CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

TEMPLE AND CULT IN THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA: FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

This short study is intended as a sequel to an earlier study entitled “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Writings from before the Common Era.”1 The latter, which was published in the con- text of a volume of essays entitled Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, was concerned with the way in which the temple is presented—whether as an institution from Israel’s past, a contemporary reality, or an object of future expectation—in non-canonical writings from the second and fi rst centuries B.C.E., particularly Sirach, 1 Enoch, and writings that refl ect the impact of the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV and the events that followed (1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, and 3 Maccabees). The aim of the present study is to carry forward that earlier study by examining the way in which the temple is presented in the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, and the Baruch literature. The Baruch writings are all set at the time of the Babylonian exile and refl ect the idea that Israel was still in a state of exile. With the exception of Baruch, to a considerable extent they represent a reaction to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., and they offer very different responses to these events. However, before considering these writings I wish to examine the references to the temple in the Psalms of Solomon and the Assumption of Moses, which both also refl ect the impact of specifi c historical events.

I

The majority of the eighteen psalms that together make up the Psalms of Solomon are concerned with individual piety and contrast the behaviour and ultimate destiny of the righteous and the wicked. A much smaller number contain veiled historical allusions and describe a situation of

1 Michael A. Knibb, “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Writings from before the Common Era,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 401–16. temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 389 distress in which Jerusalem has been attacked, part of the population slaughtered, the sons and daughters of the leaders led away captive, and the temple desecrated by the enemy (cf. 2:1–2, 5–7; 8:14–21; 17:11–14; concern that the temple is in imminent danger of being desecrated by Gentiles is refl ected in 7:1–3). It has long been recognized that the historical background to these psalms is the struggle for power between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus and the intervention of Pompey in affairs in Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.405–14.79), and that the Psalms of Solomon as a collection dates from not long after the death of Pompey in 48 B.C.E. The attack on Jerusalem is seen to have been instigated by God (8:14–15; 2:1–8, 16–18, 22), and to be the fully justifi ed response for the sin of the people, particularly the pollution of the temple. The fullest description in the Psalms of Solomon of the sins that were the cause of God bringing Pompey against Jerusalem occurs in 8:8–13: 8 God exposed their sins in the full light of day; the whole earth knew the righteous judgments of God. 9 In secret places underground was their lawbreaking, provoking (him), son involved with mother and father with daughter; 10 Everyone committed adultery with his neighbour’s wife; they made agreements with them with an oath about these things. 11 They stole from the sanctuary of God as if there were no redeeming heir. 12 They walked on the altar of the Lord, (coming) from all kinds of uncleanness; and with menstrual blood they defi led the sacrifi ces as if they were common meat. 13 There was no sin they left undone in which they did not surpass the gentiles.2 The sins listed include incest, adultery, theft from the temple, and pol- lution of the temple (cf. verse 22), and the passage may be compared with the somewhat older CD IV, 12b–V, 15a, VI, 15b–17a. The refer- ence in Pss. Sol. 8:12 to defi lement of the sacrifi ces through menstrual blood provides a striking parallel to CD V, 6b–7a (“Also they make the sanctuary unclean inasmuch as they do not keep separate in accor- dance with the law, but lie with a woman who sees the blood of her discharge”; cf. 4Q266 6 ii 1–2), and underlying both passages would appear to be disputes concerning the proper interpretation of the laws relating to the ritual uncleanness of a woman after menstruation

2 Adapted from the translation by Robert B. Wright, in OTP 2:659.