Richard Bauckham

7/27/2019 Richard Bauckham

1/20

7KH0RVW+LJK*RGDQGWKH1DWXUHRI(DUO\-HZLVK0RQRWKHLVP 107

1. Introduction

The nature of Jewish monotheism in the late Second Temple period hasbeen much discussed and debated in recent decades.2 Such discussionFDQQRZPDNHVLJQLFDQWSURJUHVVPDLQO\LQP\YLHZWKURXJKFDUHIXOstudy of the ways Jewish writers of the period talk about God. There isa huge amount of evidence, but little study of it. It would be extremelyuseful, for example, to have complete listings of the use of variousdivine names and titles in early Jewish literature, because only thencan we observe which were popular, which were not, in which typesor categories of literature. Then we shall be able to write the kind ofFORVHVWXGLHVRIVXFKWHUPVLQHDUO\-HZLVKOLWHUDWXUHWKDW7:277'27provides for the Hebrew Bible. The present chapter is a step in thatdirection. The table at the end of the chapter lists all the occurrences,so far as I have tracked them, of the title the Most High in early Jewishliterature. The chapter attempts to account for this titles relatively highIUHTXHQF\DVNVDERXWLWVVLJQLFDQFHDQGVHHNVWKHUHE\WRVKHGVRPHlight on the nature of early Jewish monotheism.

In order to situate the discussion, it will be helpful to begin with

some comments on the distinction between exclusive and inclusivePRQRWKHLVP7KHWHUPVDUHXVHGE\:LOOLDP+RUEXU\LQDUHFHQWVWXG\

3

7KH0RVW+LJK*RGDQGWKHNature of Early Jewish Monotheism1

1 7KLVHVVD\ZDVUVWSXEOLVKHGLQ'DYLG%&DSHV$SULO''H&RQLFN+HOHQ.%RQGDQGTroy A. Miller ed., ,VUDHOV*RGDQG5HEHFFDV&KLOGUHQ&KULVWRORJ\DQG&RPPXQLW\LQ(DUO\

-XGDLVPDQG&KULVWLDQLW\(VVD\VLQ+RQRURI/DUU\:+XUWDGRDQG$ODQ)6HJDO:DFR%D\ORUUniversity Press, 2007), 3953.

2 $PRQJUHFHQWFRQWULEXWLRQVVHHHVSHFLDOO\/RUHQ76WXFNHQEUXFNDQG:HQG\(61RUWKed., (DUO\-HZLVKDQG&KULVWLDQ0RQRWKHLVP (JSNTSup 263; London: T&T Clark [Continuum],2004).


2/20

108 Jesus and the God of Israel

of Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age.3 He statesthe argument of his paper thus:

It is argued overall that the interpretation of Judaism as a rigorousmonotheism, exclusive in the sense that the existence of other divinebeings is denied, does less than justice to the importance of mystical andmessianic tendencies in the Herodian age for these were often boundup with an inclusive monotheism, whereby the supreme deity wasenvisaged above but in association with other spirits and powers.4

The problem here is the meaning of other divine beings, a termthat Horbury apparently equates with other spirits and powers. If

it supposed that rigorous or exclusive monotheism must deny theexistence of any supernatural or heavenly beings besides God, then itis clear that such monotheism never existed until the modern period.Traditional monotheism in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditionshas always accepted the existence of vast numbers of supernaturalbeings: angels who serve and worship God, demons who oppose Godwithin an overall sovereignty of God over all. But such beings havebeen considered creatures, created by and subject to God, no more aTXDOLFDWLRQRIPRQRWKHLVPWKDQWKHH[LVWHQFHRIHDUWKO\FUHDWXUHVLV:LWKWKLVYLHZRIWKHLUQDWXUHZHFDQSURSHUO\DQGLQP\YLHZVWLOOusefully speak of rigorous or exclusive monotheism.

Misunderstanding of this point has recurrently muddied the watersof recent discussion of early Jewish monotheism.5 The key questionis how the uniqueness of the one God is understood. In inclusivemonotheism, the one God is the highest member of a class of beingsto which he6 belongs. He is unique only in the sense of superlative: heis the most powerful of the gods (and can therefore subject them to hiswill), the wisest, has his residence higher in the cosmos than all others,and so forth. He is unique in the sense of supreme. Something likethis view of God and the gods developed in antiquity out of an olderpolytheism in which the gods acted independently and competitively.

3 :LOOLDP+RUEXU\-HZLVKDQG&KULVWLDQ0RQRWKHLVPLQWKH+HURGLDQ$JHLQ(DUO\-HZLVKed. Stuckenbruck and North, 1644; cf. also idem, Messianism among Jews and Christians(London/New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 1219, where he takes issue with my arguments in*RG&UXFLHG.

4 Horbury, Jewish, 17.5 (J+D\PDQ0RQRWKHLVP0LFKDHO0DFK&RQFHSWVRI-HZLVK0RQRWKHLVPGXULQJ

the Hellenistic Period, in 7KH-HZLVK5RRWVRI&KULVWRORJLFDO0RQRWKHLVP3DSHUVIURPWKH6W$QGUHZV&RQIHUHQFHRQWKH+LVWRULFDO 2ULJLQV RIWKH:RUVKLSRI-HVXV ed. Carey C. Newman,James R. Davila and Gladys S. Lewis ( JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2142.

6 In the ancient world, such a god is always grammatically he.


3/20


,WGHYHORSHGRYHUPXFKRIWKH1HDU(DVWHUQDQGODWHUWKH+HOOHQLVWLFand Roman worlds in antiquity.7 It takes a gradient view of realitythat does not draw sharp ontological distinctions between the supremeGod and other gods, or between gods and humans.8

By contrast, exclusive monotheism understands the uniqueness ofthe one God in terms of an absolute difference in kind from all otherUHDOLW\:HFRXOGFDOOLWWUDQVFHQGHQWXQLTXHQHVV,WPHDQVWKDWWKHUHLVQRclass of beings to which God belongs and of which he can be the supremeinstance. It takes a binary view of reality.9 In my view, early Jewishliterature (with few, if any, exceptions) is strongly committed to such aview by the way it constantly understands the uniqueness of the God ofIsrael as that of the one Creator of all things and the one sovereign Ruler

of all things.10%HFDXVHWKHVHGHQLWLRQVRI*RGVXQLTXHQHVVGULYHDQabsolute difference of kind between God and all things, they overrideany older gradient features of the Israelite-Jewish worldview (suchas survive in some of the vocabulary used) and create an essentiallybinary view of reality. This does not and need not deny the existenceof many heavenly beings, but simply insists that they are created byGod and subject to the sovereign will of God. In early Judaism, thebinary distinction between God and all other reality was observed andinculcated in daily religious observance by monolatry. In a gradientworldview (such as the pagan, inclusive monotheism of antiquity),

many beings are accorded honour, each to a degree appropriate to itsUDQNLQWKHFRVPLFVFDOH(DUO\-XGDLVPWXUQHGPRQRODWU\ZKLFKKDGoriginally been a concomitant of henotheism) into a powerful symbolRIH[FOXVLYHPRQRWKHLVP:KLOHDSSURSULDWHKRQRXUPLJKWEHDFFRUGHGhigh-ranking creatures (but not in contexts where it might be mistakenfor divine worship, and so usually not to angels or to rulers who claimeddivinity), worship was different because it was acknowledgement of thetranscendent uniqueness of the God of Israel. Study of Jewish God-talkin the Second Temple period must be alert to these distinctions if it isWRDFKLHYHPRUHWKDQVXSHUFLDOXQGHUVWDQGLQJ

7 6HH0DUWLQ/:HVW 7RZDUGV0RQRWKHLVP in 3DJDQ 0RQRWKHLVP LQ /DWH $QWLTXLW\ ed.Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 2140, here 219.

8 7KLVLVQRWWRGHQ\WKDWVWHSVWRZDUGVDVWURQJHUGHQLWLRQRIWKHXQLTXHQHVVRI*RGFDQbe found in pagan monotheism, especially that of the philosophers; cf. Michael Frede,Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity, in Athanassiadi and Frede,3DJDQ

0RQRWKHLVP4167.9 I borrow the terminology gradient and binary from David H. Aaron, %LEOLFDO$PELJXLWLHV

0HWDSKRUV6HPDQWLFVDQG'LYLQH,PDJHU\(Leiden: Brill, 2001) without meaning to agree withall the uses to which he puts these terms.

10 5LFKDUG%DXFNKDP7KH7KURQHRI*RGDQGWKH:RUVKLSRI-HVXVLQ-HZLVK 5RRWV ed.Newman, Davila and Lewis, 4369, here 458.


4/20


There are several reasons why investigation of the divine title orname the Most High should be important for the nature of early-HZLVKPRQRWKHLVP ,Q WKH UVWSODFH LWZDV UHPDUNDEO\FRPPRQIn the Hebrew Bible, excluding Daniel,11 it occurs thirty-one times.12

According to my calculations, set out in the table, there are no fewerthan 284 occurrences in literature we can, with certainty or reasonableprobability, date to the period 250 bce to 150 ce.137KLVJXUHLVWKHmore impressive when we notice that the voluminous works of Philoand Josephus much the largest corpora of Jewish literature fromthis period account for only fourteen of these 284 occurrences. But,secondly, another comparison with the usage of the Hebrew Bibleis illuminating. There, with the only partial exception of Genesis

14:1822,14 the title is found exclusively in poetic passages, mostlypsalms (which account for twenty-one of the thirty-four instances).In the literature of early Judaism, on the other hand, this title occursacross all the main genres of literature that were used. Clearly the titlecame into much more general use in the later Second Temple periodthan had been the case previously. But, thirdly, this conclusion appearscorrect only with regard to Palestinian Jewish literature. Of the 284occurrences, 250 are in Palestinian Jewish literature,15 only thirty-fourin literature from the western Diaspora.16 This difference cries out forsome explanation.

11 I exclude Daniel from this count and include it in early Jewish literature simply because itso clearly belongs chronologically with the latter.

12 Gen. 14:18, 19, 20, 21; Num. 24:10; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:18(17); 9:3(2); 21:8(7); 46:5(4);47:3(2); 50:14; 57:3(2); 73:11; 77:11(10); 78:17, 35, 56; 82:6; 83:19(18); 87:5; 91:1, 9; 92:2(1); 97:9;107:11; Isa. 14:14; Lam. 3:35, 38. For conjectural emendations that, if accepted, would supplyDIHZRWKHULQVWDQFHVVHH+DQV-UJHQ=REHO]PA?, HO\{Q, TDOT 11:12139, here 1223;Baruch A. Levine, 1XPEHUV(AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 188, 1934 (Num.24:3).

13 7KH(QRFKOLWHUDWXUHFROOHFWHGLQ (QRFK accounts for only seventeen of these occurrences.There is therefore no substance at all to Margaret Barkers claim that the use in (QRFK isHYLGHQFHRIFRQWLQXLW\EHWZHHQWKH(QRFKOLWHUDWXUHDQGWKH(O\RQFXOWRIWKH)LUVW7HPSOH

(Margaret Barker, 7KH2OGHU7HVWDPHQW7KH6XUYLYDORI7KHPHVIURPWKH$QFLHQW5R\DO&XOWLQ6HFWDULDQ-XGDLVPDQG(DUO\&KULVWLDQLW\ [London: SPCK, 1987], 246). The occurrences in (QRFK are part of a much broader phenomenon.

14 (YHQKHUHWKHRWKHUXVHVDUHDQFLOODU\WRWKHWZRRFFXUUHQFHVLQWKHOLWXUJLFDOEOHVVLQJRI14:1920.

15 Major works of Palestinian Judaism that do not use it include 1 Maccabees and the Psalmsof Solomon.

16 Martin Hengel, -XGDLVP DQG +HOOHQLVP trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1974), 298,PLVOHDGLQJO\VWDWHVWKDWWKHGHVLJQDWLRQ+\SVLVWRVDSSHDUVSDUWLFXODUO\RIWHQLQWKHearly evidence from the diaspora. The evidence he cites from R. Marcus (2001, n. 265)consists of only twelve passages in Diaspora literature (the references to 6LE2U 1, 6LE2UIUJ(]HN7UDJ3K(3RHW:LV0DFF0DFFJLYHQLQP\OLVWEHVLGHVVRPHinscriptional evidence.


5/20


In addition to the pattern of usage, there are also reasons why theuse of this title in particular may throw light on the question of theQDWXUHRIWKH-HZLVKPRQRWKHLVPRIWKHSHULRG,QWKHUVWSODFHLWLVusually thought that the Hebrew term []P? (sometimes []P?PE), meaningthe Most High, designates this god the highest god, supreme overother gods.17 It is also common to associate this title with the idea of aFRXQFLORIWKHJRGVDWZKLFK(O\RQSUHVLGHV:HPLJKWWKHUHIRUHH[SHFWit, in early Judaism, to be associated with an inclusive monotheismthat envisages many divine beings among whom the one God issupreme. But then, secondly, we should notice how easily this inclusivemonotheistic sense could attach to the usual Greek translation of theterm. In the Septuagint, the divine title []P? is always translated as

~([]P?PE as ~~). This word was in widespreadnon-Jewish use to designate the supreme God. For example, Celsus,the second-century pagan critic of Christianity, says that it makes nodifference whether we call Zeus the Most High (), or Zen, or$GRQDLRU6DEDRWKRU$PRQOLNHWKH(J\SWLDQVRU3DSDHXVOLNHWKHScythians (DSXG Origen, Cels. 5.41).18 Celsus accepted a supreme God,the Most High God, known by various names to various peoples,including the Jews, but thought the Jews quite mistaken in abandoningthe worship of other gods (1.23).

,QWHUSUHWDWLRQRI'HXWHURQRP\

An important biblical text about the Most High that has played aprominent part in discussion of Jewish monotheism is Deuteronomy32:89. There are important differences between the Masoretic Hebrew,the Septuagint Greek and Hebrew texts from Qumran (4QDeutj).19 TheMT reads

:KHQWKH0RVW+LJK[]P?) apportioned the nations,

when he divided humankind (HE]RF),KH[HGWKHERXQGDULHVRIWKHSHRSOHVaccording to the number of the sons of Israel (PEVG]]RF);IRU


6/20


In place of the sons of Israel, the Qumran text has the sons of GodPE]RF20) and the LXX the angels of God (qo). The angels ofGod in the Greek is doubtless a translation of the Hebrew as attestedE\WKH4XPUDQPDQXVFULSW7KH07ORRNVOLNHDPRGLFDWLRQRIWKHtext motivated by concern for monotheism, but both forms of the textwere evidently extant in the Second Temple period.

As far as the relationship of the two divine names (Most High,


7/20


He appointed a ruler (|) for every nation,But Israel is the Lords own portion (Sir. 17:17).25

$QGKHVDQFWLHGWKHP>,VUDHO@DQGJDWKHUHGWKHPIURPDOOWKHVRQVRIman because (there are) many nations and many people, and they allbelong to him, but over all of them he caused spirits to rule so that theymight lead them astray from following him. But over Israel he did notcause any angel or spirit to rule because he alone is their ruler and he willprotect them and he will seek for them at the hand of his angels and at thehand of his spirits and at the hand of all his authorities so that he mightguard them and bless them and they might be his and he might be theirshenceforth and forever (-XE 15:3132).26

But from the sons of Isaac one would become a holy seed and he would

not be counted among the nations because he would become the portionof the Most High and all his seed would fall (by lot) to the Lord, a (special)possession from all people, and so that he might become a kingdom ofpriests and a holy people (-XE 16:1718).27

:KHQ*RGGLYLGHGDQGSDUWLWLRQHGRIIWKHQDWLRQVRIWKHVRXOVHSDUDWLQJthose of one common speech from those of another tongue, and causingthem to dwell apart; when he dispersed and put away from himself theFKLOGUHQRIHDUWKWKHQGLGKH[WKHERXQGDULHVRIWKHRIIVSULQJRIYLUWXHcorresponding to the number of the angels .. . But what are the portions ofhis angels, and what is the allotted share of the All-sovereign Ruler (N|)? The particular virtues belong to the servants,

to the Ruler the chosen race of Israel (Philo, 3RVW 9192).28

Marvel not at all, then, if the title of special portion of God the universalRuler, to whom sovereignty over all pertains (ooOrF), is bestowed upon the company of wise souls, whosevision is supremely keen ... Is not this the explanation of that utterance inthe Greater Song [Deut. 32:79]? (Philo, 3ODQW 5859).29

It is clear that all these interpretations of Deuteronomy 32:89, includingPhilos allegorical interpretations (which presuppose a literal reading),WDNHWKH0RVW+LJKDQG


8/20


over all things one of the essential elements in the early Jewishunderstanding of God.(DUO\-HZVDQGHDUO\&KULVWLDQVZHUHRIFRXUVHFDSDEOHRILQQRYDWLYH

exegesis. Given an appropriate theology, it was possible for any suchexegete to adopt a ditheistic interpretation of this text, but we have noHYLGHQFHWKDWDQ\RQHGLGVREHIRUH(XVHELXVRI&DHVDUHDLQWKHHDUO\fourth century.30 This is not a text that features in the rabbinic discussionof the two powers in heaven heresy.31

:LOOLDP+RUEXU\GRHVQRWDFFHSW%DUNHUVLGHDRID-HZLVKGLWKHLVPbased on Deuteronomy 32:89, but he does call that biblical text, alongwith the interpretations of it in Sirach 17:17 and Jubilees 15:31, clearexpressions of an inclusive monotheism.32 But this begs the question of

the nature of those beings to whom the Most High allotted the GentileQDWLRQV:HVKRXOGQRWHWKDWDOOWKHVHSRVWELEOLFDOWH[WVOLNHWKH/;;avoid calling them sons of God (as in 4QDeutj). Philo, following theLXX, calls them angels, while Ben Sira calls them rulers, and Jubileeshis angels, his spirits and his authorities. There is nothing to suggesttheir divinity. In all cases, they are entirely subject to God, whilein Jubilees, at least, they are unequivocally beings created by God(2:2). Jubilees, and perhaps Ben Sira, understand them to be beingsworshipped as gods by the Gentile nations, but this acceptance thatthe gods of the nations exist does not entail that they exist as gods, as

LQDQ\ZD\FRPSDUDEOHZLWK


9/20


use it more habitually than others. Nevertheless, a large percentageRIWKHRFFXUUHQFHVEHORQJWRWKUHHLGHQWLDEOHHOGVRIDVVRFLDWLRQV 34

These are:

3.1. Temple, cult and prayer

Often the Most High is the God to whom one has access in the templerituals. The repeated use of this title in Ben Siras description of templeZRUVKLS6LUVLJQLFDQWO\VHYHQWLPHVFRUUHVSRQGVWRXVDJHLQmany other texts. The temple itself can be called the house or temple ofthe Most High.357KLVWLWOHLVFRPPRQO\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKVDFULFH36 withworship, praise and thanksgiving,37 and with blessing (i.e. pronouncing

Gods blessing on people).38 Prayer, whether or not offered in the temple,is often to the Most High and it is the Most High who answers prayer.39

A select few (Melchizedek, Levi and the Hasmoneans) are called priestsof the Most High (God).40

3.2. Gods sovereign rule over all things

The holy of holies in the temple on earth corresponds to the throne-roomof God in the heights of heaven. This is why the God who is accessibleto his people in the temple is called the Most High. It is as the one who

is supreme over all things that praise and prayer are addressed to him.In many cases, use of the title the Most High is accompanied by other

34 For these usages in the Hebrew Bible, see Zobel, ]PA?5REHUW&7+D\ZDUG(O(O\RQand the Divine Names in Ben Sira, in %HQ6LUDV*RGHG5HQDWH(JJHU:HQ]HO%=$:Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 1808, provides a detailed study of Ben Siras usage. A particularXVDJHWKDWGRHVQRWWREYLRXVO\ZLWKLQWKHVHWKUHHHOGVLVWKHODZRIWKH0RVW+LJK6LU9:15; 19:17; 23:23; 41:8; 42:2; 44:20; 49:4; 4Q525 [2QBeat] 2 24; 11Q5 [11QPs a] 18:14; cf. (usingterms equivalent to law) Ps. 78:56; 107:11; %DU 77:4; 82:6; -XE 21:23; (Q 99:10; 6LE2U2QWKLVXVDJHLQ%HQ6LUDVHH+D\ZDUG(O(O\RQ

35 Ps. 46:4(5); Sir. 50:7; Tob. 1:4; %DU 80:3; Philo, )ODFF 46; /HJDW&I3V(XSROHPXV

36 Sir. 7:9; 34:23; 35:8, 12; 50:14, 15; 1Qap Genar 10:1718; 21:2, 20; Tob. 4:11; Cairo Genizah 7/HYL%RGOG(VG3KLOR /HJDW 157, 317.

37 Ps. 7:18(17); 9:3(2); 50:14; 92:2(1); Dan. 4:31(34); Sir. 17:27; 47:8; 50:17; -XE. 16:27; 20:9; 4Q242[4QPrNab ar] 13 5; Ps. 154:3, 10; 11Q5 [11QPsa@4(VG&IYRZV3V50:14.

38 Sir. 50:21;-XE. 22:11, 13, 19; 25:11; 36:16; 1Qap Genar 22:16; 11Q14 1 2:4, 7; Jdt. 13:18.39 Ps. 57:3(2); Sir. 35:21; 39:5; 46:5; 47:5; 50:19; %DU. 64:8; 71:2;-XE. 12:19; 13:16, 29; 22:6; 25:11; (Q

9:3; 4Q242 [4QPrNab ar] 13 3; 3 Macc. 6:2. Prayers made away from the temple might wellbe associated with the temple because offered to the God who makes himself accessibleWRKLVSHRSOHLQWKHWHPSOHDQGDVDVVLVWHGE\WKHVDFULFHVDQGLQFHQVHRIIHULQJVLQWKHtemple.

40 Gen. 14:18;-XE 32:1; 1Qap Genar 22:15; 70RV 6:1; Cairo Genizah 7/HYL (Bodl. b 56); Philo,/HJ 3:82; Josephus,$- 16:163.


10/20


indications that this God is the universal Ruler.41 Closely related is theuse of this title in connection with Gods judgement.42

3.3. Use by or to Gentiles

(YLGHQWO\WKLVWLWOHZDVWKRXJKWDSSURSULDWHIRU*HQWLOHVWRXVHwhen referring to the God of Israel as the supreme God (thirty-twooccurrences)43 or for Jews (and heavenly beings) to use when addressingGentiles (nineteen occurrences).44 Some of the uses by Gentiles areXQGRXEWHGO\DXWKHQWLFQRWDEO\WKRVHE\WKH(PSHURU$XJXVWXVLQJosephus,$- 16.163; Philo, /HJDW 157, 317),45 but probably the usage alsobecame a Jewish literary convention. Some of these instances overlap

with others: e.g. Philo, addressing Gentiles, calls the Jerusalem templethe temple of the Most High God (Philo, )ODFF 46; /HJDW 278), whilePseudo-Solomon tells Gentile kings: your dominion was given youIURPWKH/RUGDQG\RXUVRYHUHLJQW\IURPWKH0RVW+LJK:LVIndeed, it was this connotation of universal sovereignty that made thistitle for the Jewish God appropriate for Gentiles. Over the course of theSecond Temple period, it took the place of the title God of heaven thathad played this role in early post-exilic Jewish literature.46

41

Pss. 47:3(2); 83:19(18); 97:9 (over all the earth); Sir. 50:15 (king of all); Dan. 4:14(17), 21(24),22(25), 29(32), 31(34); 5:18, 21 (sovereign over all human kingdoms); -XE 22:27 (God ofall, Creator of all); 1Qap Genar 20:1213 (Lord and Master of everything and rule all thekings of the earth); 22:21 (Lord of heaven and earth); 4Q491 15 67 (over all the nations);4Q550c 3:1 (governs the whole earth); Philo, 3ODQW 5859 (the universal Ruler, to whomsovereignty over all pertains); Philo, 3RVW 8992 (the All-sovereign Ruler); 3 Macc. 6:2JRYHUQLQJDOOFUHDWLRQ3K(3RHW /RUGRIDOO3V$HVFK\OXVSRZHURYHUDOO)RURWKHUXVHVRI0RVW+LJKWKDWFOHDUO\FRQQRWHXQLYHUVDOORUGVKLSVHH6LU(VG6LE2U 3:718 (he alone is sovereign).

42 Ps. 82:8; %DU 13:8;-XE 39:6; (Q 9:3; 10:1; 97:2; 100:4; 1Qap Genar 20:1213, 16; 70RV 10:7;6LE2U 1:179; 3:519, 718.

43 Gen. 14:1920; Dan. 3:26, 32(4:2); 4:14(17), 21(24), 22(25), 29(32), 31(34); 5:18, 21; %DU. 80:3;4Q242 [4QPrNab ar] 13 3, 5, 6; Philo, /HJDW(VG6LE2U3:519, 574, 580, 719; 6LE2U(]HN7UDJ0DFF0DFF-RVHSKXV $-

16:163; Ps-Aeschylus. Acts 16:17 is a New Testament instance of this usage.44 Gen. 14:22; Dan. 4:14(17), 21(24), 22(25), 29(32); 5:18, 21; 4Q550c 3:1; Philo, )ODFF 46; /HJDW

278; 6LE2U 3:519, 574, 580, 719; 6LE2U:LV3V$HVFK\OXV7KH6LE\OOLQH2UDFOHV are ascribed to the pagan prophetess, the Sybil, and addressed (ostensibly at least)WR*HQWLOHV:LVGRPLVRVWHQVLEO\DGGUHVVHGE\6RORPRQWR*HQWLOHUXOHUV

45 1RWHDOVRWKDWWKH(PSHURU-XOLDQJDYHWKH-HZVSHUPLVVLRQWRUHEXLOGWKHWHPSOHRIWKHMost High God (o o): Stephen Mitchell, The Cult of Theos Hypsistosbetween Pagans, Jews and Christians, in 3DJDQ0RQRWKHLVP ed. Athanassiadi and Frede,81148, here 111 n.82.

46 +HEUHZ%LEOH*RGRIKHDYHQXVHGE\*HQWLOHV&KU(]UD5HYDOVRFRQIRUPWRWKLVXVDJHXVHGE\-HZVDGGUHVVLQJ*HQWLOHV(]UD12; Neh. 2:20; Dan. 2:44; Jonah 1:9; also used in Neh. 1:4, 5; 2:4; Ps. 136:26; Dan. 2:18, 19. Post-biblical Jewish literature: Tob. 7:12; 8:15; Jdt. 11:17 ( Jew addressing Gentile); 3 Macc. 6:28


11/20


2QHIHDWXUHRIWKHHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHVHHOGVRIDVVRFLDWLRQGRQRWentirely explain is the frequent use of the title the Most High in thetwo apocalypses, %DUXFK and (]UD, both being from the end of theSecond Temple period and closely related to each other. In (]UD, thistitle is overwhelmingly dominant (sixty-eight occurrences), except inthe seers direct address to God, where he uses Lord (GRPLQHelevenoccurrences)47 or Sovereign Lord (GRPLQDWRUGRPLQHnine occurrences).48

God is never called the Lord in third-person usage. The term theMighty One (fortisRFFXUVYHWLPHVIRXURIWKHVHLQSDUDOOHOLVPZLWKthe Most High (6:32; 10:24; 11:43; 12:47) where another divine title wasneeded for literary reasons.49 God is called God only four times (7:19,21, 79; 9:45), two of these in parallel with the Most High (7:19, 79). This

overwhelming dominance of the title the Most High in (]UD has beenremarked, but apparently never discussed.50 In %DUXFK, the patternis different in that this writer uses the Mighty One much more oftenthan the Most High (forty-three occurrences of the Mighty One;51

four of the Mighty God;52 twenty-four of the Most High). But herealso Lord occurs only in the seers direct address to God (twenty-twotimes, sometimes my Lord, sometimes Lord, my Lord), while theword God is hardly used at all (10:1; 54:12).

In general, it could be said that the titles the Most High and theMighty One are both appropriate in these works, where God is

presented overwhelmingly as the one who is sovereign over history andWKHQDWLRQV%XWLWPD\DOVREHWKDWWKHVHWLWOHVOOWKHJDSOHIWLQ-HZLVKGod-talk by, on the one hand, the avoidance of the Tetragrammaton, asnormally in this period (and, with it, avoidance of divine titles including


12/20


very generally to all the gods of all the nations. The major writings ofthe Qumran sect also avoid using ]LPE of God, while using PE.53 ThisDYRLGDQFHRIWKHRUGLQDU\ZRUGIRUJRGLVYHU\VLJQLFDQWIRURXUunderstanding of early Jewish monotheism. It indicates a recognitionof the transcendent uniqueness of the one God, who cannot belongwith others to a class of gods. The Most High, on the other hand, isappropriate to the uniqueness of the God of Israel as the one who aloneis Sovereign over all things.

3.4. The Most High and the gods

For scholars of the Hebrew Bible, the divine title the Most High ([]P?)

VXJJHVWVWKHGLYLQHFRXQFLOLQZKLFK(O\RQSUHVLGHVRYHURWKHUJRGVvariously called gods, sons of God/gods and holy ones. But it isimportant to note that few biblical texts explicitly bring the title theMost High into connection with lesser gods, however described. Thisis really only the case in Deuteronomy 32:89 (discussed above), Psalm)RU\RX


13/20


Finally, we should note that even in Psalm 82:8, the most polytheisticof passages in the Hebrew Bible, the idea of a real kinship of naturebetween the Most High and his sons, the gods, is already contradictedby the formers judgement that the latter will die like humans (Ps. 82:7).The strong impulse to draw an absolute distinction of kind between


14/20


the heavens,59 or even above the heavens,60 far above all the manyranks of angels that worship and serve him. It represents the absolutesovereignty of God over the whole cosmos. It coheres with one of theessential aspects of the uniqueness of the one God that are repeatedeverywhere in early Jewish literature:61 that God is the only sovereignRuler over all things, while all beings other than God are his creatures,subject to his will.62 Sometimes this idea of Gods unlimited sovereigntyis explicitly expressed in the context of use of the title the MostHigh (e.g. Dan. 4:3435; 1Qap Genar 20:1213; -XE 22:27; 3 Macc6:2;Ps-Aeschylus). But, in the context of Second Temple Judaism, the titleitself must have evoked this pervasive idea of God. This is surely whatexplains its widespread popularity.

However, we must notice again that this popularity, as far as theH[WDQWOLWHUDWXUHJRHVLVODUJHO\FRQQHGWRWKHZULWLQJVRI3DOHVWLQLDQ-XGDLVP:HFDQQRZIXUWKHUVSHFLI\WKHHYLGHQFHWKDWDOPRVWDOOWKHuses in literature from the western Diaspora fall within the third of theWKUHHHOGVRIDVVRFLDWLRQZHLGHQWLHGDERYHXVHE\RUWR*HQWLOHV7KHonly exceptions63DUH(VGUDV(]UDEOHVVHGWKH/RUG*RG0RVW+LJKWKH*RGRIKRVWVWKH$OPLJKW\0DFFDEHHV(OHD]DUWKHpriest prays: King of great power, Almighty God Most High, governingDOOFUHDWLRQZLWKPHUF\3KLORWKH(SLF3RHWIUDJPHQWWKH0RVW+LJKgreat Lord of all) and the few occasions on which Philo quotes and

discusses those texts in the Greek Pentateuch that use the title.64 It maynot be accidental that, in the three exceptions other than Philo and inseveral of the exceptions in the works of Philo (3RVW 912; 3ODQW 5860;/HJ 3:82), the Most High is accompanied by other divine titles orGHVFULSWLRQVWKDWUHLQIRUFHWKHVLJQLFDQFHRIWKHWLWOHWKH0RVW+LJKas indicating the unique divine sovereignty over all things. Perhaps,in the Diaspora context, this unpacking of the title was necessary as itdoes not seem to have been in Palestine.

The difference of use between Palestinian and Diaspora Jewishliterature must be related to the fact that the title the Most High

59 $SRF$E 19:4; (Q 202; 4XHV(]UD A2160 Ps. 8:1; 57:5, 11; 108:5; 113:4; cf. Isa. 66:1; (Q 84:2; Ps-Orpheus B 333461 *RGDVVROH5XOHURIDOOWKLQJVHJ'DQ%HO$GG(VWK0DFF:LV6LU6LE2U 3:10; 19; 6LE2U frg. 1:7, 15, 17, 35; (Q 9:5; 84:3; %DU.54:13; (Q 33:7; 1QHa 18:810; Josephus,$- 1.1556.

62 See chapter 1 above.63 It is worth noting that Celsus, the pagan critic of Christianity, seems to know of the use

of by Jews (DSXG Origen, Cels. 1.24; 2.74). Since he also knows of the Jews use ofAdonai and Sabaoth (1.24), there may be some value in his evidence.

64 Gen. 14:2223: Philo, (EU 105; /HJ 3:24, 82; Num. 24:16: Philo, 0XW 202; Deut. 32:89: Philo,3RVW. 89; 3ODQW. 59; &RQJU 58.


15/20


( with or without ) was in widespread use by non-Jews.65

This made it a term for the God of Israel which Gentiles would readilyunderstand, and a term that could, for apologetic purposes, connectwith Gentile usage. This accounts for its regular use by or for Gentilesin Diaspora Jewish literature. As Dodd comments:

the tendency to exalt and worship a supreme God above all othergods is one of the ways in which Greek religious thought approachedmonotheism. In the Hellenistic world it met Jewish monotheism half-way.The Jews were conscious of this.66

But the same currency of the term in Gentile use also made for serious

ambiguity. Unlike []P? is morphologically a superlative, whichmight be used in an elative sense (very high), but can also be taken asa true superlative, meaning the highest in a series.67 The latter was itsmeaning in ordinary Hellenistic religious usage. The god so called wasthe highest of the gods. This must be why Diaspora Jewish literature,for the most part, avoided it as a properly Jewish usage.

Its absence from the voluminous works of Philo and Josephus isespecially striking. Josephus uses it only once, when he is quotingWKH(PSHURU$XJXVWXV$- 16.163). His non-use of it is conspicuous,for example, when he retells the story of Abrahams meeting with

Melchizedek ($- 1.180; cf. %: 6.438). In Genesis 14, the title theMost High God is very prominent, and it is only to be expectedthat Palestinian Jewish retellings of the story retain it (Jub. 13:29; Ps-(XSROHPXVIUJ-RVHSKXVKRZHYHUGRHVQRW

Philo, as we have noted, uses the title only when addressing Gentilesor when he quotes and discusses biblical texts that use it. But one ofWKHVHODWWHULQVWDQFHVLVYHU\LOOXPLQDWLQJ:LWKUHIHUHQFHWRWKHSKUDVHpriest of the Most High God used of Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18,Philo explains:

65 :HKDYHQRHYLGHQFHWhat []P? or an Aramaic equivalent was used in non-Jewish cults inWKH1HDU(DVWDWWKLVWLPe. Philo of Byblos (64141 ce) writes (DS(XVHELXV3UDHSHY 1.10.1415) that he found in the Phoenician historian Sanchunyaton (c. 1300 bce) the divine name(OLRXQZKLFKKHWUDQVODWHVDV. This is not evidence for the use of the name in thelate Second Temple period. The Zeus Olympios, to whose worship the Jerusalem templewas dedicated (2 Macc. 6:2) by the Hellenizing faction at the beginning of the crisis under$QWLRFKXV(SLSKDQHV VHHPV WRKDYHEHHQ LGHQWLHGZLWKWKH 6HPLWLF/RUG RIKHDYHQ(BaHal shamem), but there is no evidence that he was called the Most High ( []P?). It wouldseem unlikely that the book of Daniel would have adopted the latter title so prominently ifhe had been. Hengel, -XGDLVP2979, associates too much evidence too indiscriminately.

66 C.H. Dodd, 7KH%LEOHDQGWKH*UHHNV(London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 12.67 Dodd, %LEOH12.


16/20


not that there is any other [god] not Most High for God being One is inheaven above and on earth beneath, and there is none besides him [Deut

4:39] but to conceive of God not in low earthbound ways but in loftyterms, such as transcend all other greatness and all else that is free frommatter, calls up in us a picture of the Most High (/HJ3.82).

Philo here deploys a classic Jewish monotheistic formula,68 both inhis own formulation (not that there is any other) and in a peculiarlyappropriate biblical version (Deut 4:39 LXX: the Lord your God, he isGod in heaven above and in the earth beneath, and there is none besideshim), as well as an echo of the ShemaH (for God being One). The MostHigh is not the highest of a pantheon of gods active throughout the

heavens and the earth; he is the utterly unique One, the only one inheaven or earth. The misunderstanding ofO as the highest,but not the only, true God, a misunderstanding easily encountered ina Hellenistic religious context, is what Philo is careful to avert. Therarity of the term in his own writings, and in those of most otherJewish writers in the Mediterranean Diaspora, must be for this reason.$VLQPDQ\RWKHULQVWDQFHVZHQG6HFRQG7HPSOH-HZLVKZULWHUVdeliberately dissociating their monotheism from the common paganpattern of belief in the divine monarchy of a high God who rules aschief of the many gods.

:HKDYHFRQQHGWKLVGLVFXVVLRQWROLWHUDWXUH7KHHSLJUDSKLFevidence requires separate discussion, since there is so muchuncertainty and disagreement about the extent to which Jewish usageLVUHHFWHGLQWKHLQVFULSWLRQVDQGZKHWKHUWKHUHZDVVRPHWKLQJOLNHa cult of Theos Hypsistos that spanned the distinctions between Jews,pagans and Christians.69 At this point, we can only leave open thepossibility that, in some popular Jewish usage in the Greek-speakingDiaspora, the title was rather more freely used than it is in the extantliterature.

68 Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:2; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:60; 1 Chr. 17:20; Isa. 44:6; 45:5, 6, 14(ELV), 18, 21 (ELV-RHOFI6DP3V,VD:LV-GW9:14; Bel 41; Sir. 18:2; 24:24; 36:5; 1QHa15:32; 18:9; 20:11, 31; 1Q35 1:6; 4Q377 frg. 1r 2:8; 4Q504[4QDibHama] frg. 12 5:9; (Q 33:8; 36:1; 47:3; 6LE2U 3:629, 760; 8:377;$SRF$E 19:34; Ps-Orpheus 16; Philo, 2SLI23, 46; /HJ3.4.

69 Stephen Mitchell, The Cult; Paul R. Trebilco,Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS69; Cambridge: CUP, 1991), 12840; Irina Levinskaya, 7KH%RRNRI$FWVLQ,WV'LDVSRUD6HWWLQJvol. 5 of 7KH%RRN RI$FWVLQ ,WV )LUVW &HQWXU\ 6HWWLQJ *UDQG5DSLGV (HUGPDQV&DUOLVOH3DWHUQRVWHUFKDSV:LOOLDP+RUEXU\DQG'1R\-HZLVK,QVFULSWLRQV RI*UDHFR5RPDQ(J\SW(Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 2001.


17/20


TABLE*RG0RVW+LJKLQHDUO\-HZLVK/LWHUDWXUH BCECE)

1RWH:RUNVZKLFKFDQZLWKUHDVRQDEOHFRQGHQFHEHLGHQWLHGDV(non-Christian) Jewish works and dated before 150 ce are included inthe main lists below and divided into works written in Palestine (or, ina few cases, perhaps the Mesopotamian Diaspora) and those written inthe western Diaspora. Supplementary lists contain works which manyscholars cite as evidence of early Judaism, but about which there areserious doubts as to their early date and/or their non-Christian Jewishprovenance.70

70 James R. Davila , 7KH 3URYHQDQFH RI WKH 3VHXGHSLJUDSKD -HZLVK &KULVWLDQ RWKHU" (JSJSup105; Leiden: Brill, 2005) makes an important case for greater methodological rigourand caution in judging works in the category of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha tobe (non-Christ ian) Jewish works. In part icular, he shows that this cannot be assumedjust because a work lacks obvious Christian features. I share his doubts about -RVHSKand Aseneth (1905) and the 7HVWDPHQWRI$EUDKDP (199207), but I remain convinced that6LE\OOLQH2UDFOHVERRNDQGWKH:LVGRPRI6RORPRQDUHVRSUREDEO\QRQ&KULVWLDQ-HZLVKWKDWVFKRODUVDUHMXVWLHGLQFLWLQJWKHPDVVXFK2QWKHRWKHUKDQGDavila is right to reject the case recently made by Rivka Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem

DQGWKH,GHDRI5HGHPSWLRQLQWKH6\ULDF$SRFDO\SVHRI%DUXFK6%/(-/$WODQWD6%/for considering %DUXFK a Christian work. On -RVHSKDQG$VHQHWK, see also Ross ShephardKraemer, :KHQ$VHQHWK0HW-RVHSK(New York: OUP, 1998), and my review in -76 51 (2000):2268. Dale C. Allison in his excellent work, 7HVWDPHQWRI $EUDKDP (Commentaries on(DUO\-HZLVK/LWHUDWXUH%HUOLQGH*UX\HULVFOHDUWKDWWKHWH[WVRIERWKUHFHQVLRQVof this work, as we have them, have many Christian elements, but still thinks a non-&KULVWLDQ -HZLVK8UWH[WXQGHUO\LQJERWKRYHUZKHOPLQJO\SUREDEOH(YHQWKLVjudgement, however, makes the work unusable for our purposes, since there is no wayof knowing whether the occurrences of Most High belong to the Ur-text. David Satran,%LEOLFDO3URSKHWVLQ%\]DQWLQH3DOHVWLQH5HDVVHVVLQJWKH/LYHVRIWKH3URSKHWV (SVTP 11; Leiden:Brill, 1995) shows that, in their present form, the /LYHVRIWKH3URSKHWV date from the earlyByzantine period. They undoubtedly contain early Jewish material, but cannot providereliable evidence for our present purposes. The 7HVWDPHQWV RI WKH 7ZHOYH 3DWULDUFKV, asMarinus de Jonge has long and extensively argued (most recently in 3VHXGHSLJUDSKDRIWKH

2OG7HVWDPHQWDV3DUWRI&KULVWLDQ/LWHUDWXUH7KH&DVHRIWKH7HVWDPHQWVRIWKH7ZHOYH3DWULDUFKVDQGWKH*UHHN/LIHRI$GDPDQG(YH [SVTP 18; Leiden: Brill, 2003]), are similarly a ChristianFRPSRVLWLRQZLWK-HZLVKVRXUFHVWKDWFDQQRWEHFRQGHQWO\GHOLPLWHG7KHVWURQJHVWcase for a substantial Jewish source is in the case of the 7HVWDPHQWRI/HYL, owing to theexistence of related Levi material in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Genizah fragments, andsome of the occurrences of the Most High plausibly belong to it, but the point cannotbe pressed here.) The Prayer of Manasseh may wel l be Jewish, but a st rong case has yetto be made. On the other hand, even though the /DGGHURI-DFRE is one of the least studiedof the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha included in recent collections, I think the case forregarding chaps. 16 as Jewish is strong (see James Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob, +75 88[1995]: 20927), especially now that a Hebrew version of the prayer in chap. 2 has beenLGHQWLHG5HLPXQG/HLFKWQedushah and Prayer to Helios: A New Hebrew Version of anApocryphal Prayer of Jacob,-64 6 [1999]: 14076).


18/20


1XPEHURI 3DOHVWLQHDQGHDVWHUQ'LDVSRUD 2FFXUUHQFHV

(]UD71 68Ben Sira72 47

%DUXFK73 24 -XELOHHV74 23 (QRFK75 17

Daniel76 14Genesis Apocryphon (1Qap Genar)77 10Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242)78 4Psalm 154 (3, 9, 10, 14; = 11Q5 18:1, 6, 7, 14) 4

4XPUDQ:DU5XOH79 4Tobit80 3Qumran Community Rule (1QS 4:22; 10:12; 11:15) 34QApocryphon of Joshuaa (4Q378 26:1, 3, 4)81 3Pseudo-Philo, %LEOLFDO$QWLTXLWLHV (33:14; 53:2) 2Testament of Moses (6:1; 10:7)82 2Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa 12:31; 14:33)83 2Cairo Geniza Testament of Levi (Bodleian b 56; d 16) 2

71 In all cases the Most High (altissimus). In the following notes, no attention is drawn toHebrew texts that have only the simple []P? or Greek texts that have only the simple, but, for other texts, variations (such as the Most High God) are noted, as are the

terms used in Aramaic texts.72 Forty-seven is the number of occurrences in the Greek text (though in four of thesecases there are variant readings without ). The title occurs twenty times in the(incomplete) Genizah and Masada Hebrew texts, not always corresponding to the usageLQWKH*UHHN$OH[DQGHU$'L/HOODLQ3DWULFN:6NHKDQDQG$OH[DQGHU$'L/HOODThe:LVGRPRI%HQ6LUD$%1HZ


19/20


1XPEHURI2FFXUUHQFHV

/DGGHURI-DFRE (5:12; 6:8)84 2 4(VFKDWRORJLFDO+\PQ4E

1QBook of Noah (1Q19 2 2) 1Judith (13:18) 1Apostrophe to Zion (11Q5 22:15) 1Compositions of David (11Q5 27:11)85 1Damascus Rule (CD 20:8) 1

4:RUN&RQWDLQLQJ3UD\HUV$4 4QAramaic Apocalypse (4Q246 2 1)86 14QBeatitudes (4Q525 2 24) 1

43DUDSKUDVHRI*HQHVLVDQG([RGXV4 43URWR(VWKHUd (4Q550c 3 1)87 1

4QKingdomsa ar (4Q552 4 2)88 1 41DUUDWLYH:RUNDQG3UD\HU4

4QAramaic C (4Q536 1 8)89 1 3VHXGR(XSROHPXVIUJ90 1

3DOHVWLQHHDUO\GDWHDQGQRQ&KULVWLDQ-HZLVKSURYHQDQFHXQFHUWDLQ

/LYHVRIWKH3URSKHWV (4:3) 1

Western Diaspora

Philo91 13(VGUDV>@ 92 56LE\OOLQH2UDFOHV book 3 (519, 574, 580, 719)93 46LE\OOLQH2UDFOHV book 1 (179, 200)94 2

84 The occurrence at 7:1 belongs to the later Christian addition to the book.85 The Most High ([]P?L).86 The Most High ([]P?).87 Aramaic E]P?.88 God Most High ([]P?PE).89 It is a question whether ]R[]P? should be read as a true plural (highest ones) or as referring

to God, as in Dan. 7:18, 22, 25, 27.

90 $SXG(XVHELXV3UDHSHY3V(XSROHPXVLVZLGHO\WKRXJKWWRKDYHEHHQD6DPDULWDQauthor.

91 The Most High (~): Philo, 3RVW89; 3ODQW59; &RQJU 58; 0XW202; the Most HighGod (~): Philo, /HJ 3.24, 82 [tris]; (EU105; )ODFF 46; /HJDW157, 278, 317.

92 The Lord Most High (~(VGWKH0RVW+LJK*RG~~(VGWKH/RUG*RG0RVW+LJK~(VG,WLVSRVVLEOHWKDWWKH*UHHN(VGUDVRULJLQDWHGLQ3DOHVWLQHVHH0DUWLQ+HQJHOThe+HOOHQL]DWLRQRI-XGDHDLQWKH)LUVW&HQWXU\DIWHU&KULVW trans. John Bowden [London: SCM/Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989], 25), but most scholars see it as a product of the Diaspora.

93 The Most High (): 6LE2U 3:519, 574, 580; God Most High (): 6LE2U3:719.

94 The Most High God (): 6LE 2U 1:179; The Most High (): 6LE2U1:200.


20/20


1XPEHURI2FFXUUHQFHV

3 Maccabees (6:2; 7:9)95 2:LVGRPRI6RORPRQ 6LE\OOLQH2UDFOHV frg. 1 (4) 12 Maccabees (3:31)96 13KLORWKH(SLF3RHWIUJ97 1(]HNLHOWKH7UDJHGLDQ Josephus ($-16.163)98 1Pseudo-Aeschylus99 1

:HVWHUQ'LDVSRUDHDUO\GDWHDQGRUQRQ&KULVWLDQ-HZLVKSURYHQDQFH

uncertain)-RVHSKDQG$VHQHWK100 357HVWDPHQWRI$EUDKDP101 10*UHHN $SRFDO\SVHRI=HSKDQLDK102 1

:RUNVRIGRXEWIXOSURYHQDQFHJHRJUDSKLFDOSURYHQDQFHXQFHUWDLQHDUO\GDWHDQGRUQRQ&KULVWLDQ-HZLVKSURYHQDQFHXQFHUWDLQ

7HVWDPHQWVRI;,,3DWULDUFKV103 17/DWLQ/LIHRI$GDPDQG(YH (15:3; 28:1)104 2Prayer of Manasseh (7) 1

95 The Most High (): 3 Macc. 6:2; God Most High (): 3 Macc. 7:9.96 2 Maccabees is an epitome of a much longer work by Jason of Cyrene who, though from the

Diaspora, lived in Palestine, but 2 Maccabees probably reached its present form, with theWZRHSLVWOHVSUHIDFHGLQFKDSLQ(J\SW

97 $SXG (XVHELXV 3UDHS HY 9.24.1. On this passage, see Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from+HOOHQLVWLF-HZLVK$XWKRUVvol. 2: 3RHWV(Atlanta: Scholars, 1989), 2678, arguing correctly thatthe reference is to God.

98 The Most High God ().99 $SXG Clement of Alexandria, 6WURP5.14.131.3.

100 The Most High:-RV$VHQ8:9; 11:7, 9, 17; 14:8; 15:7 (ELV), 8, 12 (four times); 16:14 (ELV), 16; 18:9;

21:4, 21; 22:13; 25:6; God the Most High: -RV$VHQ 8:2; 9:1; 15:7 (tris); 18:9; 19:5, 8; 21:15; 22:8,13;23:10; the Lord God Most High:-RV$VHQ 15:7; 17:6; 21:6.

101 The Most High: 7$E A9:1, 2, 3, 8; 15:13; 16:1, 6; God the Most High: 7$E A14:9; 15:11; 16:9(also B13:6; 14:7).

102 This apocalypse, of which we know just one fragment, quoted by Clement of Alexandria,6WURP5.11.77, is probably not the same work as the Apocalypse of Zephaniah extant in Coptic.7KHIUDJPHQWLVWRRVKRUWWRDOORZDQ\FRQGHQFHDVWRLWV-HZLVKRU&KULVWLDQSURYHQDQFHthough its resemblance to Merkavah literature suggests the former is more likely.

103 76LP 2:5; 6:7; 7/HYL 3:10; 4:1, 2; 5:1; 16:3; 18:7; 7*DG 3:1; 5:4; 7$VK 2:6; 5:4; 7-RV 1:4, 6; 9:3;7%HQM 4:5; 9:2.

104 These passages have no parallels in the other versions of the /LIHRI$GDPDQG(YH (Greek,$UPHQLDQ*HRUJLDQ6ODYRQLFVHH*DU\$$QGHUVRQDQG0LFKDHO(6WRQHHG$6\QRSVLVRIWKH%RRNVRI$GDPDQG(YH 6%/(-/$WODQWD6FKRODUV

Documents

Richard Bauckham