Which Theologies in Conflict? Some Brief Suggestions for a Symptomatic Rereading of 4 Ezra in Light of P. Sacchi’s and E. P. Sanders’s Contributions to the Study of Early Judaism, with a Final Note on the Hodayot from Qumran and Paul Carlos A. Segovia, Camilo José Cela University (Spain) segoviamail@gmail.com Abstract 4 Ezra sets forth a kind of dialogical retextualization of the idea that salvation is unconditionally granted by God to his chosen people in order, first, to discuss its accuracy and, second, to dismiss it together with the opposing view according to which salvation is only granted to, even if not self-achieved by, those who have good deeds to their credit. A comparison between 2 Sam. 7; 1 Kgs. 8.22-6; and 1 Kgs. 2.1-4 and 2 Chron. 6.12-7 shows that these two competing views—or theologies—can be traced back to the Hebrew Bible. I will also argue that they may be further clarified through a cross- reading of P. Sacchi's and E. P. Sanders's studies. And that the first view can be found again, to one extent or another, in several post-Biblical Jewish texts such as the Hodayot from Qumran and Paul's letters. Yet my main point will be to suggest that, in spite or their different purposes, the author of 4 Ezra might have had in mind Paul's controversial reuse of such view, since 4 Ezra 8.32, 36 seemingly echoes Rom. 4.5. In his 1976 volume Storia del mondo giudaico (Sacchi 1976: 18-26), a complete rewriting of which was published in 1994 under the title Storia del Secondo Tempio: Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C. (Sacchi 1994; 2004: 34-7), and later on in two articles dating from 1982 and 1985 (Sacchi 1990a: 80-8, 123-30; 1990b: 73-80, 107-8), Paolo Sacchi coined the terms 'Theology of the Covenant' and 'Theology of the Promise' as a means to distinguish, in his own words, between 'two different, if not opposite, ways of conceiving religion . . . [that] can be perceived even in the most ancient texts of Jewish literature' (Sacchi 2004: 34). According to Sacchi, these 'two ways of conceiving religion'—one based upon human freedom of choice between good and evil, the other one upon the notion that salvation is a gratuitous gift of God (Sacchi 2004: 34-6)—made their way through the Second Temple period, leading then respectively to the emergence of Zadokite and apocalyptic/Enochic Judaism (Sacchi 1990b: 77ff., 106ff.). Yet these two 'theologies' should not be regarded, observes Sacchi, as 'two separate theological 1 systems, but simply [as] two underlying attitudes of the Hebrew soul', (Sacchi 2004: 37), and hence as two different theological emphases which only came into open conflict at a given historical situation (the post-exile) under very especial circumstances (the rise of Zadokite Judaism and its restoration programme) (Sacchi 1990b: 75-76). Whether these two contrasting theologies can be related, respectively, to the southern and northern religious traditions of ancient Israel, as Sacchi has repeatedly suggested (Sacchi 1990b: 74ff., 107; 1994: 18-26; 2004: 34-6), shall not concern us here. What is at issue regarding the purpose and the 2 subject of the present paper is rather the accuracy of the categories set forth by Sacchi, which are obviously reminiscent of Paul's well known distinction between God's 'Law' (νόμος) and God's 'Promise' (ἐπαγγελία) in Gal. 3 and other related texts. Now, the confrontation of Sacchi's views with Ed Parish Sanders' groundbreaking definition of 'covenantal nomism' as the 'common pattern of religion' 1 Although he avoids, following Phillip Davies, the term 'Judaisms', Sacchi regards apocalypticism/Enochism as an 1 independent intellectual movement within Second Temple Judaism (Sacchi 2004: 15-9, 180; 2006: 33-58). It should be noted, however, that Sacchi's proposal somehow partakes of Alan Jenks' and Robert Wilson's earlier 2 studies (Jenks 1977; Wilson 1980).