Whitenton 2012 Rewriting Abraham.pdf

8/14/2019 Whitenton 2012 Rewriting Abraham.pdf

1/19

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 DOI: 10.1163/156853612X628133

Novum estamentum 54 (2012) 149-167 brill.nl/nt

Rewriting Abraham and Joseph

Stephens Speech (Acts 7:2-16) and Jewish

Exegetical Traditions

Michael R. Whitenton

Waco, X

AbstractIn the conclusion of his recent article Acts and the Fragmentary Jewish Authors (Nov 53[2011] 22-51), C.R. Holladay suggested the need for further work in comparative herme-neutics in relation to the Acts of the Apostles. In response to Holladays call, this articleexplicates the use of Genesis in Acts 7:2-16 in light of the use of Genesis in select Jewishtexts, from the LXX to those from the rabbinic period, focusing particularly, though notexclusively, on the impact of certain exegetical traditions found inJubilees, Philos De Abra-hamo, andJosephusJewish Antiquities.

KeywordsActs of the Apostles, Hellenistic Judaism, Jewish hermeneutics, Josephus, Philo, Jewishexegetical techniques

Introduction

In the study of the Acts of the Apostles, the impact of Jewish exegeticaltechniques and interpretive traditions on Lukes1use of the LXX is oftenunder-appreciated. Recently, however, C.R. Holladay has brought oncemore to the fore the issue of the relation of the Acts to its Hellenistic Jew-ish milieu.2In response to Holladays concluding call to revive the use ofcomparative hermeneutics, especially in the study of Acts, this articlefocuses on the use of Genesis in Acts 7:2-16 in light of the use of Genesisin certain Jewish texts from the LXX to those from the rabbinic period,

1) For the sake of simplicity, I refer to the author of Acts with the traditional, Luke.2) C.R. Holladay, Acts and the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Nov53 (2011)22-51.


2/19

150 M.R. Whitenton / Novum estamentum 54 (2012) 149-167

concentrating specifically on the hermeneutical similarities and differencesbetween Acts 7:2-16 and the LXX, Jubilees, Philos Legum allegoriae, De

Abrahamo and De Iosepho, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum,JosephusJewishAntiquities, and Genesis Rabbah and argum Pseudo-Jonathan. Noting theindebtedness of the Stephen speech to ancient rhetoric, this article willexplore the relationship between the use of rhetoric in Stephens refuta-tio and his use of Genesis therein (7:2-16)especially, as it compares withother versions of these sections of the Genesis narrative. wo questionsimmediately arise: (1) How have other ancient texts understood the Abra-ham and Joseph cycles, particularly those events which feature in Acts7:2-16?, and (2) How does the Lukan Stephen use Genesis, and associatedinterpretive tradition, in the opening section of his refutatio?

In order to answer these questions, this article explores the use of Gen-esis in other Jewish texts as it relates to the episodes covered in Acts 7:2-16.We will proceed in more or less chronological order, attempting to isolatethose places where these texts diverge from the M or LXX. Similarities,differences, and other connections will be noted along the way with a viewtoward isolating common traditions. Because of the exegetical traditionassociated with these texts, the discussion will often gravitate toward the

given texts distinctive features regarding the call of Abraham (Gen11:26-12:4). At this point, we will turn our attention to the use of Genesisin Acts 7:2-16. Tere we will pay particular attention to which interpretivetraditions and what exegetical techniques are used to assist the authorspersuasive purposes. Finally, some observations are made regarding whatsort of view of scripture is portrayed by Lukes use of Genesis in Stephensspeech, and possible lines of further inquiry are proposed. Yet before webegin our investigation into the ancient Jewish literature, it seems benefi-cial to offer an overview of Genesis in Acts 7:2-16.

In Acts 7:2-16, Luke weaves a tapestry of citations from the LXX andadditions to the texts, along with added verbal material to the speech itself.Te result is that it would be difficult for the audience to detect audiblywhen Genesis stops and the Lukan Stephen begins. Te septuagintal textof Genesis is only cited verbatim on three occasions in the opening lines ofthe Stephen speech (Acts 7:3 / Gen 12:1; Acts 7:5 / Gen 48:4, cf. 17:8; andActs 7:6 / Gen 15:13, cf. Exod 2:22; 3:12); the remainder is put into inter-pretive paraphrase through the use of omission and addition, which some-times implements standing traditions evidently in the air at the time of

composition.3

3) For a thorough treatment on the use of the LXX in Acts, see W.K.L Clarke, Te Use ofthe Septuagint in Acts, in Prolegomena II (eds. F.J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; vol. 2 of


3/19

Rewriting Abraham and Joseph 151

Troughout the entirety of Acts 7:2-16, Godand his saving actionis clearly the focus of the narrative.4 As for the Abraham cycle, Luke

includes the call of Abraham by God (Acts 7:2-4), his promise of the landto Abraham and his descendants (7:5), whom he will redeem from theexile into which they will fall (7:6-7); the giving of circumcision and thebirth and circumcision of Isaac (7:8). Everything else, including the epi-sodes with Sarai and Pharaoh (and the parallel with Abimelech), the takingof Hagar and the birth of Ishmael, the conflict between Hagar and Saraieverything that could in any way present Abraham in a negative light, hasbeen omitted. Te narrative is thus considerably streamlined.

In the construction of the Joseph cycle, Luke includes the selling ofJoseph to Egypt from his brothers, the patriarchs (Acts 7:9); Josephsdeliverance through his trials in Egypt and his elevation to the position ofruler over Egypt (7:10); and the reconciliation of Joseph with his brothersthrough the famine (7:11-16). Just as the Abraham cycle is streamlined, soalso the Joseph cycle, which presents Joseph as the paragon of righteousnessand the object of Gods deliverance (e.g., but God was with him in 7:9).

Having offered a brief overview of the use and reworking of Genesis inActs 7:2-16, we now turn to the treatment of the Abraham and Joseph

cycles in ancient Jewish literature.

Abraham and Joseph Traditions in Jewish Literature

Abraham and Joseph make appearances throughout the Jewish literature ofthe Second emple period and beyond. In what follows, I offer a detaileddiscussion of the most relevant aspects of the portrayals of Abraham andJoseph in the LXX;Jubilees; Philo; Liber antiquitatum biblicarum; Josephus,Jewish Antiquities; Genesis Rabbah; and argum Pseudo-Jonathan.5Tus, Iam not attempting to offer a complete raditionsgeschichte of these twofigures; instead, I am presenting a survey of the versions of the traditionsassociated with the episodes portrayed in Acts 7:2-16, with an eye to the

Te Beginnings of Christianity, eds. Foakes-Jackson and Lake; New York: Macmillian, 1920-1933) 64-105.4) As M.C. Parsons points out, support for this assertion is found in the use of inflectionfor in Acts 7:2-53, where it is inflected in all the cases, except the vocative (nomina-tive: 7:2, 6, 7, 9, 17, 25, 32 [twice]; genitive: 7:43, 46, 56; dative: 7:20; and accusative:

7:40); M.C. Parsons,Acts (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008) 91.5) All translations, unless otherwise indicated, are my own. o these texts, we might add thefragments of Artapanus and Ps.-Eupolemus, which will also supplement the discussionwhere relevant.


4/19


exegetical techniques used to accomplish the portrayals and the recurringtraditions that are uncovered along the way. While we will survey all of

these texts, we will pay particular attention to Jubilees and the works ofPhilo and Josephus since they share particularly important unique featuresin their use of Genesis and the use of Genesis evinced in Acts 7:2-16.

Te Septuagint

We begin our trek with the LXX, which, when compared to the other ver-sions of the Abraham and Joseph cycles, differs very little from the M.First, while the chronology differs considerably with regard to the genealo-

gies in the M and LXX in Genesis in general, they are the same withregard to erah and Abraham with one notable exception. In Gen 11:32M, the record of erahs years, we are told that erah lived 205 years andthat he died in Haran ( ). However, in the LXX, we are told that the years of erah in Haranwere 205 and that he died there in Haran (, ). Te readingfrom the LXX suggests that erah must still be alive when Abraham sendsNahor to find a wife for Isaac. While explanations offered for such emen-

dations6must always remain tentative, it is possible that the translator(s) ofthis part of the LXX may have been constrained by a literal interpretationof Gen 24:38: Go to myfathers house.7What may at first seem an insig-nificant alteration, whatever the motivation, becomes more significantwhen we note that Acts 7:2-16, which utilizes the LXX, specifies that erahis in fact dead before God charges Abraham to emigrate from Haran toCanaan (7:4, see below).

Te LXX has two other emendations to the M worthy of mention. InGen 46:27 M, we are told that Joseph had two sons, who were born inEgypt and that the number of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt was

6) It is, of course, possible that is accidentally included in the first clause in asort of retrojected dittography from later in Gen 11:32 LXX. However,that (1) there is no MSS for an omission of the initial , and (2) that such a ret-rojected dittography seems a generally less likely scenario, argues for the authenticity of thereading that erah lived 205 years in Haran. Of course, the explanation of the rise of thereading is in some sense irrelevant for understanding its relation to Acts 7. Te text as itstood at the time of the composition of Acts 7:2-16 is most important for the task athand.7) G. Larsson, Te Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the M and LXX,JBL 102 (1983) 406.


5/19


seventy. However, the LXX increases both of these numbers so that Josephhad nine sons born to him in Egypt and the size of Jacobs house that trav-

elled to Egypt was seventy-five,8as seen below:

. .

Again, the significance of these emendations is underscored by its relationto Acts 7:14, which follows the LXX in having Jacobs family who came

into Egypt be seventy-five in number.While the LXX makes small, but significant, emendations to the M,for the most part, it follows the text rather carefully in the Abraham andJoseph cycles. As we move onto the rest of our Jewish texts, however, weshall see that the restraint found in the LXX was often in short supply.

Jubilees

Composed in the middle of the second century B.C.E., between 170-150,9Jubilees represents the paragon of rewritten scripture, using Genesis andExodus as base texts to create a new composition, however rife with scrip-tural language, through common Jewish exegetical techniques of addition,omission, rearrangement, etc.10Yet, at key events,Jubilees follows the textof Genesis rather closely (e.g. Gen 12:1-3 inJub. 12.22-24).11

Jubilees offers a thoroughly expanded edition of the Abraham cycle (Jub.11.14-23.7), which includes most of the events of the base text. It does,however, move rather quickly over distasteful episodes that might presentAbraham in a negative light. For example, it only briefly mentions the

encounter between Sarai and Pharaoh (Jub. 13.13-15).12

Tere are alsosignificant departures from the base text that relate to the study at hand.

8) On the difference between the M and LXX on this score as a difference in numberingsystems, see H. Cadbury and K. Lake, Te Acts of the Apostles (vol. 4 of Te Beginnings ofChristianity; eds. F.J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; New York: Macmillan, 1920) 73 n. 14. 9) S.W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second emple imes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2008) 62.10) Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 62.11) See alsoJub. 1.7-8 on Deut 31:20-21a;Jub. 23:15 on Ps 90:10.12) Te parallel with Abimelech and Sarai is omitted entirely (cf. Gen 20:1-18).


6/19


In the recounting of Abrams emigration from Ur, the composer placesthe famous lines from God, beginning Come forth from your land . . .13

(Jub. 12.22-24), in response to Abrahams own repentance from his nativereligion, and discovery of monotheism, as he lies under the stars one night,trying to discern the coming rain fall (Jub. 12.16-21). Additionally, erahdoes not die inJubilees, but merely ceases to show up in the narrative. Notonly is the death of Abrams father, erah, excluded fromJubilees, but thecomposer adds a scene where erah blesses Abram as he sets out fromHaran to Canaan. Te blessing itself, which invokes the God eternal anduses the Divine Name, portrays erah as having followed his son in aban-doning Chaldean religion to follow the one true God (Jub. 12.29). Tus,Jubilees disagrees squarely with the text of Gen 11:32, which states quiteclearly that the days of erah were 205 years; and erah died in Haran.As we will see below, it also disagrees with Acts 7:4, which has erah diebeforeAbrahams emigration from Haran.

Te rewriting of the Joseph cycle (Jub. 34, 39-46) is treated with similarcompleteness as with Abraham, but focuses particularly on Josephs rela-tions with his brothers, Potiphars wife, and the Egyptians.14Additionally,as with Abraham,Jubilees seems to censor details in Josephs life that might

present him negatively. For example, in its rewriting of Josephs betrayal atthe hands of his brothers,Jubilees has no reference whatsoever to Josephsdreams, which had so incensed his brothers (cf.Jub. 34.10-14). Instead ofrisking a portrayal of Joseph as arrogant, desiring his brothers to pay himhomage (Gen 37:10), the composer excises all mention of the dream withthe result that the audience is left only with Josephs wrongful betrayal intothe hands of the Egyptians. Te purpose of these omissions, along withothers in the narrative, is to portray Israels ancestors as models of virtue,whose ethics are to be emulated.15Moreover, Joseph is presented as the

epitome of wisdom and knowledge (Jub. 40.5), which rises to the surfacethroughout ancient Jewish characterizations of Joseph, as we shall seebelow.

13) All translations fromJubilees are from O.S. Wintermute, Jubilees, in Te Old esta-ment Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; ABRL; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1985).14) M.R. Niehoff, Te Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (AGJU 16; Leiden:Brill, 1992) 41-46.15)See Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 73-75.


7/19


Philo

Let us now turn to Philo of Alexandria. In hisLegum allegoriae

, we findonly one relevant reference to Abraham, the remainder16deals with epi-sodes not found from Acts 7. In Leg. 2.58 he mentions the call of Abrahamin passing, suggesting that Abraham was naked, that is, morally neutral(Leg. 2.53), when he was called by God in Gen 12:1. Likewise, neitherdoes Legum allegoriae mention the relevant episodes of Joseph.17 Fortu-nately, Philo dedicated works to both our characters.

In his bioi,18 De Abrahamo and De Iosepho, Philo alternates betweenoffering a literal understanding, followed by the allegorical sense of the

passage under consideration. Scripture is rarely quoted and is insteadretold, so that a new version of the old story is produced. Because theauthor of Acts is not concerned with an allegorical meaning of the Jewishscriptures, despite its popularity in the first century (at least in Alexandria),we will only entertain three specific examples of Philos elucidations, bothfrom the Abraham cycle. InAbr. 60-61 Philo describes Abraham in a man-ner similar to what we just saw in Jubilees, namely, Abraham is the exem-plar of piety, virtue, and understanding. Philo does not say explicitly, butthe flow of thought leads one to the understanding that the oracle ()

Abraham received which directed him to leave his country was given byGod in response to his excellence. InAbr. 62, Philo seems to assume thatAbraham was called by God to leave his family and country not when hewas in Haran (so Gen 12.1, 4), but while he was still in Chaldea. What isimplied by Philo inAbr. 62 is also suggested in 67, which claims that Abra-ham left Chaldea for Haran under a free and unfettered impulse().19Aside from Acts 7:2, which we will discussbelow, the tradition that Abraham was called by God in Mesopotamia beforecoming to Haran also is found in Ps.-Eupolemus, Frg. 1 (Eusebius, P.E.9.17.34), as well as in Josephus,Ant. 1.154, which will be discussed below.

Philos De migratione Abrahami provides a detail regarding the death oferah that stands out in Jewish exegesis of the call of Abraham. In Migr.177, against Gen 11:32 LXX, Philo holds it as well established that erah

16) Leg. 3.9, 24, 27, 83, 85, 177, 197, 203, 217-218, 228, 244.17) Leg. 3.26, 90, 179-180, 237-238, 242.18) Philo himself labels his treatise on Joseph as (a political biography).Cf. Niehoff,Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Lit, 54.19)Similarly Parsons,Acts, 91, who notesAbr. 67 as possibly suggesting that Abraham wascalled by God prior to arriving in Haran.


8/19


died beforeAbraham left for Canaan. As we will see below, the question ofthe propriety of Abraham in (seemingly) leaving his father alone in his old

age to go on his travels becomes a problem for some ancient interpreters.Philos De Iosepho, which is the earliest complete interpretation of the

entirety of the Joseph cycle, shows keen interest in presenting an idealizedimage of Joseph, an ideal Hebrew in Egypt.20As might be expected, Josephis presented in a favorable light throughout, improving upon the Genesisnarrative through shifting some of the focus away from Josephs conflictwith his brothers (Ios. 5) and explaining the fact that Joseph shared thedream with his brothers out of naivet, not malice (Ios. 6). Joseph evengreets them with a salutation, which is met with scowls from his brothers(Ios. 14). Additionally, as inJubilees 40.5, on several occasions, Joseph isdescribed as a possessor of great wisdom (; Ios. 106; 169; 269), acharacteristic which the LXX does not attribute to him. Interestingly, aswell shall see below, Acts 7:10 offers the same attribution.

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

We now turn to the anonymous work of Liber antiquitatum biblicarum.Most likely written at some point in the mid-first century,21probably orig-

inally in Hebrew,22Pseudo-Philo offers a rewriting of the Jewish scripturesthat stands out amongst examples of rewritten scripture for its ability toseamlessly integrate legend with the text of scripture.23L.A.B. 8.1-14 ispart of the first major section of the book (Chapters 1-8), which serves atleast three main goals: (1) to locate Abraham and his descendants in thelandscape of humanity; (2) to contrast righteous Abraham with sinfulhumanity; and (3) to prepare the way for the Exodus.24Chapter 8 focuses

20)

Niehoff,Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Lit, 82-83.21) For a thorough discussion of the factors in dating L.A.B., see H. Jacobson,A Commen-tary on Pseudo-Philos Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, with Latin ext and English ranslation(2 vols.; AGJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 1:199-1:210. Jacobson opts for a date between 70c.e. and the middle of the second century; see D.J. Harrington, Pseudo-Philo, in Te Oldestament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; ABRL; Garden City, NY: Dou-bleday, 1985) 299, for a date prior to 70 C.E. A decision on the date for L.A.B. does notdramatically impact our current project.22) See Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 1:215-1:224, for a discussion of the Hebrewand Greek stages of L.A.B.23) So also Jacobson, Commentary on Pseudo-Philo, 1:224-225.24) Here I follow F.J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1993) 29.


9/19


primarily on the lattermost, forming a bridge between the story of Babeland Abraham (on the one hand) and the birth of Moses and the Exodus

(on the other hand).25We are most interested in L.A.B. 8.1-3 and 8.9-10,which covers both the Abraham26and the Joseph cycles by offering a mix-ture of quotations from Genesis and additions to the base text. Interest-ingly, L.A.B. and Acts omit many of the same episodes, including theencounter with Pharaoh (and later with Abimelech) and (the details of)the Hagar and Ishmael ordeal. While L.A.B. is more comprehensive thanActs regarding the Joseph cycle, both focus more on Josephs merciful treat-ment of his brothers than on the particular details of the interim betweenhis being sold into Egypt and his reunion with his brothers. Structurally,then, L.A.B. 8 and Acts 7:2-16 are similar, offering concentrated versionsof the stories of Abraham and Joseph that appropriate Genesis in similarways to focus attention on the action of God.27

Josephus

Our next text for consideration isJewish Antiquities. Despite his claims notto have added anything to, or omitted anything from, the narratives of hisscriptural sources (1.17; 10.218),28Josephus seems to have been unable to

25) Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 50.26) Additionally, L.A.B. 6.1-18 includes a fiery furnace story with Abraham as the centralcharacter. However, because there is nothing analogous to it in Acts 7:2-16, nor is it foundin the treatment of the Abraham cycle, we simply note its presence here.27) I am not the first to notice these similarities. After making these observations, I cameacross the work of E. Reinmuth, which makes these same points with regard to L.A.B. 1-8and Acts 7:2-16. See his Beobachtungen zur Rezeption der Genesis bei Pseudo-Philo(LAB 1-8) und Lukas (Apg 7.2-17), NS 43 (1997) 552-569, which stems from his earlier

Habilitationsschrift, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarumund seiner Bedeutung fr die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerks (WUN 74; bin-gen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Reinmuth (1997: 569) writes, Fr Pseudo-Philo und Lukaszeugen die in der Genesis manifesten Erzhlinhalte, als deren bestimmendes Zentrumdeutlich die Abrahamgeschichte begriffen wird, von den Anfngen des Erwhlungshan-delns Gottes. In L.A.B., this focus on Gods electing action can be seen in the apparentemendation to the Hebrew text of Genesis. In 8.1-3, Abraham is called to Canaan by Godfrom there (presumably Haran) to journey to the land of Canaan (8.1), which God laterpromises to Abrahams descendants (8.3) an eternal seed, in contrast to the Hebrew ofGen 17:7, which has the collocation of eternal with covenant ( ).28)For similar statements in antiquity, which serve to engender trust in the accuracy ofwhat follows, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Tuc. 5 and 8) and Lucian (Quomodo Histo-ria Conscribenda Sit 47). For a discussion of no less than nine different approaches to


10/19


help himself.29While Josephus follows the order of the major events of theAbraham cycle quite carefully, he has expanded the text of Genesis by add-

ing copious amounts of creative details that are interwoven seamlessly intohis paraphrase of the base text.

In terms of the circumstances of Abrahams emigration from Ur toCanaan, we are told that erah, along with his whole family, left Ur forHaran in Mesopotamia grieved as he was by the death of his son, Aran(Ant. 1.152). Here, Josephus departs from all extant sources,30includingthe text of Genesis itself (11:31), which does not give a reason why erahleft Ur. Additionally, Josephus has Abraham and Sarah (along with Lot,whom he adopted), leaving Chaldea at the behest of God when Abrahamwas seventy-five (Ant. 1.154); Genesis (12:4) has him leaving from Haranat age seventy-five. At this point, Josephus again shares a tradition withPhilo (see above), placing the call of Abraham in Ur, rather than Haran.31

Additionally, he presents Abraham as extraordinarily intelligent, giftedin rhetoric and philosophy, being the first person to declare boldly thatGod was the one craftsman of the entire universe (32 ) by observing celestial phenomena.33 Indeed, it was his new-found monotheism34 that brought him persecution from the Chaldeans

and subsequently led to his emigration and settlement in Canaan throughthe will and help of God (1.154-157). Later on, he even introduces the

understanding this line from Josephus, see Feldman, Josephuss Interpretation of the Bible(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) 37-46.29) Tough outside of the purview of this article, the two most notable omissions from theGenesis narrative are (1) the incest of Reuben (Gen 35:22a) and (2) the sexual improprietyof Judah with his daughter-in-law, amar (Gen 38). It is not difficult to imagine that these

episodes proved too offensive to manage given Josephus apologetic desire to portray thepeople of Israel in a favorable light, even if he does not usually go to such extreme mea-sures.30) Feldman,Judean Antiquities 1-4 (vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: ranslation and Commentary;ed. S. Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 55 n. 476.31) Tis tradition is also found in Ps.-Eupolemus, Frg. 1 (Eusebius, P.E. 9.17.3-4).32) Josephus use of for God may shed light on his understanding of Godsfunction, viz., that his understanding of Gods function was influenced by Middle Pla-tonism; see Feldman,Judean Antiquities 1-4, 56 n. 500.33) Note the similarity of Josephus withJubilees (see above), which also had Abraham con-vert to the one true Godprior to divine intervention and emigration.34) On Abraham as the discoverer of monotheism through rational inquiry, see theApoca-lypse of Abraham 7;Jub. 12.17 (mentioned above); Gen.Rab. 39.1.


11/19


Egyptians to mathematics and astronomy (1.167).35By having Abrahamteach the Egyptians that for which they would later become so famous,

Josephus gives Abraham even more honor.36While he includes the epi-sodes of Pharaoh and Sarai, Hagar/Ishmael, and Abimelech and Sarai, heaugments the text at key moments to present Abraham in a more amicablelight.

Josephus attention to the Joseph cycle (Ant. 2.9-167, 189-193, 198-200) is particularly interesting since he seems to take a greater interest inhim (1) because of his prominence in Genesis itself and (2) because he isJosephus namesake.37Indeed, his interest in Joseph can readily be observedin a comparison of the M, LXX, and Josephan versions of Josephs dreamsand subsequent enslavement (Gen 37:1-35; Josephus, Ant. 2.9-38): M:659 words, LXX: 755 words,Antiquities: 1283 words. As with Abraham,Josephus is careful to present Joseph favorably to his (mostly) paganaudience.38

Anxious to present Joseph in a favorable light, Josephus also makes asmall, but significant change to the account of the report of Josephs dreamto Jacob. We read in Gen 37:10 that Jacob rebuked Joseph for his dream,which implied that his parents and brothers would bow down before him.

However, in Josephus (Ant. 2.15), Jacob feels differently about the matter.Having analyzed the dream, Jacob rejoiced because he believed that it pre-saged the future happiness of his son, even if that meant they would all payhomage to him. Here and throughout his retelling of the Joseph cycle,Josephus is careful to spin the details to benefit his namesake. Additionally,asJubilees and Philo before him, Josephus later describes Joseph as a pos-sessor of great wisdom (Ant. 2.87).

35) For a detailed discussion of the Hellenization of Abraham inJewish Antiquities, see L.H.Feldman, Hellenizations in JosephusJewish Antiquities: Te Portrait of Abraham, inJose-phus, Judaism, and Christianity (eds. idem and G. Hata; Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress, 1987) 133-153.36) Feldman,Judean Antiquities 1-4, 63 n. 537.37) Feldman,Judean Antiquities 1-4, 130 n. 48; Niehoff,Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Lit,84; and D. Daube, ypology in Josephus,JJS 31 (1980) 18-36. Feldman (63 n. 537) goeson to list the following analogical similarities between the two personalities: (1) both aredepicted as child prodigies (Ant. 2.9; Life 8); (2) both show extraordinary skill at interpret-ing dreams (Ant. 2.63-90); (3) both are deported to a foreign land by brothers/fellow Jews;(4) both are deeply involved with politics.38) On Josephus mixed audience, see Feldman,Josephuss Interpretation of the Bible, 46-50.


12/19


Rabbinic Sources

We now turn our attention to the later rabbinic sources, beginning withGenesis Rabbah. While Genesis Rabbahis a rabbinic midrashic commentaryon Genesis dating to ca. 450 C.E.,39it is still important to offer a discus-sion of its treatment of the relevant portions of the Abraham and Josephcycles. Doing so serves to open the opportunity to bring to the surface anycommon exegetical techniques, or trends in the traditions, even if they aredisguised by the lemma+comment style of the midrash. We have seen thatthere was discussion in earlier Jewish literature about chronological issuesrelated to erah and the time of his death (see above on the LXX and Jubi-

lees). Te rabbis are no exception; they postulate that erah was only calleddead before the remaining sixty-five years transpired so that Abrahamcould feel free to leave for Canaan without bringing shame to the DivineName for having abandoned his father while he was at an old age (Gen.Rab. 39.7). Indeed, Abraham received reassurance of this plan from theHoly One himself ! Exploiting the repetition40of in Gen 12:1, Godtells Abraham, I exempt thee from the duty of honouring thy parents,though I exempt no one else from this duty. Moreover, I will record hisdeath before thy departure (39.7).41

In argum Pseudo-Jonathan,42 Joseph is presented as a paradigmaticrighteous man who remained in control of his wicked inclinations no mat-ter what the temptation.43In particular g. Ps.-J focuses on Josephs pre-dicament with Potiphars wife, whom he resists at every turn. argumPseudo-Jonathan offers the following expansion in Gen 39:10: Josephrefused to sleep with Potiphars wife lest he become guilty with her on thegreat day of judgment in the world to come ( -). While this is not an emphasis Acts shares, it is significant nonetheless because Acts eliminates the scene altogether. Here wehave represented two different approaches to scandalous tradition. Oneoption (seen in the argumim) is to embrace the event, but spin it in such

39)G. Stemberger, Introduction to the almud and Midrash (trans. and ed. M. Bockmuehl;2nd ed.; Edinburgh: & Clark, 1996) 279.40) Tis exegetical technique is listed in the Tirty-woMiddot attributed to R. Eliezer. SeeStemberger, Introduction to the almud and Midrash, 24.41)ranslation from H. Freedman and M. Simon, Genesis I (vol. 1 of Midrash Rabbah;trans. H. Freedman; 10 vols.; London: Soncino, 1977).42) On the issues involved with dating g. Ps.-J, see R. Hayward, argums and the ransmis-sion of Scripture into Judaism and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 126-154.43) M.N. Niehoff, Te Figure of Joseph in the argums,JJS 39 (1988) 250.


13/19


a way as to make the protagonist shine as an exemplar. Another option,seen in Acts, is to gloss over it altogether.

Having traversed a wide body of Jewish literature, noting especially howit treats those events in the Abraham and Joseph cycles that show up inActs 7:2-16, we now are able to turn to the opening lines of the Stephenspeech in Acts 7 in order to evaluate the use of Genesis therein, particularlywith regard to the incorporation of the traditions that we have shown werein the air during the time of composition.

Abraham and Joseph Traditions in Acts 7:2-16

Te Method of Stephens Speech

Tat Stephens speech in Acts 7:2-53 is heavily indebted to the rhetoricalconventions of the first century of the Common Era is widely accepted,even if different outlines abound.44Most accurately categorized as a judi-cial speech,45Stephens oration follows the rhetorical strategy of refutatio inresponse to the charge that Stephen (and other Christians by proxy) wantsto change the customs handed down by Moses (Acts 7:14).46Yet, if there

is an invective against Stephens opponents there is a corresponding

44) Of those who attempt to fit the speech into an ancient rhetorical outline, see J. Dupont,La structure oratoire du discours dtienne (Actes 7), Bib 66 (1985) 153-167, who pro-posed the following rhetorical outline: v. 2a, exordium; vv. 2b-34, narratio; v. 35propositio;vv. 36-50, argumentatio; vv. 51-53, peroratio. However, Dupont has been challenged bymany, most recently, R.I. Pervo,Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: FortressPress, 2009) 179. For a host of other options, see M.L. Soards, Te Speeches in Acts: TeirContent, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1994) 58-59, esp. n.

138. Others, however, have preferred to outline the speech based on content. For example,see C.H. albert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Teological Commentary on the Acts of theApostles (rev. ed.; Macon, Ga.: Smyth&Helwys, 2005) 62, who divides the speech into onlytwo sections: (1) a selective history of Israel (7:2-50) and (2) a comparison of past behaviorwith present conduct (7:51-53). We may use Parsons,Acts, 90, to divide alberts outlineinto five parts: (1) the story of Abraham (7:2-8); (2) the story of Joseph and the patriarchs(7:9-16); (3) the story of Moses in three parts of forty years each (7:17-29, 30-34, 35-43);(4) the story of the tent and the temple (7:44-50); and finally (5) the invective againstStephens listeners (7:51-53).45) Soards, Te Speeches in Acts, 58. Pace .C. Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephenand the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (New York: & Clark, 2004) 223-261, who understands the speech in terms apologetic, epideictic rhetoric.46) Parsons,Acts, 90.


14/19


encomium of certain individuals in the history of Israel, who are worthy ofboth praise and imitation; the result is an encomium/invective

that runs the length of the speech.47Tus, while the speech is directedtoward Stephens opponents in the narrative of Acts, it is also meant toimpact Lukes audience,48legitimating their existence in the Diaspora byplacing them on the side of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses who themselvesjourneyed outside of the land God had promised.49

Te raditional Content of Stephens Speech

However, if the method of the speech is driven by ancient rhetoric, the

content of the speech is made up of the Jewish scriptures, beginning withGenesis. In what follows, we will examine how Luke used Genesis, mixedwith tradition, on the lips of Stephen to accomplish his rhetorical goals.50We will be particularly interested to note the points of contact between theuse of Genesis in Acts 7:2-16 and in the Jewish literature surveyed above,especially Philo and Josephus. While we will not go so far as to posit liter-ary dependence, the similarities nevertheless indicate the impact of theexegetical traditions of Hellenistic Judaism on the use of Genesis in the

47) So also, Parsons,Acts, 89.48) Pervo,Acts, 178, points out that this is the case for all the speeches in Acts, which strikesme as sober judgment. On the role of the audience in ancient speeches, see Aristotle, Rhet.1.2.5; 3.14.7-8; Cicero, De or., 2.44.186; 2.55.216-89; 3.7.4-5; Ps-Cicero, Rhet. Her.,1.4.7-5.8; Teon, Exercises, 79.28-80.2. For the most recent discussion on the role of theaudience (including its participation) in ancient Hellenistic literature, see K.R. Maxwell,Hearing Between the Lines: Te Audience as Fellow-Worker in Luke-Acts and its Literary

Milieu (LNS 425; London: & Clark, 2010) 27-117.49) So also G.E. Sterling, Opening the Scriptures: Te Legitimation of the JewishDiaspora and the Early Christian Mission, inJesus and the Heritage of Israel: Lukes Narra-tive Claim upon Israels Legacy (ed. D.P. Moessner; Harrisburg, Penn.: rinity International,1999) 199-225.50) For the purposes of this article, I do not deal with issues of source criticism with regardto the speech and instead treat the speech in its final form. Even if Luke did make use ofsome early Christian source or outline, he has molded it and shaped it to suit his own pur-poses. So also, Pervo,Acts, 179. Cf. J. Kilgallen, Te Stephen Speech: A Literary and Redac-tional Study of Acts 7,253 (Analetca Biblica; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976) 121; E.J.Richard, Te Polemical Character of the Joseph Episode in Acts 7,JBL 98 (1979) 255-267; idem,Acts 6:1-8:4: Te Authors Method of Composition (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars,1978) 252-284.


15/19


Stephen speech, perhaps in the form of the existence of a common body ofexegetical traditions in Hellenistic Jewish groups.51

Tere are no less than three important exegetical peculiarities in Lukesuse of Genesis in Act 7:2-16 when compared to the LXX. However, a wayforward is found in locating Luke within a stream of Hellenistic interpret-ers of Genesis. Tese exegetical traditions, and their implementation inActs 7:2-16, will now be taken in turn.

Called from ChaldeaIn Acts 7:2-3, we read:

[] , . Luke has Abraham receive the call from God inChaldea (Mesopotamia) before moving to Haran. Yet, the LXX (andJub.12.22-24), matching the Hebrew, is clear that Abraham was called by Godin Haran, not Chaldea (Gen 11:26-12:4). How then can Luke have Ste-phen say to his opponents that Abraham was called in Chaldea? Pervo hassuggested that Gen 15:7 could provide grounds for such an exegeticalmove.52In Gen 15:7, God declares that he brought Abraham from Ur of

the Chaldeans. Tis is, of course, possible, but given that there is evidencefor such an interpretation of Gen 12:1 in the literature we surveyed above,there seems no need to appeal to Gen 15:7.53Both Philo (Abr. 62, 67) andJosephus (Ant. 1.154) have Abraham being called from Chaldea, notHaran (see above).54Here, in Acts 7:2, why not understand Luke as usingthe same tradition?55Tat this is the case finds support in the fact that theLukan Stephen seems to go out of his way to make sure his audience hearsthat Abraham was not called in Haran, which is contrasted with his stay inMesopotamia (

51) So also Sterling, Opening the Scriptures, 211.52) Pervo,Acts, 180 n. 63.53) Indeed, Gen 15:7 may have given rise to the stream of tradition in which Acts 7:2resides. Tere is, of course, no way to know either way without compelling evidence toadjudicate.54) See also Ps.-Eupolemus, Frg. 1 (Eusebius, P.E. 9.17.34).55) Tis is not to suggest that Luke was using Philo or Josephus at this point (though hemay well have been), but only to suggest that these texts seem to be working from the samepoint of view regarding the call of Abraham.


16/19


).56Further support for this connection comes from the additionalpoints of contact between Acts and Josephus and Philo (see below). Rhe-

torically, it is likely that he wants to persuade his audience that the call toworship God in a new land was at the most foundational level of Abra-hams first migration.57

Te iming of the Death of erahAs the Lukan Stephen continues in his retelling of the call of Abraham, hemakes sure his audience knows that it was not until after the death of hisfather, erah, that Abraham left from Haran: .

(7:4). Tedifficulty is that, as others have pointed out,58a careful reading of Gen11:26-12:4 has Abraham being born when his father, erah, was seventy(11:26). It may be inferred that Abraham left Haran when erah was 145years old, since we are told that Abraham left when he himself was seventy-five (Gen 12:4). Tus, erah must have remained alive for another sixtyyears since Gen 11:32 has him dying in Haran at the age of 205. However,if Luke disagrees with Genesis, both the M and the LXX, he agrees with

Philo Migr. 177 (see above) and the Samaritan Pentateuch.59

Anotheroption, as Parsons has pointed out, is that Luke may be offering a para-phrase () of the scriptural text by reading sequentially fromGen 11:32, which records the death of erah, to 12:1, which describes thecall of Abraham.60In light of the fact that there are other sources that makethe same interpretive move (Philo Migr. 177 and the Samaritan Penta-teuch), it seems more likely that, if Luke is paraphrasing, he is doing sothrough the lens of a standing tradition that erah died beforeAbram leftHaran. Further support for the conclusion that Luke is making an inten-

tional change to the scriptural text, which he is likely choosing to readthrough a particular tradition, is found in the fact that the later rabbis weresometimes concerned that it would bring shame upon the Divine Name

56) So also J.L. Kugel, raditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It was at the Start of theCommon Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998) 265.57) Kilgallen, Te Stephen Speech, 91.58)E.g., Parsons,Acts, 91; J. Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte (RN; Regensburg: FriedrichPustet, 1994) 314.59) So also, H. Conzelmann,Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 52.60) Parsons,Acts, 91.


17/19


for Abraham to have left his father, erah, at such an old age (cf. Gen. Rab.39.7).61If this concern is active in the first century, placing the death of

erah before the call from Haran might allow the reputation of Abraham(and God?) to avoid suffering damage. We have already seen this is a con-cern for Luke in Acts 7:2-16 by the events which he chooses to excludefrom the speech altogether.

Joseph the Wise SageIn his treatment of the Joseph cycle, the Lukan Stephen says that God gaveJoseph grace and wisdom before Pharaoh, King of Egypt (, 7:10). Here Lukeaugments Gen 39:21 LXX, , so that it refers not to chief jailer, but to Pharaoh. Healso makes a curious addition: . Te inclusion of in Acts7:10 allows the Lukan Stephen to use an encomiastic betweenJoseph and Jesus.62But can more be said of the use of ?

As far as I am aware, (or its cognates) is attributed to Joseph onlyhere and in Philo Ios. (106; 169; 269), JosephusAntiquities (2.63, 65, 80,87),Jubilees (40.5) and Artapanus (Frg. 2.1 [Eusebius, P.E. 9.23.1]). Tere

is notable continuity between the attribution of wisdom to Joseph in Acts7:10 and inJubilees, both of which credit Joseph with wisdom in the samecontexts: And the Lord gave Joseph favor and mercy in the sight of thePharaoh. And the Pharaoh said to his servants, We will not find a man aswise and knowledgeable as this man because the spirit of the Lord is withhim (Jub. 40.5). However, with the exception ofJubilees, this commontradition is broad enough to have been attributed to Joseph simply from itspopularity as a chief virtue in the Hellenistic world. MightJubilees test therule here? Probably not.

From these three points of traditional overlap between Acts and Helle-nistic Jewish literature, we can see a more complex relationship betweenJewish exegetical techniques and Greco-Roman rhetoric than has usu-ally been acknowledged.63Namely, while there can be no doubt that Ste-phens speech (7:2-53) employs ancient rhetoric, it does not do so in a

61) racking the date of certain rabbis and rabbinic traditions is notoriously problematicand will not be attempted here. Yet, the concern for taking care of ones father is certainlyin the air during the composition of Acts. Cf. Luke 9:60.62) Parsons,Acts, 94.63) But see D. Daube, Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis, in Essays inGreco-Roman and Related almudic Literature (ed. H.A. Fischel; New York: Ktav, 1953)


18/19


vacuum. Rather than Homer, the LXX is cited, and rather than recallingthe history of the great heroes of Greece as examples for imitation, Stephen

uses standing HellenisticJewish tradition aboutJewish heroes, viz., Abra-ham and Joseph, to begin his refutatio of his Jewish opponents. o sum up,Luke uses Greco-Roman method in Stephens speech, while utilizing Jew-ish traditional content and the Jewish scriptures. Having examined theAbraham and Joseph traditions in both Jewish literature and Acts 7:2-16,now all that remains is to make a few observations about the implicationsof this study for our understanding of Lukes view of scripture.

Implications and Conclusions

In Stephens speech, the line between scripture and standing tradition isblurry indeed. In fact, the view of scripture demonstrated from Acts 7:2-16 would suggest that the words of scripture alone are not what are impor-tant, only the words as understood through tradition count. However, it isnot immediately clear from Acts 7:2-16 how conflicting traditions relatedto one another. Was Abraham called by God while he was still in Chaldea( Josephus; Philo; Ps.-Eupolemus; and Acts) or was Abraham called by God

only after migrating to Haran (LXX)? Did Abrahams father, erah diebefore his sons emigration (Philo, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and Acts) orlong after (LXX;Jubilees?)? We know the answers that Acts gives to thesequestions, but it is not readily apparent how mutually exclusive the optionswere, either for Luke or the Hellenistic Jewish authors surveyed above.Tis topic deserves future attention, as does the use of scripture through-out the rest of Stephens speech, which may clarify and focus the questionof competing interpretations and traditions. Lastly, this study emphasizesthe need for elucidating the nature of ancient rhetorical methodology toJewish exegetical techniques. Given the scope of the article, I was unable topursue this line of inquiry. If the blend of rhetorical methodology with theuse of Jewish tradition and exegetical patterns found in Acts 7:2-16 is anyindication, they are likely in dialogue more than is typically recognized.

We have attempted to isolate the most relevant groups of divergent tra-ditions regarding Abraham and Joseph through a survey of ancient Jewishliterature from the LXX to Genesis Rabbah. While some texts were moreambitious than others, certain hotspots in Genesis developed into an

165-182; idem, Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric, HUCA 22(1949) 239-264.


19/19


interpretive framework, especially with regard to the call of Abraham.Placing Acts 7:2-16 within that matrix yielded at least two places within

the call of Abraham where Luke makes use of (at least) standing traditionsthat also appear in Philo and Josephus regarding the death of erah andAbrahams geographical location at the time of Gods initial call. Terefore,I must echo Holladays sentiments and suggest further inquiry into Actsusing comparative hermeneutics; in our case, more research is particularlyneeded to clarify the nature of the relationship between these traditionsand the use of the LXX in the Acts of the Apostles. Are these traditionsmerely in the air at the time of composition, or is there literary depen-dence? While a sure answer currently eludes this question, at present wemay safely conclude that, for Luke (as for Josephus, Philo, and the rest ofthe texts we surveyed, with the exception of Genesis Rabbah), scripture wasnot fixed, but variable, finding its full expression when viewed through theinterpretive traditions of Hellenistic Judaism.

Documents

Whitenton 2012 Rewriting Abraham.pdf