Who Can Forgive Sins But God Alone

http://jnt.sagepub.
com/
Testament
Journal for the Study of the New
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/33/4/351
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X11404601
2011 33: 351 Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Daniel Johansson
Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism
'Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?' Human and Angelic Agents, and
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal for the Study of the New Testament Additional services and information for
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/33/4/351.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Jun 2, 2011 Version of Record >>

at The Hebrew University Library Authority on March 23, 2012 jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Journal for the Study of
the New Testament
33(4) 351 374
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X11404601
jsnt.sagepub.com
Corresponding author:
Daniel Johansson, Stenbrogatan 3E, 431 43 Molndal, Sweden
Email: dilm@spray.se
Article
Who Can Forgive Sins but
God Alone? Human and
Angelic Agents, and Divine
Forgiveness in Early Judaism
*
Daniel Johansson
Stenbrogatan 3E, 431 43 Molndal, Sweden
Abstract
Was forgiveness of sins viewed as a divine prerogative, uniquely reserved for the God
of Israel in early Judaism? While some scholars think this was the case, others have
questioned or qualied such a view, arguing that other gures, such as priests, prophets,
various messianic gures, or angels, could forgive sins in the place of God. This article
surveys and critiques the main evidence that has been put forward to demonstrate this.
The outcome is mainly negative. With the possible exception of one or two passages
which may ascribe the authority to pardon sin to the Angel of YHWH, no rm evidence
can be found which demonstrates that other gures than God forgave sins. Various
strands of early Judaism conceived of human and angelic agents who interceded on
behalf of others, expiated sin and mediated forgiveness from God, but they all seem to
have shared the view that forgiveness is divine prerogative.
Keywords
Priestly absolution, atonement, early Judaism, forgiveness, God, mediators
Whether anyone except God could and did forgive sin in Second Temple Judaism has
long been a debated issue. On the one side there are those who contend that forgiveness
of sin was viewed as a uniquely divine prerogative, on the other those who argue that
some human gures forgave or were expected to forgive in Gods stead in one way or
* An earlier version of this article was presented to the NT and Second Temple Judaism seminar
group at the 2010 British New Testament Conference in Bangor, Wales.
352 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33(4)
another. This debate has primarily taken place in conjunction with discussions of Mk
2.1-12, where Jesus announces the forgiveness of a paralytics sins (2.5, 10). In response
to Jesus words, the scribes object that no one but God can forgive sins: Who can forgive
sins but God alone? (Mk 2.7). Their claim has, however, been questioned or at least
qualied for various reasons. It has, for example, been suggested that the Jews expected
a Messiah who would be authorized to forgive sins and that the scribes must have known
this. Others have claimed that the statement simply is mistaken and incorrectly attributed
to the scribes. Yet others have suggested that there were different views on the issue in
early Judaism, and while Mark correctly reects the standpoint of a pharisaic/rabbinic
tradition, the ndings in Qumran give evidence for another position.
1
I shall in this article survey and assess the main evidence for these views. I start with
the claim that priests forgave sins in the temple liturgy. We then turn to the ndings at
Qumran and the Prayer of Nabonidus. Next I discuss a recent argument based on evi-
dence from Josephus that prophets forgave sins, before looking at various texts which
may attribute forgiveness of sins to the Messiah. Finally, possible instances of angelic
forgiveness are examined.
Divine Forgiveness
We begin, however, by saying something about God as pardoner of sins. The biblical litera-
ture ascribes forgiveness to God at numerous places.
2
Most of these passages refer to Gods
gracious nature or promises of future forgiveness, but there are also instances where God
directly forgives a sin. An example of this is Num. 14.19-20. Moses asks for forgiveness on
behalf of the people and God responds: I have pardoned [ytxls], according to your
word.
3
At other places the announcement of Gods forgiveness is given by Gods messen-
gers.
4
An explicit statement that forgiveness of sins is the exclusive right of Israels God
cannot, however, be found. This may perhaps be somewhat surprising. But, given the view
that all sins, whether they are committed against God or human beings, are transgressions
of Gods commandments, it might simply be taken for granted.
5
Only the one who has been
1. Any answer to this question has of course signicant ramications for more than one impor-
tant issue. It will inuence the interpretation of Jesus identity in the Gospel of Mark, questions
regarding the origin of this pericope, studies of the historical Jesus, etc. Indeed, even narrative
readings of the text can sometimes refer to the knowledge of the rst readers to qualify what
the text itself appears to say.
2. Cf., e.g., Exod. 34.6-7, 9; Num. 14.18-20; Deut. 29.20; 2 Sam. 12.13; 1 Kgs 8.50; 2 Chron.
7.14; Neh. 9.17; Pss. 25.18; 32.1-5; 51.1-4, 9-11; 85.2; 99.8; 103.3; 130.4; Isa. 43.25-26;
44.22; 55.7; Jer. 31.34; Dan. 9.9, Mic. 7.18-19. See also Klauck 1981: 237.
3. The LXX renders xls by iito, tivoi in v. 20, but uses oiqi for the same Hebrew verb in
v. 19. On forgiveness terminology in the Hebrew Bible and the LXX, see, e.g., IDB, II, 315;
TDOT, X, 31-37; X, 258-65; TDNT, I, 510. Though several Hebrew verbs are used to express
the act of forgiving, xls is, according to Kraus, in the Old Testament the only real term for
forgiving (1993b: 291).
4. See the discussion below.
5. TDOT, X, 34-35. For an explicit link between sins against fellow human beings and sins
against God, see, e.g., Gen. 39.9; 2 Sam. 12.13-14; Sir. 28.2; cf. Mt. 6.12, 15; Lk. 15.18, 21.
Johansson 353
sinned against can forgive. Some passages, however, come close to afrming the uniquely
divine nature of forgiveness. For example, Micahs celebration of Gods faithfulness and
merciful nature: Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression
[(#$ p l( rb(w Nw( )#& n]
6
for the remnant of his inheritance? (Mic. 7.18). It could per-
haps be inferred from this rhetorical question that no one but God alone can forgive sin. But
what seems to be in view here is rather Gods supremacy and incomparability with other
gods.
7
It is not that these cannot forgive, but that Israels God is much more willing to do
so. Gods mercy and willingness to forgive is also the subject of Exod. 34.6-7 and Isa.
43.25, two passages which are frequently brought forward as parallels to Mk 2.7. The
Isaiah passage, in particular, with its strong emphasis of the subject (I, I am he who blots
out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins), could be
taken to imply that forgiveness is a divine prerogative, but neither this nor the Exodus pas-
sage actually state that this is the case. As in Mic. 7.18-19, these passages serve to highlight
the gracious nature of Israels God.
8
The closest biblical parallel to the scribes statement is
probably Ps. 103.2-5, where YHWHs forgiveness is listed alongside divine prerogatives,
such as healing of diseases and redemption from death.
9
The LXX translators choice of
words gives some support to this view.
10
It is, however, not more than an implicit afrmation.
Thus, though no passage in the Jewish Scriptures explicitly afrms that forgiveness is
Gods exclusive right, the fact that forgiveness always is attributed to God
11
and that
willingness to forgive is an important attribute of God seem to imply this.
Explicit afrmations of forgiveness as a divine prerogative are, even if rare, not
completely absent in Jewish literature, however.
12
O. Hous has found at least one very
close parallel to the scribes statement in Mk 2.7: in the Midrash on Ps. 17 the author
has David say to God, No one can forgive sins but you alone (Midr. Ps. 17.3).
13
The
question is then if there is any evidence in conict with this statement and the view
attributed to the scribes in Mk 2.
In fact, Ps. 51.1-4 seems to imply that sins against the neighbour are in some sense committed
against God alone. Despite adultery and murder, the psalmist can declare that against you,
you only, have I sinned. For a discussion, see Kraus 1993a: 502-503.
6. LXX: toipov oi|io, |oi utpoivov oottio,.
7. Cf. Andersen and Freedman 2000: 595, 597; Waltke 2007: 462-63.
8. Cf. Moore 1927: 389-90, 393-94, 535.
9. Bless YHWH, O my soul, and forget not all his benets, who forgives [xls] all your
iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you
with steadfast love and mercy, who satises you with good so that your youth is renewed
like the eagles.
10. The verb (tuiiotuo) used by the LXX translator to render xls describes divine mercy; see
LSJ, 717; cf. LXX Deut. 29.19; Ps. 98.8.
11. Of course, apart from cases where human beings forgive each other. Cf. TDNT, I, 510. For
possible exceptions, see below.
12. It is signicant that Billerbeck does not cite any parallel. On God as pardoner of sins in Second
Temple texts, see, e.g., Sir. 16.11; 28.2; Pr. Man. 7b, 13, 14; 1QS 2.8; CD 3.18; 4.10; 20.34;
1QH 6.24. See further also Str-B, I, 421-22, 424-25, 495, 795-97; II, 585-86.
13. Hous 2000a: 40 n. 11. See further Moore 1927: 535.
A Priestly or High-Priestly Absolution?
In his commentary on Mark, E. Lohmeyer, claimed that [e]very Jew knows that the
priest by means of sacrice and consecration has authority to forgive sins on the
earth.
14
Lohmeyers assumption is repeated by E. Haenchen who rejects the view of the
Markan scribes as false.
15
More recently, a similar position has been advocated by
J. Dunn, who claims that what Jesus says in Mk 2.5 is something the priest could say in
the Temple to everyone who had brought a sin-offering. What was put in question,
according to Dunn, was not so much Gods authority as the cults (1992: 175; see also
44-46). Likewise, in his narrative commentary on Mark, E. Broadhead explains that
while later readers may believe that Jesus himself forgives sins, the rst reader knows
that pronouncing forgiveness of sin is a priestly task (2001: 31-32). Related to this is
also the claim put forward by G. Friedrich (1956: 293-94; also Grundmann 1959: 76) and
recently advocated by C. Fletcher-Louis (2007: 71-74) that the high priestin distinction
from ordinary priestspronounced the forgiveness of sins.
It is striking that some of these scholars do not provide any evidence that priests actu-
ally pronounced an absolution.
16
It is taken for granted. Given the prominent place of
absolution in the Christian tradition it may then come as a surprise that there is no rm
evidence for a priestly declaration of forgiveness in the extant Jewish sources. There
have of course been attempts to offer such evidence, but as we shall see, these are not
without problems and also contradicted by other evidence we have.
Building on earlier form-critical studies,
17
K. Koch proposed in 1966, that the so-
called rpk_xlsn formula, which appears at the end of sin- and guilt-offerings in
Leviticus, is a reference to a priestly announcement which declared sin-offerings valid:
So the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven (Lev. 4.31; cf.
4.20, 26, 35; 5.10, 13, 16, 18; 6.7; 19.22; Num. 15.25-26, 28).
18
While the passive for-
mula, in Kochs view, indicates that God is the implicit agent of forgiveness, he neverthe-
less took this phrasing to mean that the priest completed the ritual act of atonement with
a word of absolution.
But this thesis has been criticized by O. Hous, who questions whether Lev. 4.31 and
its parallel passages can be understood as instructions to the priests or descriptions of the
ritual act.
19
The formula should rather be seen as a theological statement about the act of
atonement which on the one hand distinguishes between the priestly act of atonement
(the priest shall make atonement) and Gods acceptance of the sacrice (he shall be
14. Jedem Jude ist bekannt, dass etwa der Priester auf Erden Macht hat, Snden zu vergeben,
durch Opfer und Weihe (1937: 53). Lohmeyer alludes to Mk 2.10.
15. Das stimmt freilich nicht ganz: auch der Priester kann nach jdischer berzeugung von
Snden lossprechen (1966: 102).
16. Broadhead (1999: 69) refers to Lev. 16.32-34, but this passage speaks about the atonement the
priest makes, not that he declares sins forgiven.
17. E.g., von Rads (1961: 131-32) suggestion that the priests had declared faulty sacrices invalid
aloud (cf. Lev. 7.18; 19.7).
18. 1966: 226. See also Thyen 1970: 35 n. 2, who takes the formula to be an Anweisung an das
Kultpersonal.
19. Hous 2000b: 59-60; cf. Klauck 1981: 237.
Johansson 355
forgiven), and, on the other, binds Gods forgiveness to the sacrice. The rpk_xlsn
formula therefore cannot constitute any conclusive evidence for that the priests actually
pronounced sins forgiven.
Furthermore, evidence is lacking in early Jewish texts where one would expect it. The
detailed description of how sacrices were offered in the Jerusalem temple in The Letter
of Aristeas 92-95, which E. Sanders has drawn attention to, is completely silent in this
regard (1992: 80-81): The most complete silence reigns so that one might imagine that
there was not a single person present, though there are actually seven hundred men
engaged in the work, besides the vast number of those who are occupied in bringing up
the sacrices (Ep. Arist. 95).
20
The priests appear to have sacriced in silence, so Sanders
nds it unlikely that they would have pronounced sins forgiven (1992: 109). Texts which
describe the rituals for the Day of Atonement also have some relevance in this discus-
sion. Ben Siras description of the ritual (Sir. 50.5-21) mentions the high-priestly bless-
ing, but does not indicate that the high priest pronounced an absolution.
21
Neither does
the later, rather detailed, description of the Day of Atonement in the Mishnah tractate
Yoma. Several verbal acts of the high priest are spelled out, including confessions,
prayers, reading from the Torah, and a blessing, but there is no mention of an absolu-
tion.
22
If the liturgy of the Day of Atonement lacked an absolution, it is probable that
ordinary priests in the daily liturgy did not pronounce sins forgiven either.
This lack of evidence for a priestly absolution in texts from the Second Temple period
or shortly afterwards seems to rule out Kochs hypothesis and similar arguments based
on form-critical studies of the Psalms.
23
If there was a time when priests pronounced sins
forgiven in the cult, it at least appears not to have been the case during this period.
While noting that there is a lack of evidence that ordinary priests declared sins for-
given in the cult, Fletcher-Louis claims that the high priest did do so (2007: 72-73). He
quotes Exod. 28.36-38 and Lev. 10.17, and argues further that 2 En. 64.5 demonstrates
that at least some Jews took these passages to mean that the high priest took away and
forgave sin. Again, as we have already seen, it is crucial that detailed accounts of the high
priests action on the Day of Atonement do not mention any pronouncement of an abso-
lution formula. If the high priest indeed declared sins forgiven, one would expect this to
be mentioned. Apart from this, it is questionable that the passages Fletcher-Louis invokes
actually indicate that the high priest forgives sins. T. Hgerland, in his meticulous refuta-
tion of Fletcher-Louis arguments, shows that, although the verb )#&n followed by sin
terminology sometimes means forgive (e.g., Gen. 50.17; Exod. 10.17; Num. 14.18), it
20. Trans. Andrews in APOT, II, 104.
21. The suggestion by Box and Oesterley (APOT, I, 508, 510) that in Ben-Siras day a priestly
absolution was pronounced on the Day of Atonement is based on a reconstruction of the frag-
mentary Hebrew text and remains a speculation. See Hous 2000b:62.
22. Neither is there any evidence for an act of absolution in the Samaritan literature (see Hous
2000b: 62-67).
23. See, e.g., Kraus 1993b: 467-68, who argues that a priestly oracle which assures that the sins
are forgiven is to be assumed between Ps. 130.3-6 and 7-8. Hous (2000b: 61) is open to this
possibility, but argues with reference to v. 5c (his word) that this must be a word of YHWH
himself in analogy to 2 Sam. 12.13.
hardly does so in Exod. 28.38 and Lev. 10.17 (2009: 126-30). In Exod. 28 it is clear that
the passage is about the sanctuary and that Aaron will take the guilt of the holy things
and not the sins of the people. In Lev. 10.17 the verb could possibly be translated to
forgive, but the fact that to bear/remove/forgive the guilt of the congregation appears
to stand in parallelism with to atone for them before YHWH suggests that the high
priest takes away rather than forgives the guilt of congregation. Hgerland also notes that
neither the LXX nor the Targums support the rendering to forgive. As in Lev. 4 and 5,
the distinction between priestly atonement and divine forgiveness is maintained in these
passages. It also doubtful that 2 En. 64.5 demonstrates what Fletcher-Louis claims,
namely that some Jews took the two Pentateuchal passages to mean that it was the high
priests duty to forgive sin. The date as well as the Jewish provenance of 2 Enoch is
debateable (see F.I. Andersen, OTP, I, 94-97). Furthermore, as Hgerland points out, it is
by no means certain that the text portrays Enoch as a high priest, and the intertextual
links to Exod. 28.36-38 and Lev. 10.17 are not evident; an echo of the description of the
Servant of the Lord in Isa. 4055 seems more plausible. Most importantly, however, the
crucial phrase in 2 En. 64.5, who carried away the sin of mankind, seems to refer to
atonement for sins rather than to a declaration of the forgiveness of sins.
To sum up, there is no conclusive evidence that priests pronounced an absolution in
the context of sacrices, even less that they themselves forgave sins in Gods stead.
24

Whether we take Jesus words in Mk 2.5 as a divine passive and, accordingly, that Jesus
announced Gods forgiveness to the paralytic, or if Jesus himself forgave him, as Mk 2.10
implies, there is no evidence that Jesus took on a priestly role. Priests could atone for sins
and obtain forgiveness for themselves and the people,
25
but they did not pronounce an
absolution, and God himself remained the sovereign pardoner of sins.
An Exception in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
A different kind of argument was raised by Dupont-Sommer in 1959. He did not reject
the Markan scribes point of view as incorrect, but suggested instead that with regard to
the question of forgiveness of sins there existed a doctrinal conict between the Pharisees
and the Essenes in which Jesus sided with the Essenes (1960: 260). This contention was
based on the so-called Prayer of Nabonidus, a newly published Aramaic fragment from
Qumran,
26
which, according to Dupont-Sommer, attributes the pardoning of sins to a
Jewish exorcist.
24. Hous 2000b: 67: Die Behauptung, dass das antike Judentum dem Priester bzw. dem
Hohenpriester die Vollmacht zuerkannt habe, von Snden loszusprechen, entbehrt jegli-
cher Quellengrundlage. Wir wissen weder etwas von einem priesterlichen Absolutionsakt
gegenber dem einzelnen noch auch von einem priesterlichen Vergebungszuspruch an die im
Tempel versammelten Gemeinde; cf. also Kuhn 1971: 56 n. 20; Sanders 1992: 109; Hgerland
2009: 131. Goppelt also points out the lack of any act of absolution in the synagogue liturgy
(1975: 86).
25. Cf. also Philo, Spec. 1.229; Mos. 2.134.
26. The text consists of ve fragments and was originally published by Milik (1956); cf. Cross
1984, who proposes a different placement of the fragments; for the denitive text, see Collins
Johansson 357
The fragment, which is also known as 4QPrNab or 4Q242, describes an episode
which is very similar to Dan. 4. The Babylonian king Nabonidus recounts how he, while
staying in Teima, was aficted by a severe disease sent from God and how he prayed in
vain to his idols for seven years before the Most High God cured him. In this context he
also mentions a Jewish diviner or exorcist whose role is somewhat unclear, but it appears
that he instructed the king to write down what had happened to him in order to honour
Israels God. The superscription of the text, which fortunately has been preserved, sug-
gests that a prayer made up a larger portion of the work, but nothing of this has been
preserved.
What is of importance here are the rst words of line 4: rzg hl qb#$ y)+xw. Whereas
most scholars agree that the rst two words should be translated and my sins he for-
gave, there is no consensus in regard to the grammatical subject of the verb qb#$ , and to
what or to whom hl refers. Should we read qb#$ with the preceding line 3 or with what
follows in line 4? Dupont-Sommer read the verb with the following rzg and translated,
et un exorciste remit mes pchs.
27
Other scholars have questioned this interpretation
and argued that qb#$ instead should be read with the preceding line and that God is the
implied subject of the verb.
28
The rst thing to note is that 4Q242 is in a fragmentary state and that the printed text
in most editions is largely conjectural. Unfortunately, there is a large lacuna in the latter
part of line 3 which is of crucial importance for the interpretation of line 4. We do not
know if God was mentioned there, although the context seems to suggest that, and we
can only speculate about the relationship between lines 3 and 4. Any conclusions about
the text must therefore be deemed as hypotheses. Some may, however, be more likely
than others.
Three main proposals can be discerned.
29
Garca Martnez, who follows Dupont-
Sommer, argues that rzg hl qb#$ y)+xw should be considered as a single sentence,
dened by the two w which precede y)+xw and )whw [the verb following upon rzg].
30

Thus the translation, and an exorcist pardoned my sin. He was a Jewish [man] This
seems straightforward and preferable, were it not for hl. Dupont-Sommer and Garca
Martnez take it as a dativus ethicus, which would demand the translation he remitted
for himself my sin. According to Driver, however, the dativus ethicus is reexive,
1996. For a convenient overview of the problems involved in reconstructing the text and the
various alternatives that have been proposed, see Flint 2001: II, 332-38. The fragment is com-
monly dated between 75 and 25 BCE.
27. Dupont-Sommer 1960: 258. Others who take rzg as the grammatical subject include Vermes
1973: 67-68; Fitzmyer 1980: 15-16; Nickelsburg 1984: 35-37; Garca Martnez 1992: 120,
125-26; Dunn 1992: 46; Gundry 1993: 116; Marcus 2000: 217. Cf. also Vermess and Garca
Martnezs translations of the DSS.
28. Meyer 1962: 23-24, 33; Jongeling, Labuschagne and van der Woude 1976: 127-28; Grelot
1978: 488-89; van der Woude 1978:124-25; Klauck 1981: 239-40; Tuckett 1982: 74-75 n. 29;
Cross 1984: 263-64; Blackburn 1991: 139; Hogan 1992: 149-57; Collins 1996: 89-91; Puech
1996: 216-18; Flint 2001: 336 (who has changed his earlier view; cf. 1997: 56-57); Steinmann
2002: 559.
29. But cf., e.g., Milik 1956; Beyer 1984: 223-24.
30. Garca Martnez 1992: 125.
throwing the action back upon the subject and expressing with some pathos the interest,
or satisfaction, or completeness with which it is accomplished.
31
It is difcult to con-
ceive of any reexive sense in the action of the Jewish seer, or how the action would
benet the diviner, when it rather benets Nabonidus.
32
In that case it would be better to
emend hl and read yl instead: and an exorcist remitted my sins for me. But the word
is clearly hl. Fitzmyer, who recognizes the difculty with the dativus ethicus, but nev-
ertheless prefers the diviner as the grammatical subject of qb#$ , argues that hl instead
refers to God, thus translating: and an exorcist remitted my sins for Him.
33
This presup-
poses that God has been restored in line 3. The question is, however, whether hl was
used in this sense in Aramaic.
34
One would rather expect M#$b to express the idea that the
exorcist forgave under the authority of God or in the name of God. However, even if we
grant that Fitzmyers solution is correct, we must ask if 4Q242 in this translation consti-
tutes a factual exception to the view of the Markan scribes. The Jewish seer is no doubt
a mediator of divine forgiveness; he announces forgiveness with reference to God. But
does he personally forgive the king in Gods place? Naboniduss words may in fact imply
that the Jewish man announced that the Most High had forgiven him, in much the same
way as Nathan announces Gods forgiveness to David (2 Sam. 12.13). Indeed, taking into
account Naboniduss status as a Gentile, it seems probable that the Jewish seer identied
the source of the forgiveness that was bestowed upon the king. In Fitzmyers translation
the text may portray a Jewish man who himself pardons sins committed against Israels
God, but it cannot be excluded that it refers to announcement of Gods forgiveness.
In contrast to Garca Martnez and Fitzmyer, van der Woude takes rzg hl as a nomi-
nal sentence in which the sufx in hl refers back the subject of qb#$ , which is assumed
to be God (restored in line 3) and translates: he [God] forgave my sins. He had a diviner,
who was a Jewish man
35
While this usage of hl is paralleled in other Aramaic texts
(cf. Dan. 2.20; 7.4, 6, 7), Grelot is probably correct in objecting that it would be difcult
to begin a sentence with this construction without using the verb hwh or the particle
yty).
36
31. BDB, 515b. Cf. GKC, 119s2; Muraoka 1978: 495: [T]he hallmark of the Semitic con-
struction is the identity of grammatical person of the subject of the verb with that of the
pronoun sufxed to the preposition Hence some scholars refer to the Lamedh as reexive.
Muraoka denes it as centripetal: Basically it serves to convey the impression on the part
of the speaker or author that the subject establishes his own identity, recovering or nding his
own place by determinedly dissociating himself from his familiar surrounding (497). Cf. also
Black 1967: 101-104.
32. Cf. Blackburn 1991: 139 n. 206; Collins 1996: 90. Garca Martnez is thus not correct when he
states that the only objection to his translation is the alleged impossibility for a man to forgive
sins (1992: 126).
33. Fitzmyer 1980: 16, accepted by, e.g., Gundry 1993: 116 and Marcus 2000: 217.
34. In an e-mail, dated 15 September 2009, Professor O. Hous pointed out to me that l may be
used in this sense in Exod. 4.16a, Isa. 6.8 and perhaps 2 Chron. 19.6, but he could not recall
any examples in Aramaic where l is used to express im Namen von or im Auftrag von.
35. Van der Woude 1978: 124-25, followed by, e.g., Tuckett 1982: 74-75 n. 29; Blackburn 1991:
139.
36. Grelot 1978: 489.
Johansson 359
Grelot,
37
followed by Cross, Collins and Puech, puts the break after hl treating
hl qb#$ y)+xw as a single unit. hl is taken as a pronominal object, which at the end of
the sentence repeats the complement placed before the verb, thus referring back to
y)+xw: and my sin, he [God]
38
forgave it. A diviner, a Jewish man This construction
may be understood as a casus pendens.
39
A close parallel in Hebrew and Aramaic, respec-
tively, can be found in Ps. 65.4(3) and Tg. Ps. 65.4. Further support for this interpretation
seems also to be given by the fact that in Aramaic the object of qb#$ (sin, debt etc.) is
often introduced by the preposition l.
40
Garca Martnezs sole objection to this interpretation is that it would limit the role of
the rzg to exhort Nabonidus to write (1992: 125). This is not a conclusive argument,
however. One may compare it to Dan. 4 where Daniels role is limited to interpreting
Nebuchadnezzars dream and exhorting the king to practice righteousness, before the
dream is fullled. But Daniel does not play any role in the restoration of the king.
41
Also,
even if one does not attribute to the diviner the act of forgiving, one could imagine that
he was involved in the conversion of Nabonidus by turning his attention from the idols
to the Most High God, so that the king prayed to God, which in turn led to God forgiving
and healing him.
42
A third proposal, which probably best reects the text as it has come
down to us, is that the Jewish diviner came forward after Nabonidus suddenly had been
healed, and identied the Most High God as the agent of his healing and told the king to
honour him (Grelot 1978: 488; Collins 1996: 91). As forgiveness and healing are often
connected in early Jewish thinking,
43
it is difcult to imagine that God is not ascribed to
both. The cure of the king demonstrated that God had forgiven him his idolatry, and this
the Jewish man announced to Nabonidus.
Though all three proposals are possible, the last one seems to be least problematic
grammatically. 4Q242 would then not constitute an exception to the idea that forgive-
ness of sins is a divine prerogative. This interpretation seems also to be supported
37. Grelot 1978: 487-89.
38. Collins restores line 3: was smitten for seven years and sin[ce] G[od] set [his face on me, he
healed me] (1996: 89).
39. Cf. GKC, 143c. Cross (1984: 263) also proposes as a possible alternative the familiar
Aramaic passive participle followed by l introducing the logical subject.
40. See, e.g, Tg. Neof. Gen. 18.24, 26; 50.17; Exod. 10.17; 23.21; 32.32. Thanks to Professor O.
Hous for pointing this out to me.
41. Henze 1999: 66-67. He notes that the seer in the prayer has a similar role although the sequence
of events is reversed: His sole function is to inform the monarch that his cure, which at this
point has already happened, was an act of God Most High. With a single line the Jewish
diviner brings about the kings conversion: Proclaim and write to give honour and exaltation
to the name of God Most High (line 5).
42. Some (van der Woude, Cross, Garca Martnez) restore the end of line 3: I prayed to the Most
High. Contrary to the supposition of Collins, this may not invalidate the role of the diviner, if
one assumes that he came forward while the monarch was still suffering and instructed him to
turn away from the idols to the Most High God. The problem with this view is that the Jewish
diviner is mentioned only after the healing has taken place.
43. Cf. 2 Chron. 7.14; Pss. 32.3-4; 103.3; 107.17; Isa. 33.24; Mk 2.1-12 with par.; 1 Cor. 11.30;
Jas 5.15-16; b. Ned. 41a. See further Str-B, I, 495-96.
from other Qumran texts. Though any attempt to restore and interpret 4Q242 on the
basis of the premise that God always is the subject of forgiveness of sins is circular
and incorrect
44
the people at Qumran could very well diverge from other Jewish
groups on this matterit is signicant for the interpretation of this text that every-
where else in the Qumran library forgiveness is attributed to God.
45
It is also impor-
tant to note that the two other Qumran texts which speak of cure or exorcism of
demons (1QapGen 20.28-29; 1QS 3-4) do not attribute forgiveness of sins to any
human being, diviner or exorcist.
Any interpretation of this text must in the end, however, acknowledge its fragmentary
state. Whatever we conclude about the grammatical subject of qb#$ in line 4, it must be
remembered that lines 1-5 only constitute the superscription and a short note on what has
occasioned the writing. We do not have the main body of the text which may have elabo-
rated lines 3-4 at some length. Therefore, to state that in the Prayer of Nabonidus we have
a clear example of a human being forgiving sins (committed against God) is to go beyond
the actual evidence we have.
A Prophetic Right to Forgive Sin (Josephus, Ant. 6.92)?
Several scholars who take Jesus words in Mk 2.5b as a divine passive
46
conclude with
reference to 2 Sam. 12.13 that Jesus does what a prophet could do, namely announce
Gods forgiveness.
47
But if Marks narrative goes further than that by portraying Jesus as
personally forgiving the paralytics sins, as 2.10 seems to suggest, Jesus would go beyond
what any prophet could do. This assumption has, however, been challenged in Hgerlands
recent study of the historical Jesus and forgiveness of sins (2009: 132-56, 168). He
claims to have found a hitherto overlooked passage in Josephuss Antiquities, which
predicates the very act of forgiveness to Samuel.
48
The passage in question is Ant. 6.92-
93 (cf. 1 Sam. 12.16-25) which Hgerland translates:
44. As does van der Woude 1978: 124.
45. E.g., 1QS 2.8; 11.3; CD 2.4-5; 3.18; 1QH 6.24; 12.37; 15.18, 30, 35; 11QTgJob 38.2.
11QMelch II.7-8 (Fitzmyer 1980: 16), CD 13.10; 14.19 (Dupont-Sommer 1960: 260-61) are
no exceptions. Melchizedek is an agent of the expiation, but he does not forgive sins. CD
13.10 alludes to Isa. 58.6 and has more to do with social justice than absolution of sins. See
Janowski 1993: 65-67. On CD 14.19, see below.
46. It is by no means certain that the passive expression is a passivum divinum. A passive for-
mula can be used by both God and humans when they offer forgiveness (see Hous 2000a:
48-52).
47. Whether Davids sin actually was forgiven in the original context (for the view that the punish-
ment was transferred to his son, see McCarter 1984: 301), this was clearly the view in later
Jewish interpretations of it (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 7.153). For the rabbinic interpretation, see the
passages listed in Hous 2000a: 41 n. 14.
48. More hesitantly, he also refers to 4Q242 for prophetic forgiveness (he understands the diviner
as Daniel the prophet). For prophetic announcement of forgiveness, Hgerland refers to Isa.
33.24; 40.2; LAB 30.7; Josephus, Ant. 3.24(?); 7.153; 8.257 (2009: 168).
Johansson 361
[T]hey confessed that they had sinned and had fallen into this because of ignorance, and they
began to implore the prophet as a mild and gentle father, to make God benevolent towards them
and to forgive this sin [ov tov ouoi, tutvq |oooqooi |oi ouqv otivoi qv
oopiov], which they had committed in addition to other things which they had acted
insolently and had violated the law. He for his part promised to beg and to persuade God to
pardon them for these things (ouyyvovoi tpi ouov ouoi,).
49
Hgerland takes the two innitives |oooq ooi and o ti voi as parallel, and, as
Samuel is clearly the subject of the former, he must also be the subject of the latter.
Samuel is thus on the one hand asked to make God gracious to the people, and on the
other to forgive the people. If this reading is correct, we have to ask what they mean by
begging Samuel to forgive them. Is Samuel asked personally to forgive the people for
offending him or is he asked to forgive their sins against God? Either alternative is pos-
sible. Samuel was offended by the request for a king (Ant. 6.36-37), and although God
comforts Samuel and tells the prophet that the people have not spurned him but God, he
also says to Samuel that the people have been ungrateful to both of them (6.38).
Furthermore, Samuel begins the speech which leads up to the section under discussion
by defending his own leadership (6.86-87). It is also noteworthy that the closest parallels
to the phrase otivoi qv oopiov (uniquely used by Josephus here) in Ant. 15.48
(opq|t qv o opiov) and 15.356 (oopovo, otivoi) refer to human forgive-
ness. Josephus commonly employs ouyyivoo|tiv or its cognate noun for both divine
and human forgiveness,
50
but the few times he uses otivoi it more often refers to for-
giveness of personal offences by human beings rather than sins committed against God.
51

The people may thus beg Samuel to forgive their neglect of him in addition to their
request for Gods forgiveness.
52
But, apart from Samuels defence of his own behaviour,
49. Hgerland 2009: 138.
50. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 3.23; 6.144, 151, 208; 7.193, 198, 321; 8.301; 9.214; 11.144, 229.
51. In addition to those cited, Josephus, Ant. 2.146; J.W. 2.77. I have only been able to nd one
passage where it refers to Gods forgiveness (Ant. 11.144).
52. Cf. Exod. 10.16-17; 1 Sam. 15.24-25. Neither of these passages supports the idea that prophets
forgave in Gods place (cf. TDOT, X, 33). In the Exodus passage, Pharaoh turns to Moses and
Aaron and confesses: I have sinned against YHWH your God, and against you. Now, please,
take away/forgive my sin [yt)+x )n )#& ], only this once, and plead with YHWH, your God,
only to remove this death from me (Exod. 10.16-17). Whereas the verb )#&n followed by sin
terminology in some cases is used in the sense of to forgive and accordingly rendered by
the verb oiqi in the LXX (Gen. 18.26; 50.17; Exod. 32.32; Isa. 33.24; Pss. 25.18; 32.1, 5;
85.3), there are also many instances when it cannot have this meaning (e.g., Exod. 28.43; Lev.
5.1, 17; 7.18; 16.22; Num. 5.31; 14.34; Ezek. 4.4, 5, 6). Durham (1987: 134, 137) suggests
that )#&n has the sense tolerate here, a meaning which is supported by the LXX translation
(poot_tooi [put up with, bear with]). Irrespective of the meaning of )#&n, however, it
seems clear that Pharaoh asks for Moses and Aarons forgiveness, not Gods, so that they, in
spite of the kings disobedience, show favour to him and intercede with their God. The situa-
tion is similar in 1 Sam. 15.24-25 (on the parallels, see Tsumara 2007: 405) where Saul says to
Samuel: I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of YHWH and your words,
because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please take away/forgive
my sin [yt)+x t) )n )#& ] and return with me that I may worship YHWH. In this case, the
nothing in the speech which precedes the repentance of the people suggests that the peo-
ple have sinned against anyone but God. Neither is there any mention of Samuel forgiv-
ing the people in response to their prayer. The context therefore seems to demand that the
sins in question are committed against God.
53
But this raises again the question of what
the people mean by asking Samuel to forgive the sin. It seems unlikely that it can be used
in the same absolute sense as it has in Mark, for the phrase is preceded by a request to
make God gracious as well as followed by Samuels promise that he will pray to God to
pardon the sin.
54
Hgerland recognizes this problem and suggests that to make God
benevolent and to forgive this sin are used more or less synonymously by Josephus. He
further suggests that the verb otivoi has the sense to dismiss, to send away. Thus
[w]hen Samuel forgives a sin, he prays for the people in order to placate God and to
avert the temporal punishment for the sin committed (2009: 139).
Two comments are in order. First, if the verb is taken in the sense cause to be for-
given, it is difcult to see how this passage demonstrates what Hgerland claims, namely
that prophets could forgive sin on behalf of God. Samuel does not forgive in the sense
Jesus does, whether Jesus personally forgives the paralytics sins or he announces Gods
forgiveness. The same language may be used, but the meaning is clearly another. If
Hgerland is correct, this passage gives another example of a prophet interceding with
God on behalf of other human beings, but it does not show that the Markan scribes were
wrong in saying that only God could forgive sin. It seems rather to conrm their view;
Samuel is asked to beg God to forgive.
Second, the sense that Hgerland assigns to otivoi has, as far as I know, no parallel
in Josephus. When Josephus uses the verb in connection with sin it always refers to the
very act of reconciliation.
55
It is thus questionable that it has any other sense here.
Therefore, before resorting to Hgerlands interpretation of otivoi we must consider
another possibility, namely that God is the implied subject of the verb.
LXX quite literally translates )#&n with the verb oiptiv. In view of the parallel usage of )#&n/
oiptiv in 1 Sam. 25.28, it is likely that the meaning is forgive here. As in the Exodus passage,
however, the king wants favours from the prophet and therefore asks Samuel to personally
forgive him (cf. 15.30). Tsumara notes that Saul is not concerned about his relationship with
God but his relationship with the people and the elders (Tsumara 2007: 405, 407-408). This is
clearly Josephuss interpretation of the passage as he has Saul only confess a transgression of
the prophets command (Ant. 6.151).
53. Hgerlands contention that Josephus should have used the verb ouyyivoo|tiv (cf. 6.151) if
he had Samuels personal forgiveness in view falls short on the fact that Josephus more often
employs otivoi for human forgiveness than divine.
54. Unless one assumes that Samuel was asked to pronounce Gods forgiveness in a public act of
absolution after having obtained it, but this seems to be excluded from the fact that the people
are dismissed without such an act.
55. Ant. 2.146; 11.144; 15.356; J.W. 2.77. Hgerland contrasts Josephuss use of ouyyvovoi for
God and otivoi for the prophet and suggests that the latter is employed for the prophets
act of offering forgiveness on behalf of God (2009: 139; his italics). But it is doubtful that
Josephus attributed different meanings to the two verbs. The fact that they appear together
elsewhere in the corpus (Ant. 2.145-146; 11.144) suggests that he regarded them as more or
less synonymous.
Johansson 363
This view seems to have support from the immediate context. The Israelites ask
Samuel to make God gracious towards them, and Samuel replies by promising to pray
and persuade God to pardon their sins. The clause about forgiving sins which is placed
in between these statements would then also refer to Gods forgiveness. Hgerland
objects, however, that this understanding has no support in the syntax of the sentence.
The verb |oooqooi would in that case be used in a twofold sense and would take as
complements to the subject (God) both an adjective (tutvq ) and a verb (otivoi),
which is unlikely and without parallel in Josephus. This assumes that |oi is used in its
ordinary sense to connect two clauses, but this is not necessary. There is also the possibil-
ity that we have here a |oi consecutivum,
56
in which case the passage should be trans-
lated: they begged the prophetto make God benevolent towards them so that he would
forgive this sin This is indeed how this passage traditionally has been translated.
Consider, for example, Thackerays translation in the LCL: They implored the prophet
to render God gracious to them that He might forgive this Christopher Beggs transla-
tion in the new Brill edition of Josephuss work is more ambiguous. He translates:
Theybegged the prophetto make God benevolent to them and forgive this offense
[alt.: forgive this sin] of theirs (2005: 124-25). But he still understands God as the
subject of the verb to forgive.
57
What, nally, also militates against Hgerlands argument is the lack of evidence for
Hgerlands view where one would expect it. Note, for example, Ant. 6.142-54 (cf. 1
Sam. 15.10-31), where Samuel fails in his attempt to make intercession for Saul and
shows himself to be unable to forgive sins. Also, if Josephus held the view that the proph-
ets could forgive, he had excellent opportunity to express this in his rewriting of 2 Sam.
12.13 (Ant. 7.153). But there is not even an absolution formula as in 2 Samuel. Josephus
simply states that God, upon Davids confession, took pity on him, was reconciled to
him, and promised to preserve his life and kingdom. These promises are then attributed
to the prophesying of Nathan.
As elsewhere in the biblical and other early Jewish literature, Josephus portrays
prophets as interceding on behalf of others for the forgiveness of sins, but he does not
seem to offer any evidence that prophets were acting to forgive sins.
Was the Messiah Expected to Forgive Sins?
In the late nineteenth century, J. Weiss opined that Jesus opponents knew very well
that the Messiah also was going to forgive sins (1892: 57). His view was soon chal-
lenged by G. Dalman (1898: 214-15) and P. Billerbeck (Str-B, I, 495) who pointed out
that evidence for this view was lacking. Their conclusions, however, have been ques-
tioned from time to time. Three passages, in particular, have been put forward in sup-
port of a forgiving Messiah: the Targum of Isaiah 53, the Testament of Levi 18.9 and
CD 14.19.
56. BDF, 442 2a. For examples of |oi consecutivum in Josephus, see, e.g., Ant. 3.6; 5.20; J.W.
2.237.
57. Conrmed in an e-mail to me 21 August 2009.
Testament of Levi 18.9
We begin with the Testament of Levi. In his 1953 article on Jesus as messianic high priest
in the synoptic Gospels, G. Friedrich argued that the high priestly Messiah was expected
to forgive sins. He referred to T.Levi 18.9:
And during his priesthood the Gentiles will be multiplied in knowledge upon the earth and will
be enlightened through the grace of the Lord, but Israel will be diminished through ignorance
and will be darkened in grief. During his priesthood all sin will fail and the lawless will cease
to do evil, but the righteous will rest in him.
58

Apart from the possibility that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs may have a
Christian origin (de Jonge 1953; Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 1-85, 129-30), it is quite
clear that this text does not ascribe forgiveness of sin to the messianic high priest. It men-
tions a well-known theme in Jewish predictions of the future, namely that sin will cease,
die out (t|itio),
59
but the eschatological gure described here does not personally
forgive sins committed against God.
60
Isaiah 53 Targum
The second passage sometimes adduced as evidence that the Messiah was expected to
forgive sins is the Targum of Isaiah 53. K. Koch argues that it depicts a Messiah who
forgives by means of word and deed.
61
The Targum mentions the forgiveness of sins
four times (53.4, 5, 6, 12)
62
and furthermore describes the Messiah as making interces-
sion for sins three times (53.4, 11, 12). Verse 4 combines these themes in the following
way: Then he will beseech concerning our sins and our iniquities for his sake will be
forgiven (53.4).
63
In three cases the forgiveness is said to take place for the sake of the
Messiah (vv. 4, 6, 12).
64
But the Messiah nowhere grants forgiveness. The passive verbs
rather indicate that God is the one who forgives. This is especially clear from vv. 4 and
12 both of which indicate that forgiveness follows the Messiahs intercession for sins (cf.
Lev. 4.20 etc. discussed above). Likewise, the parallel between v. 6 (before the LORD
it was a pleasure to forgive the sins of us all for his sake) and v. 10 (before the LORD
it was a pleasure to rene and to cleanse the remnant of his people, in order to purify their
soul from sins) shows that God is the source of forgiveness in both of these passages.
Finally, v. 5 states that by attaching themselves to the teaching of the Messiah their sins
58. Cited after Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 177-78.
59. Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 181. See Pss. Sol. 17.27; 4 Ezra 6.27-28; 7.113-14; 2 Bar. 73.4;
Jub. 4.26; 23.29; 1 En. 69.29; 91.8, 11, 14, 17; 92.5; 100.5.
60. Cf., e.g., Thyen 1970: 49 n. 8; Hous 2000c: 72 n. 10. Even less relevant are passages such as
Pss. Sol. 17.27, 30, 36 (cf. Jub. 5.11-12), which depict the Messiah as driving out and destroy-
ing sinners.
61. (1972: 148): eines durch Wort und Tat sndenvergebenden Messias.
62. The verb is qb# and appears in the ithpeel (53.4, 5, 12) and peal (53.6).
63. Cited after Chilton 1987: 104.
64. One manuscript (BM 12) reads for him instead of for his sake in v.12.
Johansson 365
will be forgiven. Again, the passive verb form is most likely a divine passive. This pas-
sage then speaks of forgiveness for Gods people in the messianic age and states that the
Messiah is closely associated with this. Forgiveness is a result of his intercession as well
as his teaching which will create an obedient people. But the Targum nowhere depicts the
Messiah as himself forgiving in his own power. Instead, as elsewhere in the Isaiah
Targum, forgiveness is Gods prerogative, although it here takes place for the sake of the
Messiah.
65
To use Houss words: The Messiah obtains and mediates the forgiveness of
sins, but he does not effect and grant it.
66
Damascus Document 14.19
J.M. Baumgarten has recently repeated the view of A. Dupont-Sommer, that the cove-
nanters at Qumran did not share the rabbinic view that only God could forgive sins
(1999). With reference to other evidence that eschatological gures were assigned vari-
ous divine functions in apocalyptic literature, he nds it conceivable that CD 14.19
describes messianic forgiveness. Consider, for example, Vermess translation (1990: 99):
This is the exact statement of the statutes in which [they shall walk until the coming of
the Messia]h of Aaron and Israel who will pardon their iniquity (CD 14.18-19). There is
however a number of difculties involved in this translation. The text itself is in a frag-
mentary state and it is not clear whether God or the Messiah is the subject of the verb
rpky.
67
One may here compare Baumgartens own, more ambiguous translation in the
Dead Sea Scrolls edition edited by Charlesworth (And this is the explanation of the set-
tlement h[] [the Messia]h of Aaron and Israel. And their iniquity will be atoned
[]).
68
As Baumgartens translation indicates, it is possible that the verb is passive (see
Janowski 1993: 68). Furthermore, it is questionable that forgive is the most adequate
translation of rpk. Both Baumgarten and Garca Martnez
69
render the verb atone.
Whereas Vermes consistently renders all instances of rpk forgive, Garca Martnez
and the Charlesworth edition consistently translate it as atone.
70
Normally, of course,
rpk refers to ritual expiation of sin, and a priest is the subject of the action. But there are
cases when God is the subject and forgive may be an appropriate translation (e.g., Jer.
18.31). In fact, all other occurrences of the verb in CD has God as its subject, so forgive
65. For a careful and detailed analysis with an abundance of parallels from other Hebrew and
Aramaic sources, see Hous 2000c. For other passages which ascribe forgiveness of sins to
God, see Hous 2000c: 104 n. 205.
66. Der Messias erwirkt und vermittelt die Sndenvergebung, aber er wirkt und gewhrt sie nicht
(2000c: 104). Houss italics.
67. See Janowski 1993: 67-68. God is the grammatical subject of rpk everywhere else in the
document (2.4-5; 3.18; 4.6, 9, 10; 20.34).
68. Charlesworth 1995: 57. Baumgartens article is later than his translation and he may have
changed his view. In his article he seems to take it for granted that the verb is active and the
Messiah is the subject.
69. And this is the exact interpretation of the regulations by which [they shall be ruled] [until
there arises the messiah] of Aaron and Israel. He shall atone for their sins [pardon, and
guilt] (Garca Martnez 1994: 44).
70. D.R. Schwartz is the translator of the remaining occurrences of rpk. See Charlesworth 1995: 8.
may perhaps be an adequate translation in these passages. One difculty with this is that
in CD 3.18 Gods rpk of sin is followed by M(#pl )#yw
71
which is translated par-
doned/forgave their sin by Garca Martnez and the Charlesworth edition. This may be
an indication that Gods rpk is to be distinguished from his act of forgiving.
Nevertheless, though forgive is a possible translation when God is the subject, one has
to show that this is an appropriate translation when other gures are the subjects of the
action.
72
To sum up, it is not clear in this text whether God or the messianic gure is the subject
of rpk. Furthermore, the primary meaning of the verb is to atone. The text probably
envisions a day when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel will be the source of atonement,
whether by means of ritual expiation or through his illuminational presence (Baumgarten
1999: 544), but it hardly provides unambiguous evidence that the Messiah was expected
to grant forgiveness (Janowski 1993: 68). The distinction between atonement and for-
giveness which I made in the discussion of the Targum of Isaiah 53 applies here as well.
73
Did Angels Forgive Sins?
Conclusive evidence for human forgiveness of sins committed against the God of Israel
is thus absent in the early Jewish literature. One category of agents remains yet to be
discussed, however, namely angels.
74
Though not very common, there are some passages
in both the Jewish Scriptures and early Jewish literature which assign a role to angels
when human beings are being forgiven.
A well-known example is the call of Isaiah. When Isaiah, struck by the vision of
YHWH, confesses that his lips are unclean, a seraph comes to his rescue. As the angel
puries the lips of Isaiah by means of a glowing coal from the altar, he says: Behold, this
has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for [rpkt Kt)+xw]
(Isa. 6.7). By announcing the ritual act a valid atonement, the seraph comes close to
declaring that Isaiahs sins are forgiven, even though not personally forgiving Isaiah.
Analogous to the service of the priests, he mediates Gods forgiveness by means of the
cult.
75
It should be noted, however, that the LXX interpretation of this passage puts all
the emphasis on the coal: Behold, this has touched your lips, and it will take away your
lawlessness and your sins it will purify [|oi o titi o , o voi o, oou |oi o ,
oopio, oou tpi|oopiti ] (LXX Isa. 6.7). In contrast to the Hebrew text, the ser-
aph does not declare the ritual act valid, but points to the atoning quality of the coal.
71. This expression and the following sure house appear to come from 1 Sam. 25.28.
72. Whether the Messiah uses prescribed means of expiation or atones in other ways is of little
importance. Contra Baumgarten 1999: 540.
73. This distinction is blurred by Baumgarten, who seemingly takes forgiveness and atonement as
synonyms.
74. This category has received little attention by scholars. Apart from Hgerland, who gives it due
attention (2009: 156-62), see Berger 1977: 188 and Kellermann 1993: 166-67.
75. This declaration may of course reect liturgical convention at the time of its writing, thus pro-
viding evidence that priests pronounced sacrices valid. More likely, however, the declaration
is required by the unique and exceptional act of atonement, not prescribed in the Torah.
Johansson 367
A direct announcement of forgiveness without reference to the cult is found in Jub.
41.24. In response to Judahs lament and repentance (cf. Gen. 38.1-26), angels announce
to him that his contrition has been satisfactory: And we told him in a dream that it was
[or: would be] forgiven him because he made great supplication and because he mourned
and did not do it again (OTP, II,131). Whether the angels promise that God is going to
forgive or they announce that the sins are already forgiventhe Ethiopic is ambiguous
(Hgerland 2009: 161)this seems to be a case of angels announcing divine forgiveness
analogous to the account of Nathan in 2 Sam. 12.13.
76
A similar announcement is found in the long recension of the Testament of
Abraham. When Abraham and the commander-in-chief Michael together offer prayer
for the forgiveness of Abrahams sins, an unspecied voice answers from heaven:
Abraham, Abraham, the Lord has heard your prayer and your sins are forgiven
[o i toi ooi q o opi o] (14.14).
77
Since the Lord is referred to in the third person
this may be the voice of an angel. But this is less likely. The voice immediately
switches to rst person and the context makes clear that God is the subject of the verb.
Furthermore, the voice from heaven refers to God elsewhere in the Testament of
Abraham (Allison 2003: 304, 229). So it is probably Gods voice that Abraham hears.
Nevertheless, the use of the third person which immediately switches to rst person,
as well as a possible allusion to Gen. 22.11 (Allison 2003: 304) where the Angel of
YHWH calls Abraham using the double vocative, is a reminder of this mysterious
angel, whose voice often merges with Gods and whose presence seems to be the pres-
ence of God himself (Gieschen 1998: 51-69). Thus, even though an angel may
announce that Abrahams sin is forgiven in T. Abr. 14.14, it is doubtful that this
declaration can be distinguished from Gods own declaration.
These examples show that angels sometimes mediate divine forgiveness. This is, of
course, what we should expect from Gods messengers. But these angels do not them-
selves forgive in the place of God.
78
There are, however, a couple of passages which may
imply that Gods special messenger, the Angel of YHWH, has this authority:
Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I
have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he
will not pardon your transgression [Mk(#$pl )#&y )l], for my name is in him (Exod.
23.20-21).
Though the passage states that the Angel of YHWH shall not pardon transgressions,
the implication seems to be that this angel actually has authority not only to retain sins,
76. Though not directly announcing forgiveness of sins, LXX Dan. 4.34 and Jos. Asen. 15.2-8
portray angels who announce acceptance of repentance.
77. Translation from Allison 2003: 294. There are a number of textual variants in this passage
and most manuscripts have God speak in the rst person. Cf. Sanders translation: Abraham,
Abraham, I have heeded your voice and your supplication and I forgive you (your) sin (OTP,
I, 891). It seems more likely, however, that this variant is an attempt to smooth out the tension
in the text. For the Greek text, see Schmidt 1986:142-43.
78. Cf. Berger (1977: 188), who states that angelic announcements of forgiveness of sin constitute
the sole analogy for Jesus pronouncement of forgiveness.
but also to forgive them (Marcus 1994: 207). Comparatively few passages state that God
will not forgive (e.g., Deut. 29.20; 2 Kgs 24.4; Job 7.21; cf. Isa. 2.9; Jer. 18.23), but there
is a very close parallel to this passage in a similar context in Josh. 24.19 with YHWH as
subject.
79
In fact, the same expression appears word for word: But Joshua said to the
people, You are not able to serve YHWH, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he
will not forgive your transgressions [Mk(#$pl )#&y )l] or your sins. Just as the angel
shall not pardon if the people rebel against him, so God will not forgive if they forsake
him (Josh. 24.20). Furthermore, there is some evidence that at least some Jews found the
Exodus passage problematic. The LXX translator avoided predicating forgiveness to the
angel by rewriting the clause, for he shall not hold you in undue awe [ou yop q
uootiiqoi ot]. This is the more striking as the parallel passage in Josh. 24.19 is
rendered quite literally, ou| ovqoti uov o oopqoo. Much later, it was the con-
cern of some rabbis that heretics used this text to defend worship of the Angel of
YHWH as a divine being distinct from God himself (b. Sanh 38b; Exod. R. 32.4). The
attribution of the authority to forgive sins was put forward in defence of this practice.
Segal, who has drawn attention to this polemic, thinks the rabbis debated with Christians,
and that Jesus claim to this authority constituted the background of this debate (1977:
68-73; see also Marcus 1994: 207). To sum up, Exod. 23.21 does not explicitly attribute
forgiveness to the Angel of YHWH, but this seems to be implied by the angels authority
to retain sins.
The second passage which may ascribe forgiveness to the Angel of YHWH is Zech.
3.4. Joshua, the high priest, is standing before Satan and the Angel of YHWH clothed
with lthy garments. At the angels command Joshuas clothes are removed and he is
given new pure garments. As this act is taking place the Angel of YHWH addresses
Joshua with these words: Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you [Knw(
Kyl(m ytrb(h], and I will clothe you with pure vestments. The verb rb( (hiphil)
followed by sin terminology as the direct object can sometimes imply forgiveness (Job
7.21), but this is not always the case (cf. 2 Sam. 24.10; Est. 8.3; Jer. 11.15). The LXX
translator chose to translate as oqpq|o o, ovoio, oou (I have removed your law-
lessness), using the same verb as in Isa. 6.7. To be sure, there are some instances where
ooiptiv undoubtedly is used in the sense of to forgive (e.g., Exod. 34.7, 9; Num. 14.18),
but here it is not clear whether the Angel of YHWH actually states that he has forgiven
Joshuas sins (so Keil 2001: 526) or if, analogous to Isa. 6.7, the angel merely interprets
the meaning of the symbolic act he initiated, namely that Joshuas guilt is removed by the
taking away of the lthy clothes.
80
Clearly, the angel effects the removal of iniquity, but
does this also mean that he bestows forgiveness, or is it presumed that YHWH does? The
LXXs use of the same phrase to interpret what the glowing coal does in Isa. 6.7 may
suggest the latter. Obviously, the coal does not forgive Isaiahs sins. On the other hand, a
passive verb could very well have been used to interpret the removal of the lthy gar-
ments if the author wished to convey the idea that God and not the Angel of YHWH
79. Note the parallels between Exod. 23.20-33 and Josh. 24.11-27.
80. Petersen (1984: 194) stresses that the removal of guilt is not just a performative utterance,
but effected by the removal of the dirty garments: The malk effects the removal of guilt by
commanding and eliciting action.
Johansson 369
forgave. Thus, it is possible that Zech. 3.4 depicts the Angel of YHWH as pardoning
iniquity in the place of God, but the language of the passage is too ambiguous to allow
any denite conclusion.
Having observed that one or two passages may attribute divine forgiveness to the
Angel of YHWH, we need, however, to ask to what extent these passages constitute
factual exceptions to the view that God alone can pardon sins. There is evidently a very
close association between YHWH and his angel in the biblical literature. Indeed, several
passages seem to suggest that the Angel of YHWH is the visible manifestation of YHWH
(e.g., Gen. 16.7-14; Exod. 3.2-7; Judg. 13.3-22; see Gieschen 1998: esp. 51-69). Even
though it could be argued that both Exod. 23.20-21 and Zech. 3.4 portray the angel as
somewhat distinct from YHWH, there is so much overlap between YHWH and his angel
in these passages
81
that it is difcult to see that the attribution of forgiveness to the Angel
of YHWH would call into question that forgiveness is a divine prerogative.
Conclusion
No conclusive evidence has been put forward in support of the view that other gures
than the God of Israel forgave sin in early Judaism. Passages which have been invoked
to demonstrate exceptions appear to depict various agents who expiate sin, intercede
on behalf of others, or mediate forgiveness from God. But they do not pardon sin.
Priests were involved in making atonement (e.g., Lev. 4.20, 31 etc.), but we have no
rm evidence that they pronounced an absolution or that they themselves forgave in
Gods place. Other gures that were associated with expiating sins include the Messiah
(CD 14.19 [if the Messiah is the subject]), Enoch (2 En. 64.5) or angels (Isa. 6.7).
Another category of passages appears to depict intercession with God for forgiveness.
Samuel is not asked to personally forgive the people in Gods stead in Josephus, Ant.
6.92; rather the people beg him to intercede with God on their behalf. Likewise, the
Messiah in Targ. Isa. 53 obtains forgiveness for his people by making intercession with
God. Still some passages portray gures who announce Gods forgiveness. In some
cases angels announce this message to human beings (Isa. 6.7; Jub. 41.24); in other
cases the mediator is a prophet (e.g., 2 Sam. 12.13; Josephus, Ant. 8.257). 4Q242 prob-
ably also belongs to this category as Naboniduss source of his knowledge that Israels
God had forgiven his sins most likely was the Jewish seer. However, common to all
these passages is that it is Gods forgiveness that is announced; the mediators do not
themselves forgive.
The one exception we found is the Angel of YHWH. Although not explicit, Exod.
23.21 and perhaps Zech. 3.4 seem to attribute authority to forgive to this angel. The close
association of the Angel of YHWH with God makes it questionable, however, that this
constitutes an actual exception to the view that God alone forgives.
81. Particularly the angels possession of the divine name (Exod. 23.21) shows that he is closely
linked to God. Cf. Ps. 83.18 which, according to the Masoretic pointing, says: They shall
know that you alone bear the name YHWH, Most High over all the earth. For the close asso-
ciation of the Angel of YHWH with God in each of the passages, see Durham 1987: 335-36;
Gieschen 1998: 67 on Exod. 23; Meyers and Meyers 1987: 188-89 on Zech. 3.
Thus various strands of early Judaism conceived of priests, prophets, messianic
gures or angels who were involved when sins of human beings were acquitted, but they
all seem to have shared the view that forgiveness is a prerogative of God which he
shares with no other and deputes to none, as Moore put it (1927: 535).
Bibliography
Allison, D.C.
2003 Testament of Abraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter).
Andersen, F.I., and D.N. Freedman
2000 Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24E; New York:
Doubleday).
Baumgarten, J.M.
1999 Messianic Forgiveness of Sin in CD 14:19 (4Q266 10 I 12-13), in D.W. Parry and
E.C. Ulrich (eds.), Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ,
30; Leiden: Brill): 537-44.
Begg, C.T.
2005 Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. IV. Flavius Josephus Judean
Antiquities 57 (Leiden: Brill).
Berger, K.
1977 Almosen fr Israel: Zum historischen Kontext der paulinischen Kollekte, NTS 23:
180-204.
Beyer, K.
1984 Die aramischen Texten vom Toten Meer (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Black, M.
1967 An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn; Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Blackburn, B.
1991 Theios Anr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anr
Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark
(WUNT, 2.40; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).
Broadhead, E.K.
1999 Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup, 175; Shefeld:
Shefeld Academic Press).
2001 Mark (Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press).
Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.)
1995 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. II.
Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).
Chilton, B.D.
1987 The Aramaic Bible. XI. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and
Notes (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Collins, J.J.
1996 4QPrayer of Nabonidus ar, in DJD, XXII:83-93.
Cross, F.M.
1984 Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus, IEJ 34: 260-64.
Johansson 371
Dalman, G.
1898 Die Worte Jesu: Band I (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichssche Buchhandlung).
Dunn, J.D.G.
1992 The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Signicance
for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press).
Dupont-Sommer, A.
1960 Exorcismes et gurisons dans les crits de Qoumrn, in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.),
Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTSup, 7; Leiden: Brill): 246-61.
Durham, J.I.,
1987 Exodus (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books).
Fitzmyer, J.
1980 The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament, JBL 99: 5-21.
Fletcher-Louis, C.H.T.
2007 Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2, JSHJ 5: 57-79.
Flint, P.W.
1997 The Daniel Tradition at Qumran, in C.A. Evans and P.W. Flint (eds.), Eschatology,
Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans): 41-60.
2001 The Daniel Tradition at Qumran, in J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint (eds.), The Book
of Daniel: Composition and Reception (2 vols.; VTSup, 83; Leiden: Brill): II,
329-67.
Friedrich, G.
1956 Messianische Hohepriestererwartung in den Synoptikern, ZTK 53: 265-311.
Garca Martnez, F.
1992 The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Synthesis, in idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic:
Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ, 9; Leiden: Brill): 116-36.
1994 The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill).
Gieschen, C.A.
1998 Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU, 42; Leiden: Brill).
Goppelt, L.
1975 Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Grelot, P.
1978 La prire de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab), RevQ 9: 483-95.
Grundmann, W.
1959 Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt).
Gundry, R.H.
1993 Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Haenchen, E.
1966 Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklrung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen
Parallelen (Berlin: Alfred Tpelmann).
Hgerland, T.
2009 Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of his Prophetic Mission (PhD dis-
sertation, University of Gothenburg). A revised version of the dissertation will be
published in the SNTS Monograph Series in 2011.
Henze, M.
1999 The Madness of Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early
History of Interpretation of Daniel 4 (JSJSup, 61; Leiden: Brill).
Hous, O.
2000a Jesu Zuspruch der Sndenvergebung: Exegetische Erwgungen zu Mk 2,5 b,
in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT, 132; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck]):
38-56.
2000b Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1-12 und das Problem priestlicher
Absolution im Antiken Judentum, in idem, Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT, 132;
Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck]): 57-69.
2000c Kennt der Targum zu Jesaja 53 ein sndenvergebenden Messias?, in idem,
Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT, 132; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck]): 70-107.
Hollander, H.W., and M. de Jonge
1985 The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill).
Hogan, L.P.
1992 Healing in the Second Temple Period (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Gttingen).
Janowski, B.
1993 Sndevergebung um Hiobs willen: Frbitte und Vergebung in 11QtgJob 38,2f und
Hi 42,9f LXX, in idem, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beitrge zur Theologie des
Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 40-69.
Jonge, M. de
1953 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and
Origin (Assen: Van Gorcum).
Jongeling, B., C.J. Labuschagne and A.S. van der Woude
1976 Aramaic Texts from Qumran (SSS, 4; Leiden: Brill).
Keil, C.F.
2001 The Minor Prophets (repr.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Kellermann, U.
1993 Wer kann Snden vergeben ausser Elia?, in P. Mommer et al. (eds.), Gottes Recht als
Lebensraum (FS H.J. Boecker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 165-77.
Klauck, H.-J.
1981 Die Frage der Sndevergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelhmten (Mk
2,1-12 parr), BZ 25: 223-48.
Koch, K.
1966 Shne und Sndenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen
Zeit, EvT 26: 217-39.
1972 Messias und Sndenvergebung in Jesaja 53-Targum: Ein Beitrag zu der Praxis der
aramischen Bibelbersetzung, JSJ 3: 117-48.
Kraus, H.-J.
1993a Psalms 159 (trans. H.C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
1993b Psalms 60150 (trans. H.C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Kuhn, H.-W.
1971 ltere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Lohmeyer, E.
1937 Das Evangelium des Markus (KEK; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Johansson 373
Marcus, J.
1994 Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth: The Shema in the Gospel of Mark, in C.A.
Evans and W.R. Stegner (eds.), The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup,
104; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press): 196-211.
2000 Mark 18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 27A;
New York: Doubleday).
McCarter, P.K.
1984 II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 9; New York:
Doubleday).
Meyer, R.
1962 Das Gebet des Nabonid: Eine in den Qumran-Handschriften wiederentdeckte
Weisheitserzhlung (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag).
Meyers, C.L., and E.M. Meyers
1987 Haggai, Zechariah 18 (AB, 25B; New York: Doubleday).
Milik, J.T.
1956 Prire de Nabonide et autres crits dun cycle de Daniel: Fragments Aramens de
Qumrn, RB 63: 407-15.
Moore, G.F.
1927 Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim: vol. 1
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Muraoka, T.
1978 On the So-Called Dativus Ethicus in Hebrew, JTS 29: 495-98.
Nickelsburg, G.W.E.
1984 Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times, in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocalyptic, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran
Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (Assen: Van Gorcum): 33-87.
Petersen, D.L.
1984 Haggai and Zechariah 18: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
Puech, .
1996 La prire de Nabonide (4Q242), in K.J. Cathcart and M. Maher (eds.), Targumic
and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara (JSOTSup, 230;
Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press): 208-27.
Rad, G. von
1961 Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag).
Sanders, E.P.
1992 Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE66 CE (London: SCM Press).
Schmidt, F.
1986 Le Testament grec dAbraham: Introduction, dition critique des deux recensions
grecques traduction (TSAJ, 11; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).
Segal, A.F.
1977 Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism
(SJLA, 25; Leiden: Brill).
Steinmann, A.
2002 The Chicken and the Egg: A New Proposal for the Relationship between the Prayer
of Nabonidus and the Book of Daniel, RevQ 20: 557-70.
Thyen, H.
1970 Studien zur Sndenvergebung im Neuen Testament und seinen alttestamentlichen
und jdischen Voraussetzungen (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Tsumara D.T.
2007 The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Tuckett, C.M.
1982 The Present Son of Man, JSNT 4: 58-81.
Vermes, G.
1973 Jesus the Jew: A Historians Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins).
1990 The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (3rd edn; London: Penguin).
Waltke, B.K.
2007 A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Weiss, J.
1892 Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Woude, A.S. van der
1978 Bemerkungen zum Gebet des Nabonides (4Q or Nab), in M. Delcor (ed.), Qumrn:
Sa pit, sa thologie et son milieu (BETL, 46; Leuven: Leuven University Press):
121-29.

Who Can Forgive Sins But God Alone

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Who Can Forgive Sins But God Alone

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://jnt.sagepub.

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Jun 2, 2011 Version of Record >>

Você também pode gostar