Isaiah 19:18: A Textual Variant in Light of the Temple of Onias in Egypt

ISAIAH 19:18: A TEXTUAL VARIANT IN LIGHT OF THE TEMPLE

OF ONIAS IN EGYPT

J. Todd Hibbard

1. Introduction Within the Oracles against the Nations (OAN) of Isa 13–23, Isa 19:16–25 presents something of an enigma. The ten verses contain five “on that day” ( ההוא ביום ) additions, a redactional feature very prevalent in chs. 1–39.1 Their effect is to re-imagine the state of Egypt as presented in 19:1–15, which takes a harsh and condemning tone toward Judah’s neigh-bor to its southwest.2 YHWH comes as a “rider on the clouds” announcing his intention to produce social, political, and military chaos, bring about ecological disaster in the Nile, and confuse the sagacious counsel of Pharaoh’s advisors. This general perspective continues in the first of the additions, found in 19:16–17, a passage that emphasizes Egypt’s impend-ing fear because of YHWH and Judah. Unexpectedly, however, this tone changes dramatically beginning in v. 18. The final eight verses, com-prising the last four of the “on that day” additions, strike an irenic, even enthusiastic, tone toward Egypt. What is most remarkable, in my view, about these verses is their insistence on the worship of YHWH in Egypt, culminating in Egypt’s description as YHWH’s people:

On that day, Israel will be the third along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom YHWH of hosts has blessed, saying: “Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, Israel my heritage.” (19:24–25)

1. Depending on how one counts the uses of the phrase “on that day” in these chapters, they begin as many as 46 such redactional additions. 2. For an overview of the many interpretive issues in Isa 19:1–15, see W. A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 172–90, 203–6.

HIBBARD Isaiah 19:18: A Textual Variant 33

Given the generally negative attitude and disposition toward Egypt in Isaiah (in addition to 19:1–17, see, e.g., 30:1–5 and 31:1–3), it is surpris-ing to find such a text in the book. What prompted such a reversal toward Egypt (and Assyria)? Most commentators, though certainly not all, have been quick to suggest that these four positive “on that day” texts are likely late additions that reflect the reality of diaspora Jews in Egypt.3 Blenkinsopp, for example, notes, “What they [these four additions] have in common among themselves is a strong interest in the Judeo-Egyptian diaspora and its religious signi-ficance for the country as a whole.”4 Given the Judean expatriate popu-lation in Egypt going back to at least the sixth century B.C.E. (and probably earlier), this kind of interpretation is not unexpected. One wishes we could be more specific and certain about the time of the com-position of these verses in Isaiah, but precision is not possible. Though it might be impossible to say with certainty what prompted the inclusion of these four “on that day” additions, it is possible to say something about their early influence on Jewish life in Egypt. Therefore, of interest would be the interpretation of these verses among Jews in Egypt after their inclusion in the text of Isaiah. Toward that end, we turn our attention to one verse of these additions, v. 18. It speaks of YHWH worship occurring in the land of Egypt in five unnamed cities. The NRSV renders the verse as follows:

On that day, there will be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing allegiance to YHWH of hosts. One of these will be called the City of the Sun.

The verse prompts several questions that complicate its interpretation,5 but of particular interest for our purposes are the many textual variants in

3. E.g. ibid., 181; P. M. Cook, A Sign and a Wonder: The Redactional Formation of Isaiah 18–20 (VTSup 147; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 108; H. Wildberger, Isaiah 13–27: A Commentary (trans. T. H. Trapp; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 263–64. For a different view, see M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 269–72, who situates them in the seventh-century period of Manasseh; cf. C. Balogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18–20 concerning Egypt and Kush (OtSt 60; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 296–302. 4. J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 317. 5. Are the five cities real or symbolic? If real, which cities are in view? If symbolic, of what are they symbolic? Does the phrase “language of Canaan” ( ת ש suggest either Hebrew or Aramaic (or both)? Does the phrase “swearing (כנעallegiance to YHWH of hosts” ( באות ליהוה נשבעות ) imply the worship of YHWH? All of these are intriguing questions. For a recent overview of the interpretive issues in this verse, see Balogh, The Stele of YHWH, 251–57.

34 Concerning the Nations

the early versions for the last sentence of the verse specifying the identity of one of the cities (NRSV: “City of Heliopolis”). At least four different renderings of the city’s identity may be found in the various textual traditions (see below). Why are there so many variants of this phrase? One might initially be inclined to think that there was confusion over the reading and meaning of the text. On the other hand, it is also possible that the textual variety is a result of “a distinctive interpretative history.”6 As I intend to show in this study, this early textual pluriformity is rooted in the contested evaluation of a Jewish temple established in Egypt by the displaced high priest Onias IV in the middle of the second century B.C.E. In the next section of this study, the textual variants are presented. The following section explores the connection between Onias’ founding of a Jewish sanctuary in Egypt in the nome of Heliopolis in the second century B.C.E. and its impact on Isa 19:18. A final section will offer a plausible history of this text that will attempt to explain the sequence of variants in light of the discussion about second-century B.C.E. Jewish religious history in Egypt, focusing especially on Onias’ work.

2. The Textual Variants of Isaiah 19:18 Let us begin by surveying the variety of readings for the identification of this city in the textual witnesses. For simplicity’s sake, we start with the MT. It reads as follows:

תיאמר לאח יר ההר Although the meaning of the phrase is not entirely clear, it should probably be translated as: “one will be called the city of destruction” (or, perhaps, “destroyed city”). The noun הר is a hapax legomenon, but the verb, הר, “to throw down” or “to tear down,” is well-attested.7 Some connection with the idea of destruction, then, seems likely. Does this suggest that the text envisions a city from among the previously men-tioned five that was, at the time of writing, destroyed or in ruins? If so, which particular city is intended?8 If one concludes that the reference to

6. O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (trans. R. A. Wilson; OTL; Philadelphia: West-minster, 1974), 107. 7. HALOT 1:256–57. Outside the Hebrew Bible, the ninth century B.C.E. Moabite inscription of King Mesha also includes the term as a substantive; see KAI 181 line 27; cf. DNWSI 1:293. 8. Duhm’s suggestion, followed by Marti, that הר means “lion” based on the Arabic haris, which then yields a reference to Leontopolis (“Lion City”), has not


the “five cities” is symbolic, does this understanding apply to this city as well? Setting aside the numerous interpretive issues generated by this reading, it is still necessary to explain how this reading originated.9 The MT is importantly different from the reading of this verse found in the manuscripts of Isaiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1QIsaa and 4QIsab, the only two Isaiah manuscripts containing this verse, the rele-vant phrase is rendered החר עיר , which is usually understood as “City of the Sun.”10 Indeed, חר as a noun is quite rare, but the other uses in Job 9:7 and Judg 14:18 suggest “sun” as the correct meaning.11 This reading suggests identifying the city with Heliopolis (elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible identified as ’ôn/’Ɨwen12), since it too means “City of the Sun.” Additionally, although the exact language is different, the city described in Isa 19:18 recalls the city in Jer 43:13, called בית שמש, “house of the sun,” also acknowledged as Heliopolis.13 The small differ-ence of one graphically similar (ח/ה) letter between MT and the Qumran readings suggests some association between the two. However, what is not clear, at least on a simple examination of the textual differences, is whether the difference is intentional and which should be regarded as the earlier or more original of the two.

won adherents; see B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 145; K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (BKAT; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1900), 156. 9. On the various interpretive issues generated by MT’s text, see B. Wodecki, “The Heights of the Religious Universalism in Is XIX: 16–25,” in “Lasset uns Brücken bauen...”: Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the Inter-national Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995 (ed. K.-D. Schunck and M. Augustin; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1998), 171–91 (173). 10. For the Cave 1 Isaiah materials, see E. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls (DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon, 2011). The Cave 4 Isaiah materials may be found in E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets (DJD 15; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). 11. In the Job text, the term occurs in parallel to כוכבים, “stars,” while in the Judges passage one reads הרחא הבם י רב , “before the sun could go down.” See BDB, 357. 12. See Gen 41:45, 50; Ezek 30:17 (emended). ’ƿn/’Ɩwen more closely approxi-mates the Egyptian name, Iwnw, “pillar town.” 13. This reading is further strengthened by the broader content of Jer 43:13: “He will break the obelisks (בות The LXX of this verse ”.(בית שמש) of Heliopolis (מ(50:13) makes the association even more explicit: α ρ ς ς

ς ς . The location played a role for centuries in Egyptian religion and was a site of the construction of obelisks. See D. B. Redford, “Heliopolis,” in ABD 3:122–23.


When we turn to the Old Greek traditions we encounter different readings altogether. The LXX has the puzzling phrase ς α . This reading generates at least two important questions: (1) What is the origin of this reading? and (2) Why is α transliterated rather than trans-lated? The origin of this reading is a matter of debate on textual, linguistic, and historical grounds. No Hebrew text that could potentially be the Vorlage of this reading is extant, a fact that complicates any attempt to determine the reading’s origin.14 This fact does not deter Seeligman from concluding that the LXX represents the original read-ing.15 Most scholars view the term α as a transliteration of ד ,הwhich yields the translation “city of righteousness”16 or “city of justice”17 for the entire phrase. Several scholars go on to argue that this rendering does not derive from a Hebrew Vorlage of Isa 19:18, but ultimately from Isa 1:26, where the phrase דה עיר is found with reference to Jerusa-lem.18 If this is so, this reading indicates an interpretive judgment about the city that attempts to associate it with Jerusalem. What is unclear on this interpretation, however, is why the LXX translator used α instead of α (as the LXX of Isa 1:26 does). R. Troxel rejects the connection with ד and, instead, suggests a different interpretation of הthe textual difficulty by arguing that the underlying term is רח which הthe translator misread as ד חה .19 He thinks the original החר was altered to רח through the transposition of two letters, and that this term was ה

14. Balogh, The Stele of YHWH, 226–27, notes that there is “no evidence that the reading ד עיר ה ever existed,” and concludes, incorrectly in my view, that this is ultimately fatal for positing the validity of this LXX reading. 15. I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 68. 16. E.g. A. van der Kooij, “LXX Isaiah 19:16–25,” in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, 1986 (ed. Claude E. Cox; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 136. 17. A. Feuillet, “Un sommet religieux de l’Ancient Testament: L’oracle d’Isaïe XIX (vv. 16–25) sur la conversion l’Égypte,” in Ètudes d’Exégèse et de Théologie Biblique: Ancien Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1975), 266. 18. Van der Kooij, “LXX Isaiah 19:16–25,” 136; Feuillet, “L’oracle d’Isaïe XIX,” 266. Wildberger (Isaiah 13–27, 262) raises the possibility that the LXX translator may not have understood his Hebrew reading, given that both the MT and Qumran readings are somewhat obscure. Consequently, he simply substituted his own. This still leaves unsolved, however, the puzzle of the text’s transliteration. 19. R. Troxel, LXX–Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translators of the Septuagint (JSJSup 124; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 170–72. Troxel’s objection is ultimately based on his argument that this does not explain “why transliteration of ד would have been considered more advantageous than הtranslation” (170).


then misread as חד ה . He goes on to argue that the underlying term דח הis more likely because the kind of graphic confusion he identifies ( ד/ר ) is attested and because the transformation of החר to רח -can be under הstood as an example of tendentious modification meant to eliminate suggestions of solar worship. The presence of α , then, presents a challenge to interpreters because no clear, straightforward explanation of the term exists. Other Greek readings exist in textual tradition as well. For example, Codex Sinaiticus has ς α .20 The origin of this reading is also unclear: some have posited that the reading derives from ד עיר with ,חthe ח represented by α.21 In this case, the addition of would indicate a conflated reading that also identified the city with Heliopolis (hence, ό ς , “city of the sun”). This likely later reading indicates that the

identity of the city continued to be a matter for scribal innovation. Finally, Aquila and Theodotion have αρ ς, which could reflect either of the Hebrew readings noted above, הר or חר. One final later reading is worth noting, that found in the Targum to Isaiah. It reads: בית שמש דעתיתא תאר , “city of [the] house of the sun which is prepared for destruction.”22 The Targum reading, like the Codex Sinaiticus above, also appears to combine or conflate readings, albeit different ones. The Targum apparently conflates material found in the MT and the Dead Sea Scrolls. From the latter it appropriates the reference to Heliopolis, here rendered as בית שמש. As mentioned above, this is the designation of the Egyptian city in Jer 43:13, so the Targum reading may offer a “correction” of the otherwise odd Qumran reading, רחעיר ה , which, as was noted above, was understood as “city of the sun,” i.e., Heliopolis. On the other hand, the Targum appears also to know the MT reading עיר ההר, understood as “city of the destruction.” These two different readings are both reflected in the Targum, suggesting that the translator knew both and opted not to choose one or the other, but sought to render both in the Aramaic translation.23 The five readings in the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, MT, Codex Sinaiticus -and the Targum can be seen synoptically as offering an interpreta ,(א)tion of Isa 19:18:

20. See Feuillet, “L’oracle d’Isaïe XIX,” 266. 21. Cook, A Sign and a Wonder, 105 n. 80. 22. On the Isaiah Targum, see Bruce Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (ArBib 11; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), 38–39. This reading is found in the Babylonian Talmud as well; cf. b. Menaۊ. 110a. 23. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 317.


MT ההרעיר city of destruction 1QIsaa/4QIsab החרעיר city of the sun LXX ς α city of [the] righteous/ness ς α א faithful city of the sun (?) Targum דעתידא שמשביתרתא city of [the] house of the sun

which is prepared for destruction Now that the textual data have been laid out, we return to the original question: Why does the textual tradition of Isa 19:18 identify this city in so many diverse ways? This question forces us to consider developments in the Judeo-Egyptian diaspora of the second century B.C.E. To that we now turn.

3. The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis Several sources mention the existence of a Jewish temple in Egypt at Leontopolis in the district of Heliopolis, apparently constructed in the first half of the second century B.C.E. Our principal source is Josephus, but his various accounts are not consistent.24 The Flavian historian is unclear, to varying degrees, about who constructed the temple, when it was constructed, why it was constructed, what the political context of its construction was, and, where exactly it was constructed.25 The result is that it is very difficult to say anything definitive about this Egyptian Jewish temple. Nevertheless, when the various accounts are sifted and critically examined against the backdrop of what we know about this period from other sources, it is possible to note a few things pertinent to our study of the text of Isa 19:18.

24. For an overview of the issues, see M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte: Réexamen d’un vieux problème,” RB 75 (1968): 188–203; J. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias,” JSJ 29 (1998): 297–321; E. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” Scripta Classica Israelica 16 (1997): 47–70; and J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), 214–22. 25. On this last issue, one source of frustration has been a failure to identify with certainty the remains of the temple. Flinders Petrie claimed to have discovered the foundations of the temple at Tell el-Yehudiyyeh, but his claim is not convincing (W. H. Flinders Petrie, Egypt and Israel [London: SPCK, 1911], 108–9). Bohak notes that much of the old Heliopolite nome now lies under portions of modern Cairo, making it likely that we will never know the exact location of Onias’ temple (G. Bohak, “Heliopolis,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism [ed. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 722).


The earliest reference by Josephus to this temple comes at the beginning of Jewish War.26 Here he writes that during Antiochus IV’s assault on Jerusalem (169–68 B.C.E.), the high priest ( ’ ρ ρ ς) Onias fled to Ptolemy VI and, in the nome of Heliopolis, “built a small town on the model of Jerusalem and a temple resembling ours” (J.W. 1.33 [Thackeray LCL]).27 He promises to return to the matter in due course, which he does near the end of Jewish War. Here he again describes the origins of Onias’ temple, offering more detail than earlier (J.W. 7.420–32). As before, he notes that Onias (here, misidentified as Simon’s son)28 fled to Egypt because of opposition from Antiochus IV. We are told that Onias goes to Alexandria, where he is favorably

26. For a thorough study of Josephus’ account of Onias’ temple in Jewish War, see Robert Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” JJS 33 (1982): 429–43. 27. A detailed examination of Josephus’ account of the events in this period reveals that he either confused a series of events from 171 B.C.E. to 168 B.C.E. involving the Tobiads, Jason and Menelaus or he telescoped matters covering the same period. See VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 215–16. 28. Josephus presents multiple and conflicting statements about which Onias was responsible for this temple. Here, he calls him Onias, son of Simon (i.e. Simon the Just), which would make him Onias III. This is the tradition known by the Talmudic sources that mention Onias’s temple (e.g. b. Mena˙. 109b–110a). The claim that this is Onias III is contradicted by 2 Macc 4:30–38, which reports that Onias III was murdered at Daphne near Anitoch by Andronicus at Menelaus’s urging. Most scholars are inclined to see this tradition as historically accurate, which makes it impossible to situate this same Onias in Egypt. Elsewhere, Josephus refers to our Onias as Onias, son of Onias, i.e., Onias IV (cf. Ant. 12.387–88). This Onias, he reports, was left as a minor at his father’s death. When Alcimus received the high priesthood, he fled to Egypt. This comports with the information in 2 Macc 4, though Onias IV is not mentioned there. For full treatments of the literary and historical details, with occasionally differing conclusions, see Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt”; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers; StPB 41; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 67–98; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?,” in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. B. Kollman, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel; BZNW 97; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 137–58; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple—The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel / Community without Temple (ed. B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 171–203 (188–90); VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 214–22; M. Brutti, Development of the High Priesthood during the Pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology (JSJSup 108; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 211–16.


received by Ptolemy. Onias proposes to make the anti-Seleucid Jews his allies if the king will accede to his request: permission to build a temple in Egypt. This is necessary because, he says, Antiochus had ravaged ( ρ ) the Jerusalem temple. If Ptolemy were to permit this, he notes that the Jews of Jerusalem would be favorably disposed toward him and would, in fact, flock to Egypt. The enticement apparently works, for Josephus states that Ptolemy granted Onias’ request by giving him a tract of land in the district of Heliopolis upon which to build his temple and which will serve as a source of revenue for priests and temple provisions. In the course of his description of this temple, Josephus corrects his earlier statement by explicitly noting that the temple was not like the one in Jerusalem but, rather, resembled a tower.29 He does note, however, that its altar resembled the one in Jerusalem (J.W. 7.427–28). He casts the legitimacy of this temple in question by claiming Onias had impure and dishonest motives in building it: “In all this, however, Onias was not actuated by honest motives; his aim was rather to rival the Jews at Jerusalem, against whom he harbored resentment for his exile, and he hoped by erecting this temple to attract the multitude away from them to it” (J.W. 7.431 [Thackeray LCL]). Importantly for our purposes, how-ever, Josephus concludes his discussion by noting that the construction of the temple was justified, in part, based on a prophecy from Isaiah: “There had, moreover, been an ancient prediction made some six hundred years before by one named Esais, who had foretold the erection of this temple in Egypt by a man of Jewish birth” (J.W. 7.432 [Thackeray LCL]). How his negative view of Onias’ project is meant to square with his justification of it based on Isaiah is never clarified. In his later work, Jewish Antiquities, Josephus addresses Onias’ (this time clearly Onias IV) flight to Egypt in multiple places. The first and briefest is in Ant. 12.387–88, which notes that Onias went to Egypt when the high priesthood was transferred to the illegitimate Alcimus. Opposition from Antiochus IV is also implied. We are told that he was treated well by the royal couple, which included being given land in the nome of Heliopolis where he built a temple similar to the one in Jerusalem. Josephus’ longest account, though not necessarily the most historically reliable, occurs in Ant. 13.62–73. Here we read that Onias was living in Alexandria and sought Ptolemy’s permission to build a temple in Egypt modeled on the one in Jerusalem as an alternative at

29. Hayward argues that this is, in fact, not a contradiction. He notes several Second Temple sources that associate or conflate tower and temple. Moreover, the height of the tower, 60 cubits, is the same height as Holy Place of the Second Temple (see Ezra 6:3); see Hayward, “Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 432–34.


which Levites and priests could serve. This, we are told, was necessary because of the devastating activities of the Seleucids. Once again, as part of this account, Josephus reports that Onias was motivated by Isaiah’s claim that a “temple to the Most High God was surely to be built in Egypt by a Jewish man” ( ς ς α α

’ ρ ς α ).30 Josephus continues by including a letter allegedly written by Onias to Ptolemy and Cleopatra requesting permission to build this temple in Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis:

Many and great are the services which I have rendered you in the course of the war, with the help of God, when I was in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, and when I came with the Jews to Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis and to other places where our nation is settled; and I found that most of them have temples, contrary to what is proper, and that for this reason they are ill-disposed toward one another, as is also the case with the Egyptians because of the multitude of their temples and their varying opinions about the forms of worship; and I have found a most suitable place in the fortress called after Bubastis-of-the-Fields, which abounds in various kinds of trees and is full of sacred animals, wherefore I beg you to permit me to cleanse this temple, which belongs to no one and is in ruins, and to build a temple to the Most High God in the likeness of that at Jerusalem and with the same dimensions, on behalf of you and your wife and children, in order that the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may be able to come together there in mutual harmony and serve your interest. For this indeed is what the prophet Isaiah foretold, “There shall be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God,” and many other such things did he prophesy concerning this place. (Ant. 13.65–68 [Marcus, LCL])

While this letter is undoubtedly spurious,31 it is nevertheless of import-ance for our purposes because it reports—once again—that this Jewish temple was built, in part, based on an interpretation of Isa 19, a portion of which is quoted here by Josephus for the first time.32 Additionally, he claims that Isaiah prophesied other things “concerning this place” (which he does not identify). 30. Isaiah 19 includes no such statement. One wonders if this is Josephus’ interpretation of 19:20, which states that “the Lord will send them a man who will save them” ( α α ς ρ ς ρ ς α ς). On the other hand, Hayward suggests Josephus’ text may represent “an interpretation of Isaiah which could quite easily have derived from circles sympathetic to Onias and his temple” (“Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 438). 31. Gruen (“The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” 53) writes that “[o]nly the most determined or committed will find anything of historical value in the exchange of letters between Onias and Ptolemy, supplied by Josephus.” 32. He specifically cites Isa 19:19, but his “many other things” suggests that other portions of Isa 19 are in view here as well.


Ptolemy and Cleopatra respond positively to Onias’ request in their letter of response (no doubt also spurious):

We have read your petition asking that it be permitted you to cleanse the ruined temple in Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis, called Bubastis-of-the-Fields. We wonder, therefore, whether it will be pleasing to God that a temple be built in a place so wild and full of sacred animals. But since you say that the prophet Isaiah foretold this long ago, we grant your request if this is to be in accordance with the Law, so that we may not seem to have sinned against God in any way. (Ant. 13.70–71 [Marcus, LCL])

The royal couple grant the request, but only after their “concerns” about the sanctuary’s lawfulness have been satisfied. Their permission is granted based, in part, on Isaiah’s prophecy. Indeed, as Josephus presents it, it is only because of Isaiah’s prophecy that the request is thought to be lawful. We can be sure that the Egyptian royals had never read Isaiah, nor even heard of him in all likelihood, but that is of no consequence for our purposes. Josephus concludes by noting that Onias took over the place and built a temple and altar there, though “smaller and poorer” than the one in Jerusalem.33 He also found some Levites and priests to officiate there. Whether this means displaced priests who fled Jerusalem with him or not is unclear. Much later, the Talmud contains a discussion in which two other traditions about Onias’ flight to Egypt and his founding of a temple there are discussed, neither of which puts him in a positive light (b. Menaۊ. 109b). Further, with the exception of the use of Isa 19, the Talmud’s traditions about Onias and the founding of the temple in Egypt are quite different from those in Josephus. In both of the Talmudic stories he escapes to Egypt in order to avoid being killed by his fellow priests because he has either directly or indirectly caused the defilement of the temple.34 He is first reported to have built an altar in Alexandria on which he offered sacrifices either to idols or God (the two traditions conflict on this point). The discussion that follows the recounting of the traditions 33. Note here as well that Josephus claims that Onias took over a preexisting site, Bubastis-of-the-Fields, used in Egyptian cult and turned it into a YHWH site. This would have been a location associated with the worship of the Egyptian goddess Bastet. See Delcor, “Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte,” 194–95. A. Wasser-stein (“Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis,” Illinois Classical Studies 18 [1993]: 119–29) notes that by the time of the rabbinic reflections on Onias’ shrine, Leontopolis had become an alternative name for Alexandria (see b. Mena109 .ۊb); cf. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” 51. 34. The source of the defilement was a priest—either Onias or his older brother, Shime‘i—standing near the altar dressed in bride’s clothing.


includes four specific citations and interpretations of passages from Isa 19. The four citations are all drawn from vv. 18 and 19. This includes, then, the first explicit association of Isa 19:18 with Onias’s temple. As noted earlier, the text reflects a conflated understanding of the earlier texts of the verse, as the relevant interpretation of the name of the city reads, “the city of the sun which is destined to destruction” (i.e. a reading identical to the Targum). In summary, several points need to be emphasized. First, we note that in multiple sources Onias’ temple and Isa 19 are associated. Josephus explicitly makes this connection four times, once in J.W. 7.432 and three times in Ant. 13.62–73. Given Josephus’ lack of consistency concerning the circumstances of the temple’s construction, his consistency on this point is noteworthy. Moreover, the historian never questions the con-nection; quite the contrary, his repeated and enthusiastic use of the Isaiah text to justify the construction is meant to allay any fears about this temple’s legitimacy (including, perhaps, his own). This is true even though he calls into question Onias’ motives for building it, a fact that makes it highly unlikely that Josephus invented such a link. Additionally, the Talmud’s use of Isa 19 in association with the temple demonstrates that this tradition was known not just by Josephus. It should also be noted, however, that explicit references to Isa 19:18 are quite late. So, for example, Josephus does not discuss the last phrase of v. 18 which mentions the city. The reference to the city may be assumed but Josephus does not make an argument for identifying the city in Isaiah with the city of Onias’ temple. Such an explicit connection makes its first appearance in the rabbinic literature. Where did the association between Isa 19 and Onias’ temple originate then? It is impossible to know with certainty, but it seems likely that Onias himself used the Isaiah text in seeking to establish the legitimacy of this Egyptian temple.35 He probably did so because he found it neces-sary to offer some scriptural basis to justify its construction in light of Deuteronomy’s claim of cultic centralization, a de facto prohibition of cultic activities in the worship of YHWH outside of Jerusalem (Deut 12:2–28).36 Interestingly, the issue is raised in Antiquities by Ptolemy in 35. Barthélemy entertains the possibility that Onias may have read החר עיר as referring to Heliopolis. This interpretation (which Barthélemy thinks is not the inten-tion of the Isaian author) then prompted his construction work; cf. D. Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: 2. Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations (OBO 50.2; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 150. 36. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” 61–62; Delcor, “Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte,” 199–200.


his favorable reply to Onias’s request about building the temple. He grants permission based on the Isaiah prophecy, but only if it is in accordance with the law ( έ α α ό ).37 The letter attributed to Ptolemy is clearly a piece of pro-Egyptian propa-ganda, the purpose of which is to paint Ptolemy as a pious friend of Jews in Egypt. Some have concluded that in this statement by Ptolemy Josephus or his source implicitly criticizes Onias: it is the Egyptian leader and not Onias who raises the question of the temple’s legality.38 From a historical perspective, Josephus’ account is highly improbable, however. Rather, it is far more likely that Onias himself sought to mollify any concerns about the legitimacy of his sanctuary. The text of Isa 19 proved suggestive enough that Onias could use it to justify his project, though we can be sure that not everyone agreed with him. Questions over the legality of religious practices at Leontopolis were still evidently being debated at the time of the compilation of the Mishnah (Mena˙. 13:10) and the Talmud (b. Mena˙. 109–10), long after the sanctuary had been put out of service by the Romans. As such, it is not difficult to imagine such conversations occurring periodically from the time of the sanctuary’s construction forward. Indeed, the argument of this study is that the question of the temple’s legality and legitimacy likely formed one of the central issues that contributed to the many variant readings in Isa 19:18. We may find further support for the idea that the Isaiah–Oniad temple connection originated with Onias if we note the similarity to the exegetical strategy of his priestly contemporaries at Qumran in the pesharim, community rules, and other exegetical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls.39 While Onias has not left any texts to illustrate his exe-getical strategy, Josephus’ report suggests his basic approach was com-parable to the Qumran exegetes. Both read biblical prophetic texts in light of their immediate socio-religious contexts and found justification for their own actions by interpreting the biblical text in light of their actions.40 Not surprisingly, the book of Isaiah was important to each, albeit for different reasons.41 37. Gruen (“The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” 61) notes that later rabbinical commentary on Deut 12 permits ritual wherever a prophet directs; see the Sifre to Deuteronomy, Pisqa 70. 38. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 189–90. 39. Hayward, “Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 438–39; cf. Delcor, “Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte,” 196–99. 40. The literature on biblical interpretation at Qumran is vast; see, most recently, J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 25–48; on the pesharim specifically, see Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim:


Another situation should be mentioned here that is analogous in certain respects to the debate over the validity of the sanctuary at Leontopolis, especially since it too manifests itself in variants in the biblical witness. This is the case of the sanctuary on Mt. Ebal and the text of Joshua (and Deuteronomy). Given the similarity to our text, some detailed discussion is necessary. According to the MT, after Joshua and Israel cross over the Jordan and defeat Jericho and Ai, they march some 20 miles northward where they construct an altar at Shechem on Mt. Ebal (opposite Mt. Gerizim), after which they return south to resume their military activities. The building of the altar is reported in Josh 8:30–35 in the MT. 4QJosha, however, includes an altar-building episode at the beginning of Josh 5, immediately after Joshua and Israel cross into the land at Gilgal, but not at the end of Josh 8 (as in MT).42 Of course, as many scholars have pointed out, within the logic of the narrative, the location in 4QJosha is precisely where one would expect to find this episode.43 In fact, Josephus’ account of this period in his Antiquities agrees with what is found in 4QJosha, not the MT. A second piece of evidence sheds light on this issue. Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Old Latin have Mt. Gerizim in Deut 27:4, the passage where Moses commands the construction of the altar. This prompts the conclusion that the introduction of Mt. Ebal in the MT and Greek traditions “is a later polemical change from the Samaritan claim that the first altar was built on Mount Gerizim.”44 This points to a three-stage history of the develop-

Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979). Hayward explores other dimensions of a potential Leontopolis–Qumran exegetical connection as well; see Hayward, “The Jewish Temple of Leontopolis,” 442–43. 41. The Qumran pesharim on Isaiah are incomplete, but enough remains to demonstrate their importance to the Dead Sea sectarians. 4Q163, a fragmentary papyrus Isaiah pesher, contains Isa 19:9–11. Unfortunately the text breaks off, so we are left in the dark about how it treated Isa 19:18–25. On 4Q163 (pap pIsac), see J. M. Allegro, with A. A. Anderson, Qumran Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 163. On the book of Isaiah at Qumran more generally, see P. W. Flint, “The Isaiah Scrolls from the Judean Desert,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah. Vol. 2, Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans; VTSup 70; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 481–90. 42. The episode appears after 9:2 in the LXX. 43. See, e.g., E. Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,” in his The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 28. 44. J. C. VanderKam and P. W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 113.


ment of this episode in the biblical tradition about the location of this altar:

First, the altar was simply to be built at the unspecified place—wherever the people crossed the Jordan. Secondly, northerners, perhaps the Samari-tans, specified the site of the first altar as on Mount Gerizim. Finally, Jewish scribes discounted that claim by changing Mount Gerizim anom-alously to the otherwise insignificant Mount Ebal.45

While the two cases are not exactly the same, they are similar in one important respect: a controversy over the legitimacy of a worship site is encoded through changes to the biblical text. In both cases, the variant traditions in the Qumran scrolls, the MT, the LXX, and Josephus (as well as other later traditions) bear this out.46 While there are differences between the Joshua/Deuteronomy case and that of Isa 19, when taken together it is clear that in both cases the biblical text was altered in light of a contemporary event, which then led to further alterations. In both cases, multiple stages of textual adjustment are detectable. These are two examples of the Bible’s continued textual fluidity late in the Second Temple period. In both cases, the issue that makes this fluidity apparent is a contested worship location.47

4. A Proposal for Isaiah 19:18’s Many Variants We return to the original question of this study: How did the reference to the city at the end of Isa 19:18 come to have so many variants? The following proposal is limited to a consideration of the MT, Qumran texts, and the LXX for reasons of space. It is important to acknowledge at the outset that the origin of these three textual traditions cannot be dated with precision. This fact renders all attempts to construct the develop-

45. M. Abegg, P. W. Flint, and E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 202 (emphasis original). 46. One other text from Joshua should be noted, though for slightly different reasons. Joshua 22:10–34 reports a misunderstanding about an altar built by the Transjordanian tribes which nearly erupts into a full-fledged war. The composite narrative deals with several issues, one of which is Deuteronomy’s notion of cultic centralization. What is of interest for our purposes is the observation that this altar is technically constructed outside the land (or at least on the other side of the Jordan), yet it still prompts a major dispute. Though the parallel to our text is not exact, similar issues are in view (namely, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a cultic site outside the land). 47. For a different use of the Samaritan/Gerizim issue in evaluating Onias’ activities, see Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 121–22, and Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 180–86.


ment of the diverse renderings of the city at the end of Isa 19:18 necessarily hypothetical, though I do think it is possible to achieve a plausible and likely explanation. Based on the textual traditions in which the variants appear and the consideration above of Onias’ temple at Leontopolis, I propose the following three-stage development. Stage 1: The earliest form of the text of Isa 19:18 is found in the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QIsaa and 4QIsab. The priority of this reading is affirmed by most scholars.48 The earlier of these two Qumran scrolls—1QIsaa—has been dated on paleographic grounds to around 125 B.C.E., but the reading for Isa 19:18 reflected in both of these is almost certainly older than that.49 Recall that in these texts, the reading is החר עיר , “city of the sun.” As noted above, most scholars connect this phrase with Heliopolis, a center of Egyptian cult for centuries associated with sun worship.50 The verse points to a hope, undoubtedly first expressed in the Persian period, that the YHWH cult brought to Egypt by Judean immigrants would supplant the Egyptian cult.51 No doubt Heliopolis was chosen because it was a well-known site of Egyptian religion, one with which Judeans would have been familiar. What is less clear is whether this text is meant to acknowledge a Jewish settlement gathered for worship of YHWH in or around Heliopolis. This text does not, however, provide a direct reference to Leontopolis, but one should not be expected since this text most likely originated before Onias’ work at Leontopolis.52 Rather, this reference is part of the generally positive view of Jewish life in Egypt that is found throughout Isa 19:18–25, a view undoubtedly prompted by the growing Jewish presence in Egypt beginning no later

48. See, among others, A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches (OBO 35; Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 52–55; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, 317–18; Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 176–77. 49. E. Ulrich and P. W. Flint, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants (DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon, 2010), 61. 50. Beuken, Jesaja 13–27, 193; Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 299. 51. This is expressed in v. 18 most clearly in the use of ליהוה נשבעות , which conveys religious devotion elsewhere in Isaiah; cf. Isa 45:23; 48:1. The perspective continues into v. 19, where one reads about an altar (בח to YHWH in Egypt and a (מpillar (בה .to YHWH at the border. See Cook, A Sign and a Wonder, 108 (מ 52. O. Kaiser raises the possibility that the text is an ex eventu prophecy based on Onias’ efforts at Leontopolis. This seems unlikely, however, since if it were we should expect a clearer reference to Onias and Leontopolis. See Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 107.


than the sixth century.53 Although our knowledge of Jewish life in Egypt is spotty and incomplete, the available evidence from the Persian and Hellenistic periods—especially that in the Elephantine papyri—makes clear both the history and integration of the Jewish community in Egypt.54 Stage 2: Chronologically, the first variant is likely the one encountered in LXX Isaiah, ς α , which should be rendered “city of right-eousness.”55 As was noted above, the phrase is not simply a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage, since one of the two words in the phrase, α , is not a Greek term. Rather, it is almost certainly a transliteration of the Hebrew ד ,Since this is not the term found in the Qumran materials 56.הits origin must be explained. Given the lack of any textual evidence in its favor, we can discard the idea that LXX Isaiah relies on a Hebrew Vorlage with ד -Rather, the best explanation of this puzzling read 57.הing is one that views its origin in association with Onias’ work in estab-lishing the sanctuary at Leontopolis, especially since Josephus and rabbinic texts make it clear that Onias’ work was associated with an interpretation of this section of Isaiah. Indeed, as was argued earlier, Onias himself likely established the connection between Isa 19 and the construction of his sanctuary. If the reading in the relevant Isaiah materials from Qumran is the earliest, then it is reasonable to assume that the LXX translator had before him a text with that reading. As noted above, its reading of החר עיר pointed to Heliopolis, so Onias’ project in the nome by the same name suggested an association with this passage. Therefore, Delcor is right to say that the LXX has deliberately produced this reading to serve the interests of the Leontopolis sanctuary.58 53. B. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 144. 54. See B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt 1 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1986). 55. As is well known, we are not sure when the Greek translation of the non-Pentateuchal material in the Hebrew Bible was completed. Most LXX scholars argue that the prophets were probably translated some time in the mid- to late second century B.C.E., but this is little more than an educated guess. See K. H. Jobes and M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 34. 56. Pace Troxel, LXX–Isaiah, 170. Troxel’s explanation, while possible, is overly complicated and relies on too many hypothetical steps to be convincing. 57. Pace Cook (A Sign and a Wonder, 105), who claims that “[b]ecause α in LXX Isa 19:18 is a transcription rather than a translation of its Hebrew Vorlage, this provides clear evidence of a Hebrew textual basis for יר ד even if no , ה manuscripts have survived.” The reading may represent a Hebrew term, but not necessarily a Hebrew text. 58. Delcor, “Le Temple d’Onias en Égypte,” 201; see also T. K. Cheyne, Intro-duction to the Book of Isaiah (London: A. & C. Black, 1895), 101–103; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, 335–37.


Why did the LXX translator not simply translate this original Hebrew reading? The suggestion of van der Kooij and others is likely that the LXX reading originates from the description of Jerusalem as “city of righteousness” in Isa 1:26, a description that is taken over by the LXX translator and applied now to the sanctuary at Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis.59 Given Isaiah’s use of symbolic names for, among other things, cities (see Isa 62:4, 12b), it is not implausible that the translator considered this change to be consistent with other Isaian texts. Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple in Jerusalem in 168/7 B.C.E. brought an end to acceptable YHWH cult in Jerusalem, at least temporarily, which made it possible to transfer the location of permissible YHWH worship elsewhere.60 Furthermore, and perhaps of more importance, the trans-ferral of the high priesthood to the non-Zadokite Alcimus may have signified to Onias that a new sanctuary presided over by a legitimate Zadokite high priest was not only now permissible but also necessary. Since the sanctuary at Leontopolis was constructed by the displaced Onias, who was, in his own view, the rightful claimant to the high priestly title, it had the added benefit of proper priestly authority in the eyes of some. In this sense, the LXX text supports Onias’ sanctuary in Egypt.61 But why is the text transliterated rather than translated?62 Van der Kooij has suggested that it is because of the reference to “Canaanite

59. Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 52–55; Delcor, “Le Temple D’Onias en Égypte,” 201. 60. The theological difficulty of acceptable YHWH worship disconnected from the Jerusalem temple is, of course, brought about by Deuteronomy’s insistence of the centralization of all proper worship in Jerusalem; see Deut 12:1–32. In light of the many Jewish cult centers during the Second Commonwealth, Blenkinsopp raises the possibility that Deuteronomy’s stricture in this regard “may simply have been disregarded” (Isaiah 1–39, 319). 61. Other aspects of Isa 19:18–21 permitted an association with this newly (re-)built sanctuary, especially the reference to an altar in Egypt. Though specula-tive, one wonders if “the Lord will send them a man who will save them” (v. 20) was understood by the translator as a reference to either Onias or even Ptolemy (in permitting the sanctuary’s construction). 62. The propensity for transliteration in the Old Greek tradition is associated frequently with Theodotion’s text, but that is not the case here. Rather, this should be seen as one of the many examples of the LXX Isaiah translator’s individual and somewhat idiosyncratic style. In many cases, he seems to have gone beyond simply offering a translation and has sought to wrest contemporary meaning from the Isaiah before him. Additionally, it should be noted that this question exists whether one views the LXX of 19:18 as the original or secondary text. See Troxel, LXX–Isaiah, 2; and van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, 63.


language” earlier in the verse.63 This is certainly possible, though far from clear. Another explanation would be to acknowledge the possibility that Jerusalem was known, even to Jews who were not Hebrew speakers, as the city of ד that is, this may have been a technical or symbolic ;הterm associated with the city (perhaps based on Isa 1:26). Leaving the relevant and important term untranslated would have made the con-nection unmistakable to the readers: in light of the cultic and priestly problems at the temple in Jerusalem, the sanctuary at Leontopolis was the new Jerusalem. This symbolic name for Jerusalem in Isa 1 is trans-ferred to Onias’ city as a way both of legitimating his sanctuary and criticizing, at least tacitly, the Jerusalem temple leadership. Stage 3: The MT represents a third stage of textual development. Tellingly, virtually no scholar argues for the originality of this reading.64 As noted above, the “on that day” sayings of Isa 19:18–25 offer a remarkably positive view of Egypt (and Assyria). The lone possible exception to that comes in the phrase designating the name of this city as “destroyed city.” Since the phrase appears discordant with the remainder of vv. 18–25 it calls for some explanation. Much hinges on how we interpret this phrase: does it simply refer to the condition of one of the cities prior to the activities envisioned in vv. 18–25 or does it speak to the condition of the city after the establishment of YHWH worship in Egypt? In my view, the latter seems more likely in light of the alternative readings from Qumran and the LXX.65 The theory proposed here is that the MT reading, ההר עיר , appears to be an intentional modification of the Qumran reading, החר עיר , the purpose of which is to discredit the city to which it refers. Important in this regard is the recognition that no textual tradition earlier than the MT (i.e. either the Scrolls or LXX) offers a reading like that of the MT. Consequently, in light of the association of these verses with justifications for Onias’ Egyptian temple, which was built in the district of Heliopolis, it is not difficult to imagine that a later scribe who objected to Onias’ actions altered the text in this slight way to create a different impression of the location. It may even be the case that the MT’s reading was not offered until after the Romans had closed the

63. Van der Kooij, “LXX Isaiah 19:16–25,” 137. 64. One recent interpretation that does retain the MT as the original reading is that of Balogh, The Stele of YHWH, 251–57. His reading is based on a broader argument that Isa 19:16–25 fits an early, pre-exilic context, a view not adopted by the present study. 65. Beuken argues that the MT is a later reading that reflects a growing tendency in late Second Temple Judaism to parody familiar places used in connection with the cult of foreign deities (Jesaja 13–27, 177).


temple at Leontopolis in 73 C.E. As Josephus reports, Paulinus, the Roman governor who ultimately closed the site,

stripped the place of its treasures, threatening the priests with severe penalties if they failed to produce them all, prohibited would-be worship-pers from approaching the precincts, and, closing the gates, debarred all access, so as to leave thenceforth no vestige of divine worship on the spot. (J.W. 7.434–35 [Thackeray, LCL])66

It is probable that the scribe responsible for this reading was opposed to this religious site but it was unnecessary to offer any stronger denunciation of it because it was no longer functioning by the time this textual change was made. Nevertheless, the discussions in the rabbinic literature make it clear that debate about the legality of activities at Onias’ temple continued for quite some time. One might object to this reading by noting that the relevant phrase, “destroyed city,” might have applied to the city prior to Onias’ activities at Leontopolis. This is certainly possible, especially if Onias’ project involved the reclamation of a religious site previously abandoned by the Egyptians. Indeed, this is one possible interpretation of Ant. 13.65–71, where Onias suggests using Bubastis-in-the-Fields, a preexisting reli-gious site associated with the Egyptian goddess Bastet.67 The difficulty with this interpretation, however, rests on the fact that the discussion about using this site comes in the likely fictitious correspondence between Onias and the royal couple. Indeed, in Josephus’ other lengthy discussion about the founding of the temple in J.W. 426–32 there is no reference to this location at all (but Heliopolis is mentioned). Therefore, it is difficult to know whether the tradition is reliable that Onias refurbished a previously used site. At any rate, it seems better to con-clude, in my view, that the language of the MT reflects a later tradition about this Heliopolitan Jewish religious site that was closed down by the Romans.

66. Josephus goes on to claim that the temple was open for 343 years, a figure that is impossible based on his own reckoning. Rather, 343 is likely a symbolic number that represents the product of 7×7×7, i.e., seven sabbatical years times seven. Hayward (“The Jewish Temple at Leontoplis,” 436–37) links this with the Targum of Isa 30:26 and ultimately (though unsuccessfully in my view) with Onias himself. 67. Modrezejewski seems to regard this as a valid tradition, but he scolds Onias for the suggestion; see J. Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian (trans. R. Cornman; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 126.


* * *

While this three-stage proposal is, on some level, necessarily speculative, that is not to say it does not account for the evidence in a plausible or even convincing manner. What I have attempted to show in this study is how the multiple textual traditions of Isa 19:18 are linked to an actual religious issue, indeed controversy, stemming from the period of Second Temple Judaism. To the degree that this proposal has merit, it offers another example of how contested religious practice continued to influence the wording of the biblical text late into the Second Temple period.

Isaiah 19:18: A Textual Variant in Light of the Temple of Onias in Egypt

Documents

Transcript of Isaiah 19:18: A Textual Variant in Light of the Temple of Onias in Egypt