The Heptadic Chronologies of Testament of Levi 16–17 and Their Sources

Introduction

In the present Christian composition of Testament of Levi (T. Levi), chs. 16–17 stand out as a unique section. Only in these two chapters, the author employs chronological patterns which are moreover based on a successive count of weeks of years and jubilees. This rationale is evidently inspired by a specific type of Jewish chronology which was variously attested in late Second Temple times. In the following, I will attempt to reconstruct the nature of the Jewish sources employed in T. Levi 16–17 and to determine how these sources have been adapted to their present, Early Christian context. In order to approach the complex matter, I will start with a brief overview of the different types of heptadic chronologies and introduce some basic lines of development, as they are reflected in the extant Jewish sources.

1. Types of Heptadic Chronologies in Second Temple Judaism

The use of heptadic chronologies is first attested in Jewish writings of the second century BCE. Texts like the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93.1–10; 91.11–17), the book of Jubilees or Daniel 9 employ chronological systems based on a successive count of ‘weeks’ (‭ׄ׳צףּשּ‬), which is why some scholars refer to these systems as ‘sabbatical chronologies’ (VanderKam 2000). I prefer the more general term ‘heptadic chronologies’ because (1) the use of the term ‘week’ is not limited to the designation of a sabbatical cycle of seven years and (2) some texts also employ jubilee structures of 49 years. Ample evidence for the latter is provided by the book of Jubilees, which presents the historical sequence covered by the Pentateuch in a detailed chronological system of 50 jubilees (VanderKam 1995; Berner 2006: 265–324; Berner 2009). On the other hand, the author of the Apocalypse of Weeks created a highly schematic chronology which divides the course of history from the creation until the eschaton into ten great weeks (‭זערש‬) covering 490 years each (Koch 1983; Berner 2006: 156–68). It is obvious that Jubilees and the Apocalypse of Weeks preserve two totally different chronological systems which cannot legitimately be combined to reconstruct a putative overall chronology of a certain Jewish group. Reconstructions like this, which have been undertaken among others by Devorah Dimant, Roger Beckwith, Johann Maier and James M. Scott (Dimant 1993; Beckwith 1996; Maier 1996; Scott 2005), ignore the fact that the chronologies, although sharing the same heptadic rationale, reflect entirely different theological concepts of history. The issue of chronology, therefore, can only properly be assessed as an aspect of these concepts.

While the chronologies of Jubilees and the Apocalypse of Weeks each start with the day of creation, the chronological sequence presented in Dan. 9.24–27 covers only the exilic and post-exilic periods to which an overall time frame of seventy weeks of years is attributed. The chronology is derived from the reinterpretation of the famous Jeremianic prophecy according to which exile would last for seventy years (Jer. 25.11–12; 29.10; cf. Zech. 1.12; 7.5; 2 Chron. 36.21–22; Ezra 1.1). This exegetical background of the seventy weeks of years is made explicit in Dan. 9.2, which says that ‘I, Daniel was contemplating in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to the prophet Jeremiah, must be fulfilled for the devastation of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years’. Actually, the true meaning of these seventy years should not have troubled Daniel, because according to Dan. 9.1 it was the first year of Darius the Mede and there was still ample time for the fulfillment of the Jeremianic prophecy. Daniel's troubles are not his own, but rather the troubles of the pious Jew who composed ch. 9 some time between 167 and 164 BCE (Berner 2006: 37–40). Under the impact of the Maccabean revolt, he arrived at the conclusion that the seventy years were in fact seventy weeks of years, a final period of distress before the eschatological delivery of the righteous, which he believed would take place in the near future.

The heptadic chronology of Daniel 9 is singular among the biblical writings, but has a number of parallels in the Qumran documents: the ‘sectarian’ compositions 4Q181; 4Q390; 11Q13 and the ‘protosectarian’ text 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C (VanderKam 2000; Berner 2006). ¹ Like Daniel 9, all these texts agree in assigning 490 years (calculated either as seventy weeks of years or as ten jubilees) to the last period of history, and at first, one might get the impression that they are modeled upon the Danielic chronology. This, however, does not seem to be the case, at least there is no positive evidence in favor of such an assumption. Apart from one instance in 11Q13 II 18, there is no quotation from Daniel 9 in any of the texts, let alone any discernible influence of the chronological subdivisions made in Dan. 9.25–27. The fact that all these texts agree in reckoning with seventy weeks of years and ten jubilees respectively is therefore best explained against the background of a common chronological tradition according to which the 70 years of Jeremiah were interpreted as 490 years (Berner 2006: 501–506).

Throughout the second and first centuries BCE, this chronological tradition was variously adapted by different Jewish groups that all shared the conviction of living at the very end of the same 490 years. Naturally, this constant updating of the identical time frame did not contribute to the historical reliability of the 490 years, an observation highly significant for our understanding of the different chronologies. Their authors were not chronographers constantly trying to improve the accuracy of the system, but rather theologians who interpreted the events of their own time and came to the conclusion that the end of the traditional period of wrath had come close at last. Thus, the different heptadic chronologies can be interpreted as a means of defining the place of their authors and their respective groups within the divinely ordained course of history; a way, one might say, of establishing a historical group identity.

One of the most striking examples for the dynamics of this process of reinterpreting and transforming traditional chronological material is provided by T. Levi 16–17, two chapters that have adapted heptadic chronologies to a Christian context. In the following, I will briefly sketch the form and function of the chronological sequences in both of the chapters and try to determine their relationship to the extant Jewish sources.

2. Seventy Weeks of Going Astray (Testament of Levi 16)

T. Levi 16 contains a prediction of future events which is modeled after the pattern ‘Sin-Punishment-Redemption’. The text reads as follows: ²

In T. Levi 16, the traditional seventy weeks of years are construed as a period of increasing sinfulness of the Jews which culminates with the crucifixion of Jesus. As a punishment, the Second Temple is destroyed and the Jews are dispersed among the Gentiles, with baptism remaining their only hope of deliverance. A closer look reveals that T. Levi 16 is the result of an early Christian interpretation of Daniel 9. Levi's prediction that Israel would go astray for seventy weeks of years presupposes the announcement of the archangel Gabriel in Dan. 9.24 according to whom seventy weeks of years are decreed for Israel to finish the transgression and to put an end to sin. Moreover, the reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in T. Levi 16.3 corresponds to the fate of the ‘anointed one’ (‭חישת‬) in Dan. 9.26a who is ‘cut off’, originally a reference to the murder of the high priest Onias III in 170/169 BCE (Collins 1993: 356). For the Christian interpreter of Daniel 9, the death of this ‭חישּזכ‬ could only be a prediction of the death of his Messiah Jesus Christ. It is therefore hardly surprising that he took the reference to the destruction of city and sanctuary in Dan. 9.26b as a prophecy of the destruction of the Second Temple (T. Levi 16.4), which he believed to be a divine punishment for the Jews.

Although there can be no doubt that T. Levi 16 is the result of a Christian interpretation of Daniel 9, the author surprisingly refers to a different source of the seventy weeks of years: the book of Enoch. The reference can only point to Enoch's vision of the seventy angelic shepherds (1 En. 89.59–90.19) who are commissioned by God to punish Israel in the final period of history, which stretches from the last days of Judah until the final judgment (Berner 2006: 473–77). The rule of the seventy shepherds is obviously the result of another eschatological reinterpretation of the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah, but there is no clear evidence suggesting that the reign of the seventy angels was thought to last for seventy weeks of years, as in the contemporary chronology of Daniel 9 (Berner 2006: 215–24). The first one to draw this conclusion explicitly was the author of T. Levi 16, who claimed that his interpretation of Daniel 9 was in fact an interpretation of the passage in 1 Enoch.

There are mainly two reasons for this strange claim. First, a reference to Daniel 9 was excluded because of the literary fiction of Testament of Levi. Fashioned as a testamentary speech of the patriarch Levi, the text could hardly refer to the writings of the exilic prophet Daniel, who lived centuries later. This chronological problem did not occur with regard to the pre-diluvian patriarch Enoch, whose writings, therefore, could easily be quoted by ‘Levi’. Besides these conceptual constraints, there is, however, also a positive reason for the author's claim that his interpretation of Daniel 9 was an exegesis of the parallel passage in 1 Enoch 89–90. Enoch was obviously seen as a major authority concerning the prediction of Israel's sin and punishment, which becomes clear from the references to Enochic writings in T. Levi 10.5 and 14.1 (Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 39–40). Thus, it is not at all surprising that the author of T. Levi 16 tried to authorize his interpretation of the seventy weeks of years with a reference to the book of Enoch.

While T. Levi 16 was without doubt composed by a skillful exegete, there is no evidence that this person cared very much for the precise chronological implications of the seventy weeks of years. Although he exactly follows the sequence of events found in Dan. 9.26, the chronological subdivisions are completely ignored. For the author of T. Levi 16, the prophecy of the seventy weeks of years refers to a past period of doom and he is content with stating that this prophecy had been fulfilled when the Second Temple was destroyed. Neither the author's own situation nor the future events described in T. Levi 16.5 are chronologically connected to the period of the seventy weeks of years.

One may ask whether this obvious lack of interest in chronological details does merely result from the work of a Christian redactor who reedited an older Jewish version of T. Levi 16 in which the issue of chronology was more important. Yet, any attempt at reconstructing a Jewish Vorlage of the chapter (Becker 1970: 284–87; Hultgård 1982: 101–106; Ulrichsen 1991: 201–202) remains unsuccessful because the reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in T. Levi 16.3 is an indispensable part of the exegetical connection between T. Levi 16 and Daniel 9. Not even the mention of the baptism in T. Levi 16.5 can be a Christian interpolation, because without this verse the pattern ‘Sin-Punishment-Redemption’ would lack its final part (Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 55). It is therefore reasonable to assume that T. Levi 16 has no literary pre-history as a Jewish text, but was from the beginning composed as a Christian interpretation of Daniel 9 (Berner 2006: 478). In contrast to this, the heptadic chronology in T. Levi 17 seems to preserve an older Jewish source, as shall be demonstrated in the next section of this article.

3. The Decline of the Jewish Priesthood (Testament of Levi 17)

Differently from T. Levi 16 and the heptadic chronologies mentioned so far, T. Levi 17 preserves a pattern of seven jubilees which describes the decline of the Jewish priesthood. Connecting smoothly to the preceding chapter, the text reads as follows: ³

In its present literary context, T. Levi 17 merely serves as the prelude to the following chapter, which describes the investment of Jesus Christ as the eschatological high priest. For the Christian author there is no doubt that the Jewish priesthood had completely failed and was therefore replaced by the eternal priesthood of Christ. Although T. Levi 17 impressively illustrates this complete failure of the Jewish priests, the text has hardly been composed for its present context. Its exceptional characteristics in style, form and content have often been noted and are best explained by the assumption that the text represents a formerly independent Jewish source which was adapted by a Christian redactor (Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 175; Berner 2006: 483). ⁴ Two things strongly point to this redactional model: first, the substance of the chronological sequence completely lacks any elements that point to a Christian influence; ⁵ second, the introductory verse T. Levi 17.1 contextualizes the following chronology by explicitly referring back to ch. 16, which for the reasons mentioned above has to be seen as a Christian composition. Therefore, the person that incorporated the passage on the decline of the Jewish priesthood was either identical with the Christian author of T. Levi 16 or one must assume the work of an even later redactor. In both cases, only the description of the eschatological high priest in T. Levi 18 can be addressed as a Christian composition, while the prelude on the decline of the Jewish priesthood in ch. 17 was borrowed from an earlier Jewish source.

This source illustrated the constant deterioration of the priesthood in a chronological framework of seven jubilees, the last of which is still subdivided into weeks of years. Although the heptadic system employed in T. Levi 17 is very precise, the chronology established in the chapter is highly schematic. The idea that each high priest reigned for precisely one jubilee hardly reflects a historical reality and can only be interpreted as an ideal-typical concept. One might therefore ask whether the jubilee structure of the text has necessarily to be taken at face value. Could it not be that the seven jubilees, instead of defining a time frame of precisely 343 years, rather had a figurative meaning (Dupont-Sommer 1951/52: 38)? The seven priests might then be identical with seven prominent priestly figures whose priesthoods were brought into a pseudo-historical sequence by means of the jubilee structure. Yet, there is the problem that not one of the seven priests can be identified with any certainty. The descriptions are so vague that even the identity of the first two priests who are characterized in more detail (T. Levi 17.2–3) remains obscure. The widespread opinion that the two figures represent Levi and Aaron (Charles 1913: 313; Becker 1970: 289) is not supported by the text, but results only from the assumption that T. Levi describes the history of the Jewish priesthood from its biblical beginnings. This, however, is not at all certain.

Given the fact that it is impossible to identify clearly the individual priests (Berner 2006: 492), ⁶ what remains as a basis for interpreting the chronology is its jubilee structure. From the description of the seventh jubilee as being characterized by unspeakable pollution (T. Levi 17.8) one may safely conclude that the chronological sequence reaches its climax at some point during the Hellenistic period. Against the background of similar passages in the book of Daniel, 1 Enoch and the Qumran documents, T. Levi 17.8 reads as a typical description of one of the many inner-priestly conflicts of the second century BCE (Becker 1970: 289; Berner 2006: 486–94). Calculated backwards from here, the first jubilee would commence some time between the late sixth and the late fifth century BCE, that is, in the early post-exilic period. All textual evidence available thus points to the fact that the Jewish source preserved in T. Levi 17 offered a schematic description of the history of the post-exilic priesthood as a history of constant deterioration after ideal beginnings. Moreover, the chronological pattern of the seven jubilees may even allow a precise dating of the source. If we assume that the jubilees were counted from the year 516 BCE concluding the 70 years of exile, the seventh jubilee would terminate in 173 BCE. This is precisely the year in which the high priest Onias III was deposed from his office, an event that may easily have triggered the composition of the source preserved in T. Levi 17.

So far, mention has only been made of the seven jubilees, while the chronological subdivisions of the seventh jubilee have not been touched upon. The reason for this selective treatment is found in the fact that the respective verses T. Levi 17.9–11 are most likely not part of the original source, but a later Jewish addition (Becker 1970: 289–90). After the very general and schematic treatment of the seven jubilees, the detailed information on the chronology of the seventh jubilee provided by T. Levi 17.10–11 is completely unexpected, and this even more because the author of T. Levi 17.8 contents himself with the unspecific prediction that ‘in the seventh (jubilee) there will be pollution’. The chronological details provided by T. Levi 17.10–11 are obviously not yet in view and were, together with T. Levi 17.9, added by a later Jewish redactor.

Taken literally, the secondary appendix on the structure of the seventh jubilee seems to describe the period of the Babylonian exile and the subsequent restoration (Milik 1976: 253; Hultgård 1982: 119; Ulrichsen 1991: 204). T. Levi 17.9 mentions captivity while 17.10 points to the return and the ‘renewal’ of the temple. However, the fact that the text does not speak of the rebuilding of the sanctuary already indicates that the allusions to the exilic and early post-exilic periods should be interpreted figuratively (Becker 1970: 289; Beckwith 1996: 232; Berner 2006: 489). This is corroborated by the chronology which dates the return to the fifth week of years, that is, to the years 29–35 of the jubilee. If we assume that the deportation takes place in the first year—the text is not explicit in this regard—the Babylonian exile could have maximally lasted for 35 years, a duration not attested in any other source. The possibility that the text refers to the Babylonian exile is ultimately excluded when we take into account that the events outlined in T. Levi 17.9–11 are part of the seventh jubilee, which concludes the jubilee sequence devoted to the decline of the post-exilic priesthood. If it is true that the original text was composed as a reaction to the deposition of the high priest Onias III in 173 BCE, the secondary passage T. Levi 17.9–11 must reflect an even later conflict within the priesthood.

A first hint towards the nature of this conflict is provided by the reference to the renewal of the house of the Lord in T. Levi 17.10. It can only aim at the Maccabean rededication of the temple in 164 BCE (Beckwith 1996: 232), which defines a terminus post for the events alluded to in T. Levi 17.11. Given the fact that these events fall into the seventh week of years while the rededication of the temple takes place some time during the fifth week of years, the former events may be separated from the latter by minimally eight and maximally twenty years. Within this time frame falls the investment of Jonathan as high priest, which occurred in 152 BCE and initiated the Hasmonean line of high priests. Exactly this development seems to be the historical background for the harsh polemics against the appalling behavior of the priests uttered in T. Levi 17.11 (Beckwith 1996: 232; Berner 2006: 489–91). Thus, the addition of T. Levi 17.9–11 was triggered by events quite similar to those which stand behind the original jubilee sequence.

4. Concluding Remarks

The preceding discussion of the heptadic chronologies in T. Levi 16–17 yields a complex picture. While both chapters in their present form are clearly part of a Christian document, only T. Levi 16 is a Christian composition. In contrast to this, T. Levi 17 preserves an older Jewish source on the decline of the Jewish priesthood. The source has been purposefully incorporated as a prelude to ch. 18 and serves to illustrate the complete failure of the Jewish priesthood which is then once and for all replaced by the eschatological high priest Jesus Christ. Basically the same pattern also occurs in T. Levi 16 where the Christian polemics are not directed against the Jewish priesthood only, but against the Jews in general. The chapter contains a Christian interpretation of Daniel 9 which is devised to show that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death and were therefore punished with the destruction of the Second Temple. Both events are read into Dan. 9.26 and their occurrence is thus interpreted as a sign for the fulfillment of the prediction that Israel would go astray for seventy weeks of years (Dan. 9.24). The chronological implications of the heptadic sequence have no apparent significance and the same also applies to the seven jubilees of T. Levi 17. In both cases, the traditional heptadic sequences are adduced for purely theological reasons, namely, as a means to demonstrate that the history of Judaism had irreversibly come to an end and that the only future lay in the adoption of the Christian faith.

Although these radical anti-Jewish tones were naturally alien to the Jewish source preserved in T. Levi 17, it also carried unmistakable polemics. In its original form (T. Levi 17.1–8), it contained a sequence of seven jubilees which illustrated the constant decline of the post-exilic priesthood. The seven jubilees exactly cover the period from the end of the seventy years of exile (516 BCE) to the year 173 BCE, when Onias III was deposed of his office as high priest. Presumably, the text was composed as a critical reaction to this event. Despite the fact that the overall time frame fits surprisingly well to the absolute chronology of the respective period, the sequence of the seven jubilees is highly schematic. The author is not interested in providing details on specific priestly figures, but simply postulates seven states of the priesthood corresponding to the seven jubilees.

Under the impression of the investment of Jonathan as high priest in 152 BCE, a Jewish redactor modified the jubilee sequence by adding T. Levi 17.9–11. The verses establish a structure of weeks of years for the seventh jubilee and make it transparent on the Hasmonean priesthood with which the decline now reaches its climax. As a result of the addition of vv. 9–11, the accuracy of the overall time frame of the seven jubilees is lost, while a precise chronology for the last jubilee is gained, only to be completely ignored again by the Christian redactor who reused the Jewish source as a prelude to T. Levi 18. This development of T. Levi 17 is a typical example for the creative reinterpretation and transformation of traditional chronological material, a phenomenon which is not limited to T. Levi, but in fact characteristic of all heptadic chronologies in ancient Judaism as well as in early Christianity.