which I agree and some not (where is the evidence that Persian imperial policy was a strong factor in the final editing of the text [7 n. 6]?), yet the structure of the chapter is unclear, as well as its essential aim. Part 2, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, has the following chapters. Yair Zakovitch ( Inner-biblical Interpretation ) has a helpful discussion of other canons than the Jewish/Protestant one and also the fluid state of the text until quite late. He suggests that most of the modes of interpretation found in postbiblical literature can be found in
the Bible itself. A problem not adequately addressed is when various sections of the Hebrew Bible are to be dated (for example, are the poems from the Song of Songs really from the First Temple period? [59 60], and is Malachi later than the Genesis story of Esau [31]?) and thus when this inner-biblical interpretation is taking place. Martin Rösel ( Translators as Interpreters: Scriptural Interpretation in the Septuagint ) gives many examples. He feels that the paradigm of interlinearity (the idea that the Greek text was meant to be used to understand the Hebrew) poses more questions than answers. The reasons he gives are logical, but I suspect the debate is not yet over. A number of good points about translation and its pitfalls are made. However, I am not convinced that it was the translator who demythologized the flood story or created the chronology in the genealogies of Gen 5 and 11. Edward M. Cook ( The Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in the Targums ) rightly discusses the origins of the targums and (briefly) the different extant targums. The targums often give a literal translation of the Hebrew text, but beyond this there are a number of characteristic points of interpretation throughout the text: resolving figurative speech (by turning metaphors into nonmetaphorical expressions), transforming anthropomorphisms, clarifying obscure words, adding detail to clarify the text, harmonization (to avoid contradiction), avoidance of disrespect, updating the geography, bringing biblical texts in line with rabbinic halakah, and (infrequently) indicating that the text (especially prophetic texts) refers to contemporary events. He makes some cogent remarks about the theological significance of memra ( word ) in statements by or about God, namely, that it had none beyond serving to soften anthropomorphisms. In part 3, Rewritten Bible, Jacques van Ruiten ( Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees: The Case of the Early Abram [Jub. 11:14-12:15] ) argues that the author of Jubilees worked on the principle of omitting the parts of the original text regarded as redundant and adding to and rearranging the text when this was assumed to be necessary: he was a careful reader of Genesis, and tried to reproduce the story of Genesis as faithfully as possible, though without the tensions and inconsistencies that are in the biblical story (153). Of course, this includes introducing into the story other elements known by the author from other sources (or perhaps deduced by him from the biblical text). These conclusions are demonstrated by a close analysis of 11:14 12:15 in comparison with the Genesis text. Moshe J. Bernstein ( The Genesis Apocryphon: Compositional and Interpretive Perspectives ) begins by summarizing recent scholarship on the Genesis Apocryphon, since so little of the text could be read when it was first discovered. The Apocryphon is not rewritten Bible in the same sense as Jubilees or Pseudo- Philo. It is not primarily a translation, and there is much new material added, often as a way of explaining and harmonizing the text. But, also, the ancient reader may not have been able to compare it with the text of Genesis, and many were not reading a text but
hearing a good story. Howard Jacobson ( Biblical Interpretation in Pseudo-Philo s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ) notes that the text of Pseudo-Philo tends to be brief where the biblical text is expansive but more detailed where the original text is terse. The author s knowledge of the biblical text is profound, and new passages are created by bringing in material from elsewhere or integrating and conflating widely different passages. Sometimes the description of an individual is expanded by drawing on other biblical passages. The general aim is to fill gaps, but sometimes the effect is to enhance an individual who is not so significant in the present text. There is a general tendency to clear up difficulties and ambiguities but also to embellish, whether for theological or dramatic purposes. This includes reading backwards : taking a statement later in the narrative that implies an unstated event and filling out the narrative by creating the event at the appropriate place. The chapter ends with a brief survey of recent scholarship on Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Part 4, Qumran Literature, opens with Shani Tzoref ( The Use of Scripture in the Community Rule ) looking at 1QS (and some related manuscripts). A number of quotations are introduced explicitly with introductory formulae. We also find verbal allusion, idioms (biblical expressions not used in only one particular text), and implicit exegetical paraphrase (in which a biblical passage is being drawn on but without introductory formula or lexical distinctiveness). She concludes that 1QS shows not only evidence of biblical citations but also the influence of exegetical traditions (often those also known from CD). Deuteronomy is the main source for biblical allusions. Use of explicit lexical items from the biblical text is the easiest way to identify reference to passages, but biblical influence is clearly evident in some other instances. She seems somewhat skeptical of Sarianna Metso s argument that scriptural prooftexts were later additions to 1QS. George J. Brooke ( Prophetic Interpretation in the Pesharim ) makes the important point that prophecy had not ceased for the Qumran community. Prophetic (inspired) interpretation can be found in the paratextual rewritten prophets, such as the Jeremiah Apocrypha and Pseudo-Ezekiel (which are mainly pre-qumran). It constitutes an extension of the prophetic activity of the original prophets: this interpretation is prophetically continuous with the texts being interpreted. The same applies to the running commentaries on specific passages found in the pesharim (which are mainly sectarian). They do not intend to replace the original prophetic texts but to renew them for the present. The contents of the original text are interpreted atomistically in light of the current experiences of the community. Sarah J. Tanzer ( Biblical Interpretation in the Hodayot ) focuses on giving a historical survey of the Hodayot s interpretation. The Hodayot are now seen to be a diverse collection (not just Hymns of the Teacher and Hymns of the Community ), though some hymns do seem to represent the current leader of the community. Neither do they quote explicitly very
much. Although fused with biblical language, they tend to have significant differences from the biblical psalms; their biblical language may be only the regular language of the community. In part 5, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, Matthias Henze ( The Use of Scripture in the Book of Daniel ) makes the point of how much of the worldview and language of apocalypses are rooted in Israel s past. The book of Daniel draws a great deal on other parts of the Hebrew Bible (obvious in Dan 9 but not just here); it even interprets itself (such as chapter 7, which makes use of the four-kingdom scheme of chapter 2) by means of Fortschreibung (successive development of the text). He disagrees with Michael Fishbane s characterization of Daniel as mantological exegesis, especially objecting to the view that the older prophecies had become obscure to the apocalyptic writers. Rather, they understood the earlier passages but saw a connection between those passages and their current situation. Finally, the importance of the largely oral nature of the culture needs further study. Hindy Najman ( How to Make Sense of Pseudonymous Attribution: The Cases of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch ) asks why the texts are attributed to ideal figures from the past, why specifically the traditions about Ezra and Baruch are used, and what effect it has on the literary tradition, then spends the essay answering these questions. The choice of neither Ezra nor Baruch is obvious, but when each of the books culminates in keeping the law, the reason for using these individuals becomes much clearer. Both are scribal figures but also act as prophetic figures, with overtones of Moses. The authors of the texts become the figures by emulating them. In doing so, they do not take on their identities but keep their own; however, by imitating Ezra and Baruch (and Moses, etc., by extension) they transform them and make the tradition meaningful to their contemporary communities. Pseudonymous attributes are thus a form of biblical interpretation. Robert Kugler ( The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Not-So-Ambiguous Witness to Early Jewish Interpretive Practices ) summarizes a good deal of scholarship on the Testaments. Regardless of their relation to Jewish and Christian traditions, they exhibit a considerable amount of biblical interpretation, drawing on the twofold commandment of the Torah (love God and fellow humans) and the activities of the Christian Savior figure, but also virtue-vice and philosophical ethical models of Greco-Roman culture. Each Testament has an eschatological section, primarily based on either the sin-exile-return pattern or the Levi-Judah (priesthood and Davidic messiah) traditions of the Hebrew Bible. The main interpretative strategy is seen as invoking key biblical figures (mainly the patriarchs but also others) to make fresh claims regarding the nature of being human in relationship with Israel s God (355). Part 6, Wisdom Literature, begins with Benjamin G. Wright III ( Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira ) pointing out the difficulty of discussing biblical quotation and interpretation in Ben Sira because of the problematic state of the text. With Ben Sira it
was more appropriation of the earlier tradition than interpretation. In spite of some arguments, it is unlikely that there was a fixed canon or text in his time. The Torah was authoritative for him and a source for wisdom, but not the only one. The problem is that Ben Sira has almost no explicit quotations, and it often cannot be determined whether he is referring to the text or only to an episode known through tradition. For example, even though he clearly draws on some form of Gen 1 2 in Sir 17:1 12, he treats several features rather differently. In Ben Sira we find a sage who has confidence in his access to wisdom and in the authoritative status and lasting legacy of his instruction (386). Peter Enns ( Pseudo-Solomon and his Scripture: Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom of Solomon ) declares that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon draws on an interpreted Bible. He wants to make scripture speak to the situation in which his readers found themselves. He therefore points his readers to wisdom to follow as a guide, but for him wisdom is embodied in the Torah. The heroes of Israelite history are models of virtue who are dehistoricized to make them contemporary with his readers. Dividing the book into two parts at 9:18, Enns sees the influence of Isaiah and Qoheleth in the first part; the second part focuses on the exodus, of course, though many of the heroes of Genesis are also mentioned. He gives five examples of how the author engages with the Torah in Wis 10 19. Finally, he refers to only one possible dating of the book (the time of the persecutions of 38 41 C.E. in Alexandria), whereas an earlier dating is used by a number of interpreters (including myself). I find any textual reference to the Alexandrian persecutions so obscure as to be nonexistent. In part 7, Hellenistic Judaism, Gregory E. Sterling ( The Interpreter of Moses: Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Text ) gives a lot of useful introductory material on Philo (such as the arrangement and contents of his writings) and spends quite a bit of time on the question of his text. What I miss is discussion of Philo s techniques of interpretation. One important technique, the etymologizing of Hebrew names, is mentioned in passing, as is the fact that Philo engages in a form of rewritten Bible in the summaries of biblical texts in his Exposition of the Law. But many other techniques are ignored, such as his arithmologies, in which he discusses at length the significance of numbers in the text. But one especially important aspect of Philo s interpretation is not mentioned: the fact that the biblical text is not the ultimate shaper of Philo s interpretation but his Middle Platonic theological system (see especially John Dillon, The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 [London: Duckworth, 1977]). Zuleika Rodgers ( Josephus s Biblical Interpretation ) emphasizes the difficulties with knowing Josephus s sources and the form of the biblical text he used. She surveys a lot of recent scholarship without coming to many conclusions, though the possibilities and issues are well explored. But I would take exception to the statement, In the absence of conclusive evidence regarding his knowledge of a particular tradition, we cannot make assumptions about authorial
choice (445). Scholars make judgments all the time on evidence that is almost never conclusive. Thus, for example, when Josephus has a major omission (e.g., the golden calf episode), surely we are permitted to deduce something about his aims from this. Indeed, she seems to accept this later on in her essay. But the main point that Josephus thoroughly reworks and adapts his data to fit his aims is well taken. Part 8, Biblical Interpretation in Antiquity, has only one essay: Aharon Shemesh ( Biblical Exegesis and Interpretations from Qumran to the Rabbis ) has the aim of elucidating the various type of interpretations in the Qumran texts and the development from the Qumran commentaries to rabbinic literature. Although there is some inevitable overlap with George Brooke s essay (in part 4), Shemesh focuses on the halakic exegetical techniques, so that the overlap is minimal. Although the Qumran texts often present their exegetical conclusions as revelations, there are times when they expose the actual exegesis that leads to their conclusions (especially in polemical contexts). He shows how these techniques often anticipate the rabbinic methods and how the rabbinic modes are in many cases a development of what was already taking place in halakic study at Qumran. The many examples given are useful in demonstrating his point. This is a very helpful collection of essays and will serve as a needed reference work for students of this period. There is, however, one element missing from this useful vade mecum: a summary essay that draws together the various methods and techniques across the Second Temple literature. Perhaps the introductory essay by Kugel was meant to do this, but it fails to do any such thing. The editor, who would have seen all the essays, would have been in an ideal position to write such an essay; I for one am sorry that he did not undertake this task or give it to a suitably qualified person. But, overall, this is a muchneeded volume and one we can all be glad to have it in an inexpensive edition.