Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:18:48.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pauline Traditions and the Rabbis: Three Case Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Ishay Rosen-Zvi
Ishay Rosen-Zvi*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The comparative study of Paul and the rabbis, an interest of students of the New Testament ever since Christian Hebraism, radically changed in the second half of the twentieth century. If “the study of relations between Judaism and early Christianity, perhaps more than any other area of modern scholarship, has felt the impact of World War II and its aftermath,” then, within this, Pauline scholarship has felt this impact the most. Various post-Holocaust studies read Paul not only in connection to early Judaism but specifically to rabbinic Judaism, which they saw as the epitome of both halakhic and Midrashic discourses. Turning to Tannaitic and Amoraic literatures expressed an urgent need to recontextualize Paul as part of traditional Judaism.

Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 169 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the history of scholarship see Horbury, William, “The New Testament and Rabbinic study: An Historical Sketch,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Bieringer, Reimund et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 1–40 Google Scholar. The most comprehensive synthesis is still Strack, Hermann L. and Billerbeck, Paul, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. Beck, 1921–1964Google Scholar.

2 Gager, John, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983) 13 Google Scholar.

3 Especially, from the 1950s and on, in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The bibliography on Paul and Qumran is immense (The Orion Center bibliography lists 203 studies published since 1995). For a partial survey see Frey, Jörg, “Paul's View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (ed. Rey, J. S.; Leiden: Brill, 2014) 239 Google Scholar n. 8.

4 The landmark study in this regard is Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977)Google Scholar.

5 For the early modern harbingers of this critique see Horbury, “The New Testament and Rabbinic Study,” 35–37. A landmark work in this regard is Smith, Morton, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel: Its Role in Civilization (ed. Davis, Moshe; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1956) 67–81 Google Scholar. Smith read the revolt of 66–73 as a watershed in the development of the Pharisees/rabbis.

6 I use “camps” for convenience. In reality, while many scholars cite scattered rabbinic materials, only a very small number of scholars is actively occupied with systematic comparisons.

7 Visotzky, Burton L., Fathers of the World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995)Google Scholar; Yuval, Israel J., “All Israel Have a Portion in the World to Come,” in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities (ed. Udoh, F. E.; Dame, Notre, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008) 114–138 Google Scholar; Schäfer, Peter, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See especially chapters 6 (“Angels at Sinai”) and 7 (“Adam as a Macro-Anthropos”). This latter chapter is especially interesting in comparison to Kister's “First Adam” (in the following note), which reads the same material as indicating an opposite track of influence. I have also studied rabbinic statements on Jeremiah as a response to and polemic with Paul's adoption of the image of “a prophet to the nations.” See Rosen-Zvi, Ishay, “Like a Priest Exposing His Own Wayward Mother: Jeremiah in Rabbinic Literature,” in Jeremiah's Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, Transformation (ed. Schmidt, K. and Najman, H.; Leiden: Brill, 2016) 570–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Flusser, David, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988)Google Scholar; Flusser, David and Safrai, Shmuel, “Who Sanctified the Beloved in the Womb,” Immanuel 11 (1980) 46–55 Google Scholar; Kister, Menachem, “Romans 5:12–21 against the Background of Torah-Theology and Hebrew Usage,” HTR 100 (2007) 391–424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “‘In Adam:’ 1 Cor 15:21–22; 12:27 in Their Jewish Setting,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garcia Martinez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 685–90; idem, “‘First Adam’ And ‘Second Adam’ in 1 Cor 15:45–49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 351–366; idem, “Body and Sin: Romans and Colossians in Light of Qumran and Rabbinic Texts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, 171–208; Jan Joosten and Menahem Kister, “The New Testament and Rabbinic Hebrew,” in the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 335–50, 346–49. For halakha see Tomson, Peter J., Paul and the Jewish Law (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)Google Scholar, who uses the Tannaitic treatment of impurity, food laws and idolatry as a backdrop for Paul.

9 The only explicit textual quote from the New Testament (Matt 5:17) in rabbinic literature is in b. Shab. 116b.

10 Sandmel, Samuel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962) 1–13 Google Scholar. For similar criticisms of scholarship see Baskin, Judith R., “Rabbinic-Patristic Exegetical Contacts in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographical Reappraisal,” in Studies in Judaism and its Greco-Roman Context (ed. Green, W. S.; vol. 5 of Approaches to Ancient Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 53–80 Google Scholar, at 56–59.

11 See Urbach, Efraim Elimelech, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 303 Google Scholar. Admittedly, other places in this book reveal a more liberal usage of Pauline ideas as a backdrop to rabbinic polemical statements. See e.g., idem, 295–96 on m. Avot 3:11.

12 Visotzky, Burton L., “Goys ‘Я’n't Us,” in Heresy and Identity in Antiquity (ed. Zellentin, H. and Irinschi, E.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 299–313 Google Scholar, at 301. See e.g., Visotzky, Fathers of the World, 62–63, who compares R. Simlai's homily against the minim in y. Ber. 9:1 (12d) with 1 Cor 11:9–12. Both homilies present men and women as interdependent and also as dependent on divine involvement in procreation. Both also contrast the present partnership to the hierarchy in creation as narrated in Gen 2. For the anti-Christian context of the polemics of R. Simlai in this sugia in general see Herford, Robert T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London: Williams and Norgate, 1903) 255–66Google Scholar; Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, 42–54. For another possible polemic of R. Simlai see n. 71 below.

13 Yuval, Israel J., “Christianity in Talmud and Midrash: Parallelomania or Parallelophobia?” in Transforming Relations: Essays on Jews and Christians Throughout History (ed. Harkins, F. T.; Dame, Notre, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010) 50–74 Google Scholar, at 57. Schäfer, Jewish Jesus, does not offer clear criteria, but his comparisons are closer to Yuval's than to Visotzky's. For a critique of this method see Schremer, Adiel, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. Some scholars who debate the “parting of the ways” speak of common formations of ideas rather than polemics. See especially Boyarin, Daniel, Borderlines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004)Google Scholar and his critique of Yuval's method on pp. 4–5; Hasan Rokem, Galit, Tales of the Neighborhood: Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003) 48 Google Scholar.

14 Foucault, Michel, The Use of Pleasure (trans. Hurley, R.; vol. 2 of The History of Sexuality; New York: Pantheon, 1985) 14–24 Google Scholar. Foucault explained this term best in an interview: “Polemics, Politics, and Problematizations,” in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (ed. Paul Rabinow; vol. 1 of Essential Works of Foucault; New York: The New Press, 1998). In this interview (the last one he ever gave), Foucault also explains the political and moral significance of recovering “problematizations” in history (a practice that, confusingly enough, he also calls “problematization”). See further Margolis, Joseph, “Foucault's Problematic,” in Foucault (ed. Nola, Robert; Portland: Frank Cass, 1998) 36–62 Google Scholar.

15 Segal, Alan, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)Google Scholar and Boyarin, Daniel, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)Google Scholar, meticulously compare Paul and the rabbis. Their interest in general attitudes toward the Torah and Israel allowed them to avoid the question of the exact nature of the acquaintance of the rabbis with Paul. My focus on specific traditions makes these questions inevitable, even if the answers remain elusive.

16 Compare for example y. Bik. 1:4 with Philo, Virt. 219. See further Thiessen, Matthew, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar chap. 1 and the sources cited there. I thank Prof. Thiessen for sharing his manuscript with me. Thiessen's claim that various Second Temple writers considered pre-circumcision Abram “a gentile,” because he was a Chaldean and worshipped idols, is hardly supported by the sources and seems to me to unjustly undermine Paul's innovation.

17 This distinguishes my search from Sanders's “common Judaism.” My emphasis is not on shared beliefs, but on obvious assumptions. While the two may overlap, they are far from identical. Thus “Abraham is our father” is not counted by Sanders as a shared belief, exactly because it was so obvious.

18 See e.g., Exod 23:7; Isa 45:25; 50:8; Ps 143:2; Job 4:17; 25:4. Paul's opinion in Rom 4:5 may thus be novel (even “paradoxical to persons schooled in the Jewish tradition,” Jewett, Robert, Romans [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007]Google Scholar 313), but the issue itself is not. See n. 47 below.

19 Schremer, Adiel, Zakhar u-nekevah beraʾam: ha-nisuʾin be-shilhe yeme ha-Bayit ha-sheni uvi-tekufat ha-Mishnah veha-Talmud (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2003) 33–72 Google Scholar.

20 Gafni, Isaiah, “Ma'amadah shel erets Israel ba-toda'ah ha-yehudit be-ikvot mered bar-kokhva,” in Mered bar-kokhva: mehkarim hadashim (ed. Oppenheimer, A. and Rappaport, U.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1984) 224–32Google Scholar. Cf. idem, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

21 Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 138 Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., 51.

23 See van de Sandt, Hubertus W. M. and Flusser, David, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002) 51–52 Google Scholar (“in the borderland between Syria and Palestine”).

24 For the possibility of a Syro-Palestinian provenance, see Prostmeier, Ferdinand-Rupert, Der Barnabasbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1999) 123–25Google Scholar. For allusions to Paul, see Paget, James, “Paul and the Epistle of Barnabas,” NovT 38 (1996) 359–381 Google Scholar.

25 See Barnard, Leslie W., Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1967) 62–63 Google Scholar; Metzger, Canon, 148; Skarsaune, Oskar, The Proof from Prophecy: a Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Leiden: Brill, 1987) 92–100 Google Scholar; idem, “Justin and His Bible,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds (ed. S. Parvis and P. Foster; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 53–76, at 74.

26 The definitive list is still The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, by the Oxford Society of Historical Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905). The evidence is quite elusive and yields opposite scholarly opinions. Harnack's view that “the majority of post-Apostolic Christian writers up until the time of Irenaeus only show minimal traces of Pauline influence” (Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924] 12, translation from Paget, “Paul and the Epistle of Barnabas,” 359) was reinvigorated by Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, “Paulus in der griechischen Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 13 (1964) 1–20 Google Scholar, at 19. Cf. Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 161–64Google Scholar and Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 175–76, who emphasize the polemic against the Gnostics as a catalyzer of reading and interpreting Paul. Other studies, however, question these assertions, identifying clear linguistic, rhetorical and thematic dependencies on Paul's letters already in Ignatius, at the beginning of the second century, if not before. See Mitchell, Matthew W., “In the Footsteps of Paul: Scriptural and Apostolic Authority in Ignatius of Antioch,” JECS 14 (2006) 27–45 Google Scholar, 34 and the literature cited therein. The acquaintance with and influence of Paul's letters took many forms in the second century (from a “normative exemplar” and a source of inspiration to a text to copy, interpret and learn; see ibid., 41) and was both gradual and local in nature. There were also different usages of Paul's legacy, from community building in the Pastoral Letters (n. 39) to supersessionism in Barnabas, Ignatius and Justin (n. 84). Nonetheless, the letters were widely circulated, and “[t]he apostolic fathers do not make use of any other New Testament traditions or texts more often than they do of the letters of Paul” ( Lindemann, Andreas, “Paul in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers,” in Paul and the Legacies of Paul [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990] 25–43 Google Scholar, at 28). It thus does not seem farfetched to read the rabbis as feeling endangered by and thus as reacting to these ideas, in whatever form or style they became known to them.

27 For Ignatius see previous note. For possible earlier imitation of Paul's letters see Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, “Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation and Paul,” JBL 92 (1973) 565–81Google Scholar, at 576.

28 Cf. von Campenhausen, Hans, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 143 Google Scholar.

29 See Safrai, Shmuel, “Massa'ot ha-hahakhamim le-romi,” in Sefer zikkaron liShelomo Umberto Nakhon (ed. Bonfil, R. et al.; Jerusalem: Mossad Samuel Meir and Mossad Raphael Cantoni, 1978) 151–67Google Scholar; Hezser, Catherine, Jewish Travel in Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 441–62Google Scholar.

30 See Schwartz, Joshua and Tomson, Peter J., “When Rabbi Eliezer was Arrested for Heresy,” JSIJ 10 (2012) 145–81Google Scholar; Furstenberg, Yair, “The Midrash of Jesus and the Bavli's Counter-Gospel,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 22.4 (2015) 303–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 308–9.

31 Patzia, Arthur G., The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995) 82 Google Scholar; von Campenhausen, Christian Bible, 145. For a survey of the various theories of the collection of Paul's epistles see Price, Robert M., “The Evolution of the Pauline Canon,” Hervormde Theologise Studies 53 (1997) 36–67 Google Scholar.

32 The designation “heretic” (min) and “heresy” (minut) in Tannaitic literature is not limited to Christianity (pace Teppler, Y., Birkat HaMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World, [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007])Google Scholar, but in some cases (most notably t. Hul. 2:24, see n. 30 above) the minim are undoubtedly Christians. See further Goodman, Martin, “The Function of ‘minim’ in Early Rabbinic Judaism,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Bd. I: Judentum (ed. Schäfer, P.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 501–10Google Scholar, and Schremer, Adiel, “Wayward Jews: Minim in Early Rabbinic Literature,” JJS 64 (2013) 242–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 For the lack of interest in the intricacies of Christology in rabbinic literature see Kister, Menachem, “Na'ase Adam,” in Sugiyot be-mehkar ha-talmud: yom iyun le-tsiyun hamesh shanim lifetirato shel E. E. Urbach (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2001) 28–65 Google Scholar, at 56.

34 Note that I am not claiming that this question is not interesting or important, but simply that it cannot be answered on the basis of the information we have. Pauline ideas could have been distinct enough to be identified by the rabbis as coming from a specific source, but there is no way of establishing that. We thus use Paul's letters below as a repository of radical ideas to which the rabbis reacted, even without identifying them as Pauline or even as coming from a unified source. With this lacuna in mind, I am consciously combining two methods here: treating the Pauline letters as a repository of distinct themes and, at the same time, reading these themes through the supersessionist lens of second century Christianity.

35 See e.g., Stendahl, Krister, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 78–96 Google Scholar.

36 See Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism; Tomson, Peter J., “The Didache, Matthew, and Barnabas as Sources for Early Second Century Jewish and Christian History,” in Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries: How to Write Their History (ed. Tomson, Peter J. and Schwartz, Joshua; Brill: Leiden, 2014) 348–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See nn. 24–26 above. Compare esp. Rom 4:11 to Barn. 9:6 and 13:7 and Justin Dial. 16:2 on circumcision, and see Flusser and Safrai, “Who Sanctified the Beloved in the Womb”; Paget, “Paul and the Epistle of Barnabas,” 372–74; idem, “Barnabas 9:4: A Peculiar Verse on Circumcision,” Vigilae Christianae 45 (1991) 242–54.

38 Gaston, Lloyd, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Gager, John, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Fredriksen, Paula, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul's Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010) 232–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Arnal, William, “The Collection and Synthesis of ‘Tradition’ and the Second Century Invention of Christianity,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 23 (2011) 193–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marshall, John, “Misunderstanding the New Paul: Marcion's Transformation of the Sonderzeit Paul,” JECS 20 (2012) 1–29 Google Scholar.

40 Unless otherwise noted, rabbinic texts are cited according to the manuscripts chosen by the “Maagarim” database of the Historical Dictionary for Hebrew Language. All translations from rabbinic literature are mine. Mishnah translations are modified from Danby, Herbert, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938)Google Scholar.

41 This is clearly an independent source added to the Mishnah. See Epstein, Jacob N., Mavo le-nosah ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem: Magness, 1948) 977–78Google Scholar.

42 Literally: to be (or presented as) righteous; LXX: ἵνα δικαιωθῇ. See n. 48 below.

43 Time unknown. Appears only once more in t. Shek. 3:18 as transmitting a Temple tradition.

44 Davies, William D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (2nd ed. with additional note; London: SPCK, 1955) 268–9Google Scholar; Steinmetz, Devorah, Punishment and Freedom: The Rabbinic Construction of Criminal Law (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008) 94–96 Google Scholar. Avemarie, Compare Friedrich, Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 299 Google Scholar who mentions the analogy, without assuming any connection.

45 Kister, “Romans 5:12–21” 411 n. 96.

46 On the term in rabbinic literature see Marmorstein, Arthur, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1920) 3–11 Google Scholar; Hill, David, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 117 Google Scholar; Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 187–88; Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 117; Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 298; Kister, “Romans 5:12–21,” 408; Steinmetz, Punishment and Freedom, 171–72 n. 52; Rosen-Zvi, Ishay, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 114–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the debt metaphor, see Anderson, Gary, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 95–110 Google Scholar. For the combination of righteousness and justification in the biblical , see Dodd, Charles H., The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935) 45–48 Google Scholar and Hill, Greek Words, 96–98. That this biblical combination continues also in Paul's δικαιοσύνη was meticulously argued by Seifrid, Mark A., “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; ed. Carson, D. A. et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) 415–442 Google Scholar; idem, “Paul's Use of Righteous Language Against its Hellenistic Background,” in The Paradoxes of Paul (Vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; ed. D. A. Carson et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004) 39–74.

47 Mek. RI, kaspa 3, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, 328; cf. ibid., nezikin 10, 283. Paul deliberately changes the meaning of this verse (in its MT version! See Olley, John W., ‘Righteousness’ in the Septuagint to Isaiah [SBL Press: Missoula, MT, 1979] 45 Google Scholar) by presenting God in Rom 4:5 as one “who justifies the impious (or: guilty, ἀσεβῆ; LXX for ).” See Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 57–58; Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 148; Kolenkow, Anitra, “The Ascription of Romans 4:5,” HTR 60 (1967) 228–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 While some read the verse as a reference to God Himself (LXX and the Peshitta), others read it as a reference to God's servant (however decoded; note the move of vv. 18–19 from plural to singular), mentioned at the opening of the chapter (thus Symmachus [ Field, Frederick, Origines Hexaplorum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875) 517 Google Scholar]; the vulgate and Targum Jonathan). See The Book of Isaiah (ed. Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein; 3 vols.; Magnes: Jerusalem, 1981) 2:190; Goldingay, John and Payne, David, Isaiah 40–55 (ICC; 2 vols.; London: T&T Clark, 2006)Google Scholar 1:263; Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 299 n. 34.

49 Cf. R. Aha's homily in Lev. Rab. 31:8, ed. Margulies, 727. This translation is common in the Targums (see e.g. Targum Jonathan to Isa 42:12 below). See Itshak Gluska, “Hashpa'at ha-aramit bi-leshon ha-mishnah” (PhD Diss., Bar Ilan University, 1987) 365–66. For the parallelism of and in the Hebrew Bible see Ps 51:6; Job 15:14; 25:4 with HALOT 1:269; TDOT 4:63. Both BH and MH have an additional salvific context (see e.g., Mek. RI, Pasha 5, Lev. Rab. 32:5; pace Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 189). It is unclear whether this context is implied in R. Hananiah b. Akashiah's homily (cf. the ending of R. Simeon the son of Rabbi's statement [3]: “to the end of all generations”).

50 This is the meaning of in the homily above. Cf. the Mekhilta below that reads the verses as regarding only to the commandments ( ), and b. Meg. 27a, in which “Torah” is read as study alone (thus contrasting it with prayer).

51 Such a meticulous paraphrasing ( ; while ) is rare in the Mishnah.

52 Mek. RI, Pasha 16, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, 59; Nez. 18, 312. It is possible that the rabbis read as a verbal form, as hinted by the homilists’ language . Cf. Targum Jonathan: (“the Lord is pleased in order to justify Israel”; Chilton, Bruce D., The Isaiah Targum [Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1987] 83 Google Scholar and n. 82). While the Targum attempts to translate the sentence literally, including the vague , our homilist ignores this word in his paraphrase. See Olley, ‘Righteousness’ in the Septuagint to Isaiah, 60–61, who suggests that the LXX (ἵνα δικαιωθῇ, “that he might be [shown to be] righteous”) also read as a verb.

53 In both cases, the slogan is clearly an addition to the original homily. Note also that (cf. b. Shabb. 56a) differs from appearing earlier in both occasions and may be affected by in R. Hananiah b. Akashiah's homily. It is thus reasonable that (“reward”) here is a modification of (being one of its meanings) rather than a direct translation of . All other paraphrases on the verse in rabbinic literature have either (see Exod. Rab. 9:1, ed. Shinan, 206) or (Lev. Rab. 31:8; Num. Rab. 14:10; 15:2).

54 See previous note.

55 See 1QHa 14:13: “For your own glory and your own sake ( ) [you] have acted to magnify the teaching ( ) and [. . .” (DJD 40, 196). For the reconstruction of the text, compare Licht, Yaakov, Megillat ha-hodayot: mimegillot midbar yehudah (Jerusalem, Mossad Bialik, 1957) 112 Google Scholar with Qimron, Elisha, Megillot midbar yehudah: ha-hiburim ha-ivriyyim (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2010) 1 Google Scholar:78. The verse is clearly read here as referring to God himself.

56 Cf. Ps 119:142, which however has a different meaning.

57 See n. 81 below.

58 Note that the Pauline critique of the power of Torah to justify does not depend on the “Lutheran” reading of justification by faith as the center of Paul's teaching, although admittedly it does assume Paul's criticism to be aimed to a larger audience than the Judaizers alone, as per the “Sonderweg” reading (see n. 38 above).

59 Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 21–22 Google Scholar. Sanders claims that these verses are quoted due to these features, and not because they are part of a coherent theological argument on salvation.

60 This combination too is quite rare in scripture. See Deut 4:8, Isa 51:7 and Hab 1:4 (decidedly negative!).

61 Sifre Deut 286 (ed. Finkelstein, 304) cites a different version of these homilies (without the R. Hananiah b. Akashya's addendum discussed above) in a different order. This may also indicate that it did not have an authorized version of our mishnah, which it usually cites verbatim. See Finkelstein ad loc.

62 See Shemesh, Aharon, Onashim ve-hataim: min ha-mikra le-sifrut hazal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003) 91 Google Scholar.

63 See Epstein, Mavo le-nosah ha-Mishnah, 402.

64 Since, axiomatically, the measure of favor is greater than the measure of repayment. This is a common argument in Tannaitic literature, used both in Halakha and Aggadah. On this statement see further Kister, “Romans 5:12–21.”

65 The conclusion that not sinning brings about the same payment as would actively observing the commandments seems to be an artificial addendum meant to connect the homily to the context of tractate Makkot, which is about sins, not positive commandments. Indeed, in the Sifre (n. 61 above) this conclusion is cited as an independent homily attributed to Rabbi (Judah the Patriarch). Shlomo Naeh once suggested in a seminar that the original ending of the tractate was a quotation of Lev 18:5, “and live by them,” an apt ending for tractate Sanhedrin-Makkot that focuses on the death penalty.

66 On sages after Rabbi in the Mishnah, see Epstein, Jacob N., Mevo'ot le-sifrut ha-tannaim (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Dvir and Magnes, 1955) 227–32Google Scholar.

67 Ezek 20:11, 13, 21; Neh 9:29; Pss. Sol. 4:2–3; 4QDa 11:12; Matt 19:17; Luke 10:29.

68 On the use of Lev 18:5 in martyrological contexts see Schwartz, Daniel, “Ma hava lei lememar? ‘ve-hai bahem,’” in Kedushat ha-hayyim ve-heruf ha-nefesh: kovets maamarim le-zikhro shel amir yekutiel (ed. Gafni, I. and Ravitzky, A.; Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1993) 69–83 Google Scholar.

69 Cf. Stowers, Stanley K., A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 309 Google Scholar. The context, however, hardly supports his reading.

70 An allusion to Ezek 20:25. For the early Christian usage of this verse see Paget, “Barnabas 9:4,” 247–48. The rabbis, in contrast, read this verse as referring to the laws of the gentiles (Midrash Tannaim, 97, on Deut 16:18) to the preservation of the holidays in the diaspora (y. Eruv. 3:8 [21c] and parallels) or to inappropriate manners of torah study (b. Meg. 32a) and the recitation of the shema (b. Ber. 24b).

71 Cf. Steinmetz, Punishment and Freedom, 94–96. The bulk of Steinmetz's chapter focuses on the homily of R. Simlai at the end of b. Makk.

72 Commandments to the sons of Noah appear in various second temple texts (Jub. 7:20; Sib. Or. 4:24–39; Acts 15:20, 29). For their proximity to the rabbinic list of commandments, and the likelihood of a shared tradition, see Finkelstein, Louis, “Some Examples of the Maccabean Halaka,” JBL 49 (1930) 20–42 Google Scholar, 21–25; Cana Werman, “ha-Yahas la-goyim be-Sefer ha-Yovlim uve-sifrut Kumran be-hashvaʾah la-halakhah ha-Tanaʾit ha-kedumah ule-sifrut hitsonit bat ha-tekufah” (Ph.D. Diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995) 333–338; and Moshe Lavee, “Sheva mitsvot bene noah: avnei ha-binyan shel ha-tefisah ha-talmudit ba-megillot, be-sifrut ha-kat uve-ma‘asei ha-shelikhim,” Meghillot 10 (2013) 73–114 and the references below.

73 There is no hint that “the sons of Noah” stands for non-Israelites only. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (3:2–4) are marked as the exceptions in the steady tradition of sinfulness, which also includes their offspring (3:4 ff.), and therefore as the harbingers of the yahad members themselves (3:12–14). On Noah in Second Temple literature see Lewis, Jack P., A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1968)Google Scholar; Dimant, Devorah, “Noah in Early Jewish Literature,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. Stone, Michael E. et al.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 1998) 123–50Google Scholar.

74 The central Tannaitic source on this matter is t. Av. Zar. 9[8]:4–8. David Sabato, “Mitsvot bene noah ba-sifrut ha-tannait” (M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2014) 83, showed that the unit systematically adapts material from various Tannaitic traditions to create an anthology on gentiles. See also Hirshman, Marc, Torah lekhol ba'ei ha-olam (Tel Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad, 1999) 90–104 Google Scholar.

75 See Lavee, “Sheva mitsvot bene noah,” 103 and Hayes, Christine, What's Divine about Divine Law? Early Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015) 354–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 359. On Jub. 7 see Werman, “ha-Yahas la-goyim,” 333–38; Isaac Oliver, W., “Forming Jewish Identity by Formulating Legislation for Gentiles,” JAJ 4 (2013) 105–32Google Scholar; Hanneken, Todd R., “The Sin of the Gentiles: The Prohibition of Eating Blood in the Book of Jubilees,” JSJ 46 (2015) 1–27 Google Scholar. All three, however, read the commandments in Jubilees with rabbinic conceptions already in mind.

76 Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Huledet ha-goy be-sifrut hazal,” Te'uda 26 (2014) 361–438, at 374 n. 54. See also Mek. Deut 12:30: “If idolater gentiles live due to the merit of Noah, should we not live due to the merits of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?”

77 Compare the Bavli's remark ad loc, b. Ned. 31a: “But is Israel excluded from the ‘Noahides’? [Yes], From the time Abraham was consecrated they were named for him.”

78 Jer 33:26; Isa 41:8; Ps 105[104]:6 [cf. 1 Chr 16:13]; 2 Chr 20:7; T. Levi 8:15; Ord-Levi 17; Pss. Sol. 9:9, 18:3; 2 Macc 6:3; 4 Macc 18:1.

79 VanderKam, James C., The Book of Jubilees (2 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 2 Google Scholar:98. See van Ruiten, Jaques, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the process of selection, compare 1 En. 89:10-12. See also Philo, Abr. 168.

80 The only exception is the claim attributed to Areius, king of Sparta, that Spartans and Jews are both ἐκ γένους Αβρααμ (1 Macc 12:21; cf. 2 Macc 5:9). It too, however, does not question the genealogical nature of this phrase but rather suggests adding the Spartans to the same genealogy. See Gruen, Eric, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) 253–68Google Scholar and Bremmer, Jan M., “Spartans and Jews: Abrahamic Cousins?” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites (ed. Goodman, M. et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 47–60 Google Scholar.

81 Gal 3:29; Rom 9:7–8; cf. Rom 4:16–18. For the different contexts of Romans and Galatians and their different attitudes towards “the gentile question” see Drane, John W., Paul: Libertine or Legalist: A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975)Google Scholar and Hübner, Hans, Law in Paul's Thought (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984)Google Scholar. That “the seed of Abraham” is used in both letters to denote the new believers is telling.

82 “Disclosing,” since at the same time he uses the rhetoric of “evident,” presenting his reading as “foreseen” by the verse (Gal 3:7, 11).

83 On the question of whose faith is referred to here, see Neutel, Karin B., “‘Neither Jew Nor Greek’: Abraham as a Universal Ancestor,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites, (ed. Goodman, M. et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 291–306 Google Scholar.

84 Siker, Jeffery S., Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991) 33–34 Google Scholar. For a different reading, which places those who believe in Christ, even according to Galatians, alongside the Jews rather than in their place, see Hodge, Caroline Johnson, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem. The former places the gentiles as adopted sons of Abraham, the latter—as his pneumatic and heavenly sons. Both, as others in the “Sonderweg” school (see n. 38 above), emphasize that they do not disinherit the Jews. See especially Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 124, and Stanly Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 243, on Rom 4:12. But, regardless of the interpretive decisions with regard to Gal 3 and Rom 4 and 11, these non-supersessionist readings were simply not available for the rabbis in the second and third centuries. On the development of the supersessionist theory in second-century Christianity see Richardson, Peter, Israel in the Apostolic Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Rom 11:1 and 2 Cor 11:22. The latter reference is the only mention of Abraham in the Pauline corpus outside of Romans and Galatians. A traditional reading of Abraham's seed as a reference to Jews is also reflected in Rom 9:7: “not all of Abraham's sperma are his children.” Cf. also Paul's speech according to Acts 13:26: “My brothers, you descendants of Abraham's family, and others who fear God.”

86 See e.g. Jub. 15–17; T. Levi 9; Sir 44:19–21; 1 Macc 2:50–52; CD 3:2-4, 16:6; Philo, Abr. 275 (and passim). See Yakir Paz, “Kodem matan Torah: ha-avot ve-hukei moshe be-sifrut hazal al reka sifrut bayit sheni ve-avot ha-kenesiyyah” (MA Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009) 31–35; Levenson, Jon D., Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012) 143–49Google Scholar.

87 See Hansen, G. Walter, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 167–74Google Scholar.

88 Many new scholars emphasize that the relationship between Abraham and the Christ's believers in Gal 3 and Rom 4 is that of inheritance and not only a paradigm for imitation. The believers are saved with Abraham, not just like him. See Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 229–30; Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 67–89; Stephen L. Young, “Paul's Ethnic Discourse on ‘Faith’: Christ's Faithfulness and Gentile Access to the Judean God in Romans 3:21–5:1,” HTR 108 (2015) 30–51, at 40–42. For imitating Abraham in rabbinic literature, cf. t. Sot. 6:9.

89 See Esler, Philip E., “Paul's Contestation of Israel's (Ethnic) Memory of Abraham in Galatians 3,” BTB 36 (2006) 23–34 Google Scholar. See also Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 113, on Gal 3:6-7 and Siker, Disinheriting the Jews, 39 on 3:16.

90 Paul is not content with presenting the ἔθνη as genealogically related to Abraham through his designation as the father of many ἔθνη (Gen 17:4–5 = Rom 4:17; cf. Gen 12:3 and 18:18 = Gal 3:8), but rather insists on calling them by the name preserved solely for the Israelite line in Genesis, “seed.” See Donaldson, Terrance L., “Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ‘New Perspective’ Perspective,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (ed. Nanos, Mark D. and Zetterholm, Magnus; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015) 296–97Google Scholar. Compare y. Bikk. 1:4 (64d): “It was taught in the name of R. Judah: the proselyte himself may both bring (the first-fruits) and recite (the statement in Deut 26:5–10). Why? For the father of a multitude of nations ( ) have I made thee (Gen 17:5)—formerly you have been a father to Aram, from now on you are a father to all the gentiles ( )” (cf. t. Ber 1:14). Both Paul and R. Judah read the verse as referring to individual gentiles, rather than to nations (see Rosen-Zvi, Ishay and Ophir, Adi, “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles,” JQR 105 [2015] 1–41)Google Scholar. They also share the inference that if Abraham is the father of the gentiles, then they can be legitimately considered his offspring and thus call him “our father.” The rabbis, however, convert the gentiles into proselytes, i.e. former gentiles (compare 1 Cor 12:2). On Abraham as a missionary see Sifre Deut 32; Gen. Rabb. 39:5.

91 Paul, except for on one famous, questionable occasion (Gal 6:16), avoids calling his believers “Israel.” See Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 174. His followers in the next generation were not as cautious. See Pagels, Elaine H., “The Social History of Satan. Part Three: John of Patmos and Ignatius of Antioch: Contrasting visions of ‘God's People,’” HTR 99 (2006) 487–505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 499–500.

92 Scholars found precedents for Paul's claim in biblical and post biblical sources which regard Abraham as “the father of many nations” (Gen 17:4–5 and Jub. 15:5–6; Rom 4:17. Cf. n. 90 above) or promise that “all nations of the earth will be blessed through you/your seed” (Gen 12:3, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14; Sir 44:19; Jub. 12:23; Philo, Migr. 118 and passim; Gal 3:8; Acts 3:25). See Brigit van der Lans, “Belonging to Abraham's Kin: Genealogical Appeals to Abraham As a Possible Background for Paul's Abrahamic Argument,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites, 307–318, at 308; Donaldson, Terrence L., Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Novenson, Matthew, “The Jewish Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the Gentile Question,” JBL 128 (2009) 357–73Google Scholar; Sherwood, Aaron, Paul and the Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2013)Google Scholar; Olson, Daniel C., A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (Brill: Leiden, 2013) 242–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neutel, Karin B., A Cosmopolitan Ideal: Paul's Declaration ‘Neither Jew nor Greek, Neither Slave nor Free, nor Male and Female’ in the Context of First-Century Thought (London: T&T Clark, 2015) 72–91 Google Scholar; Wisdom, Jeffrey, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul's Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Galatians 3,8–10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 65–86 Google Scholar. But Paul is much more radical than that. He is not content with models in which the nations take part in the redemption of Israel or join them in worshipping the Jewish god (see e.g. En. 10:21; 90:33; Tobit 14:6; Sib. Or. 3:716–720; 2 Bar. 72–73), but rather insists that the gentile believers themselves become sperma Abraam (Gal 3:29, Rom 9:8), for “if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29). I do not know of any pre-Pauline text which promises that much.

93 Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel According to John (3 vols.; AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966)Google Scholar 1:362–63; Nirenberg, David, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition (New York: Norton, 2013) 81 Google Scholar.

94 For Q see Tuckett, Christopher M., Q and the History of Early Christianity (Edinburgh: Hendrickson, 1996)Google Scholar; for John see Brown, Raymond, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979)Google Scholar.

95 Yedidah Koren, “Ha-orla ve he-arel ba-sifrut ha-yehudit ha-atika vi-yetsirat he-arel ha-yehudi,’” (MA Thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2014) 66–71. Cf. Cohen, Shaye D., “Judaism without Circumcision and ‘Judaism’ without ‘Circumcision’ in Ignatius,” HTR 95 (2002) 395–415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 406. For the Mishnaic citation of Jer 9:26 contrast Barn. 9:4; Justin, 1 Apol. 53:11.

96 For two very different readings of Paul's argument compare Barclay, John M. G., “Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25–9 in Social and Cultural Context,” NTS 44 (1998) 536–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with Garroway, James D., “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15.7–13,” JSNT 34 (2012) 303–22Google Scholar.

97 See further Rosen-Zvi, “Huledet ha-goy,” 381.

98 For the judicial origin of this metaphor, see Seeligmann, Itshak Aryeh, Mehkarim be-sifrut ha-mikra (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 261–63Google Scholar.

99 This might have an eschatological meaning. Compare: “the Lord will lift his face toward you—in this world, who does not lift face—in the world to come.”

100 Menahem Kahana, Sifre Ba-Midbar: Mahadurah Mevoeret (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011) 2:324.

101 Even according to Paul this relationship never completely disappears (Rom 2:9). On the rhetoric of “to the Jew first” in Romans, see Rosen-Zvi and Ophir, “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles,” 30 n. 115.

102 Note that being righteous does not make favoritism unnecessary. See Sifre Deut 1, ed. Finkelstein, 5 (referring to Miriam's sin and punishment in Num 12): “I did not show favoritism to Miriam, the righteous.” Cf. Sifre Deut 29, ed. Finkelstein, 46.

103 This is the reading of MS Oxford, Cowley 366, and Paris Bibliothéque Nationale, Héb. 671. Most MSS (including the Cambridge Genizah fragment T-S F2(1).159) read .

104 For the rivalry between angels and Israel in rabbinic literature, see Schäfer, Peter, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen: Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Other sources present additional solutions. See PdRK 13:13, and the spurious pesikta in ed. Mandelbaum, 472. See Strack und Billerbeck, Kommentar, vol. 3, 80–81, and Kahana, Sifre Ba-Midbar ad loc. Here I am interested in the contradiction itself, featured similarly in these sources (all, most likely, dependent on the Tannaitic source).

106 Forgiveness and mercy (positive): Gen 19:21, 32:21; Deut 28:3; Lam 4:16; 1 Sam 25:35; 1 Kgs 1:8–9, 3:14; Job 42:8–9. Favoritism in judgment, human and divine (negative): Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17; Ps 82:2; Prov 6:25; 18:5; Job 13:8, 10, 32:21, 34:19; 2 Chr 9:7; Sir 32:15–16; Pss. Sol. 2:18. Cf. the parallel phrase : Deut 1:17, 16:19; Prov 24:23, 28:21. See “ ,” TDOT vol. 10, 38.

107 See Sifre Deut 14, ed. Finkelstein, 24; idem, 29, ed. Finkelstein, 46; idem, 304, ed. Finkelstein, 323; Mek. Deut ad Deut 12:30 (Hoffmann, Midrash Tannaim, 62; Kahana, Menahem, Kitei Midreshei Halakhah Min Ha-Genizah [Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005] 351)Google Scholar. See also the Talmudic idiom “is there favoritism in this matter?” (b. Meg. 12a; b. Yev. 79a) and Bassler, Jouette M., Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 45–66 Google Scholar. On m. Avot 4:22 see Rosen-Zvi, Ishay, Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011) 91–92 Google Scholar.

108 Cf. “the rabbis’ hermeneutical energy was directed not at developing this idea [of divine impartiality] but at justifying God's preference for Israel” (Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 65). See also n. 116 below.

109 See Alon Goshen-Gottstein, “Elohim ve-israel ke-av u-ven ba-sifrut ha-tannait,” (PhD Diss., the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1987).

110 VanderKam, Jubilees, 2:34.

111 Segal, Michael, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 138 n. 89, notes only the negative connotation, since he considers vv. 13–18 to be a separate unit.

112 Werman, Cana, Sefer ha-yovelim: mavo, targum u-feirush (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2015) 215 Google Scholar (my translation). On the different accounts of the Day of Atonement in Jubilees see Kugel, James, A Walk Through Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 56 Google Scholar; idem, Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (Philadelphia: JPS Society Press, 2013) 309. On repentance and human agency in Jubilees see also Lambert, David A., “Did Israel Believe that Redemption Awaited Their Repentance?: The Case of Jubilees 1,” CBQ 68:4 (2006) 631–50Google Scholar.

113 On λαμβάνω as translating in LXX see Lev 19:15; Mal 1:8–9, 2:9; Lam 4:16. Cf. Deut 16:19. On the more frequent translation, θαυμάζω, see Strack und Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:79 n. 1.

114 Jewett, Romans, 209. Cf. “προσωπολημψία,” TDNT, 6:780.

115 Gal 2:6, Col 3:25, with regard to God; Eph 6:9, Jesus; Jas 2:1, 9, the believers. See “προσωπολημψία,” EDNT, 3:179.

116 Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 17–44, and the conclusion, 44. Bassler further shows that a potential for such a universal reading exists in Deuteronomy's juxtaposition of impartiality and care for the resident alien (ger, Deut 1:16–17; 10:17–18). Nonetheless, in most cases post-biblical texts use impartiality to explain Israel's fate and demand that God bring their oppressors to justice (Sir 35:15; Pss. Sol. 2:18; 2 Bar. 13:8. Cf. Wis 6:7; 1 En. 63:8). Jubilees 5 is exceptional in using partiality, rather than impartiality, for a similar cause.

117 Compare 1:16 with 2:9–10 and 3:9, and see Bassler, Jouette M., “Divine Impartiality in Paul's Letter to the Romans,” NT 26 (1984) 43–58 Google Scholar; Das, Andrew A., Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001) 171–91Google Scholar.

118 When favoritism is not in view, Paul has no problem with contradicting scripture's narrative of God's justice, as in Rom 4:5 which opposes Exod 23:7.

119 Note that the plain reading of Num 6:26 (MT) has nothing to do with favoritism. Israel is not blessed by having their face lifted by God, but rather by the fact that “God will lift his face” toward them. This is the reading in all Targums, as well as in 1QS 2:4,9, and Sifre Zuta ad loc (ed. Horowitz, 248). Cf. Gertner, Meir, “Midrashim in the New Testament,” JSS 7 (1962) 267–92Google Scholar, at 278. Other rabbinic sources, however, already conflate the two metaphors. See e.g., Sifre Num 42 (ed. Kahana, 112 ll. 4–7), Gen. Rab. 50:11 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 50), which compares Num 6:26 and Gen 19:21, and PdRK Divrei 13, ed. Mandelbaum, 237, which contrasts Num 6:26 with Deut 28:50. Note that Sifra Behukotai 1:3 on Lev 26:9 reads “ ” as “I will be free/have leisure for you” ( ; cf. Mekhilta, Bahodesh 2: ; Sifra Kedoshim 5:1: ) rather than “I will turn to you,” pace Kraemer, David, Responses to Suffering in Classical Rabbinic Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 92 Google Scholar and Weinberg, Joanna, “A Rabbinic Disquisition of Leviticus 26:3–13: A Utopian Vision between Jews and Christians,” in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination (ed. Green, D. A. and Lieber, L. S.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 121–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 124 and n. 14.

120 See also Mek. Deut (n. 107 above), in which the nations complain that Israel can stay on their land even when worshipping idols, while the gentiles were evicted for the very same reason: “This is favoritism!” Kahana, Sifre Ba-Midbar, ad loc. notes that “favoritism” is specifically ascribed to gentiles in the Bavli (Alexandrians in b. Nid. 70b and 69b and Balloria the Convert in b. R. H. 17b), but does not read the homily itself as polemical.