Jannes and Jambres: the Role and Meaning of Their Traditions in Judaism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sonderdruck Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 37 (2011/12) Koji Osawa Jannes and Jambres: The Role and Meaning of Their Traditions in Judaism 1. Introduction In this paper, I would like to demonstrate an example of how traditions in Jewish literature were transmitted and used for a given purpose by comparing a variety of traditions about Jannes and Jambres, focusing especially on their names. As will be seen below, Jannes and Jambres have two kinds of names, and this can help reveal the background of their traditions. First of all, we turn to an example of Jannes and Jambres traditions and recent research on them. 2. The Background of Jannes and Jambres in Midrash In Exodus chapter 32, it is obvious that Aaron and some of the Israelites, presumably the three thousand killed by the Levites, should have been charged with the sin of idolatry, that is, the making of the golden calf. In Midrash Tanhuma, which appears to have been composed around the ninth century,1 however,˙ there is an interesting interpretation of this episode: When the people saw that Moses was so long ...” (Ex. 32,1)2. Six hours passed, (and) forty thousand who came up with the Israelites assembled and two Egyptian magi- cians with them and their names were Yonum and Yombrum ( iunuÕuiumbruÕ ), who had done before Pharaoh the same sorcery as written “and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts” (ibid. 7,11). And all (people) gathered to Aaron as it was said, “they gathered round Aaron and said ... etc.” (ibid. 32,1) (...) Aaron and Hur said to them, now (Moses will) descend from the mountain (but) they did not˙ pay attention. There are sayings (in another tradition) that Satan 1 Moshe D. Herr, “Midrash”, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, Detroit 20072, Vol. 14, pp. 182–185. 2 All quotations from the Hebrew Bible are NIV. THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTER- NATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Sonderdruck Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 37 (2011/12) 56 Koji Osawa stood and showed them the image of his [Moses’] coffin from the mountain; (this is deduced) from the passage that said, “As for this fellow Moses ...” (loc. cit.). Soon Hur stood and scolded them. (The people) stood up to him and killed him. When Aaron˙ saw this he was scared and started to make them busy in talking. And they said to him “Come, make us gods” (loc. cit.) (...) Aaron said to them “Take off the gold ear-rings that your wives ... are wearing” (ibid. 32,2). (...) The men walked to the women, and the women stood up to them and said, God forbid that we will deny the Holy One, blessed be he, who did to us all these miracles and brave deeds, and perform idolatry. For they [men] did not listen to them [women], as it is written there (ibid. 32,3), not “And all the people took off their wives’ gold ear-rings”, but “their ear-rings”. (...) Aaron looked up to the sky and said, “I lift up my eyes to you, to you whose throne is in heaven” (Ps 123,1). You know all the notions I do against my will. He [Aaron] threw (ear-rings) to the fire and the magicians came and made (the statue) by their magic. (...) And the young calf came out jumping. They began to say, “These are your gods, Oh Israel” (Ex 32,4). (...) What Aaron did was to say, it will be put off till tomorrow, as it is said, “and announced, Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD”(ibid. 32,5). The Holy Spirit cried, “They forgot his deeds immediately”. The Holy One, blessed be he, said, in this world you sinned by the hand of inclination, to the future (the next world), I remove it from you, as it is said, “I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ez 36,26).3 This interpretation transfers the blame for idolatry, according to the biblical narrative, which should be placed on Aaron and some of the Israelites, to “Satan”, to “Jannes and Jambres”4 and to “inclination ( icr )”. According to this Midrash, Satan showed them the vision of Moses’ death, which caused them fear; Jannes and Jambres made the golden statue of the calf with their magic; and, finally, all things considered, the inclination caused a series of actions, including the idol worshipping. The inclination – or in some cases – Satan and inclination are often interpreted as those who cause evil deeds or lead people to sin. However, modern scholars have not given similar attention to Jannes and Jambres mentioned with them in this Tanhuma passage, despite a number of traditions about them found in Jewish literature.˙ In this paper we will focus on the two magicians as receivers of blame for the sin of idolatry, and will examine who they are. 3 Tan, Ki Tissa 19. Midrash Tanhuma on the Pentateuch (Hebrew). Jerusalem 1984 (reprint of the Warsaw edition).˙ Jannes and Jambres do not appear in Salomon Buber (ed.), Midrash Tanhuma on the Pentateuch (Hebrew) 1883 (repr. Jerusalem 2008). 4 Although these names˙ seemingly do not agree with those in the text (Yonum and Yombrum), indeed they can be identified. I discuss below the several versions of their names. The English version of their names, Jannes and Jambres, is the one most frequently used. Sonderdruck Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 37 (2011/12) Jannes and Jambres: The Role and Meaning of Their Traditions in Judaism 57 3. The Other Traditions about Jannes and Jambres in Judaism We will begin with the question of who Jannes and Jambres are. There is a prevailing understanding in secondary literature that they are the Egyptian magicians who vied with Moses and Aaron in a magician’s context at Pha- raoh’s court as described in Exodus chapter 7ff., the foundation for the Tan- huma passage quoted above.5 Although this understanding is not incorrect, it is˙ not sufficient to explain a variety of traditions about them. Given the ex- panse for research, there are still too few studies about them. Those studies that do deal with them merely introduce the traditions about them (although the value of Gero’s study lies in the very enumeration of the traditions),6 or focus on only one particular document that mentions them.7 Considering the many traditions about them in Judaism, more studies could have been expected. This paper will analyse the traditions about the two magicians in Jewish litera- ture, while referring to previous scholarship, in particular work by Albert Pietersma.8 Pietersma’s work focuses on the restoration and the revision of a lost book known as “The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres” (hereafter J&J), of which only fragments have survived. As its title shows, the book centres on the two magicians, Jannes and Jambres. It is thought to have been written sometime in the first century CE.9 Judging from the extant manuscript frag- ments, Pietersma and other scholars agree that Greek was the language used in the original text.10 In addition to analysing J&J, Pietersma also discusses many other traditions about Jannes and Jambres besides the one in J&J. His list of traditions11 is well-arranged, although it has a few minor flaws12. It is very 5 See Menahem Stern, “Jannes and Jambres”, in: EJ 2, Vol. 11,p.78. 6 Stephen Gero, “Parerga To ‘the Book of Jannes and Jambres’”, in: JSPE 9 (1991), pp. 67–85. 7 Lester L. Grabbe, “The Jannes/Jambres Tradition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Its Date”, in: JBL 98,3 (1979), pp. 393–401. 8 Albert Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians. Leiden 1994. The tradition about them is not limited to Jewish literature. Some Ancient Middle-Eastern traditions and Greek and Latin traditions all mention them. For information on these traditions, which were written in Arabic, Syriac, Greek, Latin et al., see Gero, Parerga. I will discuss later one other important work: Johannes Tromp, “Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3, 8–9)”, in: A. Graupner; M. Wolter (eds.), Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. Berlin 2007, pp. 211–226. 9 Pietersma, Apocryphon, p. 58. 10 See Emil Schürer (ed.), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh 1987,p.781 and Pietersma, Apocryphon, p. 58. 11 Pietersma, Apocryphon, pp. 26–32. Sonderdruck Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 37 (2011/12) 58 Koji Osawa useful for surveying these traditions. The following survey is based mainly on Pietersma’s list. The following discussion regards some traditions mentioning anonymous “Egyptian magicians” as referring to Jannes and Jambres, because no other “Egyptian magicians” were mentioned by name in Jewish literature. Identifications of Jannes and Jambres The foregoing interpretation, that the two magicians are the “Egyptian magi- cians” who opposed Moses in Pharaoh’s court is based mainly upon the tra- dition in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Pharaoh then summoned the wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts (Ex 7,11). Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers; and, Yanis and Yambris ( inisuimbris ), the sorcerers who were in Egypt, also did the same with the spells of their divinations (TPsJ Ex 7,11).13 Contrary to the original biblical text, the passage in the Targum has names for the two: Yanis and Yambris and adds the description “sorcerers who were in Egypt”.14 Although Yonum and Yombrum in Tanhuma are somewhat differ- ent from Yanis and Yambris in the Targum, the two˙ variants of their names can be explained as follows: In Hebrew manuscripts, generally speaking, mem at the end of the word can easily be confused with samekh.