2011 - Dale C. Allison - Eldad and Modad

http://jsp.sagepub.
com/
Pseudepigrapha
Journal for the Study of the
http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/21/2/99
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0951820711426745
2011 21: 99 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
Dale C. Allison, Jr
Eldad and Modad
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Additional services and information for
http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jsp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
What is This?
- Nov 10, 2011 Version of Record >>

by guest on February 9, 2013 jsp.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha
Vol 21.2 (2011): 99-131
The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0951820711426745
http://JSP.sagepub.com

Eldad and Modad

DALE C. ALLISON, JR

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 616 N. Highland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA

Abstract

The Shepherd of Hermas quotes from a work it calls Eldad and Modad, and several
later ecclesiastical book lists also name this writing. While this work is otherwise
unknown, there are good reasons for inferring not only that the authors of James,
1 Clement, and 2 Clement also knew Eldad and Modad, but further that they have
preserved a few lines from it. If so, those lines can help us to gain some idea of the
nature and shape of this lost apocalypse or pseudepigraphon.

Keywords: Eldad, Modad, Hermas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, James.

Numbers 11.26-30 tells the very short story of two prophets named
Eldad and Modad.
1
Whether or not among the seventy elders appointed
to assist Mosesthe text is ambiguous
2
they did not go with the

1. Hebrew: and 'o. LXX: Lo and Mco.
2. See George Buchanan Gray, Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912),
p. 114. Some rabbis counted Eldad and Modad as part of the group of seventy; others
did not. For different opinions, see Sifre Num 95 on 11.24-26; Tanhuma Buber
Behaalotekha 22; Targum Onqelos and Targum Neoti 1, and Fragmentary Targums
P and V on Num. 11.26. Epiphanius, Pan. de Fide 4.5 (TU 37, ed. Holl, p. 500),
classies Eldad and Modad as elders and so says the total number was seventy-two.
One wonders whether the textual variation between seventy and seventy-two in Luke
10.1 mirrors the disagreement as to whether Eldad and Modad were among the
seventy elders or should be reckoned separately, making for 72.
100 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21.2 (2011)

latter to the tent of meeting but remained in the camp, where they
prophesied because the spirit rested on them. Joshua, upon overhear-
ing a youth report this to Moses, exclaimed: My lord Moses, stop
them! The lawgiver, however, replied: Are you jealous for my sake?
Would that all the Lords people were prophets, and that the Lord
would put his spirit on them.
The text is frustratingly brief, even cryptic. It does not identify
Eldad or Modad, beyond giving us their names; and the two gures do
not reappear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.
3
Numbers also does not
tell us what the two men prophesied. And it further fails to clarify the
upset of Joshua. Why does he respond as he does?
As one would expect, haggadic imagination addressed these and
additional issues, in the process creating legends about Eldad and
Modad. The most extensive collections of lore still extant from the
rst millennium are in Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 22; b. Sanh.
17a; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.26-30; and Num. Rab.
15.19. At the turn of the era, however, there was a book entitled
Modad and Eldad, which must have contained much more. Unfortu-
nately, it has not survived. The so-called Chronographia brevis (ed.
Boor, p. 135), attributed (perhaps wrongly) to Nicephorus I of
Constantinople (758829), refers to the book as Lo oi Mco
and indicates that it had four hundred stichoi, which means it was a
relatively short book. (The same source counts seven hundred stichoi
for Baruch.) Several other book lists likewise mention this lost
volumethe list of Pseudo-Athanasius (which may come from the
sixth century), the Addition to the List of Sixty Books (perhaps from
the seventh century), and the Armenian list of Mechitar of Ayrivank
(thirteenth century).
4

3. A few rabbinic texts, however, equate them with people named elsewhere. For
instance, Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 3 identies Eldad with the Elidad ben
Chislon of Num. 34.21 and Modad with the Kemuel ben Shiphtan of Num. 34.24; so
too Num. Rab. 15.19. According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.26, Eldad
and Modad were brothers, the offspring of Eli-zaphan the son of Parnach (see Num.
34.25) by Jocebed (see Exod. 6.20; Num. 26.59), during the time she was divorced
from Amram (cf. b. Sota 12a; Exod Rab. 1.13, 19); this makes them half-brothers of
Mosesa tradition that, interestingly enough, Ps.-Jerome, Quaest. Heb. in Lib. 1
Par. 4.17 (PL 23.1437A), also records. See further G. Beer, Eldad and Medad im
Pseudojonathan, MGWJ 6 (1857), pp. 436-50.
4. See W. Ldtke, Beitrge zu slavischen Apokryphen, ZAW 31 (1911), pp.
230-35; Michael Stone, Armenian Canon Lists III: The Lists of Mechitar of
ALLISON Eldad and Modad 101

It is, obviously, hard to say much about a work that regrettably no
longer exists. The Shepherd of Hermas, however, quotes from Eldad
and Modad at one point (v. 2.3.4). Modern scholars, furthermore, have
suggested that some additional quotations in early Christian sources
come from this apocryphon. It is the purpose of this article to examine
the citation in Hermas for what it seemingly tells us about that book;
to urge that the quotations attributed to the Scripture or the pro-
phetic word in Jas 4.5; 1 Clem. 23.3; and 2 Clem. 11.2 also derive
from it; to discuss several striking correlations between James 4 and
traditions likely belonging to Eldad and Modad; and to note the bare
possibility that the author of 2 Peter was also acquainted with this
book that is no longer extant.

The Quotation in Hermas

Hermas v. 2.3.4 includes these words: The Lord is near to those
who return, as it is written in the book of Eldad and Modad (tv xc
Lo oi Mcox),
5
who prophesied to the people in the wilderness.
Unfortunately, the citation includes only four Greek wordstyyc
cpio xoi tioxptoutvoi;
6
and what immediately follows helps us

Ayrivank (c. 1285 C.E.), HTR 69 (1976), pp. 289-300; idem, Armenian Canon
Lists VI: Hebrew Names and Other Attestations, HTR 94 (2001), pp. 477-91; T.
Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, Zweiter Band: Urkunden und
Belege zum ersten und dritten Band (Erlangen/Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1890), pp. 292,
300, 317; idem, Foschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanonas und der
altkirchlichen Literature, V. Teil (Erlangen/Leipzig, 1893), pp. 115-48. According to
Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological
Seminary, 2nd edn, 1962), p. 41 n. 28, an eleventh-century Hebrew MS, of unknown
authorship, published by Elkan Adler in 1897, also refers to the book of Eldad and
Modad. The evidence, however, is quite far from convincing; see Sid Z. Leiman,
The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad, JBL 93
(1974), pp. 348-55. b. Sanh. 97b refers to an unnamed scroll in Hebrew which is said
to prophesy, among other things, the war of Gog and Magog and the messianic era.
Might this be a reference to Eldad and Modad? The remark of M.R. James, Apoc-
rypha Anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments (TS 2;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), p. 175, that the Gelasian Decree
condemns the Liber Heldam et Modal apocryphus seems to be an error.
5. So . A has: Lo oi Mco. L
1
has: Heldam et Modal. L
2
has: Heldat et
Modat. E has: Eldad et Mudad.
6. As this is the only formal citation of anything in all of Hermas, we can make
no generalization about the authors degree of delity to quoted material.

not at all with the original intent of the source quoted, for the bor-
rowed words precede a new revelation that marks a break in the
narrative and so has nothing to do with Eldad and Modad (see Hermas
v. 2.4.1). The lines right before the citation are more helpful. These
include a discussion of Hermas relationship with his family members,
who have evidently sinned against him, as well as advice for a certain
Maximus, otherwise unknown: Behold, tribulation is coming; if it
seems good to you, deny again (Hermas v. 2.3.1-4). Given that
Behold, tribulation is coming (i|i tpytxoi) anticipates end-time
afiction, understood as near,
7
we can at least say this: the thought of
Hermas moved immediately from eschatological woe to Eldad and
Modad.
We could only wonder why this should be so if Eldad and Modad
appeared nowhere else in ancient literature. But they do. According to
Num. Rab. 15.19, some say that the two elders foretold the downfall
of Gog. In other words, their prophecies extended to the latter days.
Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 22 says almost exactly the same thing:
Some say they were prophesying about the downfall of Gog and
Magog.
8
Targum Neoti 1 on Num. 11.26 offers a bit more, putting
this in the mouth of our two prophets: At the very end of days, Gog
and Magog ascend against Jerusalem, and they fall at the hand of King
Messiah. The Fragmentary Targums, P and V agree, augmenting the

7. Relevant observations in Norbert Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas (KAF, 7;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 472-73.
8. For the traditions about Gog and Magog, see Angelo Vivian, Gog e Magog:
Nella Tradizione Biblica, Ebraica e Cristian, RivB 25 (1977), pp. 389-421. We can
make an excellent guess why later texts came to attribute a prophecy about Gog and
Magog to Eladad and Modad. Ezek. 38.17 reads: Thus says the Lord God: Are you
(Gog) he of whom I spoke in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel, who
in those days prophesied for years that I would bring you against them? Understood
in the light of the well-attested tradition, based upon Num. 11.25, that whereas the
(other) elders prophesied only for a short time, Eldad and Modad prophesied through-
out their lives (so Sifre Num. 95 on 11.26; Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 22),
somebody took those two to be the prophets of former days who prophesied for
years. b. Sanh. 17a in fact applies the words from Ezekiel to Eldad and Modadand
one suspects that its articial interpretation of z'.c as a pair instead of years was a
secondary development, made after the text was already associated with Eldad and
Modad. In any case, one can nd most of the content of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on
Num. 11.26 in Ezek. 3839. One might further speculate that a fanciful reading of
z'zzz o: in Num. 11.26 encouraged the belief that there must have been a book
of Eldad and Modad among the writings.

subject with and their (or: his) armies. But Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
on Num. 11.26 offers a full-blown prophecy of eschatological events:

Behold, a king will arise from the Land of Magog at the end of days. He
will gather kings crowned with crowns, and prefects attired in silken
clothing, and all the nations will obey him. They will prepare for war in
the land of Israel against the sons of exile. However, the Lord is near
them at the hour of distress, and all of them will be killed by a burning
breath in a consuming re that comes from beneath the throne of Glory;
and their corpses will fall on the mountains of the land of Israel. Then all
the wild animals and birds of heaven shall come and consume their
bodies. And after this all the dead of Israel shall live (again) and shall
delight themselves with the good which was hidden for them from the
beginning. Then they shall receive the reward of their labors.

The dating of the targum and of the materials it preserves are, of
course, a notoriously different problem, and I cannot here enter into
the matter. But Numbers Rabbah and Tanhuma clearly presuppose
something like one of the prophecies in the targumim. Moreover, we
have already seen that Hermas turned to Eldad and Modad right after
penning a line after tribulation in the latter days. This is consistent
with the proposition that the book of Eldad and Modad already had its
two chief characters prophesying about the end-time distress, just as in
the later rabbinic materials.
One is all the more moved to infer this because, as a few have
noted, Hermas tyyc cpio xoi tioxptoutvoi has a parallel in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.26: .cz : z:oz' z''
''. (The Lord is near them at the hour of distress).
9
The parallel
is, admittedly, imperfect. Both of our texts cannot be quoting quite the
exact same source. It is, however, undeniable that if Hermas attributes
the Lord is near to those returning to Eldad and Modad, the targum
assigns to Eldad and Modad a prophecy about the Lord being near to
the saints in the latter daysa prophecy which in very short space
includes three Greek loan words: z'' = cpio, z:oz' = txoiuo,
''. = ovoy
10
. This is decent evidence that the targum preserves a

9. Cf., e.g., Vernon Bartlet, The Prophecy of Eldad and Modad and the Legend
of Jannes and Jambres, International Journal of Apocrypha 45 series 12 (1916),
pp. 22-24 (23), and Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (AnBib, 27; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1966), p. 236 n. 130.
10. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels (London:
Fontana/Collins, 1973), p. 113, calls this curious, an extraordinary Greco-Aramaic
glossolalia. Does the targum here quote a Greek source?

variant of the tradition known to Hermas, which means a variant of
the tradition in Eldad and Modad.
One last point about Hermas. Modern translations of the Greek
from Eldad and Modad tend to construe the dative so that it means to
those who turn to him, that is, the Lord, even though Hermas has
only xoi tioxptoutvoi, not xoi tioxptoutvoi ocxc or po
ocxov.
11
They may well be correct to do so.
What should be added, however, is that the verb, tioxptc (which
most often translates z:c in the LXX), became a regular part of the
theme of scattered Israel returning from the diaspora in the end of
days. The key text here was Deut. 30.1-5:

When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses
that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations
where the Lord your God has driven you, and return (tioxpoo) to the
Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart
and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today, then the Lord
your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you,
gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God
has scattered you. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from
there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you
back. The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors
possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and
numerous than your ancestors.

In line with these words, many Jews anticipated Israel returning to
God in the latter days, with God as a result returning them to the land.
Here are a few examples:
x LXX Isa. 49.6: It is a great thing for you to be called my
servant so that you may set up the tribes of Jacob and return
(tioxpt|oi) the dispersion of Israel.
x LXX Jer. 39.37: I am gathering them from every land, there
where I dispersed them in my wrath and in my anger and in
great irritation, and I will return (tioxpt|c) them to this
place.
x LXX Zeph. 3.20: I will make you renowned and objects of
boasting among all the peoples of the earth, when I return
(toxpttiv) your captivity before you, says the Lord.

11. See, e.g., Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and
English Translation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 3rd

edn, 2007), p. 467.

x LXX Zech. 10.9-10: I will sow them among peoples, and
those far away will remember me; they will rear their children
and return (tioxpt|ocoiv). And I will bring them back from
the land of Egypt and receive them from the Assyrians.
x LXX Tob. 14.5: God will have mercy on them, and he will
return (tioxpt|ti) them to the land.
x LXX Ecclus 48.10: Elijah is recorded ready for the times, to
calm anger before wrath, to return (tioxpt|oi) the heart of a
father to a son and to restore the tribes of Jacob.
12

x T. Levi 17.10: they will return (tioxpt|ocoiv) to their land.
x T. Jud. 23.5: until you return (tioxpt|xt) to the Lord
Then the Lord will be concerned for you in mercy and will
free you from captivity under your enemies.
x T. Zeb. 9.7-9: And thereafter you will remember the Lord and
repent, and he will return (tioxpt|ti) you because he is
merciful and compassionate.
x T. Naph. 4.3: After your numbers have diminished and your
strength is exhausted, you will return (tioxpt|txt) and
acknowledge the Lord your God; and in his great mercy he
will return (tioxpt|ti) you to your own land.
13

These passages intrigue so much because, in Pseudo-Jonathan, the
line about God being near is a promise specically to the sons of
exile (::. '.z), who have returned to the land. This, I submit,
illuminates the verb in Hermas and allows us to infer more precisely
the meaning of tyyc cpio xoi tioxptoutvoi in Eldad and
Modad. The words belonged to a prophecy of Eldad and Modad that,
just like the oracle in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.26, envis-
aged God, in the last times, drawing near to the exiles who had
returned to the Lord and so been miraculously returned to the land of
Israel, where the eschatological scenario would play itself out. It is
even possible, given some of the texts cited above, that tioxpt-
outvoi was originally intended to be read not as a middle (returning

12. This line, which probably combines Mal. 4.5-6 with Isa. 49.6, seems to refer
to the return of the diaspora to the land (cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 30.4),
a task other texts give to the Messiah.
13. Cf. the wordplay in LXX Zech. 1.3; Mal. 3.7: return (tioxpt|oxt) to me, and
I will return (tioxpo oouoi) to you.

[to the Lord]) but instead as a passive: those being returned (by God
to the land).
14

1 Clement and 2 Clement

Both 1 Clement and 2 Clement quote more or less the same words
from an unnamed source, as appears from the following:

1 Clement 23.3-4 2 Clement 11.2-4
o ppc ytvtoc o ucv ypo
ocx ooc t yti
xooicpoi tioiv oi i|cyoi
oi ioxoovxt x |cy
oi tyovxt
xocxo ocoooutv oi
ti xcv oxtpcv ucv,
oi ioc,
ytypooutv oi octv uiv xocxcv
ocvptptv.

c ovoxoi, ocupotxt tocxoc cc
o ptxt outov pcxov utv
copoti, ti xo pooxo yivtxoi,
tixo c ov, tixo ovo,
oi utxo xocxo ouo,
tixo oxoc optoxcio.

(opoxt oxi tv oipc oiyc ti
t tipov oxovo o opo xoc
coc.)
tyti yop oi o poxio oyo

xooicpoi tioiv oi i|cyoi
oi ioxoovxt x opio,
oi tyovxt
xocxo o vxo ocooutv oi
ti xcv oxtpcv ucv,

uti t utpov t utpo
pootyoutvoi octv xocxcv
tcpooutv.
ovoxoi, ocupotxt tocxoc cc
o ptxt outov pcxov utv
copoti, ti xo pooxo yivtxoi,

utxo xocxo ouo,
tixo oxoc optoxcio.
ocxc oi o oo uoc ooxooxooio
oi i|ti toytv, ttixo oo|txoi
xo oyoo.

14. O.J.F. Seitz, Afterthoughts on the Term Dipsychos , NTS 4 (1958), pp.
333-34, conjectured that the little book Hermas refers to in v. 2.1 might be Eldad
and Modad, which Hermas transcribed, enlarged, and helped get published. This
seems unduly speculative. As Seitz himself admits, the tale Hermas tells seems sym-
bolic in character, and it would be all too easy to dismiss this entire story as merely
an apocalyptic device, patterned on Ezek. ii. 9ff., after the manner of Rev. v. 1ff. (cf.
also Zech 5.1-4). Not only is this all too easy, it is probably what we should do.

Let this scripture be far from us
where it says,

Wretched are the double-minded,
those who doubt in their soul and say,
We heard these things even in the
days
of our fathers, and look, we have
grown old, and none of these things
have happened to us.
You fools, compare yourselves to a
tree, or take a vine: rst it sheds its
leaves, then a shoot comes, then a
leaf, then a ower,
and after these a sour grape, and then
a full ripe bunch.

(Notice that in a brief time the fruit
of the tree reaches maturity.)
15

For the prophetic word
says,

Wretched are the double-minded,
those who doubt in their heart and say,
We heard all these things even in the
days of our fathers, and though we
have waited day after day we have
seen none of them.

Fools! Compare yourselves to a tree,
or take a vine: rst it sheds its leaves,
then a shoot comes,
and after these a sour grape, and then
a full ripe bunch.
So also my people have had turmoil
and tribulation, but afterward they
will receive good things.
16

Whether or not the author of 2 Clement knew 1 Clementthat is not
at all clearthe former must be, in the matter of this quotation,
independent of the latter. Not only does the Greek differ at points, but
the material quoted in 2 Clement extends beyond the material quoted
in 1 Clement.
17

The common citation occurs nowhere else in Jewish or Christian
literature. Long ago, however, J.B. Lightfoot conjectured that the
source was Eldad and Modad.
18
He gave two reasons. First, 1 Clement

15. For the possibility that this line, although not in 1 Clement, belonged in the
source, see Otto Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung der Eschatologie im theologischen
Aufri des ersten Clemensbriefes: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
(Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1964), p. 126.
16. Because the motifs of turmoil and tribulation are not taken up in what
follows, and because v. 5 begins with coxt, otoi uoc, which sounds like the
author is returning to his own voice, Wilhelm Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief:
bersetzt und erkrt (KAV, 3; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), p. 152,
thinks the quotation probably extends through v. 4.
17. So too Karl Paul Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early
Christianity (NovTSup, 38; Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 52-53, and Knoch, Eigenart und
Bedeutung, p. 112.
18. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Part
One: Clement, volume 2 (London/New York: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1889), pp. 80-81.

was written by someone in Rome,
19
and we know that Eldad and
Modad was read in the Roman church, because the only source explic-
itly to quote it is the Shepherd of Hermas, which was also written by
someone living in Rome (cf. Vision 1).
20
Second, Hermas quotes
Eldad and Modad in order to refute one who is skeptical about the
approaching afictions of the last times, and the quotation common
to 1 Clement and 2 Clement likewise serves to counter skepticism
about the eschatological promises.
Lightfoots judgment has commended itself to several scholars, or
at least seemed to some to be the best guess we have.
21
M.R. James,
however, objected to the proposal with these words: I do not quite see
whom Eldad and Medad would be addressing. In the story as we have
it in Numbers xi., their prophecy is uttered not very long after the
giving of the Law, and just before the gift of the quails. The people
have not been long in the wildernessnot long enough, it seems to
me, to make it appropriate that they should say, we have grown old
in looking for the fulllment of the promises .
22
Is this enough to lay
aside Lightfoots surmise?

19. There is no reason to doubt that Lightfoot was right about this; see Horacio E.
Lona, Der erste Clemsbrief (Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vtern. 2; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), pp. 66-89, and Tassilo Schmitt, Paroikie und
Oikoumene: Sozial- und mentalittsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum 1. Clemens-
brief (BZNW, 110; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 2002), pp. 7-21
20. This is still informed opinion; cf. Norbert Brox, Der Hirt des Hermas (KAV,
7; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 22-25; Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd
of Hermas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), p. 18.
21. See, e.g., Bartlet, Prophecy, pp. 22-23 (probable); W.K. Lowther Clarke,
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1937), p. 96 (per-
haps); Donfried, Second Clement, p. 53 (well worth considering); W.H.C. Frend,
The Rise of Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984), p. 146; Edgar J.
Goodspeed, A History of Early Christian Literature (rev. and enlarged by Robert M.
Grant; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 89; Annie Jaubert, Clment
de Rome, ptre aux Corinthiens (SC, 167; Paris: Cerf, 1971), p. 141 n. 4 (peut-
tre); Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung, pp. 111-16; and Seitz, Afterthoughts, pp.
327-34. Contrast Karlmann Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus und der Frhkatholizis-
mus: Untersuchungen zu I Clemens 1-7 (BHT, 35; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966),
p. 174 n. 4 (ganz unsicher); Albert-Marie Denis, Introduction aux Pseudpigraphes
Grecs dAncien Testament (SVTP, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 144 (it is best to leave
the words unattributed); Andreas Lindemann, Die Clemensbriefe (HNT 17; Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1992), pp. 83-84, 233; and Pratscher, Der zweite Clemensbrief, p. 152
(Lightfoots suggestion must be judged als ganz und gar spekulativ).
22. M.H. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and
Fragments (London: SPCK, 1920), p. 40. Oddly enough, James elsewhere, in

It is not. 1 Clement and 2 Clement do not agree on exactly what
their unnamed apocryphon said at this juncture. The former (which
James quotes) has: We heard these things even in the days of our
fathers, and look, we have grown old, and none of these things have
happened to us. The latter is a bit different: We heard all these things
even in the days of our fathers, and though we have waited day after
day we have seen none of them. Now we have grown old would
indeed sound a bit odd if spoken by the Israelites in Numbers 11. But
we have waited day after day would not, and perhaps this was what
stood in Eldad and Modad.
23
If so, Vernon Bartlets interpretation
appears credible: Eldad and Modad, in speaking of a sure, if delayed,
entrance into the Land of the promises given to the Patriarchs
promises recently renewed through Moses but postponed afresh by the
peoples untness and unbeliefwould naturally warn their hearers of
the fate of divided hearts and doubting minds: would try to bring
home the needs-be for gradual preparation, like that in nature, and in
which there was a stage of bitterness, like the Peoples trials hitherto;
and would promise as nal fruition the good things promised by
God.
24

James logic is faulty on another account. Donald Hagner has rightly
remarked that anachronisms are fairly common in late Pseudepi-
grapha, and that this might be exactly what we have in 1 Clement and
2 Clement.
25
One can easily imagine a prophetic oracle anticipating

Apocrypha Anecdota, p. 93 n. 1, conjectured that material about the lost tribes of
Israel common to the Abode of the Rechabites, the Conict of Matthew, and a poem
of Commodian might derive from Eldad and Modad. But for this guess he had less
justication than did Lightfoot for his thesisonly the eschatological content of the
prophecies of Eldad and Modad in Pseudo-Jonathan and this: if the supposition were
correct, we might be able to see a reason for the assumption of the name Eldad by
the famous imposter who in the ninth century pretended to have visited the Ten
Tribes in their distant dwelling place. As for James other conjecture about Eldad
and Modad, that the Latin fragment known as The Vision of Kenaz, which recounts a
vision of the creation of the world, might come from that book, he himself wrote: I
do no think that this view of the origin of our document is the right one, although at
rst it attracted me (Apocrypha Anecdota, p. 175).
23. Although ypooc occurs only here in 1 Clement, ypo is editorial in 10.7
and 63.3. utpov t utpo, which translates z' z' or z:' z:'o in LXX Gen 39.10;
Num. 30.15; Pss 61.9; 95.2; and Isa. 58.2, appears nowhere else in 2 Clement.
24. Bartlet, Prophecy, p. 23.
25. Donald A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of
Rome (NovTSup, 34; Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 74 n. 2.

the future and containing (if I may borrow from 2 Peter) something
along these lines: You must understand this, that in the last days
scoffers will come, double-minded people who scoff and say, Where
is the promise of his coming? But wretched are they, those who
doubt in their souls and say, We heard these things even in the days
of our fathers, and look, we have grown old, and none of these things
have happened to us. The point is not just hypothetical. As a parallel
one can cite the Testament of Moses, which contains a prophecy of the
lawgiver in which a character in the distant future, named Taxo, says,
Never did our fathers nor their ancestors tempt God by transgressing
his commandments (9.4). Here a character of the past (Moses) quotes
a character of the future (Taxo) who refers to the past (never did our
fathers, etc.). There is also 1 En. 25.6, wherein an angel addresses
Enoch, a man not far removed from Adam, and refers to how your
fathers lived in their days.
Yet another problem is that James assumes, without justication,
andgiven the uncertain state of our knowledgewithout any possi-
ble justication, that every sentence in Eldad and Modad was placed
in the mouth of its two chief characters. But how does James know
this, that is, know that the book was a pseudepigraphon or a rst-
person apocalypse, or exclusively such? It may just as well have
belonged to something like the genre of rewritten Bible; that is, it
could have been a narrative rewrite of Numbers 11 that featured Eldad
and Modad and included one or more of their prophecies, as well as
sentences from others such as Moses or remarks from an unnamed
author or editor or commentary from God or an angelic interpreter.
26

One thinks of the Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet, which in addition
to offering us oracles of Isaiah also contains narratives about his life,
along with interpretation from the nameless editor; or of the current
Christian form of the Apocalypse of Sedrach, which prefaces the
words of its prophet with an unattributed homily on love; or of the
Slavonic ending to the Testament of Job, which offers the moral
exhortations of an anonymous editor; or even perhaps of the Gospel of
John, which freely expands and revises words of Jesus and regularly
mixes them with the evangelists own authoritative pronouncements.
In other words, We heard these things even in the days of our fathers,

26. Below I will indeed urge that Eldad and Modad must have contained words
from Moses.

etc. need not have been anachronistic because it need not have been
spoken by Eldad and/or Modad. It may rather have been the hortatory
commentary of some other voice.
27
Without holding Eldad and Modad
in our hands, we just do not know. James objection, then, falters
again.
James also implicitly assumes that, if Eldad and Modad contained
the prophetic speeches of its two chief protagonists, the narrative con-
text must have been Numbers 11. But what justies this assumption?
Later lore often created wholly new episodes for individuals named in
the Bible. One thinks of Jannes and Jambres, two of the Egyptian
magicians who did combat with Moses in Pharaohs court (cf. CD A
5.18-19; 2 Tim. 3.8-9; T. Sol. 25.4). Some rabbinic sources place them
also at the Red Sea; and in some texts they even show up during the
wilderness wanderings (e.g. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num.
22.22; Tanhuma Yelammedenu Ki Tisaa 19). In the case of Eldad and
Modad, moreover, tradition held that they, unlike the seventy elders,
prophesied to the day of their death (Sifre 95 on Num. 11.24-26; so
too Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 3.22; Num. Rab. 15.19). Such a
belief would have suggested an opening for the haggadic imagination
to pass beyond what Numbers 11 says about Eldad and Modad.
28

Maybe, then, the oracle in 1 and 2 Clement came as the death of
Moses approached, in which case our fathers could refer to the
generation that died in the wilderness.
If we should set James objections to the side, can we say anything
more on behalf of Lightfoots proposal? I think so. 2 Clement labels
its citation as coming from o poxio oyo. This matters because,
according to Numbers, Eldad and Modad were prophets, and later
tradition invented and elaborated their prophecies (e.g. LAB 20.5;
Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 22; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Neoti
1 on Num. 11.26; etc.). Any book named after them would almost
certainly have contained prophetic oracles.
Beyond that, and as we have already seen when discussing Hermas,
Jewish tradition made Eldad and Modad prophets of the last things.
This, too, accords with what we nd in 1 Clement and 2 Clement: the

27. Who for all we know purported to have discovered a hidden scroll of prophe-
cies to which he added commentary. How could we ever know or even make an
educated guess?
28. Cf. Num. Rab. 3.7, which identies Eldad and Modad with the elders of
Josh. 24.31 and so infers that the two survived a considerable time after Joshua.

words they quote from an unnamed source are specically about the
latter days. Indeed, the nal sentence in 2 ClementSo also my
people have had turmoil and tribulation (i|ti),
29
but afterward they
will receive good things (xo oyoo)roughly corresponds to what
we nd Eldad and Modad prophesying in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
on Num. 11.26: after the eschatological hour of their distress (''.),
the saints will delight themselves with the good (z:)
30
which was
hidden from them from the beginning. I am not inclined to think this
agreement the upshot of chance but rather yet another tantalizing part
of the puzzle: Pseudo-Jonathan was familiar with traditions that also
appeared in Eldad and Modad.
31

One more relevant observation. Hermas almost certainly knew the
source that 1 Clem. 23.3-4 and 2 Clem. 11.2-4 quote; for that source
contained the phrase, xooicpoi tioiv oi i|cyoi oi ioxoovxt x
opio,
32
and Hermas not only uses the rare i|cyo, but links it to
xooicpo (v. 3.7.1; s. 1.2-3), to ioxo c (m. 9.2, 4-6), and to
opio (m. 9.2, 4-5; 10.2-3; v. 3.10.9; 4.2.5-6). Surely all this more
than hints at dependence upon a common text.
None of this, it goes without saying, carries us to the realm of
certainty. But if one had to wager, the best bet would indeed be that
1 Clement and 2 Clement both quote from the lost Eldad and Modad,
a book which, whatever else it was about, concerned itself with the
last things.

James 4

One of the most perplexing lines in early Christian literature occurs in
Jas 4.5: Or do you suppose that it is for no reason that the scripture
says, po ovov tioti xo vtcuo o oxciotv tv uiv? These

29. Is it just coincidence that the citation of Eldad and Modad in Hermas v. 2.3.4
immediately follows a sentence with: ioc i|i tpytxoi?
30. For this as the original reading see McNamara, Palestinian Targum, p. 237
n. 131.
31. Some have suggested that perhaps the targum quotes or otherwise borrows
from Eldad and Modad. Cf. Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers,
Translated with Notes (The Aramaic Bible, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1995), p. 220: the expansion of Num. 11.26 in Pseudo-Jonathan reects the literary
remains of a book mentioned in the Athanasian Synopsis of the New Testament.
32. The x opio of 2 Clement is original vis--vis 1 Clements x |cy. See
Seitz, Relationship, pp. 134-36.

Greek words leave the conscientious commentator nonplussed. Is xo
vtcuo the human spirit or the divine spirit? Is po ovov telic or
adverbial, and what can the unparalleled expression, po ovov
tioti, mean? Is this text about divine jealousy?
33
Or is the subject
the human spirit, which tragically longs for envy?
34
Or is the text
corrupt? Perusal of the secondary literature indicates that exegetes
have construed James words in literally dozens of different ways,
often radically different ways. Scholars have also reached no con-
sensus as to what scripture ( ypo ) James might be citing.
It can be no part of this essay to survey either the numerous exe-
getical suggestions made about Jas 4.5 or the range of proposals
regarding the source of the quotation. I instead wish to focus upon a
single suggestion, namely, that James obscure line comes from Eldad
and Modad.
Friedrich Spitta, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, seems
to have been the rst to urge this.
35
He offered a series of provocative
observations: (1) If the story of Eldad and Modad in Numbers 11
features jealously and a divinely bestowed spirit, James line uses both
ovo and xo vtcuo. (2) Rabbinic tradition, as attested by Num.
Rab. 15.19, held that God rewarded Eldad and Modad precisely for
their humility (see pp. 120-21), and immediately following the citation
in v. 5 is a quotation of LXX Prov 3.34: God opposes the proud, but
gives grace to the humble. (3) There are many close conceptual and
verbal links between James and Hermas (see further below), which
perhaps implies a similar ecclesiastical setting; and Hermas knew
Eldad and Modad. (4) If the words from Eldad and Modad in Hermas
are The Lord is near to those who return (tyyc cpio xoi
tioxptoutvoi), Jas 4.8 has this: Draw near to God and he will
draw near to you (tyyiooxt xc tc oi tyyiti cuiv). The thematic
coherence is undeniable, which for Spitta raises the possibility that,
after quoting Eldad and Modad in v. 5, James continued to be inu-
enced by that source as he moved forward. (5) The quotation common
to 1 Clem. 23.3-4 and 2 Clem. 11.2-3, which Lightfootrightly in

33. This is the most popular view among modern exegetes. Cf. the NRSV: God
yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us.
34. So the NEB: The spirit he made to dwell in us longs for envy.
35. Friedrich Spitta, Geschichte und Litterature des Urchristentums, Zwiter Band:
Der Brief des Jakobus; Studien zum Hirten des Hermas (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1896), pp. 117-23.

Spittas judgmentassigned to Eldad and Modad, opens with xooi-
cpoi tioiv oi i|cyoi, and the i |cyoi of Jas 4.7 is immediately
followed by the imperative, xooicpooxt (v. 8). This is all the
more striking in that i|cyo is altogether absent from pre-Christian
literature. Its rst appearance is in James, the quotation common to
1 Clement and 2 Clement, and Hermas.
36
So the inference that James
knew the source behind 1 Clem. 23.3-4 = 2 Clem. 11.2-3 lies near to
hand.
37
(6) Contending that the continuation in Jas 4.5utiovo t
icoiv yopiv (but he [God] gives the greater grace)is also part of
the quotation, Spitta took this to refer to the tradition, attested in Num.
Rab. 15.19, that elaborated the several ways in which Eldad and
Modad, as reward for their humility, were superior to the other elders:
they had received a greater grace.
38

This is an impressive string of correlations, and one understands
why Spitta came to the conclusion that he did.
39
He did not, however,

36. Spitta also noted that the quotation in 2 Clem. 11.4 includes the word
ooxooxooio, which James has in 3.16; and further that James uses the closely
related ooxooxoxo in 1.8 and 3.8, the former in connection with i|cyo.
37. So also Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung, pp. 111-16, and O.J.F. Seitz,
Relationship of the Shepherd of Hermas to the Epistle of James, JBL 63 (1944),
pp. 131-40.
38. The relevant section reads: Eldad and Medad who were there withdrew into
the background, saying: We are unworthy of being among the appointed elders. In
return for their self-effacement they proved to be superior to the elders in ve things
(1) The elders prophesied only regarding the following day; as may be inferred from
the text, And say to the people: Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow (Num.
11.18), while these prophesied concerning what would happen at the end of forty
years; as may be inferred from the text, But there remained two men in the camp
and they prophesied (v. 26). What did they prophesy? Some say: The downfall of
Gog, and others say that they prophesied that Moses would die and Joshua would
bring Israel into the Land. There is proof of this in what Joshua says to Moses: And
Joshua the son of Nunanswered and said, My Lord Moses, shut them in (v. 28).
And there ran a young man, and told Moses (v. 27). Who was it? It was Gershon
the son of Moses. (2) The elders did not enter the Land, but Eldad and Medad did.
The former was Elidad the son of Chislon, and Medad was Kemuel the son of
Shiphtan. (3) The elders were not explicitly mentioned by name, while these were.
(4) The prophetic spirit of the elders came to an end [while that of Eldad and Modad
did not]. (5) That of the elders came from Moses, as it says, And I will take of the
spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them (v. 17). These, however, derived
their spirit of prophecy from the Holy One, blessed be He. As it says, And the spirit
rested upon them (v. 26).
39. But his suggestion that the words assigned to Moses in 1 Clem. 17.6 (I am
only steam [oxiui] from a pot) might likewise come from Eldad and Modad is

convert many to his point of view. The chief reason, one guesses, lies
in the inuential commentary of Martin Dibelius on James. Dibelius
summarily rejected Spittas hypothesis in a footnote, making three
counter points: (1) Do we know that this story [of Joshuas protest]
was included in the book which purported to be the prophecy of Eldad
and Modad, and whether, therefore, there was any discussion in this
book about jealousy for the possession of the spirit? (2) In Midrash
Bemidbar Rabbah 15.19 on Num. 11.16, the great privileges of Eldad
and Modad are mentioned, as well as their humility. But that would be
related only to Jas 4.6, and is probable that the quotation ends with
v. 5. (3) As to the close relationship between James and Hermas, this
does not constitute proof of anything, and there is no need to be
driven to such questionable identications because of nervousness
about an item which is unknown.
40

This is a disappointing series of remarks from such a highly
respected scholar. To take Dibelius complaints in reverse order:
Spittaunlike some more pious commentatorsnowhere betrays
nervousness about the derivation of Jas 4.5-6. Nor does he anywhere
claim to have proved anything. And in any case, historians do not
typically resign themselves to the unknown if they lack proof. On
the contrary, they habitually forward theories that, while they may fall
far short of demonstration, nonetheless advance critical discussion. In
this particular instance, as Spitta did not pretend to construct a proof
but rather offered a hypothesis, it is our job to respond by weighing
that hypothesis in the scale of probabilities, not by complaining that it
is not a proof.
As for the remark that the theme of humility and great privileges of
Eldad and Modad can be related only to Jas 4.6, not to Jas 4.5, that too
is beside the point. If the quotation ended, as most contemporary
commentators think, with v. 5, then someone sympathetic to Spittas
position could simply afrm that James himself formulated v. 6 under

more speculativealthough given the conclusions of this study, it does intrigue that
Jas 4.14 has a related sentence: you are a mist (oxiui ) that appears for a little while
and then vanishes.
40. Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), p. 223, n. 82. Note also the dogmatic judgment,
forwarded without any explanation, of Albrecht Oepke, pcxc .x.., TDNT 3
(1965), p. 991: Spittas conjecture is untenable.

the continuing inuence of Eldad and Modad.
41
That is, whether v. 6
is from James source or is his own formulation, the correlation with
traditions about Eldad and Modad remains.
As for the claim that we cannot know whether Eldad and Modad
contained any reference to the episode of jealousy, Dibelius is of
course right. But again, if we are looking for what is historically
plausible as opposed to a proof that will exorcise every doubt, one
can hardly criticize Spitta. It is conceivable that Eldad and Modad
opened with nothing save the unadorned words, Eldad and Modad
said, followed immediately and exclusively by their prophecies. But
if there was any narrative at all, it must have related itself to Num.
11.26-29, because nowhere else does the Bible speak of those two
men. To think otherwise is to imagine that a book named Eldad and
Modad passed over in utter silence the single biblical text that says
anything at all about its chief protagonists. How credible is that?
Moreover, that brief passage has very little indeed to say about Eldad
and Modad: it is entirely focused on Moses response to Joshuas
jealousy. It does not even tell us what the two elders prophesied.
Surely, then, any rewrite or haggadic expansion of Num. 11.26-29
would have paid some attention to the exchange between Moses and
Joshua, an exchange which Mark 9.38-40 = Luke 9.49-50 likely hints
was sufciently well known in some circles to be called to mind by a
eeting allusion.
42
Even the succinct retrospective in LAB 20.5

41. One can compare Jas 3.7-9, where borrowing from Gen. 1.26, 28 (v. 7: every
species of quadruped and bird, of reptile and sh) is followed by borrowing from
Gen. 1.26-27 (v. 9: human beings made in the likeness of God).
42. Cf. Mark 9.38-39 (John said to him, Teacher, we saw someone casting out
demons in your name, and we tried to stop [tccoutv] him, because he was not
following us. But Jesus said, Do not stop [cctxt] him; for no one who does a
deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me ) with
Num. 11.28-29 (And Joshua son of Nun, the assistant of Moses, one of his chosen
men, said, My lord Moses, stop [LXX: ccoov] them! But Moses said to him, Are
you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lords people were prophets, and that
the Lord would put his spirit on them! ). Those who think the former alludes or may
allude to the latter include Franois Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of
Luke 1:19:50 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), p. 396; Rudolf
Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed.; New York: New York: Harper
& Row, 1963), p. 25; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), p. 448; Joel Marcus, Mark 816 (Anchor Yale
Bible, 27A; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 684; and Michi
Miyoshi, Der Anfang des Reiseberichts Lk 9,5110,24: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche

includes the theme of jealousy: Behold, we know today what Eldad
and Modad prophesied in the days of Moses, saying, After Moses
goes to rest, the leadership of Moses will be given over to Joshua the
son of Nun. And Moses was not jealous (zelatus) but rejoiced when
he heard them.
43

Despite the feebleness of Dibelius critique,
44
Spitta did not prevail.
Few twentieth-century commentators on James endorsed him.
45
Most

Untersuchung (AnBib, 60; Rome: Pontical Biblical Institute, 1974), pp. 61, 78-79,
111. And this is not just the judgment of recent critical scholars. Note also Cyril of
Alexandria, Comm. Luke 55 (TU 34, ed. Sickenberger, pp. 90-91); Albertus Magnus,
En. prim. part. Luc. (I-IX) ad Luke 9.50 (Opera Omnia 22, ed. A. Borgnet, p. 688);
and Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible Volume III: Matthew
Revelation (London: H.G. Bohn, reprint edn, 1846), p. 168, among many others. That
patristic writers used the little dialogue in Num 11.26-29 in their exhortations or
could refer to it in passing is another sign that it was not an obscure episode; note,
e.g., Ps.-Cyprian, Rebapt. 15 (CSEL 3/3, ed. Hartel, p. 88), and Chrysostom, Hom.
1 Tim 3 (PG 62:520).
43. Note also that, in Num Rab. 15.19, the theme of jealousy enlarges itself to
include the episode with the elders: If I (Moses) bring six from one tribe and ve
from another, I will introduce jealousy between one tribe and another.
44. The dismissal of Spitta by J.H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916), pp. 266-67he
dubbed the hypothesis fantasticmay also have discouraged subsequent scholar-
ship; but Ropes criticism is even less substantial. It amounts to this: (1) the topic of
Jas 4.1-10 is not jealousy because ovtixt is not the original reading in Jas 4.2 (but
ocxt is there in any case) and (2) Spittas theory involves a whole series of incon-
gruous ideas, which have no good connection with what precedes and lead to nothing
in what follows (but attributing Jas 4.5 to Eldad and Modad can be dissociated from
Spittas exegesis of Jas 4.1-10, as this study demonstrates).
45. But note James Moffatt, The General Epistles: James, Peter, and Judas (New
York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1928), p. 60 (possibly), and E.M. Sidebottom,
James, Jude and 2 Peter (The Century Bible; London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), pp.
52-53. If one leaves the commentaries, one does nd Dean B. Deppe, The Sayings of
Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsea, MI: Bookcrafters, 1989), pp. 38-42, repeating
and defending Spittas arguments. Further, according to Hagner, who is open to
Lightfoots suggestion that 1 Clem. 23.3 and 2 Clem. 11.2 quote Eldad and Modad,
it may well be that Jas 4.5 comes from the same apocryphal writing quoted in
1 Clem. 23.3 and 2 Clem. 11.2. Hagner (who does not in this connection mention
Spitta) goes on to ask whether Jas 1.5-8 (with its use of i|cyo); 4.14 (cf. 1 Clem.
23.1-2; 17.6); and 5.11 (cf. 1 Clem. 23.1-2) are also inuenced by that same writing.
See Clement of Rome, pp. 74, 252-53. Also seemingly independent of Spitta but
coming to the same conclusion is Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung, pp. 115-16
(vielleicht). Knochs argument is largely derivative, deriving from Seitz, After-

have not even taken the trouble to note his hypothesis, much less
respond to it. Recently, however, Richard Bauckham, in an article in
which he attempts to decipher the sense of Jas 4.5 by positing a
Hebrew original, has stated: there is a considerable probability that
the quotation in Jas. 4.5 comes from the apocryphal Book of Eldad
and Modad.
46

This is an interesting development, and all the more so because
Bauckham nowhere refers to Spitta (or to Dibelius rebuttal of him).
To all appearances he has made his case unaware that someone has
made it before him. Indeed, most of his arguments simply repeat what
a reader of Spitta already knows: Num. 11.25-30 is one of the very
few passages in the Hebrew Bible which could be understood as a
warning against envy; Jewish tradition sometimes latched onto and
developed this passages remark on envy (LAB 20.5; Num. Rab.
15.19); the story in Numbers features the spirit; James has a close
relationship with Hermas, and the latter knew Eldad and Modad; the
quotation common to 1 Clem. 23.3 and 2 Clem. 11.2 may come from
Eldad and Modad (Bauckham appeals to Lightfoot), and this quota-
tion features the rare i|cyo, which also appears in James (once close
to 4.5) and repeatedly in Hermas, which incontrovertibly paid heed to
Eldad and Modad; and Jas 4.8 is reminiscent of the quotation of Eldad
and Modad in Hermas v. 2.3.4. In other words, Bauckham has inde-
pendently seen what Spitta saw and independently come to the same
conclusion.
In two respects, however, Bauckham goes beyond Spittas observa-
tions. First, he notices a couple of additional resemblances between
Hermas and the verses surrounding Jas 4.5, resemblances which
cohere with the theory that Eldad and Modad inuenced both. James
4.7 (ovxioxxt t xc iopoc oi tc txoi o cucv: resist the devil
and he will ee from you) is strikingly close to Hermas m. 12.5.2 (o
iopootov ocv ovxioxoxt ocxctctxoi o cucv: the

thoughts and Relationship. Seitz, nowhere citing Spitta, argued, on the basis of lin-
guistic agreements, that James, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Hermas must draw upon a
lost pseudepigraphon, and further (with reference to Lightfoot on 1 Clem. 23.3-4 =
2 Clem. 11.2-4) that it might be Eldad and Modad.
46. Richard Bauckham, The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy: James 4:5, in
G.N. Stanton, B.W. Longenecker, and S.C. Barton (eds.), The Holy Spirit and Chris-
tian Origins: Essays in Honor James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),
pp. 270-81 (281).

devilif you resist himhe will ee from you),
47
and Jas 4.12 (o
cvoutvo ocooi oi ootooi: the one able to save and to destroy)
recalls Hermas m. 12.6.3 (xov ovxo cvoutvov, ocooi oi ootooi:
the one able to do all, to save and to destroy). If James did not know
Hermas or vice versa, parallels such as these do seem to raise the
possibility of a common source.
48

Second, Bauckham has noticed that the last six words in the
quotation in Jas 4.5 (xo vtcuo o oxciotv tv uiv) resemble several
lines in Hermas, especially:
x Hermas m. 3.1: xo vtcuo o to oxc iotv tv x oopi
xocx
x Hermas m. 5.2.5: tv tvi oyyticoc oi xo vtcuo xo oyiov
oxoiti
x Hermas s. 5.6.5: xo vtcuo xo oyiovoxc iotv o to ti
oopo

To these one may add two more:
x Hermas m. 5.1.2: xo vtcuo xo oyiov xo oxoiocv tv ooi
x Hermas s. 5.7.1: xo vtcuo xo oxoiocv tv ocx

Clearly, xo vtcuo + oxoiic or oxoitc + tv was close to a xed
expression for the author of Hermas. Moreover, Hermas m. 3.1 and s.
5.6.5 along with Jas 4.5 contain the only occurrences of the verb
oxoiitiv in Christian literature before Justin.
49
Since, then, Jas 4.5
comes from an unknown scripture (ypo), and since Hermas was
inuenced by Eldad and Modad, which he could quote with the
formula, as it is written (ytypoxoi), one can at least ask whether xo
vtcuo + oxoiic or oxoitc + tv appeared in Eldad and Modad.
Spitta and Baukham have, in my judgment, made a good case for
their shared conclusion, far better than one would guess from the
prevalent apathy of the commentaries on James. But more can be said
in favor of their joint hypothesis, enough to make this writer fairly
condent that Jas 4.5 does indeed come from the defunct Eldad and
Modad. I wish to make six points:

47. Cf. also however 1 Pet 5.8-9: Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil
prowls around, looking for someone to devour. Resist him.
48. I am inclined, however, to think at least Hermas here depends upon the say-
ing preserved in Mt. 10.28 diff. Lk 12.5. The latter has optiotxov cvoutvov
ootooi, the former op xt xov ovxo cvoutvov, ocooi oi ootooi.
49. Bauckham, Spirit of God, p. 281.

First, one should note that, aside from any hypothesis about Eldad
and Modad, Jas 4.5 has, because it concerns jealousy and the spirit,
sent the thoughts of a number of post-Reformation commentators to
Numbers 11. For example, Matthew Poole, in the seventeenth century,
remarked that Joshuas envying Eldad and Modads prophesying, for
Mosess sake, seems to be an instance of lusting for envy whereas
Moses not envying them is an illustration to the contrary.
50

Similarly, John Gill, in the eighteenth century, observed: the general-
ity of interpreters, who suppose a particular text of scripture is referred
to, fetch it from Numb. ix. 29.
51

Second, James goes on, after his quotation, to add a second quota-
tion, which is about grace for the humbleGod opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3.38)and he further returns to
the theme of humility in v. 10: Humble yourselves before the Lord,
and he will exalt you. This is relevant because, as Spitta observed,
rabbinic tradition held that Eldad and Modad, unlike the other elders,
remained in the camp and did not go to the tent (Num. 11.26)
because of their humility, which by itself brought them great reward.
Spitta, however, cited only the late Num. Rab. 15.19, which is
insufcient for inferring anything about the book of James, which
comes from the rst or second century CE. But what we nd in
Numbers Rabbah we also nd earlier in b. Sanh. 17a, which addresses
our two characters this way: because you have humbled yourselves, I
(God) will add to your greatness still more greatness. The same

50. Matthew Poole, Annotations on the Holy Bible (3 vols.; London: Henry G.
Bohn, 1846), 3:893.
51. John Gill, Gills Commentary. VI. Romans to Revelation (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1980), p. 769. Cf. Jacques Cappel apud Critici sacri: sive clarissimorum
virorum in sacro-sancta utriusque foederis Biblia, doctissimae annotationes atque
tractatus theologico-philologici (Frankfurt am Main: Balthasaris Christophi Wustii,
Johannis Philippi & Johannis Nicolai Andreae, 1695), VII, p. 4478; Willem
Surenhuys, Sefer humash sive Biblios katallags in quo secundum veterum theolo-
gorum Hebraeorum formulas allegandi, & modos interpretandi conciliantur loca ex
V. in N.T. allegata, auctore Guilielmo Surenhusio (Amsterdam: Johannem Boom,
1713), pp. 674-75; Jakob Elsner, Observationes sacrae in Novi Foederis libros
(Utrecht: J. van Poolsum, 1728), II, p. 394; Christian Schttgen, Horae Hebraicae et
Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum (Dresden: Christoph. Hekelii B.
Filium, 1742), II, ad loc. Karl Gottfried Wilhelm Theile, Commentarius in Epistolam
Jacobi (Leipzig: Librariae Baumgaertneriae, 1833), p. 222, lists additional older
commentators as taking this position.

tradition appears, furthermore, in Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 3.22,
and already in Sifre 95 on Num. 11.24-26, where God says to Eldad
and Modad: You made yourselves small. I will make you greater than
all the others.
52
One guesses that this haggadic expansion was already
extant around the turn of the era as it can hardly have been the
invention of the author of Sifre, who cites it as tradition.
53
If so, it
could very well have played a role in Eldad and Modad, in which case
James association of jealousy and humility would indeed line up with
inuence from that apocryphon.
54

Third, the quotation in Jas 4.5 comes after the remark, in v. 2,
ticutixt oi oc tytxt (you crave and have not), and vv. 1 and 3
speak against those who pursue ov (pleasure). So James 4 opens
by addressing the subject of desire. This matters because Num. 11.34
has this to say about the setting for the story of Eldad and Modad:
That place was called : :z, because there they buried the
people who had craved (:z). The Hebrew, : :z (cf. v. 35;
cf. Num. 33.16-17; Deut 9.22), means graves of craving. The LXX
renders the sentence as: t xo ovouo xoc xooc ttivoc Mvuoxo
x ticuio, oxi tti to|ov xov oov ticuxv (cf. Josephus,
Ant. 3.299). This harks back to the beginning of the storyLXX 11.4:
the rabble
55
among them ttcuoov ticuiov. Philo, Leg. 4.129-31,
naturally used the storyto which Pss 78.29-31 (LXX: ticuiov . . .
ticuio); 106.14 (LXX: ttcuoov ticuiov); and 1 Cor 10.6
(ticuxo ocvttcuoov) clearly alludeas a general
admonition against ticuio (cf. Migr. 155). So too Origen, Frag. in
Ps ad 78.31 (PG 17.140A-B), and Gregory of Nyssa, Vit Mos. 63-64
(SC 1, 3rd edn, ed. Danielou, pp. 94-96), the latter remarking on the

52. Cf. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.26: they hid themselves in order
to escape honor. On this tradition, see further Felix Bhl, Demut und Prophetie:
Eldad and Medad nach der frhen rabbinischen berlieferung, in Ich bewirke das
Heil und erschaffe das Unheil (Jesaja 45,7). Studien zur Botschaft der Prohpeten:
Festschrift fr Lothar Ruppert zum 65. Geburtstag (FB, 88; Wrzburg: Echter,
1998), pp. 15-29.
53. He attributes the thought to R. Simeon, failing to indicate which Simeon
this might be.
54. Is it coincidence that the prophecy of Eldad and Modad in LAB 20.5
immediately follows a reference to the people sinning through pride?
55. Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 27 records the exegetical opinion that the
rabble were the seventy elders.

peoples lack of moderation regarding ov (cf. Jas 4.1, 3).
56
Others
took the passage to condemn lust for meat (so Ps.-Clem. Hom. 3.45
[GCS 42, ed. Rehm, p. 73]; cf. Tertullian, Ieiunio adv. psych. 16
[CSEL 10, ed. Reifferscheid and Wissowa, pp. 294-95]) or lust for
illicit intercourse (so Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 27). In any case,
the story of Eldad and Modad is set in the middle of a famous tale
about desire run amok, just as James quotation in v. 5 appears amid a
rebuke of people for following their own desires and pleasures.
Fourth, James follows the citation in 4.5 with this: utiovo t
icoiv yopiv. God is the implicit subject: God gives the greater
grace. We have already seen that Spitta tried to associate these words
with the rabbinic tradition which has God, because of the humility of
Eldad and Modad, bestowing upon them more privileges than the
other seventy elders. Perhaps he was right. But whatever the truth on
that score, and whether or not utiovo .x.. belongs to James
citation, four Greek patristic texts present us with a striking
agreement. In their brief summaries of Num. 11.26-29, each refers to
grace (yopi), saying that it has been given by God (icui,
cpto):
x Cyril of Jerusalem, Myst. cat. 16.26 (PG 33.956A-B): Eldad
and Modad were recipients of grace (yopi) from heaven;
the Lord gave (c , c) them the prophetic ofce and the
spirit; Cyril then interprets: Now the grace (yopi) is in part;
then the gift (ooi) will be abundant.
x Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John 1100A (ed Pusey, 3:139):
Eldad and Modad had yopixo from above and received
yopiv and the otio yopixo.
x Theodoret of Cyrus, Rom.-Phil. proem (PG 82.36B): Eldad
and Modad were afforded divine yopixo, that is, they
received the cpto of prophecy
x Theodoret of Cyrus, Quaest. in Oct. Num. 21 (ed. Marcos and
Senz-Badillos, p. 206): Eldad and Modad enjoyed the gift
(cpto) of the grace (yopiv) of prophecy

56. Cf. also the concern with pleasure in Cyril of Alexandrias exposition of
Num. 11 in Comm. John ad 6.33 (ed. Pusey, 1:462): the people sought ocuoxio
ovo. Given my conclusion, perhaps it is not coincidence that the only occurrence
of ov in the law and the prophets is Num. 11.8, part of the setting for the story of
Eldad and Modad.

Now icui belongs to the LXX story of Num. 11.26-29: And who
might grant (c ) that all the Lords people be prophets, when the
Lord grants (c) his spirit upon them? But yopi plays no role there.
How then do we explain its appearance in four different, very brief
retellings of the passage? Somehow this word established itself as part
of the Greek ecclesiastical tradition regarding Num. 11.26-29.
57

I suggest that James and these patristic texts illumine each other.
Just as Spitta guessed, without citing the patristic evidence, part of the
tradition about Eldad and Modad in some quarters must have included
the notion of God giving grace. This explains not only why several
patristic recollections of Num. 11.26-29 preserve the theme, but also
why it appears in or next to a quotation from Eldad and Modad in
James 4.
One is all the more encouraged because Clement, when introducing
his quotation from what Lightfoot, with good reason, argued is an
excerpt from Eldad and Modad, has this: The Father, who is merciful
in all things, and ready to do good, has compassion on those who fear
him, and gently and lovingly gives grace (xo yopixo...ooioi) on
those who draw near to him with singleness of mind (1 Clem. 23.1).
Here again we meet yopi and icui. Can this be only coincidence?
Fifth, the quotation in Jas 4.5 is sandwiched between James 3,
which has so much to say about the evil tongue, and 4.11, which
enjoins readers not to speak evil against one another. Now in Numbers
11, Joshua speaks against and judges his brothers, Eldad and Modad, a
circumstance tradition elaborated. Sifre 96 on Num. 11.26-30 has
Joshua saying, My lord, Moses, wipe out of the world people who
brought me such bad news, and imprison them [Eldad and Modad]
in chains and iron collars. Similar remarks are attributed to Joshua in
Targum Neoti 1 on Num. 11.28 (withhold the holy spirit from
them) and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.28 (without the
prophetic spirit from them). Once more, then, James 4 thematically
coheres with traditions about Eldad and Modad.

57. Note also Basil of Caesarea, Spir. 61 (FC 12, ed. Sieben, pp. 260-62), the
grace (yopi) of the Spirit in the recipient is ever present He does not abide with
those who, on account of the instability of their will, easily reject the grace (yopiv)
which they have received. An instance of this is seen in Saul (1 Sam. 16.14) and in
the seventy elders of the children of Israel, except Eldad and Medad, with whom
alone the Spirit appears to have remained.

My sixth point has to do with the po ovov of Jas 4.5. This
might be thought, despite the appearance of o c in 4.2 (cf. o in
3.14, 16), to count against the proposition that the line James quotes is
from a book about Eldad and Modad, for in LXX Num. 11.29 the word
for jealousy is o: Are you (Joshua) really jealous (oi) of me
(Moses)? ovo indeed fails to show up anywhere in LXX Numbers,
or the rest of the Pentateuch for that matter. Here again, however,
extra-canonical texts offer illumination. Three different early Christian
writers, when adverting to Num. 11.26-29, use not o but ovo
to characterize Joshuas state of mind:
x Cyril of Jerusalem, Myst. cat. 16.26 (PG 33.956A-B), has
Moses whitewash Joshua with these words: I cannot forbid
them, for this grace is from heaven; and far from forbidding
them, I am myself thankful for it. But I do not suppose that
you have said this in envy (ovc).
x Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Luke 55 (TU 34 ed. Sickenberger,
pp. 91-92), uses the episode in Num. 11.26-29 as illustration
for how the apostles felt ovo when they learned of the
successful foreign exorcist (Luke 9.49-50).
x Theodoret of Cyrus, Quaest. Oct. Num. 21 (ed. Petruccione,
p. 122), also construes Moses questions so that Joshua is
exonerated: he had not contracted xoc ovoc xo oo but
spoke from more noble motives; he was in this like Moses,
who was oovov.

Once more, then, Jas 4.5 lines up with language otherwise associated
with the story of Eldad and Modad.
The upshot of the previous pages is not only that Jas 4.5 in all
likelihood preserves a line from the lost Eldad and Modad, but also
that there are a number of overlaps between the rst half of James 4
and Num. 11.26-19, and especially with traditions that grew out of
that biblical passage. James concerns himself with desire, jealousy,
the spirit, speaking against others, the humble being exalted, the
giving of grace, and God drawing near to the saints, all of which were
part and parcel of the lore surrounding Eldad and Modad. Spitta would
seem to be vindicated.
If this is the right conclusion, if indeed Jas 4.5 comes from Eldad
and Modad, we can make some progress regarding its meaning in that
document. It must have belonged to Moses response to Joshua, after
the latter raised his objection about Eldad and Modad prophesying.

And xo vtcuo must have been the spirit that God told Moses he
would give to the elders: I will take some of the spirit that is on you
and put it on them (Num. 11.17; cf. v. 25).
58
This is the same spirit
that is explicitly said, in Num. 11.26, to have rested upon Eldad and
Modad. Numbers 11.29 calls it his spirit, that is, the Lords spirit.
Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11.26 refer
to it as the spirit of prophecy. Targum Neoti 1 speaks rather of the
holy spirit. But all this amounts to the same thing.
As to whether po ovov tioti xo vtcuo o oxciotv tv uiv
originally served to rebuke Joshua or instead to defend his behavior,
the former option commends itself. Numbers 11.29 itself is a sort of
reprimand,
59
although Joshuas motives are presumably honorable.
The text probably implies, in the words of Jacob Milgrom, that Joshua
feared that since Eldad and Medad received their spirit directly from
God, not from Moses, they might now contend with him for the leader-
ship.
60
The book of James, however, clearly employs po ovov
.x.. as a rebuke; and the Greek, whether read as an ironic statement
ormore likely in my judgmentas a question (see the discussion
below), cannot be construed in a positive way given the recurrently
negative connotations of ovo in numerous Jewish and Christian

58. Readers were anxious lest one infer that taking some of the spirit in Moses
diminished him. Sifre 93 on Num. 11.17 responds this way: To what may Moses be
compared at that moment? To a lamp which is set on a candelabrum, from which
many lights are kindled, and which on that account does not lose a bit of its light (cf.
Tanhuma Buber Behaalotekha 22; Num. Rab. 13.20; 15.19). This matters because of
what we nd in Philo, Gig. 24-25: It is written, I will take of the spirit that is on
you and lay it upon the seventy elders (Num. 11.7). But think not that this taking of
the spirit comes to pass as when men cut away a piece and sever it. Rather it is as
when they take re from re, for although the re should kindle a thousand torches, it
is still as it was and is diminished not at all (cf. Origen, Hom. Num 6.2 [SC 415, ed.
Doutreleau, 146]). This is proof that some of the rabbinic traditions associated with
Eldad and Modad and Num. 11 circulated before our extant rabbinic sources.
59. Cf. Tanhuma Yelammedenu Weattah Tetsawweh 9 (Joshuas life was
shortened by ten years for saying what he did) and Gen. Rab. 96 (Joshuas remark
was one of two that did not meet with the approval of Moses).
60. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia/New
York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. 90. Cf. Gray, Numbers, p. 115:
Joshua is jealous (v. 29) lest Moses should lose his pre-eminence if not only the
seventy but others also manifest the spirit Many ancients, reluctant to think of
Moses criticizing the great Joshua, claried further, afrming that Eldad prophesied
Moses death and Joshuas ascent, and that Joshua, keen on his masters honor, found
that troubling (see, e.g., b. Sanh. 17a and cf. Num. Rab. 12.9).

texts.
61
In other words, Jas 4.5 records a sentence from what must have
been Moses scolding of Joshua. It was a defense not of the latter, who
was overly zealous, but of the humble Eldad and Modad, upon whom
the spirit had come. So much is clear, even if po ovov tioti
remains an unparalleled expression.

2 Peter 3.4?

Richard Bauckham has argued that Eldad and Modad also lies behind
2 Pet 3.4.
62
Now 2 Pet. 3.1-3 must be, as one can see at a glance, in
part inspired by Jude 17-18, upon which 2 Peter otherwise heavily
draws:
63

Jude 17-18 2 Peter 3.1-3
But you, beloved (oyoxoi ), must
remember the predictions (uvoxt
xcv puoxcv potiputvcv) of the
apostles (oooxocv) of our Lord
(xoc cpioc) Jesus Christ; for they
said to you, In the last (toyoxcv)
time there will be scoffers
(tuoixoi), indulging their own
ungodly lusts (oxo xo tocxcv
ticuio optcoutvoi).
This is now, beloved (oyoxoi ),
the second letter I am writing to you
you should remember the words
spoken in the past (uvovoi xcv
potiputvcv puoxcv) by the holy
prophets, and the commandment of
the Lord (xoc cpioc) and Saviour
spoken through your apostles
(oooxocv). First of all you must
understand this, that in the last
(toyoxcv) days scoffers (tuoixoi)
will come, scofng and indulging
their own lusts (oxo xo iio
ticuio ocxcv optcoutvoi).

61. It means (malevolent) envy. See 1 Macc. 8.16; 3 Macc. 6.7; Wis. 2.24;
6.23; Mt. 27.18; Mk 15.10; Rom. 1.29; Gal. 5.21; Phil. 1.15; 1 Tim. 6.4; Tit. 3.3; 1
Pet. 2.1. Cf. Gk. frag. Jub. 10.1; Let. Arist. 224; T. Sim. 2.13; 3.1, 2, 4, 6; 4.5, 7; 6.2;
T. Dan 2.5; T. Gad 4.5; T. Jos. 1.3, 7; 10.3; T. Benj. 7.2, 5; 8.1; Sib. Or. 3.377, 662;
Philo, Fug. 154; Vit. Mos. 1.2; Josephus, Ant. 2.10; 3 Bar. 13.4; 1 Clem. 3.2; 5.2; etc.
For the common association of the word with the evil eye, a term used to describe
the ungenerous, see J.H. Elliott, The Fear of the Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible
to Lil Abner, Forum 4/4 (1988), pp. 52-71 (56-57, 64). ovo is likewise negative
in the only non-Christian example of po o vov, that being Demosthenes, Or.
20.165: iovpcio po ovov, philanthropy against envy.
62. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC, 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983),
pp. 283-85.
63. Cf. Daniel von Allmen, LApocalyptique juive et le retard de la parousie en
II Pierre 3:1-13, RTP 16 (1966), pp. 255-74 (269): 2 Pet. 3.1-3 is une citation
largie de Jude 17-19.

But Bauckham observes that the next verse, 2 Pet. 3.4, calls to mind
not Jude but the apocryphal quotation in 1 Clem. 23.3 = 2 Clem. 11.2:

1 Clement 23.3 2 Peter 3.4 2 Clement 11.2
Let this scripture be far
from us where it says,
Wretched are the
double-minded, those
who doubt in their soul
and say, We heard
these things even in the
days of our fathers
(oxtpcv), and look,
we have grown old, and
none of these things
have happened to us.
Where is the promise of
his coming? For ever
since our fathers (oi
oxtpt) died, all things
continue as they were
from the beginning of
creation!
For the prophetic word
says, Wretched are the
double-minded, those
who doubt in their heart
and say,
We heard all these
things even in the days
of our fathers
(oxtpcv), and though
we have waited day
after day we have seen
none of them.

All three of these texts attack eschatological skeptics. All three quote
those skeptics. And all three employ a plural of oxp, in sentences
that have the doubters referring either to the days of our fathers or
complaining of what has not happened since the fathers fell asleep.
Bauckham, moreover, urges that 2 Peter in its entirety shares many
distinctive ideas and terminology with 1 and 2 Clement, which may
indicate a common milieu, one in which the apocryphon known to the
latter two was esteemed.
64
This is all the more so as 2 Pet. 3.10 and 12
resemble 2 Clem. 16.3, which may quote from an unknown source;
65

and it is an economical hypothesis to attribute 2 Clem. 11.2-4 and
2 Clem. 16.3 to the same Jewish apocalypse, and to account for the

64. Cf. Bartlet, Prophecy, p. 23 n. 1 (Eldad and Modad may well be viewed as
inuencing the language of II. Pet. iii., 4, and ii., 8), and Jean Danilou, The
Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), p. 364
(1 Clem. 23.1-2 recalls II Pet. 3:4 which has a markedly Jewish Christian avour,
and may depend upon the same source).
65. 2 Pet. 3.10-12: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the
heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with
re, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed Since all these
things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in leading
lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of
God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements
will melt with re? 2 Clem. 16.3: But you know that the day of judgment is already
coming as a blazing furnace, and some of the heavens will dissolve, and the whole
earth will be like lead melting in a re, and then everyones works, the secret and the
public, will be revealed.

resemblance between 2 Pet. 3.4 and 2 Clem. 11.2, and between 2 Peter
3.10, 12 and 2 Clem. 16.3 by postulating common dependence upon
this Jewish apocalypse. Finally, as Bauckham believes that there is
much to be said for Lightfoots guess that Eldad and Modad is the
source behind 1 Clem. 23.3 = 2 Clem. 11.2, we may suppose that it
also inuenced 2 Peter.
Bauckham has raised an interesting possibility. Unfortunately, how-
ever, I do not quite see how to turn it into a probability. 2 Peter 3.4
shares only a single word with its parallels in 1 and 2 Clement, which
might leave one hesitant to posit a common written source.
66
Perhaps
it makes just as much sense to posit independent adaptation of a com-
mon Jewish and/or Christian topos.
67
It is hard to criticize Henning
Paulsen for inferring that 2 Peter and 1 and 2 Clement may take up
related (verwandtes) but not identical Traditionsmaterial.
68
Further-
more, as 2 Peter may not have appeared until shortly before the time
of Irenaeus,
69
the possibility that its author knew 1 Clement or 2 Clem-
ent cannot be dismissed out of hand. In other words, even if one thinks
in terms of a literary relationship, one will rst have to exclude the
hypothesis that the observed parallel is due to the author of 2 Peter
having heard one of the Clementines. My judgment is: Non liquet.

66. Cf. the critical comments of Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude
(Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Cambridge: Apollos,
2006), pp. 264-65, and Anton Vgtle, Der Judasbrief, der 2. Petrusbrief (EKKNT,
22; Dsseldorf: Benziger; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1994), p. 216.
67. Note Isa. 5.18-19 (You who drag iniqiuity along with cords of falsehood
say, Let him make haste, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the plan of
the Holy One of Israel hasten to fulllment, that we may know it ); Ezek. 12.21-28
(which includes this: Mortal, what is this proverb of yours about the land of Israel,
which says, The days are prolonged, and every vision comes to nothing?) and b.
Sanh. 97b (For they would say, Since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet
he has not come, he will never come ). Each of these quotes skeptics.
68. Henning Paulsen, Der Zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief (MeyerK, 12/2;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), pp. 152-53.
69. There is no solid evidence for the circulation of this book until the beginning
of the third century, in the work of Origen, who observes its disputed status; and it is
not widely cited or discussed until the fourth century, when Jerome writes that most
reject it because its style is inconsistent with 1 Peters style. Also harmonizing with a
second-century date is the real possibility that 2 Peter opposes Gnostics. The authors
adversaries spin clever myths (1.16) and reject traditional eschatology (3.3-10).
They interpret the Jewish Bible in unacceptable ways (1.21), and they nd support
for their theology in their own interpretation of Paul (3.15-18).

Conclusions

The preceding discussion leads to the following conclusions about
Eldad and Modad:
(1) If the authors of James, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Hermas
knew that apocryphon, it must have been in circulation by the end of
the rst century at the latest, for all four books were probably written
in the rst half of the second century, 1 Clement perhaps a bit earlier
(80100 CE). Those who, unlike the present writer, think James was
written by the brother of Jesus, who died in the 60s, would have to set
an even earlier date were they to nd my argument persuasive.
(2) The book was Jewish in origin, not Christian.
70
We know of no
Christian writings that were already being cited either with ytypoxoi
or as ypo , scripture, by the time of James or 1 Clement.
(3) The original was probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The
chief reason for this is the Greek of Jas 4.5, which remains murky on
any account. A Semitic original, translated less than felicitously, is
perhaps, after all is said, the best hypothesis. Richard Bauckham has
suggested one possibility: the original may have had z. = abhor,
which James or his source understood as though it were z = long
for.
71
My own guess is that the Hebrew might have been close to this:
:.zz :zc'c/c : z .z/. This should be understood as a
question: Do you suppose that the spirit that he (God) caused to dwell
within us really pants with jealousy (or: has an appetite for envy)?
72

(4) Whatever the merit of that proposal, the citation common to
1 and 2 Clement is in Greek, as are the excerpts in James and Hermas.
So the book must have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic into
Greek before those writings appeared. Perhaps the translator was a
Christian, and maybe his new edition caught on quickly in some
circles around the turn of the century, especially in Rome.
73
Such a

70. Against Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. 80, who offered that the book was
forged by some Christian to sustain the courage of the brethren under persecution by
the promise of the Lords advent.
71. Bauckham, Spirit of God, pp. 277-79.
72. Moses remark to Joshua in Num. 11.28 is in the form of question, . and
.z are well attested, and LXX Ps. 118.174 translates z with tiotiv.
73. Relevant here is Sophie S. Marshall, Ai|cyo: A Local Term?, in Studia
Evangelica. VI. Papers Presented to the Fourth International Congress on New
Testament Studies held at Oxford, 1969 (TU, 112; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973),
pp. 348-51.

hypothesis would be able to account for the thesis, occasionally put
forward, that the agricultural simile of 1 Clem. 23.4 = 2 Clem. 1.3,
which features pcxovtixotixo, betrays the inuence of the very
similar parable of the growing seed in Mark 4.26-29, which also
features pcxovtixotixo.
74

(5) We do not know whether Eldad and Modad was a pseude-
pigraphon (with two authors?) or an apocalypse. But given that
1 Clem. 23.3-5 = 2 Clem. 11.2-4 deals with doubt about the fulllment
of eschatological expectation, given that the citation of Eldad and
Modad in Hermas v. 2.3.4 immediately follows a warning about
coming tribulation, and given that in rabbinic sources Eldad and
Modad prophesy about the latter days, it is manifest that the book that
went under their names had eschatological content, and probably
included something akin to the oracle we now nd in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan on Num. 11.26. There was also an apology for the end being
prolonged. We can further infer, if Jas 4.5 comes from Eldad and
Modad, that the book recounted some version of the dialogue between
Joshua and Moses in Num. 11.28-29. In other words, Eldad and Modad
were not the only speakers. The book named after them must have
contained more than their oracles. Indeed, given that James evidently
quotes a line from Moses, addressed to Joshua, and that, in order for
the line to be intelligible, it must have had a narrative context, the
book clearly had narrative elements.
(6) Finally, we know that the Greek version of the book contained
and perhaps coined
75
the Greek word, i|cyo, which appears in Jas
1.8; 4.8; 1 Clem. 11.2; 23.3; 2 Clem. 11.2; and nearly twenty times in

74. Cf. Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung, p. 126.
75. Almost certainly as a translation of idiom, z: z (double heart) or
:zz 'c (two hearts)the antithesis of z = single heart (2 Chron. 30.12;
Jer. 32.39; Ezek. 11.19; 4Q183 frag. 1 2.4; 4Q215a frag. 1 2.8; b. Ber. 57a; etc.). See
further Seitz, Afterthoughts, and idem, Antecedents and Signication of the Term
Al1YXC2, JBL 66 (1947), pp. 211-19. Cf. Ps. 12.3 (with attering lips and a double
heart (z: z; LXX: tv opio oi tv opio); 1QH 12(4).14 (They [hypocrites] look
for you [God] with a double heart [z: z]); 4Q542 frag. 1 1.9 (holding on to the
truth and walking in uprightness and not with a double heart [zz: zz, Aramaic],
but with a pure heart and with a truthful and good spirit); 1 En. 91.4 (Do not draw
near uprightness with a double heart, and do not associate with hypocrites); Mek. on
Exod. 14.3 (Pharaohs heart was divided: :zwhether to pursue the Israel-
ites); Tanhuma Buber Ki-Tavo 7.3 (When you pray to the Holy One, you will not
have two hearts [:zz 'c], one before God and the other directed toward some
other object).

Hermas. Beyond that, James, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Hermas all
use i|cyo in eschatological contexts: Jas 4.8; 1 Clem. 23.2-5;
2 Clem. 11.2-7; Hermas m. 9.6; s. 1.1-3; etc.
76
They also connect that
rare word with xooi cpoJas 4.8; 1 Clem. 23.3; 2 Clem. 11.2-3;
and Herm. s. 1.1.3 (cf. v. 3.7.1)and further associate it with doubt:
Jas 1.6-8 (iopivoutvo); 1 Clem. 23.3 (oi ioxoovxt); 2 Clem. 11.2
(oi ioxoovxt); Hermas m. 9.1-12 (ioxoo). Moreover, all but
1 Clement set it over against purity of heart: Jas 4.8 (oyviooxt
opio); 2 Clem. 11.1-2 (oopo opio); and Herm. m. 9.5-7
(oopioovxv opiov ooc).
77
Because all of these generalizations
hold for the quotation common to 1 Clem. 23.3-5 = 2 Clem. 11.2-4 or
its immediate context in one book or the other, and because we have
identied that quotation as likely coming from Eldad and Modad, it
follows that we can say the same things about that book. In other
words, at some point, Eldad and Modad used i|cyo when address-
ing the issue of eschatological doubt, and in that context it employed
xooicpo as a rebuke and encouraged the faithful to seek purity of
heart.
Yet even if one accepts all of these proposals, our knowledge of
Eldad and Modad remains frustratingly minimal. The loss of a book
that appears to have signicantly inuenced at least four Christian
texts stands as a good reminder of how much we do not know about
formative Judaism and the early churches.

76. See on this Knoch, Eigenart und Bedeutung, pp. 116-25, and for what
follows Seitz, Relationship, pp. 136-40.
77. Although Origen, Hom. Num. 6.3 (SC 415, ed. Doutreleau, p. 148), speaks of
purity of heart in connection with his analysis of Num. 11, Mt. 5.8, not Eldad and
Modad, seems to be the inuence here.

2011 - Dale C. Allison - Eldad and Modad

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2011 - Dale C. Allison - Eldad and Modad

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

http://jsp.sagepub.

http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Nov 10, 2011 Version of Record >>

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen