Jewish-Christian Interpretation of the Pentateuch in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies:

5. Oral Tradition as an Exegetical Criterion

5 Oral Tradition as an Exegetical Criterion 5.1. INTRODUCTION I have noted that the Homilist takes a “literalist” approach to the interpretation of the Pentateuch. Allegorism is therefore categorically rejected. I am proposing that, according to the Homilist, a proper management of Scripture requires the use of three “external” criteria. In the previous chapter, I discussed the first of these, according to which the True Prophet’s teaching functions as an “external” criterion for adjudicating true and false pericopes. The focus of the present chapter is on the significance of an “oral tradition” as another necessary exegetical criterion for the proper interpretation of the Pentateuch. In order to achieve and secure the correct interpretation of Scripture, the Homilist claims, one must look “outside of” the Pentateuch to a certain “oral tradition.” Now, this oral tradition is thought to exist as a body of teaching independent of the True Prophet’s own teaching. That this is so emerges clearly from a passage like Hom. 16.14.3–5: ἡμῖν δὲ εἷς θεός, εἷς ὁ τὰς κτίσεις πεποιηκὼς καὶ διακοσμήσας τὰ πάντα, οὗ καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς υἱός, ᾧ πειθόμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν τὰ ψευδῆ ἐπιγινώσκομεν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐκ πατέρων ἐφοδιαζόμενοι τῶν γραφῶν τὰ ἀληθῆ ἕνα μόνον οἴδαμεν τὸν πεποιηκότα τούς τε οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὴν γῆν, θεὸν Ἰουδαίων καὶ πάντων τῶν σέβειν αὐτὸν αἱρουμένων. τοῦτον καὶ θεοφιλεῖ λογισμῷ ἀληθῆ δογματίσαντες οἱ πατέρες παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν, ἵνα εἰδῶμεν ὅτι, εἴ τι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λέγεται, ψεῦδός ἐστιν. But in our case there is one God, one who made creation and ordered the universe, whose son is the Messiah. We come to recognize the falsehoods of the Scriptures as we obey him [i.e., the Messiah]. What is more, being equipped by our ancestors with the truths of 111 the Scriptures, we know that there is only One who has made the heavens and the earth—the God of the Jews—and of all who choose to worship him. Our fathers, with a rational love for God, setting out true teachings, transmitted [orally] this belief to us, in order that we may know that if anything is said against God, it is a falsehood. The Greek phrase ἔτι δὲ καὶ denotes a distinction between the True Prophet’s teaching on the one hand and the oral tradition on the other. And while the True Prophet is not himself a recipient of that oral tradition, the oral tradition and the True Prophet’s teaching work in tandem.1 As such, one must be privy to both the oral tradition and the True Prophet’s teaching in order to secure a correct interpretation of Scripture. This chapter will proceed in the following way. First, I will begin by describing in general terms the notion of an oral tradition characteristic of rabbinic Judaism, as we know it from some of the relevant sources that have come down to us. Second, I will show how an oral tradition that serves a regulative function, somewhat similar (generically) to that in rabbinic Judaism, is appropriated in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies.2 Third, an analysis is offered of the Letter of Peter to James (hereafter ep. Petr.), in which I will consider in greater detail several important features of ep. Petr. This document is remarkable for its unambiguous recognition of, and appreciation for, the necessity of an oral tradition in order to secure the correct interpretation of Scripture. Finally, I will address how the Homilies conceptualize this oral tradition as an external criterion for the proper interpretation of the Pentateuch. Other important concepts like the “seat of Moses” and the “mystery” will also be discussed in connection with patristic and rabbinic exegetical sources. As we begin this chapter on the oral tradition, a word is in order about the concept of oral tradition in rabbinic Judaism.3 1. The True Prophet’s own teaching, however, is also transmitted orally. The technical terminology—παραδιδόναι—in Hom. 1.20.6 suggests as much: “I do not fear that you would ever be in doubt concerning the truth, which has been handed down to you, knowing that [even though] I seem to be defeated, but not the doctrine that has been handed down to us from the Prophet” (οὐ δέδια μήπως σὺ περὶ τῆς παραδοθείσης σοι ἀληθείας διακριθῇς, [ἠ] εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐγὼ ἡττᾶσθαι ἐδοξα, οὐχὶ ἡ ὑπόθεσις ἡ διὰ τοῦ προφήτου παραδοθεῖσα ἡμῖν). 2. In rabbinic Judaism, the content of “oral tradition” initially is understood to be halakhot that do not appear in the written Torah, and that supplement them and/or stand autonomous of them. See m. Ḥag., 1:8, where halakhot are contrasted with miqra. 112 | Jewish-Christian Interpretation of the Pentateuch 5.2. ORAL TRADITION IN RABBINIC EXEGETICAL SOURCES According to a rabbinic interpretation of Exod. 34:27, the words ‫פי‬ ‫על‬ in the Hebrew text indicate that God gave orally to Moses another body of legislation beyond the written one. God thus enjoined Moses not to record these oral teachings but to deliver them to the people “by mouth” (‫פי‬ ‫)על‬.4 The written Torah was made...