olyan, saul - the israelites debate their options at the sea of reeds

8/12/2019 Olyan, Saul - The Israelites Debate Their Options at the Sea of Reeds

1/18

JBL Um 991)75-91

THE ISRAELITES DEBATE THEIR OPTIONS AT THE

SEA OF REEDS:LAB10:3, ITS PARALLELS, AND

PSEUDO-PHILO'S IDEOLOGY AND BACKGROUND

SAUL M. OLYAN

Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2160

I

Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB), well known for its

wealth of haggadah, relates an engaging tradition concerning Israel at the

Reed Sea. Threatened by the oncoming Egyptians, the Israelites divide into

three factions and debate their options:

Then in considering the fearful situation of the moment, the sons ofIsraelwere split in their opinions according to three strategies. For the tribe of .

Reuben and the tribe of Issachar and the tribe of Zebulun and the tribeof Simeon said, "Come, let us cast ourselves into the sea. For it is betterfor us to die in the water than to be killed by our enemies." But the tribeof Gad and the tribe of Asher and the tribe of Dan and that of Naphtalisaid,"No,but letusgo back with them; and if theyarewillingtospare ourlives, we will serve them." But the tribe ofLeviand the tribe of Judah andthat of Joseph and the tribe of Benjamin said, "Not so, but let us take upour weapons and fight with them, and God will be with us."1(10:3)

Pseudo-Philo is the earliest witness preserving the tradition of division and

debate at the Reed Sea. I shall attempt to show that this discussion of options

is an outgrowth of early exegesis of Exod 14:11-14. Moreover, it is likely that

the story, in a simpler form, is older than Pseudo-Philo; incorporated into his

history, it appears to have been shaped to serve distinct polemical purposes.

This conclusion is suggested by comparison of Pseudo-Philo's story with its

1 The translation is from D. J. Harrington, "Pseudo-Philcf in OTP2. 317. A critical edition

of the Latin text prepared by Harrington with a French translation lwJ.Cazeaux may l>e found

in P.-M. Bogaert, J. Cazeaux, D. Harrington, and C. Perrot,Les antiquits bibliques(SC 229-30;

Paris:Cerf,1976) 1.114-17; the following is the text of10:3from this edition: Tunc considerantes

metum temporis, flii Israel in tres divisiones consiliorum divisemnt sententias suas. Nam tribusRulrcn et tribus Isachar et tribus Zbulon et tribus Simeon dixerunt: Venite mittamus nos in

M li t i i i b i i i i idi T ib t C d t t ib


2/18


3/18

Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 77

version and the rabbinic and Samaritan versions, and also between the

rabbinic and Samaritan versions themselves. These have not generally been

discussed by scholars examiningLAB10:3. (1) Aside from the widely recog

nized division of the tribes into four parts,

5

the rabbinic version, in contrastto Pseudo-Philo, does not identify the tribes in each division; they remain

anonymous ('ahat *omeret..., hada**amer.. .).Similarly,the Samaritan

versiondoes notidentifythemembersof eachdivision(prqnh qdmh y

mr

prqnh tnynh y

mr..., prqnh tlyth y

mr... ),though,as in PseudoPhilo, Israel

isdividedinto three factions.7 (2)Therabbinicversionpresents onlythe basic

suggestion of eachgroup,withoutany explanation orjustification for action;

in contrast, each position in PseudoPhilo isfollowedby a reasoned justifica-

tion.8The Samaritanversionpresents onlyajustification for itsfirstposition,

paraphrasing Exod 14:12b: hry tb In. . . mn mwtn bmdbrh, "For it is betterfor us (to serve the Egyptians) than to die in thewilderness."

9 In contrast to

PseudoPhilo, the other two positions are not followed by a justification.

(3) In the rabbinic version, each suggestion is followed immediately by a

response from Moses; he exhorts the people not to fear and to have con-

fidence in God, who will act on their behalf. Likewise in the Samaritan

version,Moses answers each suggestion. Here the rabbinic and Samaritan

versions are nearly alike; the text of Exod 14:13a, 13b, and 14 are cited in

response to each suggestion.10

There is nothing like this in PseudoPhilo;

Mosesdoes notrespondto the remarksof anyparty,and thefinalwordgoestoJudah, Benjamin, Levi, and Joseph, who advocate armed resistance. The

rabbinic and Samaritan versions oppose active resistance on the part of

y.TaKan.2.5 (65d), and Midr.hag,Exod.,BeSaUah 14;the versionsof these witnesses hardly vary

from thoseunderdiscussion here. For the Samaritan version, see J. Macdonald, ed. and trans.,

Memar Marqah: The TeachingofMarqah (2 vols.; BZAW84; Berlin: Topelmann, 1963) 2. 167.

On date and provenance, see n. 22.5

See, eg., L. Cohn, "An ApocryphalWork Ascribed to Philo ofAlexandria,"JQR 10(1898)319; M. Delcor, "Philon (Pseudo),"DBSup 7. 1371;Townerbelieves that the fourth position is

not original to the tradition ("FormCriticism,"115, esp. n. 32, and 11617); Perrot argues that

the threewaydivision "estplus simple etprimitive"(Les antiquits bibliques, 2. 109). Townernoted this in passing ("FormCriticism,"115).

7 The Samaritan threewaydivision sharedwith PseudoPhilo iswidelynoted in the litera-

ture; seeTowner, "FormCriticism,"116; Perrot, Les antiquits bibliques, 2. 109.8 Towner observes this contrast and refers to the justification as "a motive clause" but says

litde else about it ("Form Criticism," 115); Perrot and others do not comment. This is curious,

in the light of the fact that the contrast will, I believe, prove to be rather significant and revealing

with regard to the process of transmission and accretion experienced by the haggadah.9 The previous commentators seem not to consider it significant that the Samaritan version

has only one justification (in the form of an exegetical paraphrase of Exod 14:12b). Towner notes


4/18

78 Journal of Biblical Literature

Israel, and this position is presented in Moses' responses. The third and

fourth groups in the rabbinic version and the third group in the Samaritan

version, those who advocate fighting, are told by Moses to do nothing on their

own. In the rabbinic version, Exod 14:14 is quoted in a beautifully symmetrical response in two parts to the suggestions of the third and fourth

parties: T h e one who had said, 'Let us make war against them,' was told,

THWH will fight for you,' and the one who had said, *Let us cry out against

them,' was told, 'But you only have to be silent."*11

Pseudo-Philo's version of the Reed Sea debate tradition differs from the

rabbinic version in the followingways:a threefold division of Israel versus a

fourfold division, the naming of the tribes in each division, justifications for

each of the three positions, and no response from Moses to any suggestion.

It differs from the Samaritan tradition in its naming of the tribes, its fullydeveloped justification for each position (not just one), and its lack of a

response from Moses to each suggestion. There are differences in the content

and order of each position. In Pseudo-Philo and the rabbinic version, the sug

gestions are as follows: (1) to cast selves into the sea; (2) to go back to Egypt;

(3) to fight. The fourth suggestion, only in the rabbinic version, is to cry out

against/to disturb and confound the enemy.12In the Samaritan version, to go

back to Egypt is the first position (instead of the second); to flee into the

desert is the second position (instead of to cast selves into the sea); and to

fight is the third position.

Several commentators have asserted that the story of tribal debate at the

Reed Sea is older than Pseudo-Philo.13The extant parallels preserve versions

of the story lacking many of the elements of Pseudo-Philo's telling; yet these

parallels also have a number of characteristics in common which are absent

from Pseudo-Philo's version. In addition, the Samaritan version and the rab

binic version individually share certain affinities with Pseudo-Philo. The

most cogent explanation for this is simply that Pseudo-Philo's version and its

rabbinic parallels must have developed independently from a common original. An alternative would be to argue that this haggadah was generated by

Pseudo-Philo (the earliest witness), came into proto-rabbinic circles, and was

radically transformed over time. Not only was it augmented (the addition of

11 The fourth position, which a number of commentators believe to be a secondary develop

ment, was likely added for the sake of symmetry, so that Exod 14:14 could be broken down into

two parts.12 See Towner, "Form Criticism," 113 n. 29, 115 n. 32; and Perrot, Les antiquits bibliques,

2.109. As pointed out by others, the intent is hostile13 See Perrot(Les antiquits bibliques,2.109), who cites R. Le Daut,La nuit pascale(AnBib


5/18

Olyan:TheIsraelitesDebate Their Options 79

thefourthposition,"Letus cry out. .;Moses'responsetoeachgroup), butimportant elements ofPseudoPhilo'stelling were intentionally eliminated(thenaming ofthetribes in each grouping; the expandedspeechesofeach

group functioningtojustifyeachposition).Advocatesofthisapproachwouldthenhave to explain the Samaritan version, which has affinities both withPseudoPhilo(threepartdivision;justification foroneposition)and with therabbinic version (anonymous groups;Moses'answers to each group). Toargue foraPseudoPhilonic creationisratherlesseconomicalthantoassumethe independent development of an older piece of lore in different com-munities.Onewouldbe rather hardpressedtoexplain convincingly why somuch material from PseudoPhilo'sversion wasexcisedover time(e.g.,theexplanations for the three positions in the rabbinic version) or how the

Samaritanversioncametohaveitsdistinctshape.Theexistenceofthisstoryin aSamaritanworklikeMemarMarq,ifit wasproducedinJewish circles(Pseudo-Philo)in thefirstcenturyCE,also requiresexplanation.14Augmentingthetradition wouldbe nosurprise,butexcising much material fromitsomehow seems unlikely.

15Thethree responsesofMosesin therabbinicand

14 Thepresence of aJewish haggadahin theSamaritan tradition requires some discussion

at this juncture. Simply put: How diditget there, and when? Recent scholarship on Samaritan-

Jewish history and the developmentofthe biblical text suggestsa much later date for the final

separation between Samaritans and Jews than had been previously assumed. Instead of the timeafter thebuilding of thetemple onGerizim, it now seems evident that the split occurred

sometime after Hyrcanus's destructionofthe temple in128 BCE.The emergenceofa distinct

Samaritan Pentateuch in thesecond centuryorlater supports this thesis and mayinfact have

been motivated by Hyrcanus's actions. See further F. M. Gross, "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish

History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times,"HTR59 (1966)201-11;R. J. Coggins,Samaritans

and Jews: The Origins ofSamaritanism Reconsidered (Atlanta: Knox, 1975);and thehelpful

review essay of J. Purvis, "The Samaritans and Judaism," inEarly Judaism and Its Modern Inter

preters (ed.R. A.Kraft and G. W. E.Nickelsburg;TheBible and ItsModern Interpreters2;

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 81-98, from which I have derived much of this discussion. Coggins

has argued for separation at an even later date, with contacts between Jews and Samaritans con

tinuing into thefirst centuries CE (pp.138-48, 164). Aseparation in thefirst century BCE

dovetails well with evidence that theReedSea tradition and other Pseudo-Philonic materials

are older thanthefirst century CE,asmany scholars agree,Ifthe Reed Sea debatein itsmost

primitive form goes back to thefirstor even second century BCE, then itspresencein the

Samaritan tradition would not occasion undue surprise. An equally likely alternative hypothesis

wouldbe tosuggest alater borrowing (say, first century CE) andtoadmit thatwe know little

about the contacts Samaritans and Jews might have had in this period. The crux of the problem

simply stated isthis:theSamaritan version hasthe responsesofMoses, just liketherabbinic

version;yet italsohas characteristics shared with Pseudo-Philo. IfTowner iscorrect andthe

responses of Moses are primitive, then an early borrowing is not unlikely ("Form Criticism," 113);

if, as Iargue, they are secondary, thenaborrowing from therabbinic traditionat a later time(first century CE?) mustbeconsidered.Ineither caseaconnection withthe rabbinic tradition

seems evident


6/18


Samaritan versions are virtually identical, suggesting that the two share a

common ancestor which had already developed the responses secondarily;

this ancestor itself may have been proto-rabbinic.16

What can now be said about the original shape, the date, and the provenance of this tradition? Assuming the one-time existence of a common

original version, I believe it was likely characterized by a three-part division

of Israel, anonymous parties in the debate, short suggestions for each position

without justification, and no response from Moses to each suggestion. The

three positions were likely (1) to commit suicide in the sea (variant desert);

(2) to go back to Egypt; (3) to fight the Egyptians. This hypothetical original

has been reconstructed based on a consideration of the common and unique

elements in each telling in tandem with the assumption of growth through

accretion from a simpler to a more complex narrative. This is perhaps theclosest one can come in such a reconstruction, though it is by no means

methodologically faultless. It presumes no intentional excising of material,

and this may well be an invalid assumption. One can only speculate about

the date and provenance of the original version of the story, as a number of

critics have done. Most scholars date Pseudo-Philo between 30 and 100 CE;

if Pseudo-Philo is not the author of this story, a date before 30 CEis certainly

possible. A time of resistance to foreign oppressors seems to be the most

likely background, perhaps the Maccabean revolt.17 There certainly were

haggadah; it seems equally possible, if not more probable, that Pseudo-Philo and the rabbis drew

upon a common wealth of haggadic tradition and that each group shaped particular stories

according to its own needs and ideology. The Samaritan version, as Towner has pointed out, was

likely borrowed from a proto-rabbinic version. (2) Towner believes that the "divine responses"

( - Moses' responses to each party) preceded the suggestions of each group in the history of this

tradition: "Thedarshanhas seized upon the idea that there was murmuring and rebellion in the

ranks; however, he has used ingenuityin tailoring the words of complaintto correspond precisely

to Moses* response. The result is a kind of haggadic 'mini-drama' in which the assertions of the

scriptural text are supplied with motivating sentences" (p. 113; my emphasis). In consideringPseudo-Philo's version, he remarks: Th e divine responses . . .are omitted in Pseudo-Philo....

In place of the divine responses, the writer . . . offers a motive clause for the statement of each

of the three groups" (pp. 114-15; my emphasis). This thesis seems to assume (1) intentional

changes to a received text by Pseudo-Philo; (2) the presence of Moses' responses in the tradition

from the very beginning; (3) the creation of the "motive clause"(s) ( justifications) by Pseudo-

Philo.Certainly the third point is correct, as I hope to demonstrate in the next pages in some

detail, and applies equally to the one justification in the Samaritan version, which is probably

the work of Samaritan traditionists. The first and second points, however, seem unlikely to me.

The excising of materials is simply a less economical (and less likely) thesis than to assume

accretion in a tradition.

16 See Towner's valid criticisms of Macdonald(Memar Marqah,xxix), who does not believe

that there is any evidence of Samaritan borrowing of Jewish materials in the Memar Marq


7/18


different positions within the Jewish community during the Maccabean war

according to the extant sources. Yet there are problems with this hypothesis.

The options adumbrated in the narrative (suicide, surrender, or fight) are not

all relevant to the Maccabean struggle as it is reported in the sources.Certainly surrender and fight are. Martyrdoms too are widely reported,18but

these are not the same as suicides. Josephus frequently reports suicides

during the JewishWar!In addition, the story is extant among the Samaritans,

who stayed out of the Maccabean struggle according to Josephus(Ant 12.5.5

257-64).19The limitations of the sources restrict what one may conclude

on the question of date and provenance of the Reed Sea debate tradition.

Though it is evident that the story is older than Pseudo-Philo and that it likely

comes from a time of resistance to foreign oppression, unfortunately little

more can be said with confidence.Comparison of Pseudo-Philo's narrative of the Reed Sea debate with the

versions of rabbinic and Samaritan sources allows for the identification of

material in the story unique to Pseudo-Philo. This material includes the

justification for each tribal position. It is not surprising that expansion on the

text of Exodus 14 serves as the foundation for each defense. For the second

position, Pseudo-Philo's source probably had nothing more than "Let us

return to Egypt," as in theMekiltaand targums.20In theLiber,however, the

tribes Gad, Asher, Dan, and Naphtali say: "No, but let us go back with them;

and if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve them!*Here the exact

nature of surrender ( = slavery) is spelled out by Pseudo-Philo. In Exod

14:11-12, the people ofIsrael,pursued by the Egyptians, complain to Moses.

They ask if he has brought them into the desert to die, and they make

reference to a previous conversation:

Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in

the wilderness? What have you done to us in bringing us out from Egypt?

Is this not what we said to you in Egypt: "Leave us alone and let us serve

the Egyptians?" For it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to diein the wilderness.

18 Martyrdom is reported in such texts as 1 Mace 1:62-64; 2:32-38; 4 Maccabees passim.

Some martyrs died rather than accept Gentile religion; others died rather than profane the

sabbath. Resistance is reported in such texts as 1 Mace 2:39-41; 2:50; 3:59; 9:10. The resistance

ideologies included such beliefs as to die in battle, retaining honor; never to surrender; to fight

even on the sabbath.19 InAnt. 13.10.2 275, Josephus says that Hyrcanus destroyed Samaria partly because of

Samaritan cooperation with the kings of Syria in the past. See further the treatment of M.

Hengel, from which the previous material is derived(Judaism and Hellenism[trans. J. Bowden;

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974] 293-94). Samaritan nonparticipation in the Maccabean struggle is

likely of no significance for determining the origins of the Reed Sea debate tradition, since


8/18


In v. 13, Moses answers the people: "Fear not, stand firm, and see the salva

tion of YHWH which he will do for you today."21The complaint of the whole

people in Exod 14:11-12 is nowhere exactly reproduced by Pseudo-Philo. The

sentiment expressed inv.12 in Egypt (let us serve the Egyptians'*) and thenat the Reed Sea ("it is better for us to serve the Egyptians") is, however, the

basis for Pseudo-Philo's justification of the second position ("No, but let us

go back with them; and if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve

them").In the Samaritan version, Pseudo-Philo's second position is the first

position, and it also has a justificationin this case simply a paraphrasing

quotation of Exod 14:12b. The presence of this single justification in the

Samaritan telling (the other two positions lack the justification), which differs

from the justification in Pseudo-Philo's version, suggests strongly the thesis

previously developed: A story lacking the element of justification for eachposition was augmentedlikely in stagesin different communities, using

the text of Exodus 14 as a source upon which to build. The Samaritan version

of the story is actually more primitive in form, at least with regard to the

justifications for each position, though it is preserved in Memar Marq,a

work much later in date than Pseudo-Philo'sLiber?2

The first position, suicide, has been supplemented with a nuanced justifi

cation by Pseudo-Philo. His source probably had something like "Let us

throw ourselves (or "fall") into the sea," as in the rabbinic version.23 In the

Liber,the tribes Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, and Simeon say: "Come, let uscast ourselves into the sea.For it is better for us to die in the water than to

be killed by our enemies7 The justification for this position has been influ

enced by the structure of the statement in Exod 14:12b; the comparative of

v. 12b (Tor it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the

wilderness") is borrowed for the suicide position in Pseudo-Philo's rendering.

Surprisingly, the contrast in theLiber is not between suicide and servitude,

but between suicide and death at the hand of the enemy. This is rather

puzzling at first glance, and I will have more to say about it.

21 (U)hamibbl 'n-qbarbn bmisrayim lqahtn ltnt bammidbr mah-zC)t 'stt lan

lhs'n mimmisryim (12) haly-zeh haddbr Wer dibbam 9tk bmisrayim lC)mr

hdal mimmenn wna'abd *et~misrayim kt tb lan 'dbd *et-misrayim mimmtn bam

midbr. (13) yal-try hityassb r* 'et-yS'at yhwh 'Mer-ya'eh lkem hayym.22 The text is likely from the second through the fourth centuries CE, according to

Macdonald, Memar Marqah,1. xx.23 The rabbinic variants are fairly insignificant. The verbnpl is used inMek. R. Ish.and in

the Frg.Tg., andTg. Neof TgPs.~J.has the minor variantnht"descend." The Samaritan "let us

flee from the Egyptians into the desert"(n

rq mn msr*y Igw mdbrh) is an interesting majorvariant with an equivalent meaning (flee into desert * into sea); it occupies the second position

in the Samaritan version (the first position is parallel to the second position in Pseudo-Philo and


9/18


The third position, to fight the enemy, was probably stated succinctly in

Pseudo-Philo's source, as in the rabbinic witnesses: "Let us make war (or

"fight") against them."24In theLiber,Levi, Judah, Joseph, and Benjamin say:

"Not so, but let us take up our weapons and fight with them, and God willbe with us7The third position, in Pseudo-Philo's source as in Pseudo-Philo,

is unlike anything in Exodus 14. In contrast to the martial action advocated

by the third grouping in the various accounts under consideration, the

people of Israel in Exod 14:13-14 are told not to fear but to stand firm and

watch in silence as YHWH destroys the Egyptians: THWH will fight for you;

you only have to be silent" (Yhwh yOlhem lkem w'attem tahrsn).

Pseudo-Philo's expansion of the position of the third party is simple and

succinct: God will be with the Israelites who actively resist the enemy. The

rabbinic version, in contrast, presents both the third position (to fight) anda fourth position (to cry out against/disturb and confound the enemy). The

fourth position seems to be nothing more than an expansion on the story,

likely for the sake of symmetry. The rabbis oppose martial action by the

Israelites as much as they oppose suicide and surrender to the Egyptians; the

third and fourth positions are answered elegantly with the statement in Exod

14:14,25 TheSamaritan telling also has Moses answering the people, quoting

Exod 14:14, so it closely resembles the third and fourth positions in the

rabbinic version. The people need not do anything; YHWH will take care of

the enemy! In contrast, Pseudo-Philo favors resistance.

24 Pseudo-Philo's statement contains two notions: to take up arms and to fight the enemy(Non

sic, sed accipientes arma nostra pugnemus cum eis). The Samaritan version is very close to

Pseudo-Philo's:nqwm wngyh *mmsr*y("Let us arise and fight with the Egyptians"). The rab

binic witnesseswith minor variantspresent a single notion rather than two:

Mek. R. Ish.: nh mlhmhkng/dn ("Let us make war against them").

Tg,Ps.-J.: nsdrh Iqwblyhwn sdry qrb* ("Let us arrange against them the battle order")

TgNeof:nsdr Iqblyhwn sdry qrbh.

Frg. Tg: nsdr Iqblyhwn qrb\

The most primitive version likely consisted of a single notion "Let us make war against

them" as in the Mek. and the second part of the Pseudo-Philo and Samaritan versions. The

arranging of a battle line looks like a secondary development in the targum versions.25 See nn. 11 and 12. The negative rabbinic position on war and resistance is revealed also

in their version of the Amram story, to be discussed below (see n. 34), as well as in other texts.

The story of Yohanan ben Zakkai advising nonresistance to the people of besieged Jerusalem,

leaving the city in a coffin and appearing before Vespasian to request permission to set up a

center at Yabneh illustrates this perspective well (*AbotR. Nat.4;b. Git.56b). Many thanks to

my colleague Steven Fraade for pointing me in the direction of this material. J. Neusner hastreated the story of Yohanan ben Zakkai in some detail (Development of a Legend: Studies on

th T diti C i Y h b Z kk i [SPB 16 L id B ill 1970] 116 19) did A


10/18


The naming of the tribes in each division is unique to Pseudo-Philo's

version of the story. I believe it functions, like the justifications, to reveal his

own position. While Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, and Simeon present the

suicide position and Gad, Asher, Dan, and Naphtali argue for surrender andvoluntary enslavement, Levi, Judah, Benjamin, and Joseph, traditionally the

most favored tribes, have the last word and insist on fighting the enemy. This

is much in contrast to Exod 14:13-14, where the people are told to be quiet

and watch YHWH fight for them. As noted, it is also in contrast to the rabbinic

and Samaritan versions, which oppose active resistance to the enemy with

the words of Exod 14:14 by way of Moses* response. In Pseudo-Philo's version,

a tension with the biblical narrative results, a tension completely absent from

the other versions. Pseudo-Philo highlights and favors the martial position

even though it does not integrate well with the Exodus 14 narrative. Beforethe people of Israel even have to fight in Pseudo-Philo's telling, God delivers

them from the Egyptians, as in Exodus 14. The reader is left somewhat

puzzled, since much has been made of the martial position. The narrative,

as a result, is rather less effective than it might have been, though it does

function to bring Pseudo-Philo's position into greaterrelief.The rabbinic and

Samaritan versions are more effective because the responses of Moses inte

grate well with the narrative of Exodus 14; in fact, each answer is derived

directly from Exodus 14, as previously noted.

There is some evidence from the literature of this period that the favored

tribes of the Bible are used to identify the position of the text's writer and

the writer's community. The Qumran sectarians, for example, referred to

themselves as "the sons of Levi, the sons of Judah and the sons of Benjamin

the exile of the desert" (bn lw bn yhd bn binymn glat

hammidbr |1QM 1:2]). In addition to being favored tribes, Joseph, Judah,

and Benjamin are by traditionfighters,as in the archaic poetic lore of Genesis

49.26Martial traditions are associated also with Levi in early Israel, though

these do not always portray Levi in a positive light (Genesis 34; 49; Exod32:26-29).27During the Second Temple period, there is evidence for priests

and Lvites playing an important role in resistance to foreign oppressors. The

Maccabees were rural priests, and there is also evidence of priestly leadership

26 For a detailed treatment of the Blessing of Jacob, see F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman,

Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (1950; reprint, SBLDS 21; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,

1975) 69-93.

27 Note the use of the military titlengjtd,"commander," for Jehoiada the Aaronid in a musterlist in 1 Chr 12:28. For a discussion of the development of 1 Chr 12:24-39 (Eng. 23-38), see

my article "Zadok's Origins and the Tribal Politics of David " JBL 101 (1982) 185 89 On the tide


11/18


of factions during the Jewish War.28Josephus himselfwasa general and of a

priestly family. I suggest that a combination of traditional favor for these

tribes and, secondarily, their martial associations rendered them an appro

priate voice for the position of resistance advocated by Pseudo-Philo.The theme of resistance to oppressors is characteristic of the whole of

Pseudo-Philo's work.29Elsewhere in theLiber,there are a number of impor

tant parallels to the third position; these illustrate Pseudo-Philo's advocacy of

various types of resistance to enemy oppression and his belief that God helps

those who act and resist. One of these parallels is Pseudo-Philo's telling of

the David and Goliath story, inLAB61.Here, Goliath threatens Saul and the

Israelites with captivity and forced idolatry: "Are you not the Israel that fled

before me when I took the ark from you and killed your priests? And now

that you are king, come down like a man and a king, and fight us. If not, Iwill come to you and take you captive and make your people serve our gods"

(61:2).30There is nothing like this in the biblical narrative. In addition, the

Ruth/Orpah story is adapted here in a most remarkable way, emphasizing the

element of choice in idolatry (61:6).31 In this narrative, David's active

resistance and challenge to Goliath will cause God to remove hatred and

reproach from Israel. As Goliath dies, he confesses that God killed him, not

David alone. The perspective of this text is essentially the same as that oLAB

10:3, except with an emphasis on the issue of idolatry32 The defiant indi

vidual or group within Israel resisting the oppressor and having faith in Godwill find success; God will act with the resisters on Israel's behalf against

the enemy.

The story of Amram and the elders in LAB9 is also an interesting case,

involving action of a different sort. The narrative was recently treated in some

detail by F. J. Murphy33Amram and the elders debate how best to respond

to Pharaoh's order that all Israelite male infants be killed. The elders state:

28 For example, see the case of Joshua b. Gamala and Ananus b. Ananus, who led their

supporters in battle against the Zealots in Jerusalem (J.W. 4.3.7-14 151-223).29 G. W. E. Nickelsburg discusses this theme in some detail ("Good and Bad Leaders in

Pseudo-Philo'sLiber Antiquitatum Biblicarum"inIdealFiguresin Ancient Judaism:Profilesand

Paradigms[ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 49-65).30 Nonne tu es Israel qui fugisti ante conspectum meum, quando abstuli a vobis arcam et

interfeci sacerdotes vestros? Et nunc regnans descende tamquam vir et rex, et expugnabis nos.

Sin minus, ego veniam ad te, et captivare te faciam et populum tuum servire dus nostris.31 There are parallels in rabbinic lore to some elements of the story in Pseudo-Philo; see

b.Sank.95a;b. Sota42b; andRuth Rob.2:20. Goliath is a descendant of Orpah, who is seen

in the somewhat obscure hrp' of 2 Sam 21:18-22 (hrp in 1 Chr 20:6, 8). Onhrp inits biblical context, see P. K. McCarter, // Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984)

449 50 nn Perrot led me to the rabbinic parallels (Les antiquits bibliques 2 237)


12/18


"Are not these our words that we spoke It is better for us to die without

having sons than that the fruit of our womb be cast into the water^^^ (9:14).

The sentiments are expressed in a slightly different form in 9:2: "For it is

better to die without sons until we see what God may da" The structure of

Exod 14:12b, a rhetorical query followed by the comparative, used to shape

the justification of the suicide position in 10:3, has been utilized in this story

as well to present the position of the elders. This statement is not attested

in the rabbinic and Josephan parallels to this tradition about Amram.34 In

Pseudo-Philo's account, Amram acts against the wishes of the elders and in

defiance of the Egyptians, begetting Moses and having him placed in the

river in a basket. Without Amram's crucial action, there would have been no

Moses to deliver the people.35This story, like the narrative of the debate at

the Reed Sea, has parallels; in this case they are extant in rabbinic texts andin Josephus. But as Murphy has pointed out, only in Pseudo-Philo's version

is there opposition by Amram. In the rabbinic parallels, Amram and the

elders agree to cease having children. In Josephus, Amram entreats God,

who answers him in a vision; the elders play no role in Josephus's version.36

Once again, the active and defiant position is the right position according to

Pseudo-Philo; as inLAB10, there is debate and conflict within Israel over

how best to respond to an external threat.37

A number of stories in the Liber in addition to the narratives of Amram

and Goliath/David feature leaders who risk their lives defying oppressors or

battling enemies and for whom God responds with saving acts.38The char

acter and ideology of the other stories suggest strongly that Pseudo-Philo was

responsible for the distinct shape of the Heed Sea narrative inLAB10. The

narratives of Amram, David, and Abraham not only reflect the same

resistance-oriented or even martial ideology as the Reed Sea narrative, but

even show evidence of the same biblical exegesis used to build the narrative.

The position of the elders in the Amram story inLAB9:14 (see also 9:2) was

clearly shaped by the use of the structure of Exod 14:12b (rhetorical queryfollowed by the comparative), as was the justification for the suicide position

34 Ant. 2.9.2-4 205-23; b. Sota 12a;Exod. Rob. 1.13;Num. Rob. 13.20; Qoh. Rob.9.17;

Pesiq. R.43all brought to my attention by Murphy ("Divine Plan," 11 n. 14).35 As noted previously by Nickelsburg ("Leaders," 53).38 Murphy's full treatment is found in "Divine Plan," 10-12. Murphy discusses Amram's role

as "dissenter," comparing him to Abraham earlier in Pseudo-Philo's narrative.37 Murphy neither notes the use made of the structure of Exod 14:12 in Pseudo-Philo's version

of the Amram story, nor does he observe that the theme of conflict within Israel, worked into

the story by Pseudo-Philo, is common to chap. 10 as well. Nickelsburg has examined the themesof internal Israelite conflict and trust in Cod in some detail: "Characteristic of most of these

t i i li it t t b t th t i t' b ld ti d th i ti fid ti


13/18

Olyan: The Israelites Debate TheirOptions 87

inLAB 10:3.InPseudoPhilo'sAbrahamnarrative,the speechofJoktan,chief

of the Jewish leaders,soundsmuch like that of the secondgroup of tribes

in LAB 10.39

In the lightof these considerations,the viewthatPseudoPhilo

inherited the Reed Sea story already in its martial shape seems less than

cogent.

II

The problem of dating PseudoPhilo's Liber has received considerable

attentionin recentdecades.Thoughvirtuallyallmoderncommentators now

agree that the workhails from thefirstcentury CE,disagreement tends to

focusonwhetheror not it is to be datedto theperiodof theJewishWar and

itsaftermathor to atime before the war, in the earlierpartof the century?0

It haseven beensuggested that someof theworkmay comefromtheprewar

period, having undergone redaction after 70 CE.41

Recent discussion has

tended to focus on several passages of interest (19:7; 22:89; 32:3);42

on

3 9 Joktan: "No, but let thembe givenaperiod of seven days, and if they repentoftheirevil

plans and arewilling to cast in brickswith you, they may live"(6:6; Non sic, sed dabitur eis

spacium dierum Septem, et erit si penituerint super consiliis suis pessimis, et voluerint

vobiscum mittere lapides,vivant). The second group at the Reed Sea: "No, but let us goback

with them; and if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve them" (10:3; Non, sedrevertamur cum eis, et si voluerint nobis donarevitam, serviemus eis).4 0

Murphynotes thewidespread acceptance of afirstcenturydate for the Liber ("Retelling

the Bible," 275), as does Nickelsburg(The Bible Rewrittenand Expanded,"inJewish Writings

of the SecondTemplePeriod[ed. . E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia:Fortress, 1984]

10910) and Vermes (Scripture and Tradition, 6). At the end of the last century,Cohnargued

that the work should be dated after the destruction of the temple,mainly of the basis of his

understanding of 19:7("ApocryphalWork,"32527); he was followed by, amongothers, M. R.

James in 1917(The BiblicalAntiquities ofPho [reissued, New York: Ktav, 1971] 29-33) and by

Delcor in 1961 ("Philon [Pseudo-],"DBSup7.1370-71). More recendy, G. Delling has argued that

the work be dated to ca. 100 ("Von Morija zum Sinai [Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum 32,1-10],"JSJ 2 [1971] 18), and Nickelsburg to the period just after 70 ("Leaders,"

62-64, and "The Bible Rewritten," 109). M. Wadsworth also favors a date after 70 ("A New

Pseudo-Philo,"JJS 29 [1978] 188-91). Bogaert (Les antiquits bibliques 2. 66-74), L. Feldman

("Prolegomenon" to the reissue of James, Biblical Antiquities, xxviii-xxxi), and Harrington

("Pseudo-Philo," 299-300; "Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies," in

Early Judaism,245) have all argued for a date before 70; Harrington has proposed to date the

work to the time of Jesus, whereas Bogaert would date it close to 70. J. Strugnell ("Philo [Pseudo]

or Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,"Encjud 13. 408) has also proposed a date close to 70.41 Koester, Introduction 1. 263.4 t For a synopsis of the various positions on 19:7, see Murphy, "Retelling the Bible," 285. Cohn

believed that 19:7 alludes to the events of 70 CE,though ostensibly it refers to the destructionof the first temple He insisted that the date given, the 17th of Tammuz, can only refer to the

Second Temple citing m Ta1an 4:6 which states a breach was made in Jerusalem's walls on


14/18


parallels between Pseudo-Philo and 4 Ezra/2Baruch;43on the biblical text

of Pseudo-Philo ("Palestinian" text type);44 on his emphasis on capable

leadership;45 and on his apparent silence about the destruction of the

temple.46Scholarly discussion of the date of Pseudo-Philo has more or less

reached an impasse. Pseudo-Philo's presentation of the event at the Reed Sea

is a valuable source for understanding his ideology; let us now consider

whether or not this analysis ofLAB 10:3 can contribute something to the

discussion of Pseudo-Philo's date and provenance.

Given the assumption of the antiquity of the debate tradition on which

Pseudo-Philo builds, and given the general consensus among scholars that

the Liber is be dated between roughly 30 CE and 100 CE, when in this

seventy-year period would the constellation of sentiments expressed in 10:3

be most relevant? The Jewish War is the most likely context that might have

189-91). Against this position, see Bogaert,Les antiquits bibliques2. 67-70; idem, Apocalypse

de Baruch I (SC 144; Paris:Cerf, 1969) 252-58; Feldman, "Epiiegomenon to Pseudo-Philo's

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)?JJS25 (1974) 305-6; and Harrington, "Pseudo-Philo," 299.

All argue that 19:7 cannot be used to establish the date of Pseudo-Philo's work, and I concur

with this view. As Feldman has pointed out, 19:7 speaks of the utter destruction of the city

(demolientur eum)on the 17th ofTammuz.According to Josephus, the city was taken gradually

by the Romans. He gives dates for each event in Jerusalem's gradual fall, but nowhere mentions

the 17th of Tammuz, though he does tell us that the continual offering ended on this date (J.W.

6.2.1 94), in agreement with the later witnessm. Ta'an.4:6. The number 740 cannot be madeto refer to 70CEeven remotely (Cohn was forced to emend the text to 850, following S. 'CAam

Rab.);when Feldman subtracts 740 from 950, the approximate date of Solomon's completion of

the temple, he comes up with 210, a date not too far off from Antiochus's defiling of the temple.

Rabbinic sources provide no solution to the problem of 19:7. In any case, neither temple was

said to have been destroyed on the 17th of Tammuz in any source. LAB 22:8-9 mentions

sacrifices ordained by Joshua"tothisdayTThis passage suggests that the temple still stands; 22:8

must be seriously considered in any discussion of 19:7, 10.LAB32:3, mentioned by Bogaert as

relevant for discussion of date, does not seem to be very revealing one way or another.43 Though the numerous parallels betweenLABand the post-70 works2 Baruch/4Ezra have

long been noted, they provide no clear indication of the date of Pseudo-Philo. James listed the

parallels in some detail(Biblical Antiquities,46-58). Strugnell ("Philo[Pseudo],"408) and others

have argued that Pseudo-Philo was used by the authors of2 Baruch/4Ezra as a source. Both

Bogaert (Les antiquits bibliques 2. 72) and Harrington ("Pseudo-Philo," 299) point out that,

stylistic similarities aside, the issues of Pseudo-Philo diiFer from those of the other two works.

Pseudo-Philo's silence regarding the destruction of the temple is much in contrast to the treat

ment of this subject in2 Baruch/4Ezra. See further these discussions.44 Harrington, 'The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo'sLiber Antiquitatum Biblicarum? CBQ33

(1971) 1-17. Harrington argues that Pseudo-Philo used a Palestinian rather than a Babylonian or

an Egyptian text type. He notes that the evidence is stronger for materials from Joshua, Judges,

and 1 Samuel than for materials from the Pentateuch. The text used is related to the text on

which the Lucianic or proto-Lucianic revisions to LXX were based. The biblical evidence fromMurabba'at and Nahal Hever strongly suggest that an authoritative biblical text for all commu

nities had come into use by the early second century; variant texts would likely have been


15/18


given rise to Pseudo-Philo's version of the debate. In the following analysis,

this hypothesis will be tested.

The extant evidence suggests that the first position, suicide, with the

explanation that it is better to die by one's own hand than to be killed by theenemy, fits best as an option for action during the Jewish War. A number of

individual and mass suicides during the struggle are reported by Josephus.

These include the five thousand who jumped to their deaths during the siege

of Gamala in Galilee (67CE)(J.W4.1.10 79-80), the suicides of the thirty-

nine "persons of distinction" at Jotapata (J.W 3.8.7 387-91), of Meir

b.Belgas and Joseph b. Dalaeus in the flames of the Jerusalem temple (J.W

6.5.1 280), and the well-known and much-touted suicide of the Sicarii on

Masada in 74CE (J.W7.9.1-2 389-406).47It is now widely recognized that

there are always potential problems with using Josephan reporting as sourcematerial for historical reconstruction. In this instance, however, he is virtually

the only source available and must be used with care and caution.48As noted

earlier, the first position is expressed by an interesting contrast: the choice

given is suicide or dying at the hand of the enemy. According to Josephus's

reports on the mass suicides of the war, the choice, where it is made explicit,

is usually between slavery ( = surrender, acceptance of Roman hegemony)

and dying free; only in the case of Gamala is it between suicide and certain

death at the enemy's hand.49 The structure of the narrative suggests that

Pseudo-Philo opposes the suicide position; it is presented first and not by

47 Josephus gives no exact date for the fall of Masada. On the evidence for the date 74 CE,

see W. Eck, "Die Eroberung von Masada und eine neue Inschrift des L. Flavius Silva Nonius

Bassus,"ZNW60 (1969) 282-89, followed by Feldman ("Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholar

ship," inChristianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty

[ed.J. Neusner; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975] 3. 247) and D. M. Rhoads (Israel in Revolution:

6-74 CE. [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976] 119 n. 40). Attempts to dismiss Josephus's reporting of

events at Masada as a complete fabrication have not won much favor among scholars. At the

same time, few doubt that Josephus built his elaborate and dramatic narrative around minimal

reports. See further the fine discussion and critique by Feldman, "Masada," 235-47, and the

excellent treatment ofS.J. D. Cohen, "Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and

the Credibility ofJosephus,"JJS 33 (1982) 385-405.48 Cohen deals with these issues in depth ("Masada"). As he points out, "collective suicides"

are a motif in ancient reporting ("collective suicide did not characterize any particular people

or any particular part of the ancient world" [p. 390]). But Cohen concludes that the Masada

story, though shaped thoroughly by Josephus, "has a basis in fact... many Jews committed

suicide during the crucial moments of the war of 66-70"(p.399). Josephus's biases are discussed

by Rhoads(Israel in Revolution, 13-14).

49 The contrast between dying free and surrender to the Romans ("slavery") is explicit forJotapata (J.W.3.8.4 357), Meir and Joseph (J.W.6.5.1 280), and Masada (J.W. 7.8.6 323-36).

At C l t ld th t th R t ki i th t fi th d J


16/18


favored tribes. But does he parody this viewpoint when he contrasts suicidewith dying at the hand of the enemy? This is possible, particularly if he isusing thefirstposition to allude to a mass suicide by a group who believed

they were choosing to die free rather than accept Roman rule (the Jotapatagroup?theSicarii? others about whom we have norecord?).50Butitisequallypossible that inhisjustification, he may be alluding to the events at Camalain 67CE,where the choice, at least accordingtoJosephus, reallywassuicideor certain death at the hand of the enemy. Ultimately, the question cannotbe answered with any confidence. Even assuming a Jewish War locus forPseudo-Philo's treatment, it is not possible to know whether he is intendingan allusion toaparticular historical event or simply evoking the mood of theJewishWarby relating the debate tradition with its suicide position as one

option for the whole community. As a number ofscholarshave pointed out,though suicide is opposedinlater rabbinichalakah,51it appears tohavebeena viable option in some communities in the period oftheJewish War.52It isdebated in Josephus53and Pseudo-Philo, and both writers oppose it.

The second position, surrenderandvoluntary enslavement,mayrepresenta subtle critique of thosewhochose peacerather than topursue thewarwithRome. Josephus's narrativefrequentlymentions communities and individualsprepared to submit to Roman rule; he tells us that this was consideredtantamount to voluntary enslavement by the Zealots and the Sicarii and that

advocates of this position were treated ruthlessly(J.W4.7.1 389-97; 7.8.1254-55).54 In his description of Jotapata, Josephus presents himselfdefending surrenderasthe most appropriate response afteradefeat, in contrast to suicide, which is a sin against nature and an impious act in his view.In factJosephus'sJeuHsh Waradvocates the peace position over against theviews of thewarfactions.Thejustification provided by Pseudo-Philo for thesecond position emphasizes the relationship of surrender and voluntaryreenslavement: "ifthey arewillingto spare ourlives,we willservethem."This

sounds very much like itmaybeaparody of the arguments of those favoring

50 It is crucial to emphasize once again that one can only speculate at this juncture It is

difficult to assume with any certainty that many mass suicides occurred during the war, let alone

be confident that one can understand their ideological underpinnings.51 Seeb.Sanh.74a on the later, rabbinic discussion, as well as the rabbinic version of the Beed

Sea tradition under discussion.52 See the discussion of Feldman, "Masada," 239-43; and T. Rajak,Josephus: The Historian

and his Society(London: Duckworth, 1983) 169. As Feldman points out, suicide may well have

been a noble choice to sectarians like the Sicarii. That Pseudo-Philo develops the suicideposition as one possible option in a debate between the tribes is of interest in light of this

observation


17/18


peace during the Jewish War, people who may have advocated awaiting the

messiah instead of armed resistance to Home58

Was Pseudo-Philo writing during the war but before the destruction of the

temple? Factionalism and debate within Israel are highlighted in 10:3 as theyare elsewhere in theLiber (Abraham, Amram, Kenaz), and this may suggest

that all options (cooperate, resist, commit suicide in the face of adversity) are

still open to the Jewish community. After 70, this would not have been the

case Josephus's reports consistently feature widespread conflict and faction

alism among Jews. If we can believe Josephus, the Jewish War was on one

level a civil war(J.W 4.3.2 131-34).5e

Even families were divided on the

issue of resistance (J.W4.3.2 132). Though scholars may doubt the value

of some aspects of Josephus's war narrative (the extended speeches; the

polemical descriptions and moral evaluations of Jewish factions and theirleaders), there appears to be little reason to question his observations that

divisions and conflict were rife within the community. The ultimate value of

the suicide reports remains, however, questionable.

Since the value of our major source for reconstructing the Jewish War is

open to question on a number of accounts, it is rather difficult to take a firm

position on the value ofLAB10:3 for establishing the date and provenance

of Pseudo-Philo's work. But if we accept Josephus's broad picture, it appears

that Pseudo-Philo may well have given the Reed Sea tradition a distinctly

polemical shape evoking the issues and conflicts of the Jewish War. Pseudo-

Philo looks very much like a revolt sympathizer, perhaps connected to one

of the war factions. The evidence suggests that he expanded and reshaped

the older tradition of debate at the Reed Sea, drawing on the narrative of

Exodus 14 to do so; his version of the debate may have addressed directly the

beleaguered and divided community during the Jewish War?7

55 The antiresistance position lives on in rabbinic circles; see the discussion in n. 25.

M See further Rhoads(Israel in Revolution, 175-78), who discusses the role of class differ

ences in inner-community conflict.57

This article grew out of a lecture delivered in my Yale College introduction to the Hebrew

Bible and its interpretation in the fall of 1987. I would like to express my gratitude to my

students, whose sharp critical minds are always a source of stimulation, and whose enthusiasm

for biblical studies tends to rub off on me from time to time. I would like to thank Steven Fraade

and John Strugnell for taking the time to read a very early draft of this paper, each made helpful

suggestions, some of which were incorporated here. As always, responsibility for errors (of fact

or judgment) remains my own.


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

olyan, saul - the israelites debate their options at the sea of reeds

Documents