Lutz Doering
trators. Again, the application of the model of priests committing zenut be
comes relevant. Accordingly, a woman given to a foreigner is burned like a
priest's daughter committing zenut (Jub 30:7; cf. Lev 21:9); in addition, her
father is to be stoned according to the law for those giving their descendants
to Molech (Jub 30:7-10; cf. Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). The possibility of circumcision
is not raised; it "does not convert profane seed into holy seed, and thus mis
cegenation is forever and always zenwf."^42 Although Jub 30 forbids intermar
riage with any Gentiles, in the other references the main emphasis is on
Canaanites; for Joseph, marrying an Egyptian woman is not problematic
(Jub 40:10), and Simeon and Judah even marry Canaanite women (but see
the latter's trouble, above). Jubilees is informed here by different concerns:
"biblical" precedent, literary patterns, and contemporary issues.^43
C. Hayes has labeled this type of impurity "genealogical impurity,"
claiming it to be a specific type of "moral" impurity because its real effect
comes about in the offspring, through the "spoiling" of the purity of lineage;
it is not "ritual."^44 However, although purity of lineage does play a major
role, she narrows the issue too much down to this when it is in fact wider:
Jub 22:16-18 is a comprehensive call for separation from the nations, entailing
prohibitions against eating with them, behaving as they do, and becoming
their companion (bisa).i5 While one of the concerns is idolatry (see below),
"eating" with Gentiles may include dietary and perhaps "ritual" issues. From
a different angle, Olyan has argued that already Ezra-Nehemiah deal with
Gentile impurity in more than one way and that at least in Neh 13:4-9 (puri
fication of the chamber of Tobiah the Ammonite) the issue is "ritual" in na
ture.^46 There are further pointers suggesting that "ritual" impurity of
Gentiles was not a total innovation in Tannaitic literature.^47 The demarca
tion of types of impurity should not be too rigid.
- Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 77.
- See further Loader, Enoch, 176-86,192-96.
- Cf. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 69-70,73, 76-77, taking issue with Werman, "Jubilees
30," 14-16, who perceives a conflation of impurity through physical contact and nonphysical
defilement of Israel. - Still useful though not exhaustive is E. Schwarz, Identitat dutch Abgrenzung:
Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschicht-
lichen Voraussetzungen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jubiliienbuches, EHS
Theologie 162 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1982), esp. 23-30. For the last item, one might
compare 1 Mace 1:11 (5ia0iouc0a 5ia0pKnv UETCX TCOV e6vtov TUV KUKXIO f|U(5v). - S. M. Olyan, "Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the
Community," JSJ 35 (2004): 1-16, 10-12. - Most importantly, 4Q266 5 ii 4-9 (1. 6: DflNEUD n^1?^1 ?!"!^1 ?); cf. Josephus, Jewish War