The Accusation of Incest in Psalms of Solomon 8:9. Apologetics, Halakha, and Exegesis

Jan Joosten University of Oxford

Introduction: The Original Language of the Psalms of Solomon

Until very recently, specialists nearly unanimously accepted that the Psalms of Solomon were originally written in Hebrew.1 This consensus formed at the end of the nineteenth century and rests on several considerations. A first argument is one of general likelihood. The Psalms almost certainly originated in Jerusalem over a rather short period following Pompey’s conquest in 63 BCE. In this time and locale, Jews are known to write religious literature in Hebrew (or sometimes Aramaic) – think of the Dead Sea Scrolls – rather than Greek. “Ort und Zweck entscheiden für hebräisches Original” writes Julius Wellhausen in his well-known authoritative style.2 A second argument is taken from the style of the Greek text. The Greek version of the Psalms of Solomon is full of curious phenomena otherwise lim- ited mostly to translation Greek. On inspection, this argument turns out to be weak. The Hebraisms of the Psalms may with more justification be called “Septuagintisms”. Almost all of them find precise parallels in the Septuagint of books that were certainly translated from Hebrew. Thus, Ἐβόησα πρὸς κύριον ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί με, “I cried to the Lord when I was distressed,” (Ps. Sol. 1:1), or something similar.3 But it אקרא ליהוה בצר לי could be a literal translation of could equally well be a Greek creation loosely based on passages such as ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί με ἐπεκαλεσάμην τὸν κύριον, Ps 18[17]:7LXX. A further argument is taken from a small number of difficult passages that are held to reflect a translation error.4 Suggestions of mistranslation are al- ways precarious when the source text is no longer available. In the case of the

* In gratitude I offer this paper to Wolfgang Kraus whose friendship, dynamism, commitment and scholarship I cherish. 1 See, e.g., Delcor, Psaumes de Salomon, Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplément IX, col. 214–245, in particular 221–222 and 224–225; Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” ABD 6, 115–117; Wright, The Psalms of Solomon, 11–13. 2 Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 131. 3 Frankenberg, Die Datierung der Psalmen Salomo’s, 66. 4 See e.g. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer, 132–135.

Psalms of Solomon they are particularly fragile. The Psalms are a text unique in its genre. Moreover, they are known only from late manuscripts. There is no time presently to go through all suggested mistranslations. Suffice it to say that no single case is entirely convincing in regard to both the solution of the problem in Greek, and the reconstructed text in Hebrew. Finally, an argument has been drawn from the Syriac version of the Psalms of Solomon. Trafton, hesitatingly, and Ward more confidently, have tried to show that the Syriac version was not made on the basis of the Greek but in- dependently goes back to a Hebrew text. If this were true, the Hebrew origin of the text would be established. Trafton’s arguments were rather tentative, however, as he himself admitted.5 As to Ward, his dissertation presents grave methodological deficiencies, making it hard to accept his claims.6 On balance, the evidence favouring the view that the Syriac is based on a Greek text close to that of the Greek manuscripts is much more convincing.7 Many Syriac render- ings in fact indicate dependence on the Greek.8 None of these arguments is conclusive. Over the last few years scholars have made a renewed argument for a Greek origin of the Psalms of Solomon.9 At a conference held in Strasbourg in June 2013, both Eberhard Bons and I argued that the Psalms were written in Greek. The proceedings of this conference were published in 2015.10 In my contribution I pointed out that the basis of scriptural allusions in the Psalms of Solomon, of which there are many, almost invariably reflects the text of the Septuagint. This happens even in allusions to verses whose Hebrew form could not serve the logic of the Psalm. For example, in Ps. Sol. 4:19, an allusion to Ps 52:6 is established through the use of the striking word ἀνθρωπαρέσκοι “men pleasers.” This allusion fits the theme of Ps. Sol. 4, God’s rejection of

5 Trafton, The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon (1985). 6 Grant Ward, The Psalms of Solomon. A Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts, unpublished dissertation, Temple University, 1996. 7 See Begrich, Der Text der Psalmen Salomos, 134–135. 8 Many of these were already pointed out by Rendel Harris in his edition of the Syriac text, see J. Rendel Harris, Alphonse Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (1916). 9 Earlier scholars who championed a Greek origin of the Psalms are Adolph Hilgenfeld in the nineteenth century and, more recently Joshua Ephron (Efron), see his “The Psalms of Solomon, the Hasmonean Decline and Christianity,” Zion 30 (1965), 1–46, and Studies on the Hasmonean period (1987). Ephron’s postulate that the Psalms were written in Greek is a consequence of his thesis that they are Christian texts. It is not argued on philological grounds. Heerak Kim has also set out from the idea that the Psalms of Solomon were originally written in Greek, but he has not provided any arguments for this approach. See Heerak Kim, Psalms of Solomon, viii. 10 Jan Joosten, Reflections on the Original Language of the Psalms of Solomon (2015).