J.W. van Henten

Daniel 3 and 6 in Early Christian Literature

The dramatic episodes in the careers of Daniel and his three companions as royal administrators (Daniel 3 and 6) were popular among Christians of the first two centuries CE. There is a considerable number of early Christian uses of these tales in their Aramaic or Greek versions, which often focus upon just one motifs involved. King Nebuchadnezzars erection of an enormous golden statue and his command to worship it are point of departure of the story in chapter 3. Several times an exhaustive list of officials is mentioned: these have to worship the statue as representatives of the various ethnic and language groups of the kingdom. The death penalty as sanction against the refusal to worship a state deity is emphasized in Daniel 3. Compared to other wisdom tales, Daniel 3 and 6 catch the eye, since the religion of the key persons is focal point in the narratives. Keywords: Aramaic; Daniel 3 and 6; exhaustive list

Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts

In Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts experts from various fields analyze the process of transformation of early Christian ethics because of the ongoing interaction with Jewish, Greco-Roman and Christian traditions.In Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts experts from various fields analyze the process of transformation of early Christian ethics because of the ongoing interaction with Jewish, Greco-Roman and Christian traditions.

Noble Death and Martyrdom in Antiquity

Ancient views of noble death were very different from current ideas about death. Ostentatious forms of violent death were common in antiquity and often highly regarded, but they hardly fit in with modern views of life.* Many people nowadays dislike self-cremations like the one by Jan Palache during the aftermath of the Russian repression of the peaceful revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1968 or those of Vietnamese Buddhist monks. Most people also loathe hunger strikes if they do not lead to success and one sees the pictures of the strikers’ emaciated bodies just before dying. Although these and other kinds of self-sacrifice may evoke sympathy and admiration, most people will consider them as extreme and regrettable ways of selfdestruction. People dislike the images of these deaths and the devastating result on their bodies. These observations are also pertinent to the more recent phenomenon of suicide-bombers, which started in the Middle East and are now a grim reality on a global scale. Many people in the West dislike such spectacular acts of self-destruction, not least because they challenge contemporary attitudes to death and dying in society. In the Western world, modern ideas about death are very different from those in ancient Mediterranean societies, when forms of suicide like self-cremation were often seen as a glorious act. The Western urbane and technocratic society has banished death from the private and the public life.1 Many consider a quick and quiet death, free from suffering, a blessing. If there is a public and ceremonial dimension of death, it usually concerns the post-mortem phase of the cremation, burial or memorial ceremony. Greek and Latin sources from antiquity, including Jewish and Christian passages, express very different views of death, especially of self-sacrifice in

The World Leader from the Land of the Jews: Josephus, Jewish War 6.300-315; Tacitus, Histories 5.13; and Suetonius, Vespasian 4.5

This contribution concerns the oracle about a world leader coming from the land of the Jews, as transmitted by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Jewish War 6.300-315), which is paralleled in Tacitus (Histories 5.13) and Suetonius (Vespasian 4.5). The oracle plays an important role in Michael Molnar’s contextualization of Matthew’s Star of Bethlehem passage. Josephus and Tacitus set the oracle in the period of the Roman war against the Jews (66-70 ce) and connect it with portents indicating disaster. All versions state that the Jews misinterpreted the oracle, and that the ruler it pointed to was Vespasian (or Vespasian and Titus). The similarities between the three versions are so great that it is plausible that they are dependent on each other, or on a common source. The most probable explanation of the interdependency of the three versions is that Josephus is the source of the Latin versions. This explains how the oracle functioned as a reason for the Jews to revolt against the Romans. Josephus’ version may derive from a (messianic) passage in Jewish scripture, as Josephus states, but the content of the oracle is not specific enough to trace it to a specific passage in the Hebrew Bible.

Anti-Judaïsme in ‘n Joodse teks? Die geval van Openbaring

CITATION: Van Henten, J. W. 2011. Anti-Judaisme in ’n joodse teks? die geval van openbaring. Scriptura, 108:282-293, doi:10.7833/108-0-3.

Judas the Maccabee's Dream (2 Macc. 15:11-16) and the Egyptian King's Sickle Sword

The description of Judas Maccabaeus’ final battle with Nicanor in 2 Maccabees 15 juxtaposes a blasphemous Nicanor and a pious Judas, confident that he will be victorious with God’s help (2 Macc 15:7-17, 21-4, 26-7). Judas encourages his soldiers not only by referring to God’s interventions in earlier battles as exemplified in the Torah and the Prophets (15:9; cf. 15:21-4), but also by reporting a dream (15:11-16). This dream adds a prophetic act to its presentation of the deceased high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah as intercessors for the Jewish people and the Holy City, because Jeremiah extends his right hand and delivers a golden sword to Judas (paradou`nai tw`/ Iouda rJomfaivan crush`n) with the following comment: “Take this holy sword as a gift from God, and crush the opponents with it” (Labe; th;n aJgivan rJomfaivan dw`ron para; tou` qeou`, di jh|~ qrauvsei~ tou;~ uJpenantivou~, 2 Macc. 15:16, my trans.). Afterwards Judas triumphs over Nicanor and utterly shames him by having his head and right arm cut off. He hangs those from the citadel as an unmistakable public victory sign (15:30, 32-5). What is the meaning of Jeremiah’s prophetic act? First, the interpretation that might seem obvious at first glance, that the act emphasizes that Judas is the Jews’ legitimate military leader, installed by God through Jeremiah, can hardly be accurate.