In this revised Duke University dissertation directed by Joel Marcus, Jill Hicks-Keeton argues that Joseph and Aseneth, in a radical shift from most Hellenistic Jewish writings, asserts that gentiles can attain access to Israel's God via a covenant obtained by cultic unity as opposed to by ancestry, and thus, they do not need to become Jewish. By rejecting idol meat and consuming the bread of life in the form of a heavenly honeycomb, Aseneth can marry Joseph and become a mother figure who mediates the life and mercy of God to all who are repentant, even gentiles. Hicks-Keeton builds her case by analyzing the phrase “the Living God” in Aseneth and in other ancient writings sacred to Jews and Christians.
Chapter 1 argues that Aseneth was written by a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt by showing that like in Artapanus, Demetrius, and Philo, and unlike in Jubilees, 1 Maccabees, Pseudo-Philo, 4Q372, Josephus, Acts 7, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Tertullian, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Origen, Joseph stands in for the Jews of Egypt. Chapter 2 demonstrates how Aseneth employs the “Living God” terminology from Genesis with an emphasis on its creative aspects. Chapter 3 claims that Aseneth likewise employs the “Living God” terminology of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, which establishes boundaries between Israel and the nations.
Chapter 4 compares Aseneth's conception of the “Living God” with OG Esther, 3 Maccabees, OG and Pseudo-Theodotion Daniel, and finds it consistent with, although not identical to their portrayals. Chapter 5 compares Aseneth's presentation with that of Jubilees and Paul's epistles. Whereas Jubilees is resolute on the separation between Jews and gentiles, Paul's epistles and Aseneth “inhabit the same discursive universe” (128) with parallel “patterns of thinking and modes of argumentation” (128) in constructing a “‘myth of origins’ for gentile inclusion” (14).
The strengths of this volume include its willingness to go beyond the simple dualities of Jewish/Christian and particularistic/universalistic. Hicks-Keeton wisely adopts the view of Patricia Ahearne-Kroll that the so-called long and short versions of the text are hypothetical constructions. The author's text-critical work, which sifts through the earliest presentations within the manuscript traditions, is a model of excellence. The focus on the “Living God” shows the importance of a phrase that many scholars have taken for granted. In particular, Hicks-Keeton's comparison between Aseneth and Bel and the Dragon is eye-opening.
Yet Aseneth's radical departure from other Hellenistic Jewish writings and strong similarity to Paul could be explained differently. Lawrence M. Wills makes a strong case for two compositional layers in Aseneth. One is a “typical adventure story” or romance, and the other a symbolic or allegorical addition.Footnote 1 Note that Aseneth's plea to the brothers in Aseneth 28:10–14 to spare Dan and Gad invokes their common ancestry and shows no awareness of her cultic transformation.
It is possible that Wills's proposed second layer exhibits an awareness of Paul's writings, or at least his theology. Aseneth's concern with idol meat corresponds most closely with the categories of those Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. This differs markedly from the way dietary matters are handled in other Jewish Hellenistic writings.Footnote 2
As the author discusses, Joseph was identified with Jesus, especially in Syrian Christianity. The putative second layer could potentially reflect such an understanding. It is not inconceivable that the tower imagery linked with Aseneth in the story (magdal in Syriac and other Aramaic dialects) could have been seen as a pun on Mary Magdelene's home of Migdal for some readers.
At the very minimum, Eve's name, “living being,” warrants further discussion when analyzing Genesis, especially since Jesus is a new Adam for Paul (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:45) and his mother Mary is the new Eve for Irenaeus. Aseneth's role as mediator also calls to mind the conception of Mary as theotokos, first attested in the fourth century CE. The case for a post-Pauline layer in Aseneth thus cannot be ruled out.
Redactional analysis would have also enriched the way the study engages with the multilayered works of Deuteronomy and especially OG Esther, whose six additions scholars agree derive from three different times and provenances. A more thorough treatment of Joseph within rabbinic writings would balance the greater attention paid to patristic writings.
Although the author describes Demetrius's Joseph as “pro-Egyptian” (19), Joseph's shame in his shepherd origins points to substantial tension between Jews and Egyptians. Also, a stronger emphasis on the cultic/priestly nature of Jubilees would tie in nicely with cultic arguments related to Aseneth, and the discussion of the Shechem episode in Jubilees 30 should include its importance as an anti-Samaritan polemic.
Hicks-Keeton could also have noted the presence of “Living God” language in Jewish Egyptian Sibylline Oracle 3:763, which, by preceding remarks about adultery and male homosexuality, may likewise be concerned with ancient Jewish boundary markers. Important counterexamples not discussed in this volume that lack the “Living God” terminology include Tobit 13:1, in which gentiles worship God, and the Letter of Aristeas, which shares with Aseneth an Egyptian setting, an interest in idolatry, boundaries between Jew and gentile, as well as food consumption and creation imagery. A comment on Amos 9:7, more radical than Aseneth, which claims God's saving power extends even to Israel's enemies without requiring any action on their part, would have also enhanced the analysis.
Written in inviting prose, this volume will be of interest for scholars of ancient Jewish and Christian writings, especially from the Hellenistic and Roman periods, but is likewise valuable for those interested in the theology of the “Living God” and in questions of religious identity in antiquity. The author's careful investigation of this theme makes an important contribution, and allows scholars to look afresh at the phrase “the Living God” in ancient Jewish and Christian writings; further, it attunes them to the different ways that various writings intersect with and depart from each other.
