Jewish and Christian “signature features” in the Testament of Job

Abstract

Pseudepigrapha research continues to slowly embrace the “default position” when working with texts of uncertain origin: start by investigating the Christian reception of a text, before attempting to work back toward its purported Jewish provenance. Taking a pseudepigraphon as Christian until proven otherwise—as a theoretical and methodological stance—has led some scholars to break with the general consensus concerning the Jewish origins of the Testament of Job, citing a lack of any identifiable Jewish or Christian “signature features” in the work. While sympathetic to the default position, this paper considers features of the Testament that should each be considered distinctively characteristic of Judaism (the intermarriage prohibition, T. Job 45:3) and Christianity (the use of the Greek compounds ἀπροσωπόληπτός, T. Job 4:8 and προσωπολήπτης, 43:13, attested only in Christian texts). The conclusions drawn from this study support the position that the Testament of Job is a Jewish diaspora text and that the instances of Christian language are most satisfactorily explained as later Christian scribal emendation.

The provenance of the Testament of Job remains a topic of keen interest in pseudepigrapha research. Although all our texts for the Testament only survive in late Christian manuscripts, earlier scholarship has generally assumed a Jewish origin, ¹ positing various Jewish groups that may have stood behind the work (the Essenes, ² Therapeutae, ³ a sect of Merkabah mysticism ⁴ ). Recent scholarship tends to favor more general designations, ⁵ positing a Jewish Egyptian provenance sometime between 100 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. ⁶ Parallels between the Testament and early Christian literature are too opaque to justify an intertextual connection, ⁷ and there are no major theological or thematic emphases considered incongruent with a Jewish milieu. It has been argued that the general consensus of the Testament’s Jewish origins is a result of the “old default position”—a proclivity in earlier scholarship to assign Jewish provenance to extra-biblical writings if they lack overt and extensive Christian characteristics. This methodological stance assumes that a text is early and Jewish until proven otherwise.

Most recently, this tentative consensus has been challenged on the grounds of method and presupposition. Among others, James Davila has problematized the proclivity in scholarship to assign Jewish provenance to extra-biblical writings if they lack overt and extensive Christian characteristics. ⁸ The assumption that a text is “Jewish until proven otherwise” is a rather perilous one since, as Davila has shown, early Christians were more than capable of composing works that had few to no Christian signature features. ⁹ This means that there are no clear criteria to methodologically distinguish between: a Jewish composition with minor Christian scribal redaction; a Christian composition with minimal Christian signature features; or even a Christian composition with no Christian signature features. ¹⁰ In light of this problem, Davila posits that “it is preferable to eliminate some genuine Jewish works from consideration if we cannot be sure of their genuineness, than to mistake Christian or non-Christian Gentile works for Jewish ones.” ¹¹ Thus, Davila joins a growing number of scholars in resetting the default position in the study of pseudepigrapha: since we know that the vast majority of pseudepigraphic texts where read and persevered by Christian communities, investigation should begin first with the Christian context of the text’s manuscript tradition. ¹² Only then can we attempt to work back toward an earlier Jewish provenance (if there be one). ¹³

It is on this basis that Davila reassesses the evidence for the supposed Jewish origins for the Testament of Job. Noting that the earliest Coptic fragments date from the early fifth century, Davila suggests that “no positive evidence compels us to move beyond a Greek work written in Christian, perhaps Egyptian, circles by the early fifth century C.E.” ¹⁴ Indeed, Davila asserts that the Testament “contains no indubitably Christian or Jewish signature features”; ¹⁵ the Testament’s themes of conversion and martyrdom, ¹⁶ spiritual ascent (e.g., T. Job 52:8–10), and interest in glossolalia (48–50; 52:7) all find precedent within Judaism and late antique Christianity. ¹⁷ If one starts with the new default position, in which a lack of Christian characteristics is not positive evidence for a Jewish original, then we must remain agnostic regarding the provenance of the Testament. ¹⁸

While I am in general agreement with approaching pseudepigrapha from the new default, ¹⁹ I find Davila’s handling of the actual evidence for the Testament of Job a little weak. Given that his book seeks to problematize previously held assumptions of Jewish provenance, it is surprising to find less than four pages dedicated to the provenance of the Testament. It is perhaps due to this sparse treatment of the pseudepigraphon that significant Jewish and Christian signature features have been overlooked. This article attempts to pick up the shortfall by attending to two such features: the intermarriage prohibition in T. Job 45:3 and the ostensibly Christian language for divine impartiality (προσωπολήμπτης κτλ.) in T. Job 4:8 and 43:13.

Part 1: a Jewish “signature feature”: the intermarriage prohibition

Typical of the testamentary genre, the Testament of Job opens with a deathbed scene in which the dying hero addresses his children. The genre provides a vehicle for ethical instruction, in which the audience is implicitly invited to assume the place of the children, gathered around to hear and learn from the revered elder: “And having called his ten children he said: ‘Gather around, my children, gather around me, and I shall show you what the Lord did with me and all the things that have happened to me’” (T. Job 1:4). The ensuing narrative is filled with ethical exemplarity, highlighting Job’s endurance (1:5), ²⁰ care for the poor (9:2–10:7), and eschatological mindset, ²¹ all worthy of emulation. It may strike the reader then as a little out of place ²² to find at the close of Job’s speech an adamant prohibition of intermarriage:

And now, my children, behold, I am dying. Only, do not forget the Lord. Do good to the poor. Do not overlook the powerless. Do not take to yourselves wives from strangers (μὴ λάβετε ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων). (T. Job 45:1–3) ²³

Why this admonition against intermarriage? And why does it appear with such prominence at the ethical summation of Job’s speech? While the Testament’s concern for endogamy is occasionally singled out as a distinctive Jewish feature of the text, ²⁴ a careful examination of the evidence and its function in the Testament has yet to be undertaken.

Marrying foreign women in Second Temple Judaism

Investigation must begin by tracing the development of Jewish prohibitions to marrying “strangers” (ἀλλότριοι). ἀλλότριος is a common biblical term used to designate non-Israelites, found in a number of contexts prohibiting intermarriage. ²⁵ The Book of Ezra makes the frequent injunction not to marry נשׁים נכריות‎ (LXX: γυναῖκας ἀλλοτρίας), ²⁶ fearing that “the holy seed (זרע הקדשׁ, LXX: σπέρμα τὸ ἅγιον) has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:2). The casting of the post-exilic community as “holy seed” is an important facet of Ezra’s rationale for endogamy. While open to several interpretations, ²⁷ the “holy seed” designation seems to function as a boundary marker for the golah against their perceived opponents, “the peoples of the lands.” The term only appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, and its use here in Ezra 9:2 likely reflects Isa 6:13, which earlier envisions Israel’s reduction to a purified remnant through the horrors of exile. As “a small (see Ezra 9.8) minority in the midst of the surrounding cultures,” strict boundary maintenance and anti-assimilation policies were crucial to ensuring group survival. ²⁸ By describing the returned remnant as a “holy seed,” issues of group identity are recast in terms of purity and defilement. ²⁹ As A. Philip Brown relates, “Exogamous marriage was perceived as a threat to the identity of the community; therefore, only marriage to those within the bounds of the golah community was acceptable.” ³⁰

The “holy seed ideology” continued to develop as a feature of group maintenance in connection to the prohibition of intermarriage. ³¹ The post-exilic prophet Malachi spoke out against the nation for profaning the people, the “holiness of YHWH” (קדשׁ יהוה‎), by marrying “the daughter of a foreign god” (בת־אל נכר‎) (Mal 2:11). The prophet “goes on to criticize their divorce of Israelite women (vv. 14, 16) since the consequence is that they have not produced a ‘godly seed’ (זרע אלהים‎, v. 15).” ³² Tobit likewise stresses the importance of taking a wife from one’s own ancestral seed:

Beware, my son, of every kind of fornication. First of all, marry a woman from among the descendants (σπέρματος) of your ancestors; do not marry a foreign woman (γυναῖκα ἀλλοτρίαν), who is not of your father’s tribe; for we are the descendants of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors of old, all took wives from among their kindred. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity (τὸ σπέρμα) will inherit the land. So now, my son, love your kindred, and in your heart do not disdain your kindred, the sons and daughters of your people, by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in pride there is ruin and great confusion. (Tobit 4:12–13)

Jubilees chapter 30 uses the episode of Genesis 34 (the rape of Dinah) as a foil for developing the topics of intermarriage and impurity. The author states in 30:7, “If there is any man who wishes in Israel to give his daughter or his sister to any man who is of the seed of the Gentiles he shall surely die.” Jubilees applies the prohibition of child sacrifice in Lev 20:2–5 to the issue at hand:

. . . the man who has defiled his daughter shall be rooted out in the midst of all Israel, because he has given of his seed to Moloch, and wrought impiously so as to defile it. And do thou, Moses, command the children of Israel and exhort them not to give their daughters to the Gentiles, and not to take for their sons any of the daughters of the Gentiles, for this is abominable before the Lord. (Jub. 30:10–11; cf. chs. 20–22; 25:1–10)

The link between intermarriage and the worship of foreign deities is visceral. The danger of such marriages is significantly heightened in Jubilees, so much so that Gentile conversion is in fact an impossibility with the framework of Jubilees. ³³

Endogamy and the “holy seed” ideology in the Testament of Job

Jubilees 30 provides an interesting point of comparison with the Testament of Job, given the tradition of Job’s conversion to Judaism and marriage to Dinah (T. Job 1:6; cf. Ps-Philo l.a.b. 8:7–8; Targum of Job 2:9). The author of the Testament clearly has a place for Gentile conversion. In fact, Job is characterized as the ideal convert. His intellectual doubts concerning pagan worship were confirmed by angelic encounter, revealing the truth of his idol’s temple as “really the place of Satan” (T. Job 1:6). Job’s zeal for the true God results in an act of iconoclasm, precipitating his adversarial struggle against Satan. Job is promised fame, prosperity, and the hope of resurrection if he endures Satan’s attacks and remains unmoved in his opposition to idolatry. He rises to the challenge, proves his allegiance to the one true God through resolute and prolonged suffering, and is assimilated into Israel’s patriarchal lineage through marriage to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob.

Despite Job’s pagan beginnings, the Testament is careful to note the Jewish identity of Job’s children. ³⁴ Job the convert begins his speech by marveling that his children are legitimate descendants of the line of Israel: “you are a chosen and honoured race from the seed of Jacob (ἐκ σπέρματος Ἰακὼβ), the father of your mother” (T. Job 1:5 [P]). ³⁵ Job’s conversion, perseverance, and marriage to Dinah result in bearing “seed” from the “chosen and honoured race.” It is perhaps this initial foregrounding of Job’s children as Israelite “seed” that explains Job’s injunction at the end of the speech prohibiting intermarriage:

And now, my children, behold I am dying. Above all, do not forget the Lord. Do good to the poor. Do not overlook the helpless. Do not take to yourselves wives from strangers (γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων). (T. Job 45:1–3) ³⁶

Given the strong connection in Second Temple Judaism between the “holy seed ideology” and the prohibition of exogamy, ³⁷ the opening and close of Job’s deathbed speech forms a kind of inclusio concerning his children and group identity. Since (in the early Jewish mind) idolatry goes hand-in-hand with foreign marriage (Deut 7:2–3; Neh 13:26; Jos. Asen. 8:5), ³⁸ Job’s conversion, iconoclasm, and marriage into the people of Israel would have been for naught if his offspring, the celebrated “seed of Jacob,” were to take for themselves foreign wives. For the Jewish reader of the Testament, the ethical injunction would have been a much-needed message within a diaspora context. Robert Kugler notes that the testamentary genre offers

a roadmap for Jewish identity in the context to which [each testament] was addressed, and each does so through the same, widely used rhetorical device directly related to the [testamentary genre], pseudepigraphic speeches of figures revered among the Jews of the Greco-Roman world. ³⁹

In the case of the Testament of Job, likely pressures from the pagan majority culture, fears of persecution, and loss of status all coalesce to form a significant challenge to Jewish identity. ⁴⁰ The framing of Job’s speech around his Jewish children provides a vehicle for the post-exilic diaspora community to stave off the threats of assimilation as “a chosen, honoured race of the seed of Jacob” (T. Job 1:5). ⁴¹ Thus, the intermarriage prohibition is not a throwaway ethical trope, but proves to be integrally connected to the theme of conversion and group identity in the Testament. ⁴²

Assessing alternate explanations: Christian endogamy

The above analysis only holds weight if endogamy is indeed a Jewish signature feature. Most early Christian texts that deal with marriage are framed around questions of divorce (and subsequent remarriage), and so we do not find the kinds of broad and general discussion about marriage and the status of children as are well attested in Second Temple Judaism.

The Shepherd of Hermas contains an admonition against letting “a thought enter your heart concerning a γυναικὸς ἀλλοτρίας” (29:1), although in context this refers to “another’s wife” rather than a “foreign woman,” the positive counterpart being to “remember your own wife” (σῆς μνημονεύων πάντοτε γυναικὸς). Similarly in Hermas 45:1, “Before all is desire for the wife or husband of another (γυναικὸς ἀλλοτρίας ἢ ἀνδρὸς)”; the presence of ἢ ἀνδρὸς (“or husband”) demonstrates that it is simply someone else’s spouse, rather than a foreigner, that is in view. We should also note that the meaning of γυναικὸς ἀλλοτρίας here in Hermas cannot easily be read into T. Job 45:3 without disrupting the connection to Job’s conversion and the “seed” ideology detailed above.

Yet we cannot overlook the fact the early Christians did advocate for a kind of “group endogamy,” ruling that Christians should only marry other Christians. ⁴³ Paul’s concession that a widow is “free to remarry anyone she wishes” is tempered with the qualifier, but “only in the Lord (μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ)” (1 Cor 7:39), as well as the warning not to be “unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor 6:14). While the latter text does not specifically refer to marriage, early Christian interpreters of Paul often took it in such terms (e.g. Cyprian Test. 3.62 [ANF 4:550]). ⁴⁴ Ignatius advises those entering marriage do so only with the “sanction of the bishop” so that marriage may be “according to the Lord and not desire” (κατὰ Κύριον καὶ μὴ κατ᾿ ἐπιθυμίαν) (Ign. Pol 5:2). In regard to the children of mixed marriages (a believing and an unbelieving spouse), Paul gives the following advice:

And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy (ἡγίασται) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean (ἀκάθαρτά), but as it is, they are holy (ἅγιά). (1 Cor 7:13–14 NRSV)

Many aspects of this passage are obscure, yet at the very least we can note how “holiness” is a key self-designation for Christians. ⁴⁵ “What is clear and emphatic in Paul’s phrasing . . . is that in their present state, the children are holy,” ⁴⁶ meaning they are considered a part of the Christian community. In J. B. Lightfoot’s judgment, “plainly the children of mixed marriages were regarded as in some sense Christian children. We cannot say more or less than this.” ⁴⁷

While the spiritualized group endogamy of early Christians bears some similarity to the ethno-religious endogamy of Second Temple Judaism, Paul’s understanding of mixed-marriage children as holy and members of the Christian community is hard to square with the logic of the intermarriage prohibition in the Testament of Job. Job’s children are not considered community members based on the faith(fulness) of either parent—their link to the community is hereditary, through the matrilineal line of Dinah. Job’s conversion and virtuous life help legitimate his marriage to Dinah as authentically Jewish, but Job must point to his children’s status as “the seed of Jacob, the father of your mother” (T. Job 1:5), to legitimize their place in the community. Thus, the prohibition against intermarriage and the legitimate status of children within the community are not spiritualized or reconceptualized metaphorically—they remain firmly tied to physical ancestral descent and ethno-religious considerations.

These issues of marriage and children are bound up with a wider debate concerning the Jewish and Christian ethnicity. ⁴⁸ I agree with Horrell’s problematization of ethnicity as a simple category, separable from one’s religious identity. ⁴⁹ Yet in terms of marriage, Jewish (or Judaean) ancestral exogamy and “group exogamy” of Jewish-Christian groups are very different in practice, despite having similar goals (maintaining group boundaries). Unlike Ezra, Malachi, Jubilees, Tobit, or Joseph and Aseneth, ⁵⁰ the language of “foreign women” is not linked to the prohibition of marriage in any undisputed Christian text. Neither is ἀλλοτρίας (or its synonyms) used as a standard outsider designation by early Christians. ⁵¹ Despite a prevailing “group exogamy” among Christians, the warning against marrying outside of the faith is never conceptualized in hereditary terms. ⁵² And as the church became increasingly Gentile, framing the issue in such terms became even less intelligible. ⁵³

Summary

The prohibition of intermarriage in the Testament of Job is no paraenetic afterthought, but is integrally tied to central concerns in the Testament: conversion and group identity, both pressing issues within a diaspora context. The Testament’s concern for endogamy fits well with linguistic expressions found in Second Temple Jewish texts (not marrying γυναῖκας ἀλλοτρίας, the “holy seed” ideology), expressions not developed by Christians. ⁵⁴ The emphasis on group maintenance through physical descent does not square with spiritualized group endogamy of early Christianity, and Paul’s provisions for mixed marriages and the acceptance of children as part of the Christian community likewise eschew the Testament’s ancestral and ethno-religious focus. While both Jewish and Christian communities were for the most part equally exclusivist toward outsiders, endogamy in the literal sense, and as we encounter it in the Testament of Job, is best understood as an eminently Jewish characteristic.

Part 2: a Christian “signature feature”: divine impartiality (προσωπολήπτης)

The second part of this paper turns to consider a potential Christian signature feature in the Testament of Job. The Testament contains two statements concerning “divine impartiality” using what appears to be a Christian neologism.

At the angel’s revelation that the temple where Job worships is “really the place of Satan,” Job vows to destroy it, knowing that his demonic adversary “will raise up against you with wrath for war” (T. Job 4:4). Calamity will strike, his property and servants will be lost (4:5), but if he endures, the Lord will reward him justly: “And I will return you again to your goods. It will be repaid to you doubly, so you may know that the Lord is impartial (ἀπροσωπόληπτός)—rendering good things to each one who obeys” (4:7–8).

When Elious and Job’s three friends are censored by the Lord for not having “spoken truly regarding my servant Job” (42:5), the Lord commands the friends to seek Job to sacrifice on their behalf, “in order that your sin might be taken away” (42:6). No such possibility of redemption is extended to Elious; as “the one who spoke in him was not a human but a beast” (42:2), Elious will face judgment without restraint. In response to Elious’ judgment, Eliphaz breaks forth in hymnic praise (ch. 43). Extolling the Lord for the demise of “wicked” (πονηρὸς) Elious (43:17), Eliphaz pronounces, “Righteous is the Lord, true are his judgments. With him there is no partiality (οὐκ ἔστιν προσωποληψία). He will judge us with one mind (ὁμοθυμαδόν)” (43:13).

Apart from their attestation in the Testament, the terms προσωπολήμπτης and ἀπροσωπόλημπτός are found only in the writings of the New Testament and early Christian literature. ⁵⁵ Etymologically, the lexeme and its cognates are a compound form of the phrase πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, the common LXX rendering of the Hebrew idiom נשׂא פנים‎ (“to show partiality,” lit: “to lift up the face”). ⁵⁶ While the neologism enjoyed wide use among Christian writers, Jewish texts from the Second Temple period never use the compound form, always preferring the two-word Septuagintal idiom.

There are three possibilities that could account for the attestation of προσωπολήπτης κτλ. in the Testament of Job:

A Jewish provenance

The Testament probably predates (or at least has no knowledge of) the New Testament writings and records the first and only Jewish use of the compound noun. ⁵⁷ Despite such sparse attestation, the nominal Greek compound “was probably in use already in Hellenistic Judaism,” according to Eduard Lohse. ⁵⁸

Lohse makes this supposition based on the term’s appearance in the Christian Haustafeln (Col 3:25 and Eph 6:9), which likely had earlier antecedents in Hellenistic Judaism. This, however, is a rather contrived logic, given that the compound does not appear in the other New Testament Haustafeln (1 Tim 2:8–15; 5:1–2; 6:1–2; Tit 2:1–3:8; 1 Pet 2:13–3:7), and in fact appears more frequently in other contexts (e.g., Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Jas 2:1, 9). ⁵⁹ The more recent tendency to understand Christian Haustafeln as influenced by the wider Greco-Roman culture also pushes against Lohse’s position. ⁶⁰ Since we have extensive evidence that the two-word idiom (πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν) was well known and widely used in the Second Temple period, there is no evidence (save our Testament of disputed provenance) to suggest that the compound form derives from Hellenistic Judaism. ⁶¹

A Christian provenance

A second option: The Greek compound προσωπολήμπτης κτλ. arose within early Christian circles ⁶² and was not further adopted by a wider population. Its attestation in the Testament is best accounted for by assuming a Christian provenance for the work, taking for granted the author’s familiarity with the New Testament. ⁶³

I have already noted the majority of scholars’ apprehensions toward assigning the Testament a Christian provenance, as well as my own attempt at understanding the intermarriage prohibition in T. Job 45:3 as a Jewish signature feature of the text. Of course, to say as much is somewhat begging the question. A better way to approach the issue is to ask whether the references to impartiality in the Testament are consistent with the usage we find in the New Testament and early Christian literature. In order to bring Christian usage of the compound into relief, it will be necessary to trace the development of idiom from its Semitic origins, through the Second Temple period, into its early Christian usage.

The “lifting the face” idiom

The Hebrew Bible attests several distinct senses for the “lifting the face” idiom. ⁶⁴ Broadly, the idiom could assume a positive connotation (“to accept,” “receive favorably,” “to show favor,” “hold a clear conscience”) or a negative connotation (“to show partiality or favoritism”). ⁶⁵ Both הכיר פנים‎ and נשׂא פנים‎ were used in its positive and negative sense. Negative usage found its chief expression in legal contexts:

You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great (בַּמִּשְׁפָּט לׁא־תִשָּׂא פְנֵי־דָל וְלׁא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל‎), but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour. (Lev 19:15; cf. Deut 16:19).

Naturally, this notion would extend to affirmations concerning Israel’s God, in his rendering of divine judgment:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial (אֲשֶׁר לׁא־יִשָּׂא פָנִים‎) and takes no bribe. (Deut 10:17; cf. 2 Chr 19:7)

During the Second Temple period, the negative sense of the idiom would dominate, primarily in juridical contexts with a divine referent. Greek renderings of the phrase in LXX were fairly literal, although no clear standard translation emerged—Greek equivalents varied widely depending on context. ⁶⁶ Recently, Menahem Kister ⁶⁷ and Guy Darshan ⁶⁸ have argued that נשׂא פנים‎ took on a new sense in Ben Sira 4:22 and 42:1, ⁶⁹ meaning “to be ashamed (in front of someone).” ⁷⁰ The semantic shift is attested in the occasional LXX rendering of נשׂא פנים‎ in Job 32:21 (αἰσχύνω) and 34:19 (ἐπαισχύνομαι) and הכיר פנים‎ in Prov 28:21 (αἰσχύνω) and Isa 3:9 (αἰσχύνη). ⁷¹ Outside of these cases, Second Temple texts overwhelmingly employ the idiom with God as the exclusive subject, in a context of rendering judgment. ⁷²

The earliest use of the idiom in the New Testament is found in Paul. The full idiom is used in Gal 2:6. In Galatians, Paul is eminently concerned with “pleasing God” and not “pleasing man” (Gal 1:10)—mutually exclusive categories—in the proclamation of the gospel. Paul’s travels and “brief association with the Jerusalem apostles” emphasize the fact that “he did not ingratiate himself with them or seek to rise through their ranks,” ⁷³ the kind of political maneuvering that typified his “former life in Judaism” (1:13–14). The truth of the gospel is not ratified by apostolic rank; “Paul does not base the proof of his message on a vote of the Jerusalem counsel,” ⁷⁴ and thus he writes concerning the leading figures of the Jerusalem church:

And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality [πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει])—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. (Gal 2:6)

The theologoumenon has a proverbial function: God is not impressed with status or swayed by appearances—and neither should the recipients of Paul’s letter. In fact, it is Paul’s indifference to status and people-pleasing by which he implies the truthfulness of his message over against his opponents. ⁷⁵ The reference to God’s impartiality is not related in any way to divine judgment, but to God’s disregard of the status of an individual, whether rich or poor, influential, or unassuming.

Rom 2:11, which contains our first Christian attestation of the compound neologism, has a decidedly different context. While also spoken as a theologoumenon, unlike Gal 2:6, the pericope of Romans 2 is decidedly juridical. ⁷⁶ Paul understands God’s judgment to run through religio-ethnic boundaries, not between: “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου) who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek” (Rom 2:9). The same is true for eschatological reward: “but glory and honour and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For there is no partiality (προσωπολημψία) with God” (2:10–11). Bassler has argued that Paul’s statement on divine impartiality in 2:11 is raised to “thematic status” in the ensuing argument of the letter:

This theme correlates with the emphasis in 1:18–2:11 on recompense according to works and with the discussion in 2:12–29 of the equity with which God judges Jews and Gentiles, but even more significantly it anticipates Paul’s stress later in this letter on the impartiality inherent in his message of justification by faith… Paul has taken a familiar Jewish axiom, infused it with new content, and used it as the primary theological warrant for his sustained exposition of justification by faith for Jews and Gentiles. ⁷⁷

Divine impartiality also appears as the justification for the Gentile mission in Acts 10. ⁷⁸ After witnessing the god-fearing Cornelius receive the Holy Spirit, Peter proclaims,

Truly I understand that God shows no partiality (προσωπολήμπτης), but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all). (Acts 10:34–36)

References to impartiality in the later New Testament and early Christian literature expanded beyond their theological functions in Paul and Acts. The term still appears in theologoumena, but removed from debates concerning the Gentile mission, giving instead general warning of divine retribution (Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; 1 Pet 1:17; Barn 4:12). Impartiality would also develop beyond an attribute of God, becoming a desirable virtue for Christians (1 Clem 1:13), while favoritism was seen as a vice characterizing heretics (Jude 16), unbecoming of believers (Jas 2:1, 9)—especially presbyters (Pol. Phil. 6:1) and bishops (Ap. Const. 2.9.1–2, 2.17.1, 2.42.1–5, 2.58.4).

From this brief survey of the development of the Semitic idiom for impartiality, the references to ἀπροσωπόληπτός and προσωποληψία in the Testament of Job are seen to accord with the pattern of usage attested in Second Temple Judaism. The references to impartiality in T. Job 4:8 and 43:13 are both negative theologoumena concerned with rendering judgment. There also appears to be an intertextual connection between T. Job 43:13, where Eliphaz extols God for accepting the sacrifices of Job, and LXX Job 42:8, where God instructs Job to sacrifice on behalf of his friends, since “only his face will I accept” (εἰ μὴ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ λήμψομαι). ⁷⁹ And while early Christian literature uses the term with numerous referents in variegated contexts, the consistent pattern of usage for the concept in Second Temple Judaism related almost exclusively to divine judgment, as we find in the Testament. ⁸⁰ A full comparison of idiom usage in Jewish and Christian literature is given below (Table 1). ⁸¹

Table 1.

Patterns of use for the “lifting the face” idiom.

		Positive	Negative	God as subject	Rendering judgment	No bribes
Gen 19:21	נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ‎ ἐθαύμασά . . . πρόσωπον	✓			(✓)
Lev 19:15	לֹא־תִשָּׂא פְנֵי־דָל‎ οὐ λήμψῃ πρόσωπον πτωχοῦ		✓		✓
Deut 1:17	לֹא־תַכִּירוּ פָנִים‎ οὐκ ἐπιγνώσῃ πρόσωπον		✓		✓
Deut 10:17	לֹא־יִשָּׂא פָנִים‎ οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον		✓	✓	✓	✓
Deut 16:19	לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים‎ οὐκ ἐπιγνώσονται πρόσωπον		✓		✓	✓
Deut 28:50	לֹא־יִשָּׂא פָנִים‎ οὐ θαυμάσει πρόσωπον	✓
1 Sam 28:50	וָאֶשָּׂא פָּנָיִךְ‎ ᾑρέτισα τὸ πρόσωπόν σου	✓
2 Kgs 5:1	נְשֻׂא פָנִים‎ τεθαυμασμένος προσώπῳ	✓
2 Chr 19:7	מַשֹּׂא פָנִים‎ θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον		✓	✓
Ps 82:2	תִּשְׂאו‎ . . . וּפְנֵי‎ πρόσωπα . . . λαμβάνετε		✓		✓
Prov 18:5	שְׂאֵת פְּנֵי‎ θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον		✓
Prov 28:21	הַכֵּר־פָּנִים‎ οὐκ αἰσχύνεται πρόσωπα		✓
Job 13:8	הֲפָנָיו תִּשָּׂאוּן‎ ὑποστελεῖσθε		✓
Job 13:10	פָּנִים תִּשָּׂאוּן‎ πρόσωπα θαυμάσετε		✓
Job 22:8	וּנְשׂוּא פָנִים‎ ἐθαύμασας . . . πρόσωπον	✓
Job 32:21	אַל־נָא אֶשָּׂא פְנֵי־אִישׁ οὐ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶ		✓
Job 34:19	לֹא־נָשָׂא פְּנֵי‎ οὐκ ἐπῃσχύνθη πρόσωπον		✓
Job 42:9b	אֶת־פְּנֵי‎ . . . וַיִּשָּׂא‎	✓		✓
Is 9:14	וּנְשׂוּא־פָנִים‎ τοὺς τὰ πρόσωπα θαυμάζοντας	✓
Lam 4:16	לֹא נָשָׂאוּ‎ . . . פְּנֵי‎ πρόσωπον . . . οὐκ ἔλαβον	✓
Mal 1:8	הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ‎ λήμψεται πρόσωπόν	✓
Mal 1:19	פָּנִים‎ . . . הֲיִשָּׂא‎ λήμψομαι . . . πρόσωπα	✓		✓
Mal 2:9	וְנֹשְׂאִים פָּנִים‎ ἐλαμβάνετε πρόσωπα		✓
LXX Dan 6:13a	μηδὲ θαυμάσῃς πρόσωπον		✓
LXX Job 32:22	θαυμάσαι πρόσωπον		✓
LXX Job 42:8	εἰ μὴ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ λήμψομαι	✓		✓	✓
Sir 4:22(MS A)	אל תשׂא פנים‎ μὴ λάβῃς πρόσωπον		✓
Sir 4:27(MS A)	אל תמאן לפני‎ μὴ λάβῃς πρόσωπον		✓
Sir 20:22 (Greek MS 248)	λήψεως προσώπου		✓
Sir 35:13(LXX)	οὐ λήμψεται πρόσωπον		✓	✓	✓	✓
Sir 42:1(Masada)	אל תשׂא פנים‎ μὴ λάβῃς πρόσωπον		✓
1QH 6, 30	ולא אשא פני ר֯ע֯‎		✓	✓		✓
11Q19 col. 51, 12	ולוא יכרירו פנים‎		✓		✓	✓
11Q13 col. 2, 11 (Ps 82:2)	[או] ופני רשע[י]ם תש‎		✓		✓
1 Enoch 63:8	ወገጸ . . . ኢይነሥኡ [receive the face] 82		✓	✓	✓
Jub. 5:16	ዘይነሥእ ፡ ገጸ [receive face] 83		✓	✓	✓	✓
Jub. 21:4	accipere personam		✓	✓	✓	✓
Jub. 30:16	accipiat personam		✓	(✓)	✓
Jub 33:18	[perso]nam accipere		✓	✓	✓	✓
Jub. 40:8	ወነሢአ ፡ ገጽ [receive face]		✓	Joseph	✓	✓
Pss. Sol. 2:18	οὐ θαυμάσει πρόσωπον		✓	✓	✓
1 Esd 4:39	λαμβάνειν πρόσωπα		✓	(✓)	✓
2 Bar 13:8	ܒܐ̈ܦܐ ܡܣܒ [receive face] 84		✓	✓	✓
2 Bar 44:4	ܒܐ̈ܦܐ ܡܣܒ [receive face]		✓	✓	✓ (cf. 3–5)
Ps.-Philo, LAB 20:4	personam non accepit		✓	✓	✓ 85
Ps.-Phoc. 10	μὴ κρῖνε πρόσωπον		✓		✓
Philo Spec. 177	οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον		✓	✓	✓	✓
Mark 12:14 = Matt 22:16//Luke 20:21	οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων // οὐ λαμβάνεις πρόσωπον		✓	Jesus
Acts 10:34	οὐκ . . . προσωπολήμπτης		✓	✓
Rom 2:11	οὐ . . . προσωπολημψία		✓	(✓) 86	✓
Gal 2:6	πρόσωπον . . . ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει		✓	✓
Eph 6:9	προσωπολημψία οὐκ		✓	✓	✓
Col 3:25	οὐκ . . . προσωπολημψία		✓		✓
Jas 2:1	μὴ ἐν προσωπολημψίαις		✓		(✓) 87
Jas 2:9	προσωπολημπτεῖτε		✓
1 Pet 1:17	ἀπροσωπολήμπτως		✓	✓	✓
Jude 16	θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα		✓
1 Clem. 1:13	ἀπροσωπολήμπτως		✓
Barn. 4:12	ἀπροσωπολήμπτως		✓	✓	✓
Did. 4:3	οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον		✓		✓
Did. 4:10 = Barn. 19:7	οὐ κατὰ πρόσωπον		✓	✓
Pol. Phil 6:1	ἀπεχόμενοι . . . προσωποληψίας		✓	Presbyter	✓
Justin Martyr Tyrpho 124 (Ps 82:2)	πρόσωπα ἁμαρτωλῶν λαμβάνετε		✓		✓
Clem. Alex. Paed. 1.6.31.1	ἁπάσης ἐκτὸς προσωποληψίας		✓
Clem Alex. Strom. 6.8.63.5 (Acts 10:34)	οὐκ… προσωπολήμπτης		✓	✓
Clem. Alex. Paed. 3.12.95.1–2 (Eph 6:9)	προσωπολημψία οὐκ		✓	✓	✓
Clem. Alex. Strom. 4.8.65.3 (Col 3:25)	οὐκ . . . προσωπολημψία		✓		✓
Ap. Const. 2.9.1	ἀπροσωπόληπτον 88		✓	Bishop
Ap. Const. 2.9.2	οὐκ . . . προσωπολήπτης		✓	Bishop
Ap. Const. 2.17.1	προσωποληϕίαν		✓	Bishop		✓
Ap. Const. 2.42.1, 5	προσωποληϕίαν		✓	Bishop		✓
Ap. Const. 2.58.4	μὴ προσωποληπτῶν		✓	Bishop
Ap. Const. 4.4.3	προσωπολήπτης		✓
Hegesippus (apud Eusebius, H.E. 2.23.10)	πρόσωπον οὐ λαμβάνεις		✓	James, brother of Jesus
T. Job 4:8	ἀπροσωπόληπτός		✓	✓	✓
T. Job 43:13	οὐκ . . . προσωποληψία		✓	✓	✓

A Christian emendation

If the Testament’s use of the impartiality idiom best fits the pattern of usage established in Second Temple Judaism (2), yet the compound προσωπολήμπτης is more than likely a Christian neologism (1), a third option presents itself for consideration: The presence of the (im)partiality compound in the Testament’s Greek MSS is a result of Christian scribal emendation. The Vorlage would then likely have contained the Septuagintal phrase πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, which was subsequently changed in light of the New Testament compound form. We have already noted Davila’s critique of those quick to excise “explicitly Christian content . . . on redaction-critical grounds,” ⁸⁹ but, having weighed the relative merits and demerits of other options, an emendation theory may well be the best explanation of the evidence.

In favor of such of this third explanation, two further points should be considered:

• (a) All our MSS are Christian texts. While the Testament may originally have been a Jewish composition, the surviving MSS all bear marks of their Christian tradents. For example, the Coptic fragments for the Testament are part of a fourth-century codex that also contained Christian texts such as the Testament of Adam and the Acts of Peter and Andrew, and thus the placement of the Testament of Job alongside Old and New Testament heroes contributes to our understanding of the Christian reception of the Testament. ⁹⁰ The Greek witnesses S and V employ nomina sacra, meaning that scribes routinely emended the Vorlage or an earlier textform to conform to contemporary, Christian scribal habits. ⁹¹ It is evident that in the textual transmission of the Testament, Christian scribes were altering their source text in light of Christian practices, ⁹² and this could extend to the emendation of πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν to προσωπολήπτης. ⁹³

• (b) The Testament attests a later spelling. Attestations of the compound form in the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers adopt the earlier spelling of the word, προσωπολήμπτης, which retained the -μ- (BDF §119.2). ⁹⁴ The Testament, like the later Christian writings (Apostolic Constitutions) and the New Testament variants in the Byzantine MSS, all drop the -μ-, adopting the later spelling προσωπολήπτης. ⁹⁵ The later spelling indicates that either the work itself is late or that the text has been changed to a later spelling by its Christian tradents, which further supports the previous point (a) concerning Christian scribal activity.

Conclusion

The default position (beginning with the Christian MSS tradition and reception) generally assumes that a text is Christian until proven otherwise. This increases the criterial rigor of our methodology for determining texts of Jewish provenance while guarding our reconstruction of early Judaism from “false positives.” The aim of this investigation has not been to overturn this methodological position, but to rise to the challenge. We should not be quick to excise Christian elements of a text to fit a preconceived theory of provenance. But there may well be times when Christian emendation of a text is the best explanation of the evidence at hand. And in the case of positive signature features, the Testament’s intermarriage prohibition provides a strong case for Jewish provenance. While Davila’s cursory analysis found no Christian or Jewish signature features, this study has highlighted clear examples of each. Based on the Jewish and Christian signature features considered in this article, I believe the evidence best supports a Jewish, non-Christian provenance for the Testament of Job.