¹ The title “Testament of Moses” is used here following R. H. Charles’ analysis of the text and its relation to the lost “Assumption of Moses,” with which our text was identified by its first editor, Antonio Ceriani. See the discussion with references by Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jr, “Introduction,” Studies on the Testament of Moses (ed. by Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jr; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973) 5.Google Scholar

² Charles, R. H., The Assumption of Moses (London: Black, 1897) 38–39Google Scholar and The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 421.Google Scholar

³ Latin text is from Laperrousaz, E.-M., Le Testament de Moïse (Semitica 19; Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴ Charles, Assumption, 39.

⁵ Charles, APOT, 2.421, note on 10:2.

⁶ Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jr, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Harvard Theological Studies 26; Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University/Oxford University, 1972) 28.Google Scholar

⁷ Manson, T. W., “Miscellanea Apocalyptica,” The Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1945) 43.Google Scholar

⁸ The manuscript reads vindicauit; Charles emended this reading to vindicabit, which is clearly required by the context (Assumption, 84–85). Manson follows Charles on this point.

⁹ Ekdikeō has the judicial meaning: procure justice for someone, as well as the more violent meaning: take vengeance, punish; cf. Arndt-Gingrich, ad loc. Compare the use of the verb in both meanings in Rev 6:9–11 and 19:2. Nickelsburg assumes this duality of meaning for vindicabit in TM 10:2 (Resurrection, 29).

¹⁰ Depending on whether the work was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. Cf. Wallace, D. H., “The Semitic Origin of the Assumption of Moses,” ThZ 11 (1955) 321–28.Google Scholar Charles argued for a Hebrew original: Assumption, xxxviii-xlv; A POT, 2.410. According to Wallace, the question is not soluble with certainty on the basis of the currently available data (328).

¹¹ Cf. Ex 28:41 and other texts cited by Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 29, note 94.

¹² Woude, A. S. van der, “Melchizedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschen aus Qumran Höhle 11,” OTS 14 (1965) 354–73Google Scholar; Jonge, M. de and Woude, A. S. van der, “11 Q Melchizedek and the New Testament,” NTS 12 (1966) 301–26.Google Scholar The text is cited from the transcription (302) and the translation (303) given in the latter article. For their comments on TM 10:2, cf. 306. On this document see also Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11,” JBL 86 (1967) 25–41Google Scholar; reprinted in idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (Sources for Biblical Study 5; Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974) 245–67.

¹³ Cf. de Jonge and van der Woude, “11QMelchizedek,” 304; Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek,” 261–62.

¹⁴ The Greek text paraphrased here is that edited by Charles, R. H., The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Oxford University, 1908) 61.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The translation paraphrased here is that of Yadin, Yigael, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University, 1962) 340, 346–48.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See the discussion in Osten-Sacken, Peter von der, Gott und Belial (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1969) 42–49Google Scholar and the literature there cited.

¹⁷ Vss. 3–10 do, however, have a tighter literary unity in that they constitute a Divine Warrior hymn. This genre has been identified by Frank M. Cross, Jr. in his studies of Canaanite and Hebrew poetry. He isolated two types of Divine Warrior hymns: descriptions of the theophany of the Divine Warrior (1) in a march to battle and (2) coming from battle to manifest his kingship (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1973] 155–57).Google Scholar These two types are sometimes mixed, and in any case reflect the same archaic mythic pattern (156, 162–63). In certain prophetic oracles from the age of classical prophecy the mythic pattern upon which the early Divine Warrior hymns were based is adapted to describe the coming of the Divine Warrior in eschatological warfare (169–77, especially 170). Paul D. Hanson has shown that Zechariah 9 must be interpreted in the context of this development (“Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern,” JBL 92 [1973] 37–59).Google Scholar TM 10:3–10 appears to be another example of the adaptation of the Divine Warrior hymn. Its poetic character has been noted, though not discussed in detail (see the first paragraph under The Unity of TM 10 above and note 2 for the opinion of R. H. Charles; see also Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 28). Much of its language, images, and motifs have their roots in the holy war tradition of the Divine Warrior. For example, the “rising up” of the deity in vss. 3 and 7 reflects an archaic holy war formula found in Ps 132:8 and Num 10:35–36 (Cross, CMHE, 95, note 19; 100). The shaking of the earth, the cosmic disturbances, and the drying up of the waters (TM 10:4–6) are motifs which belong to the first type of Divine Warrior hymn described by Cross. When the Divine Warrior marches to battle, “His wrath is reflected in all nature. Mountains shatter; the heavens collapse at his glance. … All nature wilts and languishes. In the foreground is the cosmogonic struggle in which chaos—Yamm or Lôtān—is defeated” (e.g., Judg 5:4–5; Ps 68:8–9 [MT] 68:7–8 [RSV]; Cross, CMHE, 155–56, 100–01.

Furthermore, the structure of TM 10:3–10 reflects the ancient mythic pattern described by Cross and Hanson (Cross, 162–63; Hanson, 56):

TM 10, then, is a poem expressing eschatological hopes which makes use of the genre Divine Warrior hymn in vss. 3–10 and traditions regarding an angelic savior figure in vss. 1–2. TM 10:1–2 may reflect the motif of the accusing and defending angels in an adversary relationship (cf. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 12–13, 29).

¹⁸ Charles, Assumption, lv-lviii; APOT, 2.411.

¹⁹ Zeitlin, Solomon, “The Assumption of Moses and the Revolt of Bar Kokba,” JQR 38 (1947/1948) 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Licht, Jacob, “Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance,” JJS 12 (1961) 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 43–45.

²² John J. Collins, “The Date and Provenance of the Testament of Moses,” Studies on the Testament of Moses (see note 1), 15–32.

²³ Ibid., 6, 43.

²⁴ See the brief discussions by Charles in Assumption, 42 and 88; A POT, 2.422, note on vs. 8.

²⁵ So Charles, Assumption, 42; APOT, 2.422, note on vs. 8.

²⁶ Daniel J. Harrington, “Interpreting Israel's History: The Testament of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut 31–34,” Studies on the Testament of Moses, 59–68.

²⁷ Another passage to which TM 10:8 might be alluding is Isa 40:31; there also no mention is made of the neck or necks of (the) eagle(s).

²⁸ Indirectly in Assumption, 42, note on vs. 8; directly, though cautiously, in APOT, 2.422, note on vs. 8.

²⁹ Targ Onk and Targ Jon: cf. Charles, APOT, 2.422, note on vs. 8.

³⁰ Cf. also Jos 10:24, Bar 4:25.

³¹ APOT, 2.422 and note on vs. 8.

³² Clemen suggested that dies aquilae should be supplied (Ibid.). Klausner's emendation is similar: he would supply dies eius; quoted by Manson, “Miscellanea,” 42, 44.

³³ Josephus, JW 1.647–55; Ant 17.149–67; cf. Hengel, Martin, Die Zeloten (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 264Google Scholar; Buchanan, George Wesley, The Consequences of the Covenant (NovTSup 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 24.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Charles, APOT, 2.419, notes on 6:8–9.

³⁵ Parker, Henry M. D., “Signa militaria,” Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966) 838.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Collins, “The Date and Provenance of the Testament of Moses,” 25–26 and David M. Rhoads, “The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 B.C.—A.D. 48,” Studies on the Testament of Moses, 55–57.