'Taxo' and the origin of The Assumption of Moses

1

'Taxo' and the origin of The Assumption of Moses

The identity of 'Taxo' has intrigued the scholarly imagination ever since the

appearance of a single fragmentary and imperfect Latin manuscript of The

Assumption (or Testament) of Moses.1 The odd name comes up only once (in chapter

9), yet in the identification of it lies the key to understanding the time-frame, religious

affiliation, meaning and tendency of the text as a whole.2 Numerous solutions based

on diverse methods of reading, calculation and decoding were put forth since Antonio

Ceriani first published the manuscript in 1861.3 However all the attempts done so far

display the workings of richly inventive minds rather than of soundly grounded

historical research.4

The obscure figure is set in a narrative framework which evolves as follows:

1. Narrative outline.

When Moses is about to die he nominates Joshua as his successor and hands

over to him certain books of prophecies which Joshua is to hide until the appointed

1Antonio M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, Milano, 1861, t. 1, fasc. 1, pp. 55-64. Ceriani identified the fragmentary text as part of a wider work entitled a)na/lhyij Mwuse/wj, extracts of which were mentioned by the church fathers. For more on the matter see Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, Studia in Veteris Testamenti, Leiden-New York-Köln (1993), Pseudepigrapha (ed. A.-M. Denis & M. De Jonge), pp. 87-92, Gustav Volkmar, Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt, Handbuch der Apokryphen 3, (Leipzig: Fues' Verlag, 1867), pp. 4-12. 2On centrality of the figure see, for instance, Solomon Zeitlin, "The Assumption of Moses and the Revolt of Bar Kokba", JQR 38 (1947/1948), pp. 1-45, p. 4; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, (New York : Crossroad, 1987), p. 104. Read Dean on identification of Taxo as 'the great crux of the whole book' (in William J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha;an account of certain apocryphal sacred writings of the Jews and early Christians, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891, p. 118) 3Tromp counts app. 30 different attempts to resolve the conundrum (op. cit., p.124). 4Elucidation of the principal solutions follows.

2

time.5 On that occasion Moses reveals to Joshua a prophetic prediction which briefly

reviews the history of his people, from their future entry into their land to the advent

of the End.

Chapters 1-8 provide a cyclical description of the people's offenses, ensuing

calamities, supplications for forgiveness (by an intercessor), and partial temporary

rescues, which are repeated successively.6 Three anticipated calamities are

expounded.

1. (3:1-3) Portrays a king, coming from the east, who will burn the temple and

exile the people to his country. He is widely identified with Nebuchadnezzar.

2. (6:2-9) Another king is portrayed as insolent (rex petulans), not of priestly

stock, and a heinous man who will ruthlessly slay the old and the young,

execute judgments on the people (as the Egyptians did), and torture them for

thirty-four years. He will be succeeded by his sons who will rule over shorter

periods than him,7 until the appearance of an enemy coming from the west. He

will conquer the people and lead them to captivity, and burn 'a part' of their

sanctuary. Scholars are generally in agreement about this description8 and

identify the king as Herod.

The depicted events lead to the onset of the eschatological age and end times: ex quo

facto finientur tempora (7:1). The chapter goes on to describe the first phase of

5According to verse 1:14, Moses was 'prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator' (or arbiter - (mesi/tej). Such an expression has no biblical foundation (with the exception of the Septuagint translation of verse 9:33 in Job: 'ei)/qe h)=n o( mesi/thj h(mw=n kai\ e)le/gxwn …..,' in the sense of 'between', which does not concern the matter at hand). Yet, it does come up in relation to Moses and the Old Testament (Gal 3:19-20) and Jesus as mediator of the New Testament (1 Tim 2:5; and most particularly in Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). Read more in Arieh Kasher, M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1966, pp.15-16. 6On schematic structure read Tromp (n.2 above), pp.128-9. 7This reference was one of the principal guidelines for dating the work, see below. 8As against Joseph Langen, Das Judenthum in Palastina zur Zeit Christ: ein Beitrag zur Offenbarungs - und Religions-Geschichte als Einleitung in die Theologie des N.T., Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder (1866), p. 109, who attributes to Archilaeus.

3

eschatological events9 that occur under the sway of men who are hypocritical, corrupt

and evil (homines pestilentiosi), deceitful (homines dolosi), gluttonous, promote

lawlessness and licentiousness, and consequently entail the last calamity.

3. Chapter 8 describes the final atrocity. It is a narrative of unprecedented

vengeance and wrath, unknown 'from the beginning of the world',10 that will

raise against them the king of the kings of the earth (regem regum terrae),

possessing great might, who will crucify the circumcised, force youths to

bring forward their foreskin, subject others to brutal tortures and coerce them

to violation of their Law.11

At this point, as a result of these events, 'Taxo' makes his appearance (chapter 9). His

person and actions are introduced as follows:12

1. Then, on that day, there shall be a

man of the tribe of Levi, whose

name shall be Taxo, who having

seven sons shall speak to them,

saying: 2. 'See, my sons, behold a

second cruel and unclean retribution

is made against the people, and a

punishment without mercy and it

surpasses the first one. 3. For what

nation or what land or what people

of rebellious against the Lord,

having committed many crimes,

have suffered woes as great as have

1.Tunc illo die erit homo tribu Levvi cujus

nomen erit Taxo, qui habens VII filios dicens

ad eos rogans: 2.'Videte filii, ecce ultio facta

est in plebe altera crudelis, inmunda, et

traductio sine misericordia et eminens

principatum; 3.Quae enim gens, et quae region,

aut quis populus impiorum in Dominum qui

multa scelesta fecerunt, tanta mali passi sunt

quanta nobis contegerunt? 4.Nunc ergo, filii,

audete me! Videte enim, et scite quia nunquam

9The text at this point is partially illegible and Tromp conjectures the missing parts included some calculation of the historical time about to end (n.2 above), pp.206-207. 10cf. Mark 13:19, Mat 24:21. 11Scholars are divided on identification of this atrocity that is reminiscent of the events under Antiochus (IV, Ephiphanes) yet appears subsequent to the description relating to Herod. I shall dwell on this below. 12The Latin text is from the critical edition by Tromp, largely based on the edition princes of Ceriani's manuscript (n.2 above). Equally in Tromp is an English translation.

4

come over us? 4. Now then, my

sons, hear me! See then and know

that neither our parents nor their

ancestors have tempted God by

transgressing His commandments.

5. And you know that here lies our

strength. And this we shall do. 6.

Let us fast for three days, and on the

fourth day let us enter into the cave

which is in the field, and let us die

rather than transgress the

commandments of the Lord of

Lords, the God of our fathers. 7. For

as we shall do this and die, our

blood shall be avenged before the

Lord.

temptan <te>s Deum nec parentes nec proavi

eorum, ut praetereant mandata illius; 5.Scitis

enim, quia haec sunt vires nobis. Et hoc

faciemus; 6.jejunemus triduo, et quarto die

intrmus et in spelunca quae in argo est, et

moriamur potius quam praetereamus mandata

Domini dominorum, Dei parentum nostrorum;

7.Hoc enim si faciemus et moriemur, sanguis

noster vindicavitur corm Domino.

The appearance of Taxo marks the last phase before advent of the End and

final redemption.13

Chapter 10 describes the appearance of God's kingdom, overthrow of Satan,

the Heavenly One will rise from his throne to avenge the nations, the outbreak of

cosmic disruptions will take place14 and 'Israel' who will mount upon the neck of the

eagle, soar towards God, and look down from above on the destruction of their

enemies.

13Ferdinand Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische Bücher aus der Zeit und Schule R. Akiba's, (Assumptio Mosis, pp. 13- 38), Leipzig: Otto Schulze (1885), argues that the intent here is not to the end in the eschatological sense, but rather to the end of Judea, see p.19. His view is unusual and inconsistent with the content and language of the work. 14 Cf. Mark 13:24-25; Mat 24:29; Luke 21:25-26).

5

Moses then commands Joshua to withhold the prophecy, discloses the time-

span from his death until advent of the End, and fortifies his spirit (10:11-15). It is

followed (11) by a description of Joshua's distress at hearing Moses' prophecy, as he

addresses a long list of questions that betray fear of the heavy burden laid upon him.

In the remaining passage of the last chapter (12) Moses further reassures

Joshua and promises that God will firmly stand by his covenant.15

It is assumed the narrative follows the conventions of the eschatological

scheme where predicted events are vaticinum ex eventu,16 alluding to real historical

events leading to the coming future and end times and associated with the appearance

of 'Taxo' and termination of the catastrophic phase. 'Taxo's appearance and

willingness to die for his faith are therefore a link in the chain of suffering conducive

to final redemption.17

15 The text discontinues and scholars believe there was more to the work. The progression of the dialogue suggests there should have been some report on Moses' death (Tromp, Assumption, p.274), including his testament, and hence the two titles (Assumption and Testament of Moses) belong to one work. Most scholars also believe the passage in Jude 9, about the struggle between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, derives from the same work, as against Philippi who argues that the author of the Assumption of Moses relied on Jude rather than the other way round: Ferdinand Philippi, Das Buch Henoch: sien Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbriefe, Stuttgart (1868) – Anhang über JudäVers 9 und die Moses Prophetie, p. 166. 16 Philippi, ibid., p.167; Rosenthal (n.14), p.14. 17Jacob Licht, "Taxo, or the Apoclyptic Doctrine of Vengeance", JJS 12 (1961), pp. 95-103, particularly p.99.

6

2. 'Taxo' – interpretations.

Who is the obscure Taxo? What does the name mean? Is it a name or a mere

stringing together of letters? Is he the messiah, or perhaps an angel (messenger –

nuntius), or both? What is his role in the predicted events? What do they allude to?

Who are the deceitful, gluttonous, corrupt men attacked by the writer? Who are the

seven sons of Taxo? What is the historical setting for their appearance and actions?

When was the text written? in what language? In what religious group was the author

active? For whom and why was the text written? Commentators are split over all

these issues. Their opinions span all the known and unknown groups and streams

within Judaism, from outbreak of the Hasmonean to the Bar Kokhba revolt, and the

name 'Taxo' acquired diverse attributions, ranging from Mattatias, father of the

Hasmoneans, to Rabbi Akiva. Yet, despite the numerous attempts to figure out the

name, there is not one currently available solution that adequately addresses the

sequence, unity and logic of the text.

"'Taxo' designates Mattathias", the first Hasmonean, founder of the house of

Hasmoneans and priest from the tribe of Levi, "that is certain", pronounced

confidently Torrey. He applied the system of numerology (gematria) and suggested

that in the original Aramaic text the name appeared as 'טקשו' '18 which carries the

numerical value of 415 and corresponds to the Aramaic for Hasmoneans, namely

He was challenged by Mowinckel's20 observation that Mattatias had 415.19 =חשמוניא

18 Charles C. Torrey, "Taxo in the Assumption of Moses" JBL 62 (1943) pp. 1-7. He does not doubt the work was written in Aramaic, the language most likely used by anyone minded toward wide circulation (p.6). 19 Kuhn preceded him (1925). He suggested the Hebrew original was קושט (or קשיט), meaning honesty or loyalty, which by either scribal slip or authorial intent became קוטש and by substitution of letters became Taxo. K.G. Kuhn, "Zur Assumptio Mosis" ZAW 43 (1925), p. 124-129. 20 Sigmund Mowinckel, "The Hebrew Equivalent of Taxo in Ass. Mos. IV, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 1 (1953), p. 78-87. Likewise Harold H. Rowley, "The figure of 'Taxo' in the Assumption of Moses", JBL 64 (1945), pp. 141-143.

7

five sons, not seven, and countered21 by arguing that the author did not have in mind

the actual person but what he stood for, and deliberately opted for inaccurate data to

prevent his Jewish readers from immediately recognizing Mattatias.22 He equally

related the seven sons of 'Taxo' to the seven rulers of the house of Hasmoneans, going

from Judah to Antigonus23. Zeitlin noted that the historical record disproves a

counting of seven rulers and, moreover, Mattatias urged his sons to take up arms

against the Greeks whereas 'Taxo' opposes militancy.24 Irrespective of this, Torrey's

notion gained currency. It was, for instance, picked up by Klausner whose case for

Mattatias the Hasmonean rested on the argument that מתיא (Mattias), one the first

great Hassidim who, with his sons, died in sanctification of God, was corrupted to

Taxa in the Greek text and rendered Taxo in the Latin.25

Employing different procedures, but equally committed to the Mattatias-Taxo

nexus,26 Stearns arrived at the following result: he found that the stem נתן (give),

from which the Hebrew name derives and is in Greek rendered Mattaqi/aj, occurs

in the Septuagint translation as one of the variants for the Greek verb ta/ssw (1 Chr

16:4, 7).27

21 C.C. Torrey,"Taxo" JBL 64 (1945) pp. 395-397. 22 Torrey does not explain why the author disguised his intent. 23 ibid., p.6. 24Likewise Zeitlin (n.3, above), p.6. 25Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Hapoalim Press, ?), pp.203-4; History of Second Temple [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Achiassaf, 1950), 4, pp.186-7. Likewise Robert H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha, London: Adam & Charles Black, 1949, who writes 'Taxo (i.e. Mattatias)', and Rudolf Leszynsky, Die Sadduzaer, (Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1912), p. 268, who assumed that 'somehow' the name must be a corruption of Mattatias. Kaminsky believed it was a miscopying of תכסה, namely hide and disguise, that the translator construed as name of a person (in Klausner, History, p.186). 26Wallace N. Stearns, "Notes on Acts xiii. 9 and on Assumptio Mosis ix", JBL 19, n. 1, (1900), pp. 53-54. 27Likewise Avraham Kahana, Ha- Sefarim ha-Hizonyim (Jerusalem: Makor, 1978), 1, p.323, who, dismissive of all solutions applying calculations because 'there is nothing there which stands to reason', is also committed to Mattatias the Hasmonean, despite the erroneous attribute of seven sons, yet does not explain why.

8

It is not Mattatias but Eleazar who hides behind the name 'Taxo', suggested

Burkitt.28 He assumed the name originated from the Hebrew source where it first

appeared as תכסוק, was transmitted to Greek as 'tacwk' and then copied into the

Latin text by a scribe who omitted the last letter, thus yielding 'Taxo' in place of

Taxoc. He, like Torrey, thought the name was a cryptogram, and according to גד-אב

system, namely by reordering the letters taking in each case the next letter of the

Semitic alphabet, תכסוק( into ת=א כ=ל ס=ע ו =ז ק=ר( - he reached the name

of אלעזר (Eleazar) who, according to 2 Maccabees (6:18ff), choose rather to die

gloriously, than to live stained with eating swine's flesh.29 As to the seven sons, they

correspond to the seven of the widow (2 Macc. 7), whereas the cave of refuge

corresponds to the Chasidim during the Hasmonean revolt (1 Macc. 1:53, 2:31).30

A no less creative imagination was displayed by Charles who, in his initial

engagement with the name,31 also attributed it to a contemporary of Judas Maccabeus.

Drawing on his discovery of an early Samaritan text, a German translation from

Arabic entitled Legends of Moses about a man from the tribe of Levi named 'Eiferer',

meaning 'zealot', Charles conjectured miscopying of the Hebrew original הקנא (= the

zealot) into תקסא (Taxa) that, in the Latin transliteration, became Taxo. He situated

the text's author as a zealot, in the sense of zealous about the Law yet unaffiliated

28F.Crawford Burkitt, "Assumption of Moses", Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1900), pp. 448-450. 29Torrey rejected not only the probability but even the possibility, since if the initial letter had been Hebrew tau, it should have had in the Greek qacw . Moreover, he indicated the relative insignificance of Elazar in Jewish history, and added disdainfully that 'making him the principal figure of the Hamonean era is little short of ridiculous' (op. cit.,p.4). Read also Harold H, Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic; a Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation (London: Lutterworth Press, 1944), p. 128. 30Collins estimates that the author combined elements from all three stories into the Taxo and seven sons episode. John J. Collins,"The Date and Provenance of the Testasment of Moses" Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Cambridge, Ms., 1973), pp.15-32, particularly pp.24-5. On comparison with reports in the Hasmonean books (Maccabees), read Norbert J. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung, Leiden- Boston-Köln : Brill, 2000, pp. 248-257. 31Robert, H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses; translated from the Latin sixth century MS., etc, (London: A. and Ch. Black, 1897), p. 36.

9

with the Zealots or any other faction within Judaism, and defined him as 'a Pharisaic

Quietist', namely member of group that supposedly existed in Judaism of the Second

Temple period.32 In a subsequent reassessment of the same text Charles recanted and

converged with Burkitt's view (corruption of תכסוק to 'Tacwk' to Taxoc),33 yet

miscalculated the numerical value of תכסוק as אלעצר, namely Eleazar of 4 Maccabees

1:8.34

Hausrath, equally dependent upon corruption of the name, arrived at a rather

different solution. He presumed the original name, was miscopied as תכסו (by

exchanging the letter ם for ס), and equally applied the substitutive method of ab-

gad,35 and arrived at the name: ת=ש - כ=י - מ= ל- ו=ה in the (Shiloh) שילה - ,

sense of messiah.

Rosenthal, admitting that a translator is likely to interchange the letter ס for ם

and calculated the numerical value of תכמו is equal both to (345) שילה and to Moses

32ibid. pp.liv-li. 33Robert, H. Charles, "The Assumption of Moses", APOT II, pp. 407-424. He equally recanted the Zealot interpretation (mentioned in ibid. p.421), but persisted in his view that the author was 'a Pharisaic Quietist (ibid. p.421). Charles, a leading and prolific scholar of apocalyptic literature who greatly influenced successive concepts, was responsible for the widespread of acceptance of Pharisaic Quietism as definition for the group from which much of apocalyptic literature supposedly emerged. For more on the matter see David C. Carlson, "Vengeance and Angelic Mediation in Testament of Moses 9 and 9", JBL 101 (1982)' pp. 85-95 (ibid, p. 85). It is my opinion that Charles and others applied anachronism by projecting a modern trend in Second Temple scholarship that is unauthenticated in testimonies from the period. Quietism was a heresy in the Catholic Church, founded in the seventeenth century by the Spanish priest Miguel de Molinos who espoused negation of the physical self and utter passivity in faith that God controls worldly affairs. Read more in F.L. Cross, (ed.), "Quietism", Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (Oxford: University Press, 1957), p. 1152. There are no historical testimonies of such a stream in the Second Temple period, and the Hasmonean Hassidim who opted to die rather than defile the Sabbath are later extolled as fierce warriors. Read more in Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz ha-Meuchad, 1980), pass., particularly pp.7-11, 27-33, 51; Collins, ibid. (n.30 above), p.25, cf. Paul (Rom 12:1, 17-21). 34Ibid. p.421. 35Adolf Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 4 (Heidelberg: Fr.:Bassermann, 1877). He employed בג–אב , (namely a replacement of a letter by the subsequent one), rather than בש-את that he notes (in p.77).

10

(345) as well.36 Therefore he read the name 'Taxo' as a mystical expression alluding to

the future return of a second Moses predicted in Deuteronomy (18:18).37

Lattey, as Hausrath, advocated substitution of letters to convey the name

Shiloh as messiah, and moreover the suffering messiah whose death incurs glorious

salvation.38

Hilgenfeld devised an alternate link to the messiah. He proposed a calculation

based on the name 'Taxo', perceiving it as a corruption of the Greek original 'Tcg'

which carries the numerical value of 363 and equates the Hebrew word 'המשיח' (the

messiah).39 Colani thought such notions preposterous and wryly commented that to

relate the verse about 'Taxo' to the messiah was as tenable as relating it to the emperor

Barbarossa.40 Drummond responded to the challenge by demonstrating that a slight

shift from Taco to Taro obtains the equation: Taro = 471 = )ברברוסא( Barbarossa.

Volkmar41 drew on the Revelation of John (13:18), where the number of the

beast was analogous to XCS = 666 = Emperor Neron, and since he dated the text to

the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt assumed 'Taxo' referred to Rabbi Akiva. He applied

a calculation based on TACO = 431 = רבון עקבא, namely retained TACO as the

36See Rosenthal (n.14 above), p.31. 37The seven sons, in his opinion, represent the ideal Israel, as the seven ? (). Jeremias, in contrast, reads into the figure of Taxo the return of Elijah, the high priest who traditionally appears as announcer of the End: Joachim Jeremias, ("Hl[(e]i/aj", Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (TWNT) 2 (1964), pp. 930-943 (p. 935). 38Cuthbert Lattey, "The Messianic Expectation in 'The Assumption of Moses', The Catholic Biblical Quartely 4 (1942, pp. 9-21), p. 16-17. I shall dwell on this subsequently. 39Adolf Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum, Lipsiae (1869), pp. 466-467.Volkmar counteracts in astonishment (n.3 above), p.109: 'Ein rein jüdischer Messias, unabhängig von christlichen Davidienthum, ein 'levitischer' Messias! Worin liegt das Messianthum?', a question I shall address in my concluding remarks (subsection 7). 40Presented by Hilgenfeld (above p.467). Schürer equally slighted the notion of the messiah's presence behind the name, commenting that if it is indeed the messiah it is an odd one who has nothing to do except hide in a cave and await his death: Emil Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes in Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrisch, 1886, II, p. 633. The answer can perhaps be found in Heb. (11:35-40), but only dependent on shift of departure point as proposed below. 41Volkmar, op. cit. pp.59-61.

11

presumed name (rather than TACW)42 but readjusted רבי (rabbi) to רבון (rabbon) and

This manipulation has no textual .(י Akiva without the letter) עקבא to (Akiva) עקיבא

foundation43 and, moreover, Rabbi Akiva's origins are notoriously obscure. There is

no evidence of his descent from the tribe of Levi44 and on the authority of one

tradition he is even reputed to have been a proselyte. In a further manipulation and

confusion of sources (midrash on Proverbs 1:13 and the account in Graetz), Volkmar

aligned the seven sons of 'Taxo' with the disciples of Rabbi Akiva who allegedly died

in sanctification of God.45

Zeitlin, dismissive of all the trivial solutions, went beyond all the interpreters

in his own particular idiosyncrasy. He suggested that 'Taxo' was a latinized Greek

word To/con which means a bow, (in the Hebrew keshet), which occupied, in his

opinion, an important position in early Jewish theology.46 Leaning on confused

rabbinical sources, the Septuagint and patristic interpretations, he associated the bow

with -' צמח' ' (in Septuagint A)natolh/ ) branch or offshoot. Since our book is a

testament of Moses to Joshua, Zeitlin reached at an odd conclusion that the verse of

Zech. (6:12) which referred to Joshua the high priest, and the word keshet (bow), was

suggested by that verse, therefore it is probable that when he spoke of 'Taxo', the

author had in mind Rabbi Joshua who was of the tribe of Levi and opposed to the

revolt.47 As to the seven sons, Zeitlin argued that it was common for rabbis to call

their disciples 'sons' and since the number of Rabbi Joshua's disciples is unknown

42See more on this matter in Langen (n.10 above), p.148. 43The omission of the letter י Volkmar explains by analogy to the title קסר (Caesar), pp.59-60, in line with the theory relating to Rev (ibid. p.60). 44See Rosenthal (n.14 above), p.31. 45ibid. p.78-80. 46The rainbow signaled God's covenant with Noah, described in Ezek (1:28): 'As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD'. The Zohar links the rainbow with the coming of the messiah, Zeitlin, op. cit. p.6. 47 ibid, pp. 4-12, 29-30.

12

there is perhaps allusion to the seven rabbis who, after the revolt, convened in Usha

(Mid. Song of Songs 2).48

Ewald, suggested to identify Taxo with Judah the Galilean, assuming that the

numerical value of his name must have agreed with 'Taxo', but the calculation could

not be made in light of the fact that the name of Judah's father was inaccessible.49

Application of gematria led Colani to Rabbi Judah ben Babba,50 who according to

tradition (b. Sanh. 14/b; Abod. Zar.8/b) settled in the mountains between Usha and

Shefar'am, where he ordained five elders (not seven sons) in order to evade Hadrian's

injunction against ordination and was condemned to death by the Romans.

Rönsch read 'Taxo' as transliteration for the presumed original תחשו, which

carries the numerical value of 714 multiplied by seven, obtains 4998 and thus

indicates the time dimension in relation to the year 5000, estimated for the coming of

the messiah.51

Wiesler favoured an etymology deriving from the Hebrew תחש (badger),

reminiscent in sound to the German Dachs, the skin of which was used in the hide-

covered tabernacle of the congregation (Num. 4:6ff), and perhaps alluded to a man

who, similar to the badger, was forced to hide in a den. The man could have been

Judah the Galilean, or one of the Zealot leaders, and perhaps the author himself.52

48ibid. p.30.Another possibility suggested by Zeitlin was that the seven sons were not real persons, but allusion to the prophecy of Zecharia (3:9) speaking of the stone laid before Joshua upon which there were seven eyes. (pp. 30-31). 49Heimrich Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, (Gottingen: Dietrich, 1867), vol. 5, pp. 73-82, in Tromp (n.2 above), p.124. Ewald's hypothesis concerning numerical value is not only unfounded but, as reported in Josephus (J.W. 2.8a), Judah the Galilean was motivated not by religious persecution but by national aims and his resistance to bondage and tax payment to the Roman ruler.

50T. Colani, "L'Assumption de Moïse", Revue de Théologie 6 (1968), pp. 90-94. He calculated that the Hebrew word most translatable to 'ta/ssw' is שים which in gematria equals 340, as בבא רבנא יהודה בן, who is therefore '… le grand Taxo, le Consecrant' (in Hilgenfeld, ibid. p.466). 51Carl Clemen, "Die Himmelfahrt Moses", Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (APAT) II, ed. E. Kautzsch (Tübingen: Mohr, 1900), p. 326. 52In Dean (n.3 above), p.119.

13

The solution which, which, with some modifications, gained ascendancy over

all others was proposed by Langen in 1866. He thought the name 'Tacw' derived

from the future tense (futurum) of the verb 'ta/ssw' which could be construed as

translation for the Hebrew verb אערך, meaning 'arrange' – 'prepare' or 'organize'

(Enrichten –Vorbereiten; Gerade machen), which fits 'Taxo's role as forerunner of the

messiah.53

This proposal, slightly modified, was picked up by Schmidt and Merx54 who

were equally dismissive of the futile search for a historical person and privileged a

symbolic description deriving from the Greek form 'tacwn', in the sense of

'e)pimelhth/j' namely 'orderer'55 or a kind of supperior (according to Josephus, on

the Essenes).56 Accordingly, the translator, when transliterating from Greek to Latin,

rendered the word by exchanging the verb for a noun.

Such interpretation was accepted by commentators as Clemen,57 Jeremias,58

Volz,59 Schürer,60 the latter accepting it as the least inventive idiosyncrasy, and

others.61 Mowinckel, asserting the failure of all others to explain the name, accepted

53Langen (n.9 above), pp.110-111. 54Moriz Schmidt & Adalbert Merx, "Die Assumptio Mosis mit Einleitung und erklärenden Anmerkungen", Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments, (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1869-1871), v. 1, pp. 111-152. [pp. 147-148] 55 Klausner's translation (History, n.26 above), 4, p.203. 56 J.W. (2.134 [60, LCL, 203, p.374) ' Tw=n me/n a)/llwn ou)k e)/stin o( ti mh\ tw=n e)pimekhtw=n e)nergou=si …..' 57Clemen (n.50 above), p.326. 58Jeremias (n.37 above). He thought the anticipation in the Assumption of Moses for the man from the tribe of Levi named Taxo = Taxo = Ta/cwn = Ordner (künftiger) relates to the prevailing belief in the return at the End of Elijah as high priest (p.935). See concluding remarks below. 59Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, (Tübingen, 1934. repr. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966), p. 201. 60Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), revised and edited by Geza Vermes & Fergus Millar, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973-1987), III.1, p. 280. 61For instance Ethelbert Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, (Bern: Francke Verlag, 1957), pp. 136-150 [p. 141].Kuhn (n.21 above) counters that it is unlikely to identify the Taxo with the Greek tacwn because 'wäre es seltsam, dass das Participium futuri gewählt ware, statt des einfachen Tasson' and if the intention was to his role as 'Ordener, al seine Art grosser Organisator'

14

the Schmidt & Merx option as the most reasonable. He insisted the name was

inexplicable on the basis of a cognate Semitic language and therefore, inevitably, a

Greek translation of the Hebrew original. The translator understood the word 'Taxo' as

denoting the name of a person and adjusted it to Latin, as in the case of Platon › Plato,

Zenon › Zeno, or Neron › Nero.62 Such transmission is not unusual in light of the fact

that the Latin text evidences other examples of transliteration from the Greek. In his

opinion the presumed Hebrew original, when referring to a man from the tribe of Levi

'whose name shall be …', did not necessarily have in mind the individual's name but

rather his title, presumably an honorific in virtue of his actions, as exemplified in

Jeremiah (23:6): 'and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our

Righteousness'. This raises the following question: what is the underlying Hebrew

name or title, and what ideas or concepts did Greek speaking Jews associate with the

words 'Ta/cij' or 'Tacwn'? Mowinckel, following Aalen (on another issue),

suggested that in Jewish-Greek religious philosophy exists a near connection between

the Hebrew 'חק ' (hoq) or 'חקה' (hukka) and the Greek 'Ta/cij'. Morever he marked

that the word 'Ta/cij' occurs as translation for 'Torah' (Law) so there is a close

relationship between the concept of 'law' and that of 'order' - 'Ta/cij' - as world

order.63 He also found (in the Cairo Manuscripts of the Damascus Covenanters

[CDC]) that another word for order is סרך (sarak) which corresponds the Greek

Ta/cij. Mowinckel therefore reached the conclusion that it is probable to explain the

it should have been reflected in his actions, yet his choosing prayer and fasting points at anything but 'Organisator'. (ibid. p.129). 62Already noticed by scholars, see for instance Charles (APOT, n. 33 above) who enumerates fifteen different examples of transliteration (pp.409-410), also Zeitlin (n.3 above), p. 9. 63There is one instance where the Septuagint translates the Hebrew text (Prov 31: 65) which says:

\as: sto/ma au\$=j dih=noicen prosexo/ntwj kai ' ,"לשונה-על, ותורת חסד; פתחה בחכמה, פיה"e)nno/mwj kai\ ta/cin e)stei/lato t$= glw/ss$au)th=j (She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness' )

15

Taxon of the Greek "Assumptio" as translation of the Hebrew term מחקק, (mehoqeq

– lawgiver – in the sense of interpreter of the Law). 64 Therefore Mowinckel identified

'Taxo' with the 'ordener' whose task was to establish the right order within the

Qumran congregation as forerunner of the 'Teacher'.65 Collins also adhered to this

interpretation,66 likewise Licht who added that the Greek root 'tag' parallels 'almost'

in full the Hebrew or Aramaic root 'serek', which carries multiple meanings and

figures prominently in Qumran literature.67

Some commentators who despaired of a suitable solution suggested, as for

instance de Faye, the name should not be assigned to a specific person but to a group

which served as exemplar for God's elect who chose death over transgression of the

Law's commandments.68 Laperrousaz69 equally read 'Taxo' as an ideal figure who,

together with his sons, is type of the faithful remnant at the end of days, exemplifying

a combination of 'piétisme and quiétisme'. Rist, in a similar spirit, suggested that

'Taxo' and his sons could be understood as symbolic figures for the faithful Jews who

endure the distress of persecutions that allegedly promoted advent of the End.70

An exceptional solution was contributed by van Henten.71 He assumed 'Taxo'

should be read symbolically, rather than as a particular individual, and suggested to

64 Charles, APOT, ibid, p. 792. 65 Mowinckel (n.21 above), pp.78-87; idem, He that Cometh, (translated by G.W. Anderson), Oxford: Blackwell (1959), pp. 300-301, see also Mathias Delcor, "Le Mehoqeq du Document de Damas et Taxo l'Assomption de Moïse' ix, RB 62 (1955), pp. 60-66. 66Collins (n.30 above), pp.22-3. accepted Mowinckel's explanation but found that the author had not a historical figure but an ideal one in mind. 67 p.95. Kasher also subscribes to this interpretation but added Bear's view that the authors of the scrolls were members of a Judeo-Christian sect that had already finalized its split from the camp of Israel, (n.6 above), pp.39-40. 68E. de Faye, Les apocalypses juives. Essai de critique littéraire et théologique, Paris 1892, (Lausanne: G. Bridel, 1892), p 72. See also Carlson, op.cit. p.85. 69Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz, "Le Testament de Moïse", Semitica 19, Paris: Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient, A. Maisonneuve, (1970), pp. 85-87. 70Martin Rist, "Moses, Assumption of", IDB III (1962), p. 450-455 [p. 451]. 71Jan Willem van Henten, "Traditie en Interpretatie in TestMos 9:1-10:10", Suma Blad van de Theologische Faculteit van de Universiteit van Amsterdam 19 (1987), pp. 18-29. I would like to thank Prof. van Henten for his efforts to forward his article which appeared in a Dutch periodical unavailable in Israel and reached me despite the technical difficulties involved.

16

combine the first and last letters of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets successively,

yielding ' W א A ת ' This combination defines the historical role of 'Taxo' and his

sons: they are the Aleph and Tav, (the first and last letters in the Hebrew alphabet),

and the alpha and omega of the Greek alphabet, and they exemplify those who died in

sanctification of God. They were meant, in his opinion, to signify the end of the

Jewish people in the historical age and, at the same time, the beginning existence of

the 'new Israel' in the kingdom of Heaven.72

The immediately obvious conclusion to be drawn from the survey of diverse

opinions is of scholarship's bewildering embarrassment what to make of the odd

name and no option of a reasonable solution. It is, in fact, shared by different

interpreters, among them Rowley who, dismissive of all the options as unfounded,

justly pointed out the risk of constructing a theory on unfounded textual

manipulations, and ultimately pronounced that 'the figure of 'Taxo' remains

completely obscure'.73 Priest similarly admitted that the scholars who tackled the

issue of identification impress by their power of invention but are ineffective.74

Brandenburger75 and McNamara76 equally failed to come up with an answer as to

who lurks behind the mysterious figure, and Tromp sums up the debate by saying that

none of the numerous suggestions made to solve the enigmatic name 'Taxo' is

convincing, and he has none to add.77 Concerning all the attempts to identify 'Taxo'

the most pertinent, it seems to me, are the words spoken by Fritsche towards the end

72Ibid. pp.28-9. I shall dwell on this option below. 73 Rowley, taking his cue from seven sons, inferred a real rather than an ideal figure yet assumed that if indeed the author's contemporary he must have been marginal and unrecorded in historical documents (op. cit pp.130-132). Rowley disregarded a symbolical reading for the seven sons, which I shall go into below. 74J. Priest, "Testament of Moses", The Old Testament Pseuepigrapha (ed. J. Charlesworth, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday 1983), I, pp. 919-926 [p.923]. 75Egon Brandenburger, "Himmelfahrt Moses", JSHRZ V(1976), pp. 57-84. (p. 75). 76Martin McNamara, Intertestamental Literature, Wilmington: M. Glazier (1983), p. 97. 77See n.2 above, pp.124, 224.

17

of the nineteenth century: 'ut nemo adhuc inventus est, qui nomen satis probabiliter

enuclearet, ita de ejus explicatione videtur desperandum'.78 Their relevance still

resonates today.

3. Denomination (Provenance)

The presence of unresolved issues equally applies to the author's

denomination (provenance) and intended recipients of his blatant remarks in chapter

7.79 In absence of traits distinctive to a particular group, commentators diverged and

related the text to all the known and unknown groups between the Hasmonean and

Bar Kokhba revolts.80 As has already been noted, Charles defined the author as 'a

Pharisaic Quietist'.81 He reached his conclusion by a process of elimination, after

rejecting affiliation with the Sadducees, Zealots and Essenes.82 Burkitt similarly

concluded the author was representative of this presumed Pharisaism that was

reminiscent of the Hasmonean Chasidim and eventually disappeared, and

characterized it as a tendency of Jewish thought closest to early Christianity.83

Leszynsky84 and Geiger85 attributed the text to the Sadducees, others (e.g. Schmidt

78Cited in Dean (n.3 above), p.118, who admits he has no choice but to concur. 79Interpreters attributed against the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Sicaries, Herod's sons or Roman procurators, but to quote Tromp (n.2 above): 'The suppositions are mere guesses and allow one to conclude only that the abusive descriptions found in chapter 7 can refer to any group'. 80See for instance Schürer (Vermes, n.59 above), 1.3, p.283. 81See n. 32 above. Charles, as most subsequent interpreters, arrived at this conclusion after he had eliminated all other groups. Lattey (op. cit pp.15-16) also supported Charles' position and advocated the author abuses the priests and Sadducees and is antagonistic toward the Hasmoneans and militant tendencies in Judaism, as against Licht (n.18 above, p.96) who regarded 'Taxo' as an activist resisting passive death and read into his actions political significance. 82For argument against the author's affiliation with Pharisees read: Collins (n.30 above), p.30; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, "Notes sur le Messianisme au temps de Jésus", RB (N.S. 2; 1905), pp.481-514: 'Il faut, en tout cas, retenir que l'auteur n'a rien des Pharisiens' (p.484). 83Burkitt (n.28 above), p.449, also Licht (n.18 above), p.102. Goldstein talks about an author who may have been 'a proto-Pharisee': Jonathan A. Goldstein, "The Testament of Moses: Its Content, Its Origin, and Its Attestation in Josephus", Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Cambridge, Ms. (1973), pp. 44-52, (pp.48-50). 84See n.26 above, pp.267-73. 85Abraham Geiger, "Apokryphische Apokalypsen und Essäer" Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 6 (1868), pp. 41-47.

18

and Merx,86 Dupont-Sommer87) situated the author among the Essenes that prevailing

opinion identifies with the Qumran sect. Affinity between the Assumption of Moses

and Qumran literature was also detected by van Henten88 and rejected by such critics

as Collins and Tromp.89 Laperoussaz discovered another conjectured brand of

quietism, amongst the Essenes, and situated the author as 'un Essénien Quitétiste'.90

Klausner, over and against them, dismissed the Essene connection because the work,

to his opinion, does not witness any predominant Essene attributes91. Likewise

Rosenthal, who rejected emergence from amongst the Essenes (Qumran) because

they, even more than the Pharisees, stringently observed purification regulations

(toharah).92 Likewise Schürer, who dismissed the author's affiliation with any of

theses sects and thought it most likely he came from amongst the Zealots.93 This view

was upheld by several commentators, particularly in the nineteenth century,94 and

vehemently rejected by Zeitlin who proposed yet another group that supposedly

86See n.53 above, pp.120-123. 87André Dupont-Sommer, The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes (Translated by R.D. Barnett, London: Vallentine, Mitchell & Co., 1954), pp. 36-37; idem, The Essene writings from Qumran (Translated by G. Vermes), Cleveland : World Pub. Co., (1962), p. 296. For more on this matter read: Norbert J. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung, (Leiden- Boston-Köln : Brill, 2000), pp. 35-40. 88Jan Willem van Henten, “Moses as Heavenly Messenger in Assumptio Mosis 10:2 and Qumran Passages, Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003) 216-27. Yigael Yadin suggested Qumran source for the Assumption of Moses: Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), p. 73. 89Collins (n.30 above), p.32, also Tromp (n.2 above, pp.118-119, and see also Goldstein who entirely dismissed affinity with tradition of the 'Qumran Essenes' on the basis of the disparity between the latter's solar calendar and what is implied in the Assumption of Moses (n.81 above, p.50). 90Laperoussaz (n.67 above), pp.93-5, who includes detailed survey of the scholarly divergences concerning the sect in which the author was active (pp.88-95) and arrived at this conclusion after dismissing all other options. His 'Essénien Quiétisme', similar to 'Pharisaic Quietism' (n.33 above), is unsupported by historical documents and it seems he related to this presumed group in absence of any other. 91Klausner (History, n.26 above), p.182. He, like Charles, presumes the author was 'a humble Pharisee' (p.193). 92Rosenthal (n.14 above), p.23. Charles (APOT – n.33 above) equally dismissed Essene option. 93Schürer (n.40 above), p.635. Idem, The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, (ed. with an introd. by Nahum N. Glatzer), New York (1972), p.80. 94Rosenthal (op. cit. p.23), Dean (op.cit. p.109), and others (in Charles [1897], pp.xxi-xxviii). De Fay notes that even if the author did not belong to the Zealots he was definitely not a moderate, (in n.66 above), pp.73-4, whereas Sweet dismisses relationship of the author to any of the known Jewish groups, least of all the Zealots, as reasonably unsound: J.P.M. Sweet, "The Assumption of Moses", The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 610-616 [p. 603].

19

existed within Judaism, namely the apocalyptists.95 Hilgenfeld attributed to a Jew

living in Rome,96 Haacker to an author who came from Samaria,97 Otto clearly

discerned Iranian influence,98 whereas the Pakistani Abdus Sattar Ghauri argued that

Moses of the Assumption prophesied the prophet Mohammed.99

Attempts to define the author's religious identity and sectarian affiliation were

as indecisive as the quest for meaning of the name 'Taxo'. The diverse solutions by

way of elimination resulted in rejection of all the known and presumed factions

within Judaism of the Second Temple period. Thus, in absence of a definitive

identification of the text, the one remaining choice was, to quote Collins, 'a sectarian

document'.100 Tromp equally failed to locate a suitable group - 'It cannot be

ascertained to which denomination, if any, the author of As.Mos. belonged'101 – and

elsewhere added that the particular group around the Assumption of Moses perceived

itself as 'the real Israel' and presumably rejected the temple cult for its impurity.

Atkinson more recently addressed the uncertainty about all that concerns a sect or

framework in which the text was written, and taking as his only lead the fact that the

95Op. cit. pp.18-20. Zeitlin identifies the 'apocalytists' with Judeo-Christians who were still Jews at the time of the bar Kokhba revolt and subscribed to the belief in Jesus as promised messiah, being high priest and Davidic progeny, opposed the revolt and even informed the Roman authorities of Jewish activism. 96Op. cit. pp.lxx-lxxvi-introduction. 97Klaus Haacker, "Assumptio Mosis: Eine samaritanische Schrift? TZ 25 (1969) pp. 385-405.Hofman (in Die Assumptio Mosis) assumes the author contests with the Samaritans yet is, at the same time,a sympathizer (ibid. p.73). For argument against affiliation with Samaritans read: J.D. Purvis, "Samaritian Traditions on the Death of Moses", Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Cambridge, Ms. (1973), pp. 93-117 [p. 117] ; Martin Rist, "Moses, Assumption of", IDB III (1962), p. 450-455. 98Rudolph Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man – A study in the History of Religion, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1938), p. 98. 99In his article "'Clear cut Prophecy regarding the Prophet of Islam in 'Assumption of Moses'" in http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Decscrip2y3.html, he argues that the text went through several redactions so that mention of seven sons leans on the story about the 'Seven Sleepers' in the cave who escaped Roman persecution under Decius. 100 Collins, op.cit. p.32, and read also on Assumption 1:17: Abraham Schalit, Untersuchungen zur Assumptio Mosis, (Leiden : Brill, 1989), who completed extensive textual analysis of chapter 1. He situates the author within one of the esoteric groups of the Second Temple period but does not indicate a specific documented group. 101Op.cit. p.118 and see also Sweet (n.91 above).

20

particular sect disclaimed the Second Temple and its priesthood102 branded 'Taxo' 'a

'militant individual'103 whose willingness for self sacrifice was a means to achieve

destruction of all-time evil. Charlesworth equally concludes that it has been

impossible to reach a scholarly consensus regarding the text's provenance or

relationship to a Jewish sect, if any.104

Volkmar reasoned the author was an orthodox 'Pharisaic rabbi' and anti-

Christian ascetic.105 Similarly Briggs, who assessed the work as disguised anti-

Christian polemic and 'Taxo' and his sons as antithetical to Jesus and the twelve

apostles.106 Rhoades, by contrast, commented that the Assumption of Moses is witness

to the spirit that swept through religious circles of 4 BCE to 48 CE Judaism,

dampened the contemporary revolutionary impulse and eventually formed the cradle

of Christian faith,107 a view also shared by Atkinson.108

In 1868, the German commentator Ferdinand Philippi expounded that the

Assumption of Moses was no mere evidence for nascent Christianity but its

production, namely a Christian text with 'Taxo' as messiah (a view shared by several

other scholars), not however a Jewish messiah but Christ, his seven sons being the

102Kenneth Atkinson, "Taxo's Martyrdom and the Role of Nuntius In the Testament of Moses: Implications for Understanding the Role of Other Intermediary Figures", JBL 125, No. 3 (2006), pp. 453-476 [pp. 456-457].See also Goldstein (n.81 above), p.49. Daniel Schwartz, "The Tribes of As. Mos. 4:7-9", JBL 99, pp.217-223, argues against them that verses 4:7-9 about the few tribes that came into the land and built the temple, in contrast to the two tribes who could not offer sacrifices, refers to the differentiation between those who entered the land and those who remained in exile and were therefore unable to make sacrifices, a somewhat shaky option, in light of the eschatological tendency of the work, which merits further debate but lies outside the scope of this study. 103See above note, p.475. 104James H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 163-164. 105Volkmar, op. cit. p.85. 106cited in Charles (n.31 above), p.xxviii. 107 David M. Rhoads, "The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 BC – AD 48, Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Cambridge, Ms. (1973), p.53-58 [p. 58] . 108Op. cit (n.100), pp.475-6. His position is introduced subsequently.

21

twelve apostles, and attributed the number VII to a miscopying of the original XII.109

He went on to say that the fierce attack launched in chapter 7 was against the Jews,

and could therefore, by no means, have come from a Jew,110 but is conversely and

most definitely aligned with verses dispersed throughout the NT.111 However, even

scholars engaged with the Assumption of Moses who incidentally dwelt on Philippi's

version did not investigate it as an interpretative probability, and similarly, the voices

of his few proponents in Israel, for instance Ben Zion Katz,112 Joshua Efron,113 Arieh

Kasher,114 failed to elicit proper response, despite the fact that no Jewish sect was

discovered as witness to the author's religious outlook. I shall return to this particular

appraisal in my proposed solution but, prior to it, dwell on two more controversial

issues, namely the dating and original language of the work which bear on the subject

under debate.

109Ferdinand Philippi, Das Buch Henoch: sien Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbriefe, (Stuttgart: Liesching 1868) – Anhang über JudäVers 9 und die Moses=Prophetie, pp. 155-191 [pp. 177-181], p.177. 110Read also Rosenthal (n.14 above), pp.21-22, who claims the work's description of the Pharisees in consistent with the Gospels and the accusations could not be voiced by even their most fierce adversary. 111Mat 23;Mark 12:38-40;2 Peter 2:13,18;Rom 1:28-29, a comparison noticed also by Charles (n.33 above), p.419; de Fay op.cit p.71. 112Ben-Zion Katz, Prushim, Zadukim, Kanaaim, Notzrim (Tel Aviv:Tversky, 1947), pp.87-88. 113Joshua Efron, The Origins of Christianity and Apocalypticism [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz ha-Meuchad, 2004), p.37; idem, Formation of the Primary Christian Church [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz ha-Meuchad, 2006), p.22. 114Op. cit., for instance pp.2, 40-55.

22

4. Original language

Most scholars agree that the Latin copy is a translation of the Greek which, in

turn, is a translation of a Semitic original (either Hebrew or Aramaic).115 While early

Christian writings retain passages of the complete Greek source, thus evidencing its

transmission among these circles,116 and the text itself carries examples of

transliterations, grammatical forms and distinctive idioms derived from the Greek,117

nothing survives of the Semitic version, if any, nor is there any proof that it ever

existed.118 Charles, as against Hilgenfeld,119 was an impassioned advocate of a

Hebrew original. Relying on the presence of idioms, syntactical constructions and

play on words, he championed a Hebrew reconstruction of the text as the only process

for interpretation and establishment of meaning.120 He became the pre-eminent

proponent of this view and many scholars followed his lead,121 even though some

subscribed to an Aramaic source122 and others to a Semitic original without definitive

commitment to either Hebrew or Aramaic.123 This view became deeply entrenched in

the research environment, acquiring the status of an unquestioned assumption, and

115 Charles (n.31 above), pp.xxviii-ix, idem (APOT, n.33 above), pp.410-413. 116Origenes, Præfatio Rufini, lib. 3, PG 11 (col. 303); idem, E)klogai – Ex Origene Selecta in Jesum Nave, PG 12 (col. 834); Clement Alexandrinus, Stromatum, Lib. V, PG ix (col. 356); Gelasi Ciziceni Actorum Concilii Nicæni,Commentarius, PG 85 (col. 1269); Oecumenius, Catholica Epistola Judæ Apostoli, PG 119 (col. 713). See also Charles (n.31 above), pp.lxii-lxv; Lattey (n.38 above), p.11; Tromp (n.2 above), p.88. Tromp, op.cit. p.79-81. 117Tromp, op.cit. p.79-81. 118Dean (n.3 above), p.104. 119Introduces, in his Messias Judaeorum, reconstructed Greek text as his presumed original (n.39 above, pp.438-468. 120Charles (n.31 above), pp.xxviii-ix, idem (APOT, n.33 above), pp.410-413. 121For instance Mowinckel (n.63 above), pp.300-301; idem (n.21), pp.89-90; Rosenthal (n.14 above), p.34; Brandenburger (n.73 above), p.59; Kangen (n.9 above), p.104-5; Collins (n.30 above), pp.22-3; Kahana (n.13 above), p.397. 122For instance Schmidt and Merx (n.53 above), pp.111-114; Torrey (n.19 above), p.2; or David S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 BC-AD 100, (London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 58. 123Schürer (Literature, above n.91), assuming the work was written in the land of Israel, opted for either Hebrew or Aramaic but noted its uncertainty (pp.78-80.

23

Wallace voiced most decisively that no serious scholar since Hilgenfeld would persist

in the notion that the Assumption of Moses was written in Greek.124

Johannes Tromp, whose 1993 study was primarily dedicated to a

comprehensive linguistic analysis of the text, reversed this trend. He argued that

certain examples provided by Charles have no sound textual foundations, that even

the most likely Hebrew forms were intended for scriptural effect, making the text's

presumed Hebraisms unsuitable evidence for a Hebrew original. He further added that

Charles failed to substantiate his assertion, as Hebrew idioms are merely scriptural

idioms and cannot be considered proof of a Hebrew source, and since certain words

and constructions in the presumed Greek text have no Hebrew parallels, arguments

for a Hebrew source are too flimsy and warrant rejection.125 It is also noteworthy that

Hebraisms of the mentioned sort are abundant in the Greek and Latin versions of the

NT126 and since they lean on Hebrew Scriptures and draw from their content and

language on the basis of the Septuagint translation, one cannot infer that in whole or

in parts they were originally written in a Semitic language. Same applies to

pseudepigrapha where authors wrote while hiding behind ancient and biblical figures,

and appropriated a language suitable to the overt framework of their composition.

Hence there is nothing odd about the presence of Hebrew idioms in the text.127

Tromp's conclusion in favour of Greek as language of origin, on the basis of

the most exhaustive textual analysis to date, lends itself neatly to the herein proposed

124Wallace was skeptic of Charles' confidence and allowed the probability of Hebrew without altogether dismissing Aramaic: David H. Wallace, "The Semitic Origin of the Assumption of Moses", Theologische Zeitschrift 5 (1955), pp. 321-328. 125Tromp (n.2 above), pp.79-85. 126This is my position on the matter, see: Edna Israeli, Eschatology and Soteriology in 4th Ezra (Ezra apocalypse), [Hebrew] Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 2002. Read more in Aharon (Armand) Kaminka, Liber Assiri Salthielis filli Regis Jechoniae, qui Ezra propheta, sive liber Ezdrae quartus dictus est, (Hebrew: Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1936), p. xv, who asserts that the Septuagint sticks to Hebrew phraseology and doesn't deviate from it. 127Elaborated in my above dissertation, pp.8-12; for more read Joshua Efron, The Origins, p.303.

24

solution for identifying the name 'Taxo' as it appears in the text, without any

unfounded modification.

5. Date

The issue of dating the work is another area of disagreement. The range of

opinions spans different periods, from shortly before the outbreak of the Hasmonean

revolt, coinciding with composition of the book of Daniel and anteceding its

apocalyptic chapters, through the first and second centuries up to the reign of Hadrian

and Bar Kokhba revolt. Scholars lean on clues provided by the text, whether about

persons, events, or time calculations derived from the numbers dispersed throughout

its chapters, in attempt to glean real historical data for their dating procedures.

Accordingly Schmidt and Merx arrived at somewhere between 54 and 64 CE;128

Hilgenfeld between the years 44-45 CE;129 Langen to soon after destruction of the

temple by Titus;130 Fritzsche and Lucius to the sixth decade of the first century CE;131

Hausrath to the reign of Domitian;132 Rosenthal, who read the description of the end

as the end of Judea rather than the end of days, likewise dated to the destruction of the

temple by Titus.133 However, the process of dating an apocalyptic text on vague clues

and speculative time calculations which, furthermore, relies on a fragmentary and

imperfect manuscript, was rightly rejected as improper historical research.134

Notwithstanding, from the end of the nineteenth century there is almost unanimous

commitment to the opening three decades of the first century CE, the date of

composition established by Charles, primarily on the following considerations:

128ibid (n.53), pp. 114-120. 129Ibid (n.39), pp. lxxiii-lxxvi. 130Ibid (n.9), pp. 106-111. 131Cited in Schürer (Literature, n.91 above), p.78. 132Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 4, p.79. 133Vier apokryphische Bücher, pp. 18-19. 134For instance Schürer, ibid. pp.78-79; Tromp (n.2 above), p.94.

25

1. The temple still stands (according to 1:17). If destroyed, it is very unlikely

that an event of such magnitude would not elicit some authorial reference.

2. From what is said in 6:8-9, concerning the invasion of a mighty king from

the west and partial burning the temple, prevailing opinion inferred reference to

events at the time of Sabinus and his prefect Varus (Josephus, Ant. 17.254-264, 295-

298, J.W. 2.3, 3, 5.1-3),135 and concluded that the text could not have been written

before the year 3 CE.

3. From what is stated in verse 6:7, namely that the sons of the evil king are to

reign 'for shorter periods' (breviora tempora) than their father, and since it is known

that at least two of Herod's sons reigned longer than their father (Philip: 4 BCE – 34

CE and Antipas: 4 BCE – 39 CE)136 the conclusion is that the work was written when

their reign still fell short of 34 years.137

To overcome the textual problem of introducing persecutions reminiscent of

those under Antiochus after the reign of Herod and his sons, Charles proposed to

restore the 'historical order' by re-arranging the chapters so that 8-9 stood before 5-

6.138 This proposal was unacceptable to most scholars since it divested 'Taxo' of his

eschatological dimension and disrupted the apocalyptic sequence without allowing it

to attain its climax, and in fact deprived the whole work of its meaning and

message.139

At the same time, dating the work to the years extending over the first third of

the first century CE was accepted by most commentators who excused the narrative's

135See Tromp's objections, op. cit. p.117. He doubts the text's reference to those events and argues it presumably had in mind an eschatological scenario. 136Klausner (History, n.26 above), 4, pp.188-195. 137Charles (n.31 above), pp.lv-lvii. 138Ibid. pp.28-30. 139For instance Licht (n.18 above), pp.101-102; also Kasher (n.6 above), p.5. Lattey was aware of this claim and to surmount the difficulty proposed to transpose ch.8 between chapters 6 and 7 and leave ch.9 as is, otherwise: 'the plan of the work is to be reduced from order to chaos' (n.38 above), pp.11-12. This was also dismissed as an inadequate solution for the dilemma (Licht, above).

26

distorted time-line by arguing that it was not structured as historical chronology but

as eschatological description of the final calamity, modeled on the Antiochian

persecutions (similar to Revelation 13) and anticipated to occur prior to the advent of

the end times.140

Two radical positions were advanced against the prevailing view. One by

Licht who, upon rejecting all the proposed dates as unsatisfactory, cautiously

suggested the text, in its extant form, was a composite, incorporating an early section

from the time of IV Antiochus (shortly before the Hasmonean revolt and prior to the

apocalyptic chapters in Daniel) and later interpolations, namely chapters 6 and 7 as

post-Herodian additions.141 Nickelsburg also argued for the work's antecedence and

for chapter 6 as interpolation because it is irreconcilable with adjacent chapters where

the data is thoroughly aligned with the times of Antiochus. He regarded the

persecutions in chapter 8 as altogether identical to those preceding the Hasmonean

revolt, whereas 'Taxo' and his sons lent themselves neatly to descriptions of the

Hassidim killed upon outbreak of the revolt. He further argued that apocalyptists were

known as eye-witness recorders of the events they perceived as conducive to the end

times, as well as for their vivid and detailed descriptions, so that they would be easily

picked up by their readers.142

140Burkitt (n.28 above), pp.448-9; de Fay (n.66 above), p.70); Dean (n.3 above), p.107; Brandenburger (n.73 above), pp.59-60; Laperoussaz (n.67 above), pp.96-99); Klausner (History, n.26 above), p.182; Legrange (n.86 above), p.485; Hofman (n.85 above), pp.27-30; Tromp (n.2 above), pp.16, 120-122; Collins (n.30 above), pp.20-21; Charlesworth (n. 102 above), p.163; Atkinson (n.100 above), p.467, as against Charles (n.31 above, p.29) who advanced that the apocalyptic could not skip the Antiochian persecutions and defilement of the temple. I shall dwell on the problems attending this and how they bear on the work's provenance. 141Op. cit. pp.100-103. Flusser (David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) equally shares Licht's view and regards ch.8 as one of the most informative testimonies to Jewish perception of Antiochus as antichrist (p.34). 142George W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 43-45; idem, "An Antiochan Date for the Testament of Moses, Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, (Cambridge, Ms.: SBL, 1973), p. 33-37. Goldstein (n.81 above, pp.45-7) favoured the early date, likewise McNamara (n.74, p.96) who established at app. 165 BCE.

27

Volkmar, at the other extreme, claimed that the edicts articulated in chapter 8

are not Antiochian, but rather those of Hadrian that are already intimated in chapter 7

(1). His reading of the fragmented and interrupted verse, which mentions the four

hours in relation to the end times, assumed four periods under Roman rule, extending

from Tiberius up to Hadrian.143 He therefore argued that chapter 8 does not concern

Antiochus and, moreover, makes no mention of 'abomination that maketh

desolate',144 and pressed the point that history records punishment of circumcision by

crucifixion only under Hadrian, who brought about the Bar Kokhba revolt. He

therefore dates the work as not before but not after ('nicht früher aber nicht später'),

but strictly somewhere between the years 135-138.145 Zeitlin provided another reason

for a later dating of the work and confidently insisted that it could not have been

written before the destruction because of the denotation of time (in 1:1-2) that Moses

from the creation of the world as Anno Mundi, is unknown in Judaism prior to the

destruction.146

Scholars rejected both notions. Interpolation, they argued, had neither textual

foundations nor supporting evidence, and the work, says Collins, is to be viewed as

an integrated whole unless proven otherwise.147 Tromp was equally unconvinced by

143Volkmar, op. cit. p.59. 144op. cit. p.69. 145op. cit. pp.58-9. 146Zeitlin, op. cit. p.10-11. See also Shalit (op. cit. pp.7-11) who enumerates different methods of chronology which authenticate that in pre-destruction documents there is no Anno Mundi. As to Jubilees (ibid. pp. 10-11), also mentioned by Collins (The Date and Provenance), p.16, and against Zeitlin – it belongs to the same literary corpus as Assumption of Moses where all issues of date, denomination, language and tendency of each work is disputed and can consequently not serve as source material or reliable testimony to the period. For more read my dissertation (above), pp.23-37, also my article, "Ego Salathiel Qui et Ezras", Te'uda, The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies Research Series XVII-XVII – Studies in Judaica, (ed. Yair Hoffman, Hebrew, Tel Aviv University 2001) 391-420 (ibid, pp. 411-12, n.81); for more on the matter read: H. Dixon Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research, (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for SBL, 1977), in particularly pp.112-114; Joshua Efron, Formation of, pp.231-281. 147"Some Remaining Traditio-Historical Problems…", p. 39. It is noteworthy that a debate between Nickelsburg and Collins at the 1973 seminar in Chicago led to the conclusion that the work may contain a stratum dating to the time of Antiochus before the Hasmonean revolt, which begs further investigation (Nickelsburg, op. cit. p.43).

28

Nickelsburg's claims and saw no reason to deny the book's unity.148 The late date was

dismissed because it was improbable that any author engaged with Israel's

historiography (even if in the prophetic mode) would entirely overlook Jerusalem's

destruction by Titus and leap from the reign of Herod's sons to events under

Hadrian.149 Such disregard was not considered a difficulty by Volkmar who

commented that the Revelation of John, written many years after the destruction,

equally made no specific mention of the event,150 yet he overlooked the fact that the

latter was an overt Christian not Jewish text.

There consequently remains the prevailing view that fixes the date of the text

in the first third of the first century. It is decidedly problematic when viewed from the

dominant perspective of Jewish authorship. Neither in this particular period, nor any

other period until the Bar Kokhba revolt, is there any record of Roman persecution of

Jews on religious grounds, of any injunction against circumcision and of Jews being

crucified on account of it. The reverse holds true. Jews were not denied the status of

Religio Licita, nor were they urged to die in sanctification of God lest they commit a

breach of the Law,151 as is attributed to 'Taxo' and his sons.

6. The proposed thesis

The examined issues illustrate scholarly bewilderment. There is neither

agreement on any matter of substance relating to the text nor any shift away from the

deadlock reached on all controversial issues since Ceriani's publication in 1863.

148Tromp (Assumption), pp.120-121; idem 'Taxo', pp.200-201; Priest ('Testament'), p.920. 149For instance Laperoussaz, op. cit. p.96; see also Dean (op. cit. p.116): 'to omit all mention of the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus … is a proceeding so improbable that we cannot admit it for a moment'. 150Volkmar (n.2 above), p.95. 151Mary Smallwood, "Domitian's Attitude Towards the Jews and Judaism", Classical Philology 51 (1956), pp. 1-13; Shmuel Safrai, Be-Shalhei ha-Bayit ha-Sheni ve-Betqufat ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1983), pp.11-32; Edna Israeli (n.124 above), pp.16-19. Whatever relates to Domitian's time is relevant until persecutions under Hadrian.

29

It is my opinion that the deadlock derives from the premise underlying the

whole of scholarly research, namely the purported Jewish authorship of the work

which, in turn, has generated the oft ludicrous solutions exemplified in interpretations

for the name 'Taxo'.

I propose to go back to Philippi's claim of Christian authorship and, from this

optic, to re-examine afresh all the issues.

The affinity of 'Taxo' with the messiah is strikingly conspicuous. According to

Lattey, he is not only the messiah152 but also, most clearly, the suffering messiah

whose atoning death entails the end of times and consecutive kingdom of heaven.153

Tromp equally notes that, one way or another, 'Taxo' is presented as a suffering

righteous one who, upon death, ascends to heaven and is ordained to high priesthood,

and whose function is to avenge Israel as priest and eschatological judge.154 Legrange

perceives him as pre-existent messiah.155 Licht does not see the figure as messiah yet

describes him in a way which implies the reverse, namely that he is not only the

messiah, but most specifically the Christian messiah. He attributes cosmic

significance to the appearance, actions and innocent bloodshed of the impeccable

'Taxo', and perceives them as a necessary link in the predetermined scheme of

suffering and eschatological salvation consistent with the predetermined plan of God,

and further he adds that his actions, as well as those of his sons, are somehow

instrumental to the appearance of God's kingdom.156

152See n.38 above, p.17. 153Lattey (op. cit.), pp.17-21. Over and against, Rowley justly argued that messianic interpretation to Isaiah's suffering servant (53) was not adopted prior to its attribution to Jesus (n.29 above, p.130), yet he did not consider that this was precisely the author's intent. 154Johannes Tromp, "Taxo, The Messenger of the Lord", JSJ 21 (1990), p. 200-209. He comments (p.208) that early Christianity often attributed this idea to Jesus, see n.6 above. 155See n.80 above, p.484. 156Licht, op. cit. pp.96-102. Licht's refusal to perceive Taxo as messiah may be attributed to the fact that the text is inconsistent with the Jewish messianic concept, yet the description accurately fits the figure and substance of the Christian messiah.

30

With the appearance of 'Taxo' and his actions, the kingdom of God embraces

the whole universe, Satan and consequently all agonies and afflictions disappear, the

messiah avenges the enemies of the elect, and cosmic disruptions occur. This is de

Fay's description of events following 'Taxo's appearance.157 It is consistent with the

spirit and language of the NT and faith in the Christian messiah. Philippi hence

argued that 'Taxo' could be none other than the Jesus Christ whose appearance entails

the end of the world and reveals the kingdom of heaven.158

The questions arising in light of this assumption are: what is the meaning of

the name 'Taxo', who are his seven sons, what is the historical setting for their

appearance and actions, and for what purpose was the work written?

The answer to the first question lies, in my opinion, in the letter construction

of the name in the Greek source and its transliteration into the Latin translation. As

against scholars who perceived 'Taxo' as transliteration of the Greek original TACO

or TACW, I suggest the Latin translator transmitted an accurate copy of the Greek

original TAXW (rather than TACW) and that this letter combination creates a

tetragram behind which hides Jesus Christ.

My assumption rests on the presence of both T and X being letters that, from

the earliest days of the Christian church, represented the cross and the crucified. The

Epistle of Barnabas documents this usage. Its author strings together two verses from

the Genesis account (17:23, 27 and 14:14 ) about Abraham who circumcised the

males of his household, being 'three hundred and eighteen', and interprets the number

18 in the Greek alphabet as 10=I; 8=X, which stand for the first two letters of the

name 'Iesou=s Christo/s', and the number 300 as the numerical value of the Greek

157De Fay, op. cit. pp.72-3, assumes it is typical of Jewish apocalyptic literature (see n.127 above) but the description is aligned with Christian faith in the appearance of Christ. 158Philippi op. cit. p.181.

31

letter T which is symbol of the cross. He enlists this as proof of Christ's spirit that

already lay over Abraham who first appointed circumcision.159 Tracing the letter T on

the forehead of believers during Christian baptism is documented in ancient patristic

writings as one of the earliest customs practiced in the church.160 The two additional

letters, alpha and omega (A and W), equally symbolize Christ. The Revelation of

John (1:8, 21:6, 22:13) already attributes to Jesus the words spoken by Isaiah about

the God of Israel: 'Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the

LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God', and

which he converted, calling himself '…e)gw/ [ei)mi] to\ a)/lfa kai\ W)=, h( a)rxh\ kai\

to\ te/loj.' The two letters became Christianity's earliest symbols for Jesus, appear in

the art of the catacombs,161 and were incorporated into the tetragram, one of the

earliest graphic expressions for the emblem of Christ.162 The tetragram assumed the

either a form which combined the the I and X, the first letters of the messiah's name

'I)hsou=j Xristo/j with the alpha and omega (A – W)

whereas another combination of letters, the X and R signified the name XR[isto/j]

were equally combined with alpha and omega (A – W) that define his divine title as

first and last and represent the messiah's eternal nature.

159Bar. 9: 7-8. 160Jean Daniélou, Primitive Christian symbols, (Trans. D. Attwater, London: Burns & Oates, 1964), pp. 136-145. 161Paul S. Minear, 'Alpha and Omega', Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991), pp. 88-89. See also Eitan Burstein, Christianity –Lexicon [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Eitav, 2005), p.69. 162Yves Christie et al., Art of the Christian World A.D. 200-1500: A Handbook of Styles and Forms (New York: Rizolli, 1982), pp. 48, 62.

32

The two forms may be construed as foundation for the name TAXW because

this combination, similar to RAXW or IAXW and perhaps with greater clarity,

conveys the same meaning.

As to the meaning of seven sons, it is equally found in Christian symbolism

and, as with other descriptions throughout the work, should not be retrieved from

historical records.

The number seven was, from very early on, appropriated by the church as a

consummate number. It stood for all the churches that embraced the consummate

universal church. Thus the early church fathers, when interpreting the Revelation of

John, linked its seven churches with the episodes about the barren Hannah who bore

seven son (1 Samuel 2:1-10) and the mother and seven brothers who died in

sanctification of God under the Antiochian persecutions (2 Macc. 7).

The seven sons ('the Maccabees'), says Cyprian, became united in their death

as martyrs, similar to the underlying unity between seven days of creation and seven

thousand years, seven winds and seven angels, the seven-branched menorah and the

seven candlesticks of Revelation and the seven pillars of Solomon, and thus the

number of seven brothers embraces the seven churches (in Revelation) on the basis of

33

'Kings' (1 Sam 2:5): 'the barren hath born seven'. In Revelation, says Cyprian, the

Lord concedes his divine rule and commandments to the seven churches, a number

embodied in the brothers, in order to endorse fulfillment of the Law in whole. He

further adds that those martyrs suffer in testimony of their being sons of God, and

they have no father but him.163

Augustine also links the seven sons of the barren woman (on the basis of 1

Samuel, ibid.) to the Revelation of John. The number seven, he argues, signifies the

consummate church and explains why John writes to the seven churches.164 The

believers, who according to Christian faith acquired the status of 'true Israel', are now

'the Israel of God': to\n Israh/l tou= qeou165 and true inheritors of the patriarchs,166

and identified by the NT writers as sons of God.167 The author of Galatians is

particularly instructive on this, saying that 'when the fullness of the time was come,

God sent forth his Son' to redeem those that were under the law that they 'might

receive the adoption of sons' (i)/na th\n ui(oqesi/an a)pola/wmen)168 in place of old

Israel rejected by God.

There is thus ready explanation for the intent behind 'Taxo's' seven sons. They

are not real individuals, nor sons of the messiah, but rather the seven churches of

Revelation which embody the overall community of believers who are willing to die

in sanctification of their faith.169

163ibid. pp.334-5. 164Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, 17:4, PL 41, col. 529. 165Gal 6:16 against Israel in the flesh - to\n I)srah\l kata\ sa/rka (1 Cor 10:19). Marcel Simon, Verus Israel, a Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, (translated from French by H. Mckeating) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 986, pp.65-70. 166For instance Ephes 1:11, 14, 18; Col 1:12; Heb 6:12, 9:15; 1 Pet 1:4, 3:9; Barn. 4:XIV. 167John 1:12l Rom 8:14, 19; Phil 2:15; Heb 2:10; 1 John 3:1,2. 168Gal 4:4-6. 169Rosenthal (n.14 above) suggested the seven sons represent ideal Israel who privilege death over transgression of the Law, yet, as has already been noted, Jews were not faced with this choice because they could worship openly during the relevant period.

34

The chronological ordering of chapters, as the name Taxo and his seven sons,

is equally dependent on distinct Christian symbolism and lies outside the domain of

real history. Commentators already observed that the Antiochian calamity introduced

after events relating to Herod's reign implies intentionality, namely to portray the

culminating end pangs on the experience of martyrs at the time of Antiochus.170 This

description also lends itself neatly to the proposed reading. Christian theology regards

both Herod and Antiochus Epiphanes as types of antichrist. Herod persecuted the

infant Christ and desired his death, modeled on Pharaoh, the fierce enemy of Jews

who ordered infanticide (Exodus 1:16-22),171 whereas Antiochus, drawn from Daniel

and the Hasmonean books, who persecuted the 'old testament' faithful became type

for those who persecuted devotees of the 'new testament'.172 He is representative of

antichrist – the ultimate foe of the messiah, who put on the image of Satan173 and

whose overthrow entails the end of the world followed by final salvation of the elect

righteous ones.174 Hence Antiochian measures are integrated into the author's

immediate reality, when believers were persecuted and crucified for their faith,175 as

part of the eschatological events signaling the impending End.

7. Conclusion

170See n.140 above. 171Mat 2; see Joshua Efron, Origins, pp.185-7; Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and his Story (Translated from German by R. & Clara Wiston), New York: Knopf (1960), who points to verses 6:2-6 as infanticide undeniably modeled on Pharaoh, and the author, indeed, implies correspondence between Herod and Pharaoh. 172See 'Synoptic Apocalypse' in Mark (13), likewise the beast in Revelation is modeled on the Antiochus in Daniel (7:30). For more read:D.W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend (London: Hutchinson, 1896), pp. 158-170; Atkinson, op. cit. pp.462-4. 173Cf. Assumption 10:6 with Rev 21:4. 174See for instance Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmoneans, pp.213-216; Formation, pp.51-2; Martin Rist, "Antichrist", IDB 1, pp. 140-143. 175Descriptions of persecution and killing of Christians on account of their faith are dispersed throughout NT ( for instance Mark 4:17, 10:29-30, 8:34; Mat 5:10-12, 44, 10:16, 21-22, 34; Luke 11:49, 21:12; John 15:20; Acts 8:1, 11:19, 22:19-20; Rom 8:35; 1 Cor 4:12; Gal 5:11, 6:12; 1 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 1:4, as against Jews who could worship openly.

35

It is my opinion that the shift in point of departure and exploration from the

perspective of Christian authorship lifts the veil of obscurity from the disturbing

questions that remained unaddressed, recaptures the work's clarity and brings to the

surface the intentionality hidden at its depth. A lead in this direction can already be

discerned as the work opens, when Moses calls Joshua to be his successor. The

transmission of authority, from Moses to Joshua, the son of Nun, who is 'a man

worthy of the Lord', 'Jesum filium Nave – hominem probatum Domino (1:6),

allegedly follows the biblical model (Deuteronomy 34), yet its true meaning lies in

the narrative's progression until the end of days, the appearance of Taxo and his

death, being an expiatory death, cosmic disruptions, eschatological salvation, and the

entire scheme with its concepts and symbols. It becomes explicit in light of the NT.

Joshua, the son of Nun, who succeeded Moses and led the people of Israel to

the promised land, was transformed by Christian typology into the ancient and pre-

eminent type for 'I)hsou=j Xristo/j', the saving Christian messiah.176 It is Jesus

Christ, not the biblical Joshua who, according to the proposed thesis, is the man

deemed worthy to be assigned the hidden Law of Moses (1:16-18).177 On this matter

the words spoken by the author of Hebrews are particularly instructive: 'Wherefore,

holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest

of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also

Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory

than Moses' (3:1ff). The pre-eminence of Joshua over Moses is equally preached by

176 On the basis of the name Joshua, the son of Nun )יהושע בן נון ( which translated from the Hebrew means 'Joshua the son of a fish' was modeled the fish as the symbol of Jesus The Greek word for fish - Ι)χqυ/j was interpreted as pointing to − Ι)ηsου=j Χριsτο/j qεου Ui¸o/j (Jesus Christ the Son of God). See: Augustinus, De Civit. Dei, 18:23 (PL 41: col. 579). 177cf. Rom 16:26.

36

Origen in his sermon on Joshua son of Nun: '… tunc diction quia Jesus post Moysen

suscepit et obtinuit principatum, non ille Jesus filius Nave, sed Jesus Filius Dei'.178

The affinity of Taxo with Joshua is exemplified in that both inherit from

Moses the function of 'mediators' or intercessors, yet, as Atkinson observes, Taxo

differs from Moses in that the he is the last 'national' intercessor whose call for

vengeance is about to be realized in the final destruction of the wicked.179 Both Taxo

and Joshua, adds Atkinson, are impeccable and their death becomes instrumental in

effectuating the end and salvation.180 Taxo, as Joshua (and Moses), is of priestly

descent (9:1) yet, like Jesus – Christ, he is ordained for high priesthood (10:2) in

heaven,181 is messenger and mediator, which is aligned with what Hebrews

pronounces about Christ: 'But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by

how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon

better promises'. As with Jesus, the Christian messiah, so it is with Taxo.

Keenly pertinent to the matter at hand is Atkinson's insight about the

Assumption of Moses as evidence for the presence of first century BCE Jewish groups

that subscribed to the belief in an impeccable righteous mediator whose 'innocent

blood' must necessarily be shed in order to consummate God's eschatological plan

and redeem humanity. A sacrifice of this nature finds later expression in early

Christianity as explanation for the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice.

However, the proposed thesis is not minded toward any particular group

within Judaism but toward a Christian author, and claims that the affinity he creates

between Taxo and Joshua does not intend Joshua, but Jesus – Christ whose shedding

of 'innocent blood' is central to the Christian gospel.

178'… tunc diction quia Jesus post Moysen suscepit et obtinuit principatum, non ille Jesus filius Nave, sed Jesus Filius Dei', Origenes, 'Ex Origene Selecta in Jesum Nave', PG 12, col. 834. 179Atkinson op. cit. pp.474-5. 180idem pp.475-6, also Tromp ("Taxo – the Messenger"), p.208. 181Tromp ibid. pp.205, 209; Atkinson p.472.

37

The work, therefore, was not written by a Pharisaic Quietist, as presumed by

many, nor by a Sadducee or any other sectarian Jew, but is a Christian work182 that

came to shore up the faith of the suffering and persecuted and promise salvation at the

impending end of days. The Assumption of Moses, similar to the Christological

scheme, was intended to promise ultimate cosmic salvation, the appearance of God's

Kingdom in creation (10:1) attended by cosmic phenomena (3-6), and perdition to

unbelievers and enemies (2, 8), through the agency of Taxo, the Christ Messiah

whose bodily sacrifice and blood atone for past iniquities and who, at the End,

overthrows Satan (1) and exalts Israel (new Israel – namely the community of

faithful) to eternal life (8-10).183

Moses summoned Joshua to tell him that he (Moses) was about to pass away, and he gave Joshua instructions how to administer the people. We are also informed that Moses told Joshua to preserve the books which he delivered to him, to set them in order, and to "anoint them with oil of cedar and put them

182 183Compare with Efron on Christ, Origins, p.42.

38

away in earthen vessels in the place which He made from the beginning of the creation of the world The text is in twelve chapters and purports to be secret prophecies revealed by Moses

to Joshua before leadership of the Israelites is passed from Moses to Joshua.