Jewish a work like2 Baruch,which was clearly written by a Torah-
observant Jew, against the objections of Rivkah Nir (2003), who argues
that several of its apocalyptic motifs are typical of Christianity rather than
Judaism (Davila 2005: 131). He rightly argues that Nir’s concept of ancient
Judaism is “narrow to the point of being procrustean,” as she does not even
include works like1 EnochandJubileesin her control corpus of Jewish ma-
terial. He also defends the Jewish origin of theSimilitudes of Enoch
(1 Enoch37–71), which shows no interest in Torah observance, and which
was regarded as a late Christian work by J. T. Milik (1976: 89-98). In this
case the conclusive consideration is the apparent identification of Enoch,
not Jesus, with the Son of Man in1 Enoch71:14 (Davila 2005: 134). The
identification, though, is not as unambiguous as Davila claims (Collins
1998: 187-91), but it is inconceivable that a Christian author would have al-
lowed any ambiguity as to the identification of the Son of Man. Other
cases are more difficult to decide. The Jewish origin ofJoseph and Aseneth
has been questioned forcefully by Ross Kraemer (1998) and Rivka Nir
(2012). Davila fails to detect either Jewish or Christian signature features
that would decide the issue (Davila 2005: 193). Neither does theTestament
of Joboffer any decisive evidence, although it fits quite comfortably in the
context provided by the oldest attestation, in Christian circles in Egypt in
the early fifth centuryc.e.He also finds theTestament of Abrahamconge-
nial to a late antique Christian setting. Less plausibly, he finds nothing in
the Wisdom of Solomon “that prohibits or even renders unlikely its having
been written by a gentile Christian in the second half of the first century
ce” (Davila 2005: 225). But there is no parallel for Christian composition
of a pseudepigraphic writing in the name of an Old Testament figure at
such an early date, and the retelling of the exodus story in Wisdom of Sol-
omon 11–19 surely meets the criterion of concern for Jewish ethnic and na-
tional interests. Davila’s reasoning is not persuasive in every instance, but
he has advanced the discussion by showing that the evidence for Jewish or-
igin is much clearer in some instances than in others.
There is plenty of evidence that Christians sometimes composed
works in the names of Old Testament figures (e.g., Isaiah, Ezra, Elijah,
Daniel). It is also plausible that they inserted explicit Christian passages
into Jewish works to render them more suitable for Christian devotion
(see, e.g., Harlow 1996 on 3Baruch;Collins in Charlesworth 1983: 330-53 on
Sibylline Oracles1 and 2). The more extensive the Christian redaction, the
more hazardous the reconstruction of the underlying Jewish work be-
comes. The most celebrated problem case in this regard is theTestaments10john j. collinsEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:48 PM