chapter 13 The Lord Himself, One Lord, One Power: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on 63:9 and Daniel 7:13

Bogdan G. Bucur

Alexander Golitzin impressed upon his students the need to recover the wealth of the Christian theological tradition by paying special attention to continu- ities with Second Temple Judaism and parallels with rabbinic Judaism. In the opening paragraphs of the theological manifesto of the Theophaneia School, he argued that, since an “enormous library of pseudepigraphical and apocryphal materials from post-biblical and Christian antiquity … was continuously copied and presumably valued—though seldom quoted—by Eastern Chris- tians, and especially by their monks,” the study of early Christian and Byzan- tine theology must take into account Second Temple , the Qumran Scrolls, and later rabbinic traditions, as each of these “throws new and welcome light on the sources and continuities of Orthodox theology, liturgy, and spirituality.”1 The pages to follow heed this call for a new, and yet so traditional, approach to Christian texts. I suggest that a synoptic approach to the Church’s advocacy of the full divinity of Christ and to the rabbinic polemics against “two pow- ers” theologies reveals a certain unexpected convergence, and that this conver- gence may help Christians discover the richness and complexity of their own tradition and, perhaps, understand a bit more about their estranged brothers in the rabbinic tradition.

1 Golitzin, “Theophaneia: Forum on the Jewish Roots of Orthodox Spirituality,” xvii–xx.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004429536_015 the lord himself, one lord, one power 241

1 “The Lord Himself”?: Textual Problems in Isaiah 63:9

The Masoretic and versions of Isaiah 63:9 present significant differ- ences. Moreover, the Hebrew can be read and understood in different ways— and anyone can appreciate the change from the RSV to the NRSV English trans- lations of this verse.

׃ַעיִֽשׁוֹמְלםֶ֖הָליִ֥הְיַו 8 9 אֹל׀םָ֣תָרָצ־לָכְֽבּ [ ול ] רָ֗צ [ ריִצ ] אוּ֣הוֹ֖תָלְמֶחְבוּוֹ֥תָבֲהַאְבּםָ֔ﬠיִשׁוֹֽה֙ויָנָפְּךַ֤אְלַמוּ ׃םָֽלוֹעיֵ֥מְי־לָכּםֵ֖אְשַּׂנְי ַֽוםֵ֥לְטַּנְי ַֽוםָ֑לָאְג

(RSV: 8 […] and he became their savior. 9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

NRSV: 8 […] and he became their savior 9 in all their affliction. It was no messenger or angel but his presence that saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.)

(8.) […] καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς εἰς σωτηρίαν (9.) ἐκ πάσης θλίψεως οὐ πρέσβυς οὐδὲ ἄγγελος ἀλλ’ αὐτὸς κύριος ἔσωσεν αὐτοὺς διὰ τὸ ἀγαπᾶν αὐτοὺς καὶ φείδε- σθαι αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέλαβεν αὐτοὺς καὶ ὕψωσεν αὐτοὺς πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

([…] And he became to them salvation out of all affliction. No ambas- sador, no angel, but the Lord himself saved them, because he loved them and had compassion on them; he himself ransomed them and took them up and lifted them up all the days of old.)

-In the for . רצ and אֹל ,The culprits for these variations are two words in 63:9 not”) or the qere, the“) אל mer case, the question is whether to choose the ketiv the question is whether to accept the MT , רצ to him”).2 As for“) ול homophone , ריִצ constraint,” “distress,” “affliction”) or to vocalize it as“) רַצ vocalization of

2 Flusser ( Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticism [Grand -found in the Great Isa אול Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007], 61–64) notes that the reading not’) and the‘) אל iah Scroll at Qumran should not be interpreted as a synthesis of the ketiv .(is typical in Qumran texts” (62 אול to him”) “because the plene orthography“) ול qere