A Guide to Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christian Transmission 0190863072, 9780190863074

Citation preview

i

A Guide to Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christian Transmission

ii

iii

A Guide to Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christian Transmission Alexander Kulik Editor-​in-​chief

Gabriele Boccaccini, Lorenzo DiTommaso, David Hamidović, Michael E. Stone Associate editors

With the assistance of

Jason M. Zurawski

1

iv

1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kulik, Alexander, editor. Title: A guide to early Jewish texts and traditions in Christian transmission / Alexander Kulik, editor-in-chief ; Gabriele Boccaccini, Lorenzo DiTommaso, David Hamidović, Michael E. Stone, associate editors; with the assistance of Jason M. Zurawski. Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2019. | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019009757 (print) | LCCN 2019980024 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190863074 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780190863104 (online content) | ISBN 9780190863098 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190863081 (updf ) Subjects: LCSH: Rabbinical literature—History and criticism. | Transmission of texts. | Judaism—Relations—Christianity. | Christianity and other religions—Judaism. | Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D. | Judaism—History—Talmudic period, 10-425. Classification: LCC BM496.6 .G85 2019 (print) | LCC BM496.6 (ebook) | DDC 296.109—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019009757 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019980024 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America A Guide to Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christian Transmission. Alexander Kulik, Gabriele Boccaccini, Lorenzo DiTommaso, David Hamidović, and Michael E. Stone, Oxford University Press (2019). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190863074.003.0002

v

Contents

Acknowledgments List of Contributors Introduction: The Voice of Jacob Alexander Kulik

vii ix 1

A.   Traditions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Greek William Adler Latin Robert A. Kraft Ethiopic Pierluigi Piovanelli Slavonic Alexander Kulik Coptic Jacques van der Vliet Syriac Sergey Minov Armenian Michael E. Stone Georgian Jost Gippert Christian Arabic John C. Reeves

7 23 35 49 73 95 139 165 195

vi

vi

C on t en ts

10. 11.

Irish Martin McNamara Germanic Brian Murdoch

211 237

B.   Corpora 12. The “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” as Category and Corpus Lorenzo DiTommaso 13. Flavius Josephus Michael Tuval 14. Philo of Alexandria Gregory E. Sterling 15. Armenian Philonic Corpus Abraham Terian 16. Minor Jewish Hellenistic Authors Folker Siegert 17. Early Jewish Liturgical Texts Folker Siegert 18. Qumran Texts David Hamidović 19. Enochic Traditions Gabriele Boccaccini 20. The Jewish Calendar and Jewish Sciences Jonathan Ben-​Dov

253 281 299 317 331 355 363 383 417

C.   Comparative Perspectives: Alternative Modes of Transmission 21. Rabbinic and Post-​Rabbinic Jewish Martha Himmelfarb 22. Gnostic Dylan M. Burns 23. Manichaean John C. Reeves 24. Islamic John C. Reeves

431 449 469 481

D.   Trajectories of Traditions 25. “The Pseudepigrapha Crescent” and a Taxonomy of How Christians Shaped Jewish Traditions and Texts James Hamilton Charlesworth 26. The Reception and Interpretation of “Old Testament” Figures in Literature and Art from Antiquity through the Reformation: Studies, 1983–​2018 Lorenzo DiTommaso Primary Sources Modern Authors

499

517

533 541

vi

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this volume has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/​2007–​2013) /​ERC grant agreement no 263293 and was conducted under the auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Faculté de théologie et de sciences des religions /​Institut romand des sciences bibliques (Université de Lausanne), Concordia University Montréal, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the University of Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies, and the Enoch Seminar:  International Scholarship in Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins.

vi

ix

Contributors

William Adler  North Carolina State University Jonathan Ben-​Dov  University of Haifa Gabriele Boccaccini  University of Michigan Dylan M. Burns  Freie Universität Berlin James Hamilton Charlesworth  Princeton Theological Seminary Lorenzo DiTommaso  Concordia University Montréal Jost Gippert  Goethe-​Universität Frankfurt am Main David Hamidovic  Université de Lausanne Martha Himmelfarb  Princeton University Robert A. Kraft  University of Pennsylvania Alexander Kulik  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Martin McNamara  Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Dublin Sergey Minov  University of Oxford Brian Murdoch  University of Stirling (Scotland) Pierluigi Piovanelli  University of Ottawa /​EPHE, Sciences religieuses, PSL John C. Reeves  University of North Carolina, Charlotte Folker Siegert  Westfälische Wilhelms-​Universität Münster Greg E. Sterling  Yale Divinity School Michael E. Stone  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Abraham Terian  St. Nersess Armenian Seminary Michael Tuval  Independent Scholar Jacques van der Vliet  Leiden University /​Radboud University Nijmegen

x

1

Introduction The Voice of Jacob Alexander Kulik

The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau. Genesis 27:22

Jewish literature of the Hellenistic and Roman periods has attracted different groups of scholars for different reasons. In modern times, it was Western Christian scholars—​or Western scholars interested in the beginnings of Christianity—​who first took up the challenge. They were fascinated by the opportunity to reconstruct the context and background of the New Testament world and benefited from the accessibility of manuscript sources preserved in Greek, Latin, and the vernacular languages of the West. Eastern Christian scholars, in turn, often belonged to emergent national schools and were thrilled that their heritages, typically unknown to Western scholars, could also contribute to the study of an ancient and universal legacy. It took some time, however, before Jewish scholars overcame their sense of alienation from the overtly non-​Jewish modes of transmission of Second Temple sources and joined the venture. Their motives were diverse: some welcomed a Jewish alternative to Rabbinic tradition; others discerned instructive similarities in the conditions of the Jewish people in the Greco-​ Roman and modern periods; still others rediscovered for themselves important pages in the history of the Jewish people in its own land. This last interest, combined with the achievements of archaeology, opened new opportunities to juxtapose physical and textual evidence. Without ignoring these extra-​academic agendas, some scholars—​among them the initiators of this volume—​approach the field motivated by intellectual curiosity of another kind. Second Temple literature represents a methodologically fascinating object of research. The fact that the absolute majority of evidence about one civilization (early Judaism) has been preserved by another (late antique and medieval Christianity) creates an intricate set of challenges that overlap diverse academic disciplines yet are complexly intertwined.

2

2

A lex an der Kulik

An integrative analysis in this field should therefore involve the tools of linguistics, textual criticism, translation studies, literary criticism, comparative religion, history of art, cultural anthropology, folklore, thematic criticism, and more. From a purely philological perspective, we are often dealing with texts and traditions that have an especially complicated intercultural history, with ancient and medieval translations that usually involve more than one or two languages and scribal traditions. From a historical-​cultural perspective, we face the most tangled knot of factors to be considered at every stage of analysis. To mention only a few: 1. The preserving civilization (Christianity) claims succession to the preserved one ( Judaism), but largely neglects its ethnic elements and filters it theologically. 2. The earlier civilization at the same time seeks to maintain its national components as it develops over the centuries but nonetheless undergoes transformation in every respect, including politically, geographically, etc. Thus later versions of the preserved civilization almost completely erase from their memory the ancient tradition under discussion. 3. The divergence is also linguistic. The civilization that preserved the data is itself split into linguistically distinct traditions. These appertain to its various successors, which were themselves distinct in culture, religious confession, and political character. 4. Two subsequent catastrophes—​the destruction of Jewish national life and the fall of the Roman Empire in the West—​caused further divergence among and within all the traditions. 5. Yet, the situation of which we speak was even more complex, because the divergences were not unidirectional. Dialogue between the two traditions continued, even when not explicit, and inevitably affected the transmission of the older common heritage, making its reconstruction even more challenging. As a result, the edifice of Second Temple Jewish culture, originally an amalgam of various Near Eastern, Greek, and Roman elements, crumbled, and its pieces were taken away separately by subsequent Christian authors and communities. These pieces must therefore be carefully excavated from the treasuries of the many later and equally diverse cultures. In this volume we aspire to contribute to reassembling such fragments and making sense of them. The format we have chosen for doing so is conditioned by two main considerations. First, we aim to introduce a certain balance into scholarly perspectives on early Jewish literature. There is a need to consider this corpus not from the point of view of a reconstructed product—​that is, a body of hypothetical, unpreserved originals (as usually portrayed in accordance with the agenda of specific religiocentric disciplines)—​but from the point of view of the extant materials (thus in a more philologically oriented framework), with a strong emphasis, where appropriate, on the manuscript evidence. This does not necessarily mean that we hold a hypercritical view on the possibility of such hypothetical reconstructions. In fact, the authors of this volume represent the entire range of

3

In t roduct i on :  The Vo ice o f Jaco b

opinions on this matter. We simply agree in recognizing that such an integral survey is lacking. Although certain traditions have received focused attention, none of the standard surveys approach the corpus of early Jewish literature from the perspective of the transmission, reception, and, often, modification of the preserved sources. Instead, they present it as a reconstructed corpus, often ignoring the transmission history or at least making no attempt to deal with it in an integrated fashion.1 We believe that filling this lacuna will open new research perspectives and initiate a process of bridging the gap between scholars of early Judaism and of medieval Christianity. Second, one finds much research pertaining to each distinct tradition and corpus, as well as some intertraditional insights here and there. But what we are missing—​and this is most significant—​is a systematic dialogue among scholars who are (understandably) often restricted to their own fields and to sources preserved in languages that they have mastered. In our view, this dialogue should commence with a presentation of the state of the field, that is, with a general survey of the research situation documented in a reference volume. This volume is designed to yield just such a result, and to take the most necessary step of providing a basic platform, a map for discussion, and a useful tool for scholars of various disciplines, approaches, and backgrounds. The present volume is therefore devoted to problems of preservation, reception, and transformation of Jewish texts and traditions of the Second Temple period in diverse ecclesiastical traditions. The chapters present (a) general up-​to-​date surveys of separate traditions (addressing, inter alia, recent developments in the state of research and perspectives for future research); (b) discussion of the fate of specific texts and corpora among diverse traditions; (c) methodological issues (including the distinction between originally Jewish and Christian material, modes of medieval transmission and compilation, early Jewish texts and motifs in liturgy and iconography, etc.); and, when possible, (d) innovations relevant to the topic. The central purpose of the book is to map the trajectories of early Jewish texts and traditions among diverse later cultures, and thus provide a comprehensive introduction to the field. The volume consists of three main sections. Section A, “Traditions,” provides surveys of the Christian linguo-​confessional traditions that preserve early Jewish materials, including Greek, Latin, Ethiopic, Slavonic, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Christian Arabic, Celtic, and Germanic. To achieve a more stereoscopic and richer perspective, we 1.  See, e.g., the surveys by E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–​1987); M. E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT 2.1; Assen and Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1984); G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins:  Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation (Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 2003); and A. Samely, Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity:  An Inventory, from Second Temple Texts to the Talmuds, with P. Alexander, R. Bernasconi, and R. Hayward (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). See also collections of translated sources, such as J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983–​1985); R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila, and A. Panayotov, eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013); and L. B. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman, eds., Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (Philadelphia and Omaha: JPS and University of Nebraska Press, 2013).

3

4

4

A lex an der Kulik

then present a different cross-​section of the same material, this time organized according to the most distinct corpora of Jewish literature preserved by Christians. Section B, “Corpora,” looks at different corpora of texts from the point of view of their Christian preservation. It includes a discussion of Old Testament pseudepigrapha as corpus and category; the works of Josephus, Philo, and minor Jewish Hellenistic authors; liturgical works; works found in Qumran in their connection to Christian traditions; Enochic books and traditions, and remnants of the ancient Jewish science as preserved by Christians.2 Section C, “Comparative Perspective,” offers surveys of alternative non-​Christian tracks for the survival of early Jewish materials: Jewish (Rabbinic and Karaite), Islamic, and Manichaean traditions that also preserve elements or echoes of early Jewish texts. Each chapter discusses early Jewish texts belonging to a certain tradition or corpus (including texts that are of dubious or Christian provenance but preserve early Jewish motifs), together with information, as appropriate, on their estimated dates of composition, translation provenance, and languages of Vorlagen. Special consideration is accorded to texts preserved uniquely (or primarily) in the tradition under consideration. The chapters aspire to examine the peculiarities of the given tradition or corpus in comparison to other traditions or corpora, the relation of the given tradition or corpus to Greek or other related linguistic traditions, the Sitz im Leben of translations and their connection to major cultural processes, and sometimes also the Nachleben of translations. The authors often pay attention to the functioning of texts; their incorporation into major collections; and, when possible, their reception in textual, visual, and oral traditions. Together, the chapters provide an outlook on the current state of research and on perspectives and tasks for future research, accompanied by a basic bibliography that gives the main editions, translations, and research works, often including projects in progress. The present volume shares one trait with its object of research. It has been conceived and implemented by a diverse team, whose members belong to different fields of knowledge and when they do not, then to rival schools of thought—​or, if neither of these, then they at least hold opposing views on cardinal issues. Although such diversity may come at the expense of uniformity of presentation, we view that, not as an inevitable constraint, dictated by the hitherto disciplinary disintegration of the topic, but as a positive and fundamental advantage of this project, which exposes the reader to a richness of views and approaches. Hence, united by our mutually complementary dissimilarity no less than by our common aspiration to catch the subdued voice of Jacob, as captured and preserved by brotherly hands, we submit our work to the judgment of the reader. Alexander Kulik Editor-​in-​Chief

2.  We do not include as a separate corpus the works known as “Deutero-​canonical books” or “Apocrypha.” The history of the transmission and reception of these works follows what may be called a “biblical” trajectory, alongside other early Jewish books, such as Daniel and Esther, and in contrast to a vast majority of the texts that constitute the subject of this volume.

5

A

Traditions

6

7

1

Greek William Adler

Works and Authors Discussed Alexander Polyhistor Athanasius of Alexandria 1 Enoch Book of Jubilees Clement of Alexandria Pseudo-​Eupolemus Flavius Josephus George Syncellus George Cedrenus Eusebius of Caesarea Justus of Tiberias Michael Glycas Origen Philo of Alexandria: Photius of Constantinople What survives of early Greco-​Jewish literature depends mainly on the efforts and preferences of Christian witnesses and copyists. That includes the writings of the two best-​ known representatives of Hellenistic Judaism: Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Modern scholarship owes the early church a great debt for having preserved, largely intact, the Greek texts of so many of the writings of Josephus and Philo.1 Other works either 1.  For the Christian preservation and reception of Philo, see esp. D. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature:  A Survey (CRINT 3.3; Assen:  Van Gorcum, 1993), 3–​7. On Josephus, see H. Schreckenberg, Die

8

8

Willi a m  A dler

originally composed in Greek or translated into that language did not fare nearly so well, however. Absent the smattering of excerpts preserved mainly in Eusebius’s Praeparatio evangelica, we would know nothing of the works of Artapanus, Aristeas “the exegete,” Demetrius the chronographer, Aristobulus the philosopher, Ezekiel the tragedian, and Philo the epic poet—​each an important witness to the cultural world of Hellenistic Judaism.2 What survives of other Hellenistic Jewish authors is sometimes little more than their names. Included among those lost works are what must have been substantial works of history. Were it not for the testimony of Second Maccabees, the five-​volume history of Jason of Cyrene, an account of the Maccabean revolt that extends to Judas’s defeat of Nicanor in 161 bce, would now be entirely unknown.3 According to Photius, the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias (first century ce) published a history of the Jewish war and a chronicle of Jewish history in the form of a genealogy of kings extending from Moses down to the death of the Herodian king Agrippa II.4 Justus’s proofs for the antiquity of Moses—​a pet theme among Jewish and Christian apologists—​did draw praise from Eusebius.5 But apart from a few stray notices in the writings of Christian authors and a scathing review of his account of the Jewish war in Josephus’s Vita, nothing of either work survives.6

1.  Principles of Transmission and Selection Because so many Greco-​Jewish sources survive only in scattered fragments in works of a much later date, the contents of the original works, the identities of their authors, the avenues of their transmission, and the principles of selection are in many cases irretrievable. Fortunately, Eusebius of Caesarea, the single most important witness to Hellenistic

Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden:  Brill, 1972); and Schreckenberg, “The Works of Josephus and the Early Christian Church,” in L. R. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1997), 315–​24. In addition to the preservation of Josephus and Philo in direct Greek transmission, there is a substantial collection of witnesses to their writings through secondary channels. See Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition, 68–​171; and J. R. Royse, The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria:  A Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collections of Greek Fragments (ALGHJ 22; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 14–​58 (excerpts from Philo in Greek catenae and florilegia). 2.  For edition and English translation of the fragments of Hellenistic Jewish authors preserved by Eusebius and other sources, see C. R. Holladay, ed. and trans., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (4 vols.; SBLTT; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1983–​1996). 3.  See 2 Macc 2:23, where the author claims to have condensed Jason’s work into a single volume. For other lost Jewish histories composed in Greek, see E. Schürer, English translation revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–​a.d. 135) vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 19–​43. 4. Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. R. Henry (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1959–​1977), 33 (6b). 5. Euseb., Chronici canones, ed. R. Helm, Die Chronik des Hieronymus (3rd ed.; GCS Eusebius Werke 7; Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag, 1984), Praef. 7. 11–​17. 6.  For Josephus’s critique of Justus, see Joseph., Vita, 336–​67. On Justus of Tiberias, see T. Rajak, “Justus of Tiberias,” CQ 23 (1973): 344–​68. On the polemical exchange between Josephus and Justus, see Rajak, “Josephus and Justus of Tiberias,” in Feldman and Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 81–​94; and S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 114–​20.

9

Greek

Jewish literature, is also the most forthcoming in explaining how he gained access to these documents and his motives for citing them.7 In his Ecclesiastical History, which contains a relatively full inventory of Philo’s writings, Eusebius praises the richness of Philo’s thought and the subtlety of his exposition of sacred scripture, and recognizes Philo’s role in laying the groundwork for apostolic teaching.8 He holds Josephus in equally high regard. For Eusebius, Josephus’s account of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, narrated by an eyewitness observer with unassailable credentials, confirmed his own interpretation of these events as divine retribution against the Jews, both for rejecting Christ and for killing James the Just. In the Antiquities and Josephus’s two books against Apion, Eusebius found valuable confirmation of the antiquity of the Jews and the authority and unity of their sacred texts, and a spirited vindication of Jewish institutions—​issues that were all central to Eusebius’s defense of Christianity against its learned detractors.9 The desire to establish the antiquity of the Jews and the priority of their doctrines and practices was also the motive underlying Eusebius’s selection of source material for his Praeparatio evangelica, a sprawling work of fifteen books composed sometime after 313 ce. It was occasioned by an accusation all too familiar to Christian apologists—​namely, that Christianity required its adherents to abandon their ancestral customs and cut “for themselves a new kind of track in a pathless desert.”10 In response, Eusebius promises to demonstrate to his readers that Christianity had restored the wisdom of the “Hebrews,” an ancient and godly ethnos, preceding Moses and the Jewish nation, much older than the Greeks and far superior to them in both their teachings and customs.11 To document his argument that the renowned wisdom of the Greeks was both late and derivative, Eusebius, a bookish scholar with access to the copious resources of the library of Caesarea, lays out a vast array of citations from older sources, many of them composed by Jewish or Samaritan authors of the Hellenistic age. Spanning the history of the Jews from Abraham down to the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, Eusebius’s citations from these latter sources make up an assortment of fragments from various literary genres: commentaries and exposition, epic and tragic poetry, and various genres of historiography. From the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus, Eusebius extracted two substantial excerpts attempting, among other things, to demonstrate Plato’s and Pythagoras’s familiarity with a Greek translation of the Mosaic law. Four excerpts from Demetrius “the chronographer” deal with events from Genesis and Exodus. Four fragments from the Jewish historian Eupolemus concern the achievements and reigns of David, Solomon, and the last three kings of Judah, along with a computation of the years

7.  On Eusebius’s citations from Jewish literature, see A. J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (VCSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 155–​77. 8. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.17.23–​18.8. 9. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.9.3–​10. 10. Euseb., Praep. evang., ed. K. Mras (GCS 43; Eusebius Werke 8; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954), 1.2.4. 11.  See A. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

9

10

10

Willi a m  A dler

from Adam down to the author’s own day. A citation from an anonymous author erroneously attributed to Eupolemus deals with postdiluvian history and the contributions of Enoch and Abraham to the celestial sciences. Several citations from Artapanus recount the exploits and the contributions of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses to Egyptian civilization, society, and religious life. A fragment from Cleodemus Malchus contains a genealogy of Abraham’s descendants, which includes in his family tree the Greek hero Heracles. A single excerpt from the historian and exegete Aristeas treats the figure of Job, identified here with the Edomite Jobab, the great grandson of Esau. The epic poet Philo (not to be confused with Philo of Alexandria) provided Eusebius with twenty-​four lines of hexameter verse dealing with Abraham, Joseph, and the city of Jerusalem. From the tragic poem of Ezekiel the tragedian, Eusebius excerpted a lengthy poetic rendition of events described in Exodus 1–​15. Together with the citations from some of the same sources preserved by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius’s excerpts offer an impressive testimony to sources that would otherwise have been almost entirely lost. But it is only a glimpse, and a highly refracted one at that. Eusebius did not have direct access to any of the works from which he quoted. For most of these, he acknowledges his dependence on an intermediary work, the Peri Ioudaiōn of Alexander Polyhistor, a Greek grammarian of Miletus and manumitted Roman slave of the first century bce.12 Thanks to Eusebius’s efforts, we know more about Polyhistor’s treatise on the Jews than many of his other ethnographies. But Polyhistor undertook the work for reasons quite removed from those of Eusebius. As in other Hellenistic ethnographies, Polyhistor’s treatment of the Jews, and of various other peoples of the world, seems to have been antiquarian in character, tailored to readers’ appetites for topographic descriptions, narratives of origins, and the genealogies of cultures and peoples.13 His eclectic selection of reading material was neither exclusively of Jewish origin nor even unequivocally sympathetic to the Jews. Alongside Artapanus’s effusions about Moses, Polyhistor reproduces, without comment, a passage from Apollonius Molon’s tract Against the Jews, the latter a work that according to Josephus helped to propagate some of the more rabid calumnies against the Jews.14 But there would have been little reason for Eusebius to have retained 12.  On Polyhistor’s work on the Jews, see J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Hellenistische Studien 1; Breslau, Poland,1874); and W. Adler, “Alexander Polyhistor’s Peri Ioudaiōn and Literary Culture in Republican Rome,” in A. Inowlocki and C. Zamagni, eds., Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues (VCSup 107; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 225–​40. 13. For testimonia and fragments of Alexander Polyhistor’s writings, see F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, IIIa (Leiden: Brill, 1993), #273, 96–​126 (T 1–​8; F 1–​145). 14.  In Euseb., Praep. evang. 9.19.1–​3. The small passage from Molon’s work Against the Jews that Eusebius quotes is a relatively unexceptional notice about Noah and Abraham. Eusebius, for his own reasons, may have elected to exclude other works in Polyhistor’s collection that were unfavorable to the Jews. On Polyhistor’s choice of sources as a measure of his attitude toward Judaism, see E. Gabba, “The Growth of Anti-​Judaism, or the Greek Attitude toward the Jews,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol 2: The Hellenistic Age, ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 651–​52; and B. Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-​ Greek Literature (HUCM 3; Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974), 49. On Polyhistor’s neutrality, see also Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker: “For him it is more important that he has collected the material in a completely neutral way (this term is probably better than ‘objective’),

1

Greek

material that was either incidental to or even antithetical to his purposes. When Eusebius tells his readers: “After some other passages, Alexander Polyhistor says . . . ,” we can only speculate as to what might been expunged along the way.15

2.  Jewish, Christian, Samaritan, or Something Else? Because so many Christian citations from Hellenistic Jewish sources are either unidentified or pseudonymous, modern scholarship on this literature has poured enormous effort into sorting out the religious affinities and ethnic identities of the authors. This is not simply a matter of distinguishing “Jewish” from “Christian.” Uncertainties abound even for sources that predate Christianity, especially for those that survive only in fragments. Everyone is more or less agreed that Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, Philo the poet, and Ezekiel the tragedian were Jews. An account of how Abraham was received with hospitality on Mount Gerizim has convinced most, but not all, critics that a passage Polyhistor attributed to Eupolemus in fact originated in the work of an unknown Samaritan writer.16 After that, the consensus dissolves. Theodotus, the author of the epic poem on the Jews, has been called a Samaritan and a violently nationalistic Jew.17 On Ezekiel the tragedian, opinions waver between Jew and Samaritan.18 Theophilus may have been a Samaritan, a Jew, or a pagan. Cleodemus Malchus is the real chameleon, variously described as a Jew, a Samaritan, a Syrian, and a Phoenician.19 This fine-​grained ethnic and religious profiling is strictly modern nomenclature. Only rarely do citations from sources now assumed to be Jewish identify the ethnic identity of their authors. Josephus treats Philo, Eupolemus, Demetrius, and Theodotus as if they were Greek historians.20 There is nothing in the extracts preserved in the Praeparatio to suggest that either Eusebius himself or his authority Polyhistor ever cared to sort out any of his informants according to our categories of Jew, Samaritan, Greek, Phoenician, and Syrian. Artapanus, the Hellenistic Jewish propagandist for Moses; Apollonius Molon, the Greek propagandist against the Jews; and pseudo-​Eupolemus, the Samaritan, are, along with all the rest, simply authorities on the subject.

just as he does for the Egyptians, Lycians and Carians; he is neither a philo-​Semite nor an anti-​Semite but here, too, simply a collector” (Kommentar zu nr. 273, 249). 15.  See, e.g., Praep. evang. 9.19.4: Τοσαῦτα ὁ Πολυΐστωρ· οἷς μεθ’ ἕτερα ἐπιφέρει λέγων. 16.  Eupolemus, fr. 1 (Holladay, Fragments, 1.172.15) = Euseb., Praep. evang. 9.17.5–​6. 17. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 99–​100. Cf. J. J. Collins, “The Epic of Theodotus and the Hellenism of the Hasmoneans,” HTR 73 (1980): 93–​104. 18.  For review of the question, see Holladay, Fragments, 2.303, 317–​18 and 324, n. 31; and H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 14–​15. 19.  For the arguments, see Holladay, Fragments, 1.245–​46. 20. Joseph., Ag. Ap. 1.216, 218. For discussion of the problem, see S. Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 4; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 274–​75. See further, F. Siegert, “Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style,” in M. Saebø, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, I,1: Antiquity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996), 190, n. 309, who theorizes that Josephus’s representation of these writers as Greeks casts his direct knowledge of them into doubt; and G. Sterling, Historiography and Self-​Definition: Josephos, Luke-​Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 282–​84.

11

12

12

Willi a m  A dler

Pseudepigraphy, a common practice in the ancient world, adds another layer of ambiguity. Generally, there is now a consensus that the Sentences of pseudo-​Phocylides, a sapiential poem composed in the Ionic dialect, was written by a Jewish propagandist of the Hellenistic age, and not by the Greek philosopher from a much earlier time.21 Excerpts from a work known either as Peri Ioudaiōn or Peri Abramou and attributed to Hecateus of Abdera betray the unmistakable imprint of a Jewish author. The same is true of portions of the third book of the Oracula Sibyllina. And while the Epistle of Aristeas claims to have been composed by an official in the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus II, its vigorous justification of Jewish practices and description of the Septuagint as a work of philological perfection and providential guidance leave little doubt about the true identity of the author. But the detection of all these works as pseudepigraphic represents the findings of modern philology. Christian authors entertained no misgivings about the authenticity of any of these documents. Even if they had had their suspicions, they had good reason to suppress them. Works celebrating the antiquity of the Jews and championing an ethical monotheism certainly gained in stature from their association with respected Greek historians, philosophers, and oracles. For these and other reasons, some of them achieved enormous importance in the Church. Confidence in the reliability of the Septuagint was predicated on pseudo-​Aristeas’s characterization of the translation as a work of divine inspiration—​ a tradition that became progressively embellished over time. Although the Sentences of pseudo-​Phocylides was not quoted by the early Church fathers, the work’s subsequent adoption as a schoolbook in Byzantium ensured its survival in over 150 manuscripts, along with early print editions.22 Because of their own ambivalence toward Judaism, Christian writers further contributed to the blurring of identities. In many cases, an author’s Jewish identity or a work’s “Jewish” character might call its credibility into question. Starting from the time of Origen, Christian authors warned readers that because of Jewish corruptions, extrabiblical sources like the Ascension of Isaiah should be treated with caution.23 Photius, in a rather lukewarm assessment of Justus of Tiberias, grants that Justus’s chronicle of Jewish history touched on the essential points. But by failing to say even a word about the coming of Christ and his many miracles, Justus revealed the symptoms of the Jewish “affliction” (τὰ Ἰουδαίων νοσῶν).24 For a more highly regarded author such as Philo of Alexandria, one could ease misgivings about his Jewishness by adopting him as a Christian or, in the words of David Runia, at least as a Christian causa honoris.25 Although none of Philo’s writings make

21.  For discussion, see P. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-​Phocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978); and W. T. Wilson, The Sentences of Pseudo-​Phocylides (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2005). 22.  On the manuscript witnesses to the work, see P. Derron, “Inventaire des manuscrits du Pseudo-​Phocylide,” RHT 10 (1980): 237–​47. 23.  See below, sect. 4. 24. Photius, Bibliotheca 33 (6b). 25. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 3. See also ­chapter 14 of this volume by Gregory Sterling.

13

Greek

any explicit reference to Christians or Christianity, he enjoyed a standing in the Greek-​ speaking church rivaling that of Josephus. His commentaries laid the foundation both for the integration of Platonism into Christian thought and for the allegorical method that was destined to become the hallmark of Christian biblical exegesis in Alexandria. By Eusebius’s time, the Christian adoption of Philo was in full swing. According to Eusebius, Philo’s learning, like that of Josephus, was officially recognized in Rome; after Philo publicly read his work against Gaius (known as Concerning the Virtues) to the Roman senate, its members voted to have the work “granted a place in libraries.”26 Apocryphal stories told by Eusebius about Philo’s meeting with Peter in Rome and his supposed description of the Christian way of life in Egypt in Vita Contemplativa further enhanced his standing in the early Church.27 Embellishments of these traditions, legends about his baptism and leadership of the Alexandrian school, and quotations from his writings in Byzantine catenae that appeared under the lemma “from Philo the bishop” show that, at least in some circles, Philo had gained the standing of a father of the Church.28 The one author of any repute whose Judaism proved to be an asset, or at least was not suppressed, was Josephus.29 Awareness of Josephus’s Jewish identity was deeply rooted in Christian tradition and abundantly plain from his own writings. According to Eusebius, Josephus, in Eusebius’s words, “the most famous of the Jews of that time,” was also recognized in Rome. A statue in his honor was erected in the city, and his writings “were deemed worthy of a place in a library.”30 Although Eusebius’s story about the official recognition of Josephus hardly squares with the general ignorance of Josephus’s works among Greek and Roman authors, it does reflect the Christian investment in promoting Josephus’s standing as a historian of universal acclaim.31 Christian authors thus took great satisfaction in the fact that the estimable Josephus, a disinterested third party, offered such compelling validation for their interpretation of the causes of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple as an act of divine judgment. Allying him too closely with the interests of the Church would only erode the value of his testimony. When Origen first introduces Josephus to his readers in Contra Celsum, he acknowledges that, despite his worth as an independent witness to the events preceding the fall of Jerusalem, Josephus himself did not “believe in Jesus as Christ.”32 The subsequent circulation of an interpolated text of Josephus’s Antiquities (the so-​called Testimonium Flavianum) that acknowledged Jesus as the fulfillment of messianic prophecy did nothing to alter the recognition of his 26. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.18.8. 27. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 2.16–​17. 28.  On the Christian adoption of Philo, see Runia, Philo, 3–​7; and J. E. Bruns, “Philo Christianus: The Debris of a Legend,” HTR 66 (1973): 141–​45. On Philo “episcopus” in Byzantine catenae, see Royse, Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria,  14–​25. 29.  See ­chapter 13 of this volume by Michael Tuval. 30. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 3.9.2. 31.  His name appears in only two incidental references, in Cassius Dio (Hist. 66.1.4) and Suetonius (Vesp. 5). While both writers are silent about his writings, each notes Josephus’s prediction that Vespasian would become emperor. 32. Origen, C. Cels. 1.47.

13

14

14

Willi a m  A dler

Jewish identity.33 Eusebius himself, the first author to attest the Testimonium, never claims Josephus for the Church. Among Christian writers after Eusebius, Josephus did have his detractors. But if the number of references to him, textual interpolations, and false attributions in Byzantine literature are any measure, Josephus’s authority only strengthened over time—​although never at the expense of his Jewish identity.34 The testimony of “Josephus the Hebrew” about the prophet Daniel is trustworthy, writes Theodoret, because, “even if he did not accept the Christian kerygma, he could not stand to conceal the truth.”35 In his Bibliotheca, Photius speaks with admiration of the purity of Josephus’s style, his persuasiveness, his refusal to succumb to partisanship, and the supreme importance of his testimony about the portents of divine wrath that accompanied the fall of Jerusalem. Photius also reports the existence of a work attributed to Josephus, known variously as On the Universe, On the Cause of the Universe, or On the Nature of the Universe. But Photius himself doubted Josephus’s authorship on the grounds that its views on the human body did not conform with the “Jewish ideas” of human physiology expressed in the writings of the genuine Josephus.36 For Photius and other Christian writers, he was always, in the words of John Chrysostom, a “Jew through and through” (σφόδρα Ἰουδαῖος).37 Suspended between two gravitational fields, Josephus remained a writer who, though being a “lover of truth” and (allegedly) recognizing Jesus as the prophesied Messiah of the Jews, somehow never embraced Christianity.38

3.  Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Greek Transmission The trends we have already identified also figure prominently in the corpus of pseudepigrapha either composed in Greek or translated into Greek from Hebrew or Aramaic.39 To judge from the testimony of Clement, the number of such works known to the church fathers in Greek already, by the end of the second century, must have been substantial; in addition to Enoch, Clement variously refers to pseudepigraphic works attributed to the “prophets” Ezra, Ham, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah.40 But for most of these works, we have 33. Euseb., Hist. eccl. 1.11, and Dem. ev. 3.5. 34.  See S. Bowman, “Josephus in Byzantium,” in Feldman and Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 362–​85. 35. Theodoret, Interpretatio in Danielem 12.14 (PG 81.1544). 36. Photius, Bibliotheca 48 (11b). 37.  John Chrysostom, Comm. Matt. 76.1 (PG 57.695). 38.  See Isidorus Pelusiota, Ep. 1259.25–​27, in Lettres (1214–​1413), ed. Pierre Évieux (SC 422; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1997). After reporting the Testimonium Flavianum, Isidorus states, “I am really amazed at the truthfulness of the man ( Josephus) in many things, especially when he says, ‘He was a teacher of men who gladly receive the truth.’ ” For Josephus in early Christianity (including the question of the Testimonium Flavianum), see most recently, J. C. Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (WUNT 251; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 185–​265. 39.  For survey of this literature, see A.-​M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970). 40.  For Clement’s citations from parabiblical works, see (i). Paed., ed. M. Harl (SC 70; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960), 1.9.84.2–​4 and 10.91.2: Apocryphon of Ezekiel, cited simply as Ezekiel; (ii) Strom., ed. O. Stählin and L.

15

Greek

little more than a handful of fragments and notices. Chance discoveries of fuller copies of some of them in other languages (as, for example, the Ethiopic texts of Jubilees and Enoch) are a telling reminder of just how much Jewish literature that was once available to Greek readers has been lost or corrupted in transmission. The fragments of Enoch and Jubilees found in Qumran have established the Jewish provenance and original languages of their earliest known versions of these works. For much of the pseudepigrapha preserved in Greek, however, the question of provenance remains unsettled, and often rests on debatable assumptions about what is distinctively “Christian” or “Jewish.”41 One question somewhat unique to this literature concerns its authority vis-​à-​vis the books that ultimately came to define the canon of the Christian Old Testament. Because the Book of Enoch generated the most public controversy, modern discussion tends to treat the reception history of this apocalypse as paradigmatic. To judge from early Christian witnesses to the work, Enoch got off to a promising start. In the epistle of pseudo-​Barnabas, for example, the work is cited using a formula usually reserved for sacred scripture: περὶ οὗ γέγραπται, ὡς Ἐνὼχ λέγει.42 What further boosted its standing was a quotation from the work, prefaced with words “Enoch prophesied,” in the New Testament epistle of Jude (14). From the fourth century, however, the reaction to it became decidedly more guarded, especially following Athanasius’s denunciation of the Book of Enoch as “apocryphal” in the famous 39th Paschal Letter (367). “Who has made the simple folk believe,” Athanasius asks, “that books belong to Enoch, even though no scriptures existed before Moses?”43 At least outwardly, then, the Christian reception of Enoch vindicates the received wisdom that the tightening of the boundaries between “canonical” and “noncanonical” marginalized books that before that time had, at least in some circles, commanded high respect. Paradoxically, however, the best Greek witnesses to Enoch and other pseudepigrapha appear in relatively late Byzantine sources, and well after the fixing of the Christian canon. Nor are these works products of Christian fringe movements.44 The longest excerpts from Enoch in Greek appear in the universal chronicle of the monk George Syncellus, a high official in the Byzantine church of the early ninth century. How did this and other works manage to surmount the stigma attached to the category “apocrypha”? Früchtel (GCS 52; 2nd ed.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1960), 3.16.100.4: 4 Ezra 5.35, cited as the prophet Ezra; (iii) Strom. 5.11.77.2: Apocalypse of Zephaniah, cited as “Zephaniah the prophet”; and (iv) Strom. 6.6.53.5 (from Isidore’s Expositions of the Prophet Parchor), citing the “prophecy of Ham.” 41.  For general orientation, see J. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? ( JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005); and R. Bauckham, J. Davila, and A. Panayotov, eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2013), xx–​xxii. For close examination of this problem as it relates in particular to two notoriously difficult cases (the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve), see M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18; Leiden: Brill, 2003). 42.  Ep. Barn. 4.3. 43.  See Athanasius, Paschal Letter, 39, 21. This part of the letter is attested only in a Coptic version; for English translation, see D. Brakke, “A New Fragment of Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter:  Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon,” HTR 103 (2010): 47–​66. 44.  See R. A. Kraft, “Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,” in J. C. Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), 68–​71.

15

16

16

Willi a m  A dler

4.  Strategies of Legitimation of Jewish Parabiblical Texts Syncellus addresses this very question directly after his second quotation from the Enochic Book of the Watchers (1 En. 8.4–​10.14 and 15.8–​16.1). Citations in the epistles of the apostle Paul from the Apocrypha of Elijah (1 Cor 2:9), the Apocalypse of Moses (Gal 6:15), and the Apocrypha of Jeremiah (Eph 5:14) demonstrate that many apocryphal books, if used judiciously, had something of tangible value to offer. If only to confirm and elaborate the Genesis account of the fall of the sons of God and its aftermath, Syncellus writes, the Book of Enoch also had its uses. But neither that nor Paul’s occasional references to these books should in any way constitute a carte blanche endorsement of works that the church fathers had, with good cause, prevented from being read “as if they were the rest of divine scripture.” For the same reason, “less seasoned readers” should not “heed apocrypha wholeheartedly” and should be content only with preselected excerpts.45 That carefully hedged defense of selective reading of apocryphal books reaffirms a position set forth more systematically by Origen in the third century ce. When Origen applied the category “apocrypha” to texts roughly coextensive with our modern category of Jewish “pseudepigrapha,” he meant to describe works that did not circulate widely, and hence were to be distinguished from what he calls the “public books.”46 Because passages in the New Testament referred in various places to traditions not attested in the latter, they must have originated in sources available only to privileged circles within Judaism. But even if references to these sources by Jesus and the apostles implied confidence in their authority, there were in these books false and misleading statements. As an expression of disapproval of their contents, Jewish authorities had removed them from public circulation, and at the same time corrupted them with false and anti-​Christian doctrines. Apocryphal books, then, were what Origen calls in another context “mixed works.” 47 The right approach when reading this literature was to heed the words of Paul: “Test all things, and hold to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21).48 How, then, was this to be done? The chief test was this: did these sources have any­ thing that could illuminate the “recognized” or “public” books? From his own research, Origen believed he had uncovered plenty of passages in which this was so. Jesus’s words about the slaying of the prophets, nowhere attested “in a work circulating among the public and popularly known books (γραφῇ οὐ φερομένῃ μὲν ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημευμένοις

45.  George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica, ed. A. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 27.8–​25. 46.  See, for example, Origen, Comm. Matt., ed. E. Klostermann (GCS 40; Leipzig:  Hinrichs, 1935–​1937), 10.18.57–​60 (on Matt 13:57); and Ep. Afr., ed. N. de Lange (SC 302; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983), 13. For Origen’s views on Old Testament pseudepigrapha, see A. von Harnack, Die kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten der Origenes (TU 42.4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1919), 42–​50; J. Ruwet, “Les ‘Antilegomena’ dans les oeuvres d’Origène,” Bib 24 (1943): 18–​58; and Ruwet, “Les apocryphes dans le oeuvres d’Origène,” Bib 25 (1944): 143–​66. 47.  See Origen, Comm. Jo. 13:17, ed. E. Preuschen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903), where he introduces the threefold categories of “genuine, spurious and mixed.” 48. Origen, Comm. Ser. Matth 28 (on Matt 23:37), 51.8–​22.

17

Greek

βιβλίοις),” must have originated in a work “in circulation among the apocrypha.”49 Although the story about the martyrdom of Isaiah recorded in the epistle to the Hebrews is attested in none of “the public books (τῶν φανερῶν βιβλίων),” attestation for it, he writes, is found “among the apocrypha.”50 When Jude describes the contest over Moses’s body between Michael and Satan, he received this extrabiblical legend from a work known to Origen as the Ascension of Moses.51 The narrative about the angel Jacob/​Israel recorded in the Prayer of Joseph both illuminated and made “more credible” the meaning of Jesus’s words in the gospel according to John. For that reason, he writes, we would do well not to treat it with contempt.52 Once Origen had set the precedent for this kind of work, other scholars followed suit. For Christian authors interested in justifying their own consultation of these books, alleged citations of them in the New Testament made a powerful argument for the continued, but selective, reading of them. When, for example, Syncellus referred to places in Paul’s epistles that cited selectively from apocryphal books, he was only reciting an earlier finding by Euthalius, an Alexandrian deacon and later bishop of Sulca.53 At the practical level, Origen’s distinction between “public and hidden books” provided a set of unified guidelines about the proper way to approach this heterogeneous literary corpus. Readers who lack the capacity to differentiate the wheat from the chaff should not stray into what he calls the “outside wilderness” of “hidden and unknown writings” that could not be confirmed by ecclesiastical tradition.54 More importantly, Origen’s prescriptions clarified the standing of these “hidden” books in relation to the recognized books of the Christian canon. Many pseudepigraphic works, most notably the Jewish apocalypses, present themselves as autonomous sources of higher revealed wisdom. And it is clear from Origen’s predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, that Christian intellectuals approached them in this way. But that was not Origen’s position. Although apocrypha in restricted circulation among the Jews might assist the interpreter in disclosing the meaning of otherwise obscure passages in Christian scriptures, they had no autonomous role as sources of hidden higher wisdom.55 The implication of this principle over the longer term was that only those parts of Jewish pseudepigrapha whose interpretive value had been certified by tradition were worth preserving. The excerpts from the Book of Jubilees, conventionally known in Greek as Little Genesis (Λεπτὴ Γένεσις), represent one of the best examples of this winnowing process. Although the quantity of material from Jubilees and associated works preserved in Greek 49. Origen, Comm. Matt., ed. E. Klostermann (GCS 40; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1935–​1937), 10.18.60 (on Matt 13:57). 50. Origen, Ep. to Africanus, 13. 51. Origen, De Principiis, ed. P. Koetschau (GCS 22; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913), 3.2.1. 52.  For other examples, see Origen, Comm. Ser. Matt. 117 (on Matt 27:11), 250.7–​9 for the Book of Jannes and Jambres as the source for 2 Tim 3:9, and 250:10–​12 for the Apocalypse of Elijah as the source for Paul’s citation in 1 Cor 2:9. 53.  See Euthalius, Editio epistolarum Pauli (PG 85, col. 721). 54. Origen, Comm. Ser. Matth. 46 (on Matt 24:23–​28) and 94.17–​30. 55.  See further W. Adler, “The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church,” in L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 218–​24.

17

18

18

Willi a m  A dler

is cumulatively not negligible, almost all of it originates in later sources of the Byzantine period.56 What is immediately striking about these witnesses is their generally receptive treatment of the work. According to Syncellus, certain Christian commentators found Jubilees’s account of the chronology of the events that preceded the expulsion of Adam and Eve more credible than an opposing view set forth by John Chrysostom.57 In some cases, and without further qualification, material originating in Jubilees is introduced with the words “as Moses says.”58 In the prooemium to his Compendium historiarum (twelfth century), George Cedrenus expressly mentions Jubilees, along with “ecclesiastical historians and other books,” as a source from which he has excerpted “more than a little (οὐκ ὀλίγα).”59 Jubilees did have its detractors and naysayers. In the twelfth century, Michael Glycas counsels his readers to treat the work as an assemblage of jokes and absurdities. As for the “so-​ called” Little Genesis (ἡ δὲ λεγομένη Λεπτὴ Γένεσις), he writes, “I do not know whence it was written or how.”60 But Glycas’s wholesale condemnation of the work is an outlier. For the most part, his contemporaries refer to Jubilees with a casual matter-​of-​factness suggestive of a long prior history of transmission, excerpting, and editorial reworking. And this may well be the reason for Glycas’s exasperated tone. By his time, other chroniclers had become all too comfortable with a work that in Glycas’s view was of unknown origins and completely at odds with reason and sacred scripture. One good example of the “normalization” of Jubilees is the relatively understudied scattering of references to Jubilees found in Christian commentaries on Genesis, most notably, the Greek catena or “chain commentary.” As a rule, catenae consisted of excerpts compiled by an anonymous editor, and strung together from various writers. Catenae on the book of Genesis tended to be organized around much-​discussed questions, many of them already taken up by the author of Jubilees:  Were the angels part of the created order, or did they preexist creation (cf. Jub. 2.2)? How did the serpent communicate with Eve (Jub. 3.28)? How long were Adam and Eve in Paradise (cf. Jub. 3.32)? What was the

56.  For discussion of the Greek witnesses to Jubilees, see J. C. VanderKam, “The Manuscript Tradition of Jubilees,” in G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba, eds., Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 12–​17. For partial collections of the Greek witnesses to Jubilees, see H. Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1874); A.-​M. Denis, ed., Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca: Una cum historicorum et auctorum Judaeorum Hellenistarum fragmentis /​collegit et ordinavit (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970); and J. C. VanderKam, trans., The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511, Scriptores aethiopici 88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 328–​68. Prior to the fourth century, the only Greek Christian author who can be shown with any degree of certainty to have known Jubilees is the Christian universal chronicler Julius Africanus, and even here the evidence is only indirect, via some later Byzantine chronicles that Heinrich Gelzer believed to be epitomes of Africanus’s Chronographiae. See H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1885), 2.280–​97. On this, see further J. T. Milik, “Recherches sur la version grecque du Livre des Jubilées,” RB 78 (1971): 545–​57. 57. Sync. Chron. 3.19–​4.15. 58. Cf. Symeonis Magistri et Logothetae Chronicon, ed. S. Wahlgren (CFHB 44/​1; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006), 1.5 (pp. 6.20–​22): Μωϋσῆς λέγει ἐν τῇ λεπτῇ Γενέσει, referring to Jubilees’s account of the heavenly powers on the first day of creation (Jub. 2.1), and 1.24 (pp. 25.11–​12): ὡς λέγει Μωϋσῆς, referring to Jubilees’s account of the death of Cain (Jub. 4.31). 59.  George Cedrenus, Compendium historiarum, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB; Bonn, 1838), 1.6.2–​4. 60.  Michael Glycas, Annales, ed. I. Bekker (CSHB; Bonn, 1836), 206.20–​22 and 392.18–​22.

19

Greek

primordial language before the confusion of tongues (cf. Jub. 12.27)? Did knowledge of writing and the reckoning of time exist before the universal flood, and how were these discoveries reconstituted after the universal flood (cf. Jub. 4.17 and 8.2–​3)? Why did Noah condemn Canaan? Did God act justly in taking Canaan’s land away from him (Jub. 10.29–​36)? What were the circumstances preceding the migration of Abraham from Ur and Haran (cf. Jub. 12.12–​14)? Appeals to traditions from Jubilees, alongside the more familiar names of Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Josephus, Philo, Aquila, and Symmachus, amount to an implicit acknowledgment of its authority as an interpretive guide to Genesis.61 The perception of Jubilees as a kind of narrative commentary on Genesis also accounts for many, if not most, of the numerous emendations and corrections of the Greek text. While Christian universal chroniclers found Jubilees’s detailed chronology useful for their own purposes, it required extensive reworking to bring the system into harmony with the Julian calendar and Septuagint chronology.62 In their retelling of Jubilees’s story of the division of the earth among the sons of Noah, chroniclers replaced its archaic Ionian mappa mundi with a more contemporary world map. 63 Starting in the fourth century, Greek commentators and chroniclers also began citing other sources containing material similar to Jubilees—​among them, the Book of the Covenant, 64 the Testament of the Protoplasts,65 and the Life of Adam.66 While it is unclear whether and to what extent these works were directly dependent on Jubilees, the material Christian authors have quoted from them seems to have been equally well-​suited to the requirements of biblical exegesis. At some stage in the Greek transmission of Jubilees, traditions from the work even found their way, probably not by accident, into the text of Josephus’s Antiquities that was known to Byzantine chroniclers.67 If the intent of these interpolations was to shore up the authority of Jubilees with the testimony of the highly regarded Josephus, the effort succeeded. Apparently impressed by the extent 61.  See, for examples, F. Petit, ed., La Chaîne sur la Genèse (Louvain:  Peeters, 1993), 2.38 (#551), 2.57 (#585), 2.199 (#833), and 2.215 (#861): Jubilees’s identification of the names of the wives of the patriarchs, 2.60 (#590): Jubilees’s attribution of the discoveries of writing and astronomy to Enoch, and 2.218 (#867): Jubilees’s narrative of Abraham’s burning of the temple of idols. In the last example, the anonymous author quoted Jubilees with a formula usually applied to sacred scripture: e.g., καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ἰωβηλαίῳ. For other Jubilees citations in catena commentaries, see Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 274–​78 (from the Catena of Nicephorus). 62.  See Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 278–​85. 63.  For discussion, see J. M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity (SNTSMS 113; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 135–​58. 64.  For recent English translation and analysis of the citations from this work in the commentaries of Didymus the Blind on Genesis and Job, see J. C. VanderKam, “The Book of the Covenant:  A New Translation and Introduction,” in Bauckham, Davila, and Panayotov, eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,  28–​32. 65.  Anastasius Sinaiticus, Hexaemeron, ed. C. Kuehn and J. Baggarly (OCA 278; Rome:  Pontificio istituto orientale, 2007), 7b. 2 (ll. 675–​83). Anastasius describes this work as a “non-​canonical book of the Old Testament (τῆς ἀκανονίστου βίβλου τῆς παλαιᾶς)” circulating among the “children of the Hebrews.” The work found an interested readership among “some expositors (τισιν ἐξηγηταῖς),” including a certain Pyrrho, who interpreted its narrative of Adam’s introduction into the “sanctuary” of Paradise forty days after his creation (cf. Jub. 3.9) as a prefiguration of both the presentation of Jesus in the Jerusalem temple on the fortieth day after his birth in Bethlehem and his assumption into heaven forty days after his resurrection (cf. Luke 2:22 and Acts 1:3). 66.  Cited in Sync., Chron. 4.21–​5.25. 67.  On the material in Jubilees attributed to Josephus, see Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, 2.278–​80.

19

20

20

Willi a m  A dler

of agreement between the two sources, Syncellus at one point seems to acknowledge that Josephus used Jubilees as a source.68 By that time, legends originating in Jubilees were so deeply embedded in the tradition that authors citing them were no longer certain of their origins. When, for example, Syncellus describes the Jubilees-​based story of Abraham’s destruction of the temple of idols in Ur and the ensuing death of Haran, he says simply that the tradition was “ubiquitous (πολλαχοῦ).”69 Recent studies of Jubilees have expended great effort trying to identify the genre of a work that seems to resist straightforward categorization. Is it an apocalypse, an example of the “rewritten Bible,” a narrative commentary, or something else?70 Close verbal affinities with Genesis and adherence to its narrative of events from creation to Sinai would, at least to some degree, justify the description of the work as an ideologically tinged rewriting and expansion of Genesis. But Jubilees does not present itself as either a narrative commentary or a rewritten version of Genesis. It uses instead self-​authorizing language familiar from the Jewish apocalypses. In the work, Moses plays the role of apocalyptic scribe, making a written record of a text already preserved on heavenly tablets, preordaining the course of history, and dictated to Moses by the angel of the presence (cf. Jub. 1.26, 29). If we can judge from the titles of the work in Greek, ancient writers also had to contend with the question of Jubilees’s genre. Only rarely was it known in Greek as Jubilees.71 According to Syncellus, there were some who referred to the work as the Apocalypse of Moses. But he distanced himself from this title with the qualifying words “some say” and “so-​called”—​the latter the Greek equivalent of scare quotes.72 For Syncellus, the preferred titles were Little Genesis (Λεπτὴ Γένεσις) and the Details of Genesis (τὰ λεπτὰ τῆς Γενέσεως). To the extent that Jubilees is substantially longer than Genesis, the title Little Genesis can hardly refer to its length. Conceivably, then, it could indicate its “lesser” standing in relationship to Genesis.73 Although the alternate title, the Details of Genesis, is less common, it is arguably more descriptive of a work whose primary value was thought to be as a supplement to the canonical book of Genesis, especially in those places where the latter stood in need of clarification. But whether it was known as Little Genesis or the Details of Genesis, both titles make clear that the work was to be read and understood only in connection with the canonical book of Genesis. 68. Sync., Chron. 4.19–​20. 69. Sync., Chron. 107.21–​26. 70.  The literature on this question is considerable. Among the more recent studies on the genre of Jubilees, see H. Najman, Seconding Sinai:  The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism ( JSJSup 77; Leiden:  Brill, 2003); M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees:  Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology ( JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007); and T. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees (SBLEJL 34; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012). 71.  Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, ed. K. Holl (GCS 25, 31, 37; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915–​1933), 39.6.1; and Petit, La Chaîne, 2.218 (#867). 72. Sync., Chron. 3.16–​17 (ἣν καὶ Μωϋσέως εἶναί φασί τινες ἀποκάλυψιν), and 27.33–​28.1 (ἐν τῇ Μωυσέως λεγομένῃ ἀποκαλύψει). 73.  For the origin of Λεπτὴ Γένεσις and cognate titles, see Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 466, who suggests that it was a translation of the Hebrew ‫זוטא בראשית‬. For discussion of the Greek names of Jubilees in Greek, see further R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), xv–​xx.

21

Greek

The understanding of Jubilees as an adjunct to Genesis might also account for the seemingly paradoxical growth in interest in the work well after it had been officially designated as apocrypha. Instead of invalidating the work altogether, classifying Jubilees using this term helped to define how it was to be read and used. As with other books that belonged to the category of apocrypha, its value was to be measured by its consistency with orthodox doctrine and its usefulness in clarifying contested or enigmatic passages from Genesis. At least, this is the way Syncellus approaches Jubilees in his chronicle. Before introducing Jubilees and the associated Life of Adam, he cautions “novices (ἀτελεῖς)” against inquiring into subjects about which Genesis is silent.74 And he rebukes some unnamed others for discarding John Chrysostom’s account of events in Paradise in favor of works that “do not appear to be authoritative.”75 The only reason Syncellus even consents to quote the offending excerpts from two apocryphal works is to keep those inquiring into these matters from falling into “even more absurd notions.” 76 But after dispensing with the formulaic disclaimers and identifying places in Jubilees that defy both reason and orthodoxy, he goes on to quote Jubilees, Enoch, and other pseudepigrapha at some length. In fact, Syncellus’s chronicle is one of the most important Greek witnesses to works that had, by his own admission, been “adulterated by Jews and heretics” and contained “some strange material, out of line with ecclesiastical teaching.”77

Selected Bibliography Adler, W. “The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church.” In L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, 211–​28. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. –​–​–​—​. “Alexander Polyhistor’s Peri Ioudaiōn and Literary Culture in Republican Rome.” In A. Inowlocki and C. Zamagni, eds., Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theological Issues, 225–​40. VCSup 107. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bauckham, R., J. R. Davila, and A. Panayotov, eds. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013. Black, M., and A.-​M. Denis, eds. Apocalypsis Henochi graece. Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca. PVTG 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Bowman, S. “Josephus in Byzantium.” In L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 362–​85. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Bruns, J. E. “Philo Christianus: The Debris of a Legend.” HTR 66 (1973): 141–​45. Carriker, J. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. VCSup 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 155–​77. Collins, J. J. Between Athens and Jerusalem:  Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Davila, J, ed.The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? JSJSup 105. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Denis, A.-​M. Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament. SVTP 1. Leiden: Brill, 1970. –​–​–​—​, ed. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament:  Concordance, corpus des textes, indices. Louvain-​la-​Neuve, Belgium: Université catholique de Louvain Institut orientaliste, 1987.

74. Sync., Chron. 3.26–​27: καὶ χρὴ τοὺς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἀτελεῖς μὴ ζητεῖν καὶ περιεργάζεσθαι τὰ σεσιγημένα τῇ θεοπνεύστῳ γραφῇ. For the same formulaic warning, see Anastasius Sinaiticus, Viae Dux, ed. K.-​H. Uthemann (CCSG 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1981), 4.1.32–​33 : οὐ γὰρ δεῖ ἡμᾶς περιεργάζεσθαι τὰ σεσιωπημένα τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ. 75. Sync., Chron. 4.22. 76. Sync., Chron. 4.22–​23. 77. Sync., Chron. 27.9–​11.

21

2

22

Willi a m  A dler Denis, A.-​M., and M. de Jonge. “The Greek Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.” NovT 7 (1965): 319–​28. Droge, A. Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. HUTh 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Freudenthal, J. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Hellenistische Studien 1–​2. Breslau, Poland: Skutsch, 1875. Holladay, C. R., ed. and trans. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 4 vols. SBLTT. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1983–​1996. Johnson, A. P. Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ ‘Praeparatio Evangelica’. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Jonge, M. de. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve. SVTP 18. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Knibb, M. E. “The Book of Enoch or Books of Enoch?” In M. E. Knibb, Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, 36–​55. SVTP 28. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kraft, R. A. “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity.” In J. C. Reeves, ed. Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, 55–​86. SBLEJL 6. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994. Paget, J. C. Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. WUNT 251. Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2010, 185–​265. Petit, F., ed. Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum: Fragmenta graeca. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1978. Royse, J. R. The Spurious Texts of Philo of Alexandria: A Study of Textual Transmission and Corruption with Indexes to the Major Collections of Greek Fragments. ALGHJ 22. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Runia, D. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. CRINT 3.3. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1993. Ruwet, J. “Les ‘Antilegomena’ dans les oeuvres d’Origène.” Bib 24 (1943): 18–​58. –​–​–​. “Les apocryphes dans le oeuvres d’Origène.” Bib 25 (1944): 143–​66. Schreckenberg, H. Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter. ALGHJ 5. Leiden: Brill, 1972. –​–​–.​ “The Works of Josephus and the Early Christian Church.” In L. R. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 315–​24. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Schreckenberg, H., and K. Schubert. Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity. Part 1. CRINT 3.2. Assen and Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1992. Schürer, E., F. Millar, and G. Vermes. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–​a.d. 135). Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973. Sterling, G. Historiography and Self-​Definition: Josephos, Luke-​Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. NovTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992, esp. 137–​225. Walter, N. “Zur Überlieferung einiger Reste früher jüdisch-​hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clemens und Euseb.” StPatr 7, TUGAL 92. 1966: 314–​20. Wendland, P. Neu entdeckte Fragmente Philos nebst einer Untersuchung über die ursprüngliche Gestalt der Schrift de sacrificiis Abelis et Caini. Berlin: Reimer, 1891.

23

2

Latin Robert A. Kraft

Numerous texts associated with ancient Judaism survive in Latin or seem to have been known and used by Latin readers in late antiquity. Works for which an early Latin version, quotation, or reference is known include all the books of canonical and deutero-​canonical Jewish scriptures (except 3 Macc and 4 Macc); Jubilees; 1 Enoch 106; pseudo-​Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum; 4 Ezra, 5 Ezra, and 6 Ezra (and the “Confession of Ezra”); the Vision of Ezra; the Testament/​Assumption of Moses; the Life of Adam and Eve (Vita Adae et Evae); the Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah; the Apocalypse of Elijah, the Prophecy of Hystaspes (?); The Lost Tribes (?); portions of the Sibylline Oracles; the Odes of Solomon; Jannes and Jambres; the Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch); Philo; and Josephus. The sixth-​ century ce Gelasian Decree (Decretum Gelasianum) furthermore mentions in its list of apocryphal writings the book of the daughters of Adam Leptogeneseos (= Jubilees?), the book called the Repentance of Adam (= Testament of Moses?), the book about Og the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon, the book called the Testament of Job, the writing that is called the Interdiction of Solomon (scriptura quae appellatur Salomonis Interdictio). Finally, writings of Priscillian (e.g., “Liber de Fide et Apocryphis”) deserve closer scrutiny for what works he may have known in Latin in fourth-​century Spain.1 1.  Presumably Jewish works for which I have been unable to locate any early Latin version include 3 Maccabees; 4 Maccabees, and 5 Maccabees; Ahikar; the Testament of Adam; the Testament of Solomon; 3 Baruch, the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Isaac; the Testament of Jacob, Paralipomena Jeremiou, the Letter of Aristeas, the Psalms of Solomon; 2 Enoch; 3 Enoch; any of the apocalypses attributed to Daniel, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah; the History of Rechabites, the History of Joseph; and the Prayer of Joseph; as well as any of the writings of the so-​called Judaeo-​Hellenistic authors such as Ezekiel the Tragedian, Ps-​Hecataeus, Ps-​Phocylides, Demetrius the Chronographer, Cleodemus the Prophet, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Philo the Epic Poet, Thallus, or Theodotus. (On the extant fragments of these authors, see the ­chapter 16 in this volume by Folker Siegert, “Minor Jewish Hellenistic Authors.”) It is not clear which, if any, of the following were of “Jewish” content, among the

24

24

R obert A .  Kr a ft

Understandably, the extant Latin copies have been transmitted and preserved (or sometimes simply mentioned) in Christian contexts, so in that sense they can be considered “Christian” texts. None of these Latin writings is known to have survived in a Jewish context prior to the Middle Ages.2 But whether and to what extent some of them may have originated as Jewish texts deserves closer attention. What follows may be a somewhat disjointed presentation. I have tried to come at the problem from different angles, none of them producing completely satisfying results. The main reason is the paucity of direct evidence prior to around the year 200 ce. Another reason (“methodological”) is the failure of scholarship in general (there are exceptions) to take into account the differences that would have been present in the world of manuscripts and copies and collections of writings prior to the development of large scale codex technology by the mid-​ fourth century ce.3 Another reason (“integrational”) is the incomplete state of research on “Old Latin” scripturesque materials, including some of the extracanonical texts (in the fourth century ce senses of “canon”).4 Along the way there is visible (to me at least) an aspect of “the tyranny of canonical assumptions” with regard to Latin scriptures, which obfuscates or even precludes the ability to ask certain types of questions about the dating of materials and intertextual relationships, among other things.5

presumably Latin works prohibited in the Decree: the book which is called the Foundation (Fundamentum); the book which is called the Treasure (Thesaurus); the book called Nepotis (Liber qui appellatur Nepotis); the books of Proverbs written by heretics and prefixed with the name of holy Sixtus; and all amulets which are compiled not in the name of the angels—​as they pretend—​but are written in the names of great demons (Phylacterua omnia quae non angelorum, ut illi configunt, sed daemonum magis nominibus conscripta sunt). 2.  I have not yet made a systematic check of the extant Latin literature on Disputations with Jews (e.g., Simon and Theophilus, W. Varner, ed., Ancient Jewish-​Christian dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila: Introductions, texts, and translations [Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press, 2004]) or the much later Barcelona disputation. For a general overview, see A. L. Willliams, Adversus Judaios: A Bird’s Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935 [reissued 2012]). 3.  A  well-​stated exception is found in the article by T. Nicol, “Latin Version, the Old,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1939), now online at http://​www.internationalstandardbible.com/​L/​latin-​version-​the-​old.html: “It has to be borne in mind that in the early centuries complete Bibles were unknown. Each group of books, Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Revelation for the New Testament, and Pentateuch, Historical Books, Psalms and Prophets for the Old Testament, has to be regarded separately.” Nicol seems to be thinking in terms of small codices; the situation is even more atomistic when one considers the world of scrolls. 4.  “Scripturesque” is the word I prefer for those writings (including what became canonical) that seem to have been considered special by some individual or group in antiquity. Some have been carefully edited with reference to their Latinity, but not all, and not all using the same criteria. 5.  The assumption that there was a single Old Latin translation-​book available to authors such as Tertullian and Cyprian is most obvious in some of the earlier publications on this topic, and it still recurs in some modern sources. That the OL materials are very textually diverse is admitted on all sides, but whether the diversity is a product of transmission factors (harmonizations to other textual streams, modernization of Latin language, etc.) or was present from the outset is still argued. Some scholars hold that behind it all was “one fundamental groundwork”; others argue “that there were, at least, several distinct OL versions.” J. K. Elliott, “The Translations of the New Testament into Latin: The Old Latin and the Vulgate, Vol. VII Appendix: The Old Latin Versions of the OT,” in W. Haase, ed., ANRW 2.26.1 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992), 198–​245, opines that Cyprian and Augustine used different versions of the OL: “Augustine and Jerome both testified to the multiplicity of renderings although it remains an open question whether these were recensions of an original single version or different translations” (218).

25

L at in

So let me start at this end of a timeline and work backward. The most obvious corpus of Jewish texts in Latin is Jerome’s “Vulgate Old Testament,”6 produced between about 390 and 405 ce in response to an earlier request (382 ce) by the late Pope Damasus to overcome the problem of diverse and/​or inaccurate Latin versions (starting with the New Testament gospels) that were in circulation at that time. Jerome learned Hebrew (and improved his Greek), settled down for many years in Bethlehem, and produced the anthology of new translations that he considered to be more accurate than its predecessors—​ and those predecessors thereby became by definition the “Old Latin” versions. Where there was no Hebrew Jewish text, Jerome begrudgingly included some older Latin version in his new production.7 Since he lived and worked in the relatively new world of the mega-​ codex (e.g., the Greek codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), the Vulgate could share in that conceptual unity (a “Bible”), while often being copied only in part, and over the next few centuries it came to represent a physical unity as well and to replace the texts of its predecessors in most areas.8 There is no mystery about the origins of the Vulgate. It is a well documented Christian production. But no such documentation exists for the “Old Latin” materials. Despite strong agreement, among those scholars who express views on the subject, that “Old Latin” biblical translations (plural!) and/​or recensions were the works of Christian translators,9 I am inclined to assume that much if not all of what we imagine as the earliest “Old Latin” products may have had Jewish origins, by analogy to the earliest Greek scriptural translations (plural!).10 Like their Greek counterparts, these Latin Jewish translators 6.  See “Old Latin Manuscripts” at the VetusLatina website, http://​www.vetuslatina.org/​. A  complete listing and description of the extant manuscripts of the Old Latin Bible may be found in R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften/​ Manuscrits vieux latins 1–​ 275 (Vetus Latina 1/​ 2A; Freiburg:  Herder, 1999); and Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften/​Manuscrits vieux latins 300–​485 (Vetus Latina 1/​2B; Freiburg: Herder, 2004). 7.  He claims to have found Aramaic copies of Judith and Tobit, which he was able to paraphrase with help from informants. He also Latinized most of the “additions” to Daniel and Esther. For the other non-​Hebrew “apocryphal” materials that tradition demanded, he adapted OL versions of Sirach, Wisdom, and 1–​2 Maccabees. Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah also found their way into later copies of the Vulgate based on OL texts. 8.  Physical copies of the full Latin canon (the earliest to survive is Amiatinus, from the eighth century) remained rare until the printing press, and OL texts survived, often mixed with Vulgate, for a long time in some areas, such as Spain. The history of the Latin editions of Psalms, 4 Ezra, and the Prayer of Manasseh as Vulgate texts requires special attention. 9.  Nicol is typical: “It is generally agreed that, as Christianity spread, the Syriac and the Latin versions were the first to be produced; and translations of the Gospels, and of other books of the Old and New Testament in Greek, were in all probability to be found in these languages before the close of the 2nd century” (“Latin Version, the Old”). This is more blatantly stated by Hugh Houghton, Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing, University of Birmingham: “The first translations were made by individual Christians for use within their own community. These are known as the Old Latin or Vetus Latina” (see the website of the Institute for Electronic Scholarship and Editing, University of Birmingham, UK, http://​www.itsee.bham.ac.uk/​). 10.  Benjamin Kedar, in the chapter “The Latin Translations,” in M. E. Stone, ed., The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud (CRINT 2; Leiden: Brill, 2006), notes: Since all indications point to the fact that the OL is not the product of a single effort, the question arises whether strands of pristine translations, or at least early interpretative traditions can be detected in it. . . . A priori one may feel entitled to presume that Jewish Bible translations into Latin existed in relatively early times. It had been the custom of the Jews before the period under review to translate biblical books into their vernacular; such translations, sometimes made orally but frequently also written down, were needed for public reading in the synagogue and for the instruction of the young. Indeed, a number

25

26

26

R obert A .  Kr a ft

would have operated with smallish units of text (scroll technology) and did not all exhibit the same “styles” of translation—​indeed based on vocabulary choices alone, they seem to represent different locations in the Latin worlds as well. That is, there was no single “Old Latin” translation or style, and what came together as time went on to produce that “OL” construct was the product of translations from different times and places, most of which (if not all) may have been uncoordinated pre-​Christian efforts. Of course, as time went on there also would have been revision and cross-​fertilization among the various translations, as is clear from the surviving texts.11 Unlike the Greek translations, however, no etiological “myth” developed (or, at least, none survived) on the Latin side. There was, for example, no Aristeas legend, to serve as a magnet or umbrella for deceptively explaining all the Greek translations as time went on.12 Even with the Pentateuchal books, the Latin remnants do not seem at all homogeneous in translational characteristics.13 While the evidence seems compelling that these “Old Latin” scriptural translations were made from extant Greek texts,14 there is little to suggest that some sort of cooperative effort (organized committee or “school” work) was involved. Scholars have understandably identified (or created) such distinctions as “North African Latin,” “Italic (or European) Latin,” “Spanish Latin,” etc., from the remnants, especially through comparison with the Latin found in authors whose locations and dates are (or are thought to be) better known. Thus Cyprian along with bilingual Tertullian and several later witnesses with “North African” connections (especially Carthage) are cornerstones of that local identification.15 And partly on these grounds, “North African” becomes the of scholars are inclined to believe that the OL has at its base pre-​Christian translations made from the Hebrew. The proofs they adduce are, however, far from conclusive. (308) He adds: “In the case of the OL . . . it is not the voice of a single person we think to discern but rather the sounds of an historic workshop that has been continuously engaged in transferring the Scriptures into Latin” (313). While that is very poetic, it blurs the fact that the evidence does not support anything like an organized and self-​conscious “workshop” situation behind the OL texts. 11.  Close studies of the Jewish Latin scriptural textual variants include A. V. Billen, The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929), which takes its point of departure from three fragmentary OL codices: Lyons, Munich, and Würzburg; from the OL text project from Beuron, though units of Latin Jewish scriptures have unfortunately been slow to appear (see “Selected Bibliography” at the end of the chapter) since the pioneering volume on Genesis edited by Bonifatius Fischer (1954); and from the Göttingen LXX project, in which the OL witnesses are discussed in their relationship to the Greek, to mention only the most obvious. 12.  Augustine is about the closest we can come to such an explanation of origins: “Translators from Hebrew into Greek, can be numbered, but Latin translators by no means. For whenever, in the first ages of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into the hands of anyone who had also a little skill in both languages, he made bold to translate it forthwith” (De doctr. Chr. 2.16: “Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam uerterunt numerari possunt; Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuiuis primis fidei temporibus in manus uenit Codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari”). A study of “translation techniques” in the Greek materials reveals significant variety. This is especially obvious in Samuel-​Kings, but also in other units, such as the Psalter or Isaiah. 13. Billen, Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch, provides details for the Latin he explores. In the OG materials (LXX proper) the Göttingen editions show the text-​critical problems even in Pentateuchal witnesses. 14.  In addition to the plethora of Greek constructions and transliterations, Latin witnesses sometimes show close ties with identifiable textual options within the Greek textual streams. 15.  Interestingly, the main manuscript used in Harvey’s edition of Cyprian’s Testimonies seems to have been “corrected” at points to be more in accord with “European” Latin vocabulary than is true of some other MSS of that work which show the expected “African” preferences.

27

L at in

bearer of the “early” Latin designation for scriptural materials—​all this, of course, against the background of and in contrast to “classical” Latin studies and texts. What is fascinating to me is the extent to which such identifications of peculiar Latin translational “style(s)” are then applied to other, noncanonical “scripturesque” Latin texts.16 Leopold Cohn, that noted co-​editor of the works of Philo, claimed more than a century ago that the Latin style found in the Biblical Antiquities attributed to Philo (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum) is the same as that also found in the “Old Latin” scriptural translations and in the Latin Jubilees, and indeed in Latin Philo in general.17 M. R. James is cited approvingly by the recent editor of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Howard Jacobson, for adding 4 Ezra to this odd Old Latin–​style group, the products of which are suspected to emanate from the fourth century ce when we know that Latin translations were being produced en masse (e.g., by Rufinus and Jerome among others, including non-​Christians).18 Various editors have made comments on the unusual Latinity of similarly scripturesque texts (e.g., 5 Ezra, 6 Ezra, and the Testament/​Assumption of Moses).19 Datings and locations of such Latin translations vary with the editors, depending largely on other factors (what is the latest identifiable event alluded to in a text—​e.g., the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce—​is “Christian” awareness or influence detected; are there “Hebraisms,” or better, “Semiticisms”?). If a text is thought to be known and used by a Latin writer (e.g., Tertullian or Cyprian), of course, it will be dated earlier than that author. Despite the wealth of Latin linguistic data that has been amassed from this large body of materials, there does not yet seem to be any attempt to integrate everything so that the various claims can be assessed more carefully. And only rarely does one dare to ask about schools of translation, whether Jewish, Christian, or other, that may have used more or less consistent techniques. A rare testimony by a known author to the production of a Latin translation of a Jewish work occurs in the Institutes (17.1) of Cassiodorus, in the later part of the sixth century at his “Vivarium” monastery in southern Italy. He also alludes to earlier translators from around the end of the fourth century: Father Jerome writing to Lucinus Betticus says that he cannot translate Josephus because of the size of this prolix work. We have had it converted into Latin in twenty-​two books by our associates, which involved great labor since it is so subtle and complex. He also composed seven other marvelously clear books on the Jewish 16.  As can be seen by the comments of the various editors, there has been little coordinated effort to address the issue of the origins of Latin versions of these works. 17.  L. Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” Jewish Quarterly Review 10 (1898): 277–​332. 18.  H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-​Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (2  vols.; Leiden:  Brill, 1996), 277. 19. On 5 and 6 Ezra, see T. Bergren, Fifth Ezra:  The Text, Origin and Early History (SBLSCS 25; Atlanta, GA:  Scholars Press, 1990); and Bergren, Sixth Ezra:  The Text and Its Origin (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1998).

27

28

28

R obert A .  Kr a ft

Captivity [= the Jewish War?]. Some attribute the translation of this work to Jerome, others to Ambrose, still others to Rufinus. Since this work is ascribed to such men, the special merits of its composition are apparent. From similar sources we learn of some of the activities of those late-​fourth-​century translators—​Rufinus and Jerome are probably most famous, for their productions and their spats. But apart from the recognized scriptures at that time, they do not seem to be interested in making “noncanonical” materials more easily available. Jerome even resisted revising some of the deutero-​canonical works for which no Hebrew text was found. And Jerome provides information about his efforts. Ambrose was similarly involved but little is known of his activities as a translator or translation sponsor. In any event, it is clear that the textual efforts known from around the year 400 in Christian circles also involved translations from Greek to Latin of various sorts. Augustine is well aware of the issues.20 Prior to that, in our trip back in time, we encounter Origen and his associates and their translation efforts, around the mid-​third century in Egypt and Palestine. But there is no reason to believe that Latin was on their agenda or on that of their famed Jewish predecessors in Greek scriptural translation, “Theodotion” or Aquila or Symmachus. The Greek worlds of the eastern Mediterranean produced translations, but there is no evidence to indicate that Latin was involved in their efforts in that pre-​Constantinian period.21 Still, some people were at work translating Jewish scriptures into Latin in the western Mediterranean in an earlier period, since by the time of Cyprian in the mid-​third century, Latin scriptural materials were available to him (see especially his “Testimonies”), operating out of North Africa’s Carthage. Cyprian’s predecessor in that area, Tertullian, also provides scriptural passages in Latin, though his knowledge and use of Greek makes it difficult to be sure he is using available Latin translations rather than simply translating from Greek himself.22 It may be that Minucius Felix (date and provenance uncertain) also was from that North African area, and a century later, Lactantius as well. These are the earliest cornerstones for identifying Latin scriptural translations within North Africa, and by the end of the fourth century, Augustine of Hippo helps round out the picture.23 20. Augustine, De doct. Chr. 2.11 (see n. 12 above). In the same context he mentions “an innumerable variety of Latin translators,” “a crowd of translators.” 21.  Latin was not unknown in the east; in addition to the famous INRI (Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum) Latin acronym in the crucifixion story of Jesus, Josephus mentions several inscriptions in Greek and Latin involving Jewish interests (e.g., Antiquitates judaicae 14.197 and 14.319), including one prohibiting entry by a foreigner into the inner court of the Temple in Jerusalem, with the death penalty for any infraction (Bellum judaicum 5.194: αἱ μὲν Ἑλληνικοῖς αἱ δὲ Ῥωμαϊκοῖς γράμμασιν; cf. Titus in 6:124–​128: γράμμασιν Ἑλληνικοῖς καὶ ἡμετέροις κεχαραγμένας). On the titulus crucis, see D. Anlezark, “The Trilingual titulus crucis Tradition in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 20,” in L. DiTommaso et  al., eds., The Embroidered Bible:  Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (SVTP 26; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 64–​79. 22.  Tertullian is said to have written in Greek as well as Latin, making it possible to imagine that he himself translated scriptural passages from the available “Old Greek” into Latin, in which case he would not be a witness to preexisting Old Latin materials. 23.  Other North African Christian authors of note include Arnobius (d. c. 330 ce) and Victorinus Afer (fourth century), who spent much of his life in Rome, but grew up in Africa. He translated some Plotinian Greek materials into Latin and wrote many works of his own. F. F. Bruce, “Marius Victorinus and His Works,” Evangelical Quarterly

29

L at in

The fact that these same writers were also citing Latin Christian scriptures (i.e., the New Testament) at the same time, coupled perhaps with an anachronistic concept of collected scriptures in the sense of what was known from fourth-​century mega-​codices (the aforementioned Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), may have helped generate the conclusion that all these Latin translations were Christian in origin, and that there was an “Old Latin Bible” (singular) available in North Africa.24 Discovery of fragmentary Latin manuscripts containing texts in similar “styles” and evidence from other Latin authors not connected with North Africa (e.g., Novatian, representing mid-​third-​century Rome) led to the conclusion that there were several Old Latin translations (as, indeed, both Augustine and Jerome claimed), although this emerging “fact” was seldom pursued much further. The situation resembles what also appears to be true of the “Old Greek” scriptural texts. It may be that the etiological tale for the Greek is more or less accurate about the Greek Pentateuch being the product of coordinated translational efforts. But there are no such tales for all the other Greek books, and the translation “styles” vary widely from each other, even sometimes within given units (e.g., Samuel-​Kings). And as noted, even within the Greek Pentateuchal texts, problems of consistency are present. Why all these materials were translated into Greek and by whom and where and when remain mysteries. But we do have Jewish users such as Philo and Josephus and Paul, and even physical fragments of some of the “Old Greek” materials that appear to be pre-​Christian in date,25 so we are not tempted to claim that these materials, preserved mainly by later Christian users, were Christian in origin. The remnants of “Old Latin” translations may have very similar characteristics in terms of textual complexity, but have no known early Latin Jewish users, no etiological tale, no early scraps from the sands of Egypt or the caves of the Dead Sea. We are left to conjecture. But no one doubts that there were active Jewish communities in Latin-​speaking areas by the turn of the era, especially in North Africa but also in Rome and Italy (perhaps also in Spain?). Inscriptional evidence is not lacking.26 Given such circumstances, we might expect more attention to the possible, even probable, Jewish origin of at least some of the Latin translations. And it is present in some scholarly discussions but, surprisingly, not very strongly.

18 (1946): 132–​53, provides useful details. Bruce notes that the work De Physicis ascribed to Victorinus is “probably not his. . . . Its Latinity . . . shows an African Old Latin Biblical text, whereas Marius Victorinus has a European one” (n. 5). Bruce also provides a long list of Latin words or usages not known earlier. From the fifth century, we have Quodvultdeus, a bishop of Carthage who corresponded with Augustine. 24.  See note 5 above. 25.  See “Files and Information on Early Jewish and Early Christian Copies of Greek Jewish Scriptures,” my online notes on early Jewish papyri: http://​ccat.sas.upenn.edu/​rak//​earlylxx/​jewishpap.html. 26.  D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, vol. 1: Italy (Excluding the City of Rome), Spain, and Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). The inscriptional evidence points to some use of Latin in Jewish contexts, especially in North Africa and also in Italy/​Rome, from the first century bce and even earlier. Since inscriptions are notoriously difficult to date with any precision, supplementary evidence is also brought into play in the discussions, but the bottom line is that Latin-​speaking Jews must have been present in pre-​Christian times in some locations; currently Carthage and its North African environs probably provide the strongest case.

29

30

30

R obert A .  Kr a ft

Enough is known about the “styles” of the various translators of the “Old Latin” remnants to create tools for identifying and categorizing the similarities and differences between various Latin “Jewish” texts noted above. Is it possible to identify a sort of corpus of texts that appear to come from the same Latin translator or school of translators? Lists of “North African” Latin features appear in various publications, from as long ago as Rönsch (and probably before him) but more fully from Cohn and James on Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and others.27 The most numerous characteristic features identified are vocabulary (e.g., claritas vs. gloria, sermo vs. uerbum, totus vs. omnis), but also certain constructions (illic, iste, ut, -​ific), plus the presence of various “Semiticisms” as well as “Greekisms.”28 Of course, this sort of analysis cannot in itself determine whether Jewish or Christian translators were at work, but it might help determine what sorts of further questions to ask, or not to ask. For example, since the Latin translations of clearly Christian scriptural materials exhibit similar “Old Latin” features, how would this best be explained? Does geographical proximity suffice? Mere imitation? Might Christian translators have learned from Jewish predecessors? Does it make sense to explain “Hebraisms” by conjecturing Jewish proselyte involvement, thus preserving the “Christian” origin of the material, or perhaps from oral Latin targums?29 How far does the argument from Greek-​Latin bilingualism carry? Were Christians needier of Latin scriptures than their Jewish neighbors and/​or predecessors? What assumptions can we trust regarding pre-​Christian Latin Jewish worship or linguistic interests? Where did Latin Christians get their Jewish scriptures? Would it have made a difference for them to accept Jewish Greek materials while rejecting Jewish Latin? It seems to me that an argument denying that Latin Jews made translations into Latin could only make sense if for some reason those Jews were considered to be very different from their Greek co-​religionists, who did make translations, and if Latin Jews were content to stay with the Greek scriptures, which by then had become traditional—​much like the continuation of Medieval Latin in Christian circles when local languages were growing in influence. That is a possible scenario, although it is not clear to me what sort of evidence would provide adequate support. Presumably, Latin Christians would not have the same 27.  See H. Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata: Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata, unter beruecksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache durch Beispiele erläutert (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1868, 21875); M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (London: SPCK, 1917); and D. S. Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-​ romans et la Vetus Latina: Étude sur les rapports entre les traductions bibliques en langue romane des juifs au Moyen âge et les anciennes versions (Paris: Champion, 1925). 28.  On possible Semitic influences, see the detailed article by G. Rubio, “Semitic Influence in the History of Latin Syntax,” in P. Baldi and P. Cuzzolin, eds., New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax I: Syntax of the Sentence (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2009), 195–​240. 29. Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-​romans, xlviif, is especially fond of such explanations, partly because he sees a strong continuation between Hebrew scriptural texts and the OL materials. See also E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 139, on how “hebraizing” elements in OL “may have entered the Latin translation directly from a Hebrew source, possibly during the oral citation of the text in the synagogue service in North Africa as surmised by Quispel,” referring to G. Quispel, “African Christianity before Minucius Felix and Tertullian,” in J. den Boeft and A. H. M. Kessels, eds., Actus: Studies in Honour of H. L. W. Nelson (Utrecht, The Netherlands: Instituut Voor Klassiek Talen, 1982), 257–​335, esp. 260–​65.

31

L at in

sort of traditional constraints. But how does the tendency to preserving “Semiticisms” fit in for the translators? This would seem to require even more conservatism on the Jewish side. And on the Christian side, perhaps it would require input from the Semitic east, as some interpreters suggest.30 How would Christian motivation to create Latin scriptural translations differ from Jewish motivation? In general, Christians would know that Paul and other of their founders used Jewish scriptures in Greek, but perhaps they had no community ritual for reading scriptures in public meetings? As for the other scripturesque texts in similar Latin styles—​if they indeed meet that criterion—​motivation would seem to be similar for Jew or Christian. In short, there seem to be few arguments that make sense for not assuming Jewish involvement in the earliest production, presumably in scrolls at various times and places, of Latin scripturesque texts, both what later became canonical and related materials. That similar Christian productions also appeared in the same areas and at an early date would not be surprising at all, and may throw light on the undocumented period of “the parting of the ways” in North Africa at least, and the Latin west more broadly.

Selected Bibliography B A S I C PR I M A RY SO U RC E S

Denis, A.-​M., ed. Concordance latine des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Concordance, corpus des textes, indices. Corpus christianorum. Thesaurus patrum latinorum. Supplementum. Turnhout: Brepols, 1993. DiTommaso, L. A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research, 1850–​1999. JSPSup 39. Sheffield, UK:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. “Old Greek” (“LXX”) editions—​see http://​ccat.sas.upenn.edu/​ioscs/​editions.html; most of the introductions to specific scriptural books summarize the information on Latin witnesses. Lechner-​Schmidt, W. Wortindex der lateinisch erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament. TANZ 3. Tübingen: Francke, 1990. Sabatier, P. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae: Seu Vetus Italica, et caeterae quaecunque in codicibus Mss. & antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt: Quae cum Vulgata latina, & cum textu graeco comparantur . . . (1743). Vetus Latina Institute = http://​www.vetus-​latina.de/​en/​index.html. Cf. http://​www.vetus-​latina.de/​en/​edition_​ vetus_​latina/​vetus_​latina.html and http://​www.vetuslatina.org/​. Weber, R., ed. Biblia sacra:  Iuxta Vulgatam versionem, Rec. et brevi apparatu instruxit Robertus Weber. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1975, 1983/​1985, 1994.

30.  E.g., Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-​romans, with his idea that Jewish proselytes to Christianity might have been involved. The possibility that the Latin of military camps might also have been influential has also been suggested. See A. von Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (4th ed.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1924), 278n2: “The strong military element in the vocabulary of the African church is a feature which deserves close attention. It can be verified as early as Tertullian, who was a soldier’s son. But it is far more surprising to find how prominent it is in the religious dialect of Cyprian, which became authoritative afterwards. Was this accidental, we may ask? Or are we to suppose that relations were established at an early date between Christianity and the military camps in Africa?” Whether Latin-​speaking Jewish troops existed is an unknown possibility. Military language has also been claimed for some of the Jewish funerary inscriptions. See recently, K. Stern, Inscribing Devotion and Death: Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Populations of North Africa (RGRW 161; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 151–​63, on the rapid adaptation of Latin, especially in military contexts.

31

32

32

R obert A .  Kr a ft S E L E C T E D C R I T I C A L E D I T I O N S A N D S E CO N DA RY ST U D I E S R E L AT I N G TO   T H E A P O C RY PH A A N D P S EU D E PI GR A PH A ( I N A D D I T I O N TO   I T E M S I N C LU D E D I N   T H E F O OT N OT E S ) 31

Baldi, P., and P. Cuzzolin, eds. New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1:  Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Blondheim, D. S. “Essai d’un vocabulaire comparatif des parlers romans des juifs au moyen âge.” Romania 49 (1923): 1–​43, 344–​88, 527–​69. Burkitt, F. C. The Old Latin and The Itala: With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah. Texts and Studies 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Capelle, P. Le Texte du Psautier latin en Afrique. Collectanea biblica latina 4. Roma: F. Pustet, 1913. Daniélou, J. “La litterature latine avant Tertullien,” RÉL 48 (1970): 357–​75. See also his Origins of Latin Christianity 5–​98. (argues also for 5 Ezra, de centesima sexagesima tricesima, de montibus Sina et Sion, ps-​Cyp AdvJudaeos). de Lange, N. R. M. “Hebrews, Greeks or Roman? Jewish Culture and Identity in Byzantium.” In D. C. Smythe, ed., Strangers to Themselves: The Byzantine Outsider, 105–​18. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000. Fernández Marcos, N. Scribes and Translators:  Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings. VTSup 54. Leiden: Brill, 1994. [Review: James R. Davila, JBL 115 (1996): 520–​21.] Fischer, B. Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte. Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 12. Freiburg: Herder, 1986. Frey, J.-​B. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum: Recueil des inscriptions juives qui vont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-​Christ au VIIe siècle de notre ère, I–​II (v. 1 Europe; v. 2 Asie, Afrique). Roma: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia. Cristiana/​ Geuthner, 1936. Repr. with introduction by B. Lifshitz: Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century a.d. New York: Ktav, 1975. Gallagher, E. L. “Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon of North Africa.” In M. Vinzent, ed., Studia Patristica LXIX: Papers Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2011, vol. 17: Latin Writers, 99–​106. Leuven: Peeters 2013. Gribomont, J. “Les plus anciennes traductions latines.” In J. Fontaine and C. Pietri, eds., Le monde latin antique et la Bible, 43–​65. Paris: Beauchesne, 1985. van der Horst, P. W. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 bcb–​700 ce). Kampen: Kok-​Pharos, 1991. Kedar-​Kopfstein, B. “The Latin Translations.” In M. J. Mulder, ed., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 299–​338. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Online review by W. Barrick at http://​www.tms.edu/​JournalBookReview. Leon, H. J. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960. Levinson, D. “The Latin Translation of Josephus, Jewish War: State of the Question.” (current project) http://​religion.fsu.edu/​faculty_​david_​levenson.html. Marganne, M.-​H., and B. Rochette, eds. Bilinguisme et digraphisme dans le monde gréco-​romain: L’apport des papyrus latins. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale (Liège, 12–​13 mai 2011). Collection Papyrologica Leodiensia, 2. Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2013. The chapter “Bilinguisme, digraphisme et multiculturalisme dans le codex miscellaneus de Montserrat,” by Gabriel Nocchi Macedo, provides an overview of a remarkable document. This fourth-​century manuscript, which survives in a surprisingly complete condition, includes texts in both Latin and Greek; both Christian and secular texts and includes classical oratory and hexameter poetry as well as Christian liturgy. Mohrmann, C. Études sur le latin des chrétiens. 4 vols. Storia e letteratura 65, 87, 103, 143. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1958–​1977. Monceaux, P. “Les colonies juives dans l’Afrique romaine.” RÉJ 44 (1902): 1–​28. —​—​, “Enquête sur l’épigraphie chrétienne d’Afrique (suite). II. Inscriptions juives.” Revue Archéologique, ser. 4 (1903): 354–​73. Noethlichs, K. L. Das Judentum und der römische Staat:  Minderheitenpolitik in antiken Rom. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996.

31.  Additional bibliography is available under “Notes: Jewish Latin” on my webpage, http://​ccat.sas.upenn.edu/​ rak//​. Use Internet search engines, such as Google, to find further information on topics of interest.

3

L at in Noy, D. “The Jews in Italy in the First to Sixth Centuries ce.” In B. D. Cooperman and B. Garvin, eds., The Jews of Italy: Memory and Identity, 47–​64. Bethesda: University of Maryland Press, 2000. Rachmuth, M. “Die Juden in Nordafrika bis zur Invasion der Araber (644).” MGWJ 50 (1906): 22–​58. Süss, W. Studien zur lateinischen Bibel, I: Augustins Locutiones und das Problem der lateinischen Bibelsprache. Acta et Commentationes Universatis Tartuensis B 29, 4. Tartu, Estonia: K. Mattiesen, 1932. Ziegler, L. Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus:  Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Heiligen Schrift. München: T. Riedel, 1878.

33

34

35

3

Ethiopic* Pierluigi Piovanelli

Works Discussed Apocalypse of Peter Ascension of Isaiah Book of the Rooster Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon 1 Enoch History of Joseph Jannes and Jambres Joseph and Aseneth Jubilees Kǝbrä Nägäśt Liber Requiei Paraleipomena of Jeremiah Questions of Bartholomew Shepherd of Hermas * The present chapter is the logical sequel to P. Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes en Éthiopie,” Apocrypha 4 (1993):  197–​224  =  Piovanelli, “The Adventures of the Apocrypha in Ethiopia,” in A. Bausi, ed., Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity:  Ethiopian (Variorum, The Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–​1500:  4; Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2012), 87–​109. The reader is directed to it for references to works published prior to 1993, which are omitted in the present study; to J.-​C. Haelewyck, Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), a new edition of which is currently in preparation; and to the collected studies in P. Piovanelli, Apocryphités: Études sur les textes et les traditions scripturaires du judaïsme et du christianisme anciens ( Judaïsme ancien et origines du christianisme 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 2016). I am, as usual, extremely grateful to Rajiv Bhola for his efforts to improve my English prose.

36

36

P i erlu i gi P iova n elli

Story of Melchizedek Testaments of the Three Patriarchs Ethiopian Christianity is renowned for having preserved not only an impressive number of ancient Israelite customs and practices, but also an important collection of Jewish Second Temple and early Christian scriptural texts translated into Gǝʿǝz, or Classical Ethiopic, the South Semitic language spoken in the late antique kingdom of Aksum, which is still in use in the liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Täwaḥǝdo (of “the Union/​Unity” [of Christ’s two natures], i.e., Miaphysite) Church.1 Among the former category are the circumcision, the observance of “the first Sabbath” (i.e., Saturday) together with “the second Sabbath” (i.e., Sunday), a series of dietary regulations, the threefold division of Ethiopian churches, and the identification of their tabotat (or “altar tables”) with the Ark of the Covenant, as well as some aspects of traditional music, dance, or magic.2 As for the so-​called Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and New Testament Apocrypha,3 the most illustrious are indisputably 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Ascension of Isaiah,4 whose integral texts have survived solely in Ethiopic, to which we could add at least 4 Ezra, the 1.  For an overview, see D. Crummey, “Church and Nation:  The Ethiopian Orthodox Täwahedo Church (from the Thirteenth to the Twentieth Century),” in M. Angold, ed., The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 5: Eastern Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 457–​87; Ephraim Isaac, The Ethiopian Orthodox Täwahïdo Church (Afroasiatic Studies 1; Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press, 2012). 2.  More systematically identified and collected by the late Edward Ullendorff (1920–​2011). See especially his programmatic essay “Hebraic-​Jewish Elements in Abyssinian (Monophysite) Christianity,” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956): 216–​56, and his highly influential series of lectures, Ethiopia and the Bible (Schweich Lectures 1967; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968). Ullendorff ’s positivistic approach was immediately criticized in a series of essays by Maxime Rodinson (1915–​2004). See M. Rodinson, “L’Éthiopie a-​t-​elle été juive?,” Journal of Semitic Studies 122 (1963): 399–​403; Rodinson, “Sur la question des ‘influences juives’ en Éthiopie,” Journal of Semitic Studies 9 (1964): 11–​19; and Rodinson, “Le problème du christianisme éthiopien: Substrat juif ou christianisme judaïsant?,” RHR 167 (1965), 113–​17, as well as Rodinson’s reviews of Ullendorff, The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), which was published in Bibliotheca Orientalis 21 (1964): 238–​45; and Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, in Journal of Semitic Studies 17 (1972): 166–​ 70. More recently, S. Munro-​Hay, Ethiopia: Judaism, Altars and Saints (Hollywood, CA: Tsehai, 2006), 13–​68 and 159–​73, has radically dismissed the majority of Ullendorff ’s conclusions (see the present author’s review in Judaïsme ancien—​Ancient Judaism 2 [2014]:  324–​28); whereas U. Schattner-​Rieser, “Empreintes bibliques et emprunts juifs dans la culture éthiopienne,” JECS 64 (2012): 5–​28, and some Ethiopian scholars seem to be more prone to accept them; see, for example, Gabre Ammanuel Mikre Sellassie, as quoted by Bruk A. Asale, “Mapping the Reception, Transmission, and Translation of Scriptural Writings in the EOTC [Ethiopian Orthodox Täwaḥǝdo Church]: How and Why Some ‘Pseudepigraphical’ Works Receive ‘Canonical’ Status in the Ethiopian Bible,” Journal for Semitics 22 (2013): 358–​75 at 365–​66; and Mebratu Kiros Gebru, “Liturgical Cosmology: The Theological and Sacramental Dimensions of Creation in the Ethiopian Liturgy” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2012), 36, n.  140. On the late antique origins of this phenomenon, see now P. Piovanelli, “Jewish Christianity in Late Antique Aksum and Ḥimyar? A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Proposal,” Judaïsme ancien—​Ancient Judaism 6 (2018): 175–​202. 3.  For a tentative inventory, see Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes,” 213–​15 (ET: 101–​3), as well as the recent survey of Tedros Abraha and Daniel Assefa, “Apocryphal Gospels in the Ethiopic Tradition,” in J. Frey and J. Schröter, eds., Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu ausserkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach-​und Kulturtraditionen (WUNT 1.254; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 611–​53. 4.  See P. Piovanelli, “‘A Door into an Alien World’: Reading the Ascension of Isaiah as a Jewish Mystical Text,” in J. N. Bremmer et al., eds., The Ascension of Isaiah (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 119–​44 at 119–​22.

37

Et h i o p ic

Paraleipomena of Jeremiah, the Story of Melchizedek,5 the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Dormition text of the Liber Requiei,6 all translated from Greek between the middle of the fourth and the end of the fifth century. Other texts as significant as the Ethiopic versions of the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs,7 the History of Joseph,8 the Apocalypse of Peter,9 and the Book of the Rooster,10 are the result of a second wave of translations, this time from Arabic, starting in the thirteenth century, while an excellent example of original Ethiopian production is provided by the Kǝbrä Nägäśt, or “Glory/​Nobility of the Kings,” the national epic, written in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, about the love affair between King Solomon of Israel and Queen Makǝdda of Ethiopia (implicitly identified with the biblical Queen of Sheba) that culminated in the birth of their son Bäynä Lǝḥkǝm (i.e., Ibn al-​Ḥakim, the “Son of the wise man” in Arabic), the creation of a “Solomonid” dynasty of rulers in the Horn of Africa, and the transfer of the authentic Ark and a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures from Jerusalem to Ethiopia.11

5.  P. Piovanelli, “The Story of Melchizedek with the Melchizedek Legend from the Chronicon Paschale: A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et  al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:  More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 64–​84 at 67. A previously unknown Latin version of the Story of Melchizedek has been published by S. Pelle, “A Preliminary Study of the Historia de Melchisedech in the Latin West,” Apocrypha 24 (2013): 57–​90. 6.  S. J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2002), 290–​350 (with an English translation); and Tedros Abraha, “Some Philological Notes on the Mäṣəḥafä ʿƎräfətä läMaryam ‘Liber Requiei’ (LR),” Apocrypha 23 (2012): 223–​ 45, who now advocates the use of a Greek Vorlage. 7.  M. Heide, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs: Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen 56; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000); Heide, “The Tradition and Transmission of the Ethiopic Testaments of the Three Patriarchs,” in W. Raunig and S. Wenig, eds., Afrikas Horn: Akten der Ersten Internationalen Littmann-​Konferenz 2.  bis 5.  Mai 2002 in München (Meroitica 22; Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz, 2005), 190–​98; Heide, Das Testament Abrahams:  Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen 76; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012); and Heide, “The Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic Versions of the Testament of Abraham and the Emergence of the Testaments of Isaac and Jacob,” in L. M. McDonald and J. H. Charlesworth, eds., “Non-​canonical” Religious Texts in Early Judaism and Early Christianity ( JCT 14; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 61–​72. 8.  The original Syriac text, subsequently translated into Arabic and from Arabic into Ethiopic (as already argued by Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes,” 209, n.  43 [ET:  98, n.  43]), has been identified by K. S. Heal, “Identifying the Syriac Vorlage of the Ethiopic History of Joseph,” in G. Kiraz, ed., Malphono w-​R abo d-​ Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 205–​10, who has also translated it into English. See Heal, “The Syriac History of Joseph: A New Translation and Introduction,” in Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, 85–​120. 9.  See A. Bausi, “Towards a Re-​edition of the Ethiopic Dossier of the Apocalypse of Peter: A Few Remarks on the Ethiopic Manuscript Witnesses,” Apocrypha 27 (2016): 179–​96. 10.  See P. Piovanelli, “Exploring the Ethiopic Book of the Cock, an Apocryphal Passion Gospel from Late Antiquity,” HTR 96 (2003), 427–​54; Piovanelli, “Livre du coq,” in P. Geoltrain and J.-​D. Kaestli, eds., Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 2 (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 516; Paris: Gallimard, 2005), 135–​203 (French translation); Piovanelli, “The Book of the Cock and the Rediscovery of Ancient Jewish Christian Traditions in Fifth Century Palestine,” in I. H. Henderson and G. S. Oegema, eds., The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity and Other Greco-​ Roman Religions in Antiquity (Studien zu den JSHRZ 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 308–​22; and Tedros Abraha and Daniel Assefa, “Apocryphal Gospels in the Ethiopic Tradition,” in Frey and Schröter, eds., Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen, 639–​43. 11.  For a literary and historical assessment, see P. Piovanelli, “‘Orthodox’ Faith and Political Legitimization of a ‘Solomonid’ Dynasty of Rulers in the Ethiopic Kebra Nagast,” in K. B. Bardakjian and S. La Porta, eds., The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition:  A Comparative Perspective; Essays Presented in Honor of Professor Robert W.  Thompson on His Eightieth Birthday (SVTP 25; Leiden:  Brill, 2014), 688–​705, followed (despite the date

37

38

38

P i erlu i gi P iova n elli

It was through the lens of such a fascinating legend that Ethiopian scholars reconstructed, a posteriori, the history of the original translation of the (from their perspective) Old Testament from Hebrew into Gǝʿǝz, while the initiative of translating the Christian Testament from the Greek was attributed to the famous Nine Saints from “Rome” (i.e., Byzantium/​Constantinople). As the theologian Giyorgis of Sägla/​Gasəčča (c. 1365–​ 1425) claims in his Mäṣḥafä Mǝsṭir, or “Book of the Mystery,” an encyclopedic catalogue and refutation of all known heresies written in 1423/​4, Concerning the books of the Old (Testament), they have been translated from Hebrew into Gǝʿǝz in the days of the Queen of the South (i.e., Makǝdda) who visited Solomon. Therefore, the interpretation of the prophetic books found in the land of the Agʿazi (i.e., Ethiopia) was faithful, because they had adopted the Jewish Law before the birth of Christ. If they had translated them after the birth of Christ, the crucifiers (sic) would have changed the true word into a testimony of falseness. [. . .] Concerning the books of the New (Testament) of our country of Ethiopia, they have been translated from Roman (i.e., Byzantine Greek) into Gǝʿǝz before the appearance of Nestorius’s faith and before the creation of Leon’s faith, before the meeting of the council of dogs, i.e., the bishops of Chalcedon. [. . .] The reception of the books of the Old (Testament) goes back to the time when the Queen of the South came from Jerusalem, while the reception of the books of the New (Testament) goes back to the time when the Saints came from Rome (i.e., the Byzantine empire).12 Such a belief had the undeniable advantage of explaining why the Ethiopian Scriptures are so different, both qualitatively (their text is supposedly free from ideological corrections and interpolations) and quantitatively (there are more books), from all the other Bibles, be they in Hebrew, Greek, or, more probably, Arabic. Actually, the problem of the comparison between corpora of different origins, the Ethiopian Aksumite heritage versus the Egyptian Copto-​Arabic one, had become especially acute in the second half of the fourteenth century, on account of the impressive campaign of translations of patristic, hagiographical, and liturgical works from Arabic into Gǝʿǝz supported by abunä Sälama II (1348–​1388), the Egyptian metropolitan of the Ethiopian Church, whose alacrity earned him the epithet of Mätärgwǝm, the “Translator.”13 of publication) by Piovanelli, “The Apocryphal Legitimization of a ‘Solomonic’ Dynasty in the Kǝbrä Nägäśt: A Reappraisal,” Aethiopica 16 (2013): 7–​44. 12.  Translated from the critical edition of Yaqob Beyene, Giyorgis di Sagla: Il libro del Mistero (Maṣḥafa Mesṭir) (4 vols.; CSCO 515–​16 and 532–​33, Scriptores aethiopici 89–​90 and 97–​98; Leuven:  Peeters, 1990–​1993), 1.124–​26 (Ethiopic text) and 2.75–​76 (Italian translation). 13.  In addition to the seminal study of A. van Lantschoot, “Abbā Salāmā, métropolite d’Éthiopie (1348–​ 1388), et son rôle de traducteur,” in Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Quaderni 48; Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1960), 397–​401, see P. Marrassini, “Sälama [the Translator],” Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 4 (2010): 488–​89.

39

Et h i o p ic

One would immediately think about the concomitant revision of the altäthiopisch text of the Bible on the basis of the Arabic version current in Egypt to produce the so-​called vulgäre Rezension, which has become the standard text of the Ethiopic Bible.14 But such an activity also extended to those apocryphal texts unknown, or known in a different form, elsewhere: scriptural texts were scrutinized, discussed, edited, and eventually newly translated, or, in a few cases, abandoned. In this regard, the sensitivity of Ethiopian scribes is demonstrated by the otherwise enigmatic subtitles they added to the title of the Ethiopic version of the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah:15 Original title: Täräfä nägär zä-​Baruk, “Paraleipomena (literally, ‘Rest of the words’) of Baruch.”16 Subtitle 1: zä-​ʾamä yǝḍḍewwäwu Babilon, “from (the time) when they were taken into captivity in Babylon” (one manuscript: Collegeville, EMML 2080). Subtitle 2: zä-​ʾi-​konä ḫǝbuʾa, “which is not apocryphal” (six manuscripts: Berlin, SPBK, Peterm. II Nachtr. 42; Frankfurt am Main, Stadtbibliothek, Orient. Rüpp. II.5; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Abbadie 195; and Collegeville, EMML 73, EMML 552, and EMML 201). Subtitles 2 + 1: zä-​ʾi-​konä ḫǝbuʾa zä-​ʾamä yǝḍḍewwäwu Babilon, “which is not apocryphal, from (the time) when they were taken into captivity in Babylon” (fifteen manuscripts: London, British Library. Orient. 486, Orient. 498, Orient. 492, Orient. 496, Orient. 502, Orient. 504, and Add. 24991; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Éth. 9, Abbadie 35, and Abbadie 55; Berlin, SPBK, Orient. Quart. 986; and Collegeville, EMML 65, EMML 1206, EMML 629, and EMML 1768; see also the third volume of the bilingual, Gǝʿǝz and Amharic, Bible printed in 1935: EMML 673). When the first Egyptian readers were able to go through this Ethiopic text, they probably noticed that its content was relatively similar to that of the History of the Captivity of the Children of Israel in Babylon—​that is, the Arabic version of the so-​called Coptic Jeremiah

14.  See, in general, M. A. Knibb, Translating the Bible:  The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (Schweich Lectures 1995; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Some of Knibb’s historical conclusions were, however, called into question by A. Bausi, “Un nuovo studio sulla versione etiopica della Bibbia,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 43 (2000): 5–​13; and P. Piovanelli, “Aksum and the Bible: Old Assumptions and New Perspectives,” Aethiopica 21 (2018): 7–​27. 15.  For the following, see Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes en Éthiopie,” 202 (ET: 91–​92). 16.  Note the archaic orthography of the name of the prophet Jeremiah’s scribe:  Baruk, not Barok as in later manuscripts. The title is omitted in Berlin, SPBK, Orient. fol. 3067; unreadable in Collegeville, EMML 2082, and London, British Library, Orient. 484; simply zä-​Barok in EMML 25; and the mention wä-​ʾAbimelek, “and Abimelech,” is added by EMML 2080. These and other variant readings (with the exclusion of a few secondary ones) are taken from P. Piovanelli, “Ricerche sugli apocrifi veterotestamentari etiopici, II: La traduzione etiopica dei Paralipomeni di Geremia; Testo critico con introduzione e commento” (Tesi di laurea; Firenze: Università degli Studi di Firenze, 1987), 109–​231 at 179, available online at https://​uottawa.academia.edu/​PierluigiPiovanelli.

39

40

40

P i erlu i gi P iova n elli

Apocryphon.17 Accordingly, someone (at least the copyist of EMML 2080, the codex vetustior optimusque of the Ethiopic version of the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah) felt the need to add to the title “Paraleipomena of Baruch” the mention “from (the time) when they were taken into captivity in Babylon,” thus supporting the connection between the Ethiopic and the Arabic texts. Other readers and scribes preferred to insert an even more explicit comment, “which is not apocryphal,” and subsequently, the combination of both subtitles created the long title “Paraleipomena of Baruch, which is not apocryphal, from (the time) when they were taken into captivity in Babylon,” found in the majority of manuscripts, especially the most recent ones, as well as in the four-​volume bilingual Bible published in 1935 under the aegis of emperor Haile Selassie. More often than not, however, the discovery of previously unknown texts did not result in an ecumenical acceptance of their mutual differences, and the canonicity of some writings of Aksumite heritage—​not only Jubilees and 1 Enoch but also the Ascension of Isaiah and the Shepherd of Hermas18—​became the object of fiery debates among Ethiopian theologians, especially the prelates educated at the court of the metropolitan or abroad, in Egyptian monasteries, and the members of the two most influential monastic orders of medieval Ethiopia founded, respectively, by abba Täklä Haymanot (c. 1215–​1313) and abba Ewosṭatewos (c. 1273–​1352). The first movement could be characterized, at least in the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, as “progressive” and pro-​Egyptian; the second, as more “conservative” (advocating the observance of the Sabbath) and, as a result of being persecuted by the metropolitans—​notably, by Bärtälomewos (c. 1398–​1436), Sälama II’s successor—​anti-​Egyptian and (almost) schismatic. What was at stake was obviously not a matter as theoretical as the canonicity of certain writings per se,19 but the scriptural bases of traditional practices and, even more significantly, Ethiopian identity and institutional autonomy in front of the Coptic Church. These are the reasons why Ethiopian political leaders did not hesitate to intervene in the 17.  Actually, the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah is a Christian rewriting of the Jewish text known as the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon. See P. Piovanelli, “Le sommeil séculaire d’Abimélech dans l’Histoire de la captivité babylonienne et les Paralipomènes de Jérémie. Textes—​intertextes—​contexts,” in D. Marguerat and A. H. W. Curtis, eds., Intertextualités: La Bible en échos (Le Monde la Bible 40; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000), 73–​96; Piovanelli, “In Praise of ‘The Default Position,’ or Reassessing the Christian Reception of the Jewish Pseudepigraphic Heritage,” NTT 61 (2007): 233–​50 at 239–​49; and Piovanelli, “Why Ezra and Not Enoch? Rewriting the Script of the First Exile with the Hope for a Prompt Restoration of Zion’s Fortunes,” in M. Henze and G. Boccaccini, with J. M. Zurawski, eds., Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall ( JSJSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 237–​49 at 240–​42. 18.  Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes,” 203–​6 (ET: 92–​95). 19.  The main troubles were provoked by the absence of 1 Enoch from the two lists of the eighty-​one canonical books found in the Senodos, on which see A. Bausi, “Alcune considerazioni sul Sēnodos etiopico,” Rassegna di studi etiopici 34 (1992): 5–​73 at 46–​51 and 72–​73. Moreover, both Jubilees and 1 Enoch are missing from the corresponding list of the Fǝtḥa Nägäśt, or “Law of the Kings,” another influential canonistic work later translated from Arabic into Ethiopic. On these questions, see R. W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,” Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974):  318–​23 at 318–​19; P. Brandt, “Geflecht aus 81 Büchern:  Zur variantenreichen Gestalt des äthiopischen Bibelkanons,” Aethiopica 3 (2000):  79–​115; and L. Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,” in E. F. Mason et al., eds., A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (2 vols.; JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2.799–​818 at  803–​7.

41

Et h i o p ic

debates that were finally settled at a council summoned at Däbrä Mǝṭmaq (Tǝgray), in 1449/​50, by aṣe Zärʾa Yaʿqob (1434–​1468) himself. On that occasion, the emperor theologian was able to persuade the new metropolitans Mikaʾel and Gäbrǝʾel to accept the honoring of “both Sabbaths as the Apostles have ordered” in exchange for the acknowledgment of their spiritual authority by the followers of Ewosṭatewos.20 In the end, even though Zärʾa Yaʿqob was successful in his vindication of both Jubilees and 1 Enoch,21 in subsequent generations a few other illustrious texts that had apparently become theologically obsolete were progressively abandoned,22 while an unspecified number of old writings were lost23 and a series of new ones were eventually translated from Arabic, a dynamic evolution of the Aksumite scriptural corpus that has its exact equivalent in the fourteenth-​and fifteenth-​century rearrangement of canonistic and patristic literature.24 However, in spite of their great popularity, as demonstrated by

20.  From the pastoral letter sent by Mikaʾel and Gäbrǝʾel and quoted by Zärʾa Yaʿqob in his Mäṣḥafä Bǝrhan, recently republished by Getatchew Haile, The Homily of Zärʾa Yaʿǝqob’s Mäṣḥafä Bǝrhan on the Rite of Baptism and Religious Instruction (2 vols.; CSCO 653–​54, Scriptores aethiopici 114–​15; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 1.92–​93 (Ethiopic text) and 2.64 (English translation). The letter goes on with this astonishing declaration: “The metropolitans that were before us, abba Sälama and abba Bärtälomewos, had been striving because of their lack of knowledge of the Scriptures” (2.64). 21.  To the passages discussed by P. Piovanelli, “Les controverses théologiques sous le roi Zärʾa Yaʿqob (1434–​ 1468) et la mise en place du monophysisme éthiopien,” in A. Le Boulluec, ed., La controverse religieuse et ses formes (Patrimoines, Religions du Livre; Paris: Cerf, 1995), 189–​228 at 197–​98 and 200–​201, and Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees,” 807–​11 and 815–​18, we should now add Getatchew Haile, Homily of Zärʾa Yaʿǝqob’s Mäṣḥafä Bǝrhan, 1.96 and 108–​9 (Ethiopic text) and 2.66–​67 and 75–​76 (English translation). 22.  The noncanonical status of the Ascension of Isaiah and the Shepherd of Hermas in present-​day Ethiopia was perceptively noticed by Cowley, “Biblical Canon,” 323 (for more historical elements, see above, n. 18). The extreme rarity and relative antiquity of their manuscript copies confirms such a conclusion: twelve for the Ascension of Isaiah and only four for the Shepherd of Hermas. For the newly identified manuscripts, see A. Bausi, “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunità monastiche dell’Eritrea. Parte Seconda,” Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 39 (1995): 25–​48 at 34–​39; T. M. Erho, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” BSOAS 76 (2013): 75–​ 97 at 95–​96; G. Lusini, “Nouvelles recherches sur le texte du Pasteur d’Hermas,” Apocrypha 12 (2001): 79–​97; and T. M. Erho, “A Third Ethiopic Witness to the Shepherd of Hermas,” La Parola del passato 67 (2012): 363–​70. Ted Erho has recently discovered “a fourth Ge’ez witness to the Shepherd of Hermas—​likely the earliest known manuscript, though with only some eighteen leaves or pieces extant, including both the opening and concluding pages,” which he is planning to publish soon (email communication, August 31, 2017). 23.  This was clearly the case with Joseph and Aseneth and, among the Apocrypha of the New Testament, the Questions of Bartholomew, two texts whose Ethiopic versions are known, but through a handful of citations. See Piovanelli, “Les aventures des apocryphes,” 207–​10 (ET:  96–​99); Piovanelli, “Rewriting:  The Path from Apocryphal to Heretical,” in W. Mayer and B. Neil, eds., Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2013), 87–​108 at 102, n. 47. Significantly enough, Ted Erho has recently discovered a fragment—​“a bifolium of non-​consecutive leaves datable on paleographic grounds to the beginning of the 14th century, or perhaps slightly earlier”—​of what seems to be the so far unknown Ethiopic version of Jannes and Jambres, a presently lost Greek pseudepigraphic text; see the announcement he made February 23, 2015, on James Davila’s PaleoJudaica (blog), http://​paleojudaica.blogspot.ca/​2015_​ 02_​22_​archive.html#5409798572690720820. 24.  A  phenomenon identified and studied by A. Bausi, “New Egyptian Texts in Ethiopia,” Adamantius 8 (2002):  146–​51; Bausi, “La Collezione aksumita canonico-​liturgica,” Adamantius 12 (2006):  43–​70; Bausi, “The Aksumite Background of the Ethiopic ‘Corpus Canonum,’” in S. Uhlig, ed., Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Hamburg July 20–​25, 2003 (Aethiopistische Forschungen 65; Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz, 2006), 532–​41; and Bausi, “The ‘So-​Called Traditio Apostolica’:  Preliminary Observations on the New Ethiopic Evidence,” in H. Grieser and A. Merkt, eds., Volksglaube im antiken Christentum (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2009), 291–​321. See now, more generally, A. Bausi, “Writing,

41

42

42

P i erlu i gi P iova n elli

the impressive number of their manuscripts,25 the existence of multiple citations and/​or allusions in Ethiopian literature,26 and the high esteem in which they are generally held today by Ethiopian practitioners and theologians,27 if we look back at the historical development of Ethiopian Christianity and its relations with the Coptic mother Church from the middle of the fifteenth century to the anointing of a native bishop as the patriarch of a definitive autocephalous Ethiopian Orthodox Church in 1959, we can easily see that Jubilees and 1 Enoch are rarely mentioned by those theologians who, like the author of the early seventeenth-​century treatise The Interpretation of the Godhead, had been heavily influenced by the doctrines of the Coptic Church.28 In this regard, we could say that neither Jubilees nor 1 Enoch were ever fully accepted by the Egyptian metropolitans of the Ethiopian Church and the members of their circles. The roots of this problem are old—​as old as the origins of the Ethiopic translation of the Bible (including a significant number of Jewish Pseudepigrapha and Christian apocryphal texts), which was carried out in the days of King ʿEzana (c. 330–​360) as a direct consequence of his conversion to Christianity in c. 340.29 Concerning the chronology of

Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture,” in J. Quenzer et al., eds., Manuscript Cultures: Mapping the Field (Studies in Manuscript Cultures 1; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2014), 37–​78. 25. For Jubilees, see, most recently, Erho, “New Ethiopic Witnesses,” 77–​90; and for 1 Enoch, T. M. Erho and L. T. Stuckenbruck, “A Manuscript History of Ethiopic Enoch,” JSP 23 (2013): 87–​133. 26.  See M. A. Knibb’s survey, “The Text-​Critical Value of the Quotations from 1 Enoch in Ethiopic Writings,” in F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne, with B. Doyle, eds., Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 225–​35. 27.  For the practitioners, see J. Mercier, Art That Heals:  The Image as Medicine in Ethiopia (New  York and Munich:  Museum for African Art and Prestel, 1997), 47–​48; for the theologians, Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees,”  801–​3. 28.  P. Piovanelli, “Connaissance de Dieu et sagesse humaine en Éthiopie: Le traité Explication de la Divinité attribué aux hérétiques ‘mikaélites,’” Le Muséon 117 (2004):  193–​227. Compare the even more surprising case, signaled by Baynes, “Enoch and Jubilees,” 803, of a booklet published in 1983 by the Ethiopian Orthodox Täwaḥǝdo Church Holy Synod, which does not count even Jubilees and 1 Enoch among the “Holy Books of the Old Testament.” One should also note that, despite the existence of an Andǝmta commentary on 1 Enoch, if we judge from the passage translated by R. Lee, “The Ethiopic ‘Andǝmta’ Commentary on Ethiopic Enoch 2 (1 Enoch 6–​9),” JSP 23 (2014): 179–​200, and compare it to the Andǝmta traditions devoted to other scriptural texts, its content is extremely exiguous, consisting mainly of an Amharic paraphrase of the Gǝʿǝz text and a few comments, thus betraying a relative lack of exegetical activities on 1 Enoch. For the “rediscovery” of 1 Enoch by Ethiopian theologians, see now P. F. Esler, ed., The Blessing of Enoch: 1 Enoch and Contemporary Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017). 29.  See, most recently, S. L. Black, “‘In the Power of God Christ’: Greek Inscriptional Evidence for the Anti-​ Arian Theology of Ethiopia’s First Christian King,” BSOAS 71 (2008):  93–​110; Z. Rubin, “Greek and Geʿez in the Propaganda of King ʿEzana of Axum: Religion and Diplomacy in Late Antiquity,” Semitica et Classica 5 (2012): 139–​50; G. W. Bowersock, The Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on the Eve of Islam (Emblems of Antiquity; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 65–​75 and 152–​54; G. Hatke, Aksum and Nubia: Warfare, Commerce, and Political Fictions in Ancient Northeast Africa (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 89–​97; and P. Piovanelli, “Reconstructing the Social and Cultural History of the Aksumite Kingdom: Some Methodological Reflections,” in J. H. F. Dijkstra and G. Fischer, eds., Inside and Out: Interactions between Rome and the Peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian Frontiers in Late Antiquity (Late Antique History and Religion 8; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 329–​49 at 342–​49. A remarkable Italian translation and commentary of inscriptions of ʿEzana and other royals by the late Paolo Marrassini (1942–​2013) has been edited by A. Bausi and posthumously published. See P. Marrassini, Storia e leggenda dell’Etiopia tardoantica: Le iscrizioni reali aksumite, edited by A. Bausi with an appendix on “La civiltà aksumita: aspetti archeologici” by R. Fattovich (Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 9, Letteratura etiopica 1; Brescia: Paideia, 2014).

43

Et h i o p ic

the events, the discovery of a small but nonetheless significant number of quotations taken from various books belonging to different sections of the Bible (not only the Psalms, but also the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Synoptic Gospels) in the inscriptions of King Kaleb (c. 510–​540) RIÉ 191, found in Aksum, and RIÉ 195, from Marib (Yemen), datable to 525, plus RIÉ 192 of his son WʿZB, from Aksum, confirms that the main translational activities had already taken place before the first quarter of the sixth century—​not after, as positivist scholarship had previously assumed on the basis of a largely flawed series of inferences.30 But to this first terminus ante quem we can now add a second, even more precise one—​that is, the sending of Athanasius’s Festal Letter 39 on the occasion of Easter in 367.31 In this letter the patriarch makes a clear distinction between the biblical books, truly “inspired by God,” to be read by the faithful, and “the so-​called apocrypha,” which are but “an invention of heretics,” to be proscribed. To the first category belong not only the writings “that have been canonized” (i.e., the “twenty-​two books of the Old Testament” and the twenty-​seven books of the New Testament, listed at §§ 17–​18), but also the books “appointed to be read,” that is, the apocryphal/​deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint (the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit), to which Athanasius adds the Teaching of the Apostles (most probably, the Didache) and the Shepherd of Hermas (§ 20). As for the second group, in spite of the intentionally generic tone he uses, the reference Athanasius makes to the different writings attributed to Enoch, Moses, or Isaiah, written with the purpose of “deceiving the simple folk” (§ 21), seems to perfectly apply to 1 Enoch,32 Jubilees, and the Ascension of Isaiah, the three most significant pseudepigrapha translated into Ethiopic. If these texts, apparently popular among Egyptian monks, were officially forbidden by the inflexible bishop of Alexandria in 367, it is difficult to imagine that they would still have been sent to Aksum or elsewhere for translation after that date. Contrary to what is implied in the romantic legend told in the Kǝbrä Nägäśt and its modern adaptations, philological and text-​ critical evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the Ethiopian translators did not use any other source besides a Greek

30.  Namely, the supposedly seventh-​century date of the colophon of the Ethiopic version of Ecclesiasticus (actually, the result of a scribal error); the involvement of “Syrian” missionaries, who arrived in Ethiopia after the Council of Chalcedon, in the translational and evangelization processes (legendary figures, in fact, whose exact origins, chronology, and role are extremely difficult, not to say impossible, to ascertain); and the presence of “Syriac” loanwords in the religious lexicon of Aksumite Gǝʿǝz (more probably, of Jewish or Christian Palestinian Aramaic origins). See Piovanelli, “Aksum and the Bible”; and Piovanelli, review article on A. Brita’s monograph I racconti tradizionali sulla “Seconda Cristianizzazione” dell’Etiopia. Il ciclo agiografico dei Nove Santi (Studi africanistici, Serie etiopica 7; Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 2010), in Aethiopica 17 (2014): 236–​45. See also the useful overview provided by C. Niccum, The Bible in Ethiopia: The Book of Acts (Ethiopic Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies 19; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 1–​19. 31.  Piovanelli, “Path from Apocryphal to Heretical,” 97–​100. 32.  Or, eventually, to 2 Enoch as well, with four fragments of a Coptic version having been identified by J. L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in A. A. Orlov and G. Boccaccini, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–​34, pace C. Böttrich, “The Angel of Tartarus and the Supposed Coptic Fragments of 2 Enoch,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 509–​21.

43

4

44

P i erlu i gi P iova n elli

Bible containing the Septuagint, the Christian Testament, and a certain number of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and New Testament Apocrypha.33 In other words, as is the rule for the rest of Aksumite literature, the original version of the Ethiopic Bible, including both canonical and apocryphal texts, was translated neither from Hebrew/​Aramaic nor from Syriac, but exclusively from Greek.34 An eloquent confirmation of this is now provided by the identification35 of the remains of a citation of Isa 22:22–​23 in Kaleb’s inscription RIÉ 195 II (originally published in 1970), lines 23–​25, a passage whose text is fairly different in the Greek Septuagint and the Ethiopic daughter version from the one found in the Hebrew Bible and the Syriac Peshitta.36 This utilization of a Greek Bible prior to 367 is not without consequences for the identification of the community (or the communities) responsible for its importation and subsequent translation in Ethiopia. In theory, we could speculate about a very early arrival of either a first kernel of biblical writings, including the Septuagint and the main pseudepigrapha, at least before (or shortly after) the terrible repression of the Jewish uprising in Egypt (115–​or 116–​117 ce),37 or a complete set of Scriptures, including the early Christian Ascension of Isaiah and the Shepherd of Hermas, after the middle of the second century. In the first case, we could still imagine the existence of a Greek-​speaking Jewish community in the territory of Aksum prior to the spread of Christianity, while in the second case, it would be possible to envision the initiative of another Greek-​speaking group, this time a “Jewish Christian” one.38 The only problem with these kinds of highly speculative hypotheses is that we do not have any external or internal evidence to corroborate the presence of any Jewish, ( Jewish) Christian, Manichaean, or other ethnic and/​or 33.  Concerning the modalities of the translational process, each text or section was probably assigned to a different translator or to a team of translators working more or less at the same time. As for its duration, the entire process would hardly have lasted more than the fifteen years, from 390 to 405, that Jerome took to translate, apparently all alone in his cell near Bethlehem, the Hebrew Bible into Latin. 34.  As acknowledged even by Knibb, Translating the Bible, 35 (“There is no unambiguous textual evidence to support it [i.e., the use of Syriac models]”) and 40 (“There is no convincing evidence that the Hebrew elements in the Ethiopic Old Testament go back to the time of the original translation”). 35.  By Piovanelli, “Ethiopic Kǝbrä Nägäśt: A Reappraisal,” 22–​24. 36.  For the sake of comparison, the Septuagint (and the Old Ethiopic) reads: “And I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and there shall be no one to contradict him. And I will make him a ruler in a secure place, and he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.” But the Masoretic Text (followed by the Peshitta) reads: “I will place the key of the house of David on his shoulder: when he opens, no one will shut, and when he shuts, no one will open. I will fasten him like a nail in a secure place, and he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house.” 37.  On its devastating effects on Egyptian Judaism, see M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/​117 ce: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6; Leuven: Peeters, 2005). 38.  The “Jewish Christian” theory has recently been revived by Ephraim Isaac, Ethiopian Orthodox Täwahïdo Church, 34–​37, who conceptualizes “a Jewish Aramaic-​speaking Cristian group” from Syria-​Palestine; and R. Lee, “Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopic and Ephremic Literature” (PhD diss., School of Oriental and African Studies, 2011), 15–​28, who opts for an “interaction with Judaeo-​Christian Syriac Christianity.” One should note, however, that not only are there no tangible traces of Syriac influences on Aksumite society and culture, but moreover, the writings examined by Lee (the Dəggwa, the Andǝmta corpus, and the Kǝbrä Nägäśt) all belong to the post-​Aksumite, medieval phase of Ethiopic literature—​even if, by chance, these have preserved older materials, we should be extremely prudent before attributing those elements to the intellectual world of late antique Ethiopia. On the whole question, see now Piovanelli, “Jewish Christianity in Late Antique Aksum and Ḥimyar?”

45

Et h i o p ic

religious communities in late antique Aksum prior to the mid-​fourth century. As a great specialist of Aksumite archaeology, numismatics, and history—​the late Stuart Munro-​Hay (1947–​2004)—​rather bluntly puts it, Among all the evidence we have from pre-​Aksumite Dʿamat and from Aksum itself, there is nothing that offers any support at all for such traits [i.e., Jewish elements and customs]. Such evidence, derived from primary sources like archaeology, inscriptional material, other lesser finds, coins, and secondary historical documentation whether Geʿez or foreign, offers us a clear picture of south Arabian Judaising, but not a single straw to grasp for the Ethiopian case. Ethiopia was pagan until the fourth century AD, then gradually became Christian. Its large-​scale Judaisation in early times is a chimera. It never existed outside the pages of the Kebra Nagast and its later derivatives.39 This is a situation that could seem to be, at first sight, perfectly paradoxical, especially when we consider the unequivocal evidence for the existence of Jewish communities in the neighboring kingdom of Ḥimyar, whose elites started to adopt a Judaising form of monotheism just a few decades after ʿEzana’s conversion to Christianity.40 Still, this would be to forget the strong polarization between Ethiopia and South Arabia, the former traditionally leaning toward the Roman empire, the latter looking more in the direction of Persia—​a divergence that would finally lead to the “Holy War” fought by Kaleb, the Christian king of Aksum, against Yūsuf Asʾar Yathʾar, the Jewish king of Ḥimyar, in 525.41 In the light of such a radicalization, we could easily conceive of a possible attempt to eliminate all traces of Jewish presence, if any, from the Aksumite landscape: if this had really been the case, it would have been, sadly enough, a remarkably successful achievement.42 39.  Munro-​Hay, Ethiopia: Judaism, Altars and Saints, 68. 40.  See especially the groundbreaking studies of I. Gajda, “Les débuts du monothéisme en Arabie du Sud,” Journal asiatique 290 (2002): 611–​30; Gajda, “Monothéisme en Arabie du Sud préislamique,” Chroniques yéménites 10 (2002): 22–​34; Gajda, Le royaume de Ḥimyar à l’époque monothéiste: L’histoire de l’Arabie du sud ancienne de la fin du IVe siècle de l’ère chrétienne jusqu’à l’avènement de l’islam (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-​ Lettres 40; Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-​lettres, 2009), 35–​71; C. J. Robin, “Le judaïsme de Ḥimyar,” Arabia: Revue de Sabéologie 1 (2003): 97–​172; Robin, “Ḥimyar et Israël,” Comptes-​rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-​lettres 148 (2004): 831–​908; Robin, “Arabia and Ethiopia,” in S. F. Johnson, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 247–​332 at 263–​73; Robin, “Les religions pratiquées par les membres de la tribus de Kinda (Arabie) à la veille de l’Islam,” Judaïsme ancien—​Ancient Judaism 1 (2013): 203–​61; Robin, ed., Le judaïsme de l’Arabie antique ( Judaïsme ancien et origines du christianisme 3; Turnhout: Brepols, 2015); and Piovanelli, “Jewish Christianity in Late Antique Aksum and Ḥimyar?” The peculiarity of the Ḥimyarite situation has not escaped the notice of the Israeli historian S. Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, trans. Y. Lotan (London: Verso, 2009 [original Hebrew edition, Tel Aviv: Resling, 2008]), 192–​99. 41.  See G. Fiaccadori, “Gregentios in the Land of the Homerites,” in A. Berger, ed., Life and Works of Saint Gregentios, Archbishop of Taphar:  Introduction, Critical Edition and Translation (Millennium Studies 7; Berlin:  W.  de Gruyter, 2006), 48–​82; Gajda, Le royaume de Ḥimyar, 73–​109; G.  Hatke, “Africans in Arabia Felix: Aksumite Relations with Ḥimyar in the Sixth Century C.E.” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2011); G. W. Bowersock, Empires in Collision in Late Antiquity (Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures; Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012), 1–​28 and 79–​82; and Bowersock, Throne of Adulis, 92–​105 and 155–​57. 42.  This could also eventually contribute to explain why the Betä Ǝsraʾel, the so-​called Falashas or Ethiopian Jews, first mentioned in Ethiopic literary texts in the first half of the fourteenth century, have apparently lost

45

46

46

P i erlu i gi P iova n elli

In my opinion, however, an even more economic hypothesis would be to take into account the possibility of an influence exerted by those “anti-​intellectual” Egyptian and Palestinian monks—​so well known for being avid readers of apocryphal texts, for preferring literal exegesis to allegorical exegesis, and for holding anthropomorphist and millenarian beliefs, the same cluster of archaic features that a millennium later would characterize the most “conservative” wing of Ethiopian monasticism—​who would later engage in the Origenist controversy at the end of the fourth century.43 After all, it would be particularly difficult for any Christian group who would take, for example, a book such as Jubilees at face value, to escape the conclusion that circumcision and the observance of Sabbath are essential to one’s own identity. Be that as it may, as this cursory study has hopefully demonstrated, the small history of the adventures of the apocryphal texts in Ethiopia coincides with the greater history of the big country that so generously received and preserved them. Without at least a minimum knowledge of late antique and medieval encounters and controversies that happened on Ethiopian soil, it would be impossible to fully understand the reasons why some writings were selected and, in due course, partially or totally deselected. The so often mentioned fluidity of the Ethiopian biblical canon is but a synchronic optical illusion: as diachronic approaches clearly show, the Ethiopian collection of scriptural texts has always been more dynamic than fluid.

Selected Bibliography Bausi, A. “Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture.” In J. Quenzer et al., eds., Manuscript Cultures: Mapping the Field, 37–​78. Studies in Manuscript Cultures 1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2014. Bausi, A., ed. Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity:  Ethiopian. Variorum, the Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–​1500, 4. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2012. Baynes, L. “Enoch and Jubilees in the Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.” In E. F. Mason et al., eds., A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, 2 vols., 2.799–​818. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Brakmann, H. Τὸ παρὰ τοῖς βαρβάροις ἔργον θεῖον: Die Einwurzelung der Kirche im spätantiken Reich von Aksum. Bonn: Borengässer, 1994. Cowley, R. W. “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today.” Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974): 318–​23. Erho, T. M. “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” BSOAS 76 (2013): 75–​97. Erho, T. M., and L. T. Stuckenbruck. “A Manuscript History of Ethiopic Enoch.” JSP 23 (2013): 87–​133. Haelewyck, J.-​C. Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti. Corpus Christianorum. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Isaac, Ephraim. The Ethiopian Orthodox Täwahïdo Church. Afroasiatic Studies 1. Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press, 2012. Knibb, M. A. Translating the Bible:  The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament. Schweich Lectures 1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

any specifically Jewish tradition and share the same religious culture as their Christian neighbors. On the much-​ debated question of their origins, see now Piovanelli, “Ethiopic Kǝbrä Nägäśt: A Reappraisal,” 32–​33. 43.  See Piovanelli, “Les controverses théologiques,” 217–​20, and Piovanelli, “Connaissance de Dieu et sagesse humaine,” 223–​25. For the Jewish roots and mystical background of Egyptian and Palestinian monastic anthropomorphism, see esp. A. Golitzin, “The Vision of God and the Form of Glory: More Reflections on the Anthropomorphite Controversy of AD 399,” in J. Behr et al., eds., Abba: The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West; Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 273–​97.

47

Et h i o p ic Munro-​Hay, S. Ethiopia: Judaism, Altars and Saints. Hollywood, CA: Tsehai, 2006. Piovanelli, P. “Les aventures des apocryphes en Éthiopie.” Apocrypha 4 (1993):  197–​224  =  Piovanelli, “The Adventures of the Apocrypha in Ethiopia.” In A. Bausi, ed., Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity:  Ethiopian, 87–​109. Variorum, the Worlds of Eastern Christianity, 300–​1500, 4. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2012. —​—​. “Exploring the Ethiopic Book of the Cock: An Apocryphal Passion Gospel from Late Antiquity.” HTR 96 (2003): 427–​54. —​—​. “The Apocryphal Legitimization of a ‘Solomonic’ Dynasty in the Kǝbrä Nägäśt: A Reappraisal.” Aethiopica 16 (2013): 7–​44. —​—​. Apocryphités: Études sur les textes et les traditions scripturaires du judaïsme et du christianisme anciens. Judaïsme ancien et origines du christianisme 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016. —​—​. “Aksum and the Bible: Old Assumptions and New Perspectives.” Aethiopica 21 (2018): 7–​27. —​—​. “Jewish Christianity in Late Antique Aksum and Ḥimyar? A  Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Proposal.” Judaïsme ancien—​Ancient Judaism 6 (2018): 175–​202. Tedros Abraha and Daniel Assefa. “Apocryphal Gospels in the Ethiopic Tradition.” In J. Frey and J. Schröter, eds., Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu ausserkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach-​und Kulturtraditionen, 611–​53. WUNT 1.254. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Ullendorff, E. Ethiopia and the Bible. Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1967. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

47

48

49

4

Slavonic Alexander Kulik

Works discussed 2 Enoch 3 Baruch 4 Baruch About All Creation About the Ark Adam’s Contract with Satan Ahiqar Apocalypse of Abraham Appeal of Adam to Lazarus Ascension of Isaiah Book of Josippon Chronographs Creation of Adam History of the Rechabites (Apocalypse of Zosimus) Jewish War Joseph and Aseneth Ladder of Jacob Life of Adam and Eve Life of Moses Palaea historica Palaea Interpretata Sea of Tiberias

50

50

A lex an der Kulik

Story of Melchizedek Tale about the Tree of the Cross Tale of the Blessed Zerubbabel Testament of Abraham Testament of Job Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Vision of Daniel Slavonic medieval tradition has preserved many significant texts whose Greek and sometimes even Hebrew or Aramaic originals may be dated to the early centuries of the Common Era.* While some of these are obviously Jewish, some may have been of Christian origin. The earliest of these Christian Slavonic texts are so deeply rooted in Jewish lore that they cannot be understood outside of the context of traditions preserved in Jewish (and sometimes even specifically rabbinic) literature. Other Slavonic texts in their present form are products of medieval Byzantine or Slavonic creativity, but may preserve textual elements or motifs that are untypical for the main body of the ecclesiastical literature and that may be traced back to late antiquity. The differentiation between texts (or elements of texts within the same work) of ancient and medieval origin is not always easy. Some of the texts in both groups have been preserved uniquely in Slavonic. Others may have parallel versions in non-​Slavonic languages as well, but may contain significant discrepancies with the non-​Slavonic versions. Sometimes the Slavonic texts may show even more authentic readings than in the versions preserved in their original languages. The extant Slavonic manuscripts containing the documents under discussion belong to the period spanning the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. However, in some cases their language enables us to reliably date the earliest of their proto-​texts to the tenth to eleventh centuries. Since Slavonic literacy starts with the beginning of the Christianization of the Slavs in the ninth century, none of our documents may be dated earlier. Like the majority of early Slavonic writings (with rare exceptions), all the texts in the corpus under discussion have been translated from Greek, and most of these translations were produced in South Slavia. Although some scholars claim that the Apocalypse of Abraham and 2 Enoch were translated directly from Hebrew into Slavonic, this claim cannot be upheld. The parabiblical narratives that were translated from Hebrew in East Slavia (Rus’) all belong to the medieval Jewish tradition (Josippon and medieval midrash) and thus are not part of this survey. Hence, the corpus of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period is represented in the Slavonic tradition by biblical pseudepigrapha and historiography (i.e., * The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/​2007–​2013) /​ERC grant agreement no. 263293 and the German-​Israeli Foundation (project “Visitors from Heaven, Visitors to Heaven: Judaeo-​Christian Encounters and the Last Lingua Sacra of Europe”).

51

Sl avon ic

Josephus, with many unique readings of the latter). Slavonic versions of the late biblical books and apocrypha, well represented also in other ecclesiastical traditions, are not surveyed here.

1.  Uniquely Slavonic Pseudepigrapha and Early Jewish Apocalypticism Remarkably, all early Jewish pseudepigrapha preserved solely in Slavonic belong to the apocalyptic genre. Of the six major early Jewish apocalypses—​the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch), the Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch; for which also brief Coptic fragments have recently been found),1 the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch), the Greek-​Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch), and the Fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra) —​three have survived in Slavonic. Two of these—​2 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham—​have been preserved exclusively in Slavonic; 3 Baruch is available in both Greek and Slavonic recensions. To these we may add the Ladder of Jacob, a short but important apocalyptic composition previously known only in Slavonic, a Hebrew fragment of which has been discovered in the Cairo Genizah.2 Other ecclesiastical languages are more poorly represented among the documents that preserve the apocalyptic tradition:  1 Enoch survives in Ethiopic and Aramaic, as well as in Greek fragments; 2 Baruch is preserved in Syriac and Arabic; and 4 Ezra is known in many languages, including Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Georgian. This fact makes Church Slavonic, at least statistically, the main source language for early Jewish apocalypticism. The significance of Slavonic pseudepigrapha for the study of early Jewish thought was highly estimated by, among others, Moses Gaster,3 Gershom Scholem,4 and Saul Lieberman.5 The lost original versions of the apocalyptic writings that have been preserved solely in Slavonic—​2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Ladder of Jacob—​are usually dated to the interval between the late Second Temple period and the Bar-​Kochba Revolt. This dating is based mainly on a combination of the presumption of their Jewish origins with an assumption of major changes in patterns of Jewish creativity and Jewish-​Christian literary exchange following the revolt. Certain characteristic themes, such as preoccupation with the fall of the Temple (though this is absent from 2 Enoch), possible allusions

1.  J. L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in A. A. Orlov and G. Boccaccini, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch:  No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden:  Brill, 2012),  7–​34. 2.  See J. L. Kugel, “The Ladder of Jacob,” HTR 88 (1995): 209–​27; R. Leicht, “Qedushah and Prayer to Helios: A New Hebrew Version of an Apocryphal Prayer of Jacob,” JSQ 6 (1999): 140–​76; and S. Fahl and C. Böttrich, Leiter Jakobs, in collaboration with D. Fahl ( JSHRZ n.F. I.6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2015). 3.  T. Gaster, Ilchester Lectures on Greeko-​Slavonic Literature and Its Relation to the Folk-​Lore of Europe during the Middle Ages (London: Trübner, 1887). 4.  G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1941), 40 and 43. 5.  S. Lieberman, “Neglected Sources,” Tarbiz 62 (1972): 42–​54 [in Hebrew].

51

52

52

A lex an der Kulik

to contemporary historical events, and literary connections may also lend support to such dating. Since most of these factors are usually rather impressionistic, alternative datings may be and have been suggested. For example, the Ladder of Jacob has been dated to the Hasmonean period;6 the Apocalypse of Abraham, to the reign of Caligula (37–​41 ce);7 and 2 Enoch has been assigned dates ranging from the pre-​destruction period8 to the ninth century ce.9 All these texts were translated into Slavonic from Greek. The original language behind the lost Greek Vorlagen of the Apocalypse of Abraham and Ladder of Jacob may quite safely be determined to be Hebrew (or, less probably, Aramaic). On the other hand, 2 Enoch was more probably composed in Greek—​or alternatively, its lost Greek translation was less literal than those of the other two works, and thus its Semitic original is not as easily discernable. In fact, 2 Enoch may show some indications of a Hebrew original or, at least, knowledge of Hebrew on the part of its author.10 These general evaluations do not necessarily apply equally to all parts of all texts. The textual integrity of all three documents may reasonably be called into question. This applies especially to the tripartite 2 Enoch, particularly in its longer version; to some extent also to the Ladder of Jacob, with its distorted textual boundaries; and to the possibly originally independent aggadic and apocalyptic sections of Apocalypse of Abraham. The Apocalypse of Abraham and the Ladder of Jacob share many common traits of content and language. If it is not a sign of the literary dependence of one on the other, the shared material may testify to the close contact of the two works during the process of transmission. Both texts are much concerned with the destruction of the Temple, and both have a dual messianic conception, encompassing an anti-​messiah and the true messiah. These topics are foreign to 2 Enoch, which is an important source for such topics as the angelic prefiguration of a human, and the celestial “son of man.” Both motifs most probably precede Christological conceptions. The attempt to identify dualistic and Christological motifs in the Apocalypse of Abraham should be considered unfounded,11 while 2 Enoch reflects certain obviously non-​rabbinic Jewish traditions and practices.12 Notwithstanding

6.  Kugel, “Ladder of Jacob,” in J. L. Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 24–​32. 7.  A. Kulik, “The Gods of Nahor: A Note on the Pantheon of the Apocalypse of Abraham,” JJS 54 (2003): 228–​32. 8.  A. A. Orlov, “The Sacerdotal Traditions of 2 Enoch and the Date of the Text,” in A. A. Orlov and G. Boccaccini, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 103–​16. 9.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 109–​ 10. Some new and bold attempts to re-​evaluate the dating of 2 Enoch, mainly on typological and relative grounds, may be found in A. A. Orlov and G. Boccaccini, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 10.  See S. Pines, “Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” in R. J. Z. Werblowsky and C. J. Bleeker, eds., Types of Redemption: Contributions to the Theme of the Study-​Conference Held at Jerusalem 14th to 19th July 1968 (SHR 18; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 77–​82. 11.  A. Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha:  Toward the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham (SBL Text-​Critical Studies 3; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2004), 3 and 91. This was also published by Leiden: Brill, 2005, with the same page numbers. 12.  Pines, “Eschatology and the Concept of Time.”

53

Sl avon ic

their differences, all three documents share a wealth of early representations of many motifs found in later Jewish mystical traditions.13 There is no satisfactory explanation of why the bulk of these motifs have been preserved particularly in Slavonic. The answer should perhaps be looked for in the underexplored realia of the tenth-​through thirteenth-​century Balkans, where the works were translated. Recent breakthroughs in the textual study of 2 Enoch and especially of its shorter recension have been recently made by Navtanovich and Macaskill.14 Böttrich and Orlov have made the most considerable contributions to the tradition-​critical study of this work.15 Badalanova Geller has produced important works on the Slavonic reception of the book, including the evidence of iconography.16 Many interesting and important insights have also emerged from the recent volume edited by Boccaccini and Orlov.17 Almost all prior assumptions about 2 Enoch have been challenged in that volume on the basis of case studies focusing on the provenance, transmission history, and content of the book. This still leaves us with not much conclusive at this point. When and by whom was 2 Enoch composed? What was its original language? Which recension is more authentic, and how are they related to one another? Answers to these basic questions may be achieved only through an integrative study of the complete textual evidence, combined with tradition critical research, within all four milieux of transmission: early Jewish, early Christian, medieval Byzantine, and Slavonic. A new analysis, based on a reconstruction of lost Greek and Hebrew portions of the texts, was applied to Apocalypse of Abraham by the author of this chapter. The reconstruction led to many innovative interpretations, reflected in a new translation produced on their basis.18 Some of these new readings

13.  Scholem, Major Trends; G. G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala (Studia Judaica 3; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1962), 64–​65; Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2nd ed.; New York: JTS, 1965), 17–​18; A. Orlov, The Enoch-​Metatron Tradition (TSAJ 107; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Orlov, From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism:  Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha ( JSJSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2007); Orlov, Selected Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (SVTP 23; Leiden/​ Boston:  Brill, 2009); and M. Schneider, Scattered Traditions of Jewish Mysticism:  Studies in Ancient Jewish Mysticism in Light of Traditions from the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Hellenistic Literature, Christian and Islamic Sources (Sources and Studies in the Literature of Jewish Mysticism 31; Los Angeles:  Cherub Press, 2012) [in Hebrew]. 14.  L. Navtanovich, Лингвотекстологический анализ древнеславянского перевода Книги Еноха (дис. канд. филол. наук.; Санкт-​Петербургский государственный университет, 2000); and G. Macaskill, The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch (Studia Judaeoslavica 6; Leiden: Brill, 2013). 15.  See C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Unkult: Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch (WUNT II.50; Tübingen:  Mohr, 1992); Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos:  Eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch ( JU 59; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995); Orlov, Enoch-​Metatron Tradition; Orlov, Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism; Orlov, Selected Studies; and Orlov, “Adoil outside the Cosmos: God before and after Creation in the Enochic Tradition,” in A. D. DeConick and G. Adamson, eds., Histories of the Hidden God:  Concealment and Revelation in Western Gnostic, Esoteric, and Mystical Traditions (Gnostica; Durham, NC: Acumen, 2013), 30–​57. 16.  F. Badalanova Geller, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of ) Enoch:  Тext and Context (Max Planck Preprint 410; Berlin:  Max-​ Planck-​ Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2010); and Badalanova Geller, “Heavenly Writings:  Celestial Cosmography in The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” Старобългарска литература 45–​46 (2012): 197–​244. 17.  Orlov and Boccaccini, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch. 18.  Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, 3.

53

54

54

A lex an der Kulik

have been developed and significantly supplemented and enriched by J.  C. Poirier,19 Harlow,20 Orlov,21 Lourié,22 Schneider,23 and Knohl.24 Among the most recent contributions to the study of Ladder of Jacob, which significantly complement the older studies by Leicht and Kugel, should be mentioned the works by Orlov and Schneider, who have exposed several interesting cases of connection between this composition and Jewish apocalyptic and mystical traditions.25 A critical edition was published by S. and D. Fall.26 A new English translation and commentary of the Ladder of Jacob has been prepared by Kulik and Minov.27 An additional translationin English is currently under preparation by Badalanova Geller.

2.  Uniquely Slavonic Pseudepigrapha and Early Jewish Motifs Much less known are the “minor” Slavonic pseudepigrapha. The reasons for this are multiple. Most of them have not been translated (at least until recently) into Western languages. They are often integrated into larger compositions, where their textual boundaries and the extent of their independence are not always clear. They exhibit more signs of medieval reworking than the “major” Slavonic apocalyptic works just discussed. If one can safely state that the major Slavonic works are faithful (sometimes, as, for example, with

19.  J. C. Poirier, “The Ouranology of the Apocalypse of Abraham,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 35 (2004): 391–​408. 20.  D. C. Harlow, “Idolatry and Alterity: Israel and the Nations in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” in D. C. Harlow et  al., eds., The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism:  Essays in Honor of John J.  Collins, 302–​30 (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 2011); and Harlow, “Anti-​Christian Polemic in the Apocalypse of Abraham:  Jesus as a Pseudo-​ Messiah in Apoc. Ab. 29.3–​14,” JSP 22 (2013): 167–​83. 21.  A.A. Orlov, “‘The Gods of My Father Terah’: Abraham the Iconoclast and the Polemics with the Divine Body Traditions in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” JSP 18 (2008): 33–​53; Orlov, “Praxis of the Voice: The Divine Name Traditions in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” JBL 127 (2008): 53–​70; Orlov, “Arboreal Metaphors and the Divine Body Traditions in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” HTR 102 (2009), 439–​51; Orlov, “The Eschatological Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Part I: The Scapegoat Ritual,” Scrinium 5 (2009): 3–​35; Orlov, “The Pteromorphic Angelology of the Apocalypse of Abraham,” CBQ 71 (2009): 830–​42; Orlov, Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2011); and Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 22.  B. Lourié, “Propitiatorium in the Apocalypse of Abraham,” in L. DiTommaso and C. Böttrich, eds., The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diversity (TSAJ 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 267–​77. 23.  M. Schneider, The Appearance of the High Priest: Theophany, Apotheosis and Binitarian Theology, from Priestly Tradition of the Second Temple Period through Ancient Jewish Mysticism (Sources and Studies in the Literature of Jewish Mysticism 30; Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2012) [in Hebrew]; and Schneider, Scattered Traditions. 24.  I. Knohl, “Yahoel as an Angelic and Messianic Figure in the Apocalypse of Abraham” (in preparation). 25.  A. A. Orlov, “The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob,” in C. A. Evans, ed., Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, vol. 2: Later Versions and Traditions (LSTS 51, Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 10; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 59–​76; and Schneider, Appearance of the High Priest. 26.  S. Fahl and D. Fall, “Лествица Иакова (критический текст),” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 65 (2017): 197–​242. 27.  A. Kulik and S. Minov, Biblical Pseudepigrapha in Slavonic Tradition (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2016), 276–​319.

5

Sl avon ic

the Apocalypse of Abraham, even slavishly so) translations of ancient texts, the minor works are at best reworkings and compilations of existing materials, and sometimes perhaps even new compositions created on Byzantine, or South, or even East Slavonic soil. However, an innovative aspect of creativity applied by medieval Slavonic scribes to the topics under discussion seems to be very limited. These works are heavily dependent on other texts—​ sometimes lost to us—​and unique traditions that may ultimately go back to antiquity. The abundance of parallels for these texts from early Jewish sources reaffirms this point. Often these parallels indicate a very rare or even unique tradition. For example, in many instances the only parallel for a given tradition we succeed in detecting in our texts belongs exclusively to early Jewish literature or early Christian materials that may preserve Jewish traditions. For example, the Ladder of Jacob shares with Ps. Sol. 17.21–​25 the image of the righteous earthly king who is to bring deliverance to Israel by waging war against its enemies. The image of the cosmic bird as it is given in About All Creation is known only from b. Baba Batra 73b and the Targum on Psalms 50:11. The conception of the tree of knowledge as a vine is shared only by the Slavonic Sea of Tiberias (also in Apoc. Abr. 23.4–​6 and 3 Baruch 4.7–​8) and rabbinic sources (Pesikta de Rav Kahana 20.6). The figures of five angels in the Sea of Tiberias conform to a well-​represented rabbinic tradition (Gen. Rab. 45.7 and 75.4; Exod. Rab. 3.16, 41.7, and 44.8; Tan. B. 2.10; Cant. Rab. 1.4; Deut. Rab. 3.11; Eccl. Rab. 4.3; and Pirqe R. El. 45). The Ladder of Jacob shares with rabbinic literature the notion of the angelic counterpart of Jacob (Targum Neofiti and Targum Ps.-​Jonathan on Gen 28:12; cf. Hekhalot Rabbati §164); the figure of Sariel as interpreting angel (cf. Targum Neofiti on Gen 32:25–​32); and the connection between the Danielic imagery of the four kingdoms and Jacob’s vision of the ladder (cf. Lev. Rab. 29:2). Some motifs find exclusive parallels in early Christian pseudepigrapha. Thus, for example, the story of Satan’s fall as a result of refusal to worship Adam in About All Creation is known from Latin Life of Adam and Eve 13–​14. The same applies to the quest of Seth for a branch from the trees of Paradise in the Tale about the Tree of the Cross (Latin Life of Adam and Eve 43.3). Since none of the Slavonic texts under discussion are a product of direct Jewish-​ Christian exchange, all these motifs must have been found in a mediating Byzantine tradition, either lost to us or not yet recovered. However, the parallels can and must be sought—​with a due caution—​also in sometimes distant places, outside the direct route of the expected transmission (i.e., early Jewish—​Christian Hellenistic—​Byzantine—​ Slavonic), such as, for example, Old Irish, Old Norse, medieval Latin or Arabic texts, etc. These remote traditions could share the same lost sources, and in certain rare cases, even later cultural interaction between contemporary traditions cannot be completely taken out of account. Genuinely original motifs are very rare indeed, and the location even of a single parallel somewhere—​however distant—​usually indicates that there were more such parallels which have not been preserved or found. Thus, in the Creation of Adam: the notion that Adam’s body was composed of 345 bones finds a parallel in the Hiberno-​ Latin Liber de numeris; the image of Satan attacking Adam’s body and the resulting creation of the dog appears only in Muslim and Zoroastrian sources; the creation of Eve

55

56

56

A lex an der Kulik

from the left rib—​only in Muslim source. In the Tree of the Cross: the motif of the good thief breastfed by Mary—​in Old Norse Maríu saga. In the Sea of Tiberias:  God sends the archangel Michael to teach Adam agriculture—​in Latin and Georgian Life of Adam and Eve, Armenian Adam, Eve, and the Incarnation. In About the Ark:  Noah striking semantron—​in Christian Arabic authors; the explanation of the origin of the cat—​in Muslim authors, etc. Although the documentation of these rare motifs, with all their transformations in comparison to their ancient parallels, will provide very important evidence, special consideration must be given to unique motifs—​that is, those unattested elsewhere. Of course, this is also a transient category and may mean only that we have not yet found parallels to these narrative units. Among such motifs would be these images found in About All Creation: the notion of “another light” in which God dwells, the primordial “other winds” created by God and the lever of thunder moved by three hundred angels, the purification of the earthly waters by the sun; the notions of sky resting on seventy thousand myriad iron pillars, of the sun originating from God’s inner garment as God wiped his face with it, and of God’s throne located in the East. In the Creation of Adam: the treatment of the Adam’s name as consisting of three letters (as in Hebrew). In the Tale about the Tree of the Cross: the tradition about the distance from Jerusalem to Eden, and the narrative about Solomon finding the skull of Adam. These motifs from the Sea of Tiberias: God’s voice “embedded” in a fiery chariot as thunder, the archangel Michael becoming a monk in order to fight Satan, and the “good thief ” as the guardian of the tree of the Cross. There is also the Ladder of Jacob’s eschatological scenario that includes twenty-​four evil kings and the malicious figure of falkon gargailuy, and many others. To the category of uniquely Slavonic pseudepigrapha, in addition to the better-​known Apocalypse of Abraham and 2 Enoch, may thus belong also the following titles: About All Creation, the Creation of Adam, Adam’s Contract with Satan, the Tale about the Tree of the Cross, the Appeal of Adam to Lazarus, the Sea of Tiberias, About the Ark, and the Ladder of Jacob. The extant manuscripts of these texts range from the fourteenth to the eighteenth centuries. This does not say much about the date of their translation or actual composition. It is often also difficult to evaluate the extent of the originality of these texts. As has been said, when they are not merely translations from Greek, these compilations always bear connections with other translated texts. Thus, when assessing the date or the original language of these documents, we need to distinguish between the date and original language of the extant compilation and the date and the original language of the elements of which it consists. If the language of the former may be late medieval Slavonic, that of the latter may be Greek or Hebrew, and belong to an earlier period. Of course, it is often difficult or impossible to assess the texts behind the compilation. It is therefore even more important to bear this fact in mind when interpreting the evidence preserved in extant texts. Some of the documents are of South Slavonic origin, for example, the Adam’s Contract with Satan, the Tale about the Tree of the Cross, the Sea of Tiberias, About the Ark, and the

57

Sl avon ic

Ladder of Jacob.28 Some may be originally East Slavonic, thus possibly: About All Creation, the Creation of Adam, and the Appeal of Adam to Lazarus. In addition to the early Jewish texts and traditions transplanted to Slavonic soil through the typical channel of the Eastern Christian (namely, Byzantine) heritage, there are several parabiblical compositions that were translated directly into Slavonic from Hebrew and Aramaic between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries in Eastern Slavia (Rus’). Among them are the texts integrated into the Palaea Interpretata, including the Life of Moses aggadic stories about the re-​interment of Joseph, and about David and Solomon;29 and stories about events from the Hellenistic period translated from the medieval Hebrew Book of Josippon integrated in various collections.30 All these texts are translations or reworkings of early rabbinic or medieval midrash and historiography created most probably with the participation of local Jews (possibly converts to Christianity); they do not provide any direct and independent evidence of earlier Jewish traditions. However, these texts are much more important from the Slavonic perspective because they function indiscriminately alongside of the ancient Jewish materials that either belong to the Christian canon or have been otherwise received through channels of Christian transmission. Thus, for example, the Tale of the Blessed Zerubbabel31 shows a creative amalgam of early Judeo-​Greek (Josephus’s Jewish War) and Jewish medieval sources (Book of Josippon).

3.  Slavonic Pseudepigrapha Shared with Other Traditions Some Slavonic pseudepigrapha have parallel versions in other traditions. Among these are the Life of Adam and Eve,32 the Testament of Job,33 the Testament of Abraham,34 28.  See also A. L. Miltenova, South Slavonic Apocryphal Collections (Sofia: Iztok-​Zapad, 2018). 29.  On this compilation, see below, section 6, “The Nachleben of Early Jewish Texts and Motifs in Slavonic Tradition.” 30.  See A. A. Alexeev, “Переводы с древнееврейских оригиналов в древней Pуси,” Russian Linguistics 11 (1987): 1–​20; M. Taube, “On the Slavic Life of Moses and Its Hebrew Sources,” Jews and Slavs 1 (1993): 84–​119; A. A. Alexeev, “Apocrypha Translated from Hebrew within the East Slavic Explanatory Palaea,” Jews and Slavs 9 (2001):  147–​54; Alexeev, “Апокрифы Толковой Палеи, переведенные с еврейских оригиналов,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 58 (2007): 41–​57; and M. Taube, “Ересь ‘жидовствующих’ и переводы с еврейского в средневековой Руси,” in А. Kulik, ed., История еврейского народа в России: Oт древности до раннего нового времени (Москва/​Иерусалим Гешарим/​Мосты культуры, 2009), 367–​97. 31.  L. Navtanovich, “Second Enoch and The Tale of the Blessed Zerubbabel: Two Different Examples of Old Testament Slavonic Apocrypha,” JSP 19 (2009): 109–​26; and Navtanovich, “The Slavonic Apocryphon of Zorobabel,” in L. DiTommaso and C. Böttrich, eds., The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diversity (TSAJ 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 303–​35. 32.  Ed. V. Jagić, Slavische Beiträge zu den biblischen Apocryphen: I. Die altkirchenslavischen Texte des Adambuches (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-​historische Classe 42; Wien:  F. Tempsky, 1893); trans.:  G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, eds., A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2nd rev. ed.; SBLEJL 17; Atlanta,. GA:  Scholars Press, 1999); and J.-​P. Pettorelli et  al., eds., Vita latina Adae et Evae: Synopsis vitae Adae et Evae, Latine, Graece, Armeniace et Iberice (CCSA 18–​19; Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. See also É. Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 75–​144; and M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta, GA: 1992), 30–​36. 33.  Ed. S. Novaković, ed., “Apokrifna priča o Jovu,” Starine 10 (1878): 157–​70. See also M. Haralambakis, The Testament of Job: Text, Narrative and Reception History (LSTS 80; London: Bloomsbury, 2012). 34.  Eds.:  P. A. Lavrov, Апокрифические тексты (Сборникъ Отдѣленiя Русскаго Языка и Словесно сти Императорской Академiи Наукъ 67.3; С.-​ Петербургъ:  Типографiя Императорской Академiи

57

58

58

A lex an der Kulik

the Story of Melchizedek,35 the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,36 Joseph and Aseneth,37 the Ascension of Isaiah,38 3 Baruch,39 4 Baruch,40 the History of the Rechabites (Apocalypse of Zosimus),41 the Last Vision of Daniel,42 Ahiqar,43 the many pseudepigraphic fragments Наукъ, 1899), 70–​81; and N. S. Tikhonravov, Памятники отреченной русской литературы (2 vols.; С.-​ Петербургъ: Товарищество “Общественная польза,” 1863), 1.79–​90; see also D. S. Cooper and H. B. Weber, “The Church Slavonic Testament of Abraham,” in G. W.  E. Nickelsburg, Studies in the Testament of Abraham (SCS 6; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 301–​26; Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 201–​39; and F. Badalanova and A. Miltenova, “Апокрифният цикъл за Авраам във фолклора и в средновековните балкански литератури,” Етнографски проблеми на народната култура 4 (София: БАН, 1996), 203–​51. 35.  Ed. D. S. Likhachev et al., Библиотека литературы Древней Руси. Том 3: XI–​XII века (С.-​Петербург: Наука, 1999), 114–​19 and 374–​76. See also C. Böttrich, Geschichte Melchisedeks ( JSHRZ n.F. II.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010), 23–​27; and A. G. Mashtakova, “К изучению апокрифа о Мелхиседеке в составе Полной Хронографической Палеи,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 61 (2010): 375–​81. 36.  Eds.:  A. N. Pypin, Ложныя и отреченныя книги русской старины (Памятники старинной русской литературы, издаваемые Графомъ Григорiемъ Кушелевымъ-​Безбородко 3; С.-​Петербургъ:  Типографiя П.А. Кулеша, 1862), 33–​38; Tikhonravov, Памятники отреченной русской литературы, 1.96–​232; and I. Ya. Porfirjev, Апокрифическiя сказанiя о ветхозаветныхъ лицахъ и событiяхъ (Казань:  Университетская типографiя, 1872), 158–​94. See also H. E. Gaylord and T. Korteweg, “The Slavic Versions,” in M. de Jonge, ed., Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 140–​43; Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 239–​75; and V. Panajotov, “Апокриф ‘Заветы двенадцати патриархов’ в контексте Толковой палеи” (Дис. канд. филол. наук.: МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, 1986). 37.  Eds.: V. I. Istrin, Откровенiе Мефодiя Патарскаго и апокрифическiя видѣнiя Данiила въ византiйской и славяно-​русской литературахъ. Изслѣдованiе и тексты (Москва: Университетская типографiя, 1897); and C. Burchard, ed., Joseph und Aseneth serbisch-​kirchenslawisch. Text und Varianten (DBAT 2; Dielheim: Hermann Schult und Bernd Diebner, 1980). 38.  Ed. A. Giambelluca Kossova “Visio Isaiae. Versione paleobulgara,” in P. Bettiolo et  al., eds., Ascensio Isaiae:  Textus (CCSA 7; Turnhout:  Brepols, 1995), 235–​319. See also A. Vaillant “Un apocryphe pseudo-​ bogomile: La Vision d’Isaïe,” Revue des études slaves 42 (1963): 109–​21; Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 145–​72; and A Giambelluca Kossova, “Osservazioni sulla tradizione paleoslava della Visione di Isaia: coincidenze e divergenze con la tradizione testuale dell’Ascensione di Isaia,” Atti del 8e Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo: Spoleto, 3–​6 novembre 1981: La cultura bulgara nel medioevo balcanico tra Oriente e Occidente europeo (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1983), 167–​86. 39.  Ed. H. E. Gaylord, “The Slavonic Version of III Baruch” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983); trans.: N. Bonwetsch, “Das slavisch erhaltene Baruchbuch,” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologisch-​historische Klasse (1896), 91–​101; M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota: Second Series (Texts and Studies 5.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897), 95–​102; and A. Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-​ Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch (CEJL; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2010); see also Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 1–​74; H. E. Gaylord, “How Satanael Lost His ‘-​el.’” JJS 33 (1982): 303–​9; R. Stichel, “Die Verführung der Stammeltern durch Satanael nach der Kurzfassung der slavischen Baruch-​Apokalypse,” in R. Lauer and P. Schreiner, eds., Kulturelle Traditionen in Bulgarien. Bericht über das Kolloquium der Südosteuropa-​Kommission, 16.–​18. Juni 1987 (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 177; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 116–​28; A. A. Orlov, “The Flooded Arboretums: The Garden Traditions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch and in the Book of Giants,” CBQ 65 (2003), 184–​201; and A. Kulik, “‘The Mysteries of Behemoth and Leviathan’ and the Celestial Bestiary of 3 Baruch,” Le Muséon 122 (2009): 291–​329. 40.  Ed. Tikhonravov, Памятники отреченной русской литературы, 1.273–​ 297; Ed. Tikhonravov, Апокрифическiя сказанiя (Сборникъ Отдѣленiя Русскаго Языка и Словесности Императорской Академiи Наукъ 58.4; С.-​Петербургъ: Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1894), 15–​24; see also Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 348–​63. 41.  Ed. Tikhonravov, Памятники отреченной русской литературы, 2.78–​92. 42.  Ed. Istrin, Откровенiе Мефодiя Патарскаго; and Lavrov, Апокрифические тексты, 1–​5; trans. P. J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 65–​72; see also L. DiTommaso, The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature (SVTP 20; Leiden: Brill, 2005); and V. Tăpkova-​Zaimova and A. Miltenova, Historical and Apocalyptic Literature in Byzantium and Medieval Bulgaria (Sofia, Bulgaria: East-​West Publishers, 2011). 43.  Ed. A. D. Grigorjev, Повѣсть объ Акирѣ Премудромъ. Изслѣдованіе и тексты (Москва: Императорское Общество Исторiи и Древностей Россiйскихъ при Московскомъ университетѣ, 1913); and Likhachev et al., Библиотека литературы Древней Руси, 28–​57 and 362–​64; trans.: F. C. Conybeare et al., The Story of Aḥiḳar

59

Sl avon ic

and motifs integrated into the Palaea historica44 and Palaea interpretata,45 and various Chronographs.46 The category of “uniqueness” in relation to Slavonic pseudepigrapha is technical and may prove to be rather fluid. For some of these texts, once considered uniquely Slavonic, versions in other languages have been found. This happened to 3 Baruch, the Greek version of which was discovered in 1897 only after the Slavonic text had been introduced to scholarship in 1886.47 More recently, the Struggle of Michael and Satanael, which was considered by some scholars to be an original Slavonic composition,48 was found in two Greek copies.49 Similarly, a medieval Hebrew fragment of the Ladder of Jacob, was discovered in

from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions (2nd rev. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), 1–​23; see also I. C. Chtimia, “L’Histoire du sage Ahikar dans les littératures slaves et la littérature roumaine et ses rapports avec le folklore,” Romanoslavica 9 (1963): 413–​26; and Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains, 93–​94. Some traditions of the Slavonic Wisdom of Menander may also go back to early Jewish sources. See P. G. Almarcha, “La incorporación de los proverbios de Menandro a la tradición cultural eslava medieval,” (PhD diss.: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2011). 44.  An anonymous work composed originally in Greek, around the ninth century, which retells biblical history from the creation to Daniel. For the Greek text, see A. Vassiliev, ed., Anecdota Graeco-​Byzantina:  Pars Prior (Mosquae:  Universitatis Caesareae, 1893), 188–​292; for the most recent discussion of this work and its English translation, see W. A. Adler, “Palaea Historica (‘Old Testament History’):  A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 585–​672. The Slavonic text of this Palaea was published by A. N. Popov, ed., Книга бытiа небеси и земли (Палея историческая) съ приложенiемъ сокращенной Палеи русской редакцiи (Москва: Университетская типографiя, 1881). 45.  An original Slavonic composition, similar in its scope to the Palaea historica but including more apocryphal, exegetical, and anti-​Jewish polemical material, which was produced around the thirteenth century. For the Slavonic text, see PTKol, PTSin; for a modern Russian translation, see А. М. Kamchatnov et  al., eds., Палея Толковая (Москва:  Согласие, 2002). For general information on this work, see F. J. Thomson, “The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament,” in J. Krašovec, ed., The Interpretation of the Bible /​Interpretacija Svetega Pisma (Ljubljana, Slovenia, and Sheffield, UK: Slovenska Akademija znatnosti i umetnosti and Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 605–​920 at 870–​73; and A. Novalija, “Introduction to the Paleya:  Medieval Orthodox Writings on the Old Testament,” Annual of Medieval Studies at Central European University Budapest 12 (2006): 181–​95. Important studies include also V. M. Uspenskij, Толковая Палея (Приложенiе къ “Православному Собесѣднику” 1876 г.; Казань:  Типографiя Императорскаго Университета, 1876); Istrin, Откровенiе Мефодiя Патарскаго; V. P. Adrianova, Къ литературной исторiи Толковой Палеи (Киевъ: Типографiя АО “Петръ Барский в Киеве,” 1910); A. de Santos Otero, “Alttestamentliche Pseudepigrapha und die sogenannte ‘Tolkovaja Paleja,’” in D. Papandreou, ed., Oecumenica et Patristica: Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1989), 107–​22; T. Slavova, Тълковната Палея в контекста на старобългарската книжнина (Университетска библиотека 418; София:  Университетско издателство “Св. Климент Охридски,” 2002); А. А. Alexeev, “Палея в системе хронографического жанра,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы, 57 (2006):  25–​32; and E. G. Vodolazkin, Всемирная история в литературе Древней Руси (на материале хронографического и палейного повествования XI–​XV веков) (2nd rev. ed.; Библиотека Пушкинского Дома; С.-​Петербург: Пушкинский Дом, 2008). 46.  A  number of Slavonic historiographical compilations, produced from the fifteenth century on, which synthesized historical information based on Byzantine works translated into Slavonic, as well as on original Slavonic chronicles. For general information, see A. N. Popov, Обзоръ хронографовъ русской редакцiи. (2 vols.; Москва:  Типографiя Лазаревскаго института, 1866–​69); O. V. Tvorogov, Древнерусские хронографы (Ленинград: Наука, 1975); and Vodolazkin, Всемирная история. 47.  S. Novaković, “Otkriveńe Varuhovo,” Starine 18 (1886): 203–​9; and James, Apocrypha Anecedota. 48.  Cf. O. Afinogenova, “Греческий вариант апокрифа о борьбе архангела Михаила и Сатанаила,” Scripta & e-​Scripta, 3–​4 (2005–​6), 329–​48 at 330. 49.  Afinogenova, “Греческий вариант.” Another copy has been recently found by Michael Stone (as yet unpublished).

59

60

60

A lex an der Kulik

the material taken from the Cairo Genizah;50 and eighth-​century Coptic fragments of 2 Enoch have been found as well.51 However, even when versions in the Vorlage language (usually Greek) of our texts exist, this does not necessarily mean that they always present better evidence for the Ur-​ Text. The case of 3 Baruch proves that a Slavonic translation from Greek, though it belongs to a later stage of linguistic transmission and to a less authoritative tradition, may nevertheless preserve a version more authentic than the extant Greek text. Each of its recensions (Greek and Slavonic) was reworked independently, but the Greek version introduced the greater number of later changes. These modifications reflect a number of factors:  ideological editing (Christianization); intertextual sophistication—​that is, the integration of authoritative textual traditions (by means of citations and allusions from the Bible and the New Testament) into the more laconic report witnessed by the Slavonic version; and, especially, explanatory (targumic) expansions. The Greek version also omits important authentic fragments preserved in the Slavonic. The Slavonic version, by contrast, exhibits fewer signs of deliberate editorial interference. Even though it contains certain distortions, mainly textual corruptions and mistranslations, it shows that its Greek Vorlage has been subject to less reworking than the extant Greek text and is thus a better witness for their common prototext and its early Jewish sources.52 Other Slavonic versions of the pseudepigrapha still await meticulous philological comparison with the versions in other languages.53

4. Slavonic Josephus Slavonic tradition preserves a version of the Jewish War by Josephus that contains many54 unique readings unknown in Greek or other versions.55 Some of these readings cannot be explained as late reworkings and may go back to late antiquity. Since some of these readings contain christological materials. These have attracted special attention and even provoked the hypothesis that the lost Aramaic version of the War was the ultimate source of the Slavonic translation.56 The hypothesis of the Aramaic 50.  Leicht, “Qedushah and Prayer to Helios.” 51.  Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only.” 52.  See A. Kulik, “Veritas Slavica:  On the Value of Slavonic Evidence for the Early Apocalyptic Tradition,” Polata Knigopisnaia 38 (2009): 1–​65; and Kulik, 3 Baruch,  19–​27. 53.  A recent breakthrough in this direction may be found in Haralambakis, The Testament of Job. 54.  Eighty-​nine such readings, according to Alexeev’s analysis (see below). 55.  Latest edition and translation: A. A. Pichkhadze et al., eds., “История Иудейской войны” Иосифа Флавия. Древнерусский перевод (2 vols.; Studia philologica; Москва: Языки славянской культуры, 2004); and H. Leeming and K. Leeming, Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N. A. Mescerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina (AGAJU 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003). 56.  A. Berendts, Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slavischen “De bello judaico” des Josephus (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 29.4 [NF 14.4]; Leipzig:  J. C.  Hinrichs, 1906); and R. Eisler, Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas:  Die messianische Unabhängigkeitsbewegung vom auftreten Johannes des Täufers bis zum Untergang Jakobs des Gerechten, nach der neurschlossenen Eroberung von Jerusalem des Flavius Josephus und den christlichen quellen (2 vols.; Religionswissenschaftliche Bibliothek 9; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1929–​1930).

61

Sl avon ic

original does not stand up to philological criticism, however, and the Christological interpolations cannot predate the fourth century.57 The identification and attribution of many other “Slavonic interpolations” in the War is another underexplored and highly debatable area. As shown recently in the groundbreaking study by Alexeev, every such reading should receive a separate treatment; their corpus may roughly be divided into several groups of different origin, ranging from obvious interpolations made on the Slavonic soil to reworkings that may belong to very early stages of the text’s transmission in Greek. In some cases, even the possibility that such passages stem from the author cannot be entirely excluded.58 In contrast to most pseudepigrapha, usually translated in South Slavia, the War was most probably translated in Rus’ no later than in the mid-​thirteenth century. Pritsak went as far as to suggest the involvement of the Greek-​speaking Jews of the North Black Sea area in this project (when Tmutarakan was under the domination of Rus’ during the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries).59 The work became very influential and widely known in medieval Slavonic literature, where it enjoyed a semicanonical status.60 The work, or fragments of it, is integrated into various chronographic collections, as well as the Great Menaion Reader;61 it is also cited in various chronicles, the Palaea Interpretata, and so on, and is often referred as an authoritative text for sacred history.62

5.  Ancient or Medieval? To what extent can we consider uniquely Slavonic pseudepigrapha to be faithful translations that adequately reflect their ancient originals? Or are they just medieval reworkings, the fruit of the original imagination or the compilative skill of Slavonic or Byzantine bookmen? This question is rarely taken up in conjunction with pseudepigraphic corpora preserved in languages that have older literary traditions, or those in which writings are known from at least the second stage of their linguistic transmission (not to mention the case, as with some Greek texts, when the writings are known even from the first stage).

57.  E. J. Bickerman, “Sur la version vieux-​russe de Flavius Josèphe,” Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 4 (1936): 53–​84 (= Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History [AGAJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976–​1986], 3.172–​95). 58.  А. А. Alexeev, “Интерполяции славянской версии Иудейской войны Иосифа Флавия,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 59 (2008), 63–​114. 59.  O. Pritsak, “The Pre-​Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe in Relation to the Khazars, the Rus’ and the Lithuanians,” in P. J. Potichnyj and H. Aster, eds., Ukrainian-​Jewish Relations in Historical Perspective (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta, 1988), 3–​21 at 10. Cf. A. Kulik, “Judeo-​Greek Legacy in Medieval Rus,’” Viator 39 (2008): 51–​64. 60.  Cf. the War 6 included as “5 Maccabees” in some manuscript witnesses of the Syriac Peshitta and the reworked War as “Josippon” in the Ethiopic canon. 61.  The official Russian Orthodox menologium compiled by metropolitan Macarius in the 1530s–​1540s. 62.  O. V. Tvorogov, “‘История Иудейской войны’ Иосифа Флавия,” in D. S. Likhachev, ed., Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси. Вып. 1 (XI ‒ первая половина XIV в.) (Ленинград: Наука, 1987), 214–​ 15, and Alexeev, “Интерполяции славянской версии Иудейской войны Иосифа Флавия.”

61

62

62

A lex an der Kulik

The Slavonic tradition, young by comparison, generally appears less reliable to scholars, for two main reasons: (a) the primary texts could not have been translated into Old Church Slavonic before the ninth to eleventh centuries (the manuscripts extant today date from a much later time); and (b) the Slavonic recensions are in any event merely “third hand” witnesses for the lost Hebrew or Aramaic originals, which were first translated into Greek and only later from Greek into Slavonic. Scholarly attention focuses foremost on unique evidence. So long as we deal with Slavonic pseudepigrapha that have no parallel versions in other languages, we have only two tools to resort to: retroversion and typology. Retroversion itself has only a limited application. Retroversion is by definition a matter of probabilities; it becomes convincing and useful only when it provides solutions to problems of interpretation and when it is well-​supported intertextually. Retroversion is applicable to separate “reconstructable” passages of literal or erroneous translations, but it is of no use in translations that are more paraphrastic and freer of inner contradictions. Thus, retroversion turned out to be very productive in the case of the Apocalypse of Abraham (whose lost Greek translation must have rendered its Hebrew original very literally) and less effective with 2 Enoch. Nevertheless, the only attempt to date to apply retroversion systematically to a Slavonic translation of a lost Greek version of an ancient Hebrew document, itself also lost, demonstrates a high degree of reliability for the Slavonic evidence (at least for the Apocalypse of Abraham).63 In terms of typology, there are some well-​known precedents for the preservation of texts in each of the three stages of their linguistic transmission. I refer to the canonical texts of the Slavonic Bible, for which the Hebrew and Aramaic originals, as well as the Greek versions, are well preserved. Because of the ancient and medieval uerbum de uerbo approach to translation, the Slavonic Bible provides accurate evidence for its remote original.64 Thus, despite the inevitable distortions involved in the two stages of translation and the discrepancies between the traditions of the Hebrew-​Aramaic Masoretic text and the Septuagint, if the Bible were to be known only in Slavonic, it could still serve as solid documentation for ancient Jewish thought, literature, and history. Should this model necessarily work for noncanonical texts as well? This is at least possible, since the status and function of canonical and noncanonical “sacred writings” in Eastern Christian, and especially Slavonic, lands were often identical (see the next section). Fortunately, however, some Slavonic pseudepigrapha do have parallel versions in other traditions (see section 3, “Slavonic Pseudepigrapha Shared with Other Traditions”). These

63. Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. 64.  On the literality of ancient and medieval translations in general, and of Slavonic translations in particular, see F. J. Thomson, “Sensus or Proprietas Verborum: Mediaeval Theories of Translation as Exemplified by Translations from Greek into Latin and Slavonic,” in K. Trost et al., eds., Symposium Methodianum: Beiträge der internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des hl. Method (Selecta Slavica 13; Neuried: Hieronymus, 1988), 675–​91.

63

Sl avon ic

Slavonic works may serve even better as a touchstone for the authenticity of the uniquely Slavonic pseudepigrapha than canonical texts.

6. The Nachleben of Early Jewish Texts and Motifs in Slavonic tradition The vast majority of the early Jewish texts preserved in Slavonic were translated from Greek in South Slavia (mainly in Bulgaria and Macedonia). But since many of them have been preserved only in East Slavonic copies (i.e., in Rus’) and sometimes reworked there, it is often difficult or even impossible to determine their exact inner-​Slavic provenance. The South Slavonic origin is obvious when South Slavonic copies have been preserved. Thus the main factor in distinguishing between South and East Slavic origin is the mere fact of the preservation of South Slavonic copies. Other arguments, such as an abundance or absence of South Slavonic forms in uniquely East Slavonic documents can also give an indication of their provenance. Biblical pseudepigrapha and Josephus, having been translated by the Slavs at the very dawn of their cultural history, have had a well-​attested impact on original Slavonic literary production, folklore, thought, and beliefs.65 During periods of canonical ambiguity in Slavonic Orthodox church history, some of these writings became part of popular semicanonical or even liturgical collections, thus taking on a role side by side with the canonized books of the Bible. The idea of the biblical canon and its practical boundaries were very vague in Slavia Orthodoxa. One can say that almost any text of parabiblical or theological content could be labeled and revered as “Holy Scripture.”66 65.  For the major collections and works prepared mainly from the perspective of Slavonic studies, see, e.g., Pypin, Ложныя и отреченныя книги русской старины, Tikhonravov, Памятники отреченной русской литературы; I.Ya. Porfirjev, Апокрифическiя сказанiя о ветхозавѣтныхъ лицахъ и событiяхъ, по рукописямъ Соловецкой библiотеки (Сборникъ Отдѣленiя Русскаго Языка и Словесности Императорской Академiи Наукъ 17.1; С.-​Петербургъ: Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1877); Jagić, Slavische Beiträge zu den biblischen Apocryphen, Tikhonravov Апокрифическiя сказанiя; I. Franko, Апокрiфи і легенди з українських рукописів. Том 1:  Апокрiфи старозавiтнi (Львів:  Наукове товариство імени Шевченка, 1896); Lavrov, Апокрифические тексты; A. I. Jatsimirskij, Библиографическiй обзоръ апокрифовъ въ южнославянской и русской письменности (Списки памятниковъ). Вып. 1:  Апокрифы ветхозавѣтные (Петроградъ:  Россiйская Государственная Академическая Типографiя, 1921); J. Ivanov, Богомилски книги и легенди (София:  Придворна печатница, 1925); A. W. Naumow, Apokryfy w systemie literatury cerkiewnosłowiańskiej (Prace Komisji Słowianoznawstwa 36; Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imenia Ossolińskich, 1976); D. Petkanova, Апокрифна литература и фолклор (София: Наука и Изкуство, 1978); Petkanova, Апокрифи (Стара българска литература, 1; София: Български писател, 1981); V. Stojčevska-​Antik, ed., Apokrifi (Skopje:  Tabernakul, 1996); V. V. Mil’kov, ed., Апокрифы Древней Руси: Тексты и исследования (Общественная мысль: исследования и публикации; Москва: Наука, 1997); Likhachev et  al., Библиотека литературы Древней Руси; Mil’kov, Апокрифы Древней Руси; M. V. Rozhdestvenskaja Апокрифы Древней Руси (С.-​Петербург: Амфора, 2002); G. Minczew, Święta księga—​ikona—​ obrzęd:  Teksty kanoniczne i pseudokanoniczne a ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorze prawosławnych Słowian na Bałkanach (Łodź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2003); and M. V. Rozhdestvenskaja, Библ ейские апокрифы в литературе и книжности древней Руси: историко-​литературное исследование (диссертац ия доктора филологических наук; Санкт-​Петербургский государственный университет, 2004). 66.  See, e.g., Thomson, “Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament,” 646–​48; and A. A. Alexeev, Текстология с лавянской Библии (С.-​Петербург: Дмитрий Буланин, 1999), 28–​29; cf. Alexeev, “Библейский канон на Руси,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 61 (2010): 171–​93.

63

64

64

A lex an der Kulik

Although some pseudepigraphic compositions were included in the indexes of “false” or “forbidden” books, whether translated from Greek or originally composed in Slavonic, such prohibitions were often not actually implemented. Many very popular books preserved in many copies, as, for example, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or the Vision of Isaiah, are regularly included in these lists. Moreover, some indexes contain different levels of prohibition that range from bogootmetnye (rejected by God) and nenavidimye (hated) to potaennye, sokrovennye (hidden) and neispravnye (non-​correct). Some of these works were simply considered inappropriate for public reading.67 For example, 4 Baruch is found in the Uspenskij Miscellany (twelfth to thirteenth centuries), even though it is explicitly listed as forbidden in some indixes (“paralipomenon . . . how they sent an eagle to Babylon with a letter”). Euphrosynos, of the Kirillo-​Belozerskij monastery (fifteenth century), was a scribe who compiled indexes of forbidden books in some of the collections copied by him while at the same time copying these same works. He was totally aware of what he was doing, as is shown by a postscript he added to the apocryphal Narration on the Twelve Fridays, which he copied, which says, “Do not read this in the assembly, and do not show to many.”68 Most biblical pseudepigrapha can be found in the Palaea Interpretata, a unique Slavonic collection containing fragments of biblical texts (from Genesis to Kings) together with apocryphal, exegetical, cosmographical, and anti-​Judaic polemic texts. It also includes several translations of medieval Hebrew historic and midrashic texts. It was created not later than the thirteenth century (with the earliest manuscript dating to the late fourteenth). Among the biblical pseudepigrapha found therein are the Apocalypse of Abraham, 2 Enoch, the Ladder of Jacob, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, About the Ark, and the Life of Moses. Some early Jewish texts have been found in other collections, such as the Judean Chronograph, an exposition of early Jewish history that was possibly compiled in the thirteenth century, which contains, for example, the Jewish War by Josephus and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In the absence of a complete Slavonic Bible until 1499 (when the Gennadi Bible was completed), such collections as the Palaea and the Chronograph may have served as the de facto semicanonical Slavonic Bible, in which canonical and non-​canonical materials were not distinguished. Even as late as the sixteenth century, some pseudepigrapha, such as excerpts from 2 Enoch, were included in the very popular and influential Great Menaion Reader,

67.  On this subject, see N. A. Kobjak, “Индексы отреченных и запрещенных книг в русской письменности,” in D. S. Likhachev, ed., Древнерусская литература:  Источниковедение. Сборник научных трудов (Ленинград:  Наука, 1984), 45–​54; B. A. Semenovker, “Греческие списки истинных и ложных книг и их рецензия на Руси,” Труды Отдела Древнерусской Литературы 40 (1985): 206–​28; N. A. Kobjak, “Списки отреченных книг,” in D. S. Likhachev, ed., Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси. Вып. 1 (XI -​первая половина XIV в.) (Ленинград:  Наука, 1987), 441–​47; Likhachev, “Индекс ложных книг и древнерусский читатель,” in N. N. Pokrovsky, ed., Христианство и церковь в России феодального периода (материалы) (Но восибирск: Наука, 1989), 352–​63; and I. M. Gritsevskaja, Индексы истинных книг (С.-​Петербург: Дмитрий Буланин, 2003). 68.  RNB, Kirillo-​Belozerskij mon., #11/​1088, fol. 234v; apud Kobjak, “Индексы отреченных,” 445.

65

Sl avon ic

the official Russian Orthodox menologium compiled by metropolitan Macarius in the 1530s to 1540s.69 In practice, the functional boundary between liturgical (lectionary) and continuous texts was much more evident than a theoretical (and not obvious for many) line between canonical and noncanonical Scriptures. Some of the biblical pseudepigrapha were even included in liturgical readings; for example, the Vision of Isaiah and 4 Baruch.70 As the boundary between canonical and apocryphal was vague, so also there seems to have been no clear distinction between the mainly translated (semi)scientific or natural philosophical literature, and compositions of apocalyptic genre with interests in cosmology, astronomy, calendar, meteorology, and other scientific fields. Thus, the textual history and reception of such works as 2 Enoch, 3 Baruch, All Creation, etc., should be studied taking into account the possibility of mutual influences between scientific and apocalyptic genres, at both the Byzantine and Slavic stages of transmission.71 Motifs borrowed from biblical pseudepigrapha influenced original Slavonic literary creativity in diverse genres, especially historical apocalypses (which borrowed from the Vision of Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Daniel),72 popular erotapokritic and magic texts,73 and folklore.74 The influence of the Book of Jubilees is noticeable in the Philosopher’s speech in the Russian Primary Chronicle (twelfth century) but otherwise not known in Slavonic.75 Тhе “story about magicians” in that work (under the year 1071) refers to the concept of the fall of the angels.76 Isolated pseudepigraphic motifs may be discerned in the Novgorodian birch-​bark letters of the twelfth through fifteenth centuries.77

69.  Tvorogov, Древнерусские хронографы. 70.  See F. J. Thomson, “The Nature of the Reception of Christian Byzantine Culture in Russia in the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries and Its Implications to Russian Culture,” Slavica Gandensia 5 (1978): 107–​39 at 108–​9. 71.  See I. Ševčenko, “Remarks on the Diffusion of Byzantine Scientific and Pseudo-​Scientific Literature among the Orthodox Slavs,” Slavonic and East European Review 59 (1981): 321–​45 (= Ševčenko, Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture [Renovatio 1; Cambridge, MA, and Napoli:  Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and Istituto universitario orientale, 1991], 585–​616, esp. 602–​5). 72.  Tăpkova-​Zaimova and Miltenova, Historical and Apocalyptic Literature. 73.  Cf. A. A. Turilov and A. V. Chernetsov, “Отреченные верования в русской рукописной традиции,” in A. L. Toporkov and A. A. Turilov, eds., Отреченное чтение в России ХVII–​ХVIII веков (Традиционная духовная культура славян: Публикация текстов; Москва: Индрик, 2002), 8–​72. 74.  Among recent works see, esp., F. Badalanova Geller, “The Sea of Tiberias: Between Apocryphal Literature and Oral Tradition,” in L. DiTommaso and C. Böttrich, eds., The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diversity (TSAJ 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 9–​151; and Badalanova Geller, “Heavenly Writings.” 75.  S. Franklin, “Some Apocryphal Sources of Kievan Russian Historiography,” Oxford Slavonic Papers 15 (1982): 1–​27. 76.  Ed. D. S. Likhachev, Повесть временных лет (2 vols.; Литературные памятники; Москва/​Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 1950), 1.118–​20. 77.  M. V. Rozhdestvenskaja, “Новгородская грамота № 10  –​‘апокрифическая загадка’?,” Берестяные грамоты: 50 лет открытия и изучения (Москва: Индрик, 2003), 310–​20; and A. A. Gippius, “‘Сисиниева легенда’ в новгородской берестяной грамоте,” В поисках “ориентального” на Балканах. Античность. Средневековье. Новое время. Тезисы и материалы. 24–​26 марта 2003 (Балканские чтения 7; Москва: Институт славяноведения РАН, 2003), 58–​60.

65

6

66

A lex an der Kulik

The reception of pseudepigrapha in iconography78 and in modern Slavonic literatures still awaits a full-​scale study.79 Some pseudepigraphic texts and motifs provided an “alternative” tradition for marginal and deviant trends of Slavic Orthodox thought, from the Bogomils in Bulgaria80 to the Old Believers in Russia. Nevertheless, one should be careful in ascribing to the Bogomils dualistic (and more often pseudo-​dualistic) motifs inherited from the early Jewish texts.81

7.  Achievements and Tasks The history of scholarship on early Jewish texts preserved in Slavonic may be divided into two clearly separate trends. Slavists, beginning from the middle of the nineteenth century, published and studied these texts as a part of Slavonic legacy, and only in isolated instances applied their research tools to the ancient background. However, Christian and later Jewish students of theology, history of religion, Jewish thought, and esoteric traditions could not resist at times making conclusions about the documents, the very contents of which remained obscure for them in many respects. In the best cases, at least a proper division of labor took place: a Slavist first published the text, restricting him-​or herself to linguistic analysis, textual criticism, and interpretation at the most basic level; then the text was translated (usually not by a Slavist, but by someone who knew Church Slavonic to some extant), and from this point, the translated text became accessible to all. Unfortunately, this process did not happen for all the works; but even when such a division of labor took place, its disadvantages were clear: in order to make proper evaluations, whether concerning linguistic phenomena, or textual interpretation, or textual criticism, or more profound analyses of the content and structure of the text, the researcher needs to have all relevant data, and he or she has to look at all the alternatives at once. As a result, with even the most basic interdisciplinary analysis out of reach, the more complicated issues of the intercultural dimensions of these texts could hardly be expected to be taken into consideration. Consequently, the history of the scholarship on Slavonic pseudepigrapha of the last 170  years can be characterized as a chain of largely fragmented research, abounding in translations based on incomplete evidence, and in short surveys based on these translations (with some exceptions, of course). Some Slavonic pseudepigrapha were mentioned already 78.  See E. V. Barsov, “О воздействiи апокрифовъ на обрядъ и иконопись,” Журналъ Министерства народнаго просвѣщенiя 12 (1885): 98–​115; G. K. Vagner, “Литература, апокрифы и фольклор в творчестве мастеров Всеволода III,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 24 (1969): 75–​79; V. N. Sergeev, “Духовный стих “Плач Адама” на иконе,” Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы 26 (1971): 280–​86; M. E. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan:  The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington:  Indiana University Press, 2002); and F. Badalanova, “The Bible in the Making: Slavonic Creation Stories,” in M. J. Geller and M. Schipper, eds., Imagining Creation (IJS Studies in Judaica 5; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 161–​365. 79.  For the old and new Russian literature, where an interest in apocrypha was most manifestly shown by Nikolaj Leskov; see O. A. Belobrova and O. V. Tvorogov, “Переводная беллетристика ХI–​ХIII вв.,” Истоки русской беллетристики:  Возникновение жанров сюжетного повествования в древнерусской литературе (Ленинград: Наука, 1970), 142–​94; and Rozhdestvenskaja, Библейские апокрифы, ch. 5. 80.  See Ivanov, Богомилски книги и легенди. 81.  Cf., e.g., Y. Stoyanov, The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 131–​39, 269–​70, etc.

67

Sl avon ic

as early as the 1840s by Vostokov82 and published by Sreznevskij.83 The Russian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian scholars Pypin,84 Tikhonravov,85 Porfirjev,86 Franko,87 Lavrov,88 and Ivanov89 published collections of pseudepigraphic documents that are still of use. Important publications of individual documents were undertaken by Jagić.90 Some works and diverse fragments of pseudepigraphic and aggadic origin were published on the basis of the different versions of the Palaea Interpretata. The Russian-​born German theologian Bonwetsch was the first to bring a representative group of these texts to the western reader.91 His endeavor was continued by Riessler.92 In 1921, Jatsimirskij published a bibliography of Slavonic biblical pseudepigrapha.93 Translations of and commentaries on some documents are included in the major collections of translations with commentary edited by Kautzsch,94 Charles,95 Charlesworth,96 Kümmel,97 and Sparks.98 In the second half of the twentieth century, important works were produced by Gaylord,99 Kugel,100 Lunt,101 Meschersky,102 Naumow,103 de Santos Otero,104 Philonenko,105 82.  A. Kh. Vostokov, Описанiе русскихъ и словенскихъ рукописей Румянцовскаго Музеума (С.-​ Петербургъ: Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1842). 83.  N. N. Sreznevskij, “Книгы Откровения Авраме.” Известия Императорской академии наук по отделению русского языка и словестности. t. 10. (С.-​Петербург: Тип. Имп. Академии наук, 1861–​1863), 648–​65; and Sreznevskij, Древнiе памятники русскаго письма и языка (X–​XIV вековъ): Общее повременное обозренiе (С.-​ Петербургъ: Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1863). 84.  Pypin, Ложныя и отреченныя книги русской старины. 85.  Tikhonravov, Памятники отреченной русской литературы. 86.  Porfirjev, Апокрифическiя сказанiя (1877). 87.  Franko, Апокрiфи і легенди. 88.  Lavrov, Апокрифические тексты. 89.  Ivanov, Богомилски книги и легенди; French trans.: M. Ribeyrol, Livres et légendes bogomiles: Aux sources du Catharisme (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 1976). 90.  Jagić, Slavische Beiträge zu den biblischen Apocryphen. 91.  N. Bonwetsch, Das slavische Henochbuch (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-​Historische Klasse NF 1.3; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896); Bonwetsch, Die Apokalypse Abrahams. Das Testament der vierzig Märtyrer (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 1.1; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1897a); and Bonwetsch, Die Bücher der Geheimnisse Henochs: Das sogenannte slavische Henochbuch (TUGAL 44.2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922). 92.  P. Riessler Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Heidelberg: Kerle, 1928). 93.  Jatsimirskij, Библиографическiй. 94.  E. Kautzsch, ed., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testments (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1900). 95.  R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). 96.  J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983–​1985). 97.  W. G. Kümmel et  al., eds., Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-​römischer Zeit (Gütersloh:  Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1973–​). 98.  H. F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). 99.  Gaylord, “Satanael”; Gaylord, “Slavonic Version of III Baruch,” and H. E. Gaylord, “Славянский текст Третьей книги Варуха,” Polata Knigopisnaia 7 (1983): 49–​56. 100.  Kugel, “Ladder of Jacob.” 101.  H. Lunt, “On the Language of the Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham,” Slavica Hierosolymitana 7 (1985): 55–​62. 102.  N. A. Meshcherskij, “К вопросу об источниках славянской книги Еноха,” Краткие сообщения Института народов Азии и Африки 86 (1965): 72–​78; and Meshcherskij, “Апокрифы в древней славяно-​ русской письменности (ветхозаветные апокрифы),” in Методические рекомендации по описанию славяно-​ русских рукописей для Сводного каталога рукописей, хранящихся в СССР, vol. 2.1 (Москва, 1976), 181–​210. 103.  Naumow, Apokryfy w systemie literatury cerkiewnosłowiańskiej. 104.  de Santos Otero, “Alttestamentliche Pseudepigrapha.” 105.  B. Philonenko-​ Sayar and M. Philonenko, eds., L’Apocalypse d’Abraham (Semitica 31; Paris: Adrien-​Maisonneuve,  1981).

67

68

68

A lex an der Kulik

Rubinkiewicz,106 Stichel,107 and Vaillant.108 The studies by Turdeanu109 represent a systematic contribution to the textual analysis of Slavonic pseudepigrapha. In an adjacent field, Alexeev, Altbauer, Lunt, Taube, and others have studied pseudepigraphic materials that were translated directly from the Hebrew and introduced into Slavonic literature through Jewish medieval traditions. The interest in the field began to grow significantly in the late 1980s and 1990s with a revival of Judeo-​Slavica and Christian studies in Russia, Bulgaria, and Poland. Nevertheless, Slavonic scholars traditionally are interested mostly in the inner-​Slavonic intracultural dimension of both biblical and New Testament pseudepigrapha, including their impact on the modern literature.110 Among such works are the studies by Mil’kov, Miltenova, Minczew, Petkanova, Savel’eva, and Rozhdestvenskaja.111 Western scholars, however, have confined their research mostly to the place of Slavonic pseudepigrapha in the pedigree of early Jewish and Christian apocalyptic and mystical traditions. The most significant recent attempts to contextualize these texts beyond the Slavonic tradition are presented in the collections of articles edited by DiTommaso and Böttrich,112 Orlov and

106.  R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave (Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego:  Źródła i monografie 129; Lublin:  Société des lettres et des sciences de l’Université catholique de Lublin, 1987). 107.  Stichel, “Die Verführung der Stammeltern.” 108.  Vaillant, “Un apocryphe pseudo-​bogomile.” 109.  Assembled in a single volume in 1981 (Turdeanu, Apocryphes slaves et roumains). 110.  Belobrova and Tvorogov, “Переводная беллетристика ХI–​ХIII вв.” 111. Petkanova, Апокрифна литература и фолклор; Petkanova, Апокрифи; A. Miltenova, “Апокрифът за борбата на архангел Михаил със Сатанаил в две редакции,” Старобългарска литература 9 (1981):  98–​ 113; Miltenova, “Текстологически наблюдения върху два апокрифа (апокрифен цикъл за кръстното дърво, приписван на Григорий Богослов, и апокрифа за Адам и Ева),” Старобългарска литература 11 (1982): 35–​ 55; Miltenova, “Апокрифи и апокрифни цикли с вероятен български произход в руските чети-​сборници от ХVI–​ХVII в.,” in Slavia Orthodoxa:  Език и култура. Сборник в чест на проф. дфн Румяна Павлова (София: Университетско издателство Св. Климент Охридски, 2003), 244–​60; Miltenova, Erotapokriseis: С ъчиненията от кратки въпроси и отговори в старо-​българската литература (София:  Дамян Яков, 2004); Mil’kov, Апокрифы Древней Руси; Mil’kov, ed., Древнерусские апокрифы: тексты, переводы, коммент арии (Памятники древнерусской мысли: исследования и тексты, 1; С.-​Петербург: Издательство Русского Христианского Гуманитарного Института, 1999); Rozhdestvenskaja, Апокрифы Древней Руси, Minczew, Święta księga—​ikona—​obrzęd, Rozhdestvenskaja, Библейские апокрифы; and N. V. Savel’eva, “Апокрифическая статья ‘О всей твари’ и ее бытование в составе древнерусских сборников,” Труды отдела древнерусской ли тературы 60 (2009): 394–​436. See also M. D. Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “Апокрифы о крестном древе,” in D. S. Likhachev, ed., Словарь книжников и книжности ДревнейрРуси. Вып. 2 (вторая половина XIV–​XVI в.). Ч. 1: А–​К (Ленинград: Наука, 1988), 60–​66; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “‘От коих частей создан бысть Адам,’” in D. S. Likhachev, ed., Словарь книжников и книжности Древней Руси. Вып. 2 (вторая половина XIV–​XVI в.). Ч. 2: Л–​Я (Ленинград: Наука, 1989), 153–​55; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “О сотворении Адама,” in Likhachev et al., Б иблиотека литературы Древней Руси, 92–​3 and 366–​67; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “Слово о Крестном Древе,” in Likhachev et al., Библиотека литературы Древней Руси, 284–​91 and 402–​6; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “О потопе,” in Likhachev et  al., Библиотека литературы Древней Руси, 108–​13 and 372–​74; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “О сотворении Адама,” in Rozhdestvenskaja, Апокрифы ДревнейрРуси, 19–​20 and 209–​10; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “Слово о Крестном Древе,” in Rozhdestvenskaja, Апокрифы ДревнейрРуси, 121–​28; Kagan(-​Tarkovskaja), “О потопе,” in Rozhdestvenskaja, Апокрифы ДревнейрРуси, 28–​32; Badalanova and Miltenova, “Апокрифният цикъл”; Turilov and Chernetsov, “Отреченные верования”; and Tăpkova-​Zaimova and Miltenova, Historical and Apocalyptic Literature. 112.  L. DiTommaso and C. Böttrich, eds., The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diversity (TSAJ 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011).

69

Sl avon ic

Boccaccini,113 and in the works by Badalanova Geller,114 Böttrich,115 Kulik,116 and Orlov.117 A significant impetus to the field has been given by the discovery of Coptic fragments of the “Slavonic” Enoch118 and its new editions by Macaskill.119 What are the remaining desiderata for this field? If certain progress in the integration of these texts into historical-​religious discourse has been made since the 1990s, the textual aspect itself has remained relatively neglected. These documents passed through several stages of intercultural transmission. The obscurity of the texts cannot be explained solely as due to corruption in the process of inner-​Slavonic transmission. Many problems of interpretation go back to an early and sometimes very literal translation. It is well known that “the main reason for incomprehensibility [of early Slavonic texts] is, of course, literal translation, and the list of works in which whole passages are completely without meaning in Slavonic is long.”120 Our texts mostly belong to those sacral uerbum de uerbo translations that were created as “rewriting of the original with corresponding lexical items from the receptor language.”121 Many Slavonic writings could hardly be properly interpreted without referring to their Vorlagen. This problem is especially striking when we deal with those texts for which there are no surviving prototypes or versions in other languages. The only way to improve our understanding of the documents is to consider as much as possible all stages of their transmission, to retrovert fragments of their Vorlagen and, sometimes, even of the Semitic original. Even the most basic level of textual understanding of the Slavonic pseudepigrapha cannot be assured without utilizing an interdisciplinary approach—​considering these texts as objects of intercultural transmission, applying the tools of Slavonic philological and cultural research, and invoking up-​to-​date research on early Judaism and Christianity and on Hellenistic and Byzantine literary traditions. The understanding of the texts, their history, and their function cannot be achieved without recourse to both these fields of knowledge simultaneously, sometimes in complicated relations of mutual dependence.122 This is even more important from the standpoint of an understanding of the transformations of meaning, structure, and functional modes of these texts during their transmission. The elaboration of such an integrative approach, its principles and tools should be accompanied by their practical application to a wide range of texts 113.  Orlov and Boccaccini, eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch. 114.  Badalanova, “Bible in the Making”; Badalanova, 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of ) Enoch; Badalanova, “Sea of Tiberias”; and Badalanova, “Heavenly Writings.” 115.  Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Unkult; Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos; C. Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch ( JSHRZ V.7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), and Böttrich, Geschichte Melchisedeks. 116.  Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha; and Kulik, 3 Baruch. 117.  Orlov, Enoch-​Metatron Tradition; Orlov, Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism; Orlov, Selected Studies; and A. Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). 118.  See Orlov and Boccaccini, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch. 119. Macaskill, Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch. 120.  Thomson, “Reception of Christian Byzantine Culture,” 117. 121.  E. A. Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964), 186; cf. Thomson, “Sensus or Proprietas Verborum?.” 122.  For systematic attempts in this direction, see, e.g., Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha; and Kulik, 3 Baruch.

69

70

70

A lex an der Kulik

and the accumulation of successful—​that is, convincing—​solutions for concrete textual problems. Further, these results can be elaborated from the point of view of their contribution both to Slavonic and Jewish studies. Most compositions still await critical editions based on the complete manuscript evidence and on professional treatment of linguistic and text-​critical issues. Such publications will help to clarify many issues of interpretation, the provenance of the Slavonic versions, questions such as the South Slavonic versus East Slavonic origin of the documents, the South Slavonic route of transmission of documents that preserved only in East Slavonic recensions, and so on. Wider issues of the intracultural transmission and functioning of the documents also need further research. They include questions like the confessional status of the Slavonic pseudepigrapha and Josephus; witness of the types of manuscripts including such works for their Slavonic Sitz im Leben and function; the integration of these documents into medieval libraries and collections; the appearance of this corpus in the indexes of forbidden books, as well as in popular and approved collections; reading practices, and the exegetical, didactic, ritual, or magic use of the Slavonic pseudepigrapha; the sectarian use of these texts; dualistic motifs in Slavonic literatures in connection with the pseudepigraphic legacy; pseudepigraphic genres and motifs integrated into medieval Slavonic literature and their influence on later Slavonic literatures; the reception of the Slavonic pseudepigrapha in folklore and iconography; distinctions in inner-​Slavonic functioning between our corpus and adjacent corpora such as the Slavonic New Testament pseudepigrapha or Slavonic texts with pseudepigraphic/​aggadic motifs translated directly from the Hebrew. A study of intercultural transmission should clearly differentiate the documents according to their textual history and should not be neglected even at the stage of the most basic textual study. Depending on the transmission mode of each text, its analysis should involve either the examination of parallel versions with elements of retroversion (reconstruction of extinct versions) or the retroversion alone (when parallel versions do not survive); all this should be set against the intertextual background—​that is, the contexts of different literary traditions at every stage of transmission. Here one may raise questions about languages of Vorlagen and originals; the applicability of retroversion as a research tool for different groups of texts, especially texts preserved only in Slavonic; the chronological relations between the Slavonic versions and versions in other languages; the Slavonic pseudepigrapha and non-​Slavonic iconography; Jewish versus Christian origins of documents; a possible interpretatio iudaica for some supposedly Gnostic and Christian interpolations; the place of these texts between apocalyptic and Jewish mystical traditions; common characteristics of the corpus beyond similar textual histories; the possibility of discerning between inter-​and intracultural transformations of different types, and so on. Ideally, we should also strive for a more general synthetic characterization of the entire corpus that will help us to define different transmission modes and their impact, as well as methodologies appropriate for the study of documents with different textual histories. Special attention should be paid to the phenomena of intercultural transmission on different levels: (a) semantic: transformation and shifts of meanings, connotations, etc.;

71

Sl avon ic

linguistic and stylistic phenomena going back to different stages of transmission; (b) structural: major editorial changes made in the process of translation and editing; the collections and corpora in which the Slavonic pseudepigrapha were included (this problem is also connected also to the next topic); (c) functional: the function of the Slavonic pseudepigrapha and their sources in different cultural contexts and literary traditions; their reception, impact, and function in literary corpora and cultural processes. Here, the available data are unequally represented in Slavonic, early Jewish, Hellenistic, and Byzantine contexts. The latter aspect is the most neglected because of the less-​developed research tools in this field. Among major ongoing projects in the field the following should be mentioned: Alexander Kulik and Sergey Minov are preparing a collection of minor Slavonic pseudepigrapha accompanied with English translation and commentaries. A critical edition (with commentary) of the Palaea Interpretata is under preparation by Alexander Kulik. Evgenii Vodolazkin, Sabine and Dieter Fahl, and Christfried Böttrich are collaborating on a new edition and German translation of the Brief Chronographic Palaea. The Greek-​Slavonic Struggle of Michael and Satanael will be published, with English translation and commentary, by Emmanouela Grypeou, Alexander Kulik, and Michael Stone. A critical edition of 3 Baruch by Harry Gaylord with accompanying material is to be published by Alexander Kulik and Andrei Orlov. Andrei Orlov is working on the first book-​ length commentary to 2 Enoch.

Selected Bibliography DiTommaso, L., and C. Böttrich, eds. The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition:  Continuity and Diversity. TSAJ 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Jagić, V. Slavische Beiträge zu den biblischen Apocryphen:  I. Die altkirchenslavischen Texte des Adambuches. Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-​historische Classe 42. Wien: F. Tempsky, 1893. Kulik, A., and S. Minov. Biblical Pseudepigrapha in Slavonic Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Miltenova, A. L. South Slavonic Apocryphal Collections. Sofia: Iztok-​Zapad, 2018. Minczew, G. Święta księga—​ikona—​obrzęd: Teksty kanoniczne i pseudokanoniczne a ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorze prawosławnych Słowian na Bałkanach. Łodź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2003. Naumow, A. E. Apokryfy w systemie literatury cerkiewnosłowiańskiej. Prace Komisji Słowianoznawstwa 36. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imenia Ossolińskich, 1976. Orlov, A. A. From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism:  Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. JSJSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2007. —​—​. Selected Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. SVTP 23. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Turdeanu, É. Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament. SVTP 5. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Ивановъ, Й. Богомилски книги и легенди. София: Придворна печатница, 1925. Лавровъ, П. А., ed. Апокрифические тексты. Сборникъ Отдѣленiя Русскаго Языка и Словеснос ти Императорской Академiи Наукъ 67.3. С.-​Петербургъ:  Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1899. Мещерский, Н. А. “Апокрифы в древней славяно-​русской письменности (ветхозаветные апокрифы).” Методические рекомендации по описанию славяно-​русских рукописей для Сводного каталога рукописей, хранящихся в СССР. Москва, 1976, 2.1.181–​210. Мильков, В. В., ed. Апокрифы Древней Руси: Тексты и исследования. Общественная мысль: исследования и публикации. Москва: Наука, 1997.

71

72

72

A lex an der Kulik –​–​–​, ed. Древнерусские апокрифы:  тексты, переводы, комментарии. Памятники древнерусской мысли: исследования и тексты, 1; С.-​Петербург: Издательство Русского Христианского Гуманитарного Института, 1999. Петканова, Д., ed., Апокрифи. Стара българска литература 1. София: Български писател, 1981. Порфирьевъ, И. Я. Апокрифическiя сказанiя о ветхозаветныхъ лицахъ и событiяхъ. Казань: Университетская типографiя, 1872. –​–​–​, ed. Апокрифическiя сказанiя о ветхозавѣтныхъ лицахъ и событiяхъ, по рукописямъ Соловецкой библiотеки. Сборникъ Отдѣленiя Русскаго Языка и Словесности Императорской Академiи Наукъ 17.1. С.-​Петербургъ: Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1877. Пыпинъ, А. Н., ed. Ложныя и отреченныя книги русской старины. Памятники старинной русской литературы, издаваемые Графомъ Григорiемъ Кушелевымъ-​Безбородко 3. С.-​Петербургъ:  Типографiя П.А. Кулеша, 1862. Рождественская, М. В. Апокрифы Древней Руси. С.-​Петербург: Амфора, 2002. Тихонравовъ, Н. С., ed. Памятники отреченной русской литературы. 2 vols. С.-​Петербургъ: Товарищество “Общественная польза,” 1863. –​–​–​, ed. Апокрифическiя сказанiя. Сборникъ Отдѣленiя Русскаго Языка и Словесности Императорской Академiи Наукъ 58.4. С.-​Петербургъ: Типографiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ, 1894. Франко, І., ed., Апокрiфи і легенди з українських рукописів. Том 1:  Апокрiфи старозавiтнi. Львів:  Наукове товариство імени Шевченка, 1896. Яцимирскiй, А. И. Библиографическiй обзоръ апокрифовъ въ южнославянской и русской письменности (Списки памятниковъ). Вып. 1:  Апокрифы ветхозавѣтные. Петроградъ:  Россiйская Государственная Академическая Типографiя, 1921.

73

5

Coptic Jacques van der Vliet

A List of Coptic Old Testament Apocrypha To this list all the reservations expressed below apply. It follows the selection and order but not the Latin of J.-​C. Haelewyck’s Clauis apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (hereafter CAVT).1 Nag Hammadi codex numbers are added where appropriate. The Life of Adam (CAVT 1.VI) The Testament of Adam (CAVT 3)2 The Cave of Treasures (CAVT 11) The Apocalypse of Adam (CAVT 12 = NH V, 5) The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (CAVT 55 = NH VII, 2) The Three Steles of Seth (CAVT 56 = NH VII, 5) The Thought of Norea (CAVT 57 = NH IX, 2) 1 Enoch (CAVT 61) 2 Enoch (CAVT 66)3 1.  J.-​C. Haelewyck, Clauis apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998). 2.  Cf. G. Schenke and G. Schenke Robinson, Der koptische Kölner Papyruscodex 3221. Teil I: Das Testament des Iob (Papyrologica Coloniensia 33; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009), 1. 3.  The recovery of a Sahidic Coptic version of 2 Enoch (from fragments found at Qasr Ibrim, Lower Nubia) is a major event. See J. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in A. A. Orlov et al., eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–​ 34. Hagen’s identification is a real tour de force and leaves no room for doubt, pace those of C. Böttrich, “The Angel of Tartarus and the Supposed Coptic Fragments of 2 Enoch,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 509–​21. The details of the text’s reconstruction and its relation to the Slavonic (and the lost Greek) will be discussed in Hagen’s forthcoming PhD dissertation (Leiden University). For the rich Enoch traditions of Christian Egypt, see B. A. Pearson, “Enoch in Egypt,” in R. A. Argall et al., eds., For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 216–​31; D. Frankfurter, “The Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses in Early Christianity: Regional Trajectories,” in J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler, eds.,

74

74

Jacqu es van der Vliet

The Paraphrase of Sem (CAVT 86 = NH VII, 1)4 The Testament of Abraham (CAVT 88)5 Story of Melchizedek (CAVT 95)6 Melchizedek (CAVT 96 = NH IX, 1)7 The Testament of Isaac (CAVT 98)8 The Testament of Jacob (CAVT 99)9 The Story of Joseph and its developments (CAVT 110–​112)10 Jubilees (CAVT 132)11 The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (CRINT 3.4; Assen and Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1996), 129–​200 at 186–​89; B. A. Pearson, “The Munier Enoch Fragments Revisited,” in H. G. Bethge et al., eds., For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-​Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-​gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (NHMS 54; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 375–​83; and J. Hagen, “The Great Cherub” and His Brothers: Adam, Enoch and Michael and the Names, Deeds and Faces of the Creatures in Ps.-​Chrysostom, On the Four Creatures,” in N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors, eds., Actes du huitième Congrès international d’études coptes, Paris, 28 juin–​3 juillet 2004 (OLA 163; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 2.467–​80. 4.  This important and intriguing Gnostic text is the subject of a major new edition cum study by M. Roberge, La paraphrase de Sem (NH VII, 1) (BCNH, section “textes” 25; Québec and Louvain: Les presses de l’université Laval and Peeters, 2000). An updated English version, regrettably without the Coptic text, is also available: J. Roberge, The Paraphrase of Sem (NH VII,1): Introduction, Translation and Commentary (NHMS 72; Leiden: Brill, 2010). 5.  For the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs in Coptic, see the various remarks below at pp.  78, 82, and 86. M. Heide, Die Testamente Isaaks und Jakobs:  Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen 56; Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz, 2000); and Heide, Das Testament Abrahams:  Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Versionen (Aethiopistische Forschungen 76; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012) are invaluable tools for the recuperation of the North-​East African textual tradition. 6.  J. Dochhorn, “Die Historia de Melchisedech (HistMelch)—​Einführung, editorischer Vorbericht und editiones praeliminares,” Le Muséon 117 (2004): 7–​48 at 23–​27, offers a new edition of the two texts edited earlier by S. Gaselee. C. Böttrich, Geschichte Melchisedeks ( JSHRZ n.F. 2.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010), 16–​ 18, pays due attention to Melchizedek in Coptic art, for which see also G. J. M. van Loon, The Gate of Heaven: Wall Paintings with Old Testament Scenes in the Altar Room and Hûrus of Coptic Churches (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-​Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 85; Istanbul and Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-​Archaeologisch Instituut and Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999), 126–​32; and G. J. M. van Loon, “The Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Communion of the Apostles,” in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet, eds., Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millenium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August–​2. September 2000 (OLA 133, Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 2.1373–​92. 7.  New edition: W. P. Funk, J.-​P., Mahé, and C. Gianotto, eds., Melchisédek (NH IX, 1): Oblation, baptême et vision dans la gnose séthienne (BCNH, section “textes” 28; Québec and Louvain: Les presses de l’université Laval and Peeters, 2001). 8.  Two fragments of a second Sahidic manuscript were identified by A. Suciu in 2012; see Heide, Testament Abrahams, 29; and Suciu’s website, http://​alinsuciu.com (where the text is given, after L.Th. Lefort’s edition). 9.  J. Dochhorn, Testament Jakobs ( JSHRZ n.F. 1.7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014), discusses the single Bohairic text witness (13–​18) and offers a new German translation (87–​120). 10.  J. Dochhorn and A. Klostergaard Petersen, “Narratio Joseph:  A Coptic Joseph-​apocryphon,” JSJ 30 (1999): 431–​63, include a review of Coptic Joseph texts. See now A. Klostergaard Petersen, “Narratio Ioseph: A Rarely Acknowledged Coptic Joseph Apocryphon,” in L. DiTommaso et al., eds., The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (SVTP 26; Leiden: Brill, 2017). For a Sahidic tombstone for Nubia that presents Joseph as a model of virtue, see S. Jakobielski and J. van der Vliet, “From Aswan to Dongola: The Epitaph of Bishop Joseph (died AD 668),” in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet, eds., Nubian Voices:  Studies in Christian Nubian Culture ( Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplements 15; Warsaw:  Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation, 2011), 15–​35. For the Joseph story in late antique Egyptian textiles, see H. Maguire, “Magic and the Christian Image,” in H. Maguire, ed., Byzantine Magic (Washington, DC:  Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995), 51–​71 at 53–​54. 11.  See A. Crislip, “The Book of Jubilees in Coptic: An Early Christian Florilegium on the Family of Noah,” BASP 40 (2003): 27–​44, regarding quotes in a collection of testimonia on biblical figures.

75

C opt ic

Apocalypse of Elijah (CAVT 167) Solomon Legends (CAVT 154–​164)12 Prayer of Manasses (CAVT 178)13 4 Ezra (CAVT 180)14 The Odes of Solomon (CAVT 205)15 Testament of Job (CAVT 207)16 Apocalypse of Zephaniah (CAVT 216)17 Ascension and Martyrdom of Isaiah (CAVT 218)18 The Coptic Paralipomena of Jeremiah (CAVT 227) Jeremiah’s Prophecy to Passhur (CAVT 228) Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Methodius (CAVT 254)19 The Fourteenth Vision of Daniel (CAVT 261)

12. The Legend of Solomon and Thabor (Sahidic, in W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library, Manchester [Manchester, UK, and London:  Manchester University Press and Bernard Quaritch, and Sherratt and Hughes, 1909], 41–​42, no. 85; an Arabic version also exists); the Solomon lore in Coptic liturgical poetry (H. Junker, Koptische Poesie des 10. Jahrhunderts [2 vols., Berlin: Curtius, 1908–​1911], 2.8–​30); and the Copto-​Arabic legend about the passage of the kingship of David to the king of the Ethiopians (printed in C. Bezold, Kebra Nagast: Die Herrlichkeit der Könige [Abhandlungen der philos.-​philol. Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 23, Abt. 1; München:  Verlag der Akademie, 1909), not to mention the colophon of the Kebrä Nägäśt itself, all suggest that Egypt played a greater part in the genesis of the Ethiopic Solomon traditions than is usually assumed. 13.  The thorough study by A. Gutman and W. van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 30; Piscataway, NJ:  Gorgias Press, 2011), mentions the Coptic versions (Sahidic and Bohairic) in passing. 14.  A. Suciu, “On a Bilingual Copto-​Arabic Manuscript of 4 Ezra and the Reception of this Pseudepigraphon in Coptic Literature,” JSP 25 (2015): 3–​22. 15.  For the Coptic (Gnostic) tradition in particular, M. Lattke, Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis (OBO 25.1; Fribourg:  Éditions Universitaires and Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 24–​31 and 187–​225; Lattke, “The Gnostic Interpretation of the Odes of Solomon in the Pistis Sophia,” Bulletin de la Sociéte d’archéologie copte 24 (1979–​1982): 69–​84; and Lattke, “Titel, Überschriften und Unterschriften der sogenannten Oden und Psalmen Salomos,” in H. G. Bethge et al., eds., For the Children, Perfect Instruction:  Studies in Honor of Hans-​Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-​ gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (NHMS 54; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 439–​47, are relevant. 16.  The long-​awaited edition of the Sahidic Coptic version, from a fourth-​century papyrus codex, in Schenke and Robinson, Der koptische Kölner Papyruscodex 3221, is another major event. For important additional fragments, see G. Schenke, “Neue Fragmente des Kölner Kodex 3221:  Textzuwachs am koptischen Testament des Iob,” ZPE 188 (2014): 87–​105. English trans.: G. Schenke, “The Testament of Job (Coptic Fragments): A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et  al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:  More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 160–​75. For Job in Coptic art, see G. J. M. van Loon, Gate of Heaven, 158–​63. 17.  See B. J. Diebner, “Zephanjas Apokalypsen,” Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-​römischer Zeit 5.1–​9 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003), 1141–​1246, for a translation of the Coptic versions with extensive commentary on Egyptian backgrounds. 18.  The Achmimic fragments edited by Lefort in 1939 are now Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, F 1949/​ 4.1. 19.  Not properly an Old Testament apocryphon, but the historical sections recycle sacred history. Part of the Sahidic version of these sections is preserved in a fragment in Vienna; see T. Orlandi, Koptische Papyri theologischen Inhalts (Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek n.s. 9; Wien: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1974), 188–​90, no. xx: chs. [6]‌,2–​[8],1. The Sahidic is not translated from the Syriac, but differs considerably from the Greek text edited by W. J. Aerts.

75

76

76

Jacqu es van der Vliet

1.  Introduction The primary aim of this chapter is to discuss the specific character of the transmission of what are traditionally called “apocrypha of the Old Testament,” preserved in the Coptic language. For this purpose, it does not suffice to present a qualified update of the still-​ useful CAVT published by Jean-​Claude Haelewyck nearly twenty years ago. Preliminarily, the nature and status of the Coptic language, its development over time and the heuristics of Coptic textual sources in general need to be discussed. This is particularly urgent since concepts like “Coptic literature” and “the Coptic tradition,” however natural they may seem at first sight, cannot be accepted uncritically and applied without further qualification. In my ensuing discussion of the Coptic texts, I will try to steer clear of what may be called an archaeological approach: searching for “nuggets” or survivals of early Jewish traditions in the mass of Coptic sources. Rather, I follow the lead of David Frankfurter’s seminal 1996 paper on regional trajectories,20 though obviously with accents of my own and incorporating recent insights. My approach will be mainly methodological and conceptual, discussing, among other things, the usefulness of terms such as “apocrypha of the Old Testament,” to focus briefly on the particular use of Adamic lore in Coptic Gnostic texts toward the end of the chapter.

2.  The Coptic Language: Status and Development Coptic is the latest stage of the Egyptian language, a separate branch of Afro-​Asiatic. Egyptian has known a very long development.21 It is attested in a written form from about 3000 bce, and it is still in use in its Bohairic Coptic form today as a liturgical language among Egypt’s Christians. Yet Coptic, as distinct from earlier stages of Egyptian, could never claim to be a national language. When Christianity started to spread in Egypt, Greek was the dominant language in Egyptian society at large as well as in the nascent Christian communities. With the petering out of the indigenous religious tradition in the imperial period, written Egyptian well-​nigh disappeared from the record. Origen and Plotinus were Egyptians, but they never cared to write a word of Egyptian, nor did most of their Egyptian contemporaries. Roman Egypt was a profoundly Hellenized society. When written Egyptian resurfaced in a novel form, as Coptic, around the year 300 ce, it was strongly modeled on Greek. This can be seen, for example, in the adoption of the Greek uncial alphabet, Greek discourse organization, and innumerable Greek loanwords. These features clearly mark it off from earlier Egyptian, with its complicated scripts and strong links with the traditional religious institutions. Literary Coptic, from the outset,

20.  Frankfurter, “Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses,” 163–​200. 21.  For what follows, see E. D. Zakrzewska, “‘A Bilingual Language Variety’ or the ‘Language of the Pharaohs’? Coptic from the Perspective of Contact Linguistics,” in E. Grossman et  al., eds., Greek Influence on Egyptian-​ Coptic:  Contact-​Induced Change in an Ancient African Language (Lingua Aegyptia. Studia monographica 17; Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag, 2017), 115–​61.

7

C opt ic

was a language used by and for Christians, even if modern usage would classify some of these as Manichaeans or Gnostics. It is important to emphasize that Coptic did not develop as the result of a surge of national feeling or a natural relapse into the vernacular of the uneducated for practical purposes. On the contrary, to a considerable degree Coptic bears an artificial, constructed character. Written Coptic as we know it has most likely never been spoken by anybody. To the extent the sudden rise of literary Coptic can be explained, it is best seen as the in-​group language of the ascetic communities that arose in early fourth-​century Egypt and rapidly turned the country into the epicenter of the monastic movement. Initially, in line with the variegated character of the incipient monastic movement, Coptic knew a low degree of standardization, resulting in a variety of written dialects or sociolects. Gradually, however, from the fifth century on, these were superseded by Sahidic (in the south) and Bohairic (in the north) as the main supraregional variants of Coptic. Of the early variants, Fayyumic, Lycopolitan, and Achmimic have a certain relevance for our subject, though none as much as Sahidic, the dominant form of Coptic used across Upper Egypt during the entire period from the fourth century to the eleventh century.22 Monasticism remained the primary sociotope of Coptic throughout its history, even though its use spread to an ever-​broader range of functional domains, in particular from the sixth to eighth centuries, at least in Upper Egypt. With the Christianization of Nubia, in the present-​day northern Sudan, Coptic even radiated beyond Egypt into this part of Africa. From the fifth century on, the newly converted elites of Nubia adopted the two written codes of Christian Egypt, (Sahidic) Coptic and Greek, to develop their own written language, Old-​Nubian, only with the decline of literary Coptic.23 In both countries, Egypt and Nubia, Coptic always functioned in a multilingual environment. In Egypt, Greek remained the first language of state and church till well after the Arab conquest in the mid-​seventh century. This applies also to the schismatic miaphysite church that developed from the later sixth century on and became the dominant church following the Arab conquest. With the imposition of Arabic from the early eighth century onward, Greek gradually lost its primacy. Not much later, however, written Coptic also began to fade out. In the years after the turn of the millennium, the Christian community of Egypt saw the rise of new urban elites and the move of the miaphysite patriarchate from Alexandria to Cairo. Among the results was a large-​scale language shift from Greek and Sahidic Coptic to Arabic and Bohairic Coptic. As a living written language, Sahidic Coptic disappeared even in the countryside beginning in the eleventh century.

22.  Basic information about the so-​called dialects of Coptic is found in volume 8 of A. S. Atiya, The Coptic Encyclopedia (New York: Macmillan, 1991). 23.  For Coptic in Nubia, see J. van der Vliet, “Coptic as a Nubian Literary Language: Four Theses for Discussion,” in W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar, eds., Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–​2 September 2006 (Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean Supplement Series 2.2/​2; Warsaw: Warsaw University Press, 2010), 2.765–​71.

77

78

78

Jacqu es van der Vliet

In its Bohairic variant, Coptic survived—​alongside Arabic—​as an ecclesiastical and liturgical language with a limited functionality, comparable to Latin in the Roman Catholic Church.

3. Coptic Sources The historical and social framework that was just briefly sketched is indispensable for a proper understanding of the status of Coptic literary sources such as the texts that are our focus here.24 Whereas it is uncertain how much the early fathers of monasticism actually wrote in Coptic, even the fifth-​century abbot Shenoute, who is now considered the major Coptic writer, was a bilingual author.25 In the domains of higher theology and liturgy, Greek remained the standard practically until its replacement by Arabic (theology) and Bohairic (liturgy). Even much of Christian Egypt’s more popular literature surviving in Coptic was undoubtedly translated from Greek or—​conceivably—​diffused simultaneously in both languages. Actually, behind almost every Coptic literary text—​as distinct from documentary texts, such as letters, contracts, etc.—​a Greek original can be suspected.26 The final stage of Coptic is marked by language loss. Egyptian Christianity represents a vital tradition even today, but the two literary languages of late antique Egypt, Greek and Coptic, have been gradually replaced by Arabic, also for ecclesiastical purposes. In the tenth century a translation movement arose, which gradually transposed the literary heritage of Christian Egypt into Arabic. According to a widely accepted periodization, this movement gained momentum from the late eleventh to early-​thirteenth centuries to culminate in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the “Golden Age” of Copto-​Arabic literature.27 A  similar translation movement in the fourteenth century, connected with the person of Abuna Salama, did the same thing for Ge’ez, the literary language of medieval Ethiopia, which—​like Christian Nubia—​depended from the miaphysite patriarchate of Alexandria.28 A text from late antique Egypt, therefore, typically described a complicated linguistic trajectory involving translation from Greek into Sahidic into Bohairic into Arabic into Ge’ez. This happened, for instance, to mention just one well known example, to the Testament of Abraham.29 A by-​path could lead from Greek or Sahidic to Old-​Nubian, 24.  S. Emmel, “Coptic Literature in the Byzantine and Early Islamic World,” in R. S. Bagnall, ed., Egypt in the Byzantine world, 300–​700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 83–​102, provides an idea of some of the issues at stake in the study of so-​called Coptic literature. 25.  See E. Lucchesi, “Chénouté a-​t-​il écrit en grec?,” in R. G. Coquin, ed., Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont. Contributions à l’étude des christianismes orientaux (Cahiers d’orientalisme 20; Genève:  Patrick Cramer, 1988), 201–​10. 26.  E. Lucchesi, “Un corpus éphrémien en copte. Novum auctarium au dossier copte de l’Éphrem grec,” AnBoll 116 (1998): 107–​114 at 114. 27.  See S. Rubenson, “Translating the Tradition: Some Remarks on the Arabization of the Patristic Heritage in Egypt,” Medieval Encounters 2 (1996): 4–​14. 28.  A. van Lantschoot, “Abbâ Salâmâ, métropolite d’Éthiopie (1348–​1388) et son rôle de traducteur,” in Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi etiopici (Roma, 2–​4 aprile 1959) (Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1960), 397–​402. 29. Heide, Das Testament Abrahams,  4–​5.

79

C opt ic

the written language that rose to prominence in Nubia around the eleventh century, with the decline of Sahidic Coptic. But because Nubian Christianity became extinct after 1500, little survives in Old Nubian.30 This implies that sources in the Coptic language typically cover only part of a longer chain of transmission that for a particular text, such as the Testament of Abraham, may range from an ancient Greek model to a relatively modern Ge’ez version. Chronologically, this part coincides with the period between the rise of literary Coptic in the early fourth century and its demise in the eleventh century. Limiting oneself to this linguistic slice of time is artificial as it tends to obscure the continuities in the literary tradition of Christian Northeast Africa in favor of the discontinuities. “Coptic literature,” considered to be the literature of Christian Egypt, is more than literature in Coptic. Yet when we focus on the Coptic-​language source material, discontinuity and even fragmentation seem to be its dominant characteristics. Language loss implies the interruption of a literary tradition. The earlier tradition becomes inaccessible unless it is transposed into another language. Outside the restricted domain of a bilingual (Bohairic-​Arabic) liturgy, texts in Coptic became largely inaccessible for their audiences after the eleventh century, and there was no reason to copy or even preserve them any longer. As a result, an overwhelming majority of surviving Coptic texts are archaeological artefacts, stray finds preserved in the dry climate of Upper Egypt, in particular, and Lower Nubia. They normally owe their survival not to the caring love of successive generations of librarians, but to blind chance. Frequently, even their precise provenance is not or is imperfectly known. And just as often they survive in incomplete or damaged manuscripts or even in the state of loose leaves or mere snippets. The latter applies, for example, to the Coptic Life of Adam and Eve, attested in two versions, a Sahidic one and a Fayyumic one, in both cases as single leaves, each much damaged.31 Apart from quite a lot of stray fragments and isolated finds, often without any known provenance, the bulk of the surviving literary texts in Coptic stem from a limited number of manuscript hoards or, in the terminology of Tito Orlandi, “bibliological units.”32 Originally parts of monastic or church libraries, these hoards were discovered, usually detached from their original contexts, in the course of the past few centuries. Following more-​or-​less complicated detours, they are now treasured in institutional libraries all over the world. The best-​known provenances are, from north to south, the Monastery of Saint Macarius, in the Wadi Natrun (the ancient Sketis);33 Medinet Madi and the Monastery

30.  As far as I am aware, no Old Testament apocrypha in Old Nubian have been identified so far, but this may be a matter of time. 31.  Recently commented and translated in S. Gathercole, “The Life of Adam and Eve (Coptic fragments): A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 22–​27. 32.  T. Orlandi, “A Terminology for the Identification of Coptic Literary Documents,” Journal of Coptic Studies 15 (2013): 87–​94 at 91. 33.  A. Hebbelynck and A. van Lantschoot, Codices coptici Vaticani, Barberiniani, Borgiani, Rossiani. Tomus I: Codices coptici Vaticani (Città del Vaticano: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1937); and H. G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries

79

80

80

Jacqu es van der Vliet

of Saint Michael near Hamouli, in the Fayyum;34 and the White Monastery near Sohag; Nag Hammadi; and the Monastery of Saint Mercurius in Edfu, in Upper Egypt.35 Several of these collections share a history of discovery and subsequent marketing that is hazy at best and quite frequently the subject of controversy, as, for instance, in the case of the Nag Hammadi codices, the most widely known of these “bibliological units.” Designating these hoards as “libraries” (as in “the Nag Hammadi library”) is hardly appropriate, for next to nothing is known about their relation to the greater wholes of which they have likely once been part. But with rare exceptions, the circumstances of their acquisition or disposal are likewise unknown. Extensive colophons, mentioning donors and recipients of individual codices, do not occur before the ninth century.36 To sum up, Coptic literary sources represent a discontinuous tradition that—​to the extent it survives—​owes its survival in large part to mere chance. Even the sometimes quite considerable “libraries” that have been found are an insufficient basis for the reconstruction of a “Coptic literature.” Such a reconstruction would, moreover, have to take into account that at no time in its history was Coptic the sole language of the literature of Christian Egypt. Coptic literary sources need always be studied in tandem with Greek, Arabic, and even Ethiopic literary sources. As a practical matter, to obtain a picture of what apocrypha were available in Coptic in late antique, early medieval Egypt, the first volume of Georg Graf ’s history of Christian Arabic literature is indispensable, not to mention van Haelst’s list of the Jewish and Christian Greek papyri or the catalogues of the many libraries holding manuscripts in Ethiopic.

4.  The Social Life of Texts The codices or the remains of them that make up the abovementioned hoards, as well as many smaller ones, were originally expensive books, written on costly materials—​papyrus and parchment, and only from the tenth century on also paper—​and often with sumptuous leather bindings. With the exception of some mostly rather early “pocketbooks,” such as the Berlin Gnostic codex,37 most of them are sizeable volumes, frequently convolutes, of the Wâdi ’n Natrûn, vol. 1: New Coptic Texts from the Monastery of Saint Macarius (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926). 34.  Medinet Madi: C. Schmidt and H.-​J. Polotsky, “Ein Mani Fund in Ägypten: Originalschriften des Mani und seiner Schüler,” Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-​hist. Klasse, 1933, no. 1, 4–​90; Hamouli:  L. Depuydt, Catalogue of Coptic Manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library (Corpus van verluchte handschriften 4; Leuven: Peeters, 1993). 35.  Sohag: T. Orlandi, “The Library of the Monastery of Saint Shenute at Atripe’,” in A. Egberts et al., eds., Perspectives on Panopolis:  An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest (Papyrologica Lugduno-​Batava, 31; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 211–​31; Nag Hammadi: J. M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3rd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1988); and Edfu: B. Layton, Catalogue of Coptic Literary Manuscripts in the British Library Acquired Since the Year 1906 (London: British Library, 1987), xxvi–​xxx. 36.  Sahidic colophons, to the extent available in the 1920s, are assembled in A. van Lantschoot, Recueil des colophons des manuscrits chrétiens d’Égypte, vol. 1: Les colophons coptes des manuscrits sahidiques (Bibliothèque du Muséon 1. Louvain: Istas, 1929; repr. Milano: Cisalpino-​Goliardica, 1973); for the other languages of Christian Egypt no such collection exists. 37.  See M. Tardieu and J. D. Dubois, Introduction à la littérature gnostique, vol. 1: Collections retrouvées avant 1945 (Initiations au christianisme ancien; Paris: Éditions du CERF and Éditions du CNRS, 1986), 99–​138.

81

C opt ic

containing more than one text. They were originally destined for a prestigious function in the communities that had ordered them. Yet some time after being copied and donated, they were discarded by these communities, for reasons that are usually unknown (the community’s demise, a shift in literary preferences, or language death). For the texts involved, these manuscripts represent the end of a transmission cycle, at least in the Coptic language. Only pure chance or a work’s apparent popularity work allows us from time to time to compare earlier and later versions and trace the development from a text over time. Again, the Testament of Abraham comes to mind that exists in a fourth-​century Sahidic version and a tenth-​century Bohairic manuscript.38 The various manuscripts of the popular Apocalypse of Elijah in Sahidic (three) and Achmimic (one) cover a more limited chronological range (fourth century to fifth century) and are all fragmentary.39 In general—​for the reasons that have already been explained—​the Coptic language transmission lacks both width and depth. Not even the Sahidic Old Testament survives completely. Calling these Coptic texts, including the Coptic apocrypha, literary texts may give rise to serious misunderstandings. They were, as a rule, destined for public reading in a given community. They were more properly liturgical texts. This is most obviously so in the final phase of their transmission in Coptic, roughly the ninth to eleventh centuries. This period has been characterized as that of the “synaxarial standardization,” when texts were provided with preambles (conventionally called “titles”) mentioning authors, subjects, and liturgical dates, which enabled the texts’ formal insertion in the liturgical calendar (the Synaxarium) of the Coptic Church.40 But it is no less obvious from the performative and poetical strategies that characterize, for instance, the texts from the earlier Nag Hammadi codices.41 The roughly contemporaneous (fourth/​fifth century) Sahidic manuscript Sa3 of the Apocalypse of Elijah bears a curious punctuation system that is best explained as a means to facilitate reading aloud.42 Coptic apocrypha were shaped and transmitted within what has been called a “textual community.”43 They were embedded in the social practices of the communities that

38.  Sahidic:  unpublished, from a fragmentary codex in Cologne, for which see Schenke and Robinson, Der koptische Kölner Papyruscodex 3221. Bohairic:  Hebbelynck and van Lantschoot, Codices, 423–​26, no.  61/​5; cf. D. C. Allison, Testament of Abraham (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2003), 8; Heide, Testament Abrahams, 5 and 8; and Dochhorn, Testament Jakobs,  13–​18. 39.  See D. Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt:  The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 21–​23; cf. A. Pietersma et al., The Apocalypse of Elijah Based on P. Chester Beatty 2018 (SBLTT 19, PS 9; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1981), 1. 40.  Orlandi, “Terminology,” 89–​90 and 93; for the development of the so-​called titles, see P. Buzi, Titoli e autori nella tradizione Copta: Studio storico e tipologico (Biblioteca degli “Studi di egittologia e di papirologia” 2; Pisa: Giardini, 2005). 41.  For these performative aspects, see, e.g., J. van der Vliet, “The Coptic Gnostic Texts as Christian Apocryphal Literature,” in S. Emmel et al., eds., Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit: Akten des 6.  Internationalen Koptologenkongresses, Münster (Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 6; Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1999), 2.553–​62. 42. Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt, 22; description: Pietersma et al., Apocalypse of Elijah,  2–​3. 43.  J. Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium:  Celestial Journey and Local Community in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2007), 5. On narrative, social practice, and identity

81

82

82

Jacqu es van der Vliet

selected, acquired, adapted and recited them in order to pass on the shared values of the group. In addition to reproducing these communities, they defined them socially, vis-​à-​vis other communities, but also teleologically, in a historical perspective, and theologically, in their relation to the supernatural. As a participant in these social practices, the texts themselves are not static unities, but subject to change over time. They are themselves affected by the process that they help to shape. The transmission of apocrypha—​and so-​called literary texts in general—​is not a “natural” process, but a matter of choice and negotiation. Instead of cherishing a “legacy,” considered as something one happens to inherit, transmitting these texts is a way of acting out varying Christian identities. Their selection, adaptation, and use are conditioned by social practices that were articulated differently over time and place. This process is reflected in, for instance, changing titles and attributions, but also in the very form of the texts themselves. As we have seen, in the period of Tito Orlandi’s “synaxarial standardization,” the texts were adapted for insertion in the liturgical calendar by means of introductory statements about authorship, genre, subject matter, and liturgical date, so-​called titles. The Coptic manuscript tradition of the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, may serve as an illustration. The tenth-​century Bohairic manuscript of all three Testaments has a preamble (or title) that attributes the text to Saint Athanasius, the fourth-​century Church Father, a favorite author in later Egyptian monasticism. It moreover assigns them to the genre of the “coming forth from the body” (i.e., the description of the death) of the saints in question and adds the information that the text itself was found by Athanasius “in some ancient books of our holy fathers the apostles,” thus claiming—​beyond Athanasian authorship—​apostolic authority for the contents of the text. Finally, it establishes the liturgical commemoration of all three on 28 Mesore (= 21 August), the supposed day of their decease.44 The slightly earlier (ninth-​century) Sahidic manuscript of the Testament of Isaac has only a similar, though much briefer preamble, which states the genre of the text and the date of Isaac’s death (here, surprisingly, dated to 24 Mesore) but not its Athanasian authorship or its provenance from apostolic books.45 Finally, the fourth-​century Sahidic manuscript of the Testament of Abraham lacks any such preamble.46 The development of these preambles illustrates a systematic adaptation of the texts to the demands of standardized liturgical reading practices and a desire to underpin the authority of the text by fictional devices (pseudepigraphy, book finds) that are part and parcel of the literature of Christian Egypt. In addition to this presentational frame, the texts themselves were subject to an ongoing process of editorial revision.47 The phenomenon is well known from not only Coptic construction, see the excellent chapter in A. Georgakopoulou, Small Stories, Interaction and Identities (Studies in Narrative 8; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007), 5–​20. 44.  Hebbelynck and van Lantschoot, Codices, 423; cf. J. Dochhorn, Testament Jakobs ( JSHRZ 1.7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014), 13–​18. 45. Depuydt, Catalogue, 354, no. 172/​2. 46. Heide, Testament Abrahams, 8, after information provided by Gesa Schenke. 47.  The following remarks are largely based on J. H. F. Dijkstra and J. van der Vliet, “The Earliest Manuscript of the Coptic Life of Aaron (British Library, Or. 7558 [89] [93] [150]),” VC 69 (2015): 368–​92, which contains

83

C opt ic

but Christian Oriental literature in general. Hardly ever do two manuscripts of the same work offer identical texts, and the variant readings are so important that they are difficult to accommodate in a normal critical apparatus. Frequently, whenever there is more than one manuscript witness of a text, editors are obliged to transcribe these witnesses separately in parallel columns48 or in superimposed paragraphs.49 The manuscript transmission of a given text does not represent an effort at reproducing as faithfully as possible an “Urtext” but, rather, an ongoing process of updating the text.50 This is not an arbitrary process, guided by for example esthetical criteria, but a deliberate effort at enhancing the effectiveness of the text as an edifying (or better, persuasive) text, that was meant for oral delivery to and aural reception by a Christian congregation.51 The text was, primarily, a “voiced text” in the sense of John Miles Foley: a text that though written down was intended for oral performance and remains “by definition incomplete without that performance.”52 As a result, variant readings can be expected to reflect the profound influence of formulaic language, as well as textual engineering related to the expressivity of the text. On the other hand, the written text as a material object, a manuscript, represented a value of its own that was both of a symbolic and an economic order. It was commissioned by a well-​to-​do sponsor who donated it to a church or monastery, where it was lavishly bound and carefully kept, to be shown on solemn occasions only. Copying a manuscript demanded a beautiful scribal hand, but also care and accuracy. As a text for liturgical use it was a “voiced text,” but its written form was a matter not of improvisation but of focused editorial activity. For all these reasons, Coptic literary texts attested in multiple manuscripts may retain, over time and place, the same narrative, told in the same order and in roughly the same manner, but the variant readings will often go beyond the habitual numbers of lexical variants and scribal errors found in manuscripts of classical or biblical texts. Apocryphal texts are no exception: witness, for example, the widely varying textual form of the various fragmentary versions of the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, which make it difficult if not impossible to fit them into a stemma. If in some cases, particularly for texts that are available in different dialects, divergences may be explained by postulating separate

a detailed comparison of the text of part of the Life of Aaron, a Sahidic hagiographical text, as preserved in a fragmentary sixth-​or seventh-​century papyrus manuscript and a late tenth-​century paper codex. 48.  An arbitrary example: M. Westerhoff ’s edition of the Sahidic Book of the Resurrection, with up to three columns of text in several places: M. Westerhoff, Auferstehung und Jenseits im koptischen “Buch der Auferstehung Jesu Christi, unseres Herrn” (Orientalia biblica et christiana 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999). 49.  E.g., K. H. Kuhn, A Panegyric on John the Baptist (CSCO 268. Louvain: CSCO, 1966), 33–​34: the three witnesses of the Sahidic above each other. 50.  See N. Lubomierski, Die Vita Sinuthii: Form-​und Überlieferungsgeschichte der hagiographischen Texte über Schenute den Archimandriten (STAC 45; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 205–​11, who adopts the term “living literature,” from P. F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); cf. Emmel, “Coptic Literature,” 94. 51.  See E. D. Zakrzewska, “Masterplots and Martyrs:  Narrative Techniques in Bohairic Hagiography,” in F. Hagen et al., eds., Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic Approaches (OLA 189; Louvain: Peeters, 2011), 499–​524, also for the ways in which this affects narrative texts. 52.  J. M. Foley, How to Read an Oral Poem (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 43.

83

84

84

Jacqu es van der Vliet

translations from a Greek Vorlage, in particular long-​term variation, will rather be the result of textual engineering. In general, therefore, Coptic literary texts are characterized by an unstable form. In the Coptic domain, hunting for “Urtexte” and authoritative “recensions” is a hazardous hobby.

5.  Old Testament Apocrypha? There are valid reasons for designating the Coptic heirs to what in other contexts may be called Second Temple literature or Early Jewish texts as “apocrypha of the Old Testament.” Quite apart from the question of their often-​debated age and origin, the transmission of these texts in late antique and early medieval Egypt and Nubia attests to the ongoing Christian reflection on the heroes of the Septuagint Bible and their important role in the narrative universe of local Christianities. For those circles in which the authority of the Old Testament was contested, this was no less true than for those who were inclined to accept it as Holy Scripture. Even the fierce polemics of the Gnostic Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NH VII, 2 = CAVT 55), which apostrophizes the protagonists of the Septuagint Bible, including the prophets, as “a laughing stock,” maintains a standard Christian conception of the Old Testament. “From Adam—​the author makes Jesus say—​to Moses and John the Baptist, none of them knew me or my brothers” (64, 33–​65, 1). For the Gnostic author, the Old Testament—​up to and including John the Baptist—​was historia, though not necessarily historia sacra, and as such object of reflection. Also, the use of the more problematic term of “apocrypha” can be defended, insofar as it is an—​admittedly rough and imprecise—​way of demarcating texts from an established scriptural canon. A canon of Christian scripture began to take shape from the second century on and acquired—​at least for mainstream Christianity—​its definitive status in the fourth century, precisely in the period when biblical and nonbiblical Christian literature started to be rendered in Coptic. The very distinction between canonical and extracanonical writings informed the polemics of Egyptian authors, such as, Shenoute of Atripe in the fifth century, John of Parallos in the late sixth, and pseudo-​Severus of Hermopolis in the—​presumably—​eleventh centuries.53 It enabled these and other polemists to take their particular stance against the circulation of what in their eyes were undesirable texts. The

53.  Shenoute: H.-​J. Cristea, Schenute von Atripe: Contra Origenistas (STAC 60; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). John: A. van Lantschoot, “Fragments coptes d’une homélie de Jean de Parallos contre les livres hérétiques,” Studi e testi 121 (1946): 296–​312. Pseudo-​Severus’s Kitâb al-​îdâh: M. Swanson, “The Specifically Egyptian Character of a Coptic Arabic Text: Chapter Nine of the Kitâb al-​îdâh of Sawîrus ibn al-​Muqaffa,” Medieval Encounters 2 (1996):  214–​27 (for the date:  Swanson, “Recent Developments in Copto-​Arabic Studies, 1996–​2000,” in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet, eds., Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden 27 August–​2 September 2000 [OLA 133; Louvain:  Peeters, 2004], 1.239–​67 at 245). Even when a text, such as the Apocryphon of John, advertised itself—​in a necessarily positive manner—​as an “apocryphon,” a similar distinction was implied; see Z. Pleše, The Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative and Cosmology in the Apocryphon of John (NHMS 52; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 7–​9.

85

C opt ic

term “apocryphal” is about making distinctions and that is precisely what at least part of the Christian audiences of so-​called apocrypha did. In the Coptic domain, therefore, the designation “apocrypha of the Old Testament,” unlike labels such as Second Temple literature or Early Jewish texts, can claim a certain “emic” pertinence. It has, moreover, the advantage of being a conventional designation that for modern audiences evokes a familiar body of texts with more-​or-​less distant roots in the world of ancient Israel, say, the texts listed in Haelewyck’s Clauis. Yet, in my view, this traditional terminology favors a triple process of decontextualization. First, by reifying a certain categorization of texts, it severs the link with the actual practices by which biblical traditions were transmitted within the “textual communities” or, perhaps better, “communities of practice” that received them, used them, and passed them on in late antique and early medieval Egypt and Nubia. As I have argued here, it was these communities that shaped and reshaped such traditions over time and place, both on the level of their meaning (social and conceptual) and on the level of the texts themselves (form and contents). Second, the categorization of certain Coptic texts as “Old Testament apocrypha” isolates an arbitrary group of texts from the broader reception, literary and liturgical, but also, for instance, artistically, of Old Testament themes and figures within Egyptian Christianity. What Old Testament apocrypha testify to is the reception of literary traditions about biblical protagonists within Christian communities, which entails a much wider definition of the field of research than can be gauged from the Clauis, however useful it remains. Thirdly, the body of texts assembled in the Clauis does not represent a real corpus but cuts through various genres. This is not just restating the obvious fact that “apocrypha” do not constitute a genre. The category rather negates genre. Yet “genre” is much more than a mere type of text identified by formal features. In the words of Alexandra Georgakopoulou, genre is “a catalyst, a powerful analytic way of bringing together texts and practices, linking ways of speaking with producing social life in the semiotic world.”54 Projecting the category of “Old Testament apocrypha” upon any body of texts transmitted in Coptic robs us of this analytic tool. I will illustrate the second and third of my points with a few examples, citing actual Coptic texts. Traditions appropriating Old Testament characters and narratives are not at all limited to texts that can claim to be Old Testament apocrypha. They are frequently incorporated in settings that are meant to clarify their Christian meaning. Thus the Adam traditions that are meant to articulate specific Gnostic ideas about Fall and Redemption in the widely read Apocryphon of John are framed in a revelation discourse in which Jesus addresses his disciple John.55 As I  will argue, these Adam traditions do not turn the Apocryphon into a thinly disguised Jewish text. Similarly, beyond Gnostic Christianity, a well-​known Sahidic homily on the angel of death, Abbaton, attributed to 54. Georgakopoulou, Small Stories, 7. 55.  See the discussion of the opening paragraphs of the Apocryphon in Pleše, Poetics,  7–​73.

85

86

86

Jacqu es van der Vliet

an archbishop Timothy of Alexandria (CPG 2530), relates far older traditions about the creation of Adam within the frame of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples, itself contained in an ancient book purportedly discovered by Timothy in a library in Jerusalem.56 Obviously, neither the homily by pseudo-​Timothy nor the reported dialogue can be called “Old Testament apocrypha.” Yet they offer a valuable instance of the reception of Jewish traditions in Christian Egyptian angelology. As for the matter of genre, obviously both the Old Testament and later Jewish literature provided models for the creation of properly Christian genres, particularly in the apocalyptic domain. Yet with the reception of such models they became embedded in Christian practices and themselves Christian texts. The striking example of the Bohairic Testaments of the Three Patriarchs and the Sahidic Testament of Isaac has been quoted here. Whatever the historical pedigree of the three so-​called testaments may be, their Coptic preambles (or titles) explicitly assign them to the broader Egyptian genre of the “coming forth from the body.” This means that they should be judged by the same criteria as similar texts that describe the death of the Virgin Mary or her bridegroom, Saint Joseph.57 For their late antique and medieval audiences, these were basically texts about the dangerous passage to the other world, as experienced by major saints.58 Perhaps even more than the Virgin Mary, the three Patriarchs were central to Christian reflection on dying. Their very persons held out the promise of Paradise as articulated in commemorative liturgy, on tombstones and in paintings on church walls.59 As David Frankfurter has shown, various genres of apocalyptic discourse remained valid as models of revelation till well into medieval times. In the Gnostic domain, the number of Coptic texts that, according to Frankfurter, following a classification proposed by F. T. Fallon, derive their authority from Jewish apocalyptic models of otherworldly revelation by far exceeds the number of texts that are habitually classified as Old Testament

56.  The motif of the book find, already noticed above in the title of the Bohairic Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, is a staple element of Coptic pseudepigraphic texts. See R. van den Broek, Pseudo-​Cyril of Jerusalem, On the Life and Passion of Christ. A Coptic Apocryphon (VCSup 118; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 9–​13. Briefly on the Adam traditions in this text: M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (GAP; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 80–​83. 57.  For Mary and death in the Byzantine world, see B. E. Daley, “‘At the Hour of Our Death’: Mary’s Dormition and Christian Dying in Late Patristic and Early Byzantine Literature,” DOP 55 (2001): 71–​89; for the Coptic Transitus-​literature, M. Geerard, Clauis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992), 130–​36; T. Orlandi, Coptic Texts Relating to the Virgin Mary: An Overview (Roma: CIM, 2008); and J. van der Vliet, “Literature, Liturgy, Magic:  A Dynamic Continuum,” in P. Buzi and A. Camplani, eds., Christianity in Egypt:  Literary Production and Intellectual Trends; Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125; Roma: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 2011), 555–​74. For the death of Joseph, Geerard, CANT 60. 58.  See D. Frankfurter, “Amente Demons and Christian Syncretism,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 14 (2012): 83–​101, for their traditional Egyptian background. 59.  Liturgy and tombstones:  J. van der Vliet, “‘What Is Man?’ The Nubian Tradition of Coptic Funerary Inscriptions,” in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet, eds., Nubian Voices; Studies in Christian Nubian Culture ( Journal of Juristic Papyrology Supplement 15; Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation, 2011), 171–​224 at 197–​201. Wall painting: van Loon, Gate of Heaven, 176–​80; and G. J. M. van Loon, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Paradise in Coptic Wall Painting,” Visual Resources 19 (2003): 67–​79.

87

C opt ic

apocrypha.60 With the coming of Muslim rule, the Apocalypse of Elijah informed an early apocalyptic reaction on the new religious and political situation, the so-​called Apocalypse of Shenoute.61 The Bohairic Fourteenth Vision of Daniel, also reacting to Muslim rule, is a local exponent of a broader stream of Byzantine apocalyptic writings that circulated under the name of Daniel.62 It enjoyed sufficient authority in late medieval times to be included as an extra chapter of the canonical Book of Daniel in a number of Bohairic biblical manuscripts. The Sahidic Mysteries of Saint John, a treasure trove of bizarre traditions, on, among others Adam and Eve, is a medieval example of a “Tour of Heaven,” now attributed to a New Testament saint.63 In fact, Frankfurter had already observed that it is highly doubtful that the audiences of Coptic apocalyptic traditions distinguished “between extra-​biblical narratives with Jewish origins and those composed by Christians.”64 As I have argued, it is imperative to take the argument one step further. For most of these audiences, the stories about Enoch or Abraham were narratives about Old Testament saints, treated on a par with similar extrabiblical narratives about the saints of the New Testament, such as the Virgin Mary or Saint Joseph, and transmitted in the same liturgical setting. The example of the Fourteenth Vision of Daniel shows that in some cases even the borderline between the biblical and the extrabiblical could become blurred.65 Pre-​Christian traditions were, irrespective of their Jewish (and in some cases traditional Egyptian) origins, worked into the fabric of Christian revelation discourses about the celestial world or the early history of mankind, such as transmitted by the Mysteries of Saint John or pseudo-​Timothy’s Homily on Abbaton. Gnostic revelation discourses are not exceptional in this respect, as the example of the Apocryphon of John shows. Yet the presence of these traditions in the Coptic Gnostic texts has been cited in support of historical claims that in my view cannot be substantiated. This is enough reason to turn briefly to the Gnostic transmission of Adam traditions.

60.  Frankfurter, “Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses,” 156–​57, referring to Fallon, “Gnostic Apocalypses.” For the supposed “Jewishness” of these Gnostic texts, see below pp. 88–​91. 61.  Transmitted in the Arabic Vita Sinuthii tradition; see Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt, 225; and J. van Lent, “The Apocalypse of Shenute,” in D. Thomas and B. Roggema, eds., Christian-​Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, vol. 1: 600–​900 (HCMR 11; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 182–​85. 62.  See J. van Lent, “The Fourteenth Vision of Daniel,” in D. Thomas and A. Mallett, eds., Christian-​Muslim Relations:  A Bibliographical History, vol. 3, 1050–​1200 (HCMR 15; Leiden:  Brill, 2011), 697–​703. For the Daniel apocalypses in general, see L. DiTommaso, The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature (SVTP 20; Leiden:  Brill, 2005); and DiTommaso, “The Apocryphal Daniel Apocalypses:  Works, Manuscripts, and Overview,” in J. Verheyden and J. Schroeter, eds., Is There an “Apocalyptic” World View? Images of World and Cosmos, Future and Past, in Late Antique Apocalyptic Writings, special issue of ETL 94 (2018): 275–​316. 63.  Briefly mentioned in Baun, Tales of Another Byzantium, 112. This fascinating text (Geerard, CANT 333) deserves a full-​fledged study. 64.  Frankfurter, “Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses,” 186. 65.  A rare other example is the Prophecy to Passhur (CAVT 228), on which see D. D. Hannah, “Jeremy’s Prophecy to Pashhur: A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 367–​79.

87

8

88

Jacqu es van der Vliet

6.  The Gnostic Adam: Toward a Change of Paradigm Gnosticism is generally considered an elusive phenomenon.66 Yet hardly any other ancient heresy is documented by such a wealth of original texts, preserved in large part in Coptic. These were copied in beautiful codices, which attests to their popularity in Christian, most likely ascetic milieus in Upper Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries, when the codices were produced.67 The Nag Hammadi codices are, of course, the most famous, but others (the Bruce and Askew codices) have been known since the eighteenth century and new texts are still being brought to light, such as the Gospel of Judas.68 Despite evidence that overwhelmingly points at a Christian transmission, influential hypotheses have been developed in modern times about the pre-​Christian origins of Gnosticism. A  theory about its Oriental, more specifically Persian, roots bears the stamp of the early twentieth-​century religionsgeschichtliche Schule and is now largely abandoned.69 Influential until the present day is the claim of a pre-​Christian Jewish Gnosticism that would have shaped the later Gnostic movement.70 The thesis of the Jewish origins of Gnosticism seems to find support in the Gnostic predilection for Jewish apocalyptic models and Old Testament themes and narratives, in particular about Adam and Eve. In the present context, the question whether these features can indeed be taken at face value to claim the “Jewishness” of Gnostic texts is methodologically relevant. I will try to answer it for one representative text, the Apocalypse of Adam, listed as an “Old Testament apocryphon” in Haelewyck’s Clauis (CAVT 12 = NH V, 5) and a fine example of a composition for which still recently pre-​Christian origins and, in addition to Jewish, even ancient Egyptian models have been claimed.71 The Apocalypse of Adam is preserved in a single, damaged Sahidic manuscript from the Nag Hammadi hoard.72 Students claiming its high antiquity were most likely influenced by 66.  For a balanced and well-​informed recent discussion of Gnosticism with particular relevance for the present theme, see D. Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). My own views on the subject were developed at length in my doctoral dissertation (“L’image du mal”), see note 72 and my article, “The Coptic Gnostic Texts.” 67.  See now H. Lundhaug and L. Jenott, The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices (STAC 97; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 68.  The sensation generated by the Gospel of Judas unduly overshadowed the interesting discovery of a leaf from a second Coptic manuscript of the “apocalyptic” revelation discourse Zostrianos (NH VIII, 1); see R. Kasser and P. Luisier, “P. Bodmer XLIII: Un feuillet de Zostrien,” Le Muséon 120 (2007): 251–​72. For the Coptic Gnostic codices discovered before World War II, see Tardieu and J. D. Dubois, Introduction à la littérature gnostique. On the Christian gnostic writings, see also ­chapter 22 in this volume by Dylan Burns. 69.  See briefly, Brakke, Gnostics, 83. 70.  Discussed by Brakke, Gnostics,  84–​86. 71.  See, e.g., D. M. Parrott, “The 13 Kingdoms of the Apocalypse of Adam: Origin, Meaning and Significance,” NovT 31 (1989): 67–​87 at 68: “A first century C.E. date would not be surprising”; even pre-​Christian dates have been defended, most recently by A. J. Welburn, From a Virgin Womb: The “Apocalypse of Adam” and the Virgin Birth (BIS 91; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 61–​83. Also, Frankfurter quotes the text as an example of “Gnostic biblical pseudepigrapha with no or little Christian editing” (“Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses,” 162). 72.  Editions are available in D. M. Parrott, Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (NHS 11; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 151–96 by G. W. MacRae, “The Apocalypse of Adam,” in D. M. Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–​5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (NHS 11; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 151–​96; and F. Morard, L’Apocalypse d’Adam (NH V, 5) (BCNH, section “textes” 15; Québec and Louvain: Les presses de l’université Laval and Peeters, 1985). The text is discussed at several places in Brakke, Gnostics, 62–​78;

89

C opt ic

its veiled and mystifying language, which never mentions Christ by name, but no less by the extensive rewriting of the early chapters of Genesis, in the first part of the text, and the apocalyptic hymn which dominates its second part. The Apocalypse of Adam presents itself as a spoken testament left by Adam to his son Seth. It recounts from a Gnostic bias the adventures of the first human couple and predicts the harsh fate of their descendants up to and including the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. In its opening parts it is evidently dependent on the biblical book of Genesis, but also on nonbiblical Adamic literature such as the Life of Adam and Eve, particularly for its literary form.73 The second part (from 76, 8 onward) continues Adam’s prophecy, but bears a stronger apocalyptic character. It predicts the arrival of “the Illuminator,” whose power is superior to that of “the God of the powers,” the biblical god, and the final triumph of the “undominated race” of the true Gnostics, the descendants of Seth. The whole set-​up of the work, which for obvious reasons cannot be analyzed in any detail here, is marked by an overt polemic perspective. Its author is demarcating the identity of his own social group vis-​à-​vis others whose identity remains implicit. In doing so, he or she makes use of traditional literary means. The first part is a narrative that derives from biblical and extrabiblical sources, but in which the traditional roles are inverted: the god of the Old Testament is the demonic persecutor of the higher faculties in man, Adam and Eve are his first victims. The apocalyptic second part adopts a hymn-​like framework in order to refute invalid views about the origins of “the Illuminator.” His arrival created confusion and error among the powers of evil and their henchmen, which in turn generated mistaken ideas about his identity. The Apocalypse of Adam enumerates these erroneous views of the Illuminator in the form of thirteen divergent opinions about his origin. Each of these is assigned to a different “kingdom” or “empire.” The thirteen empires give the passage an apocalyptic ring, suggestive of a succession in time. Yet they are not primarily conceived as historic-​political units, as in other apocalyptic literature from the biblical book of Daniel onward. On a cosmological level they correspond to the thirteen lower eons (often split up into twelve plus one) that are found in various other Gnostic writings.74 At the same time, the term is expressive of an important ontological distinction:  the true Gnostics

cf. J. van der Vliet, “L’image du mal en Égypte: Démonologie et cosmogonie d’après les textes gnostiques coptes” (PhD diss., Leiden University, 1996), 146–​48 and 362–​64. I briefly discuss the text’s picture of Solomon, in van der Vliet, “Solomon in Egyptian Gnosticism,” in J. Verheyden, ed., The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (TBN 16; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 197–​218 at 211–​14. The present discussion partly overlaps with that in J. van der Vliet, “The Embroidered Garment: Egyptian Perspectives on ‘Apocryphity’ and ‘Orthodoxy,’” in T. Nicklas et al., eds., The Other Side: Apocryphal Perspectives on Ancient Christian “Orthodoxies” (NTOA, SUNT 117; Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2017), 177–​92 at 189–​92. 73.  See, e.g., Morard, Apocalypse, 7–​10 and 62–​64, M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 122; and de Jonge and Tromp, Life of Adam and Eve,  91–​94. 74.  Thus, according to the Gospel of the Egyptians, the saints (that is, the true Gnostics) should “renounce the world and the god of the thirteen eons” (NH III, 2: 63, 17–​18).

89

90

90

Jacqu es van der Vliet

are called “the undominated race” and not therefore subject to any form of “kingship” or “empire” (82, 19–​20).75 The passage about these “empires” and their respective views of the Illuminator has a hymn-​like structure with thirteen stanzas. Each stanza gives a different account of the miraculous origin of the Illuminator, who is endowed with glory and power and finally “comes to the water.” The latter statement, which is repeated at the end of each of the thirteen stanzas, is certainly not a reminiscence of Ancient Egyptian creation myths, as was surmised by earlier scholars.76 The “coming to the water” of the Illuminator is clearly modeled on the theophany of Christ at the river Jordan as found in the Gospels, as is formally proven by a covert echo of Matt 3:15 (in 82, 17–​19: “in order that the lust of those powers [scil. the inferior powers who rule the lower world] be satisfied”) and by the characterization of the Illuminator as “the man upon whom the Holy Spirit came” and who, as a result of the hostility of the powers of evil, will be punished in the flesh (77, 12–​18). In the end, these thirteen accounts, each introduced as an opinion (“the such-​and-​such kingdom says . . .”), are confronted with the point of view of the true Gnostics (“the undominated race says . . . ,” 82, 19–​21). Whereas the thirteen earlier accounts state that the Illuminator “came to the water,” the Gnostics are praised because “they have not been corrupted by their lust (for intercourse) with the angels nor accomplished the works of the powers” (83, 15–​19).77 The work then ends with an overt baptismal polemic, accusing three of the angels presiding over the Gnostic (spiritual) baptism of having “defiled the water of life” (84, 17–​18).78 The polemics of the author focus, therefore, on a correct understanding of the status of the demonized god of the lower world and his role vis-​à-​vis Adam, on a correct understanding of the nature and origins of the Illuminator (who can be identified as Christ), and on a correct understanding of the practice of baptism. Both the baptismal polemic and the inverted roles of God and Adam are recurring themes in a greater body of Christian Gnostic writings.79 These subjects are thematized here and elsewhere to mark the position of the author’s group vis-​à-​vis others and, each in its own way, show that these others must have been Christians. In particular, the frequent Adam theme is not to be seen as the expression of a revolt against (orthodox) Judaism or even as rejection of the Old Testament, which—​as we saw for the Second Treatise of the Great Seth—​tends to be basically accepted 75.  See, further, D. T. Fallon, “The Gnostic Apocalypses,” in J. J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 123–​58. 76.  First by Parrott, “13 Kingdoms.” 77.  The terminology has heavy sexual overtones; baptism by water and sexual defilement are similarly associated in the Gnostic True Testimony (NH IX, 3). 78.  Discussed by van der Vliet, L’image, 379–​82, in partial disagreement with J.-​M. Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien: Études sur la sacramentaire gnostique (BCNH, section “études” 2; Québec and Louvain: Les presses de l’université Laval and Peeters, 1986); cf. R. Roukema, “The Sethian Figures Micheus and Michar and Their Relationship to Micah the Morasthtite,” Gnosis 2 (2017): 1–​14. 79.  For the Adam theme, see G. P. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions (NHMS 58; Leiden:  Brill, 2005); for the baptismal theme, see Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal; cf. Brakke, Gnostics,  74–​83.

91

C opt ic

as a hermeneutic tool. The theme basically reflects Christian perceptions of Fall and Redemption. Ever since Saint Paul, the relation of Fall and Redemption is personified in a dialectic that opposes Adam the protoplast to the new Adam, Christ (Rom 5:12–​19, and 1 Cor 15:21–​22 and 45–​47). In the formula of Paul Ricoeur, the Christ-​event retroactively transformed the fall of Adam into a similar event.80 Reflection on Redemption came to imply reflection on the Fall. The Gnostics accepted the dialectic relationship, but displaced the Fall to a moment prior to the Genesis account, which by this very displacement can only occur in a new and different light. The Apocalypse of Adam juxtaposes narratives of the persecution of man by a demonized god, which entails man’s fall, to narratives about the manifestation of a redeeming illuminator. However the text may be indebted to traditional literary themes and models, its message is a Christian Gnostic one. These themes and models cannot be used to claim a pre-​Christian or even Jewish Gnosticism. Rather, they serve to produce and reproduce the own social group, demarcating its positions from other groups of Christians. For a late antique audience, the Adam narratives and the apocalyptic formulae offered persuasive literary models that had become thoroughly Christianized. The Apocalypse of Adam is no more a “Jewish” text than, for instance, the Apocryphon of John, which develops similar themes at a much greater length based on a revelation of the Savior to his disciple John.81 It is not even, in my view, an Old Testament apocryphon.

7.  Conclusions The curiosity about origins is probably a human universal; and the quest for the roots of things, entirely legitimate. Yet I hope to have shown that searching for pre-​Christian “nuggets” alone in the mass of Coptic language literature is methodologically questionable for various reasons. In a general sense, the concept of “Coptic literature” is a hazy category at best that cannot be used without taking its historical and heuristic limits into consideration. Then, the specificity of the Coptic transmission of literary texts, texts that are basically liturgical texts, shaped by communal practices, poses a serious challenge to traditional text-​historical and text-​critical approaches. Finally, such pre-​Christian, particularly, Jewish, texts and traditions as entered the scope of Egyptian Christianity came to function within a Christian context. They came to be embedded in the social practices of Christian communities that they helped produce and reproduce. Ancient themes and genres became part of a broader literature in which the heroes of the Old Testament embodied Christian values no less than those of the New Testament. Such themes and genres were not static entities, given once and for all, but means to articulate local Christian identities that changed and developed over time. This process goes far beyond the appropriation of one religious tradition by another religion. Rather, as David Frankfurter remarked in 1996 on apocalyptic 80.  P. Ricoeur, Finitude et culpabilité. II: La symbolique du mal (Paris: Aubier, 1960), 14. 81.  Compare Pleše, Poetics, 275.

91

92

92

Jacqu es van der Vliet

features in the Egyptian Martyrs Acts, such generic features show “the thorough assimilation of an ‘apocalypticism’ in the scribal world of Coptic Christianity.”82 Terminology such as “Old Testament apocrypha” (and a fortiori “Second Temple literature” or “Early Jewish texts”) denies and disrupts the broader framing of such texts in Christian genres and practices. The voice of Jacob as it resounded in Coptic, even in Gnostic texts, is a thoroughly Christianized voice.

Select Bibliography Atiya, A. S., ed. The Coptic Encyclopedia. New York: Macmillan, 1991. Available digitally at http://​ccdl.libraries. claremont.edu/​cdm/​landingpage/​collection/​cce. Baun, J. Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in the Medieval Greek Apocrypha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Brakke, D. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Buzi, P. Titoli e autori nella tradizione Copta: Studio storico e tipologico. Biblioteca degli “Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia” 2. Pisa: Giardini 2005. Emmel, S. “Coptic Literature in the Byzantine and Early Islamic World.” In R. S. Bagnall, ed., Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–​700, 83–​102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Foley, J. M. How to Read an Oral Poem, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002. Frankfurter, D. Elijah in Upper Egypt:  The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. –​–​–​. “The Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses in Early Christianity: Regional Trajectories.” In J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler, eds., The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, 129–​200. CRINT 3.4. Assen and Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1996. —​—.​ “Amente Demons and Christian Syncretism.” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 14 (2012): 83–​101. Grossouw, W. “De apocriefen van het Oude en het Nieuwe Testament in de Koptische letterkunde.” Studia Catholica 10 (1934): 434–​36, and 11 (1935): 19–​36. Hagen, J. L. “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia.” In A. A. Orlov et al., eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only, 7–​34. Studia Judaeoslavica 4. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lattke, M. “Titel, Überschriften und Unterschriften der sogenannten Oden und Psalmen Salomos.” In H. G. Bethge et al., eds., For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-​Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-​gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year, 439–​47. NHMS 54. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Lundhaug, H., and L. Jenott. The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices. STAC 97. Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Luttikhuizen, G. P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. NHMS 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Orlandi, T. Clavis Patrum Copticorum. Available at http://​cmcl.it. –​–​–​. “Gli apocrifi copti.” Augustinianum 23 (1983): 57–​72. Pearson, B. A. “Enoch in Egypt.” In R. A. Argall et al., eds., For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, 216–​31. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Schenke, G., and G. Schenke Robinson. Der koptische Kölner Papyruscodex 3221. Teil I: Das Testament des Iob. Papyrologica Coloniensia 33. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009. van der Vliet, J. “Literature, Liturgy, Magic:  A Dynamic Continuum.” In P. Buzi and A. Camplani, eds., Christianity in Egypt: Literary Production and Intellectual Trends; Studies in Honor of Tito Orlandi, 555–​74. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2011. van Loon, G. J. M. The Gate of Heaven: Wall Paintings with Old Testament Scenes in the Altar Room and Hûrus of Coptic Churches. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-​Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 85. Istanbul

82.  Frankfurter, “Legacy of Jewish Apocalypses,” 195.

93

C opt ic and Leiden:  Nederlands Historisch-​Archaeologisch Instituut and Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999. Zakrzewska, E. D. “‘A Bilingual Language Variety’ or the ‘Language of the Pharaohs’? Coptic from the Perspective of Contact Linguistics.” In E. Grossman et al., eds., Greek Influence on Egyptian-​Coptic: Contact-​Induced Change in an Ancient African Language, 115–​61. Lingua Aegyptia. Studia monographica 17. Hamburg:  Widmaier Verlag, 2017.

93

94

95

6

Syriac Sergey Minov

Works Discussed Ahiqar Antidote of Ezra Apocalypse of Abraham Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Ezra Apocryphal Psalms of David 2 Baruch Colloquy of Moses with God on Mount Sinai 1 Enoch Epistle of Baruch 4 Ezra History of Job History of Jonah History of Joseph History of the Rechabites Jannes and Jambres Joseph and Aseneth Josephus Jubilees Letter of Aristeas Life of Abel Life of Moses Lives of the Prophets

96

96

Sergey  Min ov

6 Maccabees Odes of Solomon Prayer of Manasseh Psalms of Solomon Questions of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon Sentences of Menander Seven Heavens of Solomon Signs of Daniel Signs of Ezra Story of Melchizedek Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel Testament of Adam Testament of Levi Testament of Solomon Tradition of the Elders Treatise of Shem Vision of the Young/​Small Daniel The earliest Christian communities appeared in the territories inhabited by speakers of Syriac and related Aramaic dialects during the second century, initially in such important urban centers as Edessa and Nisibis.1 The translation of the Old Testament into the Aramaic dialect of Edessa in the second century, and of the New Testament thereafter, gave this language, which we know as Classical Syriac, the necessary prestige and turned it into the lingua franca of Christian life and mission in the region. From Northern Mesopotamia, Syriac Christianity spread further to the East and South, to the territories of the Sasanian empire, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, and, by the end of Late Antiquity, to China and India. However, these lands were a home to Jewish communities long before this new religion took root in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. The history of the Jewish presence in Mesopotamia goes back to the sixth century bce, so that when Christianity arrived Judaism was already a well-​established and influential religion in the region.2 1.  For a general introduction into the history of Syriac Christianity, see D. King, ed., The Syriac World (Routledge Worlds; London: Routledge, 2019); and F. Briquel-​Chatonnet and M. Debié, Le monde syriaque: Sur les routes d’un christianisme ignoré (Paris: Les belles lettres, 2017). 2.  On the beginnings of Jewish diaspora in Mesopotamia, see E. M. Yamauchi, “The Eastern Jewish Diaspora under the Babylonians,” in M. W. Chavalas and K. L. Younger, eds., Mesopotamia and the Bible:  Comparative Explorations ( JSOTSup 341; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 356–​77. For a general work covering the history of Babylonian Jewry up to the time of Islamic conquest, see J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 5 vols. (SPB 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15; Leiden: Brill, 1965–​1970); see also C. H. Kraeling, “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932): 130–​60; J. B. Segal, “The Jews of North Mesopotamia before the Rise of Islam,” in J. M. Grintz and J. Liver, eds., Studies in the Bible Presented to Professor M.H. Segal by His Colleagues and Students (PISBR 17; Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964), 32*–​63*; A. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, 47; Wiesbaden: L. Reichert, 1983); and I. M. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era: A Social and Cultural History ( Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1990) [in Hebrew]. On the archaeological data (inscriptions), see L. Roth-​Gerson, The Jews of Syria

97

Sy ri ac

The historical development of Syriac Christianity was profoundly informed by two major factors related to Judaism. First was the significant role played by the Jews in the dissemination of Christianity in the regions of Syria and Mesopotamia. As noted by scholars of Syriac Christianity, this process exhibits a considerable indebtedness to the Jewish matrix. The examples of direct or indirect Jewish influence on the doctrines and practices of the Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia are multiple and variegated.3 On the other hand, from the fourth century onward polemic against Jews and Judaism becomes one of the primary concerns of Syriac Christian authors. The rise of anti-​Jewish polemic in Syriac is associated with the names of Aphrahat and Ephrem, who were followed by such writers as Isaac of Antioch, Jacob of Serugh, and many others.4 Thus, on the basis of existing studies of Jewish-​Christian interaction in Syria-​Mesopotamia during late antiquity one comes to the conclusion that Judaism was a major factor in the process of the formation of Syriac Christian identity during this period. The beginning of sustained scholarly interest in the Jewish background of Syriac Christianity is related to the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement in the nineteenth-​ century Germany, especially to the younger generations of German scholars of Jewish origin, who were active during the last decades of that century and the first decades of the next. Arriving in the academic world often from the traditional Jewish education system, many of these young scholars applied their knowledge of classical rabbinic sources to analysis of the Peshitta version of the Old Testament first and foremost, but also of works of later Syriac writers.5 Later on, important studies were also published during the second and third quarters of the twentieth century, the most popular topics still being the relationship between the Peshitta and Targums and Jewish influence on such authors as Aphrahat and Ephrem. Most of the studies from these two periods did not venture beyond focusing on a specific author or composition.

as Reflected in the Greek Inscriptions ( Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2001) [in Hebrew]; and D. Noy and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, vol. 3: Syria and Cyprus (TSAJ 102; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 3.  See L. van Rompay, “Judaism, Syriac Contacts with,” in S. P. Brock et al., eds., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 232–​36; H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa,” JJS 36 (1985): 88–​102; Drijvers, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” in J. M. Lieu et al., eds., The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (London:  Routledge, 1992), 124–​46; and J. Tubach, “Die Anfänge des Christentums in Edessa,” Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum 19 (2015): 5–​25. 4.  For a general overview of the polemic against Judaism in Syriac, see S. Kazan, “Isaac of Antioch’s Homily against the Jews,” OrChr 45 (1961):  30–​53; 46 (1962):  87–​98; 47 (1963):  89–​97; 49 (1965):  57–​78; A. P. Hayman, “The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti-​Jewish Polemical Literature,” in J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs, eds., “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 423–​41; and A. H. Becker, “L’antijudaïsme syriaque: Entre polémique et critique interne,” in F. Ruani, ed., Les controverses religieuses en syriaque (ÉS 13; Paris: Geuthner, 2016), 181–​208. 5.  Compare such published doctoral dissertations as H. Weisz, Die Peschitta zu Deuterojesaia und ihr Verhältniss zu MT., LXX. u. Trg. (Halle: [s.n.], 1893); A. Abelesz, Die syrische Uebersetzung der Klagelieder und ihr Verhältniss zu Targum und LXX (Prievidza, Slovakia: Verlag des Verfassers, 1895); and S. Funk, Die haggadischen Elemente in den Homilien des Aphraates, des persischen Weisen (Wien: M. Knöpflmacher, 1891). For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Y. Moss, “The Jewish Contribution to Syriac Studies and the Syriac Contribution to Judaism: The Case of Wilhelmine Germany” (forthcoming).

97

98

98

Sergey  Min ov

The first attempt to provide a general picture of the phenomenon of Jewish influence on Syriac Christianity was undertaken only in 1979 by S. P. Brock.6 Relying upon the previous studies and making use of his own observations, Brock offers a classification of Syriac sources in which Jewish traditions are found. According to him, there are four main groups into which Jewish material that appears in Syriac literature could be divided: (1) Targumic traditions incorporated into the Syriac translation of the Old Testament, that is, the Peshitta version, made directly from Hebrew; (2) Targumic traditions incorporated into the works of other early Syriac authors (up to the fourth century), but absent from the Peshitta; (3) apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works of Jewish origin translated into Syriac; and (4) other Jewish traditions incorporated into or exerting influence on native Syriac writings, from the fourth century on, not mediated by the previous three groups. In his discussion of the first group, Brock proposes a classification of Jewish traditions found in the Peshitta of the Pentateuch and Chronicles in accordance with their relationship to rabbinic literature, mostly Targums. He distinguishes between (a) cases, where the Peshitta follows the Targum tradition; (b) traditions, where the Peshitta “exhibits targumic characteristics,” but which are absent from the extant Targums; (c) cases, where the Peshitta bears witness to “a midrashic tradition,” absent from the Targums, but attested in other Jewish sources; (d) traditions, for which there are no parallels in the extant Jewish sources, but which may still be of Jewish origin. The problem of the relationship between the Peshitta and the Targums occupied the minds of scholars from the nineteenth century on. Since then a great number of studies on this subject has been published, even a cursory overview of which is not possible in the framework of this chapter.7 The emerging consensus seems to be that notwithstanding the striking similarities between the Peshitta and the Targums, the Syriac version is unrelated directly to any of the existing Jewish Targums. It should not be regarded as a proto-​Targum, lacking midrashic additions, or as a Syriacized version of a lost Jewish Targum. The circle of translators fluent in Hebrew, who carried out this task, was certainly acquainted with Jewish exegetical tradition, but their exact identity remains a mystery. The second group in Brock’s classification could, in my view, be safely merged with the fourth, since the strict division between the Jewish traditions found in Targums and those from other rabbinic sources seems artificial, especially in light of the fact that such late Targums as Pseudo-​Jonathan depend not only on the earlier Targums, but on early midrashic compositions as well.

6.  S. P. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources,” JJS 30 (1979): 212–​32. 7.  For an introduction to the problem, see J. Joosten, “La Peshitta de l’Ancien Testament et les targums,” in F. Briquel-​Chatonnet and P. Le Moigne, eds., L’Ancien Testament en syriaque (ÉS 5; Paris: Geuthner, 2008), 91–​100. See also articles in the volume published by P. V. M. Flesher, ed., Targum Studies, Vol. 2: Targum and Peshitta (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 165; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998), and works of Y. Maori and M. P. Weitzman, in Selected Bibliography.

9

Sy ri ac

The third group, Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha transmitted in Syriac, is relatively well-​studied.8 During the last decades a number of editions of texts and methodologically innovative studies of this body of evidence have been published. A detailed and updated inventory of these works is offered below. In his discussion of the fourth group, Brock proposes a periodization of the Jewish influence upon Syriac Christianity, making a chronological distinction between three following periods: (a) the fourth century, with such authors as Aphrahat and Ephrem; (b) the period from the fifth to the early seventh century; (c)  the Islamic period. According to Brock, “the vast majority of the Jewish traditions attested in Syriac literature reached Syriac writers before the end of the fourth century,” whereas “from the fifth century onward there would appear to be only a trickle of new material entering the Syriac sphere.”9 Regardless whether Brock is correct in suggesting that there was a noticeable increase in conversion of Jews into Christianity during the early Islamic period, which resulted in an influx of Jewish texts and traditions into Syriac,10 there seems to be a change in the patterns of exchange of material, if not in terms of its quantity, between Jews and Christians after the end of late antiquity. On the one hand, there are cases of translations into Syriac of Jewish texts, such as the Apocryphal Psalms of David and, possibly, the Treatise of Shem and Tradition of the Elders. On the other, one observes a distinctive phenomenon of the appropriation by the Jews of Christian texts and traditions during this period. The most prominent case of this kind is that of the Peshitta version of Proverbs, but there are additional examples from different areas.11 A starting point for any future discussion of the Jewish background of Syriac Christianity, Brock’s pioneering classification will inevitably be updated, corrected, and, eventually, superseded. Since the year that article saw light, there has been a steady

8.  D. Bundy, “Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Literature,” in E. H. Lovering, ed., SBL 1991 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 30; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 745–​65; and A. Desreumaux, “Esquisse d’une liste d’œuvres apocryphes syriaques,” in M. Debié et al., eds., Les apocryphes syriaques (ÉS 2; Paris: Geuthner, 2005), 217–​25. On apocalyptic works, see M. Debié, “Les apocalypses apocryphes syriaques: Des textes pseudépigraphiques de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament,” in M. Debié et al., eds., Les apocryphes syriaques (ÉS 2; Paris: Geuthner, 2005), 111–​46; and W. Witakowski, “Syriac Apocalyptic Literature,” in S. La Porta and K. B. Bardakjian, eds., The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective; Essays Presented in Honor of Professor Robert W. Thomson on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (SVTP 25; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 667–​87. 9.  Brock, “Jewish Traditions,” 231. 10.  Ibid., 230. 11.  Cf. S. Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition on Early Judaeo-​Arabic Bible Exegesis,” ARAM 3 (1991 [1993]): 83–​96; Y. Moss, “Fish Eats Lion Eats Man: Saadia Gaon, Syriac Christianity, and the Resurrection of the Dead,” JQR 106 (2016): 494–​520; C. Stadel, “The Judaeo-​Syriac Version of Bel and the Dragon: An Edition with Linguistic Comments,” Mediterranean Language Review 23 (2016):  1–​31; B. Y. Goldstein, “The Jewish Recension of a Syriac Version of Aesop’s Fables,” in T. Li and K. Dyer, eds., From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek (Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2017), 61–​76; and S. Bhayro, “The Judaeo-​Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah: A New Edition and Analysis,” in L. Lehmhaus and M. Martelli, eds., Collecting Recipes: Byzantine and Jewish Pharmacology in Dialogue (Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 4; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2017), 273–​300. More complicated are the cases of original Syriac texts found in the Cairo Genizah; see here S. P. Brock, “East Syrian Liturgical Fragments from the Cairo Genizah,” OrChr 68 (1984): 58–​79; and Brock, “Some Further East Syrian Liturgical Fragments from the Cairo Genizah,” OrChr 74 (1990): 44–​61.

99

10

100

Sergey  Min ov

rise in scholarly contributions addressing various aspects of Jewish influence on Syriac Christianity, with more than two hundred studies published.12 Even a brief survey of this rich body of research is not possible here. Instead, I would like to discuss briefly the main problems and challenges that face scholars who work on this material. On the most basic level, progress in this field is impeded by the absence of proper critical editions or, at times, any publications at all, for a number of pseudepigraphical compositions, as well as for works of Syriac authors that might bear witness to them. There is a hope, however, that the ongoing “digital revolution” in humanities, one of the outcomes of which is a constantly increasing amount of digitized Syriac manuscripts accessible online,13 will facilitate the task of editing these texts. Moving to the issues of methodology, the danger of “parallelomania” (the uncritical amassment of parallels culled from Jewish sources), although castigated long ago by S. Sandmel,14 is still present, especially in the works of students not properly trained in the field of rabbinic literature. Among the most common pitfalls in that regard is the use of late rabbinic compositions, such as Pirqe de-​R abbi Eliezer, Targum of Pseudo-​Jonathan, Midrash ha-​Gadol and others, as repositories of late antique traditions, without paying attention to the agendas and creative potential of their compilers, or taking into account a possibility of Christian influence on these works.15 Looking at various traditions that could be classified as Jewish in Syriac sources, it is important to distinguish, at least conceptually, between those that stem from the earlier Second Temple period and those that might originate in the contemporary rabbinic or non-​rabbinic forms of Judaism. As for the latter, the growing number of diverse examples of religious and culture-​related vocabulary, motifs, and images being shared by Syriac Christian authors and rabbinic sources calls for a more sophisticated approach to this body of comparanda that would require moving beyond the conventional paradigm of “influence.” When trying to make sense of these parallels, one should not rush into assumption that they result from direct contacts between the two religious communities. As Adam Becker recently pointed out in his discussion of the possible use of Syriac sources as a background for the Babylonian Talmud, “It may ultimately be more productive not to think in terms of influence, but rather about the larger structural parallels and analogies that 12.  For a list of important contributions to the field, see this chapter’s Selected Bibliography. For a full bibliographic information, search the keywords “Jewish-​Christian relations,” “Jewish background,” and “Rabbinic Judaism” in the online Comprehensive Bibliography on Syriac Christianity, developed by the Center for the Study of Christianity, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, http://​www.csc.org.il/​db/​db.aspx?db=SB. 13.  One should single out the collection of Oriental manuscripts of the Hill Museum and Manuscript Library at Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN, http://​www.hmml.org. For information on other online collections of digitized Syriac manuscripts, see the website syri.ac, http://​syri.ac/​digimss. See also K. S. Heal, “Digital Humanities and the Study of Christian Apocrypha:  Resources, Prospects and Problems,” in T. Burke, ed., Forbidden Texts on the Western Frontier: The Christian Apocrypha in North American Perspectives; Proceedings from the 2013 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015), 270–​78. 14.  S. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–​13. 15.  The case of Pirqe de-​R abbi Eliezer is particularly telling in that regard. See I. Lévi, “Éléments chrétiens dans le Pirké Rabbi Eliézer,” RÉJ 18 [35] (1889): 83–​89; and H. Spurling and E. Grypeou, “Pirke de-​Rabbi Eliezer and Eastern Christian Exegesis,” Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 4 (2007): 217–​43.

10

Sy ri ac

may have existed between the East Syrians and the Rabbis.”16 Becker’s call to approach Syriac Christian and Jewish rabbinic cultures as “dialects of a shared language” instead of focusing too narrowly on the question of influence does offer a fruitful avenue of research.17 It remains to be ascertained to what degree this “shared language” was indebted to the common matrix of the Second Temple Judaism, from which the two religious traditions evolved, and to what degree it was conditioned by the general historical, social, and cultural circumstances of the late antique Near East, which their adherents faced. Another potential methodological pitfall is the presumption of Jewish origin for idiosyncratic material found in Syriac authors. It is not rare to come across scholars who suspect as Jewish any unusual exegetical or parabiblical tradition that has no obvious parallels in the mainstream Christian works. To illustrate this fallacy, one might turn to the history of research on the Testament of Adam. In their attempts to make sense of this peculiar composition, scholars would go to great length, looking for comparative material in Jewish sources without trying to comprehend, first, how this work might function in a Christian context, especially monastic one, with its emphasis on constant prayer. To avoid this danger, one should bear in mind the great internal diversity of early and late antique Christianity. A similarly serious challenge to the students of pseudepigraphical literature could be posed by the task of categorizing a work under consideration as Jewish or Christian. Some Syriac compositions dealing with Old Testament figures illustrate this difficulty very well. For instance, the History of Joseph, transmitted under the name of Basil of Caesarea, contains no explicit references to Christianity. Only an integrated approach, combining deep knowledge of the development of a particular Christian or Jewish literary tradition with a careful attention to the idiosyncrasies and implicit identity markers in the analyzed composition, can help scholars to relate such texts to a particular confessional milieu.18 Another hindrance on the way to forming a comprehensive picture of Jewish impact on Syriac Christianity is the scarcity of evidence on possible social contexts and circumstances, in which exchange of scriptural and related material between Jews and Christians

16.  A. Becker, “Polishing the Mirror: Some Thoughts on Syriac Sources and Early Judaism,” in R. S. Boustan et al., eds., Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 2.897–​915 at 900. 17.  Becker, “Polishing the Mirror,” 902. For recent studies that pursue this avenue, see A. H. Becker, “The Comparative Study of ‘Scholasticism’ in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syrians,” AJS Review 34 (2010): 91–​113; Becker, “The ‘Evil Inclination’ of the Jews: The Syriac Yatsra in Narsai’s Metrical Homilies for Lent,” JQR 106 (2016):  179–​207; M. Bar-​Asher Siegal, “Shared Worlds:  Rabbinic and Monastic Literature,” HTR 105 (2012):  423–​56; R. Kiperwasser and S. Ruzer, “Syriac Christians and Babylonian Jewry:  Narratives and Identity Shaping in a Multi-​Religious Setting,” in B. Bitton-​Ashkelony et  al., eds., Patristic Studies in the Twenty-​First Century (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 421–​40; and S. Minov, “Staring Down a Laundress: Reading Hagiographic Literature from Syria-​Mesopotamia alongside Rabbinic Writings,” forthcoming in A. M. Butts and S. Gross, eds., Intersections between Judaism and Syriac Christianity (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 18.  For additional examples from Syriac and other Christian traditions, and illuminating discussion of the problem, see J. R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha:  Jewish, Christian, or Other? ( JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005).

101

102

102

Sergey  Min ov

might take place. One can single out several main channels of the transmission of Jewish texts and traditions into Syriac, direct as well as indirect. Of possible direct contacts of Syriac Christians with Jews that might involve exchange of biblical and related material, there is only sporadic evidence. Thus, Philoxenus of Mabbug relates in one of his letters a story about Stephen bar Sudaili (WS [= West Syriac]) preaching his doctrine of apocatastasis to a Jew in Hebron in the sixth century.19 From a later period, we hear about the famous West Syriac scholar Jacob of Edessa (seventh-​eighth centuries) pretending to convert to Judaism in order to obtain correct information for his revision of the Old Testament.20 Whereas credibility of this report can be questioned, the testimony of the Karaite scholar Ya’qūb al-​Qirqisānī (tenth century) about engaging in “friendly theological discussions” with Ishozkha, the East Syriac bishop of ‘Ukbara, is certainly plausible.21 One factor that might facilitate interactions of this kind was the image of Jews as the keepers of knowledge about Biblical past, including material relics from that period.22 It is worth mentioning at this point that although Syriac Christian scholars were aware that the Peshitta version of the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew,23 no tradition of learning this language for the purposes of biblical studies developed among the Syrians. There are no figures, for example, comparable to Jerome or Dorotheus, an erudite priest in Antioch from the second half of the third century, who mastered Hebrew in order to read the Bible.24 Even such proficient exegetes as Jacob of Edessa and Ishodad of Merv (ES [= East Syriac]), who on a number of occasions make use of Hebrew etymologies, did not know this language but drew their information from the earlier Greek-​based sources or, possibly, Jewish informants.25 Somewhat intriguing is the case of Aba of Kashkar, a personal physician and astrologer of the shah Khusro II (r. 590–​628 ce), who is reported in 19.  Ed. A. L. Frothingham, Stephen bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic, and the Book of Hierotheos (Leiden:  Brill, 1886), 44 [Syr.], 45 [tr.]. 20.  This story appears in the preface to the Chronicle of Michael the Great, preserved in Armenian; ed. J. B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’Antioche (1166–​1199), 4 vols. (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899–​1910),  1.2. 21.  Brock, “Jewish Traditions,” 230. 22.  See O. Limor, “Christian Sacred Space and the Jew,” in J. Cohen, ed., From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought (WM-​S 11; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996), 55–​77. 23.  For the references, see M. P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 248–​50. 24. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 8.32.2. 25.  On Jacob, see A. Salvesen, “Did Jacob of Edessa Know Hebrew?,” in A. Rapoport-​Albert and G. Greenberg, eds., Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts:  Essays in Memory of Michael P.  Weitzman ( JSOTSup 333; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 457–​67; and Salvesen, “Was Jacob Trilingual? Jacob of Edessa’s Knowledge of Hebrew Revisited,” in G. Y. Ibrahim and G. A. Kiraz, eds., Studies on Jacob of Edessa (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 25; Piscataway, NJ:  Gorgias Press, 2010), 93–​105. On Ishodad, see A. Baumstark, “Griechische und hebräische Bibelzitate in der Pentateucherklärung Iš’ôdâds von Merw,” OrChr, n.s., 1 (1911): 1–​19; J. A. Lund, “Isho’dad’s Knowledge of Hebrew as Evidenced from His Treatment of Peshitta Ezekiel,” in R. B. ter Haar Romeny, ed., The Peshitta:  Its Use in Literature and Liturgy. Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium (Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 15; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 177–​86; and ter Haar Romeny, “The Hebrew and the Greek as Alternatives to the Syriac Version in Išo’dad’s Commentary on the Psalms,” in A. Rapoport-​Albert and G. Greenberg, eds., Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman ( JSOTSup 333; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 457–​67.

103

Sy ri ac

the Chronicle of Seert to know Hebrew (alongside Greek and Persian) and translate from Hebrew into Syriac some unspecified compositions.26 Unfortunately, none of these translations, most likely of scientific works, seems to survive or, at least, to be identified as such among existing Syriac texts. There are, however, more questions than answers when we try to find a correlation between Jewish texts and traditions attested in Syriac Christian sources and what we know about social dynamics of Jewish-​Christian interaction in the region. One wonders, for example, whether the friendly contact of lay Christians with their Jewish neighbors, including the participation in Jewish festivals that was bemoaned by John Chrysostom and several Syriac authors, resulted in any significant exchange of material between the two religious communities. It is likely that such contacts were responsible for a number of Jewish motifs that found their way into the Syriac tradition of popular religion, such as the divorce letter against demons or the figures of rabbi Joshua b. Perahiya and the angel Metatron, which are mentioned in Syriac magic bowls.27 Besides direct contacts with Jews, there are several other important ways by which Jewish material reached Syriac Christians. One of them is Jewish Christians and converts from Judaism.28 It is the former group that, most likely, was responsible for the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Syriac.29 As the case of the discovery in the ninth century of the Hebrew manuscripts containing the Apocryphal Psalms of David demonstrates, the converts from Judaism could also be instrumental in making original Jewish texts available to Syriac-​speaking Christians. Another group that made use of Jewish texts and traditions comprises various heterodox movements that were active in Syria-​ Mesopotamia and Babylonia during late antiquity, such as Elchasaites, Gnostics of different persuasion, and Manichaeans.30 Last but not least, from the fourth century on, with

26.  Chronicle of Seert II.81; ed. A. Scher, Histoire nestorienne (Chronique de Séert), 4 vols. (PO 4.3 [17], 5.2 [22], 7.2 [32], 13.4 [65]; Paris: Firmin-​Didot, 1908–​1918), 4:524. 27.  For the first two traditions, see M. Moriggi, “Jewish Divorce Formulae in Syriac Incantation Bowls,” Aramaic Studies 13 (2015):  82–​94. For Metatron, see Ch. Müller-​Kessler, “Syrische Zauberschalen—​Korrekturen und Nachträge,” Die Welt des Orients 36 (2006): 116–​30 at 125. See also S. Bolz, “A Jewish Adjuration Formula in Three Syriac Magic Bowls,” in M. E. Doerfler et al., eds., Syriac Encounters: Papers from the Sixth North American Syriac Symposium, Duke University, 26–​29 June 2011 (ECS 20; Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 455–​66. 28.  On Jewish Christians, see S. Hidal, “Evidence for Jewish Believers in the Syriac Fathers,” in O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 568–​80; H. J. W. Drijvers, “Edessa und das jüdische Christentum,” VC 24 (1970): 4–​33; Ch. Jullien and F. Jullien, “‘Aux temps des disciples des apôtres’: Les sabbatiens d’Édesse,” RHR 218 (2001): 155–​70. For references to Jewish converts to Syriac Christianity during Late Antiquity, see B. Bitton-​Ashkelony and S. Minov, “‘A Person of Silence’: Philoxenos of Mabbug, Letter of Exhortation Sent to Someone Who Left Judaism and Came to the Life of Perfection,” OCP 82 (2016): 101–​25 at 103–​4. 29.  See R. B. ter Haar Romeny, “Hypotheses on the Development of Judaism and Christianity in Syria in the Period after 70 C.E.,” in H. van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-​ Christian Milieu? (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 13–​33. 30.  See G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-​Christian Propagandists (TSAJ 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985); J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony:  Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (HCUM 14; Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); and Reeves, Heralds of That Good Realm: Syro-​ Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (NHMS 41; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996).

103

104

104

Sergey  Min ov

a growing number of Christian works being translated into Syriac from Greek, a considerable amount of Jewish tradition becomes known to Syriac Christians through this channel. As an example, one can mention the Syriac translation of Didascalia, which incorporates the whole text of the Prayer of Manasseh and quotes other pseudepigraphical works, such as the Sibylline Oracles.31 Recent years have witnessed important methodological developments in the study of extracanonical literature, including works preserved in Syriac. Particularly promising seems an approach, inspired by the methods of the New Philology, that pays a close attention to the manuscript culture, with its inherent instability, in order to reconstruct the history of production, transmission, and reception of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts.32 Several publications of L. I. Lied on the reception history of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra offer a new and enriching perspective on the diverse use to which these works could be put among the Syriac Christians. Related to this is the problem of “canon” and the canonical status of such works, which cannot be discussed here in detail.33 I will limit myself to drawing attention to the perceived tension between the explicit prohibitions against use of such compositions,34 and the fact that a number of these works were included into biblical manuscripts,35 with some of them (2 Baruch, 4 Ezra) even being used in liturgical context, quoted in lectio­naries. It is also noteworthy that such prohibitions did not prevent exegetes like Jacob of Edessa from resorting to Jewish apocryphal works as a legitimate repository of knowl­ edge about the biblical past.36 31.  See sects. 7 and 20, respectively; ed. A. Vööbus, The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, 4 vols. (CSCO 401–​ 2, 407–​8, Syr. 175–​76, 179–​80; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1979), 1–​2:89–​91, 197–​98 [Syr.], 3–​4:85–​88, 179–​80 [trans.]. 32.  See M. J. Driscoll, “The Words on the Page:  Thoughts on Philology, Old and New,” in J. Quinn and E. Lethbridge, eds., Creating the Medieval Saga:  Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature (Odense:  University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010), 87–​104; and H. Lundhaug and L. I. Lied, “Studying Snapshots: On Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology,” in L. I. Lied and H. Lundhaug, eds., Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (TUGAL 175; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2017), 1–​19. 33.  On the Old Testament canon in Syriac churches, see J.-​C. Haelewyck, “Le canon de l’Ancien Testament dans la tradition syriaque (manuscrits bibliques, listes canoniques, auteurs),” in F. Briquel-​Chatonnet and P. Le Moigne, eds., L’ancien Testament en syriaques (ÉS 5; Paris: Geuthner, 2008), 141–​72; and E. L. Gallagher and J. D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). 34.  Cf. the Syriac version of the Canons of the Apostles (sec. 23) that prohibits reading of “spurious books and feigned psalms” as sacred, ed. A. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition, 4 vols. (CSCO 367–​68, 375–​ 76, Syr. 161–​64; Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1975–​1976), 1.53 [Syr.], 3.68 [trans.]. 35.  The most famous case in this regard is, of course, the Codex Ambrosianus, which, as noted in the text, includes such works as 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. For seminal discussions of this manuscript, see Ph. M. Forness, “Narrating History through the Bible in Late Antiquity:  A Reading Community for the Syriac Peshitta Old Testament Manuscript in Milan (Ambrosian Library, B. 21 inf.),” Le Muséon 127 (2014): 41–​76; and L. I. Lied, “2 Baruch and the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus (7a1): Studying Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in Their Manuscript Context,” JSP 26 (2016): 67–​107. 36.  See W. Adler, “Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography,” in J. C. Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), 143–​71; and Reeves, “Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Jacob of Edessa’s Letters and Historical Writings,” in R. B. ter Haar Romeny, ed., Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day (Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 18; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 49–​65.

105

Sy ri ac

Furthermore, a problem that deserves more attention in discussions of the reception of Jewish texts and traditions in Syriac is the difference between “-​emic” and “-​etic” perspectives on what could and should be categorized as “Jewish.” One should remember that much of the material defined as “Jewish” by modern scholars, who use their own criteria of authentication, would not necessarily have been regarded as such by the Syriac Christians of the antiquity and Middle Ages.37 In fact, the label “Jewish” in Syriac sources was rarely neutral, often carrying negative connotations within Christian theological discourse, characterized by intrinsic anti-​ Judaism and supercessionism. This requires further investigation, but Syriac theologians might understand Jewish pseudepigraphical works, especially dealing with the pre-​Mosaic period, as belonging to “Hebrews,” bearers of the true primeval religion akin to Christianity, who are contradistinguished from their spiritually degenerate progeny, the “Jews.”38 What follows is an overview of the corpus of texts relating to Old Testament figures or themes that are attested in Syriac. Some of these works were translated from Greek or other languages; others are originally Syriac compositions. Some of them are Jewish works from the Second Temple or later periods, and others were authored by Christians. For the sake of convenience, the material is divided into the three main categories: (1) undoubtedly Jewish works, translated into Syriac; (2) uncertain works, for which a possibility of Jewish origin is debated by scholars; (3) lost works or compositions that never existed in Syriac as complete works. Reasons of space do not permit the inclusion of those early Jewish works that reached Syriac Christians as a part of Septuagint and in that way became an established part of the Old Testament canon in Syriac—​namely 1 Baruch, additions to Daniel (Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), 1 (3) Ezra, Letter of Jeremiah, Ben Sira, Judith, 1–​4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Tobit.39 Also excluded are such works as Pseudo-​Ephrem’s Cave of Treasures (WS, c. sixth century), the Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Methodius (seventh century) and the Book of the Bee by Solomon of Basra (ES, thirteenth century), which were authored and transmitted as explicitly Christian texts.40 37.  This point was made by C. E. Morrison in a review of E. Narinskaya, Ephrem, a “Jewish” Sage: A Comparison of the Exegetical Writings of St. Ephrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions, in JTS 62 (2011): 748–​51 at 750. 38.  On this dichotomy, developed in details by Eusebius of Caesarea to serve the purposes of anti-​Jewish apologetics, see A. P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 94–​125. 39.  All these works were translated from Greek, with the exception of Ben Sira, which was translated directly from a Hebrew Vorlage. For general discussion and references to printed editions, see S. P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (2nd rev. ed.; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), to which one should add M. Albert, A. Penna et al., The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version. Part IV, fasc. 4: Ezra and Nehemiah, 1–​2 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 2013). For references to manuscripts, in which these works are attested, see List of Old Testament Peshiṭta Manuscripts (Preliminary Issue) (Leiden: Brill, 1961), and continued in VT 12 (1962): 127–​28, 237–​38, and 351; 18 (1968): 128–​43; 27 (1977): 508–​11; 31 (1981): 358–​59; and 35 (1985): 466–​67. 40.  The provisional list of Syriac apocryphal literature, compiled by A. Desreumaux (“Esquisse d’une liste”), contains several items that could not be verified because of the absence of references to manuscripts. One case, Histoire de Ruben et de ses compagnons (p.  220) is a hagiographical account of Rubil, a Christian martyr under Trajan. Another item, Histoire de Samson le Palestinien (p. 220) is, in fact, the account of Samson excerpted from the Peshitta version of Judges (chs. 13–​16) in Tehran, Issayi 18 (ES, 1743/​44), fols. 175v–​181v; see A. Desreumaux, “Un manuscrit syriaque de Téhéran contenant des apocryphes,” Apocrypha 5 (1994): 137–​64 at 161.

105

106

106

Sergey  Min ov

1.  Undoubtedly Jewish Works 1.1.  Ahiqar (CAVT 195)41 A specimen of wisdom literature from the ancient Near East, the Book of Ahiqar is a court story centered on the figure of the Aramaean sage Ahiqar, a high official at the court of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon.42 The oldest attested version of this work, written partly in pre-​Achaemenid Aramaic (the Narrative part) and partly in Official Aramaic (the Sayings part), is preserved in the fragments of a fifth-​century papyrus scroll found in the Jewish military colony in Egyptian Elephantine. Most likely an original Aramaic composition, the version on the Elephantine papyrus demonstrates that the story of Ahiqar gained currency among the Jews during the fifth century bce. In Syriac tradition, Ahiqar has a complex textual history.43 It is attested in at least five different forms published so far: (a) Cambridge, University Library, Add. 2020 (ES, xviiex [1697]);44 (b)  Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Syriac 134 [Sachau 336] (ES, xix4/​4 [1883]);45 (c) a fragment from London, British Library, Additional 7200 (ES, xii-​ xiii), containing a part of the Sayings;46 (d)  Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Syriac 165 [Sachau 162] (WS, xv);47 (e) a private manuscript in possession of F. Graffin (ES, xx1/​4 [1908]); and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France,

41.  CAVT = J.-​C. Haelewyck, Clavis apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (CCSA; Turnhout: Brepols, 1998). 42.  See I. Kottsieper, “Ahiqar, Book of,” in H.-​J. Klauck et al., eds., Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 1 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2009), 657–​62. 43.  See F. Nau, Histoire et Sagesse d’Aḥikar l’Assyrien ( fils d’Anaël, neveu de Tobie) (Documents pour l’Étude de la Bible; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1909), 78–​87, 281–​85; Th. Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zum Achiqar-​Roman (Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-​historische Klasse n.F. 14.4; Berlin: Weidmann, 1913), 25–​54; F. A. Pennacchietti, “Il testo siriaco antico di Ahiqar,” in R. Contini and C. Grottanelli, eds., Il saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Il testo più antico e le sue versioni (Studi biblici 148; Brescia: Paideia, 2005), 193–​225 at 193–​96; and E. Braida, “Il Romanzo del saggio Ahiqar: Una proposta stemmatica,” in F. M. Fales and F. Grassi, eds., Camsemud 2007: Proceedings of the 13th Italian Meeting of Afro-​Asiatic Linguistics, Held in Udine, May 21st–​24th, 2007 (History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs 10; Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2010), 49–​64. Cf. also S. P. Brock, “A Piece of Wisdom Literature in Syriac,” JSS 13, no. 2 (1968): 212–​17. 44.  Published, together with English translation, in F. C. Conybeare, J. R. Harris and A. S. Lewis, The Story of Aḥiḳar from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions (2nd rev. ed.; Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1913), 37*–​72* [Syr.], 101–​127 [trans.]. Italian translation:  Pennacchietti, “Il testo siriaco,” 196–​225. Spanish translation:  J. Ferrer and J. P. Monferrer-​Sala, Historia y enseñanzas de Ahíqar o La antigua sabiduría oriental (Studia Semitica, Series Minor 2; Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba, 2006), 37–​97. French translation: P. Talon, Histoires syriaques: La Sagesse d’Ahiqar et autres œuvres syriaques (Nouvelles études orientales; Fernelmont, Belgium: E. M. E. Editions, 2013), 7–​38. 45.  Published, together with German translation, in two volumes: the Sayings part: S. Grünberg, Die weisen Sprüche des Achikar nach der syrischen Hs Cod. Sachau Nr. 336 der Kgl. Bibliothek in Berlin herausgegeben und bearbeitet (Giessen: H. Itzkowski, 1917) and the Narrative part: M. H. Guzik, Die Achikar-​Erzählung nach der syrischen Handschrift Cod. Sachau Nr. 336 der Preussischen Staatsbibliothek in Berlin (Krakau: Renaissance, 1936). For a French translation, see Nau, Histoire et Sagesse d’Aḥikar, 145–​258. According to Nöldeke, Untersuchungen, 51–​54, this recension is a retranslation from Arabic. 46.  Published, with an English translation, in Conybeare et al., Story of Aḥiḳar, 34*–​36* [Syr.], 99–​101 [trans.]. 47.  Published, with a French translation, in F. Nau, “Histoire et sagesse d’Ahikar, d’après le manuscrit de Berlin ‘Sachau 162’, fol. 86 sq.,” ROC, 3rd series, 1 [21] (1918–​1919): 148–​60.

107

Sy ri ac

sir. 422 (ES, xvi-​xviii).48 The Syriac version served, in turn, as a basis for translations into Armenian, Sogdian, Christian Arabic, and Modern Aramaic.49 The Armenian version of Ahiqar, dated to the fifth century ce, is of particular importance as a textual witness for the original Syriac version.50 It is unclear when and from which language the translation of Ahiqar into Syriac was made. Since there are no immediately recognizable traces of a Greek original in the published Syriac texts, many scholars tend to think that it was translated directly from a Jewish Aramaic version (not necessarily identical to that of Elephantine). As for the date of translation, it had to take place before the fifth century ce, that is, the time of the earliest Armenian recension. It is premature, however, at this point to try to engage into speculations about interrelationship between the published textual witnesses of the Syriac Ahiqar and their relation to other textual traditions, when there a considerable number of manuscripts of this work remain unpublished and unstudied.51 Only a critical edition of the Syriac version, based on all textual witnesses available and accompanied by critical editions of the Arabic and Modern Syriac versions, would make possible to form a satisfactory picture of the work’s textual history and, perhaps, recover the text of the earliest translation. It might also enable scholars to approach with a greater confidence the question of whether the Syriac version was derived from an Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek Vorlage.

1.2.  Apocryphal Psalms of David (CAVT 204) A number of East Syriac manuscripts contain a group of five noncanonical psalms ascribed to David, enumerated by scholars as Psalms 151–​155. This group is transmitted as a part of biblical collections or incorporated into the Book of Instruction by Elias of Anbar (ES)

48.  Published, with a French translation, in F. Nau, “Documents relatifs à Ahikar. Édition et traduction d’un manuscrit de Mgr Graffin (C), avec les principales variantes d’un manuscrit de M.H. Pognon (P). Édition de la partie récente du manuscrit de M.H. Pognon,” ROC, 3rd series, 1 [21] (1918–​1919): 274–​307 and 356–​400. 49.  For bibliographical references to their publication and discussion, see R. Contini and C. Grottanelli, eds., Il saggio Ahiqar: Fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale; Il testo più antico e le sue versioni (Studi biblici 148; Brescia: Paideia, 2005), 280–​85. For the text of the Sogdian version, see N. Sims-​Williams, Biblical and Other Christian Sogdian Texts from the Turfan Collection (Berliner Turfantexte 32; Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 107–​24. Cf. B. Lourié, “The Syriac Aḥiqar, Its Slavonic Version, and the Relics of the Three Youths in Babylon,” Slověne 2 (2013): 64–​117, for a possible Syriac Vorlage behind the Slavonic version. 50.  For the critical edition of Armenian version and discussion, see A. A. Martirosyan, Patmut’iwn ew xratk’ Xikaray imastnoy: haykakan xmbagrut’yun [The Story and Proverbs of Khikar the Wise: Armenian Recension], 2 vols. (Erevan, Armenia: Academy of Sciences, 1969, 1972). The two earliest Armenian recensions are A and G. 51.  Unpublished Syriac manuscripts include a fragment in London, British Library, Or. 2313 (ES, xvi–​xvii); Oxford, Bodleian Library, Syr. fol. 12 (ES, xviii); Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Syriac 433 (ES, xix1/​4 [c. 1820]); Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Library, Syr. 80 (ES, xixex [1898]); Strasbourg, Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire, Syr. 4122 (ES, xixex [1898]); Baghdad, Chaldean Monastery of Notre Dame des Semences, 205 (ES, xix4/​4 [1883]), 206 (ES), and 207 (ES, xx); Urmia, Urmia College 115 (ES, xix3/​ 4 [1869]), 117 (ES, xix4/​4 [1887]), 230 (ES, xix4/​4 [1894]); St. Petersburg, Mikhail Sado collection 9 (ES, xx1/​4 [1906]); and Midyat, Monastery of Mor Gabriel 192 (WS, xx). See also A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1922), 12n1. F. Y. Dolabani, Aḥiqar sāfrā w-​ḥakimā (Mardin: [s.n.], 1962) reproduces the Syriac text of Harris from Conybeare et al., Story of Aḥiḳar. The Syriac text in B. Bahnām, Aḥīqār al-​ḥākīm (Baghdad:  Maṭbū’āt maǧma’ al-​luġa as-​suryānīya, 1976) is, in fact, the Aramaic version from Elephantine in Syriac script.

107

108

108

Sergey  Min ov

in the tenth century. The earliest among about a ten manuscripts that contain this group of psalms is Baghdad, Library of the Chaldean Patriarchate 1113 (ES, xiii), where it is appended to the canonical Book of Psalms.52 Psalms 151, 154, and 155 are attested in Hebrew, in the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa), while Psalm 151 is attested also in Greek, included into the Septuagint version of the Book of Psalms.53 The presence of the three out of the five psalms in Qumran, and the plausibility of a Hebrew Vorlage for two others, proves that they are genuine Jewish works, written in Hebrew during the Second Temple period, which raises the interesting question of the shape of the Davidic Psalter at that time.54 The fact that the four out of the five psalms reflect a Hebrew Vorlage, and are attested only in the relatively late textual witnesses of East Syriac provenance may be not incidental, but can provide us with a clue to circumstances of their first appearance in Syriac tradition. It is possible that these psalms were translated into Syriac during the early ninth century, as a result of the incidental discovery of a cache of Hebrew manuscripts, described by the East Syriac patriarch Timothy I (728–​823) in one of his letters.55 Timothy, based in Baghdad, relates that a Jewish convert to Christianity informed him that about ten years ago a hoard of books in the Hebrew script was discovered in a mountain cave in the vicinity of Jericho by a local Arab, who then informed the Jewish community of Jerusalem about his find. The patriarch was instantly interested in this discovery as having possible relevance for textual criticism of both the Old and New Testament books, and he asked the East Syriac metropolitan of Damascus to inquire into the matter, sending him a list of questions. Timothy 52.  For a critical edition, see H. Schneider, W. Baars, and J. C. H. Lebram, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version. Part IV, fasc. 6: Canticles or Odes; Prayer of Manasseh; Apocryphal Psalms; Psalms of Solomon; Tobit; 1 (3) Esdras. General Preface (Leiden: Brill, 1972). For an English trans., see J. H. Charlesworth and J. A. Sanders, “More Psalms of David,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophic Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works (New  York:  Doubleday, 1985), 609–​24. See also A. S. van der Woude, “Die fünf syrischen Psalmen (einschliesslich Psalm 151),” JSHRZ IV.1: Poetische Schriften (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1974), 29–​47; and H. F. van Rooy, Studies on the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms ( JSSSup 7; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). For a useful discussion of their transmission history, including Syriac, see E. Mroczek, “The End of the Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek Codices, and Syriac Manuscripts,” in L. I. Lied and H. Lundhaug, eds., Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (TUGAL 175; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2017), 297–​322. 53.  Psalm 151 stands apart from the rest of the group in that it was translated from the Greek and not the Hebrew. Its textual tradition is complicated, as it appears in the Syriac translation of Athanasius’s Commentary on Psalms, in some Peshitta Psalters, and in some Syro-​Hexaplaric Psalters. It is possible that there was more than one translation of this psalm from Greek into Syriac. See J. Strugnell, “Notes on the Text and Transmission of the Apocryphal Psalms 151, 154 (= Syr. II) and 155 (= Syr. III),” HTR 59 (1966): 257–​81; and H. F. van Rooy, “A Second Version of the Syriac Psalm 151,” OTE 11 (1998): 567–​81. 54.  On their original context and function, see P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997); and E. D. Reymond, New Idioms within Old: Poetry and Parallelism in the Non-​ Masoretic Poems of 11Q5 (= 11QPsa) (SBLEJL 31; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2011). 55.  Letter 47 to Sergius of Elam; ed. M. Heimgartner, Die Briefe 42–​58 des Ostsyrischen Patriarchen Timotheos I, 2 vols. (CSCO 644–​45, Syr. 248–​49; Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 1.79–​87 [Syr.], 2.63–​72 [trans.]; for an English translation, see S. P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Mōrān ‘Eth’ō 9; Baker Hill, Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1997), 245–​50. For a discussion of this episode, see V. Berti, Vita e studi di Timoteo I, Patriarca cristiano di Baghdad:  Ricerche sull’epistolario e sulle fonti contigue (Cahiers de Studia Iranica 41, Chrétiens en terre d’Iran 3; Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2009), 297–​305.

109

Sy ri ac

speculates that these books might have been hidden by the prophet Jeremiah or Baruch just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Of relevance for our case is that according to the patriarch’s informant, one of the discovered books was the Davidic Psalter, containing more than two hundred psalms. Although Timothy complains that at the moment of writing his letter he has not yet received an answer to his request, it is tempting to suggest, as some scholars do,56 that the Syriac translation of the four psalms at our disposal was made from this Hebrew manuscript, not very long after the patriarch’s letter had been written.

1.3.  2 Baruch (CAVT 233) Attested in full only in Syriac, and derived from it Christian Arabic version, 2 Baruch is an extensive historical-​apocalyptic composition. Its narrative setting is the destruction of the first Jerusalem temple in 587 bce and its aftermath, with Baruch as the main protagonist. The elaborate narrative contains lamentation, prayers, questions and answers, and visions, in which God reveals to the seer secrets of the cosmos and of the human history; it concludes with a letter to the Jewish tribes exiled to Babylon. The main purpose of the work as a whole is to provide a theodicy and promote obedience to God’s commandments as the only way to survive the national disaster. The complete Syriac text of 2 Baruch survives in a single manuscript, the famous Codex Ambrosianus:  Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, B 21 Inf. (vi-​ vii).57 Entitled “The book of the revelation (gelyānā) of Baruch, son of Neriah,” it follows the books of Chronicles. As its title relates, the Syriac version was translated from Greek.58 In addition to that, one finds excerpts from 2 Baruch included in a number of West Syriac lectionaries, the earliest of which are dated by the thirteenth century.59 One part of the work, the so-​called Epistle of Baruch,60 has a more complicated textual history in Syriac. 56.  Cf. Van der Woude, “Die fünf syrischen Psalmen,” 34. 57.  For a critical edition of the Syriac text, see S. Dedering and R. J. Bidawid, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version. Part IV, fasc. 3: Apocalypse of Baruch; 4 Esdras (Leiden: Brill, 1973); or D. M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, with Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concordances ( JCTCRS 5; London: T&T Clark, 2009). The edition of Dedering does not include the Epistle of Baruch. For an English translation, see A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of ) Baruch,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament PseudepigraphaI, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 2 vols. (New  York:  Doubleday, 1983), 615–​52. For a French translation, see P.-​M. Bogaert, L’apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, 2 vols. (SC 144–​145; Paris: Cerf, 1969); for a German translation, see A. F. J. Klijn, “Die syrische Baruch-​ Apocalypse,” JSHRZ V.2: Apokalypsen (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), 103–​91. 58.  A fragment of the Greek version of 2 Baruch was found in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxyr. 403), dated to the fourth or fifth century; published in B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 3 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903), 3–​7. 59.  For a list, see Dedering and Bidawid, Old Testament, iii. To this list one should add Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 33 (WS, xiii); cf. S. P. Brock and L. van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-​Surian, Wadi al-​Natrun (Egypt) (OLA 227; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 250. For a discussion of this evidence, see L. I. Lied, “Nachleben and Textual Identity: Variants and Variance in the Reception History of 2 Baruch,” in M. Henze and G. Boccaccini, eds., Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch:  Reconstruction after the Fall ( JSJSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 403–​28. 60.  See M. F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch:  A Study in Form and Message ( JSPSup 42; Sheffield, UK:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); and L. Doering, “The Epistle of Baruch and Its Role in 2 Baruch,” in

109

10

110

Sergey  Min ov

It is attested in two main versions:  as the concluding section of 2 Baruch (chs. 78–​87) and as an independent composition, included into biblical manuscripts of various sorts or quoted in lectionaries.61 Curiously, both versions of the Epistle are found in the Codex Ambrosianus. It appears that the Epistle was originally an integral part of 2 Baruch, but at a certain point before the late sixth century it was detached and began to circulate as an independent textual unit, often grouped together with 1 Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. 2 Baruch is arguably the most important early Jewish composition preserved in Syriac. There is a consensus among scholars that it is a genuine Jewish work that was written as a response to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in the last decades of the first century ce, possibly in Hebrew or Aramaic.62 An attempt to challenge this consensus has been made by R. Nir, but her arguments in favor of Christian origins of the work have been met by strong criticism.63

1.4.  4 Ezra (CAVT 180) Attested in full in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Christian Arabic, Geez, and, fragmentarily, in Greek and Coptic, this apocalyptic work sets forth seven visions received by Ezra in Babylon. There is a scholarly consensus that it is a genuine Jewish composition, written in the last decades of the first century CE, most likely in Hebrew or Aramaic. As with 2 Baruch, with which it shares a considerable amount of material, 4 Ezra was apparently written as a response to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. A complete Syriac text of the work survives in a single manuscript, the aforementioned Codex Ambrosianus, where it bears the title “The book of Ezra the scribe, called Šalathiel,” and follows 2 Baruch.64 Excerpts from 4 Ezra are found in several West Syriac lectionaries, the earliest of which are dated to the thirteenth century.65 The Syriac version was translated from a Greek Vorlage, which was close to that of the Latin version. M. Henze and G. Boccaccini, eds., Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch:  Reconstruction after the Fall ( JSJSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 151–​73. 61.  On the textual tradition of the Epistle, see Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, 1–​23; and L. I. Lied, “Between ‘Text Witness’ and ‘Text on the Page’: Trajectories in the History of Editing the Epistle of Baruch,” in L. I. Lied and H. Lundhaug, eds., Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (TUGAL 175; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2017), 272–​96. 62.  See F. J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS 78; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985); G. B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS 72; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984); L. I. Lied, The Other Lands of Israel: Imaginations of the Land in 2 Baruch ( JSJSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2008); and M. Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context (TSAJ 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 63.  R. Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (SBLEJL 20; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Cf. reviews by F. J. Murphy, CBQ 66 (2004), 326–​27; G. A. Anderson, JR 85 (2005), 155–​57; L. I. Lied, JSS 50 (2005): 403–​5; and M. Henze, JSP 15 (2006): 145–​48, and a response by Davila, Provenance, 126–​31. 64.  For a critical edition of the Syriac text, see Dedering and Bidawid, Old Testament. English translation: G. H. Box, The Apocalypse of Ezra (II Esdras III–​XIV) (Translations of Early Documents Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-​Rabbinic) 8; London: SPCK, 1917). German translation: B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1923–​1924). 65.  For a list, see Dedering and Bidawid, Old Testament, iii. To this list one should add Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 33 (WS, xiii); cf. Brock and Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, 250–​51. A fragment of 4 Ezra from a

1

Sy ri ac

1.5.  Joseph and Aseneth (CAVT 105) Most scholars regard this story of marriage of the biblical patriarch Joseph and his Egyptian wife Aseneth to be a genuine Jewish novel that was composed sometime between 100 bce and 100 ce, most likely in Egypt.66 Written originally in Greek, the work has a complex textual history, attested also in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Geez, Slavonic, and Rumanian. The primary witness of Joseph and Aseneth in Syriac is a complete translation of the romance included into the Ecclesiastical History (I.6) of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor, produced by an unknown West Syriac author in 568/​9.67 Entitled “The Story of the Righteous Joseph and His Wife Aseneth,” the romance is incorporated into Book 1, where it is placed between the biblical genealogies and the story of Constantine’s conversion. As for its place in the textual tradition of Joseph and Aseneth, the Syriac version belongs to the group b (together with Armenian, Latin 2, and some other versions),68 being also its earliest attested textual witness. In the Ecclesiastical History, the romance is preceded by two letters, exchanged by its compiler and Moses of Ingilene, a prominent West Syriac translator.69 From the letters, which provide a rare glimpse into the circumstances of translation of apocryphal literature among Syrians, it emerges that the work was rendered into Syriac by Moses, in response to a request from the History’s author, who had obtained a copy of the “very old” Greek book “of Aseneth” from the library of the bishops of the family of Bet Beroe from the city of Reshaina. Remarkably, the reason Moses’s correspondent gives to justify his appeal for an experienced translator’s help is that although he had some fluency in Greek, the difficult language of this work allowed him to understand only the narrative’s historia—​that

manuscript dated to the sixth or eighth century was published in B. Outtier, “Un fragment syriaque inédit de IV Esdras,” Apocrypha 4 (1993): 19–​23. For a discussion of this evidence, see L. I. Lied and M. P. Monger, “Look to the East: New and Forgotten Sources of 4 Ezra,” in L. DiTommaso et al., eds., The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (SVTP 26; Leiden: Brill, 2018), 639–​52. 66.  E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth (GAP 8; Sheffield, UK:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); and J. J. Collins, “Joseph and Aseneth: Jewish or Christian?” JSP 14 (2005): 97–​112. 67.  For the Syriac text, based on London, British Library, Add. 17202 (WS, viex [c. 600]), together with Latin translation, see E. W. Brooks, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori uulgo adscripta. 4 vols. (CSCO Syr. III.5–​ 6; Louvain: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1919–​1924), 1.21–​55 [Syr.] and 3.4–​39 [trans.]. A later copy of Joseph and Aseneth, made from this manuscript, is in London, British Library, Rich. 7190 (WS, xiiex [c. 1200]). On the History and its sources, see G. Greatrex et al., The Chronicle of Pseudo-​Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity (Translated Texts for Historians 55; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 1–​92. On the Syriac witnesses of the work, see Ch. Burchard, “Der jüdische Asenethroman und seine Nachwirkung: Von Egeria zu Anna Katharina Emmerick oder von Moses aus Aggel zu Karl Kerényi,” ANRW, 2.20.1 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1987), 543–​667 at 574–​81. 68.  On importance of this group for reconstruction the lost original Greek text of the work, see Ch. Burchard, “The Text of Joseph and Aseneth Reconsidered,” JSP 14 (2005): 83–​96 at 86 and 94. For a detailed discussion of the Syriac version, including its translation technique and relation to the Greek and Armenian versions, see J. Wright, “After Antiquity: Joseph and Aseneth in Manuscript Transmission. A Case Study for Engaging with What Came after the Original Version of Jewish Pseudepigrapha” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2018), 36–​72, 92–​102. 69.  Hist. Eccl. I.4–​5; ed. Brooks, Historia ecclesiastica, 1.21–​55 [Syr.] and 3.4–​39 [trans.]. German translation: K. Ahrens and G. Krüger, Die sogennante Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899), 16*–​20*. On Moses, see I. Guidi, “Mosè di Aghel e Simeone Abbate,” Atti della reale Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, series 4, 2 (1886): 397–​416 and 545–​57.

111

12

112

Sergey  Min ov

is, plain meaning—​while preventing him from grasping its theoria, in this context, most likely, typological Christian message.70 The importance of this exchange, as well as of the absence of explicitly Christian alterations in the Syriac text of Joseph and Aseneth, is in the fact that even though the relevance of this story for Christians was not immediately obvious to its readers, it was still read and transmitted “in an explicitly Christian context without obvious Christian changes or expansions.”71 Another development of the Joseph and Aseneth legend in Syriac, not directly related to the romance as it is preserved in Pseudo-​Zachariah, is found in a rather late brief text entitled “Inquiry (šu’ālā) that shows where Aseneth, the wife of the fair Joseph, was from” (CAVT 109).72 Relying upon the authority of certain “sages” (ḥakkimē), it presents a narrative, according to which Aseneth was the child of Dina, raped by Shechem (Gen 34). Exposed by her mother in the desert, the baby was brought by an eagle to Egypt, where she was adopted by the priest Potiphar. As has been pointed out by scholars, a similar explanation of the descent of Aseneth is found in such relatively late rabbinic works as Pirqe de-​R abbi Eliezer and Targum of Pseudo-​Jonathan.73 It is likely that the Syriac text has its origins in one of the medieval Jewish versions of this midrashic tradition.

1.6. Josephus Among Jewish writers of antiquity, it was the historian Josephus who enjoyed the greatest prominence among Syriac-​speaking Christians. 74 Yet among his works only the sixth book of the Jewish War has survived in Syriac as an independent composition. Under the title “Discourse on the final destruction of Jerusalem,” it is included into the Codex Ambrosianus, where it follows 4 Maccabees.75 To the popularity of

70.  For a discussion of the meaning of these key terms of patristic exegesis in this context, see Wright, “After Antiquity,”  66–​69. 71.  Wright, “After Antiquity,” 53–​54. On some theological differences between the Syriac version and the Greek one, see ibid., 55–​56. 72.  First published from Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 174 [Sachau  70] (WS, xix1/​2 [after  1827]), with a Latin translation in G. Oppenheim, Fabula Josephi et Asenethae apocrypha e libro syriaco latine versa (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1886), 4–​7. Republished, with a German translation, in Burchard, “Der jüdische Asenethroman,” 578–​81. For a French trans. and discussion, see M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth (SPB 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968), 33–​36. It is also attested in Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Syriac 177 (WS, xix3/​4 [c. 1870]), fols. 227r–​228r. 73.  See V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph:  A Haggadic Literary-​Historical Study,” HUCA 1 (1924): 239–​306 at 243–​52; and Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth,  35–​36. 74.  On the reception of Josephus in the Syriac tradition, see H. Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und Textcritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 10; Leiden:  Brill, 1977), 5–​13; S. P. Brock, “Some Syriac Legends Concerning Moses,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982):  237–​55; and Brock, “Some Syriac Accounts of the Jewish Sects,” in R. H. Fischer, ed., A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus:  Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1977), 265–​76. 75.  From this manuscript, published in A. M. Ceriani, Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI photolithographice edita, 2 vols. (Milano: J. B. Pogliani, 1876–​1883), 660–​79; and P. Bedjan, Homiliae selectae Mar-​Jacobi Sarugensis, 5 vols. (Paris: Otto Harrassowitz, 1905–​1910), 1.770–​837. Chapters 1 and 2 were published, together with German translation, in H. Kottek, Das sechste Buch des Bellum Judaicum

13

Sy ri ac

Josephus among Syriac writers testifies a considerable number of references to him and quotations from his works, mostly the War. Much of this material entered the Syriac tradition via the translation of patristic works, such as the Ecclesiastical History and Theophany of Eusebius or Epiphanius’s Anakephalaiosis. Given their relevance as background for the New Testament events, of particular importance were Josephus’s description of the destruction of Jerusalem and mention of Jesus.76 Among the writers quoting Josephus at length, one could mention Sergius the Stylite (WS), who in the eighth century quotes Books 5 and 6 of the War in his Disputation against a Jew (ch. 21). 77 In the ninth century, Ishodad of Merv (ES) quotes Josephus on several occasions in his commentary on the New Testament. 78 Excerpts from Josephus are found also in various anthologies and collections of testimonia. For example, several passages from the War appear in the patristic florilegium preserved in the manuscript Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 28 (WS, vi–​vii).79 The wide range of excerpts from the War suggests that a complete translation of this work in Syriac may have once existed.80 The prominence of Josephus as the authority on the Second Temple period of Jewish history caused that some other works dealing with this era were attributed to him. Thus, in most of its textual witnesses, 4 Maccabees is transmitted under his name.81 Occasionally, 3 Maccabees is also ascribed to Josephus.82 At some point, Aesop, whose name was corrupted into “Iosipos,” became identified with Josephus, as demonstrates the passage on him in the thirteenth-​century catalogue of Abdisho of Nisibis (ES), where Aesop’s “Fables” (maṯlē)

nach der von Ceriani photolithographisch edirten Peschitta-​Handschrift übersetzt und kritisch bearbeitet (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1886). See also R. J.  H. Gottheil, “Kottek’s ‘Das Sechste Buch des Bellum Judaicum,’” Hebraica 3 (1887):  136–​51; and H. Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-​Josephus-​Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (ALGHJ 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), 61–​62. It is also attested in Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 9 (WS, viii–​ix), fols. 3r–​30v; cf. Brock and Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, 42. 76.  On the latter, see A. Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (SBL 36; New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 38–​43; and Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic,” NTS 54 (2008): 573–​90. 77.  Ed. A. P. Hayman, The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew, 2 vols. (CSCO 338–​339, Syr. 152–​153; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1973), 70–​73 [Syr.] and 69–​72 [trans.]. 78.  M. D. Gibson, The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, Bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.), in Syriac and English. 5 vols. (Horae Semiticae 5–​7 ; Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1911, 1916), 1.87, 91, and 133–​1 34 [trans.], and 2.146–​1 47, 152–​1 53, 220 [Syr.]. See S. Castelli, “Displaying an Authoritative Testimony:  On the Use of Flavius Josephus by Isho’dad of Merv,” in M. Hirschberger, ed., Jüdisch-​h ellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012), 193–​2 11. 79. I.e., War 3.372–​375, 3.353–​354, and 7.34. For the text, see Brock and van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, 199–​200. 80.  Gottheil, “Kottek’s ‘Das Sechste Buch’,” 137–​38. 81.  See R. L. Bensly and W. E. Barnes, The Fourth Book of Maccabees and Kindred Documents in Syriac First Edited on Manuscript Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895), xiii–​xiv. 82.  Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 9 (WS, viii–​ix), fols. 31r–​44v; cf. Brock and Van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, 43.

113

14

114

Sergey  Min ov

are listed among Josephus’s works.83 There are also some peculiar biographical developments in connection with the figure of Josephus in Syriac. As a result of misunderstanding of the description of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas from the New Testament by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. I.10.5), Josephus was identified with him.84 As a result of another misunderstanding, the author of the Chronicle of the Year 724 reports that Josephus was killed during the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans.85

1.7.  Psalms of Solomon (CAVT 212) There is a consensus among the scholars that this collection of eighteen psalms is an original Jewish work that was composed during the late Second Temple period, most likely in Hebrew.86 There is no surviving textual evidence of the original Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of the Psalms, which are preserved so far only in Greek and Syriac. The Syriac text is attested in four manuscripts, the earliest of which is London, British Library, Add. 14538 (WS, x).87 The Syriac version of the Psalms is usually regarded as a translation from Greek. Yet, several scholars brought forward arguments in favor of Hebrew as the source language behind the Syriac version.88 If this claim is accurate, it could serve as a valuable textual witness of the original text of the Psalms, independent of Greek. The situation is, however, made complicated by the inconclusive character of the evidence, which could be also interpreted as supporting the theory of Greek primacy,89 as well as by the possibility that the Psalms were originally composed in Greek.90

83.  For the reference itself, see J. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-​Vaticana, 3 vols. (Roma: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1719–​1728), 3.1 and 15. For a discussion, see L. DiTommaso, The Book of Daniel and the Apocryphal Daniel Literature (SVTP 20; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 110–​11; and Brock, “Young Daniel,” 268. 84.  For the references, see S. Castelli, “Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe nella letteratura siriaca,” Henoch 23 (2001): 199–​226. 85.  Ed. E. W. Brooks, Chronica minora, Pars secunda (CSCO Syr. III.4; Paris:  Typographeo Reipublicae, 1904), 148. 86.  See K. Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting ( JSJSup 84; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 87.  Editio princeps of the Syriac text, with English translation: J. R. Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon: Now First Published from the Syriac Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), followed by J. R. Harris and A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Re-​edited for the Governors of the John Rylands Library, 2 vols. (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 1916, 1920). These have been superseded by the critical edition of W. Baars, in H. Schneider, W. Baars, and J. C. H. Lebram, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version. Part IV, fasc. 6: Canticles or Odes; Prayer of Manasseh; Apocryphal Psalms; Psalms of Solomon; Tobit; 1 (3) Esdras. General Preface (Leiden: Brill, 1972). 88.  K. G. Kuhn, Die älteste Textgestalt der Psalmen Salomos, insbesondere aufgrund der syrischen Übersetzung neu untersucht; mit einer Bearbeitung und Übersetzung der Psalmen Salomos 13–​17 (BWANT IV, 21 [73]; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1937), J. L. Trafton, The Syriac Version of the Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Evaluation (SCS 11; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985); and G. Ward, “A Philological Analysis of the Greek and the Syriac Texts of the Psalms of Solomon” (PhD diss.,; Temple University, 1996). 89.  See the review of Trafton’s monograph by S. P. Brock, JSS 32 (1987): 204–​07. Cf. also the cautious language used by Trafton himself in his conclusions (Syriac Version, 206–​07). 90.  For a recent attempt to argue for Greek as the work’s original language, see J. Joosten, “Reflections on the Original Language of the Psalms of Solomon,” in E. Bons and P. Pouchelle, eds., The Psalms of Solomon: Language, History, Theology (SBLEJL 40; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2015), 31–​47.

15

Sy ri ac

2.  Works of Uncertain Origin 2.1. (Syriac) Apocalypse of Daniel This is an original Syriac composition that presents “the revelation (gelyānā) which was revealed to Daniel the prophet in the land of Persia and Elam.”91 It is preserved in two manuscripts: one at Cambridge MA, Harvard University Library, Syr. 42 (WS, vii) and the other at Mardin, Church of the Forty Martyrs, 281 (xv3/​4 [1474/​1475]), which is defective at the end. The Syriac text of the Apocalypse has been published several times,92 with the monograph of M. Henze being the standard edition. The Apocalypse can be divided into two main parts, narrative-​historical and visionary-​eschatological. The first part (chs. 1–​12), set in Persia, describes the tenure of Daniel at the Babylonian court during the reign of Darius. In the transitional ­chapter 13, it is related that Daniel received many prophecies and visions from the Holy Spirit when he was with Darius in Persia and Elam. The second part (chs. 14–​40) develops this claim, presenting the succession of future events divided into a set number of periods, which include the revolt of the peoples of the North, the messianic woes, the coming of the Antichrist, the second coming of Christ, the building of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the general resurrection, the pilgrimage of nations to Jerusalem, and the paschal banquet of peace. Henze demonstrates that Syriac is the original language of the Apocalypse.93 While establishing the date of the work is made difficult by the absence of any recognizable references or allusions to recent historical events, the first decades of the seventh century seem to be the most likely terminus ante quem for its composition, given the fact that the Apocalypse does not show any traces of acquaintance with such influential Syriac works as the Alexander Legend and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Methodius, composed in 629/​630 and 690/​691, respectively.94 In ­chapters 14–​16 and 20–​22, one finds a very close correspondence between the text of the Apocalypse and that of another Danielic pseudepigraphon, the Syriac Apocalypse of the Young Daniel. It has been argued by Brock that both works derive this information from some earlier common source.95 According to Henze, who claims that the author of the Apocalypse modeled the eschatological vision in its last chapters on

91.  On this Daniel apocalypse and the next (§2.2), see now L. DiTommaso, “The Apocryphal Daniel Apocalypses: Works, Manuscripts, and Overview,” forthcoming in J. Verheyden and J. Schroeter, eds., Is There an “Apocalyptic” World View? Images of World and Cosmos, Future and Past, in Late Antique Apocalyptic Writings, special issue of ETL 94 (2018): 275–​316. 92.  Together with a translation into Esperanto, in M. Slabczyk, Apokalipso de Danielo profeto en la lando Persio kaj Elamo (Arkado eldonejo 1; Vieno: Arkado eldonejo, 2000). With an English translation, in M. Henze, The Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel: Introduction, Text and Commentary (TSAC 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). For corrections of Henze’s edition and important text-​critical observations, see S. P. Brock, “Two Editions of a New Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel: A Review Article,” JAC 48–​49 (2005–​2006): 7–​18 at 10–​15. For additional sources, see DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 113–​23; and idem, “Apocryphal Daniel Apocalypses.” 93. Henze, Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel,  8–​9. 94.  Ibid.,  11–​15. 95.  Brock, “Two Editions,” 9–​15. Another explanation has been offered by Slabczyk, Apokalipso de Danielo, 12, who suggested that the Apocalypse is a “fuller recension” of the Young Daniel. Cf., however, DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 122–​23, who insists that the two works are “fundamentally unrelated.”

115

16

116

Sergey  Min ov

the New Testament Apocalypse of John, it was produced in a Chalcedonian or Melkite milieu.96 There are several unambiguous Christian references in this work, most notably the detailed description of the second coming of Christ (chs. 30–​31). It, thus, can hardly be doubted that in its present form the Apocalypse is a Christian composition.97 At the same time, Henze points out a number of parallels with Jewish apocalypses, such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, arguing that its author was familiar with Jewish apocalyptic literature from the first centuries ce and “incorporated a significant body of material from that time into his own work.”98

2.2.  Vision (or Apocalypse) of the Young/​Small Daniel (CAVT 260) Another Danielic apocalypse, likewise written originally in Syriac, bears the title “Of the young/​small Daniel, on our Lord and on the end.” The Syriac text of the Young Daniel is preserved in a single manuscript, London, British Library, Add. 18715 (WS, xii–​xiii), and has been published several times.99 In the first two chapters, Daniel warns people of the coming judgment, focusing on the figure of the Son of Man. In the following c­ hapters 3–​8, the prophet recounts the revelation about future events that he received from the Holy Spirit in the land of Persia and Elam during the reign of Darius. It includes allusions to kings and kingdoms, wars and conflicts, heavenly signs and omens, ending with a description of Antichrist. As with the Apocalypse of Daniel, the original language of the Young Daniel is most certainly Syriac. Likewise, the work has no easily recognizable references to recent historical events, which makes difficult to date it. The brief mention of Hippolytus of Rome’s “commentary on the small Daniel and Susanna” (puššāq Dāniel z’urā w-​Šušān) in the thirteenth-​century catalogue of Abdisho of Nisibis (ES) is too ambiguous to be used for that purpose.100 As noted, the Young Daniel and the Apocalypse share a significant amount 96. Henze, Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, 16–​17. Cf., however, Brock, “Two Editions,” 17, who offers an alternative interpretation of these parallels and argues that it is “far from certain that the author knew and made use of Revelation.” 97.  See on this A. Golitzin, “A Monastic Setting for the Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel,” in R. A. D. Young and M. J. Blanchard, eds., To Train His Soul in Books: Syriac Asceticism in Early Christianity (CUA Studies in Early Christianity; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 66–​98. 98. Henze, Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel, 17–​22. See also Brock, “Two Editions,” 16–​17, for some additional parallels with Jewish sources. For a critique of Henze’s position, see DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 118–​21. 99.  Together with a German translation, in H.  Schmoldt, “Die Schrift ‘Vom jungen Daniel’ und ‘Daniels letzte Vision.’ Herausgabe und Interpretation zweier apokalyptischer Texte,” (PhD diss.,: Universität Hamburg, 1972), 25–​113. For a consonantal transliteration of the Syriac text with an Italian translation, see C. Balzaretti, “L’Apocalisse del giovane Daniele (Syr Dan),” RSLR 42 (2006):  109–​29. For the Syriac text with an English translation, see S. P. Brock, “The Small/​Young Daniel Re-​Edited,” in L. DiTommaso et al., eds., The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone (SVTP 26; Leiden: Brill, 2018), 250–​84. Note also S. P. Brock, “‘The Young Daniel’: A Little Known Syriac Apocalyptic Text. Introduction and Translation,” in J. Ashton, ed., Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland (AJEC 88; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 267–​285, idem, “The Young Daniel: A Syriac Apocalyptic Text on the End, and the Problem of its Dating,” in H. Amirav et al., eds., Apocalypticism and Eschatology in Late Antiquity: Encounters in the Abrahamic Religions, 6th–​8th Centuries (Late Antique History and Religion 17; Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 75–​86; DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 108–​13 and 121–​23; and DiTommaso, “Apocryphal Daniel Apocalypses.” 100.  For the reference itself, see Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, 3.1.15. For a discussion, see DiTommaso, Book of Daniel, 110–​11; and Brock, “Young Daniel,” 268.

17

Sy ri ac

of material. In Brock’s opinion, that points out to a common source used independently by the two works, which itself could be dated by the early seventh century; that would make the mid-​seventh century a terminus post quem for both of them.101 There are clear Christian references in this work, such as an allusion to Eucharist (2.4–​6) or mention of “the Father and the Son” (6.8). In its present form, the Young Daniel is, thus, unquestionably a Christian composition. Still, given the composite nature of this text, more research needs to be conducted to assess validity of the claim made by several scholars that it is based on an earlier Jewish apocalyptical work, dating from the first centuries ce.102

2.3.  Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Ezra (CAVT 186) This brief composition contains the revelation to Ezra the scribe in answer to his question to God regarding “the last days of the Ishmaelites.”103 It is organized as a series of visions, in which conflicts between various Islamic dynasties and their enemies are presented using animal imagery. Although the Syriac text of the Apocalypse has already been published several times,104 there is not yet a critical edition of this work. The seventeen extant manuscripts of the Apocalypse are very late, the earliest dated to the beginning of the eighteenth century.105 However, there is little doubt that this historical apocalypse is an original Christian composition, produced by Syriac-​speaking Christians at the very beginning of the Muslim era, perhaps in the early eighth century.

2.4.  Colloquy of Moses with God on Mount Sinai (CAVT 130) Attested in Syriac, Christian Arabic, and Geez, this composition presents a dialogue between God and Moses at the time when the prophet ascended Mount Sinai.106 The

101.  Brock, “Young Daniel,” 269. 102. Schmoldt, Die Schrift, 110–​113; and F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 160. 103.  M. Debié, “The Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Ezra,” in D. R. Thomas and B. H. Roggema, eds., Christian-​Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. vol. 1 (600‒900) (HCMR 11; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 239–​41. 104.  Edited from Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 73 [Sachau  131] (ES, xix3/​4 [1862]), with a German translation, in F. W. A. Baethgen, “Beschreibung der syrischen Handschrift ‘Sachau 131’ aus der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin,” ZAW 6 (1886):  193–​211 at 199–​210. Edited from Paris, Bibliotèque nationale de France, syr. 326 (ES, xix), with a French translation, in J. B. Chabot, “L’Apocalypse d’Esdras touchant le royaume des Arabes,” RevS 2 (1894): 242–​50 and 333–​46. For an English translation of the text of New York, Union Theological Seminary, Syriac 23 [Clemons 307] (ES, xix4/​4 [1884]), see I. H. Hall, “The Vision of Ezra the Scribe Concerning the Latter Times of the Ishmaelites,” Presbyterian Review 7 (1886): 537–​41. An edition based on five manuscripts has been prepared recently by L. Locke Estes, “The Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Ezra: Syriac Edition, English Translation, and Introduction” (MA thesis, Texas Abilene Christian University, 2016). 105.  To the three manuscripts mentioned above, one should add Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. sir. 597 (ES, xviiex?), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. sir. 164 (ES, xviiiin [1702]), Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Syriac 11 (ES, xviiiin [1702]), London, British Library, Add. 25875 (ES, xviiiin [1710]), Birmingham, Cadbury Research Library, Mingana Syriac 567 (ES, xviii2/​4 [1744]), Kirkuk, Chaldean Archdiocese of Kirkuk, 9 (ES, xviii4/​4 [1791]), Seert, Library of the Chaldean Catholic Bishop, 113 (ES, xviii), Leeds, University Library, Syr. 4 (ES, xix4/​4 [1889/​90]), Baghdad, Chaldean Monastery of Notre Dame des Semences, Alqosh 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 (ES, xix). 106.  K. R. Suomala, “The Colloquy of Moses on Mount Sinai:  Where Syriac Christianity Meets Islamic Spain and Africa between the 16th and 19th Cent.,” Hugoye:  Journal of Syriac Studies 8 (2005):  27–​39; and

117

18

118

Sergey  Min ov

questions asked by Moses address ethical and ritual issues, as well as those that pertain to the properties of God and eschatology. There is not yet a critical edition of any of the three versions of this work. The Syriac version is attested in at least six manuscripts, the earliest of which seems to be Tehran, Issayi 18 (ES, xiii2/​4 [1743/​44]), itself copied from a manuscript dated 1243/​44.107 The Syriac text of Cambridge MA, Harvard University Library, Syr. 166 was published, together with an English translation, by I. Hall.108 Whereas some scholars raised a possibility that the Colloquy may be of Jewish origin,109 others argued that the work “in all its present forms bears the hallmarks of a composition that is basically Christian.”110 Only new critical editions of all three versions of the Colloquy would make it possible to provide a satisfactory answer to this question, as well as to whether the original language of this work was Syriac or Arabic.111

2.5.  History of Job Entitled “History (taš’iṯā) of the righteous Job,” this still unpublished composition is so far known in a single manuscript only, Mardin, Church of the Forty Martyrs, 256 (WS, xvii), fols. 338–​343. According to information in its title (fol. 338), the work was translated into Syriac from Arabic. It is very likely that the History is a translation of Qiṣṣat Ayyūb al-​ṣadīq (CAVT 209), which is well attested in Christian Arabic tradition.112 While no edition of the Arabic version of the History exists, it is difficult to say whether this work was originally composed in Arabic and to what degree, if at all, it was influenced by Jewish traditions about Job.

2.6.  History of Jonah Entitled “History (taš’iṯā) of the prophet Jonah, whom God sent to Nineveh,” this unpublished work is found in two manuscripts:  Mardin, Church of the Forty Martyrs, 256 (WS, xvii), fols. 344–​349, and Tiruvalla, Library of the Malankara bishop’s house 33 (ES, xviii).113 According to information provided by the scribe of the former manuscript R. Zuurmond, “The Colloquy of Moses with God on Mount Sinai,” in V. Böll et al., eds., Studia Aethiopica in Honour of Siegbert Uhlig on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2004), 127–​38. 107.  Desreumaux, “Un manuscrit syriaque de Téhéran,” 153–​54. To this manuscript, one should add Seert, Library of the Chaldean Catholic Bishop, 64 (ES, xvi), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. sir. 597 (ES, xvii), Manchester, John Rylands Library 21 (WS, xixin [1800/​1]), and Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Library, Syr. 59 (WS, xixmed [1857]) and Syr. 166 (ES, xix4/​4 [1885]). 108.  I. H. Hall, “The Colloquy of Moses on Mount Sinai,” Hebraica 7 (1891): 161–​77. 109.  Bundy, “Pseudepigrapha,” 754. 110.  Zuurmond, “Colloquy of Moses,” 138. 111.  For the Arabic text, see J. P. Monferrer-​Sala, “Un apócrifo egipcio de origen siriaco:  el codex 57/​5 del CFSCO (Musīd, El Cairo),” Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos 51 (2002): 139–​60. 112.  For the references to manuscripts, see G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. 5 vols. (Studi e testi 118, 133, 146, 147, and 172; Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944–​1953), 1.206–​207. Cf. also J.-​M. Sauget, “Reconstitution d’un manuscrit double originaire du Ṭūr ‘Abdīn et actuellement depécé: Sbath 125 + Mingana Syriaque 88,” Memorie della reale Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche ser. VIII, 19 (1976): 357–​439 at 399–​400. 113.  See J. P. M. van der Ploeg, The Christians of St. Thomas in South India and their Syriac Manuscripts (Placid Lecture Series 3; Bangalore, India: Dharmaram Publications, 1983), 113.

19

Sy ri ac

(fol. 349), it was translated into Syriac from Arabic. It is very likely that the History is a translation of Qiṣṣat Yūnān al-​nabī (CAVT 214), well attested in Christian Arabic tradition.114 As no critical edition of the Arabic version of the History is available yet, it is early to judge whether this work was originally composed in Arabic and to what degree it was influenced by Jewish traditions about Jonah.115

2.7.  History of Joseph (CAVT 113) Attested in Syriac, Christian Arabic, Geez, and Latin (translated from Arabic), this composition presents a prose retelling of the biblical account of patriarch Joseph, beginning with his dreams (Gen 37, 39–​47) and up to the time of his death (Genesis 48–​49). There is not yet a critical edition of any of the three Oriental versions of this work. The Syriac version is found in at least five manuscripts, the earliest of which is Berlin Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Syriac 74 [Sachau 9] (ES, xviiex [1695]); the Syriac text of this manuscript was published in two parts, together with a German translation.116 Although in Syriac (and in Arabic) the work is transmitted under the name of Basil of Caesarea, there is little doubt that this attribution is pseudepigraphic and that its original language is Syriac. Except the attribution to Basil, there are no explicit references to Christianity in the History. Several scholars noticed a number of motifs and images shared by this work and various Jewish sources.117 Some even went as far as to propose that it is an originally Jewish composition from the Second Temple Period.118 However, K. Heal, in what is the most comprehensive treatment of the Syriac version of the History, comes to the conclusion that it most likely originated in a Syriac-​speaking Christian milieu, during the early fifth century.119

114.  The Arabic text was edited from two manuscripts in B. Wolf, Die Geschichte des Propheten Jona nach einer karschunischen Handschrift der Kgl. Bibliothek zu Berlin. Ein Beitrag zur Jona-​Exegese (Berlin:  M. Poppelauer, 1899). For the references to additional manuscripts, see Graf, Geschichte, 1.216–​17; and Sauget, “Reconstitution d’un manuscrit,” 400. 115. Wolf, Die Geschichte, 12–​38, points out a number of parallels between the History and rabbinic sources. 116.  M. Weinberg, Die Geschichte Josefs angeblich verfasst von Basilius dem Grossen aus Cäsarea, nach einer syrischen Handschrift der Berliner Kgl. Bibliothek mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen herausgegeben. Teil 1 (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1893); and S. W. Link, Die Geschichte Josefs angeblich verfasst von Basilius dem Grossen aus Cäsarea nach einer syrischen Handschrift der königlichen Bibliothek in Berlin. Teil 2 (Berlin:  H. Itzkowski, 1895). For references to other manuscripts, along with an English translation of the History and discussion, see K. S. Heal, “The Syriac History of Joseph: A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 85–​120. A new edition by Heal is in preparation. 117.  See Weinberg, Die Geschichte Josefs, 8–​10, Link, Die Geschichte Josefs, 6–​7; and E. Isaac, “The Ethiopic History of Joseph: Translation with Introduction and Notes,” JSP 6 (1990): 3–​125 at 28–​33. For a re-​examination of these parallels, see Heal, “Syriac History of Joseph,”  88–​89. 118.  Isaac, “Ethiopic History of Joseph,” 43–​44. 119.  Heal, “Syriac History of Joseph,” 92.

119

120

120

Sergey  Min ov

2.8.  History of the Rechabites (CAVT 166) The Journey of Zosimus is an account of the visit of monk Zosimus to the island of the Blessed Ones, whose inhabitants claim to be the Rechabites, mentioned in Jeremiah 35. It is an original Greek composition, attested also in Syriac, Arabic, Geez, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic.120 Translated from Greek during the seventh century by Jacob of Edessa, the work has a complicated textual history in Syriac, with no less than sixteen manuscripts, which can be divided into three recensions—​short, long, and summarized.121 There is agreement between scholars that the Journey is a Christian composition whose author, probably a monk, blends the classical legends about the Isles of the Blessed with the biblical traditions about the descendants of Rechab.122 Several scholars suggested, however, that at the core of this work lies an independent apocryphal composition of Jewish origin, the History of the Rechabites, reused by the Christian author of the Journey.123 This hypothesis has been criticized by R. Nikolsky, who argued, convincingly, that the History is a Christian work, similar to the rest of the Journey.124

2.9.  Life of Abel (CAVT 46) Attributed to certain Symmachus, this composition retells the biblical story of the conflict between Abel and Cain (Gen 4). It is attested in Syriac and, derived from it, an Arabic version. The Syriac text was published by Brock from Damascus, Patr. Syr. 12/​18 (WS, xii).125 Celebrating Abel as the first martyr in the human history, the Life offers a dramatic and 120.  For an overview of these textual traditions, see J.-​C. Haelewyck, ed., Histoire de Zosime sur la vie des Bienheureux Réchabites: les versions orientales et leurs manuscrits (CSCO 664, Subs. 135; Louvain: Peeters, 2016). 121.  See J.-​C. Halewyck, “La tradition syriaque,” in Halewyck, ed., Histoire de Zosime, 43–​58. The text of the short recension was published first by F. Nau, “La légende inédite des fils de Jonadab, fils de Réchab, et les îles Fortunées. Texte syriaque (attribué à Jacques d’Édesse) et traduction française,” RevS 6 (1898):  263–​66, and 7 (1899):  54–​75 and 136–​46. Critical editions of all three recensions have been published recently by J.-​ C. Haelewyck, “Historia Zosimi de Vita Beatorum Rechabitarum:  Édition de la version syriaque brève,” Le Muséon 127 (2014):  95–​147; Halewyck, “La version syriaque longue de l’Historia Zosimi de Vita Beatorum Rechabitarumi: Édition et traduction,” Le Muséon 128 (2015): 295–​379; and Halewyck, “Histoire de Zosime sur la vie des Bienheureux Réchabites: Les trois recensions syriaques; Édition de la version résumé,” Parole de l’Orient 43 (2017): 175–​94. For an English translation of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, syr. 236 (xii) of the short recension, see J. H. Charlesworth, “History of the Rechabites,” in Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophic Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 443–​61. 122.  A sustained argument for Christian provenance of the work was made by R. Nikolsky, “The Provenance of The Journey of Zosimos (Also Known as The History of the Rechabites)” (PhD diss.; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003) [in Hebrew]. See also J.-​C. Haelewyck, “Narratio Zosimi de Vita Beatorum (CAVT 166). Une relecture du mythe de l’île des Bienheureux,” in C. Cannuyer, ed., L’île, regards orientaux: varia orientalia, biblica et antiqua. Hans Hauben in honorem (Acta Orientalia Belgica 26; Lille: Société belge d’études orientales, 2013), 135–​47; and J. Dochhorn, “Die Narratio Zosimi (CAVT 166): Ein Vorbericht,” in E. J. C. Tigchelaar, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (BETL 270; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 389–​448. 123.  Charlesworth, “History of the Rechabites,” 444–​45; and Ch. H. Knights, “Towards a Critical Introduction to ‘The History of the Rechabites’,” JSJ 26 (1995), 324–​26. 124.  R. Nikolsky, “The History of the Rechabites and the Jeremiah Literature,” JSP 13 (2002):  185–​207. See also Ch. H. Knights, “The Rechabites Revisited: The History of the Rechabites Twenty-​Five Years On,” JSP 23 (2014): 307–​20. 125.  S. P. Brock, “A Syriac Life of Abel,” Le Muséon 87 (1974): 467–​92. The Life is attested also in Mardin, Church of the Forty Martyrs, 253 (WS, xiii–​xiv).

12

Sy ri ac

extended retelling of his murder by Cain, which includes dialogues between Cain and his parents and between Cain and God; laments over Abel by Eve, Adam, and Cain himself; and Cain’s repentance and the reburial of Abel’s body. Notwithstanding the Greek name of its supposed author, the Life seems to be an original Syriac composition. S. P. Brock dates the Life tentatively by the late fifth or early sixth century. The work features unambiguously Christian motifs, such as typological connection between Abel and Jesus (§§4, 8, 25, 27). According to Brock, “There are but a few links with Jewish traditions” in the Life, though it has much in common with the Christian writers of the fifth and sixth centuries.126

2.10.  Lives of the Prophets (CAVT 213) This relatively short composition provides biographical information about twenty-​three prophetic figures from the Old Testament. There is disagreement between scholars whether this work originated in a Jewish or Christian milieu.127 Translated into Syriac from Greek, the Lives enjoyed considerable popularity in Syriac-​speaking milieu and is well represented in manuscript tradition. There is not yet a critical edition of the Syriac version of this work. In his overview of the Syriac witnesses of Lives, S. P. Brock divides them into the five main groups:128 (a) the main group, mostly comprising the West Syriac manuscripts;129 (b) the later East Syriac manuscript tradition;130 (c) abbreviated texts; (d) the West Syriac chronicles, such as Michael the Syrian, and exegetical tradition;131 and (e) the East Syriac exegetical tradition, such as Theodore bar Koni and Solomon of Basra. Although in Syriac the work is often attributed to Epiphanius of Cyprus, its text is closer to the “Anonymous” and “Dorotheos” recensions of the Greek textual tradition than to that of “Epiphanius.” While the earliest Syriac manuscripts of the Lives are dated by the eighth century (London,

126.  Brock, “Syriac Life of Abel,” 470. For a discussion of various traditions from the Life alongside Syriac and Greek Christian sources, see J. B. Glenthøj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers (4th–​6th Centuries) (CSCO 567, Subs. 95; Louvain: Peeters, 1997). 127.  The former position is argued in A. M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum (TSAJ 49–​50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995–​1996), 1.34–​69. For the latter, see D. Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 128.  S. P. Brock, “The Lives of the Prophets in Syriac:  Some Soundings,” in C. Hempel and J. M. Lieu, eds., Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb ( JSJSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 21–​37 at  22–​25. 129.  An eclectic text, based on the three oldest manuscripts from the British Library that contain the full text of the Lives, was published by E. Nestle, Syrische Grammatik, mit Litteratur, Chrestomathie und Glossar (2nd rev. ed.; PLO 5; Berlin: H. Reuther, 1888), 86–​107. For variant readings of these manuscripts, see Nestle, “Die dem Epiphanius zugeschriebenen Vitae Prophetarum in doppelter griechischer Rezension,” Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen:  J. J.  Heckenhauer, 1893), 1–​64 (36–​43). The text of Paris, Bibliotèque nationale de France, syr. 64 (xi) was published, together with a French translation, by P. Padva, La découverte du Livre des Généalogies, Sefer Yuḥasin, ou “Les Vies des Prophètes” (attribuée à Epiphane evêque de Chypre) (Paris:  Librairie Lipschutz, 1942); for an English translation of the text of Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, C.313 Inf., see Brock, “Lives of the Prophets,”  26–​30. 130.  One of the representatives of this group was translated into English by I. H. Hall, “The Lives of the Prophets,” JSBLE (JBL o.s.) 7 (1887): 28–​40 and 63–​64. 131.  For a detailed discussion of one of these witnesses, see A. Hilkens, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and Its Sources (OLA 272; Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 85–​95.

121

12

122

Sergey  Min ov

British Library 14536 and Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana C.313 Inf.), the translation itself must go back at least to the sixth century.132

2.11.  6 Maccabees This name is assigned by some scholars to an anonymous narrative poem (mēmrā) that tells the story of the martyrdom of the priest Eleazar and of the mother and her seven sons under Antiochus IV, offering a versified paraphrase of 4 Maccabees. The work is attested only in Syriac, in at least three manuscripts, one of which is Oxford, Bodleian Library, Or. 624 (ES, xviii/​xix).133 Written in the twelve-​syllabic meter, associated with Jacob of Serugh, it is an original Syriac composition of uncertain date, most probably medieval, since it uses rhyme.134 The poem features a number of distinctively Christian references, such as mention of Jesus, Paul, Stephen the Protomartyr, of saints as intercessors, and of churches being built to commemorate the Maccabean martyrs. S. Peterson has attempted to make a case for the work’s Jewish origins, claiming it to be “an example of literary efforts by Syriac-​speaking Jews, preserved by Christians.”135 Yet in light of the absence of secure evidence for Jews using Classical Syriac as a literary language during Late Antiquity, as well as integral character of the Christian references in the poem, this hypothesis seems unlikely.

2.12.  Odes of Solomon (CAVT 205) A collection of 42 hymns, ascribed to Solomon, it is preserved as a whole only in Syriac.136 While it is unclear whether the original language of the Odes was Greek or Syriac, there is no doubt that it is an early Christian work. The reason for the attribution of the Odes to Solomon is not completely obvious, since the biblical king is not mentioned in the text of the hymns.137 Composed during the period when Christianity was still influenced strong enough by its Jewish matrix, most likely during the second century, the Odes feature a number of motifs and images shared with early Jewish works, including those from Qumran.138 132.  Brock, “Lives of the Prophets,” 37. 133.  For the Syriac text and an English translation, see Bensly and Barnes, Fourth Book, 125–​54 [Syr.] and xlviii–​ lxxii [trans.]. The identity of two other manuscripts used by Bensley is uncertain. 134.  S.  P. Brock dates it tentatively to the twelfth or thirteenth century in “Eleazar, Shmuni and Her Seven Sons in Syriac Tradition,” in M.-​F. Baslez and O. Munnich, eds., La mémoire des persécutions: Autour des livres des Maccabées (Collection de la RÉJ 56; Paris: Peeters, 2014), 329–​36 at 330. The work is discussed briefly in W. Witakowski, “Mart(y) Shmuni, the Mother of the Maccabean Martyrs, in Syriac Tradition,” in R. Lavenant, ed., VI Symposium Syriacum, 1992 (OCA 247; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994), 153–​68 at 161–​62. 135.  S. Peterson, “Martha Shamoni: A Jewish Syriac Rhymed Liturgical Poem about the Maccabean Martyrdoms (Sixth Maccabees)” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2006), 162. 136.  Syriac text and English translation: J. H. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon: The Syriac Texts (SBLTT 13; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). A comprehensive commentary is provided by M. Lattke, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary (Hermeneia 86; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009). 137.  For a recent attempt to solve this problem, see A. Kim Harkins, “The Odes of Solomon as Solomonic Pseudepigrapha,” JSP 25 (2016): 247–​73. 138.  For references, see annotated bibliography in J. H. Charlesworth, Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon, vol. 1 ( JSPSup 22; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 261–​85. See also J. H. Charlesworth, “The Odes of Solomon and the Jewish Wisdom Texts,” in Ch. Hempel, eds., The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BETL 159; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 323–​49.

123

Sy ri ac

2.13.  Prayer of Manasseh (CAVT 178) A brief penitential prayer attributed to the Judean king Manasseh, this composition is inspired by 2 Chr 33:11–​13. Attested in many languages, it was translated into Syriac from Greek. The Prayer has a rich and complex textual history in Syriac:  its earliest attestation comes from the Syriac Didascalia (fourth century), where it is found incorporated into ­chapter 7; it was also transmitted as a part of the biblical Odes or as an appendix to Chronicles in the Peshitta OT manuscripts, and included into some Melkite Horologia. H. Schneider and W. Baars, who prepared a critical edition of the Syriac text of the Prayer, divided all these textual witnesses into two main recensions.139 The earliest textual witness of the work, recently discovered, is preserved in Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 28 (WS, vi–​vii), fol. 16v, and is different from both recensions of the Leiden Peshitta edition.140 Given that the Prayer has no explicit references to Christianity and that it has much in common with early Jewish prayers, most scholars tend to consider it as an original Jewish composition.141 At the same time, there is no evidence for its circulation among the Jews during the Second Temple or Roman/​Byzantine periods.142 Recently, J. R. Davila has challenged the scholarly consensus on the Jewish origins of the Prayer, arguing that it should be regarded, first and foremost, as an early Christian composition, and that students of ancient Judaism would better use it only as “ancillary evidence,” always to be verified by securely Jewish sources.143

139.  For a critical edition, see H. Schneider, W. Baars and J. C.  H. Lebram, The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version. Part IV, fasc. 6: Canticles or Odes; Prayer of Manasseh; Apocryphal Psalms; Psalms of Solomon; Tobit; 1 (3) Esdras (Leiden: Brill, 1972). English translation: J. H. Charlesworth, “Prayer of Manasseh,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2:  Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophic Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 625–​37. For a comprehensive discussion of the Syriac tradition of the Prayer, see A. Gutman and W. T. van Peursen, The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 30; Piscataway, NJ:  Gorgias Press, 2011). Not to be confused with the Syriac version is the Christian Palestinian Aramaic translation of the Prayer, included into a Melkite Horologion; ed. M. Black, A Christian Palestinian Syriac Horologion (Berlin MS. Or. Oct. 1019) (Texts and Studies:  Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, New Series 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954), 294–​98. 140.  Published in Brock and van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts, 184. They also published a Syriac text of another textual witness, absent from the Leiden edition: Deir al-​Surian, Syr. 30 (WS, xin [903/​4]), see ibid., 222–​23. 141.  See, most recently, P. W. van der Horst and J. H. Newman, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek: A Commentary (CEJL; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008), 145–​80. 142.  A Hebrew version of the Prayer found in the Cairo Geniza is derived form a Syriac or Greek Vorlage; for text and discussion, see R. Leicht, “A Newly Discovered Hebrew Version of the Apocryphal ‘Prayer of Manasseh,’” Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996): 359–​73. 143.  See J. R. Davila, “Is the Prayer of Manasseh a Jewish Work?,” in L. R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber, eds., Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism ( JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 75–​85. For a similar analysis of the Prayer’s milieu, with references to several earlier claims of its Christian origin, see Gutman and Van Peursen, Two Syriac Versions, 41–​48. A useful discussion of its function as a Christian work is provided in J. H. Newman, “Three Contexts for Reading Manasseh’s Prayer in the Didascalia,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007): 3–​17.

123

124

124

Sergey  Min ov

2.14.  Questions of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon (CAVT 157) A specimen of wisdom literature, this composition consists of a series of questions posed by the Queen of Sheba to Solomon and the king’s answers to them. It is attested in at least four manuscripts, the earliest of which is Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Add. 2012 (WS, xiv).144 There is also an Armenian version, derived from Syriac.145 The Questions seem to be an original Syriac work, although a Greek original cannot be completely ruled out.146 The work contains two main parts: questions (§§1–​7) and riddles (§§8–​12). There are no explicitly Christian references in the Questions, although the riddle of §8 might be based on a Christological interpretation of the Burning Bush episode (Exod 3:1–​5). Whereas Brock has raised a possibility that the second part might be of Jewish origin,147 its content is different in character from that of the Queen’s riddles to Solomon found in various (mostly late) rabbinic sources.

2.15.  Sentences of Menander Attributed to the Attic playwright Menander, it is a collection of wisdom sayings that offer practical rules for human behavior. The work is attested only in Syriac, represented by three textual witnesses: the complete version in London, British Library, Add. 14658 (WS, vi–​ vii), a brief epitome in Add. 14614 (WS, viii), and a selection, attributed to Homer, in Add. 14598 (WS, x–​xiii).148 No evidence for existence of a Greek version of the Sentences has yet been discovered; its original language may well have been Syriac. The absence of references to Christianity and parallels with such specimen of Jewish wisdom literature as Proverbs, Ben Sira, Pseudo-​Phocylides, and Ahiqar, caused some scholars to argue for Jewish origin of the whole composition.149 Yet this hypothesis is not the only possible way 144.  Syriac text and English translation: S. P. Brock, “The Queen of Sheba’s Questions to Solomon: A Syriac Version,” Le Muséon 92 (1979): 331–​45. To the three manuscripts used by Brock, one should add New Haven, CT, Yale University, Beinecke Library, Syr. 8 (WS, xviiin [before  1708]), fols. 1v–​2v. See H. Takahashi, “Also via Istanbul to New Haven—​Mss. Yale Syriac 7–​12,” in F. Opwis and D. C. Reisman, eds., Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri Gutas (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science 83; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 157–​76 at 168–​70. 145.  English translation:  V. Hovhanessian, “Questions of the Queen of Sheba and Answers by King Solomon: Introduction and a New Translation of the Armenian Version,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 326–​45. 146.  Brock, “Queen of Sheba’s Questions,”, 334–​35. 147.  Ibid., 334. 148.  The first two witnesses were first published in J. P.  N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca I:  Symbolae Syriacae (Leiden:  Brill, 1862), 64–​73; and E. Sachau, Inedita Syriaca:  Eine Sammlung syrischer Übersetzungen von Schriften griechischer Profanliteratur (Wien: K. K. Hof-​und Staatsdruckerei, 1870), 80–​81, respectively. English translation: T. Baarda, “The Sentences of the Syriac Menander,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophic Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 583–​606. Both texts have been recently re-​edited, in D. G. Monaco, The Sentences of the Syriac Menander:  Introduction, Text and Translation, and Commentary (Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity 7; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013). The third witness was published in Y. N. Arzhanov, “Amrus Philosophus Graecus: A New Witness to the Syriac Sentences of Menander,” Le Muséon 130 (2017): 71–​121. 149.  See W. Frankenberg, “Die Schrift des Menander (Land, Anecd. Syr. I, 64ff.). Ein Produkt der jüdischen Spruchweisheit,” ZAW 15 (1895): 226–​77; and Monaco, Sentences, 49–​57. Cf. also the balanced discussion in Baarda, “Sentences of the Syriac Menander,” 586–​589.

125

Sy ri ac

of accounting for these parallels. Y. Arzhanov has offered recently a plausible scenario of how this collection might originate in the Syriac Christian scholastic environment of the fifth to sixth centuries, where material inherited from the Classical tradition was reshaped to fit the biblical framework in the process of forming a new system of Christian paideia.150

2.16.  Story of Melchizedek (CAVT 95) The work provides a concise biography of Melchizedek, the main stages of which are his conversion to monotheism, break with his pagan family, and sojourn on Mount Tabor, where he meets Abraham. While scholars agree that Greek was the original language of this composition, there is disagreement as to when exactly and in which milieu, Jewish or Christian, it originated.151 There exists an abridged Syriac version of the Story, incorporated under the name of Athanasius of Alexandria into Catena Severi, a West Syriac exegetical compendium produced during the ninth century.152 There are also some later even more abbreviated reworkings of this work.153

2.17.  Testament of Adam (CAVT 3) Entitled “Testament (diyaṯiqi) of Our Father Adam,” it is a composite work, divided into three main parts: (a) the Horarium, describing how different elements of creation praise God during hours of the day and night; (b) the Prophecy, in which Adam informs his son Seth about the future Flood and the end of the world; and (c) the Hierarchy, presenting the nine angelic orders. The Hierarchy part is attested in only one late manuscript and is very likely to be a later addition to the original core, composed of the Horarium and the Prophecy. The most comprehensive edition of the Testament, carried out by Robinson, is based on eight manuscripts, the earliest of which, London, British Library, Add. 14624 and Add. 14577, are dated to the ninth century.154 In his edition, Robinson divides all textual 150.  Y. N. Arzhanov, “Menander in Syriac: From Euthalian Apparatus to Scholia on Gregory of Nazianzus,” Studia graeco-​arabica 7 (2017): 57–​74. See also Arzhanov, Syriac Sayings of Greek Philosophers: A Study in Syriac Gnomologia with Edition and Translation (CSCO 669, Subs. 138; Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 147–​52. 151.  For general information and the Greek version, see J. Dochhorn, “Die Historia de Melchisedech (Hist Melch):  Einführung, editorischer Vorbericht und Editiones praeliminares,” Le Muséon 117 (2004):  7–​48, Ch. Böttrich, Geschichte Melchisedeks ( JSHRZ n.F. 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010); and P. Piovanelli, “The Story of Melchizedek with the Melchizedek Legend from the Chronicon Paschale: A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 64–​84. For an argument in favor of its Jewish origin, see Böttrich, Geschichte Melchisedeks,  62–​65. 152.  For a critical edition of the Syriac text, English translation and commentary see S. Minov, “Reception of the Greek Story of Melchizedek in Syriac Christian Tradition,” JSP 26 (2016): 108–​43 at 105–​17. 153.  Published and discussed in Minov, “Reception of the Greek Story,”  17–​35. 154.  S. E. Robinson, The Testament of Adam: An Examination of the Syriac and Greek Traditions (SBLDS 52; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Robinson provides only facsimile reproductions of the Syriac texts of the three recensions, with variant readings added to them. Earlier editions: E. Renan, “Fragments du livre gnostique intitulé Apocalypse d’Adam, ou Pénitence d’Adam ou Testament d’Adam, publiés d’après deux versions syriaques,” Journal asiatique, ser. 5, 2 (1853):  427–​71; and M. Kmosko, “Testamentum patris nostri Adam,” in Patrologia Syriaca (Paris: Firmin-​Didot, 1907), 1.2.1307–​60. For a revised English translation, see S. E. Robinson, “Testament of Adam,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments

125

126

126

Sergey  Min ov

witnesses into the three main recensions, regarding Recension 1 (BL Add. 14624 and Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. sir. 58) to contain the best surviving form of the text. Whereas the Testament is attested also in Greek (the Horarium only), Christian Arabic, Geez, Georgian, and Armenian (Horarium only), scholars seem to agree that Syriac is the original language of the composition. It is difficult to establish its date with certainty. Although Robinson proposes the third century as the time when the core of the Testament was put together,155 the only reliable evidence we have is for the Prophecy part to be in existence during the fifth century. In its final form, the Testament is definitely a Christian work, since it mentions the birth and salvific mission of Christ in the Prophecy, and since the Hierarchy seems to reflect the Pseudo-​Dionysian angelological system. The Horarium part, however, does not contain any explicit Christian references. On this ground, Robinson claims that the whole work is “an originally Jewish composition” that has been “redacted (heavily in the Prophecy, lightly in the Horarium and Hierarchy) by a Christian.”156 Because of its idiosyncratic character and the absence of Christian references, scholars tend to regard the Horarium as a particularly good candidate for being a Jewish work. In his dissertation on Pereq Shira, a late antique Hebrew text that describes how different parts of creation praise God, M. Beit-​Arié notices similarity between its image of the cosmic liturgy and that of the Testament, and suggests that both works stem, independently of each other, from the same Hellenized Jewish-​Gnostic milieu.157 Yet even though there have been other attempts to demonstrate indebtedness of the Horarium to Jewish tradition,158 the hypothesis of its Jewish origin can hardly be considered as securely established. The main methodological fallacy of many such endeavors is their failure to address properly the issue of a possible Christian context of the Horarium, which would require looking at this text through a broader comparative lens of Christian liturgics.159

(New  York:  Doubleday, 1983), 989–​95. For references to translations into other European languages and secondary literature, see L. DiTommaso, Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–​1999 ( JSPSup 39; Sheffield, UK:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 205–​11. To these, one should add a recent Danish translation by P. Christensen et al., “Det syriske Adams Testamente,” DTT 78 (2015): 163–​84. 155.  Robinson, “Testament of Adam,” 990. See also Robinson, Testament of Adam, 148–​53. 156.  Robinson, “Testament of Adam,” 991. See also Robinson, Testament of Adam, 156–​60. 157.  M. Beit-​Arié, “Perek Shira: Introductions and Critical Edition,” 2 vols. (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1966), 1.75–​82 [in Hebrew]. On this understudied work, see also J. M. Baumgarten, “Perek Shirah, an Early Response to Psalm 151,” RevQ 9 [36] (1978): 575–​78. 158.  S. E. Robinson, “The Testament of Adam and the Angelic Liturgy,” RevQ 12 [45] (1985): 105–​110; R. Murray, “Some Themes and Problems of Early Syriac Angelology,” in R. Lavenant, ed., V Symposium Syriacum, 1988: Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29–​31 août 1988 (OCA 236; Roma: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1990), 143–​53; and R. Bauckham, “The Horarium of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion,” Христианский Восток 4 [10] (2002 [2006]): 413–​39 at 418–​31. 159.  Especially promising in that regard might be the monastic practice of psalmody, which sometimes included reading the whole book of Psalms during one day. See J. Mateos, “Office de minuit et office du matin chez s. Athanase,” OCP 28 (1968): 173–​80; and R. F. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1986), 114–​15. Cf. also the Coptic material, mentioned in Bauckham, “Horarium of Adam,” 421.

127

Sy ri ac

2.18.  Treatise of Shem (CAVT 85) This astrological work, ascribed to Noah’s son Shem, consists of twelve chapters that describe the characteristics of the year according to the particular sign of zodiac in which it begins. Each chapter contains predictions that concern political events, natural disasters, crops, and health. The Syriac text of the Treatise is extant in a single manuscript, Manchester, John Rylands Library, Syr. 44 (ES, xv), first published by Alphonse Mingana.160 There are no explicit references to Christianity in the text, except ambiguous cases like peṣḥā in 6.12, which could mean both “Easter” and “Passover.” The Jewish origin of this composition has been suggested by Mingana himself.161 Following his lead, J.  H. Charlesworth, who dealt extensively with the Treatise, considers it to be an ancient Jewish work, arguing that its original language was Semitic, most likely Aramaic, and that it was composed in the last third of the first century bce, probably in Egypt.162 Charlesworth’s approach has been criticized by S. P. Brock, who questioned his attempt to extract exact historical information from the very vague references to political upheavals in this work, and deplored his disregard of the rich tradition of akin prognosticatory works in Syriac and other languages.163 Recent progress in the research of the Cairo Geniza has changed dramatically the way scholars should approach the Treatise. The rich evidence provided by the Geniza, where two Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, fourteen Judaeo-​Arabic, and two Arabic fragments of the Treatise have been discovered, demonstrated that this work enjoyed considerable popularity among the Jews of the medieval Middle East.164 The oldest of these textual witnesses is the Aramaic version incorporated into Sefer Shimmush Tehillim from Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, T.-​S. K 1.149, dated to the tenth century.165 There is also evidence of a medieval Hebrew version of this work, apparently translated from Aramaic.166 The date of the Jewish version of the Treatise could be traced back at least to the tenth century, basing 160.  A. Mingana, “Some Early Judaeo-​Christian Documents in the John Rylands Library,” BJRUL 4, no. 1 (1917): 59–​118 at 76–​85 [trans.], 108–​115 [Syr.]. The Syriac text was re-​edited, with a German translation, in J. H. Charlesworth, “Die ‘Schrift des Sem’: Einführung, Text und Übersetzung,” ANRW 2.20.2 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1987), 951–​87. See also J. H. Charlesworth, “Treatise of Shem,” in Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 1983–​1985), 473–​86. Italian translation: A. Mengozzi, Trattato di Sem e altri testi astrologici (Testi del vicino oriente antico 7; Brescia: Paideia, 1997),  69–​79. 161.  Mingana, “Some Early Judaeo-​Christian,” 78–​79. 162.  Charlesworth, “Treatise of Shem,” 473–​75. 163.  S. P. Brock, review of J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, in Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984): 200–​209 at 203–​4. The latter issue has been addressed extensively in Mengozzi, Trattato di Sem,  16–​60. 164.  R. Leicht, Astrologumena Judaica:  Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der astrologischen Literatur der Juden (TSMEMJ 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 45–​46; and G. Bohak, “Towards a Catalogue of the Magical, Astrological, Divinatory, and Alchemical Fragments from the Cambridge Genizah Collections,” in B. Outhwaite and S. Bhayro, eds., “From a Sacred Source”: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif (Études sur le Judaïsme médiéval 42, Cambridge Genizah Studies Series 1; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 53–​79 at 74. 165.  For the text and German trans., see P. Schäfer and Sh. Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, 3 vols. (TSAJ 42, 64, and 72; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994–​1999), 3.261–​84. 166.  It is preserved only fragmentarily, in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Mich. 9 [Neubauer 1531] (xv), fol. 112r; for the text, see Leicht, Astrologumena Judaica, 49.

127

128

128

Sergey  Min ov

on the Karaite polemic works against the Rabbanite Jews.167 Since the Jewish version of the Treatise predates the Syriac version significantly, one should seriously consider a possibility that the latter derives from the former. A different scenario has been proposed by R.  Leicht, who argues that both the Syriac and the Aramaic versions are derived independently of each other from a common Greek source, probably, not Jewish.168 Furthermore, Leicht argues for the seventh-​century Palestine as the time and place of the Jewish Aramaic version, suggesting that it might allude to the events surrounding the Persian conquest of the province.169 While first steps for integrating the evidence of the Geniza material into the research of the Treatise have been made,170 it is only after all Jewish witnesses of this work have been published that one will be able to reach a better understanding of its origins and of the relationship between its Syriac and Aramaic versions.171

2.19.  Astrological and Alchemical Works Ascribed to Daniel and Ezra At least two compositions are attributed to these biblical figures in Syriac astrological tradition. One of them is the Signs of Daniel, an astrological work preserved in London, British Library, Or. 4434 (xix).172 The same manuscript contains another pseudepigraphon of astrological content, the Signs of Ezra.173 Since neither of these works has been edited or properly studied, it remains to be seen whether they are original Syriac compositions or translations from other languages, as well as to what degree, if at all, they are indebted to Jewish sources. There are also several alchemical works that were in circulation in Syriac under the name of Ezra. Thus, we know that the Greek composition often referred to as the Antidote of Ezra was translated into Syriac at some point before the eighth century.174 Unfortunately, the Syriac version of this work seems to be lost. However, another alchemical composition ascribed to Ezra, likewise translated from Greek, is preserved in Cambridge, Cambridge

167.  G. Bohak, “Manuals of Mantic Wisdom: From the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Cairo Genizah,” in H. Najman, eds., Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism ( JSJSup 174; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 191–​216 at 209–​10. 168. Leicht, Astrologumena Judaica,  53–​55. 169.  Ibid., 53. 170.  In addition to Leicht’s work, see K. Atkinson, “Astrology and History in the Treatise of Shem:  Two Astrological Pseudepigrapha and Their Relevance for Understanding the Astrological Dead Sea Scrolls,” Qumran Chronicle 14 (2006): 37–​55. Surprisingly, no use of the Geniza material is made in M. Bar-​Ilan, “The Hebrew Book of Creation and the Syriac Treatise of Shem,” ARAM 24 (2012): 203–​18. 171.  Of particular importance for that is the second witness of the Aramaic version, Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, T.-​S. NS 309.51, which contains significant portions of the Treatise. With T.-​S. K 1.149, they contain about 95 percent of the text. 172.  G. Furlani, “Astrologisches aus syrischen Handschriften,” ZDMG 75 (1921): 122–​28 at 122–​25. 173.  Ibid., 125–​28. It is unclear whether an excerpt from “Ezra the scribe” on the day of Nativity included in the chronological work in London, British Library, Add. 14713 (WS, xii–​xiii), fols. 164v–​166r, is related to this composition; see W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, Acquired since the Year 1838, 3 vols. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1870–​1872), 1.352. 174.  See M. Martelli, “Recipes Ascribed to the Scribe and Prophet Ezra in the Byzantine and Syriac Tradition,” in L. Lehmhaus and M. Martelli, eds., Collecting Recipes: Byzantine and Jewish Pharmacology in Dialogue (Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures 4; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2017), 195–​219 at 205.

129

Sy ri ac

University Library, Mm. 6.29 (WS, xv), and in several other manuscripts.175 Introduced as the excerpt “from the book of Ezra, the wise scribe,” its sixteen chapters provide information on how to prepare various alchemical compounds for dyeing a specific metallic body. According to M. Martelli, the Greek original of this composition might originate in the circles of Jewish alchemists, who were active in Egypt during the first centuries ce.176

3.  Lost Works, Works Only Partially Preserved in Syriac, or Never Translated into Syriac 3.1.  Apocalypse of Abraham According to the information provided by the eighth-​century exegete Theodore bar Koni (ES), “an apocalypse under the name of Abraham” (gelyānā da-​ḇšem Aḇrāhām) was in use among the Audians, a heterodox group who were active in the city of Edessa during Late Antiquity.177 The three brief quotations that follow the note suggest that this apocryphon featured cosmogonical and anthropogonical views that are more typical of some Gnostic writings, and thus have nothing to do with the Apocalypse of Abraham preserved in Slavonic.178 Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish whether Theodore had at his disposal a complete Syriac version of this composition or derived this information from works of his predecessors.

3.2.  1 Enoch (CAVT 61) There is no compelling evidence that a Syriac version of this work, whether as a whole or partial, ever existed. There are only relatively few cases when 1 Enoch is quoted by Syriac writers. The most extensive among them, so far, is the account of the descent of the Watchers from 1 En. 6.1–​6, incorporated into the twelfth-​century Chronicle of Michael the Great (WS) and the Chronicle up to the Year 1234.179 Somewhat earlier, we find Jacob of Edessa (WS, †708 ce) defending the usefulness of the “secret book of Enoch” (kṯāḇā mṭašyā da-​Ḥnoḵ) as a legitimate source of biblical knowledge in one of his letters to John of Litarba (#13).180 As with Jubilees, it is most likely that this material reached Syriac authors through the mediation of Greek patristic literature. 175.  Still unpublished. For discussion and summary of its content, see Martelli, “Recipes Ascribed,” 206–​9. 176.  Ibid.,  208–​9. 177.  Book of Scholies 11.63; ed. A. Scher, Theodorus bar Kōnī. Liber Scholiorum, 2  vols. (CSCO Syr. II.65–​ 66; Paris:  Typographeo Reipublicae, 1910, 1912), 2.319. On Audians, see J. Jarry, “Une semi-​hérésie syro-​ égyptienne: l’audianisme,” BIFAO 63 (1965): 169–​95. 178.  Cf. Epiphanius, Panar. 39.5.1, on the use of an “Apocalypse of Abraham” by the Sethian Gnostics. 179.  For the text, translation, and discussion, see S. P. Brock, “A Fragment of Enoch in Syriac,” JTS, n.s., 19 (1968):  626–​33; and Hilkens, Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, 58–​61. On its Arabic Christian version, see S. Bhayro, “A Karshuni (Christian Arabic) Account of the Descent of the Watchers,” in A. Rapoport-​Albert and G. Greenberg, eds., Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts:  Essays in Memory of Michael P.  Weitzman ( JSOT Sup 333; Sheffield, UK:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 365–​73; and J. P. Monferrer-​Sala, “Wandering Mythical Stories: Once Again on Enoch 6:1–​6 and Michael the Great,” Mediterranea 1 (2016): 107–​16. 180.  For the Syriac text, see W. Wright, “Two Epistles of Mâr Jacob, Bishop of Edessa,” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 20 (1867): 430–​33, 1*–​27* at 8*–​9*. French translation: F. Nau, “Traduction des lettres XII et XIII de Jacques d’Édesse (exégèse biblique),” ROC 10 (1905): 197–​208 and 258–​82 at 206–​7.

129

130

130

Sergey  Min ov

Another important channel of transmission of material from 1 Enoch in Syriac is the literary tradition of Manichaeism, with such works as the Book of Giants (a reworked version of the Jewish apocryphon attested in Qumran),181 and the “Apocalypse of Enoch” that is quoted in the Cologne Mani Codex.182 Of possible interest are also several other compositions attributed to Enoch that circulated among Syriac-​speaking Christians during the early Islamic era but now are lost. Not to be confused with 1 Enoch is the “Apocalypse of Enoch” (gelyānā da-​Ḥnoḵ), mentioned by Michael the Great.183 This work, possibly of astrological content and having political agenda, was composed (presumably in Syriac) by Cyriacus, the West Syriac bishop of Segestan, and physician Bar Salṭā of Reshaina, and presented to the Umayyad caliph Marwān II (r. 744–​750). One or more allegedly Syriac works associated with Enoch were translated into Arabic during the Abbasid period and circulated under the name Sunan (or Ṣuḥuf /​ Ṣaḥīfat) Idrīs.184

3.3.  Jannes and Jambres (CAVT 129) The names of the two Egyptian magician brothers who opposed Moses appear in a number of Syriac sources.185 It is unclear, however, whether a complete composition featuring them as the main protagonists, such as the Greek Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, ever existed in Syriac. Of certain interest in that regard is the versified account of the failed assault on Moses by the group of (unnamed) magicians that one finds incorporated into some versions of the Syriac Testament of Ephrem, a fifth-​century composition.186 Some scholars raised a possibility that this narrative derives from the story of Jannes and Jambres.187 However, A. Pietersma, who gathered all available evidence on the Greek tradition of this work, comes to the conclusion that the Pseudo-​Ephremian

181.  See J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (HUCM 14; Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992); Reeves, “Jacob of Edessa and the Manichaean Book of Giants?,” in M. Goff et al., eds., Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan: Contexts, Traditions, and Influences (WUNT 360; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 199–​211; F. Ruani, “Between Myth and Exegesis: Ephrem the Syrian on the Manichaean Book of Giants,” StPatr 64 [12] (2013): 155–​65; and N. A. Pedersen, “Observations on the Book of the Giants from Coptic and Syriac Sources,” in S. N. C. Lieu, ed., Manichaeism East and West (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Analecta Manichaica 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 185–​202. 182.  See J. C. Reeves, Heralds of That Good Realm: Syro-​Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (NHMS 41; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 183–​98. 183.  Ed. Chabot, Chronique, 2.507 [trans.] and 4.465 [Syr.]. 184.  Excerpts are preserved in the works of Shiite scholars, such as Ibn Ṭāwūs (thirteenth century) and Majlisī (seventeenth century). See E. Kohlberg, A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work: Ibn Ṭāwūs and His Library (Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science 12; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 322 and 336–​37; M. Gil, “The Creed of Abū ‘Āmir,” IOS 12 (1992): 9–​57 at 37; J. C. Reeves and A. Y. Reed, Enoch from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, Vol. 1: Sources from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 326–​28. 185.  L. E. Iselin, “Zwei Bemerkungen zu Schürer’s ‘Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,’” ZWT  37 (1894):  321–​32 at 321–​23; and S. Gero, “Parerga to ‘The Book of Jannes and Jambres,’” JSP 9 (1991): 67–​85 at  79–​85. 186.  Syriac text and a German translation: E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones, IV, 2 vols. (CSCO 334–​335, Syr. 148–​149; Louvain:  Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1973), 1.61–​65 and 2.72–​77. French translation: R. Duval, “Le Testament de saint Éphrem,” Journal Asiatique 9, 18 (1901): 234–​319 at 302–​7. 187.  See M. R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments (Translations of Early Documents Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-​Rabbinic) 14; London: SPCK, 1920), 38.

13

Sy ri ac

interpolation does not have much, if anything, in common with the tale of Jannes and Jambres.188 Another testimony possibly related to the Apocryphon is found in the twelfth-​century Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (WS), who relates that the Byzantine emperor Leo IV sent to the Abbasid caliph al-​Mahdī (r. 775–​785) “the book (kṯāḇā) called ‘Yanis and Yambris,’ in which was the whole of the sorcery of the Egyptians, and everything that they did against Moses.”189 S. Gero, according to whom Michael derived this information from the ninth-​century historian Dionysius of Tell-​Maḥrē (WS), sees no reason to deny the reliability of this report.190 Yet, even if the book gift did take place, one still remains wondering whether it involved translation of this work into Arabic or Syriac.

3.4.  Jubilees (CAVT 132) No complete or independent Syriac version of this influential apocryphal work has been discovered. All textual witnesses of Jubilees in Syriac are either quotations or excerpts found in various exegetical and historiographical compositions, dated by the early medieval period and later. One of the earliest examples of extensive use of this apocryphon among Syriac writers is that of Jacob of Edessa (WS, †708). In one of his letters to John of Litarba (#13), this exegete brings forward a number of extrabiblical legends about events from Noah to Moses, some of which are closely related to those found in Jubilees, while referring to his source only as written “Jewish stories” (taše’yāṯā yuḏāyāṯā).191 One of these legends, the account of Abraham and the ravens (cf. Jubilees 11–​12), appears also incorporated, albeit in a shorter form, into Catena Severi, a West Syriac exegetical compendium produced during the ninth century.192 In the ninth century, Ishodad of Merv (ES) in his Commentary on Genesis evokes the “Book of Jubilees” (kṯāḇā d-​yuḇlāyē) to support his opinions on Hebrew as the primeval language, and on the origins of idolatry, which are similar to those in Jubilees.193 From roughly the same period comes a brief Syriac fragment entitled “The names of the wives of the forefathers according to the Hebrew book called ‘Jubilees’ (kṯāḇā da-​lwāṯ ‘eḇrāyē haw d-​meṯqrē yuḇilāyē),” which provides names of

188.  A. Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians (RGRW 119; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 50. 189.  Ed. Chabot, Chronique, 4.478. 190.  Gero, “Parerga,” 81. 191.  See n.  178. For a discussion, see W. Adler, “Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography,” in J. C. Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), 143–​71; and Adler, “Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Jacob of Edessa’s Letters and Historical Writings,” in R. B. ter Haar Romeny, ed., Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day (Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute; Leiden 18; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 49–​65. 192.  Ed. J. S. Assemani, P. Benedictus, and S. E. Assemani, Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quæ exstant, Græce, Syriace, Latine, 6 vols. (Roma: Typographia Pontificia Vaticana, 1732–​1746), 1.156–​57. English translation and discussion: S. P. Brock, “Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11–​12 and Its Implications,” JSJ 9 (1978): 135–​52. 193.  Ed. J. M. Vosté and C. van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Išo’dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament, I:  Genèse (CSCO 126, Syr. 67; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1950), 134 and 139. Cf. Jub 12.25–​26 and 11.1–​6.

131

132

132

Sergey  Min ov

the wives of twenty-​three patriarchs from Adam to Terah.194 More examples of isolated traditions from Jubilees scattered through original Syriac works and translations from Greek could be adduced.195 The most substantial amount of material from Jubilees in Syriac, so far, is found in the West Syriac Chronicle up to the Year 1234.196 Almost a third of the accounts in the part dealing with the pre-​Christian period derive from Jubilees.197 E. Tisserant, who was first to identify these passages, suggested that they bear witness to the existence of a complete Syriac version of the work, translated directly from Hebrew.198 This hypothesis enjoyed a considerable popularity among scholars. However, A. Hilkens has recently challenged the theory, arguing that the Chronicle’s author borrowed most of these traditions from one or more earlier Syriac chronicles (now lost), whose authors in their turn derived them, directly or indirectly, from works of Greek Christian writers, such as Hippolytus of Rome (third century) and the Alexandrian historiographer Annianus (fifth century).199

3.5.  Letter of Aristeas There is no evidence that a Syriac version of this Greek account of the origins of the Septuagint, produced by the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria during the second century bce,200 ever existed. At the same time, some traditions derived from this work became known to Syriac Christians via the tractate On Weights and Measures by Epiphanius of Cyprus (c.  310–​403), which was translated into Syriac before the middle of the seventh century.201 Epiphanius provides his own version of the translation of the Bible into 194.  It is included in the patristic florilegium in London, British Library, Add. 12154 (WS, viii–​ix), fol. 180r–​ v; see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, 2.985. First edited in A. M. Ceriani, Pentateuchi syro-​hexaplaris quae supersunt (Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae 2; Milan: Typis et Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1863), ix–​x ; and reprinted in R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 1.10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895), 183. For a comparison of these names with those found in Jubilees, see J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2 vols. (CSCO 510–​11, Aeth. 87–​88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 2.31 and 66. 195.  For references to material from Jubilees in the Syriac version of Epiphanius’s On Weights and Measures, see VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 2.13. For additional examples of its use by Ishodad and several other Syriac writers, as well as on difficulties arising from confusion between the noun yuḇlāyā, “Jubilee year” and the adjective yuḇālāyā, “genealogical,” derived from yuḇālā, “generation, succession, genealogy”—​all used for referring to genealogical or chronographical works, see C. van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Išo’dad de Merv sur l’Ancient Testament, III: Livres des Sessions, 2 vols. (CSCO 229–​230, Syr. 96–​97; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962–​1963), 2.xv–​xxi. 196. Hilkens, Anonymous Syriac Chronicle, 7–​44. For a critical edition, see J. B. Chabot and I. A. Barsoum, Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, praemissum est Chronicon anonymum ad annum Christi 819 pertinens, 3 vols. (CSCO 81, 82, 109, Syr. 36, 37, 56; Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1916–​1937). 197.  First published, with a French translation, by E. Tisserant, “Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubilés,” RB 30 (1921): 55–​86 and 206–​32. These passages were collected and translated into English by VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 1.258–​300 and 2.328–​68. 198.  Tisserant, “Fragments syriaques,” 232. 199. Hilkens, Anonymous Syriac Chronicle,  51–​84. 200.  On the work, see B. G. Wright, The Letter of Aristeas: “Aristeas to Philocrates” or “On the Translation of the Law of the Jews” (CEJL; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2015). 201.  For the Syriac text from London, British Library, Add. 17148 (WS, vii), with an English translation, see J. E. Dean, Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures:  The Syriac Version (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 11; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1935). For the partially preserved Greek original, see E. D. Moutsoulas, “Τό ‘Περὶ μέτρων καὶ σταθμῶν’ ἔργον Ἐπιφανίου τοῦ Σαλαμῖνος,” Θεολογία 44 (1973): 157–​209.

13

Sy ri ac

Greek (§§ 2–​17), borrowing directly or indirectly from the Letter.202 Besides the material coming from the Letter, such as the list of the names of the 72 translators (§ 9), of particular interest are two letters, addressed by King Ptolemy to the high priest Eleazar, in §§ 10–​11.203 Although Epiphanius refers to “Aristeas” as his source (§ 9), neither of the two letters is identical to Ptolemy’s single epistle found in the Greek original of the Letter (§§ 34–​40). A satisfactory answer as to Epiphanius’s source for these letters has yet to emerge.204 Some scholars suggest that they were forged by Epiphanius himself;205 however, there is a possibility that the letters originated in Jewish Hellenistic circles, where the Letter continued to be adapted and reworked (as the case of Josephus in Ant. 12.11–​118 demonstrates).

3.6.  Life of Moses Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Add. 2055, includes a leaf of paper that contains a part from what the manuscript catalogue describes as “a popular life of Moses.”206 The East Syriac script of the fragment points in the direction of an Indian provenance. Since this text has not been yet published or studied, it is unclear to which group of traditions about Moses it belongs, and whether it has anything in common with the accounts of the prophet’s life preserved in Christian Arabic (also unpublished).207 A preliminary examination demonstrates, however, that the surviving text, whether it was a part of a Moses-​centered composition or not, bears witness to a later stage in the development of Syriac exegetical tradition, when it came under influence of Roman Catholic missionaries, since it refers to such Western ecclesiastical authors as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

3.7.  Seven Heavens of Solomon The only testimony regarding this lost work comes from the Syriac translation of the alchemical dossier of Zosimos of Panopolis (third–​fourth centuries), a Greek philo­ sopher from Egypt, preserved in Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Mm. 6.29

202.  A. Wasserstein and D. J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint:  From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 116–​24. 203. Dean, Epiphanius’ Treatise, 93–​94 [Syr.], and 26–​27 [trans.]. For the Greek text, see Moutsoulas, “Τό ‘Περὶ μέτρων,” 169–​71. Both letters appear also in the Armenian and Georgian translations of Epiphanius’s work; see M. E. Stone and R. E. Ervine, The Armenian Texts of Epiphanius of Salamis De Mensuris et Ponderibus (CSCO 583, Subs. 105; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); and M. van Esbroeck, Les versions géorgiennes d’Épiphane de Chypre Traité des poids et des mesures (CSCO 460–​461, Scr.Iber. 19–​20; Leuven: Peeters, 1984). 204.  For a discussion, see J. Dräseke, “Zu Ptolemaios Philadelphos’ Brief bei Epiphanios,” ZWT 32 (1889): 358–​ 60; and M. van Esbroeck, “Une forme inédite de la lettre du roi Ptolémée pour la traduction des LXX,” Biblica 57 (1976): 542–​49. 205.  E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English including The God of the Maccabees, 2 vols (AJEC 68.1–​2; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1.306 n. 23. 206.  W. Wright, A Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 2.1197. 207.  For the references to manuscripts, see Graf, Geschichte, 1.207.

133

134

134

Sergey  Min ov

(WS, xv).208 In the book 12, this writer relates that among Egyptians there circulated “a book called ‘The Seven Heavens,’ attributed to Solomon, against the demons.”209 Zosimos discusses whether Solomon was the author of this composition, while pointing out its Jewish character and arguing that at its core is a genuine Solomonic work that was corrupted by commentaries that were subsequently added to it. This astrologically oriented composition is based on the narrative of Solomon imprisoning demons in the seven vessels made of electrum, according to the names of the seven planets.

3.8.  Testament of Levi (CAVT 118) The only textual witness for this composition in Syriac is a short excerpt found in the extended patristic florilegium in London, British Library, Add. 17193 (WS, ix3/​4 [874]), fol. 71r.210 Introduced by the scribe as an extract from Levi’s “testament” (diyaṯiqi), it provides information on the chronology of the patriarch’s life, including the overall span of his life (134 years). In its content, the excerpt corresponds to the section 12.6–​9 of the Aramaic Levi Document (4Q213), although there are some significant differences.211 The fragment is too short to judge whether it was translated from Aramaic, Greek, or other language. It is also unclear whether the Syriac compiler of the florilegium excerpted it from a complete text of the Testament or relied on some earlier collection of scriptural or exegetical material. One thus should exert caution at this stage and side with Drawnel’s conclusion that this fragment cannot be taken as “a decisive proof that there existed a Syriac edition of the whole Document.”212

3.9.  Testament of Solomon (CAVT 162) There is no explicit evidence that a Syriac version of this composition ever did exist. Charlesworth has signaled existence of a Christian Arabic “recension of portions of the Testament of Solomon,” written in Garshuni script, preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, syr. 194 (xvi), fols. 153r–​156v.213 Entitled “The testament of the wise 208.  The Greek originals of most of Zosimos’s works are lost. On the Syriac version of his corpus, see M. Martelli, “L’alchimie syriaque et l’œuvre de Zosime,” in É. Villey, ed., Les sciences en syriaque (ÉS 11; Paris: Geuthner, 2014), 191–​214. 209.  This part of Syriac Zosimos is still unpublished. French translation: M. P. E. Berthelot, La chimie au moyen âge, 3  vols. (Histoire des sciences; Paris:  Imprimerie Nationale, 1893), 2.264–​66. English translation with discussion: P. A. Torijano, Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition ( JSJSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 178–​83. 210.  For a description, see Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts, 2.989–​1002. The Syriac text of the fragment is given on page 997. The Syriac text has been re-​edited most recently, alongside an English translation, in J. C. Greenfield, M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 100–​101. 211.  See Greenfield et al., Aramaic Levi Document,  98–​99. 212.  H. Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document ( JSJSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 53. 213.  J. H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a Supplement (SBLSCS 7S; Chico, CA:  Scholars Press, 1981), 201. For a description of the manuscript, see H. Zotenberg, Manuscrits orientaux:  Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris:  Imprimerie Nationale, 1874), 136–​38.

135

Sy ri ac

Solomon to his son Rehoboam,” this work has not yet been edited or properly described. It is unclear, therefore, whether it is an original Arabic composition or translation from Greek or, possibly, Syriac. Whereas some scholars list it among other textual witness of the Arabic version of the Testament of Solomon, it might as well be translation of another Greek apocryphon, the so-​called Hygromancy of Solomon, possibly a Jewish composition.214

3.10.  Tradition of the Elders In the opening section of his catalogue dealing with the books of the Old Testament, Abdisho of Nisibis (ES) mentions “the book of the tradition of the elders” (seprā d-​ mašlmānuṯ qašišē), placing it between the Epistle of Baruch and the works of Josephus.215 Unfortunately, neither Abdisho himself nor other Syriac writers provide any additional information about this work, whose title coincides with παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, evoked by the Pharisees in the Gospels (Matt 15:2, par. Mark 7:3–​5). Although no Syriac work bearing such title has been discovered so far, it seems unlikely that Abdisho invented it. One possible lead that might help to establish its identity comes from an article of M. Poorthuis in which he draws attention to a very close parallel between the story of the transmission of the Torah found in the preface of the Christian Arabic catena on the Pentateuch, published by P. de Lagarde, and some medieval rabbinic sources.216 It appears that the West Syriac compiler of the catena, who worked in Iraq during the thirteenth century, quotes extensively from an actual rabbinic work, similar to such Geonic composition as the ninth-​ century Seder Tannaim ve-​Amoraim. While only a comprehensive investigation into the textual history and sources of the catena could shed further light on the nature of this rabbinic source, it is possible that what Abdisho refers to is a Syriac translation of this Jewish work, known to him and used by the author of the catena.

selected bibliography Adler, W. “Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography.” In J. C. Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, 143–​71. SBLEJL 6. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994. –​–​–​. “Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Jacob of Edessa’s Letters and Historical Writings.” In R. B. ter Haar Romeny, ed., Jacob of Edessa and the Syriac Culture of His Day, 49–​65. Monographs of the Peshiṭta Institute Leiden 18. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

214.  For an English translation, with discussion and bibliography, see P. A. Torijano, “The Hygromancy of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 305–​25. 215.  Ed. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, 3.1.6. 216.  M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, “Tradition and Religious Authority: On a Neglected Parallel to Mishna Abot 1,1–​ 10,” HUCA 66 (1995): 169–​201. For the Arabic text of the preface, see P. A. de Lagarde, Materialen zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs, 2  vols. (Leipzig:  Teubner, 1867), 2.2–​4. An English translation is provided in Poorthuis’s article. On the catena and the preface as a separate work, see Graf, Geschichte, 2.284–​292. This story also appears in the preface or epilogue to the Christian Arabic adaptations of Saadiah’s Tafsīr by Copts. See R. Vollandt, “An Unknown Medieval Coptic Hebraism? On a Momentous Junction of Jewish and Coptic Biblical Studies,” in A. Grafton and G. W. Most, eds., Canonical Texts and Scholarly Practices:  A Global Comparative Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 164–​82 and 188–​90.

135

136

136

Sergey  Min ov Bar-​Asher Siegal, M. “Judaism and Syriac Christianity.” In D. King, ed., The Syriac World, 146–​56. Routledge Worlds; London: Routledge, 2019. Becker, A. H. “Beyond the Spatial and Temporal Limes: Questioning the “Parting of the Ways” Outside the Roman Empire.” In A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed, eds., The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 373–​92. TSAJ 95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. –​–​–​. “The Comparative Study of “Scholasticism” in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Rabbis and East Syrians.” AJS Review 34 (2010): 91–​113. –​–​–​. “Polishing the Mirror: Some Thoughts on Syriac Sources and Early Judaism.” In R. S. Boustan et al., eds., Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 2 vols., 2.897–​ 915. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. —​—​. “L’antijudaïsme syriaque: entre polémique et critique interne.” In F. Ruani, ed., Les controverses religieuses en syriaque, 181–​208. ÉS 13. Paris: Geuthner, 2016. Brock, S. P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. 2nd rev. ed. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006. –​–​–​. “Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources.” JJS 30 (1979): 212–​32. –​–​–​. “Midrash in Syriac.” In M. A. Fishbane and J. Weinberg, eds., Midrash Unbound:  Transformations and Innovations, 83–​95. Oxford, UK: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2013. –​ –​ –​ . “The Peshitta Old Testament:  Between Judaism and Christianity.” Cristianesimo nella storia 19 (1998): 483–​502. Bundy, D. “Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Literature.” In E. H. Lovering, ed., Society of Biblical Literature: 1991 Seminar Papers, 745–​65. SBLSP 30; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991. Debié, M. “Les apocalypses apocryphes syriaques:  Des textes pseudépigraphiques de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament.” In M. Debié et al., eds., Les apocryphes syriaques, 111–​46. ÉS 2. Paris: Geuthner, 2005. Drijvers, H. J. W. “Jews and Christians at Edessa.” JJS 36 (1985): 88–​102. –​–​–​. “Syrian Christianity and Judaism.” In J. M. Lieu et al., eds., The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, 124–​46. London: Routledge, 1992. Flesher, P. V. M., ed., Targum Studies. Vol. 2: Targum and Peshitta. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 165. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998. Golitzin, A., “Recovering the “Glory of Adam”:  “Divine Light” Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Ascetical Literature of Fourth-​Century Syro-​Mesopotamia.” In J. R. Davila, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity, 275–​308. STDJ 46. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –​–​–​. “A Monastic Setting for the Syriac Apocalypse of Daniel.” In R. A. D. Young and M. J. Blanchard, eds., To Train His Soul in Books:  Syriac Asceticism in Early Christianity, 66–​98. CUA Studies in Early Christianity. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Hayman, A. P. “The Image of the Jew in the Syriac Anti-​Jewish Polemical Literature.” In J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs, eds., “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity, 423–​41. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Hidal, S. “Evidence for Jewish Believers in the Syriac Fathers.” In O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, 568–​80. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Joosten, J. “La Peshitta de l’Ancien Testament et les targums.” In F. Briquel-​Chatonnet and P. Le Moigne, eds., L’Ancien Testament en syriaque, 91–​100. ÉS 5. Paris: Geuthner, 2008. Kofsky, A., S. Ruzer, and R. Kiperwasser. Reshaping Identities in Late Antique Syria-​Mesopotamia: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics and Narrative Strategies. Judaism in Context 19. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2016. Koltun-​Fromm, N. Hermeneutics of Holiness:  Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. –​–​–​. Jewish-​Christian Conversation in Fourth-​Century Persian Mesopotamia:  A Reconstructed Conversation. Judaism in Context 12. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011. Kronholm, T. Motifs from Genesis 1–​11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, with Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Traditions. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1978. Lied, L. I. “Nachleben and Textual Identity: Variants and Variance in the Reception History of 2 Baruch.” In M. Henze and G. Boccaccini, eds., Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, 403–​28. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2013. –​–​–​. “2 Baruch and the Syriac Codex Ambrosianus (7a1):  Studying Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in Their Manuscript Context,” JSP 26 (2016): 67–​107.

137

Sy ri ac –​–​–​. “Between ‘Text Witness’ and ‘Text on the Page’: Trajectories in the History of Editing the Epistle of Baruch.” In L. I. Lied and H. Lundhaug, eds., Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology, 272–​96. TUGAL 175. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2017. –​–​–​, and M. P. Monger, “Look to the East: New and Forgotten Sources of 4 Ezra.” In L. DiTommaso et al., eds., The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone, 639–​ 52. SVTP 26; Leiden: Brill, 2018. Maori, Y. The Peshitta Version of the Pentateuch and Early Jewish Exegesis [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem:  Magnes Press, 1995. –​–​–​. “Is the Peshitta a Non-​Rabbinic Jewish Translation?,” JQR 91 (2001): 411–​18. Minov, S., “Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam: A Jewish Motif and Its Reception in Syriac Christian Tradition.” In M. Kister et  al., eds., Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity, 230–​71. STDJ 113. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Münz-​ Manor, O. “Liturgical Poetry in the Late Antique Near East:  A Comparative Approach,” JAJ 1 (2010): 336–​61. Reeves, J. C. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony:  Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions. HUCM 14. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992. –​–​–​. Heralds of That Good Realm: Syro-​Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions. NHMS 41. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –​–​–​. “Exploring the Afterlife of Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Near Eastern Religious Traditions:  Some Initial Soundings.” JSJ 30 (1999): 148–​77. Rouwhorst, G. A. M. “Jewish Liturgical Traditions in Early Syriac Christianity.” VC 51 (1997): 72–​93. –​–​–​. “Ritual Interactions between Jews and Christians East of Antioch.” In P. Lanfranchi and J. Verheyden, eds., Jews and Christians in Antiquity: A Regional Perspective, 163–​81. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Segal, J. B. “The Jews of North Mesopotamia before the Rise of Islam.” In J. M. Grintz and J. Liver, eds., Studies in the Bible: Presented to Professor M. H. Segal by His Colleagues and Students, 32*–​63*. PISBR 17. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964. Taylor, D. G. K. “The Patriarch and the Pseudepigrapha: Extra-​Biblical Traditions in the Writings of Kyriakos of Tagrit (793‒817).” In F. Briquel-​Chatonnet and M. Debié, eds., Sur les pas des Araméens chrétiens: Mélanges offerts à Alain Desreumaux, 35–​61. Cahiers d’études syriaques 1. Paris: Geuthner, 2010. ter Haar Romeny, R. B. “Hypotheses on the Development of Judaism and Christianity in Syria in the Period after 70 c.e.” In H. van de Sandt, ed., Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-​Christian Milieu?, 13–​33. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005. Weitzman, M. P. “From Judaism to Christianity: The Syriac Version of the Hebrew Bible.” In J. M. Lieu et al., eds., The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, 147–​73. London: Routledge, 1992. –​–​–​. “The Qaddish Prayer and the Peshitta of Chronicles.” In H. Ben-​Shammai, ed., Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honour of Joshua Blau Presented by Friends and Students on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 261–​90. Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 1993. –​–​–​. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Witakowski, W. “Mart(y) Shmuni, the Mother of the Maccabean Martyrs, in Syriac Tradition.” In R. Lavenant, ed., VI Symposium Syriacum, 1992: University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity, 30 August–​2 September 1992, 153–​68. OCA 247. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1994. –​–​–​. “Syriac Apocalyptic Literature.” In S. La Porta and K. B. Bardakjian, eds., The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective; Essays Presented in Honor of Professor Robert W. Thomson on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 667–​87. SVTP 25; Leiden: Brill, 2014.

137

138

139

7

Armenian Michael E. Stone

Works Discussed Adam Fragment 1 Adam Fragment 2 2 Baruch Book of Adam (Apocalypse of Moses) Book of Esdras Chronicle of Philo Tirakac’i Collections of Homilies (Čaṙěntir) Cycle of Four Works Death of Adam Deaths of the Prophets: see Lives of the Prophets 4 Ezra (Fourth Ezra, “Third Ezra” or “Ezra Salathiel”) Fifteen Signs of the Judgement History of Melchizedek Joseph and Asenath Life/​History of Joseph Life of Moses Life of the Three Children Life of Zechariah, father of John the Baptist Lives of the Prophets (Deaths of the Prophets) Months of the Hebrews Names of the Rivers Names, Works, and Deaths of the Holy Prophets

140

140

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

Onomastica Sacra Paralipomena Ieremiou Penitence of Adam and Eve Prayer of Manasseh Questions of Ezra Questions of St. Gregory and the Answers of the Angel concerning the Souls of Men Questions of the Queen and Answers of King Solomon Repentance of Adam and Eve Synaxarion (Yaysmaurk’) Testament of Joseph Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (and Epitome of the Testaments) Vita of Asaph Vita of Nathan Vita of Zechariah b. Berachiah Vitae Prophetarum: see Lives of the Prophets Words of Adam to Seth The subject of this chapter is one to which I have addressed myself in the past.1 Focus and emphasis, however, as well as new data that have emerged, differentiate this presentation from its predecessors. At the beginning I must apologize for the amount of self-​reference in the footnotes, caused by the fact that laborers in this vineyard are few indeed. All the Hebrew works that entered the Armenian tradition did so through Syriac and Greek, which were significant languages of discourse in the Armenian Church.2 Latin played a somewhat lesser role, and at a later period. Indeed, the Armenian language has a few lexical borrowings from Hebrew, but these do not bear on the question at hand. In addition, the question of whether any knowledge of Hebrew was cultivated in the Armenian Church is to be answered in the negative, though some Hebrew terms and expressions as well as the Hebrew names of the biblical books were known.3 To this information we

1.  My previous overviews of the status quaestionis from varying perspectives are the following: M. E. Stone, “The Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Tradition,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1969): 59–​77, Stone, “Jewish Literature from the Period of the Second Temple in Armenian Literature,” in Lectures at Research Meetings of the Israel Historical Society (Jerusalem) (1972):  247–​64 [in Hebrew], Stone, “Jewish Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Church,” Le Muséon 95 (1982):  285–​309; Stone, “Jewish Tradition, the Pseudepigrapha and the Christian West,” in D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, eds., The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 431–​49; Stone, “The Armenian Apocryphal Literature: Translation and Creation,” in II Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli IV–​XI) (Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro, 1996), 611–​46; Stone, “The Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament in the Twentieth Century,” in V.  Calzolari Bouvier, in collaboration with M. E. Stone, eds., Armenian Philology in the Modern Era (HdO 8.23.1; Leiden:  Brill, 2014), 232–​63; and Stone, “Biblical and Apocryphal Themes in Armenian Culture,” in R. Gounelle and J. Joosten, eds. La littérature apocryphe chrétienne et les écritures juives (Prahins: Zèbre, 2015), 393–​408. 2.  L. Tēr Petrossian, Ancient Armenian Translations, trans. K. Maksoudian (New York: St. Vartan Press, 1992). 3.  See my remarks in M. E. Stone. “The Transmission and Reception of Biblical and Jewish Motifs in the Armenian Tradition,” Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies (OLA 144; Leuven:  Peeters, 2006),

14

A r men i a n

should add the Armenian translation of a Baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud which, investigation showed, most likely reached the Armenians by oral transmission, perhaps in some diaspora center in which both Jews and Armenians lived.4 The colophon of a manuscript preserved in Jerusalem relates that Armenian scholars sometimes consulted their Jewish confrères about sticky points of biblical exegesis.5 Moreover, another piece of rabbinic literature has turned up recently in Armenian translation, a list of miracles connected with Solomon’s Temple. It is probably a literary product.6 Before we proceed to the specifics of various apocryphal works surviving in Armenian, we should take account of one further indication of Jewish-​Armenian contact, those works which are attributed to “the Jews” or “the Books of the Jews.” This attribution is not in itself particularly convincing as to Jewish provenance, but at least some of the works might have Jewish origins. It is, of course, intriguing to consider the attitude that makes bestowal of an attribution to a Jewish book a desirable source of authority. When I started research in this field, my dream was to find unknown Jewish apocryphal works preserved in Armenian. Certain writings going back to the Second Temple period indeed exist only in Armenian, such as some treatises by Philo, two anonymous Hellenistic Jewish homilies associated with the Armenian Philonic corpus, and perhaps the document behind Questions of Ezra.7 The large number of Armenian manuscripts still not described fully makes the future discovery of such survivals of ancient Jewish works possible. Of course, the translation of works from Greek and Syriac into Armenian was an on-​going process that started in the fifth century. Prior to the invention of the Armenian alphabet at the start of the fifth century, Armenian Christianity used Syriac and Greek as ecclesiastical languages, and relationships with those cultures continued down the centuries, despite the split engendered by the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 ce.8 In addition, from the High Middle Ages and later, translations from Latin also occur.9 It is, usually quite impossible to date these apocryphal works or their translations on internal grounds. The dates of the manuscripts, when known, are indicated here, but serve only to establish the date before which the work must have been composed or translated. As the corpus of digitized Armenian literature grows, it may become possible more readily

1.79–​93. The evidence for the Hebrew names of the biblical books is reinforced by texts published in M. E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists VI—​Hebrew Names and Other Attestations,” HTR 94 (2001): 477–​92. 4.  M. E. Stone, “An Armenian Translation of a Baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud,” HTR 63 (1970): 151–​54. 5.  Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate J1934: see Sh. Ajamian, “An Armenian Bible: Codex 1934 of the Armenian Library of Jerusalem,” Christian News from Israel 22 (1972): 120–​21. 6.  M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Biblical Heroes (SBLEJL 49; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019), 137–​42. It cites mAbot 5:7. 7.  See below, n. 61. Armenian Philo is discussed in a separate appendix to this chapter, written by Abraham Terian. 8.  See on these matters, N. G. Garsoïan, L’Eglise arménienne et le grand schisme d’orient (CSCO 574, Subsidia t.  100; Leuven:  Peeters, 1999). On Armenian translations from Syriac, see Tēr-​Petrossian, Ancient Armenian Translations. 9.  Publications of Armenian apocrypha are listed by R. W. Thomson, A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 ad (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 233–​38.

141

142

142

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

to identify and to date the translations of certain Greek or Syriac works on the basis of citation by or use in dated authors. In addition to the difficulties of dating, quite often the language from which a translation was made is also uncertain. As well as works translated from Greek and Syriac, some translations were made from Georgian and Persian, as well as from Arabic. In later times, translation from Turkish and even composition in Armeno-​ Turkish—​that is, Turkish inscribed in Armenian characters—​is encountered. Excepting some astrological and magical works transmitted through Arabic, however, such writings are generally not relevant to the study of literature and traditions originating in the Second Temple period or deriving from it.

1.  Works Attributed to “the Books of the Jews” Works attributed to “the Books of the Jews” or ascribed to Jewish authorship—​and our list does not pretend to be exhaustive—​include the following: a. The Baraitha, already mentioned.10 As noted in its publication, this may well have been transmitted into Armenian orally. No date can be assigned. To this we can add the fragment from m Abot 5:7 mentioned in note 6, which was a literary translation. b. The Fifteen Signs of the Judgement is similarly attributed in one of the two Jerusalem manuscripts published.11 The manuscript opens, “We have read in the Books of the Jews.” This composition also occurs in Latin and in many European vernaculars.12 In the Latin recension textually closest to the Armenian, it is attributed to annales Hebraeorum via Jerome. The published Armenian manuscripts are late, one of the seventeenth century and one of the eighteenth century, though that may be the result of the vicissitudes of transmission. A fifteenth-​century copy of another Armenian recension has recently been discovered.13 I have found no decisive indication of the original from which the Armenian recensions were made, but obviously the Fifteen Signs was translated before the fifteenth century, probably from Latin. c. Another apparently relevant work that has survived in Armenian is Months of the Hebrews. This is a list of the Hebrew names of the months, indicating which of the biblically enjoined festivals occur on which month. The author had the list of month names more or less exactly (with a little Syriac influence to which I would not attach much significance), but his actual calendrical calculus is that of the old Armenian solar calendar, twelve months of thirty days and an unnumbered month of five days. The 10.  See above, n. 4. The passage from mAbot 5:7 mentioned above does not claim Jewish ascription. 11.  M. E. Stone, Signs of the Judgement, Onomastica Sacra and the Generations from Adam (UPATS 3; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 12.  Lorenzo DiTommaso and Brandon W. Hawk are co-editing a volume of contributions on the Fifteen Signs. He reports the existence of over 500 manuscript copies in all languages. 13.  The recently discovered third recension of this work is included in M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Angels and Biblical Heroes (SBLEJL 45; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 4–​9. It has been communicated to Fr. Martin McNamara, who is preparing a substantial study on this document.

143

A r men i a n

Seleucids and the Iranians used the same reckoning.14 No language of origin can be suggested, but the work is included in manuscript M2679 of the year 981 ce discussed in note 48 below. d . Another work in this general category is the Onomastica Sacra. These lists of etymologies of Hebrew personal and place names occur in differing forms in many Armenian manuscripts.15 In Armenian, some copies of the list are preceded by a transliteration and explanation of the names of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.16 Onomastic explanations of Hebrew names already occur in Philo,17 and analogous lists are preserved in Latin, Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic, etc. A number of different Armenian lists survive, and they were translated, it seems, from Greek. The dates of the translation and edition of these Armenian versions of the Onomastica Sacra are impossible to determine. Some of the names explained in the Armenian lists are not found in the material in Greek or in other languages, but the etymologies do depend on Hebrew, showing that the Armenians had access to etymologies not presently preserved in other languages. These lists were the sources for the many etymologies of single names embedded in Armenian apocryphal, exegetical, and homiletic works, though sometimes these individual etymologies are fictional. This shows that the use of etymologies became part of Armenian compositional technique, particularly often in homiletic works. e. An apocryphal tradition in the Vita of Zechariah b. Berachiah—​that is, the prophet Zechariah—​is also attributed to “the books of the Jews.”18 This text, of obscure origin and date, survives in a single copy in Matenadaran M1500 (xiii).19

14.  M. E. Stone, “The Months of the Hebrews,” Le Muséon 101 (1988): 5–​12. The reckoning bears some general resemblance to the Enoch-​Jubilees-​Qumran calendar as well, but there are distinguishing differences relating to the intercalated days. This is a representative of the developed calendar tradition in Armenian, for extensive examples of which see J. Eynatyan, (2002), Հին հայկական տոմարը (7-​րդ –​ 15-​րդ դդ.) The Ancient Armenian Calendar (7th–​15th cc.), trans. G. Muradyan and A. Topchyan (Erevan: Magaghat Publishing House, 2012), bilingual Armenian and English. The manuscripts used by Eynatyan are later than M2679 (981 ce). 15.  A  substantial but not exhaustive list of manuscripts containing versions of Onomastica Sacra may be found in Stone, Signs of the Judgment, 212–​17. See also H. Amalyan, Բարգիրք Հայոց Armenian Lexica (Erevan: Academy of Sciences, 1975). 16.  See, in general, F. X. Wutz, Onomastica Sacra:  Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraeorum des Hl. Hieronymus (TUGAL 41.2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915). He includes editions of allied lists in a number of ancient languages. There is quite extensive further bibliography on this subject not directly relevant to the Armenian lists. 17.  Compare also the onomasticon fragment on papyrus dated to the third and fourth centuries published by D. Rokeah, “A New Onomasticon Fragment From Oxyrhynchus and Philo’s Etymologies,” JTS, n.s., 19 (1968): 70–​ 82. The genesis of these lists—​Jewish or Christian—​and the nature of Hellenistic Jewish knowledge of Hebrew remain unclear, as does the question of what the occurrence of analogous etymologies in Philo’s writing signifies. 18.  M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha:  Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets ( Jerusalem:  Israel Academy of Sciences, 1982), 156–​57. 19.  See below, section “g.”

143

14

144

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

2.  “Secret Books of the Jews” A further matter, more directly relevant to the study of the apocryphal literature, is the list of books entitled “These Are the Books Which the Jews Have in Secret.” This list occurs in some medieval authorities, and it includes names of works that are not known to exist in Armenian today, some of which in all likelihood never were in Armenian.20 “Secret Books of the Jews” or the like is the name given by the thirteenth-​century Armenian savant, Mxit‘ar of Ayrivank‘ (1222–​1290?) to certain books he lists as being outside the Canon of Scripture. His list is derived from an earlier one associated with John the Deacon (Yovhannēs Sarkawag 1050?–​1129).21 “Secret” is, of course, a translation of Greek ἀπόκρυφα. However, Mxit‘ar’s list is not of the “biblical apocrypha” but of books neither published with nor included in the scriptural Canon.22 1

5

9

Ադամայ.  Of Adam Ենովքա.  Of Enoch Սիբիլա.  Of the Sibyl ԲԺ.ն նահապետք.  12 Patriarchs Աղօթք Յովսեփայ.  Prayer of Joseph Վերացումն Մովսիսի.  Ascension of Moses Ելդադ եւ Մովդադ.  Eldad and Modad Սողոմոնի Սաղմոսք.  Psalms of Solomon Եղիայի ծածուկքն.  Secrets of Elijah

3.  Armenian Translations of Apocryphal Books: General Remarks Beyond these indications of contact with ancient Jewish traditions, we can point to two major groups of apocryphal works in Armenian among which some Jewish writings and traditions are preserved. The first is composed of the works that are usually associated with the biblical canon in Armenian; and the other, of works that are usually reckoned in the

20.  See the Armenian text with English translation in M. E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists III—​the Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank’ (c.1285 c. e.),” HTR 69 (1976): 289–​300. The identification of these works is discussed in that article. Further witnesses to this list have since emerged and are included in my book, Պարականոն բնագրեր եւ աւանդութիւններ [Uncanonical writings and traditions] (Erevan: Matenadaran, 2014), 123–​ 32. This is the only list of apocrypha in Armenian that has been somewhat widely discussed in Western literature. See further in C. Burchard, A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of Joseph and Aseneth (HUAS 10; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 13–​14. 21. Ibid. 22.  See M. E. Stone, “L’étude du canon arménien,” in G. Aragione, ed., Le Canon du Nouveau Testament (Genève: Labor et Fides, 2005), 283–​95.

145

A r men i a n

“Pseudepigrapha,” as this category is conceived of nowadays.23 In this connection, I should remark that nearly all the Armenian canon lists are not records of decisions of Synods or Councils of the church but are to be found in various contexts within medieval Armenian scholarly literature. Here, however, I do not wish to discuss the complicated matter of the Armenian biblical canon, which will be the subject of a future study.24 I may observe, however, that in general there is no complete overlap, or even a neat fit, between the works preserved in Armenian manuscripts of the Bible and those included in various Armenian lists of approved books of the Bible,25 and that a number of the lists, including that given in section 2 above, were most likely translated from Greek and not composed in Armenian or based on Armenian realities. Indeed, it was the Armenian custom to include in manuscripts of Old Testaments rather a lot of nonbiblical works, of homiletic and exegetical character, as well as apocryphal and associated writings. Such apocryphal works and other writings included in Armenian biblical manuscripts, also occur in additional types of manuscripts, including Collections of Homilies (Čaṙěntir), Synaxaria (Yaysmawurk’), and others. The second group of apocryphal documents consists of texts found in other types of manuscripts than Bibles. Most frequently, these are Miscellanea containing assemblages of scholastic or learned texts, historical and chronographic works, chronological tables, lists (perhaps mnemonic), onomastica, and other similar data relevant to the study of the Hebrew Bible and its traditions. In fact, a few manuscripts exist that contain almost only apocryphal writings.26 Within this corpus of Armenian biblically associated works, we also include narratives about biblical figures and events, apocryphal traditions incorporated in medieval Armenian poetry, epics, and other compositions, as well as elements to be discerned in Armenian iconography.27

23.  On the difficulties of terminology, see M. E. Stone, “Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” Abr-​Nahrain, 24 (1986): 167–​77; Stone, “Some Considerations on the Categories ‘Bible’ and ‘Apocrypha,’” in G. A. Anderson et al., eds., New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–​18; Stone, Adam and Eve in the Armenian Tradition, Fifth through Seventeenth Centuries (SBLEJL 38; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013); and the contribution of Lorenzo DiTommaso in ­chapter 12 of this volume. 24.  See, for the moment, Stone, “L’étude du canon arménien,” and n. 26 below. 25.  The unique exception is the list used by Mxit‘ar of Ayrivank‘ which seems to have served as a table of contents for the Bible that he himself wrote. Of course, this is movement in the reverse direction, from a preexistent list to a copy of the Bible. Mxit‘ar copied the Bible in accordance with the list he received and included both the Bible and the list itself in the great Miscellany manuscript, Matenadaran no. M1500 that he copied: see further Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists III.” As we observed, the list of “Secret Books of the Jews” that he used derived from John the Deacon and was itself most probably translated from Greek. I have published a series of articles on Armenian Canon lists over the last decades and more remains to be done. 26.  See Oxford, Bodleian Library, e 30, described in S. Baronian and F. C. Conybeare, Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1918), 113–​14 and Bodleian ms Arm f 11, containing Old and New Testament apocrypha, Baronian and Conybeare, Catalogue, 115–​17. A most interesting manuscript in the British Library that builds a complete biblical history by juxtaposing apocryphal texts and biblical chapters is discussed in M. E. Stone, “Two Armenian Manuscripts and the Historia Sacra,” in V. Calzolari et al., eds., Apocryphes arméniens: Transmission—​traduction—​création—​iconographie (Prahins: Zèbre, 1999), 21–​ 31. I believe a comparative study of similar corpora of chronologically sequential apocrypha may well show the existence of a type of embroidered Bible composed of sequential works expanding the biblical story. 27.  As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, I have collected the traditions embedded in nonapocryphal Armenian literature in, Adam and Eve in the Armenian Tradition, Fifth through Seventeenth Centuries. For an example of the interplay between expanded biblical text and iconography, see N. Stone, “The Four Rivers of that Flowed

145

146

146

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

Indeed, the oldest literary manuscript surviving in Armenian is the codex Matenadaran M2627, dated to 981 ce.28 It contains a number of apocryphal traditions, including some related to the learned works we will mention here.29

4.  Known Pseudepigrapha and Apocryphal Books Associated with the Biblical Canon The most exhaustive source of information on the contents of Armenian biblical manuscripts is the catalogue of them prepared in 1992.30 Apocryphal works occur in Armenian Bible manuscripts, some quite prominently,31 and certain familiar such writings occur in other types of manuscripts. These will be discussed in the ensuing numbered paragraphs. They are works that for the most part would appear in any modern collection of Pseudepigrapha. a. Joseph and Asenath. This book, like 4 Ezra, is clearly Jewish and originates in the Second Temple period perhaps sometime in the last century bce or the first century ce.32 Christoph Burchard of Heidelberg published a critical editio minor of the Armenian version based on a very carefully selected group of manuscripts.33 Most usefully, this edition also contains a concordance. The Armenian version of Joseph and Asenath is extant in about 50 manuscript copies and it was translated from Greek some time in the latter part of the first millennium ce. It is of considerable importance for the textual history of the work. Moreover, the existence of the Armenian version of this work, together with the Armenian translation of the Testament of Joseph in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, seems to have stimulated the creation or translation of other works telling and retelling the Joseph story. A prominent representative of

from Eden,” in K. Schmid and C. Riedweg, eds., Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–​3) and Its Reception History (FZAT 2. Reihe; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 227–​50. 28.  Artashes Mathévossian published a full transcription and facsimile of this manuscript:  see Մատեան Գիտութեան եւ Հաւատոյ Դաւթի քահանայի [A book of knowledge and belief by Priest David:  The oldest Armenian manuscript on Paper, 981, Vol. 1:  Facsimile (Erevan:  Matenadaran-​ Nairi, 1995); and Mathévossian, Մատեան Գիտութեան եւ Հաւատոյ Դաւթի քահանայի [A book of knowledge and belief by the Priest David: The oldest Armenian manuscript on paper, vol. 2: Transcription, notes and indexes] (Erevan: Matenadaran-​Nairi,  1997). 29.  Moreover, the recent publication of the Chronicle of Philo Tirakac‘i (a seventh-​century author) helps us date some of this scholastic material back to his times. See the edition by A. Hakobyan in Մատենագրութիւն Հայոց Ancient Armenian Literature (Antelias: Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia, 2005), 5.903–​69. 30.  Sh. Ajamian, Ցուցակ Աստուածաշունչ Մատեանի Հայերէն ձեռագիրներուն Catalogue of the Manuscripts of the Armenian Bible (Lisbon: C. Gulbenkian Foundation, 1992). 31.  I use this term in a general sense, and not in the specific Protestant meaning; see above, n. 22. 32.  From time to time its Jewish origin is doubted. See most recently R. Nir, Joseph and Aseneth: A Christian Book (HBM, 42; Sheffield, UK:  Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), but consult J.  Wright’s review in JTS 42, n.s., (2012): 330–​32. 33. Burchard, Minor Edition.

147

A r men i a n

these Joseph books is discussed as item (d) below, and I have edited a number of others.34 Of course, Joseph was widely viewed as a type of Christ, which obviously contributed to the popularity and growth of Joseph literature in Armenian. b. Fourth Ezra seems to have been translated into Armenian in the fifth century ce,35 during the first half-​century of Armenian writing. The originally Hebrew work, written in the last decade of the first century ce, was translated from Greek, perhaps in connection with the translation of the Bible. The Greek text has perished, and I have shown that the Greek recension that was translated into Armenian had been extensively reworked and expanded.36 The fifth-​century dating derives from a clear allusion to one of the reworked passages in the fifth-​century historical work Agathangelos.37 Nothing allows us to set the date of the Greek reworking more precisely than to say it existed by the mid-​fifth century ce and probably somewhat before that. The Armenian work survives today exclusively in Bible manuscripts. Twenty-​two copies were at my disposal when I prepared the critical edition of it, and no further copies are mentioned in Ajamian’s catalogue of Armenian manuscript Bibles.38 Perhaps a number more exist that have escaped attention so far and will come to light as the process of cataloguing Armenian manuscripts progresses.39 The Armenian edition is an editio maior, provided with a full apparatus criticus and a translation. A concordance also exists, published in 1971.40 Fourth Ezra is known in Armenian as “Third Ezra” or “Ezra Salathiel.”41 Extensive additional passages were introduced in the course of the reworking of the Greek exemplar from which the Armenian was translated. These expansions, surviving only in the Armenian version of Fourth Ezra, are characterized by distinctive theological or

34. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets, 104–​8. Additional works are published in Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Angels and Biblical Heroes, 174–​229. 35.  See section “f ” below, on the other Armenian Ezra writings. 36.  This is evident when the Armenian version is compared with those in other languages. See M. E. Stone, Textual Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra (SBLSCS 34; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), ix–​xii. On Ezra-​Salathiel, see also M. R. James, “Ego Salathiel qui et Ezras,” JTS 18 (1917): 167–​69; James, “Salathiel qui et Esdras,” JTS 19 (1918), 347–​49; and R. A. Kraft, “‘Ezra’ Materials in Judaism and Christianity,” in H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds., ANRW II.19.1 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1979), 119–​36. 37.  See on this M. E. Stone, The Armenian Version of IV Ezra (UPATS 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 35. 38. Ajamian, Catalogue. I have studied a partial copy in manuscript M724 ( Jerusalem and Bethlehem (1736). Stone, Biblical Heroes, 224–​27 publishes a copy preserved in a Miscellany, M5607 of 1278, CE, the oldest copy now known. 39.  I know that one further copy existed in the collection of the late H. Kurdian of Wichita, Kansas, which I viewed many years ago. It is in a manuscript Bible of the seventeenth century, as far as I remember. Mr. Kurdian’s collection of manuscripts was bequeathed to the Venice Mekhitarist Fathers. 40.  M. E. Stone, Concordance and Texts of Armenian IV Ezra (Oriental Notes and Studies 11; Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society, 1971). By the way, this appears to be the very first study of an Armenian text carried out using a computer. There exists also a late Armenian text translated from Latin, which is a secondary witness to the Vulgate; see M. E. Stone, “Two New Discoveries Concerning Uncanonical Ezra Books,” Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers (OLA, 144; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1.367–​369. 41.  M. E. Stone and M. Henze, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch:  Translations, Introductions, and Notes (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 7–​8, on the naming of the Ezra books.

147

148

148

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

conceptually governed changes and also contain variants that may be attributed to literary technique.42 Ezra Salathiel, as he is called in the title manuscript M1500 assigns to the book, was understood in the Armenian hagiographic tradition to be a different person from Ezra the Scribe,43 and traces of 4 Ezra are found in a number of Armenian writings in addition to Agathangelos, such as the various recensions of the Armenian Synaxarion.44 c. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The Jewish provenance of this work is debated and the current consensus is that it is a Christian composition incorporating prior Jewish sources and traditions.45 The Armenian text, of which there are more than seventy copies, has been published in a critical editio minor. Many, but far from all these seventy or more copies, are Bibles, but unlike Fourth Ezra, the work also occurs in a variety of other manuscript types. The recently published editio minor is based upon eleven manuscripts, carefully selected to represent the various families of the Armenian textual transmission.46 In addition, an Armenian Epitome of the Testaments was discovered in the famous manuscript Erevan Matenadaran M2679 dating from 981 ce. This Epitome is older than any of the full manuscripts. Interestingly, the study of its textual character shows that the diverse textual traditions identified among the later manuscripts of the Armenian version already existed by the time the Epitome was composed—​that is, in the early tenth century at the latest and probably before that.47 Uncial errors of the Armenian have been noted, which combine with the Epitome to fix the date of the translation quite definitely to before the tenth century.48 Indeed, this translation, made at some time between the fifth and ninth centuries, is an older witness to a Greek text than any of the surviving Greek manuscripts.49 42. Stone, Textual Commentary, xiv–​xxi. 43.  This view was also held in other medieval sources: see n. 36, above. 44. Stone, Armenian Version of IV Ezra, 35–​41. The material assembled there could doubtless be expanded. The edition is complemented by Stone, Textual Commentary. In addition, Ezra Salathiel is mentioned in the poetic list of biblical books composed by Aṙak’el Siwnec‘i; see M. E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists VII: The Poetic List of Aṙak’el of Siwnik’ (d. 1409),” HTR 104 (2011): 367–​79. 45.  See the numerous writings of M. de Jonge since his doctoral thesis, written in 1953: The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Study of Their Text, Composition and Origin (Assen: van Gorcum). For one such Jewish tradition found in among the Qumran manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, see M. E. Stone, “The Genealogy of Bilhah [4QTNaph-​4Q215],” DSD (Jonas Greenfield Memorial Issue) 3 (1996): 20–​36. 46.  M.  E. Stone in collaboration with Vered Hillel, The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Edition, Apparatus, Translation and Commentary (HUAS 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2011); on the selection of manuscripts, see pages 1–​3. 47.  M. E. Stone, “The Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Revue des études arméniennes 20 (1986): 69–​107; and Stone, “The Textual Affinities of The Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Matenadaran No. 2679,” Le Muséon 108 (1995): 265–​77. 48.  Debate has surrounded this dating, see Stone and Hillel, Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 10–​13. The manuscript of M2679 of the year 981 is the first substantial dated literary manuscript in Armenian to survive. It is written in a transitional erkat’agir-​bolorgir script, a paleographic style in which the uncial errors could not have arisen. See M. E. Stone, “The Mixed Erkat’agir-​Bolorgir Script in Armenian Manuscripts,” Le Muséon 111 (1998): 293–​317. 49.  The critical edition of the Greek text is M. de Jonge et al., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (PVTG 12; Leiden: Brill, 1978).

149

A r men i a n

The work was translated from Greek, not from Syriac, in which language it is not known to occur. It should be noted that the theory proposed a century or more ago, that the short Armenian version of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is close to a putative Hebrew original, has been decisively refuted.50 d. History of Joseph. In the Armenian manuscript tradition, as well as in one branch of the Greek tradition, a work called Life or History of Joseph is associated with Joseph and Asenath. It is attributed to St. Ephrem. Burchard opines that the two works were translated into Armenian at the same time, in the tenth to eleventh centuries.51 A diplomatic edition of the History of Joseph, which is actually a homily, has been published from the particularly valuable thirteenth-​ century Bible manuscript, the so-​called Bible of Erznka, Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate no. J1925. This work has not been translated into English, studied, or edited thoroughly.52 The History of Joseph is generally recognized to date from the fifth or sixth century and survives in Greek and other languages.53 Some scholars have suggested that part of it goes back to a Jewish text, but this requires further investigation.54 e. Paralipomena Ieremiou. An example of the complex transmission of a pseudepigraphon is provided by the various Armenian versions of Paralipomena Ieremiou. Fr. Sargis Yovsēp‘eanc‘ of the Venice Mekhitarist Order published them in vulgar editions.55 So far, three recensions of the Armenian translation of this work are known to exist, the third of which is closest to the Greek text printed by Rendell Harris.56 Two of them accord in general with the Greek text that Kraft and Purintun characterize as short. The third Armenian recension resembles Kraft and Purintun’s long text. It is notable that, in addition, a barely studied 50.  See already, de Jonge, Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. A Study . . . , 27–​31. 51. Burchard, Minor Edition,  13–​14. 52.  A. Srjuni (Kahavejian), Սրբոյն Եփրեմի ի Յուսէփ եւթն Վահանգի “The Seven vahangs of Joseph by St. Ephrem,” Sion 47 (1973): 26–​37, 137–​144. 53.  That includes Syriac, see Burchard, Minor Edition, 9. 54.  Ibid., n. 23. 55.  In fact, the earliest publication by a year was by Karapet vardapet Tēr Mkrtč‘ean, “Երեմիա մարգարէի ի Գրոցն Բաքուք Of Jeremiah the Prophet from the Book of Baruch,” Ararat 27 (1895); 81–​82. Sargis Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Անկանոն Գիրք Հին Կտակարանաց [Uncanonical books of the Old Testament] (Venezia: Mekhitarist Press, 1896), 348–​377 (texts) and Jacques Issaverdens translated them into English in The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus (Venezia: St. Lazarus, 1901), 194–​232, 252–​228 (translation). Unfortunately, this translation is unsatisfactory. See on Paralipomena Ieremiou in Armenian, M. E. Stone, “Some Observations on the Armenian Version of the Paralipomena of Jeremiah,” in CBQ 35 (1973): 47–​59, reprinted in Stone, Selected Studies in the Pseudepigrapha with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition (SVTP 9; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 77–​89. 56.  J. R. Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 AD; The Text Revised with an Introduction (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press, 1889). See also R. A. Kraft and A. E. Purintun, Paralipomena Jeremiou (SBLTT 1, PS 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972). My research on this text was carried out before the publication of the edition of J. Riaud, Les Paralipomènes du Prophète Jérémie. Présentation, texte original, traduction et commentaire (CIRHLL, Angers, 1994). He analyzes anew the recensions of the Greek, but the Armenian versions have not been characterized in this context.

149

150

150

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

copy of Paralipomena Ieremiou exists in Erevan Matenadaran M1500, fols. 359v–​361v, the extremely important thirteenth-​century Miscellany manuscript that we mentioned above.57 My photographs of the work are defective and only contain ­chapter 1. In that chapter at least, it bears out the overall trustworthiness of Yovsēp‘eanc‘s text.58 Further Armenian manuscript copies exist, such as Erevan Matenadaran M0728 (xvii1/​4 [1621]), fols. 139v–​150r, M10986 (xvii), fols. 27r–​34r; M0779 (xvii2/​4 [1643]), fols. 230v–​236r, M3770 (xiv2/​4 [1340]), M3791 (xv), M4670 (xvin [1401]), and M4676 (xiv). There are also doubtless more copies in manuscript depositaries in Jerusalem, New Julfa (Isfahan), etc. It is significant that the manuscripts listed above are relatively early in comparison with many Miscellanies containing apocryphal texts, which are predominantly of the seventeenth century. The book was, in all likelihood, translated into Armenian from Greek and underwent some textual development in Armenian. However, we remain in the dark as to the date of the original and of the translation, though the oldest witness known so far, Venezia, Mekhitarist Library no. 345 of 1220 ce is of the second recension. Recensions I and II go back to a common ancestor and it seems likely that III and the hyparchetype of I and II also share an ancestor.59 Breuo, this work needs re-​edition and comparison with the recensions of the Greek work. f. Questions of Ezra. This work, which has some claim to incorporate Jewish-​derived traditions, was edited most recently in 1995.60 It is one of a group of five “later” revelatory works that derive from Fourth Ezra. The other documents in this group include the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the Latin Vision of Ezra, and the Greek Apocalypse of Sedrach.61 None of these three was translated into Armenian. In Armenian we have Questions of Ezra, while the Armenian expansions of 4 Ezra form a fifth body of revelatory Ezra material, though not constituting a

57.  See A. Kēoškeryan and Y. K‘eōšēyan, Մայր ցուցակ հայերէն ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անուան Մատենադարանի [General catalogue of Armenian manuscripts of the Maštoc‘ Matenadaran] (Erevan: Nairi, 2008), vol. 4, col. 1454. 58.  More copies exist, as we note, and other points of interest are discussed in Stone, “Some Observations.” 59.  These conclusions, of course, are subject to the results of a new edition of the Armenian, which is sorely lacking. For the moment, however, they imply that the translation must have been in existence enough time before 1220 for the various text forms to have developed and, since there is no evidence that the manuscript of 1220 was the autograph of its text-​form, for one or more copies to be made from that autograph. That would, I estimate, push the date back by a couple of centuries, at least to the early eleventh century. 60.  M. E. Stone, “A New Edition and Translation of the Questions of Ezra,” in Z. Zevit et al., eds., Solving Riddles and Untying Knots:  J.C. Greenfield Festschrift (Winona Lake, IN:  Eisenbrauns, 1995), 293–​316. See also Jutta Leonhardt-​Balzer, Fragen Esras ( JSHRZ n.F. 1.5; Gütersloh:  Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005), 8. I  am now engaged in editing an unpublished text entitled The Questions of St. Gregory and the Answers of the Angel Concerning the Souls of Men. See M. E. Stone, “The Armenian Questions of St. Gregory. A Text Descended from 4 Ezra,” Le Muséon 131 (2018): 141–​72. This work seems to have clear connections with Questions of Ezra. See B. Sargisean, Ուսումնասիրութիւնք Հին Կտակարանի Անվաւեր գրոց վրայ [Studies on the uncanonical books of the Old Testament] (Venezia: Mekhitarist Press, 1898), 463–​71. 61.  O. Wahl, Apocalypsis Esdrae, Apocalypsis Sedrach, Visio Beati Esdrae (PVTG 4; Leiden: Brill, 1970).

15

A r men i a n

unified work.62 S. Yovsēp’eanc’ published recension A of Questions of Ezra which is a longer but incomplete text-​form, from Venezia, Library of the Mekhitarist Fathers, V570 (xiiiin [1208]), the only known copy. J. Issaverdens translated this text into English in 1901.63 A different form of the work is included in the fourth recension of the Armenian Synaxarion published in Constantinople in 1730.64 To the text of this printing, we have been able to add those of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marsh 438, vol. 3 [SC 9435], fol. 402r and Wien, Mekhitarist 10 (xvi).65 In the 1995 edition, the two recensions with translations were printed in a synoptic form. Neither recension is complete.66 The date of Questions of Ezra cannot be determined and the oldest manuscript (the thirteenth-​century copy of recension A) provides a date ante quem. It is impossible to determine whether the work was composed in Armenian or is translated from Greek or another language. Indeed, it is unknown in any other language, and it contains some words not found in the Armenian lexica.67 In either case, it is clearly Christian as it stands. It probably derives from the Byzantine period, as its affinity with the other Byzantine Ezra apocalypses indicates. In Quest Ezra the theme of a dialogue between Ezra and an angel about the postmortem fate of the righteous and wicked souls is most striking. Quest Ezra shares this theme with 4 Ezra and the three apocalypses mentioned in section f.  Quest Ezra also contains a barely studied and largely unparalleled description of an ascent to the heavens, a genre of literature that has attracted considerable attention.68 Comparable with the ascent in 4 Ezra 7:80–​99, it differs from it both in general atmosphere and in details. Strikingly, in the narrative of the ascent of the soul, the description of the Divinity does

62.  These expansions are discussed in section b. above. The Book of Esdras, an Armenian document published by M. E. Stone, “The Book of Esdras,” JSAS 4 (1988): 209–​12, is in fact a translation of the Latin ­chapter 16 of Vulgate 2 Esdras. Indeed, a full translation of the Vulgate of 2 Esdras, of which ­chapters 1–​2 are called 5 Ezra, ­chapters 3–​14 are called 4 Ezra, and c­ hapters 15–​16 are 6 Ezra was included in the first Armenian Bible printing by Oskan Erewanc‘i in Amsterdam in 1666. This is not the ancient translation being discussed in this section, but a late, seventeenth-​century rendering of the Latin Vulgate. For introductory material concerning this Ezra literature, see M. E. Stone, “An Introduction to the Esdras Writings,” Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers (OLA, 144; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 305–​20. 63.  See the works cited above, in n. 55. 64.  This is the recension edited by Grigor Xlat‘ec‘i in 1403 and published in 1730, Գիրք որ կոչի Յայսմաւո ւրք [Synaxarion] (Constantinople: Grigor Marzvanec’i Press). 65.  J. Dashian, Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitaristen-​Bibliothek zu Wein (Haupt-​Catalog der armenischen Handschriften 1.2; Wien: Mekhitarist Press, 1895), 779–​80. There are, of course, many copies of the Armenian Synaxarion. 66.  See also the German translation and commentary by Leonhardt-​Balzer, Fragen Esras. 67.  See Stone, “New Edition  .  .  .  of the Questions of Ezra,” 315 note A  27, and Leonhardt-​Balzer, Fragen Esras,  19–​20. 68.  Such ascents are very well discussed by Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Other works on this theme are A. Yarbro Collins, “Ascent to Heaven in Antiquity: Towards a Typology,” in Eric F. Mason et al., eds., A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James VanderKam ( JSJSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2.553–​72; and earlier, A. F. Segal, “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and Their Environment,” in H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds., ANRW II 23.2 (1980), 1333–​94.

151

152

152

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

not exhibit distinct Jewish or Christian markers.69 However, the text as it stands, with references to “apostles and martyrs” and to forty days’ mourning or fast and “rest and mercy through the sacrifice of Christ” (§ 32), is clearly Christian.70 Jutta Leonhardt-​Balzer suggests a date after the sixth century ce for this work.71 I myself find no basis for determining whether it was composed in Armenian or translated from another language. The manuscript of the year 1280 contains some hapaxlegomena that are not of Armenian origin. As for its substance, we may say that Quest Ezra clearly stands between 4 Ezra, late first century ce, and the Questions of St. Gregory and the Answers of the Angel Concerning the Souls of Men, a later work, of which the oldest known copies are of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.72 Quest Ezra is dependent on 4 Ezra, from which it draws its character as a series of questions posed by the seer, and angelic responses. Its central interest is the fate of human souls after death. Parallels have been pointed out between Quest Ezra and other elenchic works preserved in Armenian,73 but it is far from certain that these works were in fact a source or sources of Quest Ezra. Its remarkable descriptions of the ascent of the soul through seven heavens and of the environs of the Godhead set it squarely in the ascent tradition that, originating in the Second Temple period, continued in later Jewish and Christian sources. g. Vitae Prophetarum or Lives of the Prophets is a work often found in Armenian Bible manuscripts under the title Deaths of the Prophets. It was once thought to be a Jewish work, but in recent decades scholarly opinion has tended to place it in the early Byzantine period, though readily admitting that it contains distinct Jewish traditions.74 In Armenian Bible manuscripts we quite often find the lives of the four major prophets and the twelve minor prophets that, under the title “Death of so-​and-​so,” occur at the end of the several prophetic books, including Daniel. At the end of the nineteenth century these sixteen lives were published and translated from a limited number of manuscripts by the diligent Mekhitarist Fathers of Venice.75 However in a manuscript assemblage of biblical

69.  See A §§ 22–​26. 70.  See Stone, “New Edition . . . of the Questions of Ezra,” 296–​97. Concerning the prognostications attributed to Esdras, see E. A. Matter (1982), “The ‘Revelatio Esdrae’ in Latin and English Traditions,” Revue Bénédictine 92 (1992): 379–​87; Kraft, “ ‘Ezra’ Materials’ ”; and L. DiTommaso, “Pseudepigrapha Notes III: 4. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in the Yale University Manuscript Collection,” JSP 20 (2010):  3–​80, including a list of 283 European manuscript texts. 71.  See Leonhardt-​Balzer, Fragen Esras, 8. 72.  Cognate Armenian elenchic works are discussed by Sargisean, Studies, 465–​69 and 475–​78. The whole matter is deserving of a separate study. 73.  See n. 60. The relationship between Questions of Ezra and Questions of St. Gregory was already discerned by Sargisean, Studies, 463–​70. 74.  See D. Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine. Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995) for summary of views and demonstration of the high likelihood of a Byzantine Palestinian context for the work. 75.  This main body of the material is published by Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Uncanonical Books, 207–​27. Other lives are published in Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets, 136–​57, with some reconstructed

153

A r men i a n

and hagiographical writings called Collection of Homilies (Čaṙěntir) extant in a number of manuscript copies, as well as in other similar works, additional lives are found, including those of Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, and Zechariah ben Berachiah. Moreover, in the Bible preserved in the aforementioned thirteenth-​ century manuscript Matenadaran M1500, three further lives appear, which are perhaps Armenian compositions using the literary form of the “Life.” These are the lives of Moses, the Three Hebrews, and of Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. They fill out the corpus.76 The text of these Vitae has scarcely been studied. In manuscript M0724 there are Vitae of Asaph and Nathan. These have been published in Stone, Angels, 262–​65. There exist in Armenian other works listing the prophets, with short biographical and other details provided for each. One, translated into Armenian from Latin, is entitled the Names, Works, and Deaths of the Holy Prophets and has been published with translation and commentary from two eighteenth-​century manuscripts, one in Erevan and the other in Paris.77 Further biographical works and lists of names of the prophets have been published, but not translated.78 h. The Penitence of Adam and Eve is an Armenian translation of the Life of Adam and Eve (LAE). Penitence of Adam was first published in 1981 by M. E. Stone from three fairly late manuscripts: Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, J1458 (xvii), pp. 380–​431, Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, J1370 (xvii), pp. 127–​150, and Erevan, Matenadaran, M3461, fols. 66r–​87v (xvii3/​4 [1662] ce. 79 No further copies have turned up yet. It is a version of the Primary Adam book and was translated into Armenian from Greek.80 Like the extant Greek, Latin, Georgian, and Slavonic versions, it is a major witness to the Life of Adam and Eve. It is close, textually, to the Georgian Book of Adam, which was translated and commented upon by J.-​P. Mahé, who also made a comparative study of the two versions.81

Greek texts. On the Vita of Ezekiel and hagiographic traditions concerning this prophet, see D. Satran et al., The Apocryphal Ezekiel (SBLEJL18; Atlanta, GA: SBL), 82–​91 and 113–​23. 76.  See above, n. 74. An Armenian version of Prayer of Manasseh also exists. 77. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha:  Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets, 158–​73. It is followed there by lists of prophetic names. 78.  Further texts and lists are published in Stone, “Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the OT,” 67–​73. 79.  See for the Armenian Primary Adam Book, M. E. Stone, The Penitence of Adam (CSCO, 429–​30, Scriptores Armeniaci, 13–​14; Leuven: Peeters, 1981). 80.  See the newly published Latin text and Synopsis: J. P. Pettorelli, J.-​D. Kaestli et al., Vita latina Adae et Evae et synopsis Vitae Adae et Evae (CCSA 18–​19; Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). This edition renders part of what I wrote in 1992 about the Primary Adam Books outdated. See ­chapter 1 of M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992). 81.  J. P. Mahé, “Le Livre d’Adam géorgien,” in R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 227–​60; and Mahé, “Notes philologiques sur la version géorgienne de la Vita Adae,” Bedi Kartlisa 41 (1983): 51–​66. The Georgian text was published in C’. K’urc’ikidze, Dzveli

153

154

154

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

Regarded in light of the other Primary Adam Books, the Armenian Penitence contains a number of special readings. Some were found to concord with the Greek and Latin Adam books, while others are related to traditions known in other Jewish and Christian sources. Moreover, in ­chapters 1 to 9 the protoplasts’ search clearly relates to paradisiacal food; in the Latin Vita Adam et Evae the search is ambiguous, sometimes relating to food and sometimes to repentance. In the text parallel to Latin ­chapter 42 and Greek ­chapter 13, the Armenian Penitence has a version expressing views that are strange to say the least. The diversity of the versions at this point hints that something unacceptable may have stood here in the underlying documents. In addition to the Penitence an Armenian translation of the Greek Apocalypse of Moses also exists, published by Yovsēp‘eanc‘ and translated by Issaverdens.82 These then are the chief known works, versions of Pseudepigrapha, either Jewish or long thought to be Jewish, that are known to be preserved in Armenian translation. There may be more, of course, still undiscovered.

5.  Other Works Associated with the Bible A vast majority of the Armenian works relating to the biblical books fall outside the categories we have just delimited. In what follows, we shall enumerate some of the major collections of such works published so far. Before that, however, it is important to consider these works and their function in the Armenian tradition.

5.1.  The Embroidered Bible There is no secure basis on which we can assess Armenian attitudes toward the Bible and stories related about biblical events and characters before the end of the first millennium ce. We do know, however, that some retelling of biblical stories and enrichment of the narratives went on, as may be inferred from the Chronography of the seventh-​century author Philo of Tirak.83 As observed in note 29, Philo of Tirak produced a chronographic narrative that includes a good number of extrabiblical traditions, chronological details, and other such matters. These can be traced through the succeeding centuries. It seems likely that he was not the first so to embellish and retell the biblical narrative. Thus embellishment and learned exegesis of the biblical text and narrative is an early theme of Armenian literature.84

Ag’t’k’mis Apok’rip’ebis K’art’uli Versiebi (2 vols.; Tbilisi: Mec’niereba, 1970). For some details, see Stone, History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 37 n. 104. 82.  See Stone, History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 12–​13, and below, n. 103. 83.  See Hakobyan, Ancient Armenian Literature. This interesting, early chronographic work has never been translated into English from Ancient Armenian. 84.  See R. Thomson’s article, “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography,” JTS, n.s., 26 (1975): 329–​ 41. Thomson traces the influence of the Maccabees on Armenian self-​understanding in their war against Persian attempts to impose Zoroastrianism on the Armenian Christians in the fifth century.

15

A r men i a n

One of the main motivations in such embellishments and retellings is a search for typological patterns that fit with the story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another is the view that the Old Testament is not only a typological prefiguration of Christ’s life, but that it is part of a seamless revelation of the history of salvation. Anything relating to it was therefore significant. In the course of discussion of the Armenian retellings of the stories about Abraham, what I called the “Abraham saga,” I suggested that Abraham’s willing sacrifice is not just a parade example of faith, drawn from the past, but it intimates and atemporally reflects God’s sacrifice of his Son for the sake of Adam’s offspring, and therefore, the central mystery and meaning of the world.85 Such understandings transform the Abraham narrative from a single, punctual event to a multilayered, eternal foreshadowing of the redemptive dynamic of the cosmos. These and other themes developed in this fashion were woven into an expanded biblical narrative and that was moved from a past significance to playing a usually typological or paradigmatic role in the history of salvation, as viewed through a Christian prism. Some of these are readings of incidents in the biblical text and others are apocryphal and have been added to the line either in Armenian circles, or in anterior Syriac or Greek narrations. Characteristically, this approach regarded the biblical story as the presentation of a unified history of redemption from Creation to Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Parousia. Narrative sequence governs the surface relation of the episodes of the story, but, in fact, the central redemptive event gives atemporal unity that supersedes any narrative sequence. This led to certain specific Christian interpretations or exegeses of Old Testament events or texts, and to the reformulation of such events as prefiguring, indeed enfolding, the salvific life and death of Christ in which their meaning was found.86 In the course of this embroidery, one may rightly ask, were any ancient Jewish traditions preserved? In view of the theme under discussion here, the question is completely appropriate. Of course, it is always possible that, as with the Philonic corpus, further, whole Jewish works were preserved only in Armenian that are still unknown. It is also true that Armenian versions of writings dating from the Second Temple period may prove to be of considerable text-​critical importance. This is obvious, and cases like Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Joseph and Asenath are good illustrations, as already noted. Whether the Armenian versions of the History of Melchizedek87 preserve developed text forms of a Jewish work depends on whether the work as it appears in Greek is considered to have a Jewish kernel, which is a disputed assertion. I believe this not to be the case, pace Böttrich, and so have not dealt with History of Melchizedek at length here.88

85.  86.  87.  88. 

Precisely this interpretation is opposed in Agadat Berešit 31 (end). M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Abraham (SBLEJL 37; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 2. C. Böttrich, Geschichte Melchisedeks ( JSHRZ n.F. II.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010). See Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Abraham,  8–​12.

155

156

156

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

Before going on to describe the chief focuses of Armenian apocryphal retellings, I wish to remark that, even in the chronographic and onomastic traditions there are preserved pieces of demonstrably Jewish material, though that material may have reached the Armenians via Greek or Syriac. Thus, there are a number of Armenian lists of the names of the wives of the ante-​and postdiluvian patriarchs.89 Lipscomb published the list of wives of the matriarchs down to Noah.90 The book of Genesis does not give any of these names except for Eve and the names of other matriarchs in the Armenian list are those found in Jubilees and in Aramaic Levi Document. Another manuscript text includes the matriarchal names down to Jacob’s days.91 As far as Noah, it has the same names as in Lipscomb’s list (with a few orthographic variants), and the names it gives from Shem’s wife down to Sarah, wife of Abraham, are variant forms of those found in Jubilees. There is no surviving translation of Jubilees into Armenian, and there is no indication that such a translation existed in antiquity and perished. It is quite likely that these names have been transmitted through an intermediary chronographic tradition in Syriac or in Greek. Thus we may assert that in some instances Armenian writing associated with the Bible or with biblical characters incorporates traditional material deriving from Jewish sources, transmitted in channels that we cannot always determine precisely. With the development of the Armenian scholastic tradition in the medieval period, many traditions were crystallized, listed, and assembled, and among them were texts, data, or ideas related to or deriving from Jewish texts going back as far as the Second Temple period.92 One of the aims of the Armenian Catholic fathers of the Mekhitarist order, most famously located on the island of San Lazaro in the Bay of Venice, was to serve as a bridge between European and Armenian culture. Their educational, cultural, and religious endeavors brought about the first publication of many Armenian texts and translations. Studies of manuscript treasures from the Near East, many of which were brought to Europe, particularly in the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, flourished.93 Baptiste Aucher (Mkrtič‘ Awk‘erean) published the Armenian texts of Philo early in the nineteenth century as part of this endeavor. Toward the end of that century, in Britain and on the Continent, work on the historical context of Jesus and the background of the New Testament had

89.  Similar lists occur in other languages, see DiTommaso, “Pseudepigrapha Notes III.” 90.  W. L. Lipscomb, “A Tradition from the Book of Jubilees in Armenian,” JJS 29 (1978): 149–​63. 91.  M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Adam and Eve (SVTP 14; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 165. 92.  A considerable number of such scholarly texts have been published in my volumes of collected Armenian apocryphal texts as well as in journal articles. See Stone, Signs of the Judgment; Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets; Stone, Armenian Apocrypha:  Relating to Adam and Eve; Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Abraham; and Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Angels and Biblical Heroes. Many of the articles have been reprinted in Stone, Selected Studies in the Pseudepigrapha, and in M. E. Stone, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers (OLA 144–​145 and 253; Leuven: Peeters, 2006–​2017). A book collecting and publishing a corpus of scattered, short texts has been prepared in Armenian, see M. E. Stone, Uncanonical Writings and Traditions. 93.  Compare, for example, R. Curzon, Visits to Monasteries in the Levant (London: John Murray, 1849); and A. Smith Lewis, In the Shadow of Sinai: A Story of Travel and Research from 1895–​1897 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898).

157

A r men i a n

reached the point of crystallization of collections of apocryphal books. This process continued from the last decade of the nineteenth century and to the First World War.94 The following list is only indicative of such nineteenth-​and early twentieth-​century assemblages of apocrypha. M. R. James published a collection called Apocrypha Anecdota in 1893 and in the same year in Moscow, A.  A. Vassiliev published Anecdota Graeco-​ Byzantina, a volume of similar Byzantine Greek texts with a somewhat wider focus.95 Next, in 1900, Emil Kautzsch issued a collection in German;96 and R. H. Charles, that virtuoso of pseudepigrapha studies, edited and published his influential English-​language collection in 1913.97 In the second volume of his Apocrypha Anecdota published in 1893, M. R. James could refer before publication to the Mekhitarist Fathers’ Armenian collection that appeared in 1896 edited by Sargis Yovsēp‘eanc‘.98 The Mekhitarists also published a volume of studies on these works and an (unfortunately rather unsatisfactory) English translation of the Armenian volume. I refer to the works of Barseł Sargisean and Jacques Issaverdens.99 We shall examine some works in Yovsēp‘eanc‘’s collection, with James’s overview open before us,100 adding some remarks and further observations. Because the dominating interest in this outburst of scholarship was the desire to find material illuminating the Jewish background of the New Testament, Yovsēp‘eanc‘ chose works that related particularly to the apocalypses and other pseudepigrapha which, for that very reason, were so prominent in the scholarship of his day. In an appendix he included other works that were unknown in the West. Moreover, he was a Roman Catholic monk in the Venice Mekhitarist monastery, which had a large library of manuscripts, today numbering around 4,000, and so he concentrated his searches almost exclusively on manuscripts in that library. Of course, many more libraries and collections are accessible today.

94.  In fact, Riessler’s Catholic collection in German was published in 1928. See P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Heidelberg: Kerle). He cast his net wider than did Charles and Kautzsch. This likely implies a varying view of the study of Ancient Judaism. Compare the differences between J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983–​1985) and the new work by Louis H. Feldman et al., eds., Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (3 vols.; Philadelphia and Lincoln: Jewish Publication Society and University of Nebraska Press, 2013). 95.  M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota (Texts and Studies 2.3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893); and see A. A. Vassiliev, ed., Anecdota Graeco-​Byzantina:  Pars Prior (Mosquae:  Universitatis Caesareae, 1893). C.  von Tischendorf had already published a not-​dissimilar collection entitled Apocalypses Apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Iohannis (Leipzig:  Mendelssohn, 1866). Von Tischendorf himself gained lasting renown when he brought the manuscript of Codex Sinaiticus from St. Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai to Imperial Russia (though the monks there claim he promised to return it, and display a letter to this effect). 96.  E. Kautzsch, ed., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1900). 97.  R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1913). This is not the whole history of this remarkable movement, and some further details are to be found in M. E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 172–​94 and in ­chapter 12 of this volume, by L. DiTommaso. 98.  Despite the dates; see M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota:  Second Series (Texts and Studies 5.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), and Yovsēp‘eanc‘, Uncanonical Books. 99. Issaverdens, Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament, is the English translation while Sargisean, Studies, is a rather learned book of studies on the texts. 100.  In the same volume of Apocrypha Anecdota II, 154–​58, M. R. James gives a conspectus of Vassiliev’s 1893 Anecdota Graeco-​Byzantina. James discussed Yovsēp‘eanc‘’s collection on 158–​65.

157

158

158

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

Since I have studied the Armenian Adam and Eve material in some detail, allow me to use it as an example. Other tradition-​complexes exist, but they have not been studied as thoroughly. I have already discussed here the Penitence of Adam, which was first published in 1981. The following works, however, were published almost a century before that: The Book of Adam, Yovsēp‘eanc‘, pages 1–​23. James rightly observes that this is an Armenian translation of the Greek work Apocalypsis Mosis published by Tischendorf in his collection, Apocalypses Apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Iohannis.101 Since that time, work has proceeded on the Greek text, culminating in a recent new edition by Johannes Tromp. He has placed the Armenian Book of Adam as a witness to his hyparchetype β.102 Moreover, his stemmatic analysis of the relationship of the various versions of the Adam book has not met with universal approbation. I might add that the Armenian Book of Adam needs to be edited anew, and that there are a number of manuscripts known today that Yovsēp‘eanc‘ did not use.103 The Cycle of Four Works. Yovsēp‘eanc‘ also published six further works containing Adam and Eve stories.104 These include four writings that actually form a single literary composition that I  entitled The Cycle of Four Works.105 Yovsēp‘eanc‘ omitted the homiletic discourses that intervene between these four sequential narratives, and one example of such a homiletic discourse has been published separately.106 More unstudied manuscripts of this work exist, as well as a Georgian version that has not yet been brought fully to bear on the Armenian.107 The Cycle of Four Works was re-​edited in 1990 with further manuscript evidence and an English translation by W.  Lowndes Lipscomb, also without the homiletic passages.108 Repentance of Adam and Words of Adam to Seth. Yovsēp‘eanc‘ published two further Adam writings in his appendix, Repentance of Adam and Eve (Yovsēp‘eanc‘, pp. 325–​30), which survives in Erevan, Matenadaran 1521 (xvin [1404]), and Words of Adam to Seth (Yovsēp‘eanc‘, pp. 331–​34). Words of Adam to Seth is closely related to two short narratives published much later entitled Adam Fragment 1 and Adam Fragment 2.109 These three short 101. Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae; compare James, Apocrypha Anecdota II, 159. See the discussion in section 5.1. 102.  J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek (PVTG 6; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 97–​98. Note also the most recent edition of the Latin version and the detailed synopsis in the two works cited in n. 80, above. 103.  I  have noted the following over the years:  Erevan, Matenadaran, M0706, fols 100r–​115r, M1978, fols. 18r–​23r, M4618, and M6686, fols. 238v–​248v; doubtless, more exist. 104. Yovsēp’eanc’, Uncanonical Books, 307–​24. 105.  See M. E. Stone, “Report on Seth Traditions in the Armenian Adam Books,” in B. Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 2.460–​71. There I showed that what were previously regarded as four distinct works were in fact four episodes in a single cycle. 106.  N. Kazazian and M. E. Stone, “The Commentary on the Cycle of Four Works,” Journal of Armenian Studies 8 (2004): 46–​51. The homilies are not of great interest for scholars of the Pseudepigrapha, but the pattern of narrative interspersed with homiletic addresses is widespread. 107.  See the presentation in Stone, History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 101–​3 and 110. Such references as I know to exist are given there. 108.  W. L. Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature (UPATS 8; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990). 109.  See Stone, Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets, 4–​13, for both Adam Fragments and a translation the Words of Adam to Seth.

159

A r men i a n

works contain versions of the quest of Seth narrative. Seth seeks to bring a branch from the Garden to help heal Adam, who has fallen ill. He brings the branch, but his mission fails, since the branch was from the Tree of Knowledge, and not from the Tree of Life. In Adam Fragment 2 and Words of Adam to Seth, this branch of death becomes the Rood Tree, the wood of the Cross, which is life-​giving. Intriguingly, Adam Fragment 1 does not give the Rood Tree legend material about the continued history of the branch. Instead, it stops with Adam’s recognition of the branch as bringing death and Seth’s oath to refrain from eating fruit.110 Is it possible that this is an example of a Jewish form of the Quest story?111 Adam and Eve Stories in other Works. In addition, I assembled, translated and investigated a corpus of extracts referring to the stories of Adam and Eve, that I drew from other Armenian literature from its inception down to the seventeenth century. These extracts deal with the narratives in Genesis 1–​3. As a result, one learns that at the latest the main apocryphal Adam traditions in Armenian come from the early Middle Ages,112 but comparative studies of the medieval texts uncover much older traditions in them. Death of Adam (Yovsēp‘eanc‘, pp. 24–​26) This work was re-​edited in 1996 with the use of more manuscripts than Yovsēp‘eanc‘ had available to him, and I have since learned that additional copies exist.113 It seems likely to have been translated from Greek, for its title claims it comes from the “Paralipomena of the Greeks.” Perhaps it belongs in a collection of Pseudepigrapha in a broad sense, but it cannot be reckoned as a Jewish work, for clearly it is not. I have also carried out further studies of Armenian Adam literature in the course of which I have isolated some traditions that, as far as present documentation carries us, are unique to Jewish and Armenian sources. I cannot yet pronounce on this phenomenon, nor do I know the exact channels of transmission. What is already evident is that the Adam and Eve stories were extraordinarily productive in their Armenian context. I still have a few newly discovered texts that await publication, and the iconographical tradition needs investigation, but overall, they have been best documented of any apocryphal tradition complex in Armenian. In the process of reception and development of these Adam materials, that is, in the course of the growth of the Armenian Embroidered Bible, were older traditions drawn as to a magnet, incorporated, and preserved? It is quite possible that new discoveries will 110. See Death of Adam, § 12. This oath tradition is shared with a number of texts according to which Enoch refrained from fruit and because of this he was transferred to heaven: see Lipscomb, Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature, 62–​68, and M. E. Stone, “Some Texts on Enoch in the Armenian Tradition,” in J. Stackert et al., eds., Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2010), 517–​30. See also Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Enoch in the Armenian Apocrypha,” in Kevork B. Bardakjian and Sergio La Porta, eds., The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective (SVTP 25; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2014), 149–​87. 111.  This tale and its ramifications are dealt with by E. C. Quinn, The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1962) and a further dimension is the subject of another article by Quinn, “The Quest of Seth, Solomon’s Ship and the Grail,” Traditio 21 (1965): 185–​222. 112.  M. E. Stone, Adam and Eve in the Armenian Tradition. 113.  Stone, “Genealogy of Bilhah,” 15–​31.

159

160

160

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e

emerge to rival the Armenian Philo and Pseudo-​Philo in importance.114 What is, however, quite certain is that the significance of the Armenian sources for the study of Jewish texts and traditions lies in two areas. The first is text-​critical, and is evident from the situation of the three ancient works Joseph and Asenath, 4 Ezra, and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Work remains to be done on the Armenian versions of other Pseudepigrapha, such as Paralipomena Ieremiou and the Lives of the Prophets. Second, it is clear that some ancient Jewish texts, fragments, and traditions were preserved in Armenian, transmitted predominantly through Greek and Syriac intermediaries. If we regard, as an example, the enormous corpus of Armenian literature and traditions about Adam and Eve, it is more than likely that some ancient material is included. However, only a further thorough study of the whole corpus can show the extent of such preserved material. Further works exist that need careful consideration, such as Questions of the Queen and Answers of King Solomon, a wisdom work extant in many copies. The Armenian Solomonic tradition is complex,115 and I believe that it would be a fruitful subject to investigate. The task of examining this enormous, Bible-​related literature, including documents written in Armenian, for possible Jewish sources, calls for the most careful discrimination. In addition to the undoubtedly translated Pseudepigrapha discussed in the first section of this paper, there were also narrative tellings of the biblical stories known only in Armenian. Thus there exist long texts about the Israelites and the Ark of the Covenant,116 about Jonah, about the Israelites in Egypt, about the prophets Asaph and Nathan, and others. Few of these have been published. We may conclude, therefore, that the Armenian tradition both incorporated apocryphal and pseudepigraphical material translated from Greek and Syriac, and was itself productive of further similar texts. The Armenian scholastic and learned tradition also embraced geographical texts such as The Names of the Rivers, which deals with the four rivers that flowed from Eden,117 lists of names of matriarchs not given in the Bible, long chronological tables from Adam to the coming of Christ, the measurements of the Ark of

114.  An analogous more recent find was the discovery of an Armenian translation of a late work of Hellenistic-​ Roman philosophy; see M. E. Stone and M. E. Shirinian, Pseudo-​Zeno, Anonymous Philosophical Treatise (Philosophia Antiqua 83; Leiden: Brill, 2000). 115.  See, for example: M. E. Stone, “The Penitence of Solomon,” JTS, n.s., 29 (1978): 1–​19. I have more manuscripts in hand and know of yet further Solomonic material. The text preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, gr. 1021, fols. 184v–​185v, has been occasionally cited as a Greek “Penitence of Solomon.” But as R. Bailey shows in his paper, “De peccato Salomonis (BHG 2392c): A Ghost Pseudepigraphon,” JSP (2016): 49–​64, this is not the case There is a Latin Penitence of Solomon, a florilegium that is preserved in at least 152 manuscript copies but which bears no points of contact with the published Armenian texts according to L. DiTommaso, “The Penitence of Solomon (Poentitentia Salomonis),” in L. DiTommaso, M. Henze, and W. Adler, eds., The Embroidered Bible:  Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E.  Stone (SVTP 26; Leiden/​ Boston: E.J. Brill, 2017), 371–​452. 116.  M. E. Stone, “Two Stories about the Ark of the Covenant,” in M. D. Findikyan et al., eds., Sion, mѐre des églises: mélanges liturgiques offerts au Pѐre Charles Athanase Renoux (Münster: Ascendorff, 2016), 253–​66. 117.  M. E. Stone, “The Names of the Rivers,” in A. M. Maeir et al., eds., ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel ( JSJSup, 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 245–​56.

16

A r men i a n

the Covenant, the seven punishments of Cain, the twelve gifts lost by Adam, the names of the jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate, the ten plagues of Egypt, and the like. As far as is known today, however, all this material seems to have been produced in Armenian or translated from Greek and Syriac. Because of the richness of the manuscript tradition, more discoveries are to be expected and, of course, Armenian texts of Jewish works may yet turn up, through the mediation of Greek and Syriac literature.118

Selected Bibliography Ajamian, Sh. Ցուցակ Աստուածաշունչ Մատեանի Հայերէն ձեռագիրներուն [Catalogue of the manuscripts of the Armenian Bible]. Lisbon: C. Gulbenkian Foundation, 1992. Amalyan, H. Բարգիրք Հայոց Armenian Lexica. Erevan: Academy of Sciences, 1975. Baronian, S., and F. C. Conybeare. Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1918. Böttrich, C. Geschichte Melchisedeks. JSHRZ, n.F 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 2010. Burchard, C. A Minor Edition of the Armenian Version of Joseph and Aseneth. HUAS 10. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–​1985. Curzon, R. Visits to Monasteries in the Levant. London: John Murray, 1849. Dashian, J. Catalog der armenischen Handschriften in der Mechitaristen-​Bibliothek zu Wein. Haupt-​Catalog der armenischen Handschriften 1.2. Wien: Mekhitarist Press, 1895. DiTommaso, L. “Pseudepigrapha Notes III: 4. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in the Yale University Manuscript Collection.” JSP 20 (2010): 3–​80. Eynatyan, J. Հին հայկական տոմարը (7-​րդ –​ 15-​րդ դդ.) [The ancient Armenian calendar (7th–​15th cc.)]. Translated by G. Muradyan and A. Topchyan. Yerevan: Magaghat Publishing House, 2002. Feldman, L. H., J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman, eds. Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, 3 vols. Philadelphia and Lincoln: JPS and University of Nebraska Press, 2013. Hakobyan, A. In Մատենագրութիւն Հայոց [Ancient Armenian literature]. Vol. 5. Antelias:  Armenian Catholicossate of Cilicia, 2005. Harris, J. R. The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 ad: The Text Revised with an Introduction. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, Cambridge University Press, 1889. Himmelfarb, M. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Issaverdens, J. The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus. Venezia: St. Lazarus Press, 1901. James, M. R. Apocrypha Anecdota. Texts and Studies 2.3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893. –​–​–​. Apocrypha Anecdota: Second Series. Texts and Studies 5.1. Cambridge: University Press, 1899. –​–​–​. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments. TED 1. London: SPCK, 1920. Jonge, M. de The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of Their Text, Composition and Origin. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953. –​–​–​ et al. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. PVTG 12. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Tēr Mkrtč’ean, K., vardapet. Երեմիա մարգարէի ի Գրոցն Բաքուք [Of Jeremiah the prophet from the book of Baruch]. Ararat 27 (1895): 81–​82. Kautzsch, E., ed. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900. Kazazian, N., and M. E. Stone. “The Commentary on the Cycle of Four Works.” JArmS 8 (2004): 46–​51. Kēoškeryan, A., and Y. K’eōsēyan. Մայր ցուցակ հայերէն ձեռագրաց Մաշտոցի անուան Մատենադարանի [General catalogue of Armenian manuscripts of the Maštoc’ Matenadaran]. Vol. 4. Erevan: Nairi, 2008.

118.  This article was finalized before the appearance of Kevork B. Bardakjian and Sergio LaPorta, The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, SVTP 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), and its contribution could not be integrated fully into this chapter.

161

162

162

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e Kraft, R. A. “‘Ezra’ Materials in Judaism and Christianity.” In H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds., ANRW II.19.1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1979. –​–​–​, and A. E. Purintun. Paralipomena Jeremiou. SBLTT 1, PS 1. Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972. K’urc’ikidze, C’. Dzveli Ag’t’k’mis Apok’rip’ebis K’art’uli Versiebi. 2 vols. Tbilisi: Mec’niereba, 1970. Leonhardt-​Balzer, J. Fragen Esras. JSHRZ n.F. 1.5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005. Lewis, A. Smith. In the Shadow of Sinai: A Story of Travel and Research from 1895–​1897. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898. Lipscomb, W. L. “A Tradition from the Book of Jubilees in Armenian.” JJS 29 (1978): 149–​63. –​–​–​. The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature. UPATS 8. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Mahé, J. P. “Le Livre d’Adam géorgien.” In R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions:  Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. ÉPRO 91. Leiden: Brill, 1981. –​–​–​. “Notes philologiques sur la version géorgienne de la Vita Adae.” Bedi Kartlisa 41 (1983): 51–​66. Mathévossian, A. Մատեան Գիտութեան եւ Հաւատոյ Դաւթի քահանայի [A book of knowledge and belief by Priest David; The Oldest Armenian Manuscript on Paper, 981]. 2 vols. Erevan: Matenadaran-​Nairi, 1995–​1997. Nir, R. Joseph and Aseneth: A Christian Book. Hebrew Bible Monographs 42. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012. Pettorelli, J. P., J.-​D. Kaestli, et  al. Vita latina Adae et Evae et synopsis Vitae Adae et Evae. CCSA 18–​19. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Quinn, E. C. The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “Enoch in the Armenian Apocrypha.” In Kevork B.  Bardakjian and Sergio La Porta, eds., The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective, 149–​87. SVTP 25. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2014. Riaud, J. Les Paralipomènes du prophète Jérémie:  Présentation, texte original, traduction et commentaire. Cahiers du Centre interdisciplinaire de recherches en histoire, lettres et langues 14. Angers: Université catholique de l’Ouest and Association Saint-​Yves, 1994. Sargisean, B. Ուսումնասիրութիւնք հին կտակարանի անվաւեր գրոց վրայ [Studies on the uncanonical books of the Old Testament]. Venezia: Mekhitarist Press, 1989. Satran, D. Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets. SVTP 11. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Satran, D., M. E. Stone, and B. G. Wright. The Apocryphal Ezekiel. SBLEJL 18. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2000. Segal, A. F. “Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism, Early Christianity and Their Environment.” In H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds., ANRW II 23.2, pp. 1333–​94. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1980. Srjuni (Kahavejian), A. Սրբոյն Եփրեմի ի Յուսէփ եւթն Վահանգի [The seven vahangs of Joseph by St. Ephrem]. Sion 47 (1973): 26–​37 and 137–​44. Stone, M. E. “The Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Tradition.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1969): separatim. –​–​–​. “An Armenian Translation of a Baraitha in the Babylonian Talmud,” HTR 63 (1970): 151–​54. –​–​–​. “Jewish Literature from the Period of the Second Temple in Armenian Literature.” In Lectures at Research Meetings of the Israel Historical Society ( Jerusalem), 1972. [in Hebrew]. –​–​–​. “Some Observations on the Armenian Version of the Paralipomena of Jeremiah.” CBQ 35 (1973): 47–​59. Reprinted in Selected Studies in the Pseudepigrapha with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition, 77–​89. SVTP 9; Leiden: Brill, 1991. –​–​–​. “The Penitence of Solomon.” JTS, n.s., 29 (1978): 1–​19. –​–​–​. The Armenian Version of IV Ezra. UPATS 1. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. –​–​–​. “Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of Gregory of Tathew (14th Century).” HTR 72 (1980): 237–​44. –​–​–​. The Penitence of Adam. CSCO, 429–​30, Scriptores armeniaci, 13–​14. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. –​–​–​. Signs of the Judgement, Onomastica Sacra and the Generations from Adam. UPATS 3. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. –​–​–​. Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Patriarchs and Prophets. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences, 1982. –​–​–​. Jewish Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Church.” Le Muséon 95 (1982): 285–​309. –​–​–​. “Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Abr-​Nahrain 24 (1986): 167–​77. –​–​–​. “The Epitome of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” RevÉArm 20 (1986): 69–​107. –​–​–​. Textual Commentary on the Armenian Version of IV Ezra. SBLSCS 34. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990.

163

A r men i a n –​–​–​. Selected Studies in the Pseudepigrapha with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition. SVTP 9. Leiden: Brill, 1991. –​–​–​. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. –​–​–​. “A New Edition and Translation of the Questions of Ezra.” In Z. Zevit et al., eds., Solving Riddles and Untying Knots:  Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C.  Greenfield, 293–​316. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. –​–​–​. Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Adam and Eve. SVTP 14. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –​–​–​. “The Armenian Apocryphal Literature:  Translation and Creation.” In Il Caucaso:  cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (secoli IV–​XI): 20–​26 aprile 1995, 611–​46. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo 43. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1996. –​–​–​. “The Genealogy of Bilhah (4QTNaph-​4Q215).” DSD 3 (Jonas Greenfield Memorial Issue) (1996): 20–​36. –​–​–​. “Two Armenian Manuscripts and the Historia Sacra.” In V. Calzolari et  al., eds., Apocryphes arméniens: Transmission—​traduction—​création—​iconographie, 21–​31. Prahins: Zèbre, 1999. –​–​–​. “L’étude du canon arménien.” In G. Aragione et  al., eds., Le Canon du Nouveau Testament, 283–​95. Genève: Labor et Fides, 2005. –​–​–​. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies:  Collected Papers. 3 vols. OLA 144–​145 and 253. Leuven: Peeters, 2006–​2017. –​–​–​. “The Transmission and Reception of Biblical and Jewish Motifs in the Armenian Tradition.” Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies, 1.79–​93. OLA 144. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. –​–​–​. “Some Considerations on the Categories ‘Bible’ and ‘Apocrypha.’” In G. A. Anderson et  al., eds., New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity, 1–​18. Leiden: Brill, 2007. –​–​–​. “Some Texts on Enoch in the Armenian Tradition.” In J. Stackert et al., eds., Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, 517–​30. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2010. –​–​–​. Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011, 172–​94. –​–​–​. Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Abraham. SBLEJL 37. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. –​–​–​. Adam and Eve in the Armenian Tradition, Fifth through Seventeenth Centuries. SBLEJL 38. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2013. –​–​–​. Պարականոն բնագրեր եւ աւանդութիւններ [Uncanonical writings and traditions]. Erevan: Matenadaran, 2014 [in Armenian]. –​ –​ –.​ “The Armenian Apocryphal Literature of the Old Testament in the Twentieth Century.” In V. Calzolari Bouvier with M. E. Stone, eds., Armenian Philology in the Modern Era, 232–​63. HdO 8.23.1. Leiden: Brill, 2014. –​–​–​. “Biblical and Apocryphal Themes in Armenian Culture.” In R. Gounelle and J. Joosten, eds., La littérature apocryphe chrétienne et les écritures juives, 393–​408. Prahins: Zèbre, 2015. –​–​–​. “Two Stories about the Ark of the Covenant.” In M. D. Findikyan et al., eds., Sion, mère des églises: Mélanges liturgiques offerts au Père Charles Athanase Renoux, 253–​66. Münster: Aschendorff, 2016. –​–​–​. Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Angels and Biblical Heroes. SBLEJL 45. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. –​–​–​. Armenian Apocrypha: Relating to Biblical Heroes. SBLEJL 49. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2019. –​–​–​, and M. Henze. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch:  Translations, Introductions, and Notes. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2013. –​–​–​, in collaboration with V.  Hillel. The Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:  Edition, Apparatus, Translation and Commentary. HUAS 11. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Stone, N. “The Four Rivers of that Flowed from Eden.” In K. Schmid and C. Riedweg, eds., Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–​3) and Its Reception History, 227–​50. FZAT 2. Reihe. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Ter-​Petrossian, L. Ancient Armenian Translations. Translated by Krikor Maksoudian. New  York:  St. Vartan Press, 1992. Thomson, R. W. “The Maccabees in Early Armenian Historiography.” JTS, n.s., 26 (1975): 329–​41. –​–​–​. A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 ad. Turnhout: Brepols, 1995. Tromp, J. The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek. PVTG 6. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Vassiliev, A. A. Anecdota Graeco-​Byzantina: Pars Prior. Moskva: Universitatis Caesareae, 1893. von Tischendorf, C. Apocalypses Apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Iohannis. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1866. Wahl, O. Apocalypsis Esdrae, Apocalypsis Sedrach, Visio beati Esdrae. PVTG, 4. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

163

164

164

Mi ch ael E .  Sto n e Wutz, F. X. Onomastica Sacra:  Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraeorum des Hl. Hieronymus. TUGAL 41.2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915. Xlat’ec’i, G., in 1403 but published in Գիրք որ կոչի Յայսմաւուրք (Synaxarion). Constantinople: Grigor Marzvanec’i Press, 1730. Yarbro Collins, A. “Ascent to Heaven in Antiquity: Towards a Typology.” In E. F. Mason et al., eds., A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James VanderKam, 2.553–​72. JSJSup 153. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Yovsēp’eanc’, S. Անկանոն Գիրք Հին Կտակարանաց [Uncanonical books of the Old Testament]. Venezia: Mekhitarist Press, 1896.

165

8

Georgian Jost Gippert

Works Discussed Sapientia Salomonis Sapientia Sirach 4 Ezra Vita Adae Caverna thesaurorum Eiectio Adae et Euae e paradiso Creatio caeli et terrae Reuelationes de creatione Historia creationis et transgressionis Adae Historia explusionis Adae e paradiso Historia Abel et Cain, filiorum Adae De euangelio Seth Historia Melchisedech Liber de Melchisedech Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Jewish culture played a significant role in the development of literacy among the Georgians. Curiously enough, this is even true for the Christianization of the country, which provided the background for the emergence of autochthonous literature in about the fourth century ce. The reason for this was that the alleged “apostle” of the Georgians, an Aramaic-​ speaking female captive from Cappadocia named Nino, sought support from the Jewish

16

166

Jost Gip p ert

community of Mtskheta, the first capital of Georgia, “because of the Hebrew language” she could communicate in there—​as legend has it, the Jewish community had settled in Eastern Georgia some centuries before that, probably coming from Iran or Mesopotamia.1 Nevertheless, there are no indications that Jewish literary products were taken over directly into Georgian in the early centuries, in direct translations from Hebrew sources. Instead, we may claim with certainty that in the first millennium of our era, Jewish text materials, biblical or others, all entered Georgia via Greek or other languages, especially Armenian and Syriac, as intermediaries, and over a long period of time. This is manifest, first of all, in the fact that for the bulk of Old Testament texts, the Old Georgian tradition possesses several redactions (up to four according to present-​day knowledge) that can be shown to reflect different Vorlagen, different schools, different places (within and outside Georgia), and different times. As a matter of fact, it is at least as difficult to establish a critical text of “the” Old Testament in Georgian as it is to establish “the” Septuagint text.2 The same situation also exists for textual traditions from the Second Temple period that have been adopted by Georgians. Such sources are not numerous though. What we have, is some (but not all) of the apocryphal texts that found their way into the Greek Old Testament, a few other Biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and a comparatively late version of Flavius Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. The present chapter is meant to give a rough survey of these texts, focusing on some peculiarities in the Georgian tradition that deserve attention cross-​linguistically.

1.  Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Georgian Tradition There are clear indications that the translation of Old Testament texts into Georgian began as early as the so-​called Khanmet’i period, the first period of Georgian literacy extending roughly from the fifth to the seventh centuries, during which the Old Georgian language was characterized by certain prefixes that later disappeared. From this time, we possess a set of fragments from Old Testament books in Georgian that were discovered in the underwriting of palimpsests, either as parts of lectionaries or as parts of Bible manuscripts proper. What we have comprises—​leaving aside Psalms  –​a few passages from Genesis,

1.  Cf. K. Lerner, Evrei Gruzii ot Ėllenizma do pozdnego feodalizma /​The Jews of Georgia since Hellenistic Times till the late feudal period ( Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2008) for a survey of facts and theories concerning the Jewish communities in Georgia and their relation with Nino (92–​95); as to the saint and her provenance, cf. J. Gippert, “Marginalien zur Nino-​Tradition,” Stimme der Orthodoxie 3 (1997): 126–​30; and Gippert, “C’m. Ninos legenda:  Gansxvavebul c’q’arota k’vali,” Enatmecnierebis sak’itxebi 1–​2 (2006):  104–​22. English version:  “St. Nino’s Legend: Vestiges of Its Various Sources,” http://​titus.uni-​frankfurt.de/​personal/​jg/​pdf/​jg1997je.pdf>. As to the language spoken by the Georgian Jews, see R. Enoch, “Jewish Georgian,” in L. Kahn and A. D. Rubin, eds., Handbook of Jewish Languages (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 178–​93 at 179. 2.  A comprehensive list of Georgian OT manuscripts and redactions is available online, see http://​ogb.tsu.ge/​ doc/​GEO.pdf.

167

Georgi a n

Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, along with fragments from the book of “Esdras Zorobabel,” also known as the “Greek Ezra,”3 in a peculiar “Lucianic” text type.4 Palimpsest materials, mostly stemming from lectionaries, also continue into the following centuries, up to the year 978 ce, when the first codex containing a near-​to complete Old Testament was created in the Georgian monastery of Oshk’i in the province of T’ao-​K’larjeti in Eastern Anatolia. The so-​called Oshk’i Bible, which has been preserved in the Iviron monastery on Mount Athos since its foundation by Georgian monks in the late tenth century,5 is a remarkable codex indeed. Except for some regrettable lacunae,6 its two large volumes comprise the complete Octateuch, Job, Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the Minor and Major Prophets, 1 Esdras (Zorobabel), 2 Esdras and Nehemia, 4 Ezra, Esther, and Judith, plus Tobit added from another manuscript written in a very different (later) hand. What is missing from a holistic perspective is the Psalter and the two books of Chronicles (the oldest fragments of which, written by a ninth-​or tenth-​century hand, have been detected in a palimpsest originating from Jerusalem, now Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, georg. 2),7 as well as Maccabees.8 After the Oshk’i Bible, seven hundred years would pass before a Bible codex of comparable extent was again created in Georgia, the so-​called Mtskheta Bible compiled by the monk Sulkhan-​Saba Orbeliani;9 and yet another fifty years until the first printed Bible (the so-​called Bakar Bible) appeared in Moscow, including several texts, among them three books of Maccabees, in a new translation based upon the Church Slavonic text of that time. The Oshk’i Bible is indeed the best starting point for studying the divergent redactions of the Old Testament texts in Georgian. As a matter of fact, it is not only the oldest witness available for the bulk of the texts but also a very reliable one, owing to the skillful and diligent way it was written in by the three hands manifesting themselves in it. Remarkably enough, it has remained the only source available for an Old Georgian translation of some of the books, if we leave aside the “new” adaptation to—​or translation of—​ Slavonic versions in the Bakar Bible (see preceding paragraph). This is especially true of the

3.  Different from the Greek and Armenian traditions where “Esdras Zorobabel” appears as the first book of Esdras, it is the third book of Esdras in the Georgian tradition (matching the Latin Vulgate). 4.  Cf. J. Gippert, ed., The Old Georgian Palimpsest Codex Vindobonensis georgicus 2, in cooperation with Z. Sarjveladze and L. Kajaia (Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series Ibero-​Caucasica, 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 2007) for an edition of ÖNB georg. 2 (see 4-​1–​18 on the Book of Esdras). 5.  R. P. Blake, “The Athos Codex of the Georgian Old Testament,” HTR 22 (1929): 33–​56 discusses the history of the codex. 6.  Ibid., 40–​41, on the distribution of the lacunae. 7.  Cf. Gippert, Old Georgian Palimpsest Codex, 8-​1-​42, for an edition of the fragments from 1 and 2 Chronicles. 8.  Cf. Blake, “Athos Codex of the Georgian Old Testament,” 35, on the possible loss of an Old Georgian version of Maccabees. 9.  There is no indication whatsoever that within this span of seven hundred years, another codex—​now lost—​ comprising the complete Old Testament might have been compiled in Georgian. The so-​called Gelati Bible of the twelfth century (Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​1108 and Q-​1152) is incomplete and does not cover the texts dealt with below. Cf. section 2, on the so-​called “Jerusalem Bible.”

167

168

168

Jost Gip p ert

two “apocryphal” books of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach, which deserve more detailed discussion here.

1.1.  The “Wisdoms” of Solomon and Sirach in Georgian While the text of Sirach from the Oshk’i Bible has never been investigated in detail10, the text of the “Wisdom of Solomon” contained in it has been the object of a thorough study and edition by Ciala Kurcik’idze, who collated two other “recensions” of the same text—​namely, the “Slavoid” text of the Bakar Bible and that of two eighteenth-​century manuscripts whose wording differs considerably. The text of the Mtskheta Bible has been considered, too, but as a descendant of the redaction represented in the Oshk’i Bible. This is a bit misleading, given that Saba’s codex does not contain the complete text of the Wisdom of Solomon; what it contains is fragments from various chapters that match the Oshk’ian text conceivably enough to be subsumed under it. However, it is not by fragmentary transmission of the Oshk’ian text that this version has come about. It can easily be shown that when compiling the Mtskheta Bible, Sulkhan-​Saba Orbeliani had no access to the complete text of the Wisdom but only to lections from the book that are contained in ancient lectionaries. As a matter of fact, the Georgian tradition has preserved a comprehensive testimony of the lections from both NT and OT books (including Psalms and antiphons) that were read in the Christian church of Jerusalem during the first millennium. Different from the Armenian tradition, which separated from the Greek rite of Jerusalem soon after the schism in the middle of the sixth century, leaving but very few witnesses of the ancient liturgical order behind,11 the Jerusalem type of lectionaries continued to prevail among Georgians at least until the tenth century. A nearly complete picture of this is provided in the edition by M. Tarchnišvili, which is based upon the “Paris lectionary” (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, géorg. 3 [x]‌), two codices from Svanetia (the K’ala and Lat’al lectionaries, Mestia, Svaneti Museum of History and Ethnography, 51/​621[ix–​x]), and one from Mt. Sinai (georg. 37 [982 ce]). Older witnesses do exist, among them the famous Khanmet’i-​ Haemet’i lectionary from Mount Sinai (now Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, 2058–​1),12 as well as (Khanmet’i and post-​Khanmet’i) fragments in the underwriting of palimpsests.13 10.  The text has recently been published for the first time, in synopsis with other witnesses, in Biblia. Dzveli aġtkma II, Tbilisi: National Centre of Manuscripts, 2017: 2299–​373. 11.  Cf. A. Renoux, ed., Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121 (2 vols.; Paris:  Firmin Didot, 1969–​1971). A  new witness has been found in the undertext of the palimpsest of Athens, Ή Έθνική Βιβλιοθήκη της Ελλάδος, 637, cf. J. Gippert, “An Early Witness of the Armenian Lectionary,” forthcoming in C. Horn et al., eds., Armenia between Byzantium and the Orient: Celebrating the Memory of Karen Yuzbashyan (1927–​2009) (Leiden: Brill). 12.  Cf. W. Imnaišvili, “Vom Sinai in die Steiermark: Zur Geschichte der altgeorgischen Handschriften der UB Graz,” Codices Manuscripti 64/​65 (2008): 33–​60, as to the provenance of the Graz lectionary, which covers only the Easter week; it contains no lections from the Old Testament. 13.  Khanmet’i fragments of Genesis are contained in Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, H-​999; cf. I. Džavaxišvili, “Axlad aġmočenili udzvelesi kartuli xeltnac’erebi da mati mnišvneloba mecnierebisatvis” /​“Anciens manuscrits géorgiens récemment découverts et leur importance pour la science,” T’pilisis universit’et’is moambe /​ Bulletin de l’Université de Tiflis 2 (1922–​23): 313–​91 at 371–​74, for a first edition of the fragments; and L. Kadžaia [Kajaia], Sabac’miduri otxtavi. P’alimpsest’i /​Gospels from Saint Saba’s Monastery. Palimpsest (Tbilisi:  National Centre of Manuscripts, 2014), 12–​16, for a general account of the codex. A post-​Khanmet’i fragment containing

169

Georgi a n

Within the Georgian lectionaries of the Jerusalem type, both the Wisdom of Solomon (Sapientia Salomonis) and Sirach (the Wisdom of Ben Sirach) are well represented, although not in their entirety. With respect to the former, comparing the contents of the Paris lectionary and its “sister-​witnesses”14 with the contents of the Mtskheta Bible, it becomes clear at once that Saba’s text is based upon the testimony of lectionaries,15 with but a few extensions in comparison to the Paris codex.16 For Sirach, the testimony of the Mtskheta Bible is much less comprehensive, only eleven verses from ­chapter 2 (2:1–​11) and fourteen verses from ­chapter 24 (24:3–​7a and 14–​22) being contained in it.17 All these passages again match the lections of the Paris codex.18 A lection comprising Sir. 24:6–​7 has also been detected in the lectionary undertext of the palimpsest Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, géorg. 5 (ix), fol. 292r.19 It is clear from this survey that the complete texts of the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach of the Oshk’i Bible were not used as such as the basis for later witnesses of the Old Testament in Georgian,20 which may be due to the fact that the codex was not accessible outside of the Iviron monastery, at least until the nineteenth century.21 This, however, implies that the text represented in the Oshk’i Bible was, at least in parts, a textus unicus, compiled only for the completion of the codex itself. This leads to at least four additional

lections from Exodus and Isaiah is found in the Wien palimpsest; cf. Gippert, Old Georgian Palimpsest Codex, 7-​1–​14. 14.  Sap. Sal. 1:1–​2:4 (erroneously entitled igavtay, i.e., “Proverbs” in the lectionary): lection no. 338 (Tuesday of the first week of Lent); 380 (Wednesday of the second week of Lent); 2:10–​25 (K’ala; Paris BnF géorg. 3 has only 2:12–​25): 705 (Saturday after Easter) [the latter reading is not contained in the undertext of fol. 253r of the Paris palimpsest (BnF géorg. 5), which contains the other lections between nos. 701 and 706]; 3.1–​8: 900 (Sunday of the sixth week after Pentecost); 1420 (12 December); 1456 (Commemoration of the Apostles); 4:8–​12: 201 (2 February); 5:1–​16: 901 (Sunday of the sixth week after Pentecost, second lection after 3:1–​8); 5:1–​17: 1425 (21 December); 7.15–​29: 883 (Sunday of Pentecost); 8.2–​4: 1222 (8 September); 9:1–​19: 1237 (13 September); 1550 (Dedication of Churches); 14:1–​7: 1242 (13 September, fourth lection after 9:1–​19); 14:11–​15:3: 425 (Friday of the third week of Lent). Lections are numbered according to the edition M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–​VIIIe siècle) (CSCO 188 and 204, Scriptores Iberici 9 and 13; Louvain: CSCO, 1959–​1960). 15.  The Mtskheta Bible contains Wis 1:1–​2:4, 2:12–​24, 3:1–​9, 4:1, 7–​10 and 12–​15, 5:1–​24, 6:2–​4 and 12, 7:15–​29, 9:1–​18, and 14:1–​7. 16.  In addition, the edition of the Mtskheta Bible comprises a few stray verses that pertain to ­chapter 10 (9–​ 13) and other chapters (6:13–​16, 7:30, and 8:2–​3 [8:2 is divided into two parts, with the second part coming first], 7–​8, 17–​18, and 21), including variants (3:18 and 9:1–​5, 10–​11, and 14)  and a few unidentified passages. See E. Dočanašvili, Mcxeturi xelnac’eri (Ek’lesiast’e, Sibrdzne Solomonisa, Keba Kebata Solomonisa  .  .  .  ) (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1985), 50–​59; the last four words of 7:29 are reckoned as the beginning of ­chapter 10 there. 17.  Cf. ibid., 59–​60, which does not indicate the respective chapters; 24:3–​7a is contained in an unidentified additamentum given under the title igavi (“proverb”) there. The online edition on http://​titus.uni-​frankfurt.de/​ texte/​etcs/​cauc/​ageo/​at/​mcat/​mcat.htm provides the correct references. 18.  Viz., nos. 147 (Sir 2:1–​13, 17 January), 28 (Sir 24:2–​12, again entitled “Proverbs,” 25 December), and 587 (Sir 24:13–​23; Easter Sunday). Beyond that, the lectionary comprises one more lection, Sir 24:25–​25:1 (read on 6 January). 19.  The palimpsest was investigated with multispectral imaging by B. Outtier and the present author, with kind support by the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, in April 2013. The results of the work will be published. 20.  Blake, “Athos Codex,” 56 n. 65 mentions the nineteenth-​century codex S-​409 as a further witness of the Wisdom of Solomon; according to the catalogue of the “S” collection of the National Centre of Manuscripts in Tbilisi, the manuscript also comprises Sirach. There is no indication of the redaction preserved in it. 21.  Cf. Blake “Athos Codex,” 36–​38, on the history of the “detection” of the manuscript by Georgians.

169

170

170

Jost Gip p ert TA BLE 8.1  

John of Damascus, Expositio fidei, Sect. 90, Greek and Georgian

Ἡ δὲ Πανάρετος, τουτέστιν ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Σολομῶντος, καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ μὲν τοῦ Σιρὰχ ἐξέθετο Ἑβραϊστί, Ἑλληνιστὶ δὲ ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ τούτου μὲν ἔγγονος Ἰησοῦς, τοῦ δὲ Σιρὰχ υἱός, ἐνάρετοι μὲν καὶ καλαί, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀ ριθμοῦνται οὐδὲ ἔκειντο ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ.

The panáretos, i.e., the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which the father of Sirach composed in Hebrew and which his own descendant Jesus, the son of Sirach, translated into Greek, are [both] virtuous and beautiful, but they are not counted and did not lie in the chest.

ხოლო პანარეტოსი, რომელ არს სიბრძნე სოლომონისი, და სიბრძნე ისუჲსი, რომელი-​იგი ზირაქის მამამან ისუ აღწერა ებრაელთა ენითა, ხოლო ბერძულად თარგმნა ძის წულმან მისმან და ძემან ზირაქისმან ისუ—​ორნივე ესე წიგნნი სათნო უკუჱ არიან და კეთილ, არამედ არავე აღირიცხუვიან ზემოთქმულთა მათ თანა, არცა მდებარე იყვნეს კიდობანსა მას შინა.

But the p’anaret’osi, which is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus [Isu], which the father of Sirach [Zirak], Jesus [Isu], wrote in the Hebrew language, and which his grandson Jesus, the son of Sirach, translated into Greek—​both these books are virtuous indeed and nice, but they are not counted together with the abovementioned ones and did not lie in the chest.

questions: Where did the text of the Oshk’i Bible originate, when and by whom was it accomplished, and what was its Vorlage?22 A thorough analysis of the Book of Sirach as contained in the Oshk’i Bible is of fundamental importance to these issues.

1.2.  The “All-​Virtuous” Wisdom The Oshk’i Bible is peculiar not only in providing complete texts of both the Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach but also by the title it gives to the former. After the scribe’s (glaxak’i, i.e., “poor”) Giorgi’s colophon closing the Song of Songs (keba kebatay), the text of the Wisdom of Solomon begins at the bottom of vol. β, fol. 277vb, introduced by the words (in two lines in rubrics) sibrʒne solomonisi p’anaret’osi: k(rist’)e š(ei)c’q’(a)le i(ovan)e t(o)rn(i)k’. The second part of this formula obviously denotes the donor of the codex, a certain John Tornik’ (“Christ, have mercy on Iovane Tornik’!”), who was an officer of the Byzantine army in the second half of the tenth century and probably a relative of the founder of the Iviron monastery, John the Athonite.23 The first part of the rubric, however, names the text (Sibrʒnē Solomonisi, lit. “Wisdom of Solomon”), along with an epithet, p’anaret’osi, which does not occur elsewhere in the Georgian Bible. The editor of the Georgian text of the “Wisdom,” Ciala Kurcik’idze, rightly pointed out that this term must reflect Gk. πανάρετος, lit. “all-​virtuous,” which is used as an epithet of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Expositio fidei by John of Damascus; accordingly, the term also occurs in the (hitherto unedited) Georgian version of the Expositio (styled gardamocema in Georgian, literally rendering Gk. ἔκδοσις), which is preserved in Tbilisi, K. Kekelidze

22.  Cf. ibid., 34, on the history of the codex itself, which is not necessarily relevant to the history of the text(s) contained in it. 23.  Cf. ibid., 33–​34, on John Tornik’ and his relation to John the Athonite.

17

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.2  

Epiphanius of Salamis, Measures and Weights, Sect. 4

Αἱ γὰρ στιχήρεις δύο βίβλοι, ἥ τε τοῦ Σολομῶντος, ἡ Πανάρετος λεγομένη, καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ, ἐκγόνου δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, (ὁ γὰρ πάππος αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς ἐκαλεῖτο), τοῦ καὶ τὴν σοφίαν ἑβραϊστὶ γράψαντος, ἣν ὁ ἔκγονος αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς ἑρμηνεύσας ἑλληνιστὶ ἔγραψε. Καὶ αὗται χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι, ἀλλ’ εἰς ἀριθμὸν τῶν ῥητῶν οὐκ ἀναφέρονται. Διὸ οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ ἀαρὼν ἐνετέθησαν, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ τῆς διαθήκης κιβωτῷ.

“For the two books in verses, that by Solomon, which is called panáretos, and that by Jesus, the son of Sirach, descendant of Jesus (for his grandfather was [also] called Jesus), the one who also wrote [the book of ] Wisdom in Hebrew, which his grandson Jesus, translating, wrote down in Greek—​these [books] are also useful and effective, but they are not included in the number of the agreed [books of the Old Testament]. Therefore, they were not put in the ark, i.e., the chest of the covenant.”

National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​24 (xi). Table 8.1 demonstrates that the Georgian text24 follows the Greek25 in most details. John’s testimony yields the early eighth century as a terminus a quo for the usage of the Greek term. The text passage from the Expositio, however, is a quotation from older sources,26 πανάρετος already occurring in the treatise on Measures and Weights by Epiphanius of Salamis (fourth century CE). The term πανάρετος relates only to the Wisdom of Solomon in this context, not to both “Wisdoms” together as speculated by C. Kurcik’idze with respect to the testimony of John of Damascus.27 Note here Table 8.2 for the passage in question.28 It is interesting, then, that the Georgian version of the latter treatise, which is preserved in the so-​called Miscellany of Shat’berdi (Tbilisi, the K. Kekelidze National Centre of Manuscripts, S-​1141), an invaluable manuscript of the late tenth century, and thus contemporary to the Oshk’i Bible, does not contain the epithet in the passage in question. As a matter of fact, the Georgian text is heavily abridged, thus differing from the Syriac text which translates πανάρετος by mytrt bkl (“most excellent”).29 This is all the more remarkable given that the Georgian version does reflect another peculiar word in the given context, by using the otherwise unattested aronaysa-​(lit. “of the arona-​”) to render Gk. ἐν τῷ ἀαρών30

24.  Georgian text quoted after C. Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli (arak’anonik’uri) c’ignebis kartuli versiebi. II (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1973), 176–​77. 25.  Sect. 90, ll. 68–​71 in the edition P. B. Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2 (PTS 12; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1973). 26.  This answers the question raised by Kurcik’idze in her account as to whether the term “belonged” to John of Damascus (Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli (arak’anonik’uri) c’ignebis kartuli versiebi, 177 n. 1). 27.  Question no. 3 in ibid., 177 n. 1; in her transcript from A-​24, the editor did not insert a comma between the two “Wisdoms,” thus suggesting the “joint” interpretation. 28.  Sect. 4, ll. 118–​124, in I. Moutsoulas, “To ‘peri metrōn kai stathmōn’ ergon Epiphaniou tou Salaminos,” Theologia 44 (1973): 157–​98 at 162; cf. also P. de Lagarde, Symmicta II (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1880), 157. 29.  Cf. J. E. Dean, Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures. The Syriac Version (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 11; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), 19 (col. 49c, l. 4 of London, British Library, Or. Add. 17148, as published in-​facsimile in Dean’s edition and transcribed in P. de Lagarde, Veteris testamenti ab Origene recensiti fragmenta apud Syros servata quinque [Gottingen: Dieterich, 1880], 12). 30.  De Lagarde, Symmicta, 157, has the variant reading ἀρὼν. For the Greek term cf. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 1.

171

172

172

Jost Gip p ert TA BLE 8.3  

Epiphanius of Salamis, Measures and Weights, Sect. 4, Georgian Text

ხოლო სიბრძნჱ სოლომონისი და ზირაქი იგიცა სტიქერონვე არიან და სარგებელნი არონაჲსანი, რომელ არს კიდობნისანი, ხოლო ებრაელთა არა დადვეს ძუელისა შჯულისა [თანა].1

But the Wisdom of Solomon and the Sirach [‘Ziraki’], these are in verses, too, and useful for [lit. ‘of ’] the arona-​, which is the chest, but the Hebrews did not deposit them [with] the Old Law.

B. Gigineišvili and E. Giunašvili, Šat’berdis k’rebuli X sauk’unisa (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1979), 193, ll. 15–​18 (the editors insert a semicolon after sargebelni “useful,” which leaves the following genitives unmotivated). Van Esbroeck, Les versions géorgiennes, 40, ll. 14–​17, omits the space between da “and” and sargebelni “useful,” thus producing an otherwise unattested dasargebelni, and restores ʒuelisa šǯulisasa, lit. “to that of the Old Law” at the end, which seems acceptable in the light of the variant reading ʒuelisa šǯulisata, lit. “to those of the Old Law,” adduced by van Esbroeck from the two Jerusalem manuscripts from the Georgian collection of the Greek Patriarchate, B (= Jer. 44) and J (= Jer. 74; ibid., note 9). 1

or Syr. b-​ʼrwnʼ “in the ark,” both reflecting Hebr. ʼărōn (“ark”). The Georgian text passage is illustrated in Table 8.3.31 In the Greek tradition, the use of πανάρετος as an epithet of the Wisdom of Solomon is much more widespread in early patristic literature. Several authors quote from the Wisdom of Solomon simply by referring to “the panáretos Sophia of Solomon.” This is true, for example, for Didymus the Blind (fourth century), who provides four such quotations in his Commentary on the Book of Zechariah,32 plus one more in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, whose author is styled “the sage.”33 References to the πανάρετος σοφία Σολομῶντος are also found in the vitae of St. Auxentius (fifth–​sixth centuries)34 and St. Symeon Stylites the Younger (sixth–​seventh centuries);35 in the latter text, the book is named, in a prominent position indeed, together with the Psalter, the Odes and the Gospels as part of the saint’s daily service as shown in Table 8.4.

31.  The translation by M.-​J. van Esbroeck, ed., Les versions géorgiennes d’Épiphane de Chypre, traité des poids et des mesures (CSCO 460–​61, Scriptores Iberici, 19–​20; Leuven: Peeters, 1984), 40, is misleading in that it mistakes the name of Aharon for the word denoting the ark (“des stichères utiles d’Aharon, qui sont de l’Arche”); as a matter of fact, the name of Aharon does appear in several spellings in Old Georgian sources (aharon-​, aaron-​, aron-​), but nowhere as a stem in -​a (arona-​). The rendering of the word meaning the ark by a stem in -​a (matching Syr. ārōnā rather than Gk. ἀαρών) can be taken as an indication of a Syriac “intermediary” as suggested by Van Esbroeck, 7. 32.  L. Doutreleau, Didyme l’Aveugle sur Zacharie (3 vols.; SC 83–​85; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1962), 1.393, l. 7 and 2, 254, l. 2: ἐν τῇ παναρέτῳ Σοφίᾳ τοῦ Σαλωμῶνος (Wis 1:3 and 4:8); 2, 290, 4: ἐν παναρέτῳ Σαλωμῶνος Σοφίᾳ (Wis 1.4); 4, 63, 4: ἡ πανάρετος τοῦ Σαλωμῶνος Σοφία φησίν (Wis 11:24–​26 and 1:14). 33.  M. Gronewald, Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tl. 5; Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 24; Bonn: Habelt, 1979), 64: 288, l. 6: ἐν] τῇ παναρέτῳ Σοφίᾳ ὁ σοφὸς εἴ[ρ]ηκεν οὗτος (Wis 17:1, ad Eccl. 9.13–​15). 34.  Symeonis Logothetae, cognomento Metaphrastae, opera omnia = PG 114, col. 1404, ll. 3–​4 (sect. XXXIII; Wis 2:12). 35.  P. van den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Syméon Stylite le jeune (521–​592). Introduction et texte grec (SubH 32; Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1962), ch. 37, l. 15–​16.

173

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.4  

Vita of St. Symeon Stylites the Younger, Ch. 37, Greek Text

Καθ’ ὅλης δὲ τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἔψαλλε τοὺς ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα ψαλμοὺς καὶ τὰς ᾠδὰς πάσας καὶ συνέτασσε τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν λέγων ὑπόψαλμα, καὶ συνυπηχῶν ἔλεγε καὶ τὴν πανάρετον σοφίαν Σολομῶντος, ἕβδομόν τε τὸ ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸ μάθημα τῶν πιστῶν, καὶ τὴν εὐχὴν τῆς ἐπικλήσεως τοῦ· “Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.”

TA BLE 8.5  

During all night and day, he chanted the 150 Psalms and all the Odes, and he performed the reading by pronouncing the chanted responses, and by echoing, he re-​told also the panáretos Wisdom of Solomon, and, as the seventh, also the holy Gospel and the creed of the believers, and the prayer of invocation: “Our Father in heaven . . .”

Vita of St. Symeon Stylites the Younger, Ch. 25, Georgian Text

და დღე და ღამე ფსალმუნებნ და ადიდებნ ღმერთსა დაუცხრომელად: და წართქჳს ას ორმეოც და ათი იგი ფსალმუნი დავითისი გალობითურთ და იკითხავნ წმიდასა სახარებასა და სიბრძნესა სოლომონისსა და წართქჳს სარწმუნოებაჲ იგი წმიდათა მამათაჲ რომელი ითქუეს ნიკიას. და ლოცვაჲცა იგი რომელი ასწავა ქრისტემან მოწაფეთა თჳსთა . . .

And day and night, he intoned psalms and praised God restlessly, and he recited the 150 Psalms of David with the Odes, and he read the holy Gospel and the Wisdom of Solomon, and he recited the creed of the holy fathers which they pronounced in Nicaea. And the prayer which Christ taught his disciples . . .

Of this legend, a Georgian version exists (in the so-​called Keimena redaction), preserved, among others, in the tenth-​century manuscript, Sinai georg. 46,36 but this omits just the epithet again; cf. the excerpt in Table 8.5.37 Another author of the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa, twice quotes Wis 7:18 in his treatise Contra Eunomium, by referring to ἡ πανάρετος Σοφία,38 while Eusebius (third and fourth centuries) in his Praeparatio evangelica introduces a similar quotation (7:17–​18) by referring to both σοφία Σολομῶν (sic!) and the πανάρετον σοφίαν,39 with the latter term designating the author himself (as the “personalized wisdom”) rather than the work. In a similar way, the spurious sermon “In illud: Memor fui dei” that is ascribed to John Chrysostom names the πανάρετος Σοφία as the author of the Canticum as shown in Table 8.6.40 Likewise, the Pseudo-​ Athanasian Synopsis scripturae sacrae speaks about the “power of the Wisdom of Solomon, which is called the panáretos” (δύναμις τῆς Σοφίας

36.  Cf. G. Garitte, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï (CSCO165, Subsidia 9; Louvain:  Durbecq, 1956), 166, according to whom the manuscript is dated “avant 978”; this manuscript bears the number 73 in A. A. Cagareli, “Каталогъ грузинскихъ рукописей Синайскаго монастыря,” in Памятники грузинской старины въ Святой Землѣ и на Синаѣ (Православный Палестинский сборникъ 4.1; Sankt Petersburg: Akademija Nauk, 1888), 193–​240 at 228; cf. also Свѣдѣния о памятникахъ грузинской письменности (t. I, vyp. 2; Sankt Petersburg: Akademija Nauk, 1889), 193–​240 at 228. 37.  K. Kekelidze [K’ek’elidze], Keimena. I. Januarium, Februarium, Martium, Aprilem et Majum menses continens (Tiflis: Rossica Academia Scientiarum, 1918), 235, l. 6 (ch. 25). 38.  W. Jaeger, Gregorii Nysseni opera. Contra Eunomium libri. Pars prior, liber I et II (vulgo I et XIIb); Pars altera, liber III (vulgo III–​XII), refutatio confessionis Eunomii (vulgo lib. II) (Leiden: Brill, 1960), Cap. 8.5.6 and 3.6.67.2. 39.  K. Mras, Eusebius Werke. Band 8: Die Praeparatio evangelica (GCS 43.1–​2; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1954–​ 1956), 11.7.5.2. 40.  PG 61, col. 693, l. 25.

173

174

174

Jost Gip p ert TA BLE 8.6  

Ps.-​John Chrysostom, In illud: Memor fui dei, Greek text

Οὐ γὰρ ἀφίσταμαι τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· Ἐμνήσθην τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ηὐφράνθην· ὃν ἡ πανάρετος Σοφία ἐν τοῖς ᾄσμασιν ἀνακηρύττει· Ἐξεγείρου, βοῤῥᾶ, καὶ ἔρχου, νότε, διάπνευσον κῆπόν μου, καὶ ῥευσάτωσαν ἀρώματα.

TA BLE 8.7  

For I do not stand apart from the prophet [David], who says: “I remembered God, and I rejoiced” [Ps. 76.4 /​ 77.3], whom the panáretos Wisdom proclaims in the Cantica: “Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind, blow upon my garden, and let (its) spices flow” [Cant. 4,16].

Ps.-​John Chrysostom, Synopsis scripturae sacrae, Greek Text

Συνέγραψε δὲ, ὡς μέν τινές φασι, τρία μόνα βιβλία. Τοῦτό τε, καὶ τὸν Ἐκκλησιαστὴν, καὶ τὸ ᾎσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων· ὡς δέ τινες, καὶ τὴν Σοφίαν τὴν ἀπογεγραμμένην καὶ λεγομένην Πανάρετον· γνησίαν γὰρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ταύτην λέγουσιν εἶναι.

He wrote, as some people say, only three books: this one [i.e., Proverbs], the Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; others, however, claim also the Sapientia registered [under his name] and called the panáretos to be a genuine [work] of his.

TA BLE 8.8  Hippolytus, In Canticum Canticorum (Paraphrasis), 1.3–​4, Greek Text

Τρεῖς τοίνυν αὐτοῦ βίβλους ἀνοθεύτους εὑρίσκομεν, τήν τε παροιμίαν, τὸν ἐκκλησιαστὴν καὶ τὸ ᾆσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων.

Three books of his [Solomon], then, we regard as genuine: the [book of ] Proverbs, the Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.

Ὅπως δέ τινες καὶ τὴν λεγομένην σοφίαν πανάρετον εἰς αὐτὸν περιπλέκωσιν, ἥντινα ξένην καὶ ἀλλοτρίαν αὐτοῦ ἐπιστάμεθα, οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ μακαρίων πατέρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς βίβλου. Τά τε σκέμματα καὶ τοὺς τρόπους, τὰς παραβολάς τε καὶ τὰ αἰνίγματα, τάς τε ἐνεργείας καὶ τὰ μυστήρια, ὅσα ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ βίβλοις . . .

How, however, may some also associate the so-​called Sophia panáretos with him, which we understand as strange and different, not only because of the old and blessed fathers, but also because of the book itself. The schemes and the tropes, the parables and the riddles, the actions and the mysteries, as many as there are in those three books . . .

Σολομῶντος τῆς λεγομένης Παναρέτου).41 This formula reappears in the Synopsis of Pseudo-​ Chrysostom,42 which depends on Pseudo-​Athanasius for the Wisdom of Solomon43 but adds, in the subsequent treatise on Proverbs, an explicit discussion on Solomon’s authorship of the Wisdom (Table 8.7).44 The question of the authorship is already addressed in the paraphrasis (allegedly of the third century) of the treatise In Canticum canticorum by Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–​235; Table 8.8):45

41.  PG 28, col. 376, ll. 48–​49. 42.  PG 56, col. 370, ll. 14–​15. 43.  Cf. F. P. Barone, “Pour une édition critique de la Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae du Pseudo-​Jean Chrysostome,” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 83 (2009):  7–​19, on the dependency of pseudo-​ Chrysostomus on pseudo-​Athanasius. 44.  PG 61, col. 370, ll. 30–​35. 45.  M. Richard, “Une paraphrase grecque résumée du commentaire d’Hippolyte sur le cantique des cantiques,” Le Muséon 77 (1964): 140–​54 at 140–​41: 1.3–​4.

175

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.9  Hippolytus, In Canticum Canticorum (fragment), Greek Text

Καὶ ποῦ πᾶσα ἡ πλουσία αὕτη γνῶσις; ποῦ δὲ τὰ μυστήρια ταῦτα; καὶ ποῦ αἱ βίβλοι; ἀναφέρονται γὰρ μόναι αἱ παροιμίαι καὶ ἡ σοφία καὶ ὁ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ τὸ ᾆσμα τῶν ᾀσμάτων. τί οὖν; ψεύδεται ἡ γραφή; μὴ γένοιτο·

“And where is all this rich cognition? Where are these mysteries? And where (are) the books? Because only the Proverbs and the Wisdom and the Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs are put forth. What now? Does the Scripture lie? Impossible!”

TA BLE 8.10  Hippolytus, In Canticum Canticorum, Georgian Text

და სადა არს ესე ყოველი დიდ-​დიდი მეცნიერებაჲ? ანუ სადა არს ზრახვაჲ მრავლით ჟამითგან თქუმული? დაეფარა ანუ ვინმე არს, რომელმან-​მცა გამოთქუა ესე? სადა არიან წიგნნი იგი? რამეთუ არიან იგავნი ესე ხოლო მცირედ ოდენ, რომელ ითქუნეს სიბრძნით; არს სხუაჲ-​ ცა წიგნი ეკლესიასტჱ, განწესებულ შჳდას და რვა მუჴლ, და ქებაჲ ქებათაჲ, რომელ არა უმეტჱს არს უფროჲს სამისა შესხმისა. აწ რეცა თუ ყოველნივე იგი წიგნნი წარწყმედულ. ხოლო თუ ვისმე ტყუვილ უჩნდეს წერილი იგი, ნუ იყოფინ!

“And where is all this rich cognition? Or, where is the thought that has been uttered for a long time? It has disappeared. Or is there somebody who might pronounce it? Where are those books? For there are only these Proverbs, few enough, which were pronounced with wisdom; there is also another book, the Ecclesiastes, arranged in 708 verses, and the Song of Songs, which is not more than three compositions. Now, all those books are virtually lost. But if the Scripture should seem a lie to somebody—​impossible!”

In contrast to this, the plain text of this treatise, which is only fragmentarily preserved in Greek,46 seems to count the Wisdom of Solomon as a fourth book of Solomon, together with the other three (Table 8.9).47 In the Georgian tradition, which provides the only full account of the treatise that has prevailed (in the Miscellany of Shat’berdi again), we see, however, that “wisdom” was not meant as the name of another book in this context. Instead, the instrumental case form sibrʒnit clearly indicates a means, an instrument associated with the emergence of Proverbs here, so that the interpretation of “Wisdom” being a separate book or even its author (this would have been indicated in the form sibrʒnisagan with the given passive verbal form) can be excluded (Table 8.10).48 The association of “panáretos wisdom” with Proverbs is also met with in some other early patristic texts. This is true, for example, for Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–​215 ce), who in his Stromata quotes Prov 1:33 by referring to ἡ πανάρετος σοφία.49 In a similar manner, Clement of Rome (first century ce) introduces a citation of Prov 1:23 in his commentary on 1 Corinthians by Οὕτως γὰρ λέγει ἡ πανάρετος σοφία.50 And the fact that 46.  Cf. G. N. Bonwetsch, Hippolyts Kommentar zum Buche Daniel und die Fragmente des Kommentars zum Hohenlied, in H. Achelis and G.N. Bonwetsch, Hippolytus Werke. I. Exegetische und homiletische Schriften. 1. Hälfte (GCS 1.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897), xx–​xxi. 47.  Ibid., 343–​74 at 343, ll. 11–​12. 48. Gigineišvili and Giunašvili, Šat’berdis k’rebuli X sauk’unisa, 250, l. 36–​251, l. 1. None of the fragmentary versions in other languages (Syriac, Armenian) contains the passage in question. 49.  O. Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus. 2. Bd. Stromata Buch I–​VI (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 15; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906), 2.22.136.3. 50.  A. Jaubert, Clément de Rome. Épître aux Corinthiens (SC 167; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1971), 57.3.

175

176

176

Jost Gip p ert

Proverbs were named πανάρετος σοφία “by Irenaeus and all the choir of the older” is explicitly stated in a fragment by Hegesippus (second century) quoted in Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica (fourth century).51 In the Georgian tradition, this association seems not to have taken root; however, we might suspect on this basis that the “Wisdom of Solomon” mentioned in the vita of St. Symeon Stylites (see Table 8.4 above) rather means Proverbs, which was much more prominent in the Christian tradition than the Wisdom of Solomon. The clear association of πανάρετος σοφία with Solomon and his works notwithstanding, there are still a few indications that the same term could also be used for the “Wisdom” of Sirach from early times on. While Methodius of Olympos (third century) in his Symposium still sharply distinguishes the quotation from Wis 4:1 from the preceding quotation from Sir 23:4–​6 by referring only to the former as τῇ παναρέτῳ δὲ Σοφίᾳ,52 it is Eusebius again who, in his Demonstratio evangelica, states that Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιράχ “composed the πανάρετος σοφία” under Simon, arch-​priest of Jerusalem (Σίμων, καθ’ ὃν Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ ἐγνωρίζετο, ὁ τὴν καλουμένην πανάρετον Σοφίαν συντάξας).53 The same information is also found in later historiographical sources such as the Chronicon paschale (c. 630 ce)54 or the Ecloga chronographica by Georgius Syncellus (end of the eighth century)55. According to other historiographers, it was under Ptolemy V Epiphanes that Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ explained his “panáretos wisdom” to the Jews (Ἰουδαίοις τὴν πανάρετον σοφίαν ἐξέθετο); this information, first provided by John of Antioch (sixth to seventh centuries),56 reappears, with but slight changes, in the Compendium historiarum by George Cedrenus (eleventh to twelfth centuries).57 Yet another chronological information is found in the Chronicon by George Hamartolos (ninth century), where Sirach is related once to the reign of Antiochos (V) Eupator58 and once, to Ptolemy (III) Euergetes.59 This Chronicon is important again for our topic because we do possess a Georgian version of it, produced at the beginning of the twelfth century by Arseni Iq’altoeli, a member of the “Hellenizing” school of the monastery of Gelati near Kutaisi and later the founder of the academy of Iq’alto.60 And indeed, the Georgian “kronoġrapi” adduces not only the epithet ṗanareṭosi 51.  M. J. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21846), 218, 20; and G. Bardy, Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique,. vol. 1: Livres I–​IV (SC 31; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1952), 4.22.9. The information is also found in the Historia ecclesiastica by Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus (thirteenth century), 4.7. Cf. PG 145, col. 992, ll. 47–​48. 52.  V.-​H. Debidour and H. Musurillo, Méthode d’Olympe. Le banquet (SC 95; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1963), 1.3 ll. 32–​33; a second quotation from Wis 15:10 is likewise introduced by ἐν τῇ παναρέτῳ Σοφίᾳ φησί (2.7, ll. 12–​13). 53.  I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke. Bd. 6: Die Demonstratio evangelica (GCS 23; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913), 8.2.71 ll.  1–​2. 54.  L. Dindorf, Chronicon paschale, vol. 1 (Bonn: Weber, 1832), 331, ll. 9–​10. 55.  A. A. Mooshammer, Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga chronographica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 333, ll. 22–​23. 56.  U. Roberto, Ioannis Antiocheni fragmenta ex historia chronica (TUGAL 154; Berlin:  W.  de Gruyter, 2005), 6.125. 57.  I. Bekker, Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope, vol. 1 (Bonn: Weber, 1838), 340, ll. 3–​5. 58.  Book 7: C. de Boor, Georgii monachi chronicon (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 1.292, ll. 22–​26; cf. PG 110, col. 348, ll. 5–​9. 59.  Book 8: de Boor, Georgii monachi chronicon, 2.435, ll. 12–​14; cf. PG 110, col. 508, ll. 43–​45. 60.  Cf. K’. K’ek’elidze, Dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oria, I (Tbilisi:  Mecniereba, 1980 [reprint of the 4th ed.,  1960]), 277; and M. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Città del Vaticano, 1955),  204–​5.

17

Georgi a n TABLE 8.11 

George Hamartolos, Chronicon, Books 6 and 8, Greek and Georgian Texts

. . . Ἀντιόχου . . . ἐφ’ οὗ καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ ὁ σοφὸς καὶ πολυμαθὴς καὶ τὴν πανάρετον σοφίαν συντάξας Ἑβραίοις ἐ γνωρίζετο. . . . ანტიოხოზისა . . . რომლისა-​ზე იისუ ზირაქისი ვითარცა ბრძენი და მრავალსწავლული და სიბრძნესა პანარეტოსისა აღმწერელი ებრაელთათ ჳს იცნობებოდა. Πτολέμαιος ὁ Εὐεργέτης, ἐφ’ οὗ ὁ τὴν πανάρετον σοφίαν συντάξας Ἑβραίοις Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ ἐγνωρίζετο. პტოლემეოს ქველის-​მოქმედი, რომლისა-​ ზე სიბრძნესა პანარეტოსისა აღმწერელი ებრაელთათჳს იისუ ზირაქისი იცნობებო და.

. . . of Antiochos . . . under whom also Jesus son of Sirach, the sage and multiply educated (and) who had composed the πανάρετος σοφία became known to the Hebrews. . . . of Antiochos . . . under whom also Iisu (son) of Zirak, the sage and multiply educated (and) who had composed the πανάρετος σοφία became known to the Hebrews.

Ptolemy the Euergetes, under whom Jesus son of Sirach, who had composed the πανάρετος σοφία, became known to the Hebrews. Ptolemy the Benefactor, under whom Iisu (son) of Sirach, who composed the πανάρετος σοφία, became known to the Hebrews.

in both passages relating to the Wisdom but also the attributes brʒeni “sage”—​Gk. σοφὸς and mravalsc̣avluli “multiply educated”—​πολυμαθής referring to its author, Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ.61 See here the synoptic arrangement of the Greek and Georgian texts in Table 8.11. A similar estimation of Sirach is already found, without a focus on chronology, several centuries before in the Epistles by Isidorus Pelusiota (360–​431), for whom the sage author of the πανάρετος σοφία even “personalized wisdom” (Σοφός τις ἀνήρ, ὁ τοῦ Σιράχ φημι, ὁ τὴν Πανάρετον Σοφίαν συγγράψας, προσωποποιήσας τὴν σοφίαν . . .),62 and the denomination of his “Wisdom” as being panáretos is even found in the title of the edition of the Latin text published by P. Dolscius in Leipzig, 1571.63 In the Georgian tradition, however, the Greek epithet seems not to have been used further on to denote the Wisdom of Ben Sirach. This is also true of the Oshk’i Bible where different from the titulus introducing the Wisdom of Solomon, the title of Sirach does not contain p’anaret’os-​i, appearing simply as sibrʒnē isow zirakisi—​that is, “Wisdom of Jesus (son) of Sirach” (vol. β, fol. 402vb). It may be added at this point that in the fourth-​century Greek Bible Codex Sinaiticus (portions of which are preserved among four institutions), the Wisdom of Solomon is entitled σοφια σαλομωντος (London, British Library, Add. 43725, fol. 151r /​qu. 66, 8r), and Sirach, σοφια ιησου υϊου σειραχ (fol. 160v; qu. 68, 1v); σοφια σαλομωντος appears again at the end of the Wisdom of Solomon (fol. 160r /​qu. 68, 1r),

61. S. Q’auxčišvili, Xronoġrapi Giorgi Monazonisay /​Georgii Monachi Chronicon (T’pilisi: T’pilisis Universit’et’is gamocema, 1920), 144, ll. 12–​15 (Book 7) /​225, ll. 25–​26 (Book 8). 62.  P. Évieux, Isidore de Péluse. 2. Lettres 1414–​1700 (SC 454; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2000), Epistle 1550, ll.  5–​6. 63. “Σοφια ἡ Παναρετος Ἰησου Του Σειρακ. Sapientia Iesv Siracidæ, Omnivm Virtvtvm Doctrinam Continens, Elegiaco Olim Carmine Reddita, & Nvnc Primvm Edita À Pavlo Dolscio Plavensi. Lipsiae.” Other early editions use the name “Ecclesiasticus,” which is also referred to by Luther in his first German translation (M. Luther, Jesus Syrach zu Wittemberg verdeutscht [Nürnberg: Peypus, 1533], 7). The Greek edition of the dictionary by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Λεξικόν της ελληνικής γλώσσης, vol. 6 (Athens: Pelekanos, 22006), 52, refers under πανάρετος to Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.

177

178

178

Jost Gip p ert

and σοφια ιησου υιου σειραχ, at the end of Sirach (fol. 185r; qu. 71, 2r). Similarly, the Codex Vaticanus (Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1209) introduces the Wisdom of Solomon by σοφία σαλωμῶν (p. 809) and closes it by σοφία σαλωμῶνος (p. 832); Sirach here bears the shorter title σοφία σειράχ (p. 833) after the πρόλογος (beginning on p. 832) and the longer one, σοφία ϊησοῦ ὑιοῦ σειράχ, at the end (p. 893).

2. 4 Ezra Different from the two “Wisdoms,” the Old Georgian text of 4 Ezra is not only preserved in the Oshk’i Bible but also in another important Old Testament manuscript. This is a mid-​ eleventh-​century codex from the Monastery of the Cross in Jerusalem, now preserved in the library of the Greek Patriarchate, which is divided into two parts catalogued as nos. 7 and 11 of the Georgian collection.64 The text of the apocalypse in fols. 194v–​214v was edited in 1926 by R. P. Blake;65 it is defective, ending within vision III66 and missing about sixteen folia in comparison with the Latin text of the apocalypse.67 In the Oshk’i Bible, which was collated by Blake a few years later, the text (on fols. 480v–​496v) is even more defective; however, it goes beyond vision III, extending into vision VII.68 Table 8.12 shows the distribution of the text passages that are represented in the two Georgian codices69 in comparison with the Latin text of the apocalypse; for the sake of easy reference, the latter is represented according to the divergent numbering systems used in the editions by Bensly (1895) and Violet (1910). It is clear from Table 8.12 that we have two types of lacunae (indicated by a grey background) in the two Old Georgian manuscripts, those that are common to both of them,

64.  Cf. (R. P.  Blake, “Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la Bibliothèque patriarcale grecque à Jérusalem [1]‌,” ROC ser. 3/​3 = 23 (1922–​1923): 345–​413 at 370–​71 and 374–​76. The codex was still coherent when it was inspected for the first time by A. A. Cagareli in 1886 (cf. “Каталогъ грузинскихъ рукописей монастыря св. Креста, близъ Іерусалима”; priloženie I  in “Памятники грузинской старины в Св. Землѣ и на Синаѣ” [S.-​Peterburg:  Akademija Nauk, 1888  =  Православный Палестинский Сборник 4.1], 143–​92 at 152; also in Свѣдѣния о памятникахъ грузинской письменности, t.  I, vyp.  2 [Sankt Peterburg:  Akademija Nauk,  1889], 143–​92 at 152, where it is catalogued as no. 1 of the collection of the Monastery of the Holy Cross). Cagareli still lists 361 fols., while Blake’s nos. 7 and 11 comprise only (128 + 214 =) 342 fols., on a total of 44 quires (Blake, “Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens,” 370 and 375). N.J. Marr, who inspected the collection after its removal to the Greek Patriarchate in 1902, treats in his catalogue (published posthumously) under nos. 6 and 20 (N. Mari, Ierusalimis berdznuli sap’at’riarko c’ignsacavis kartuli xelnac’erebis mok’le aġc’eriloba /​ Kratkoe opisanie gruzinskix rukopisej biblioteki grečeskogo patriarxata v Ierusalime [Tbilisi: Akademija Nauk GSSR, 1955], 12–​14) only those parts (all from the Minor Prophets) that belong to the present no. 7 (Marr’s no. 20, 107 fols.) and those that were secondarily bound with no. 11, plus the end of Jeremy (Marr’s no. 6, no number of fols.), with no indication of the following texts; however, he indicates a total of 44 quires, thus matching Blake’s account. 65.  R. P. Blake, “The Georgian Version of Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript,” HTR 19 (1926): 299–​ 375 at 322–​75 (with Latin translation). 66.  Visions counted in accordance with the edition of the Latin text by B. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse (IV. Esra). 1: Die Überlieferung (GCS 18; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910). 67.  Blake, “Georgian Version of Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript,” 301. 68.  R. P. Blake, “The Georgian Text of Fourth Esdras from the Athos Manuscript,” HTR 22 (1929): 57–​105 at 102. 69.  The Georgian text passages are numbered in accordance with the edition in C. Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripebis kartuli versiebi (X–​XVIII ss. xelnac’erta mixedvit). I (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1970), 326–​405.

179

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.12  

Latin Text Georgian I

179

4 Ezra in the Jerusalem (I) and Oshk’i (O) Manuscripts, Aligned with the Georgian O

1.1–​15 1.17–​36 2.1–​26a 2.26b–​28a 2.28b–​52 3.1–​6 3.7–​45a 3.45b–​56a 3.56b 4.1–​8 4.9–​59 5.1–​3a 5.3b–​35 5.35.1–​35a1 5.35.50b–​68a 5.35.68b–​82 5.35.83 5.36–​44 5.55b–​70 6.1–​19 6.20–​62 6.63 7.1–​20

12.18–​24a 12.24b [26b] 12.27–​48

Latin (Bensly) I. 1–​40 II. 1–​48 III. 1–​15a III. 15b–​16 III. 17–​36 IV. 1–​26a IV. 26b–​28a IV. 28b–​52 V. 1–​6a V. 6b–​7a V. 7b–​45a V. 46b–​56a V. 56b VI. 1–​8a VI. 8b–​9a VI. 9b–​59 VII. 1–​3a VII. 3b–​35 VII. 36–​60a VII. 60b–​76a VII. 76b–​95a VII. 95b–​104 VII. 105 VII. 106–​114 VII. 115–​124a VII. 124b–​139 VIII. 1–​19 VIII. 20–​62 VIII. 63 IX. 1–​20 IX. 21–​25 IX. 26–​47 . . . XIV. 1–​17 XIV. 18–​24 XIV. 25–​26a XIV. 26b XIV. 27–​48

Latin (Violet)

I. 1.1–​3.5 I. 3.6–​7 I. 4.1–​6.9 I. 7.1–​10.1 I. 10.2–​4a I. 10.4b–​13.2 I. 13.3–​10 I. 13.11–​12a I. 13.12b–​II. 5.5 II. 5.6–​II. 7.1a II. 7.1b II. 7.2–​8.3a II. 8.3b–​4a II. 8.4b–​III. 2.23 III. 3.1–​3 III. 3.4–​5.10 III. 5.11–​7.12a III. 7.12b–​10.4a2 III. 10.4b–​12.7a III. 12.7b–​14.8 III. 14.9 III. 15.1–​10 III. 15.11–​16.10a III. 16.10b–​18.7 III. 19.1–​22.6 III. 23.1–​26.17 III. 27.1 III. 27.2–​28.7 III. 28.8–​29.4 IV. 1.1–​4.4 . . . VII. 1.3–​2.17 VII. 3.1–​4.2 VII. 4.3–​5a VII. 4.5b VII. 5.1–​8.5 VII. 9

The numbering of 83 subunits under 5.35 in Kurcik’idze’s edition (Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripebis kartuli versiebi, 363–​ 67) is based upon the Russian translation of the Ethiopian version of the apocalypse, cf. Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli, 276 n. 1. 2 Erroneously listed as “III. 10, 4–​III. 12, 7” in Blake, “Georgian Text,” 58. 1

and those that are specific to one or the other. For the latter group, we may follow Ciala Kurcik’idze in assuming that some of the lacunae in the Oshk’i Bible are due to a mere saut du même au même;70 this might even be true for the long lacuna between 6.62 and 12.18, 70.  This is true, e.g., of the lacuna between 3.45a and 3.56b (Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripebis kartuli versiebi, 348, n.*; and Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli, 276). It is not probable, however, for the lacuna between 12.24 and 12.27 (Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripebis kartuli versiebi, 402, n.*; and Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli, 277), which must be accounted for differently.

180

180

Jost Gip p ert TA BLE 8.13  

4 Ezra 4.8–​10 in Synopsis

4.8–​10 I

4.8–​10 O

Latin (VI.8–​10 /​II. 8.2–​5)

8. და მრქუა მე: ადამისითგან ვიდრე აბრაჰამისამდე, რამეთუ მისგან იშვა იაკობი

8. და მრქუა მე: ადამისითგან ვიდრე აბრაჰამისამდე, რამეთუ მისგან იშვა

8. Et dixit ad me: ab Abraham usque ad Abraham, quoniam ab eo natus est Iacob et Esau,

და ესავი

9. დასაბამი მომავალისა სოფლისაჲ –​ იაკობი

იაკობი

manus enim Iacob tenebat ab initio calcaneum Esau. 9. Finis enim huius saeculi Esau, et principium sequentis Iacob

10. რამეთუ დასასრული კაცისაჲ ბრჭალი არს . . .

10. რამეთუ დასასრული კაცისაჲ ბრჭალი არს . . .

10. Hominis manus . . . inter calcaneum . . .

both 6.63 and the latter verse beginning with miuge da varku “I replied and said,” if the text of the Vorlage was quite abridged between these two verses. Within the Jerusalem codex, there is but one lacuna that can be explained by assuming a saut du même au même—​namely, in 4.8–​9, where the text jumps from the first mention of Jacob to the third one. Curiously enough, the Oshk’i Bible offers another Textsprung at the same place—​namely, from the first mention of Esau to the third one—​thus proving that the two lacunae emerged independently. For the sake of illustration, the two passages are contrasted with the Latin text in Table 8.13.71 Except for the minor omission of one verse and two sentences in 2:26–​28 (IV. 26b–​28a in Bensly’s Latin text, I. 10.2–​4a in Violet’s), which cannot be readily explained, the other specific lacunae of the Jerusalem codex are all likely to simply be due to the loss of entire folia as postulated, on a stichometrical basis, by Blake and Kurcik’idze.72 This can easily be demonstrated on fol. 208r, which begins with the three last letters of the word saunǯeta “in the storerooms” in 5.35.68 (~ in promptuariis, VII.95 /​III. 12.7), there being no trace of the beginning of the word at the end of fol. 207v. The loss of folia may also be responsible for the text ending with 7:20 in the Jerusalem Bible, on the very last folium that has been preserved (214v); this, however, remains uncertain.73 The question whether the text of the Jerusalem codex once extended beyond 7:20 is crucial indeed for the interrelationship of the two witnesses, especially for the assumption

71. Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli, 278, suggests that the jump from Esau to Esau is common; in Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripebis kartuli versiebi, 351 n. *, the state is analyzed correctly, however. 72.  Blake, “Georgian Text,” 58; and Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli, 277. 73.  The last folium indicated by Cagareli in his catalogue (“Каталогъ грузинскихъ рукописей монастыря св. Креста” 153)  must be fols. 212v–​213r in accordance with the text passage quoted, which pertains to 7:1. As the folium is stated to be “torn out,” we cannot tell whether any further folia were present beyond fol. 214 in his time. Marr states in his catalogue that “at the end, five folia have been preserved after the 44th quire” (“В конце сохранилось пять листов после 44-​ой тетради”:  Mari, Ierusalimis berdznuli sap’at’riarko c’ignsacavis kartuli xelnac’erebis mok’le aġc’eriloba, 12); it remains unclear whether these were torn out or whether they pertained to an additional quire.

18

Georgi a n

of a common archetype and, depending on this, the determination of its source. It was R. P. Blake who strongly argued in favor of both texts being “derived from the same ultimate original,”74 in its turn based upon a “hypothetical Armenian version” that had the same Greek Vorlage as the Ethiopic version but was very different from the extant Armenian text.75 The complex argumentation line need not be repeated here; it will be sufficient to focus on a few essentials.

2.1.  The Structure of the Two Old Georgian Versions It is clear, first of all, that the archetype of the two Georgian versions did not contain the two chapters styled “2 Esdras” in some Latin manuscripts, which precede the first Vision (chapters I  and II in Bensly’s numbering), nor anything beyond the seventh Vision—​ that is, nothing of the part sometimes named “V” and “VI Esdras” (Bensly’s chapters XV and XVI).76 In this way, it exactly matches the outline of the Ethiopic text of the apocalypse, which has the same limits, whereas it strongly differs from the “Slavonic” version as it appears in the Bakar Bible, which covers the total of the sixteen chapters of (Bensly’s) text of the Latin Vulgate. In this respect it is correct to refer to it as a “short redaction” as Kurcik’idze did in her edition.77 The question remains whether the assumed archetype was complete in comparison with chapters III–​XIV of the Latin text—​which would imply that both witnesses exhibit a considerable loss of text—​or whether it was abridged to a certain amount right from the beginning. Blake’s argumentation in this context seems a bit confusing. On the one hand, he argues that in “Codex O” (i.e., the Oshk’i Bible, which “contains only extracts from the text”) the “gaps do not correspond to anything in the other versions, nor do they follow any discernible ratio of size or any other character which would suggest that the archetype of O had been defective or mutilated. There are no breaks in the text of O to show that the excerpts were in any way marked as such in the archetype.” On the other hand, Blake admits that the “translation itself, while exhibiting many stylistic and other variants from I, is fundamentally the same version,” although “Codex I”—​that is, the Jerusalem codex—​ differs from O by being “complete and continuous so far as it is preserved.”78 The latter argument, however, is misleading. As we have seen, it is by no means clear that the Jerusalem text ever extended beyond 7:20, whereas the more “defective” Oshk’i text reaches the very end of the apocalypse (12:48), after the most considerable gap it is characterized by, covering more than five chapters (between 6:62 and 12:18). We have also seen that a saut du même au même can be assumed even for the latter gap, but this would be extremely hard to assume if it went across five chapters. What is more, the gap

74.  Blake, “Georgian Version,” 304; and Blake, “Georgian Text,” 58. 75.  Blake, “Georgian Version,” 307 and 317; and Blake, “Georgian Text,” 65. 76.  R. L. Bensly, The Fourth Book of Ezra. The Latin version (Texts and Studies, III/​2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895), xxvii; Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, XIII. 77. Kurcik’idze, Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli, 270 et pass.: “mok’le redakcia.” 78.  Blake, “ Georgian Text,” 57–​58.

181

182

182

Jost Gip p ert

between 5:44 and 6:20 in the Oshk’i Bible might be intentional, given that the text of 5:44 ends with the last word of the verse and 6:20, the first verse of the so-​called Oratio Esrae, begins immediately afterward with the title introducing it, which reads dasabami sit’q’wsay ezraysi vidre aġmaġlebadmde misa kueq’anit—​that is, “Beginning of the speech of Ezra before his being exalted from (this) world” (with but slight differences, the Jerusalem codex has dasabami locv[isay] ezraysi vidre aġmaġlebadmde, with locva-​ “prayer” instead of sit’q’ua-​ “word, speech”). So what might the common “archetype” have had between ­chapters 5 and 12? In this context, it is important to note that there is relevant evidence from a secondary source, namely, the Paris lectionary, which contains two lections from the apocalypse. The first one, read as the first lection on January 6 (no. 84), extends from 3:22–​30 and thus matches a text passage that is present in both the Oshk’i and the Jerusalem Bibles. The second one, however, appearing as lection no. 1638 among the litanies concerning the Prophets, covers 6:6–​36, thus including the Oratio (6:20–​36),79 which it leaves without a title, but also several verses before it. The possibility that the text of the Oshk’i Bible might have originated from a set of (uncontiguous) lections (as assumed above for the fragmentary texts of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ben Sirach in the Mtskheta Bible), one of them consisting of the Oratio alone, is therefore unlikely, and the problem of the emergence of the lacunae in the Oshk’i Bible must be left open.

2.2.  The Presumed Armenian Vorlage The assumption of a hypothetical Armenian Vorlage as put forth by Blake was mostly based upon some observations concerning individual words, and some of them are indeed worth being taken seriously. This is true, for example, of dari in III.5.21 (= 5:35.16, ~ VII.43) taken by Blake to represent Arm. dar “century.” The enigmatic text passage reads: da ganigrʒos moslvay vidre šwdad c’lad oden, romel ars šwdi dari (lit. “And the course will extend up to seven years, which is seven daris”). If dari really represents Arm. dar (“century”), the Georgian text virtually takes an intermediary position between the “seven years” of the Ethiopic version, the ebdomados annorum (“weeks of years”) of the Latin and, correspondingly, the Syriac and the first Arabic version, the “seventy years” of the second Arabic version, and the “700 years” of certain Ethiopic witnesses.80 Another remarkable case is the use of davardes “cecidissent” in da aravis auc’q’e raysatws davardes gzani igi matni (“And you informed nobody why their ways should fall”) in I.6.3 (= 1:30, ~ III.31), which contrasts with Latin quomodo debeat derelinqui via haec (“how this way must be relinquished”),81 Ethiopic “how the end of this way would be,” and Syriac “how your way

79.  Cf. B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), 110 n. *, according to whom the Oratio Esrae (§23 of vision III in his edition) “ist der berühmteste und meist benutzte Teil der Esra-​Apokalypse, wie die Fülle der liturgischen lateinischen Sonderhandschriften beweist.” 80. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 150–​51, and A. F. J. Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse (IV. Esra) (GCS; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992), 10 and 47. 81.  Similarly, in the first Arabic version: “dass du deinen Weg . . . verworfen hast” (Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 17).

183

Georgi a n

should be understood.”82 Blake’s proposal to ascribe the curious wording of the Georgian text to a confusion of Armenian *ankal (“fall”) with *ǝnkal “receive,” which would match the Syriac expression and reflect a presumed Greek *καταληφθῇ (“begriffen werden soll”), in its turn confused with *καταλειφθῇ (“verlassen werden soll”) in the Latin and Ethiopic wording, is ingenious indeed.83 In other cases, however, Blake’s argumentation is misleading or even untenable. This is true, for example, of the use of “mercede” in I.13.3 (= 3:1, ~ V.1) as opposing itself to “Zeichen” (“sign”) of the other versions. It is true that the Jerusalem codex uses sasq’idlisa mistws (“on the payment”) in the title of Vision V, contrasting with Latin de signis as well as Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic “(On) the signs,”84 which Blake explains by confusion of Arm. šnorhacʽ and nšanacʽ. This confusion may indeed be responsible for the erroneous rendering of Arm. nšanacʽn (“of the signs”), which all Armenian witnesses show,85 by “de gratia” in J. H. Petermann’s translation of the Armenian text;86 however, if we consider that the Georgian text of the Oshk’i Bible has sasc’aulisa mistws (“on the miracle”) the assumption that the occurrence of sasq’idlisa is due to a mere inner-​Georgian confusion of two very similar words (sasc’aulisa and sasq’idlisa) seems much more probable, all the more so if we assume the two Georgian codexes to depend on a common archetype. A similar case is II.10.5 (= 4:22, ~ VI.22), where according to Blake the Georgian text opposes “infantes” to the “loca” of the other versions,87 by confusion of Arm. tełkʽ (“places”) with tłaykʽ (“children”). This is again only true of the Jerusalem codex, which has q’rmani (“children”), while the Oshk’i Bible has q’anani (“fields”) as the perfect equivalent of the “(sowed) fields”88 of the other versions, and again we may safely assume an inner-​ Georgian confusion of two very similar words (q’anani vs. q’rmani), here probably triggered by the double occurrence of q’rmani (“infantes”) in the verse before (4.21).89 Blake’s argumentation is likewise weak90 when he speaks of iat’ak’i (rather “floor, ground” than “bottom”) as an “Armenian word.”91 First, iat’ak’i is not at all “sparingly used in Georgian,” given that it occurs more than ninety times in Old Georgian texts published so far.92 Second, it is true that Arm. yatak is identical in both its formation 82. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 16–​17 (“wie das Ende dieses Weges sei,” “wie dein Weg zu begreifen sei”), and Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 10. The second Arabic version and the Armenian text have no equivalent. 83.  Cf. Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 10 n. 31, where the reference to Blake’s proposal is missing. 84. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 20–​21, “(Über) die Zeichen”; and Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 20. 85.  M. E. Stone, The Armenian Version of IV Esra (UPATS 1; Missoula:  Scholars Press, 1979), 62, notes no variant. 86.  In A. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (Leipzig: Reisland, 1869), 384, reprinted in Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 21, and indicated by “Armpt” in Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 20 n. 87. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 104–​5. 88.  “(besäte) Felder”: Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 34. 89. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 102–​3; and Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 34. 90.  Blake’s plea for an Armenian Vorlage appeared in his article of 1926, which he authored before having access to the Oshk’i Bible. He did not withdraw his proposal afterward, however. 91.  Blake, “Georgian Version,” 308. 92.  The Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text-​und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS) database, which covers nearly all published Old Georgian text material, contains a total of ninety-​eight occurrences; cf. http://​titus.fkidg1.uni-​ frankfurt.de/​database/​titusinx/​titusinx.asp?LXLANG=38405&LXWORD=iat2500ak2500*&LCPL=0&TC PL=1&C=H&T=0&LMT=100&K=0&MM=0&QF=1.

183

184

184

Jost Gip p ert

and its meaning, but the word is without doubt Middle Iranian (probably Parthian *yatak, cf. Middle Persian ǰadag, “form, property”), belonging to the great bulk of shared Iranianisms in the two languages. Applying criteria that have been established recently,93 there is no indication of this word having entered Georgian via Armenian, since it is not at all restricted to texts that are likely to have been translated from Armenian. An (immediate) Iranian basis may also be assumed for one of the words which according to Blake “are new to the lexica” and are still unattested elsewhere, namely, iahravi (“rare”), given the typical “Parthian” sequences of ia-​ (< *yā̆-)​ and -​hr-​ (< *-​θr-​) it contains.94 Different from this, msxep’ri (“violent, pelting [of rain])” is clearly an inner-​Georgian formation, even though its root remains as unclear as the actual source of iahravi.

2.3 The Title of the Apocalypse Several authors noted the fact that the byname of the author of the apocalypse in Georgian comes closest to that of the Ethiopic text, appearing as sutiel-​i in both Georgian codexes95 and as sutaël in the latter and thus establishing one more striking correspondence between these two versions.96 The divergence in the second vowel notwithstanding, the name form clearly opposes itself to forms like Latin salathiel, salathihel, salatiel, or sarathias; Syriac šalaṯiel; Arabic šalaṯiel, šalaṯal, salaṯiel, or salatan; and Armenian salatʽiel,97 all of which are identical with, or come closer to, the “normal” form the name has in both OT and NT texts.98 In this context it is important to note that in the Old Georgian version of those texts, we only find salatiel-​, even in the Oshk’i and Jerusalem codexes;99 and the same is true for biblical quotations and allusions, as in the chronicle and the commentary on the Canticum by Hippolytus of Rome in the Miscellany of Shat’berdi,100 the treatise De Gemmis by Epiphanius of Cyprus in the same manuscript,101 or the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew by John Chrysostom translated by Euthymius the Athonite.102 All this renders the peculiar name form appearing in the apocalypse—​and its correspondence with the Ethiopic version—​even more remarkable, all the more so since the Georgian text exhibits

93.  J. Gippert, Iranica Armeno-​ Iberica:  Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen 1 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Iranistik 26; Sitzungsbericht der phil.-​hist. Klasse 606; Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993), 345–​50. 94.  Ibid., 56. 95.  Cagareli, “Каталогъ грузинскихъ рукописей монастыря св. Креста,” 152, still notes swlieli for the Jerusalem Bible, which explains itself by confusion of the minuscule (nuskhuri) letters for l and t under the influence of Georg. sulieli (“insane”); cf. Blake, “Georgian Version,” 303n25. For the spelling of w instead of u, cf. Table 8.14 note 1 below. 96.  Blake, “Georgian Version,” 303; and Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 4. 97. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 2–​3; and Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 4. 98.  I Esr. (LXX) 5.2 ff.; II Esr. 3.2 ff.; II Esr. 22.1 (Neh 12.1); I Chr 3.17 ff.; Agg. 1.1 ff.; Matt 1.12; Luke 3.27. 99.  Agg. 1.1 ff. 100. Gigneišvili and Giunašvili, Šat’berdis k’rebuli X sauk’unisa, 199 l. 8 and 268 l. 25. 101.  Ibid., 172 l. 41. 102.  V. C’amalašvili and T. Dedabrišvili, eds., C’m. Ioane Okrop’iri, Targmanebay Mates saxarebisay. 1. (Tbilisi: Orioni, 1996), 59 l. 20; and M. Šanidze, ed., C’m. Ioane Okrop’iri, Targmanebay Mates saxarebisay. 1. (Tbilisi: Betania, 2014), 53 l. 31.

185

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.14  

O Title 1.1

4 Ezra, Title and First Verse I

c’igni ezra sutieli ezra swtieli1 romeli iq’o babilovns Book Ezra Sutieli Ezra Sutieli who was in Babylon šemdgomad samisa c’lisa dacemitgan kalakisayt šemdgomad samisa c’lisa dacemitgan kalakisa viq’av viq’av babilons me, sutiel, romel ars ezra. babilons me, swtiel,110 romel ars ezra. Three years after the defeat of the city, I was in Babylon, me, Sutiel, which is Ezra.

The spelling of plain w instead of the digraph ow (i.e., u) is a typical phenomenon of certain Old Georgian manuscripts.

1

the name twice, once in the title of the apocalypse and once, in its first verse (in Table 8.14, the lines in question are displayed synoptically). Different from this, the Ethiopic title names only “Ezra the prophet,”103 in a similar way to the Paris lectionary, where the two lections from the apocalypse are introduced by sak’itxavi ezra c’inaysc’armet’q’uelisay—​that is, “Lection from Ezra the prophet.” Be that as it may, the question remains how to account for the peculiar name form shared by the Georgian and Ethiopic versions. If these go back to a common branch of tradition, as proposed by Blake,104 we are led to assume this to have been characterized by the corruption of an abbreviated Greek spelling ΣΛΘΗΛ by ΣΥΘΗΛ, or the like. Whether this common Vorlage originated in Egypt, as suggested by Blake on account of a Coptic ostracon from the Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes exhibiting the title ΕΣΡΑ N̄ ΣΟΥΘΙΗΛ,105 must remain open; if it did, the case for a (lost) Armenian intermediary of the Georgian version becomes even weaker.106

3.  Apocryphal Writings Relating to Genesis The Georgian tradition is comparatively rich in apocryphal texts that are related to the contents of the biblical book of Genesis. First of all, it possesses two different redactions of the Vita Adae, one represented by a set of five manuscripts (fifteenth to seventeenth centuries) and the second, by a codex unicus (seventeenth century). Both redactions were edited synoptically by C. Kurcik’idze, first in 1964 and a second time in 2003.107 A French translation mostly based on the first redaction was provided by B. Outtier in 2012, in synopsis 103. Violet, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 3; and Klijn, Die Esra-​Apokalypse, 4. 104.  Styled “y” in Blake, “Georgian Version”, 308–​11. 105.  Ibid., 310–​11, quoting W. E. Crum, “The Literary Material,” in H. E. Winlock and W. E. Crum, eds., The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes. Part I (Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 3.1; New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926), 197. The ostracon in question bears the signature BP. 1069. 106.  Cf. Stone, Armenian Version of IV Esra, 41, as to the aporia of Blake’s proposal. 107.  The manuscripts in question are Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​153, H-​433, H-​881 (first redaction), and S-​5175 (second redaction) (the information “Musée d’État de Géorgie” given in Haelewyck CAVT, 6 et passim is very misleading), plus Kutaisi, Historico-​Ethnographical Museum, 128; and Tbilisi, (Giorgi Leonidze) State Museum of Literature, 3 [olim  128] (both first redaction); the latter manuscript was not included in C. Kurcik’idze’s edition because it is “recent and does not contribute anything interesting to the establishment of the text” (“გვიანდელია, ტექსტის გასამართავად საინტერესოსაც არაპერს იძლევა”: 1964, 97 n.  1). According to Haelewyck, CAVT 6, C.  Kurcik’idze adduced another manuscript containing the first

185

186

186

Jost Gip p ert

with two Latin versions (V and P), the Greek text (with a French translation), and a French translation of the Armenian version.108 The late date of the manuscripts notwithstanding, the first Georgian redaction is regarded as representing a comparatively early version, going back to the eleventh or twelfth centuries.109 Whether it was translated directly from the Greek or via an Armenian intermediary110 is still a matter of debate;111 it may be important in this context that the text best agrees with the Latin version in its ­chapters 1–​44 (with chs. 25–​29 missing),112 while the rest is closer to the Greek text (with the exception of the passage on the death and entombment of Eve at the end of the text, which is abridged).113 The text is entitled “Lection of the Walkout of Adam and Eve from the Paradise” (Sak’itxavi Adam da Evaysi samotxit gamoslvisay), which indicates that it must have been read during services.114 The manuscript of the (shorter) second redaction, which is defective at the beginning and thus provides no title for the apocryphon, has been attributed to the same writer as that of the so-​called Queen Mariam manuscript of the Georgian Chronicle, Kartlis cxovreba, perhaps even as a former integral part of this codex (Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, S-​30 [xvii2/​4 (1633–​46)]).115 The most important argument for this assumption is the fact that the latter manuscript begins with another apocryphal text relating to Adam, the “Commentary on the creation of heaven and earth and on Adam” (Targmani dabadebisatws cisa da kueq’anisa da Adamistws) styled a “Sermon of our holy father Ephrem” (Tkumuli c’midisa mamisa čuenisa Epremisi), which has been identified as the Georgian version of the Caverna Thesaurorum.116 As C. Kurcik’idze states, this apocryphon follows the Vita Adae in all other manuscripts containing it so that it is reasonable to assume that

redaction, viz. “Collection Hobi 6 an. 1831”; this information is misleading again, as Kurcik’idze does not mention this manuscript at all. Cf. § 3.1 as to the codex in question. 108.  J.-​P. Pettorelli and J.-​D. Kaestli, Vita Latina Adae et Evae: Synopsis Vitae Adae et Evae latine, graece, armeniace et iberice (CCSA 19; Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 757–​59 and 763–​905. 109.  C. Kurcik’idze, “Adamis ap’ok’ripuli cxovrebis kartuli versia,” Pilologiuri dziebani /​Filologičeskie razyskanija 1 (1964): 97–​136 at 97. 110. K’ek’elidze, Dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oria, 437; Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336; Kurcik’idze, “Adamis ap’ok’ripuli cxovrebis kartuli versia,” 103; J.-​P. Mahé, “Le livre d’Adam géorgien,” in R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions presented to G. Quispel (ÉPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 227–​60 at 228–​29; and Mahé, “Notes philologiques sur la version géorgienne de la Vita Adae,” Bedi Kartlisa 41 (198): 51–​66 at 52–​53. 111.  Cf. M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 38. 112.  Kurcik’idze’s edition does not contain chapter or paragraph numbers. 113. K’ek’elidze, Dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oria, 437; and Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 335. According to B. Outtier (pers. comm., November 30, 2015), the synopsis published in 2012 reveals clearly that the Georgian text, the Armenian text, and the Latin version P descend independently from a lost Greek model. 114.  Cf. Mahé, “Le livre d’Adam géorgien,” 231 n. 21, as to the use of the apocryphon in the service of the Sunday τῆς τυροφάγου in the liturgy of Constantinople in the eleventh century. It must be noted that the Georgian lectionaries of the (older) Jerusalem rite do not contain the text. 115.  Kurcik’idze, “Adamis ap’ok’ripuli cxovrebis kartuli versia,” 98–​99, quoting D. K’arič’ašvili. 116.  I. Džavaxov [Džavaxišvili], Государственный строй древней Грузіи и древней Арменіи. I.  (Тексты и разысканія по армяно-​грузинской филологии 8; S.-​Peterburg: Akademija Nauk, 1905), 26; and Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 335–​36; cf. Haelewyck, CAVT, 18.

187

Georgi a n

this was once also the case in Queen Mariam’s manuscript.117 The Georgian Caverna was first edited on the basis of the Kartlis cxovreba codex by E. Taq’aišvili in 1906;118 a second edition, based upon nine manuscripts, was provided by C. Kurcik’idze in 1993.119 The text was sometimes identified in the Georgian tradition with a “Book of Nimrod” (Nebrotis c’igni) that is mentioned several times in the initial chapters of the Georgian Chronicle authored by Leont’i Mroveli;120 however, as I. Džavaxišvili pointed out first, the book in question is referred to in the apocryphon itself so that the latter cannot have borne this title.121

3.1.  The Khobi Codex Beyond the two apocrypha treated above, a few other relevant texts have been mentioned in the literature. In his Clavis apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti, J.-​C. Haelewyck notes three texts concerning Adam (and other topics from Genesis) that are restricted to Georgian, under the titles Eiectio Adae et Euae e paradiso (no. 39), Creatio caeli et terrae (no. 40), and Reuelationes de creatione (no. 41).122 Quoting M. Stone,123 he states for the first two of them that “Interpretatio operis huius incerta est”; for the third one, he admits that “Opus hoc uersio georgica Cavernae Thesaurorum . . . fortasse est.”124 For all three texts, Haelewyck indicates a codex “coll. Hobi 6 an. 1813” as the primary source; for the first one, he adds Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​153,125 and for the last one, H-​1284 of the same institution. Here Haelewyck relies on M.  Tarchnišvili’s Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, which lists the titles of a total of ten “alttestamentliche Apokryphen” from

117.  Kurcik’idze, “Adamis ap’ok’ripuli cxovrebis kartuli versia,” 99. 118.  As “Appendix” (დამატება) I, 786–​849; partial re-​edition with French translation in Avalichvili, “Notice sur une version géorgienne de la Caverne des Trésors,” ROC 26 (1927–​1928): 381–​405 at 396–​405 (as “appendice”). 119.  C. Kourcikidzé [Kurcik’idze], ed., La caverne des trésors: Version géorgienne (CCSO 526; Scriptores Iberici 23; Louvain:  Peeters, 1993), with French translation:  J.-​P. Mahé, trans., La caverne des trésors:  Version géorgienne (CCSO 527; Scriptores Iberici 24; Louvain: Peeters, 1993); the codices used are Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​153 (=B), S-​30 (=C), H-​433 (=E), H-​881 (=F), and H-​1064 (=K); Kutaisi, Historico-​ Ethnographical Museum, 128 (=A); Saint Petersburg, Saltykov-​Ščedrin Library, I.  Bat’onišvili collection 10 (=D); Tbilisi, (Giorgi Leonidze) State Museum of Literature, 3 [olim  128] no.  3 (=G); and Tbilisi, National Archives of Georgia, 784 (=H). An edition of the oldest fragment available (a flyleaf of an Armenian manuscript of Nor-​Julfa, Isfahan) was provided in B. Outtier, “Le plus ancien fragment géorgien de la Caverne des trésors,” in A. Mardirossian et al., eds., Mélanges Jean-​Pierre Mahé (Travaux et mémoires 18; Paris: Amis du Centre d’histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2014), 489–​92. 120.  M. Džanašvili, “Изгнаніе Адама изъ рая, Нимродъ и семь послѣпотопныхъ народовъ. Книга Нимрода,” Сборниъ материаловъ для описанія мѣстностей и племенъ Кавказа 29/​2 (1901): 19–​44 at 19; and Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336. 121. Džavaxov, Государственный строй древней Грузіи и древней Арменіи, 26 n.  1; similarly W. Lüdtke, “Georgische Adam-​Bücher,” ZAW 38 (1919–​1920): 155–​168 at 164; and K’ek’elidze, Dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oria, 439–​40. 122. Haelewyck, CAVT, 27–​28. 123. Stone, History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 111 n. 123, proposes that they might pertain to the Cycle of Four Works (cf. next note). 124.  In agreement with Stone, History, 111. 125.  Cf. note 107 above as to the denomination of the site.

187

18

188

Jost Gip p ert

the “Ḫ obi-​Handschrift Nr. 6 aus dem Jahre 1813,” some of which “converge with” the “Walkout of Adam and Eve from the Paradise” and the “Nebrotʽbuch.”126 Tarchnišvili’s list stems from a short description of Mingrelia (West Georgia), Monastery of Khobi, 6, which was published by E. Taq’aišvili.127 The problem is that (a) the present whereabouts of this manuscript are unknown,128 so that the exact content of the texts in question cannot be ascertained, and (b) it can easily be shown that the list comprises nothing but the two apocrypha dealt with above, with the Caverna thesaurorum being represented by titles of nine of its chapters, given that other witnesses of this text contain similar subtitles. Table 8.15 illustrates this by contrasting Taq’aišvili’s (and Tarchnišvili’s) list with (explicit and implicit) subtitles from Queen Mariam’s Kartlis Cxovreba codex,129 Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​153,130 and the chapter division in C. Kurcik’idze’s edition of the Caverna.131

3.2.  Other Georgian Apocrypha Relating to Genesis Other Georgian apocrypha relating to Genesis that have been mentioned in the literature remain largely unstudied. This is true, first of all, of the “Book of Genesis” (C’igni

126. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336:  “von denen sich einige mit den oben angeführten berühren.” 127.  E. Taq’aišvili, “Arxeologiuri mogzaurobidan Samegreloši,” Dzveli Sakartvelo /​Drevnjaja Gruzia /​L’ancienne Géorgie 3 (1913–​1914): 1–​241 at 160. 128.  The codex in question must have been removed from the monastery of Khobi (Tarchnišvili’s “Ḫobi”, hence Haelewyck’s “Hobi”) together with other precious items in 1923, possibly to the Museum of the Dadiani Palace at Zugdidi (cf. http://​tinyurl.com/​khobi1923); however, the recent catalogue of Sh. Gloveli, ed., Georgian Manuscripts in the Regions of Georgia. Catalogue (Tbilisi: National Centre of Manuscripts, 2015) does not contain it (the catalogue mentions only two other codexes from Khobi—​viz., the psalter of 1768 [as no. 9, p. 73] listed as no. 5 in Taq’aišvili, “Arxeologiuri mogzaurobidan Samegreloši,” 160, and a collective volume including homiletic, hagiographical, and biblical texts [as no. 21, p. 76] not listed in Taq’aišvili, “Arxeologiuri mogzaurobidan Samegreloši”). The Khobi codex no.  6 is by no means identical with Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, H-​1284 or H-​1378, both mentioned by Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336, as containing related content (see below). The possibility cannot be ruled out that it was destroyed in a way similar to that of the manuscripts of the church of Sori (in Racha), as reported by G. Peradze, “Das geistige Leben im heutigen Sowjetgeorgien im Spiegel der schönen Literatur,” in B. von Richthofen, ed., Bolschewistische Wissenschaft und “Kulturpolitik” (2nd rev. ed.; Königsberg:  Ost-​Europa-​Verlag, 1942), 287, quoting the “Yearbook for the Protection of Monuments of Arts and Nature” of the Commissariat of People’s Education, 1925. See also N. Papuashvili, Aus der jüngeren Vergangenheit der georgischen orthodoxen Kirche—​die Erneuerung der Autokephalie und die Reformen (Tiflis: Universal, 2012), 79. 129.  Taking manuscripts S-​5175 and S-​30 together as proposed above; for the subtitles from S-​30, cf. E. Taq’aišvili, Kartlis cxovreba, Mariam dedoplis variant’i (T’pilisi:  Dzmobisa, 1906), 786–​849. The excerpt in “Notice sur une version géorgienne de la Caverne des Trésors,” 397–​402, constitutes the “Testament d’Adam,” including the “Hours of the Day and Night”; this part is grouped by M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve (SVTP 14; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 167, together with the Arabic, Ethiopic, and Syriac versions of which the “latter seems to be the oldest.” 130.  Subtitles according to T. Bregadze et al., Kartul xelnac̣erta aġc̣eriloba: Q̣opili saeḳlesio muzeumis (A) ḳolekcia /​Opisanie gruzinskix rukopisej. Kollekcija A, byvšego cerkovnogo muzeja I/​2 (Tbilisi:  Mecniereba, 1976), 213. According to the authors, a chapter division (with subtitles) is not met with in manuscripts containing Kartlis Cxovreba; obviously, S-​30 is an exception to this. 131.  The chapter numbering was taken over from that of the French translation of the Syriac Caverna, cf. Mahé [apud Kourcikidzé], La caverne des trésors. Version géorgienne, XV.

189

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.15  

189

The List of Apocrypha in the Khobi MS 6

Khobi 6 Taq’aišvili 1913–​14 Sak’itxavi Adam da Evasi samotxisagan gamoslvisa Ca da kveq’nis gačena

S-​5175 /​ S-​30 no. Tarchnišvili 1955 1)

“Vertreibung Adams und Evas aus dem Paradies”

2)

“Erschaffung des Himmels und der Erde”

Atormet’i žamisatws dġisa Atormet’ni žamni ġamisani Targmaneba dabadebisa Šeneba Ierusalimisa

3)

Štaslva israelta egvip’t’ed

7)

4) 5) 6)

Gamoslva israelta 8) egvip’t’it

no. Kurcik’idze 1964 /​ Taq’aišvili 1906 a) [Sak’itxavi Adam da Evaysi samotxit gamoslvisay]

page [S-​5157, 1–​8]

Sak’itxavi Adam da Evasi samotxit gamoslvisa

Tkmuli c’midisa mamisa čuenisa Epremisi. Targmani dabadebisatws cisa da kueq’anisa da Adamistws . . . (“Testament of Adam”)1 (Žamni dġisani i˜b) (Žamni ġamisani i˜b)

786

Tkmuli c’midisa mamisa čuēnisa Epremisi. Targmani dabadebisatws cisa da Adamistws . . .

Šesueneba Ierusalems vitar aġašenes Šesula israelta egvibt’ed

816

h)

Gamoslva israelta egvibt’ed

821

i)

Aka ic’q’ebis mepoba mepeta Šoba mamat mtavarta Adamisitgan vidre Krist’es mosuladmde (Šoba Krist’esi)

824

b)

“Über die zwölf Stunden des Tages” “Über die zwölf Stunden der Nacht” “Offenbarung über die Schöpfung” “Der Wiederaufbau Jerusalems”

c)

“Übersiedelung der Israeliten nach Ägypten” “Auszug der Israeliten aus Ägypten” “Vom König (?)”

g)

Mepe

9)

Šoba mamat mtavarta

10) “Geburt der Patriarchen (?)”

Krist’es šoba3

11) [Birth of Christ]

A-​153

d) e) f)

j)

Cav. ch.

I

793,26

VI.14

794

VIA.2

795

VIA.16

814:392

819

832

Targmanebay dabadebisay

XXVIII.3

Štaslva iērusalemelta egwp’t’ed

XXXII.18

XXX.2

XXXIV.1 XXV.10

Šobay mamamtavarta Adamisitgan vidre Krist’emde

XLIV.21

835,71

Beginning of the excerpt as noted in Avalichvili, “Notice sur une version géorgienne de la Caverne des Trésors,” 396. The beginning of this chapter (XXVIII.3–​6) is missing in A-​153 because it falls into a lacuna of two folia; cf. Taq’aišvili, Kartlis cxovreba, Mariam dedoplis variant’i, 814. 3 This text is not contained in Tarchnišvili’s list because it does not pertain to the Old Testament. 1 2

dabadebisa), which is contained in Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, H-​1284 (fols. 4–​212). In contrast to Tarchnišvili’s suggestion,132 this text does not have very much in common with either the initial part of the sermon attributed to St. Ephrem or the “Offenbarung über die Schöpfung” contained in it, considering its incipit as quoted

132. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336 n. 2, cf. note 127.

190

190

Jost Gip p ert

in the only description available of this nineteenth-​century codex,133 which reads like an awkward (and faulty) paraphrasis of Gen 1:1 rather than an independent text: p’irvelad ganačenia ġ(mer)ti [!]‌ kveq’ana, da kveq’ana iq’o uxilavi da moumzadebeli . . .—​that is, “in the beginning God let appear the earth, and the earth was invisible and unprepared . . . .” The same is true of Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, H-​1378 (1823), fols. 1–​24, “welche Schöpfungsmythen enthält,”134 according to the catalogue of the H collection.135 This codex consists of three parts, beginning with a defective “Book of the Apparition of Heaven and Earth” (C’igni gačenisa cisa da kveq’anisa, fols. 1r–​2r), continuing with a “Sermon, Explanation of Genesis, How Man Left Paradise” (Kadagoba, targmani dabadebisa, tu rogor gardmovida k’aci samotxidgan, fols. 2r–​22r), and ending with an “Instruction and sermon on lodging travellers and compassion toward the poor” (Sc’avla da kadagoba mest’umrobazeda mgzvarisa da glaxis šec’q’narebazed, fols. 23r–​24v). From the few lines of the quasi-​incipit of the acephalous first text that is printed in the catalogue (ikna saġmo, ikna dila, dġe mekvse p’arask’evi, xolo šesrulda ca da q’vela mosak’mazi misi da šeasrula ġmertma dġe mekvse da gaisvena dġesa mešvidesa, rom aris šapati “it became evening, it became morning, the sixth day, Friday, and heaven and all its adornment was accomplished, and God accomplished the sixth day and rested on the seventh day, which is Sabbath”), it is clear that this represents another late adaptation of the history of creation, one that is not identical with the Caverna. Likewise unexplored are the Georgian versions of the Historia creationis et transgressionis Adae, the Historia expulsionis Adae e paradiso, the Historia Abel et Cain, filiorum Adae and the text De euangelio Seth, which are subsumed under nos. 16, 17, 48, and 58 in Haelewyck’s CAVT (as parallels of the respective Armenian texts).136 To all of them, only vague references are made in a late-​nineteenth-​century article by A.  Khakhanišvili (Khakhanov) and its German summary by W. Lüdtke,137 without exact identification of their manuscript source.138 Considering the sequence of topics appearing there, it is likely indeed that they pertain to a Georgian version of the Cycle of Four Works as known in the Armenian tradition.139

133. K. Šarašidze, Xelnac’erta aġc’eriloba:  Sakartvelos saist’orio da saetnograpio sazogadoebis q’opili muzeumis xelnac’erebi (H k’olekcia) /​ Opisanie rukopisej: Rukopisi byvšego Muzeja Gruzinskogo Obščestva Istorii i Ėtnografii (kollekcija H). III. (Tbilisi: Mecnierebata Ak’ademia, 1948), 236–​37; my thanks are due to B. Outtier, who made this description accessible to me. 134. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336 n. 3, cf. note 128. 135.  Šarašidze, Xelnac’erta aġc’eriloba, 339–​40; my thanks are due to B.  Outtier, who made this description accessible to me. 136. Haelewyck, CAVT, 22–​23. 137.  A. Chachanov [Xaxanašvili], “Памятники грузинской отреченной литературы,” Журнал Министерства народнаго просвѣщенія 296 (1894): 35–​49 at 36–​40; and Lüdtke, “Georgische Adam-​Bücher,” 155–​56. 138.  As a manuscript of the “Tiflis Society for the Spread of Literacy among the Georgians” (“Рукопись Тиф лисскаго общества распространенія грамотности среди грузинъ”), it should belong to the S collection of the National Centre of Manuscripts today. 139.  Cf. Stone, History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, 110, concerning this proposal, and 102–​4; and W. L. Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature (UPATS 8; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 1–​34, regarding the Armenian witnesses.

19

Georgi a n

Also unstudied are two apocrypha relating to Melchizedek that have been detected in Georgian. The first one of them is subsumed under the Historia de Melchisedech in Haelewyck’s CAVT (no. 95), and represents a late translation from Russian that was undertaken by an archimandrite named Giorgi in 1782.140 The second one, which Haelewyck CAVT (no. 97) takes to represent a Liber Melchisedech, is contained in Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, H-​1375 (1827), fols. 49r–​51v, and Mart’vili 64;141 in the former, the text in question (the only OT-​related text among a series of NT-​related apocrypha) exhibits no traits of representing an apocryphon of considerable age.142

4.  Nonbiblical Early Jewish Works in Georgian All the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts discussed in sections 1 through 3 entered Georgian as integral parts of the (orthodox) Christian tradition. However, the Georgian adaptation of the Antiquitates Iudaicae of Flavius Josephus seems to have a different provenance. For a long time, the translation of this work was attributed to Ioane Petritsi (P’et’ric’i),143 the founder of the Academy of Gelati in West Georgia, who also translated works by Proclus Diadochus, Ammonius Hermeiou, and other Neoplatonists. He was educated in Constantinople, and he exemplifies the turn toward a strongly Hellenizing attitude in Georgian thought in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. However, on the basis of a thorough linguistic analysis of the Georgian version of the Antiquitates and its Greek Vorlage, the editor of the Georgian version of the book, N. Melikišvili, raised serious doubts as to Petritsi’s involvement, ending with the sarcastic conclusion that the translator “must have been a person of much less flair and knowledge than the famous philosopher.”144 The Georgian translation of Josephus’s Antiquitates is attested in eight manuscripts, the oldest of which (Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​675) goes back to the thirteenth century. The text it contains is incomplete, comprising only ­chapters 1 through15. 140.  The text is contained in Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, S-​1479, pp. 63–​87; cf. K.’ K’ek’elidze, “Ucxo avt’orebi dzvel kartul mc’erlobaši /​Auteurs étrangers dans l’ancienne littérature géorgienne,” T’pilisi universit’et’is moambe /​Bulletin de l’Université de Tiflis 8 (1928): 99–​202 at 102;K’ek’elidze, Et’iudebi dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oriidan, 5 (Tbilisi:  Mecnierebata Ak’ademia, 1957), 3–​114 at 9 (no.  16); G.  Peradze, “Die alt-​christliche Literatur in der georgischen Überlieferung,” Oriens Christianus 25–​26 (3. ser. 3–​4) (1928–​1929): 109–​116 at 115 (no. 10); and C. Böttrich, Melchisedek. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-​römischer Zeit: Weisheitliche, magische und legendarische Erzählungen, I-​II (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010), 23. 141. Tarchnišvili, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur, 336n4. 142.  Cf. the title and incipit quoted in Šarašidze, Xelnac’erta aġc’eriloba, 336–​37 (text no.  10):  sit’q’va melkisedek’zeda, tu vin iq’o. erti xemc’ipe iq’o ierusalems, saxeli salim, da eq’ola imas erti švili, saxeli saġa. “Sermon on Melchizedek, who he was. There was a king in Jerusalem, Salim (by) name, and he had one child, Saġa (by) name.” An apocryphon referring to Noe may be contained on the first folio of the unedited Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, A-​625 (according to the catalogue by T. D. Žordanija, Описаніе рукописей Тифлисскаго Церковнаго Музея Карталино-​Кахетинскаго духовенства. Кн. II (Изданіе Церковнаго Музея 9; Tiflis: Gutenberg, 1902), 116: “Отрывокъ изъ повѣствованія о патріархѣ Ноѣ”). Whether this is related to the Armenian Historia Noe (Haelewyck, CAVT 84) remains unclear. 143.  The assumption is first attested in the work of the eighteenth-​century lexicographer Davit Rek’t’ori; cf. N. Melikišvili, Ioseb Plaviosi, Motxrobani iudaebrivisa dzuelsit’q’uaobisani. I (Tbilisi:  Mecniereba, 1987), 70, with reference to V. Beridze and Iv. Lolašvili. 144. Melikišvili, Ioseb Plaviosi, 70–​84.

191

192

192

Jost Gip p ert

The same holds true of the sixteenth-​century manuscript no.  10 of the Historico-​ Ethnographical Museum, Kutaisi. All the other manuscripts date from the nineteenth century. In two manuscripts (Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, S-​315/​321 and S-​372/​ 375) the text is complete, with ­chapters 16 to 20 added in a new translation accomplished by a priest named D. Inanišvili in 1835–​1836 on the basis of a Russian Vorlage.145 It is clear from this that only the text of the first fifteen chapters can be claimed to represent the medieval translation, and the date of the oldest manuscript available still admits of assigning this to the Hellenizing milieu of Petritsi’s time. In contrast to the Antiquitates, the other works by Flavius Josephus do not appear to have been translated into Georgian, at least not in a coherent form. However, we do find allusions to the Jewish War in a historiographical text pertaining to the Georgian Chronicle, which indicates that this work, too, was known to Georgian writers by about the twelfth century. The text in question is the (anonymous) Vita of the King David the Builder (1089–​ 1125), which is assumed to have been written shortly after his death.146 In this text, a writer named Iosip’os ebraeli—​that is, Joseph the Hebrew—​is mentioned, along with the Hellenes (elinta) Homer (Umiros), and Aristobulus of Cassandreia (Arist’ovli), the third in a triad of “great and famous narrators” (didni igi da saxelovanni gamomet’q’uelni) who wrote about the Trojans and Achaians, Alexander, and Vespasian and Titus (mesameman Vesp’asiane T’it’o[y]‌s-​mierni met’ometa twsta zedani č’irni miscna aġc’erasa “the third one dedicated himself to describe the extreme hardships inflicted on his compatriots by Vespasian and Titus”).147 Likewise, the anonymous, fifteenth-​century chronicler of the Mongol invasions (Žamtaaġmc’ereli, i.e., “Chronographer”) mentions a few centuries later the total destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian (Ierusalimisa sruliadsa mosp’olvasa T’it’es da Uesp’asianes mier) “as told by the chronographer and multi-​narrator Joseph in the great distress of the Judaeans” (vitarca žamtaaġmc’ereli da mravalmomtxrobeli Iosip’os c’armoit’q’ws esoden dznelbedobasa iudeltasa).148 In both of these cases, the name form Iosip’os can be taken to indicate a Greek source for the information used. This assumption is clearly supported by the fact that the same name form occurs also in the Georgian version of the Chronicle by George Hamartolos, which is attributed to the Hellenizing school of Gelati. In this text, Josephus is mentioned many times, once along with Pilon—​that is, Philo Judaeus—​both being characterized as the “wise men of the Jews” (huriataganni brdzenni).149 However, unlike Josephus, the latter author seems not to have gained much ground in the Georgian tradition, given that neither his works nor his name has yet been detected elsewhere. 145. K’ek’elidze, Dzveli kartuli lit’erat’uris ist’oria, 287 n. 2; and Melikišvili, Ioseb Plaviosi, 13. 146. M. Šanidze, Cxorebay mepet-​mepisa davitisi (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1992). 147. S. Q’auxčišvili, Kartlis Cxovreba. (Istorija Gruzii) I (Tbilisi: Saxelgami, 1955), 342; and Šanidze, Cxorebay mepet-​mepisa davitisi, 192–​93. 148. S. Q’auxčišvili, Kartlis Cxovreba. (Istorija Gruzii). II. (Tbilisi:  Saxelgami, 1959), 176, l. 17; and R. K’ik’nadze, Žamtaaġmc’ereli, Asc’lovani mat’iane (Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1987), 61. Cf. Melikišvili, Ioseb Plaviosi, 7 n. 7, on additional literature on these quotations. 149.  Q’auxčišvili, Xronoġrapi Giorgi Monazonisay, 164.

193

Georgi a n TA BLE 8.16  

Collation of Kartlis Cxovreba and Mokcevay Kartlisay

K.Cx. (Leont’i Mroveli) sect. XIV1

M.K. (Shat’berdi version), ch. 12

meatertmet’e mepeni bart’am and kartam, dzeni aderk’i somexta mepisa, aršak’unianni The eleventh kings, Bart’am and Kartam, sons of Aderk’i, the king of the Armenians, Arsacids da mepobdes šemdgomad missa dzeni misni. And after him his sons were kings.

i˜b.

xolo amatsa mepobasa uesp’asianos hromta k’eisarman c’armot’q’uena ierusalemi, And during their reign, Vespasian, the Roman emperor, conquered Jerusalem, da munit ot’ebulni uriani movides mcxetas da dasxdes dzueltave uriata tana . . . and Jews who had fled from there came to Mtskheta and settled together with the old Jews . . .

19. da mepobda kardzam armazs da mcxetas brat’man. And in Armazi, Karʒam was king, and in Mtskheta, Brat’man.

da amatta žamta huriani movides mcxetas da dasxdes. And in their times, Jews came to Mtskheta and settled there.

Q’auxčišvili, Kartlis Cxovreba. (Istorija Gruzii), I.44, lines 1–​4. Gigineišvili and Giunašvili, Šat’berdis k’rebuli X sauk’unisa, 321, lines 12–​13; Il. Abulaʒe, red., Ʒveli kartuli agiograpiuli lit’erat’uris ʒeglebi, c’. 1 (V–​X ss.) (Tbilisi: Sak.SSR Mecnierebata Ak’ademiis Gamomcemloba, 1963), 82, lines 19–​21. The so-​called Č’eliši version of the “Conversion” does not contain the “Kings’ List.” 1 2

No direct connection with the works by Josephus can be established for the Georgian Chronicle’s claim that Jerusalem was conquered by Vespasian during the time of Kings Kartam and Bart’am, whereafter Jewish refugees arrived in Mtskheta to settle with the Jews already present. This information cannot have been invented by Leont’i Mroveli (the author of the Chronicle) by analogy to the first destruction of the Temple and the alleged arrival of the first Jews in Georgia in the course of the Babylonian exile,150 but it is obviously derived from a shorter testimony we find in the “Conversion of Kartli” (Mokcevay Kartlisay), the compilation of texts pertaining to the legend of St. Nino (see introductory paragraph). The passage in question, which is contained only in the so-​called “Kings’ List” within the older (Shat’berdi) version of the legend, is much less verbose than its parallel in Leont’i Mroveli’s text as the collation in Table 8.16 shows. The differences in the name forms remain unexplained.

5.  Future Avenues of Exploration It will be clear from the survey above that much research is still necessary with respect to the Georgian versions of Jewish texts. This is true, first of all, for a thorough investigation of the Wisdom of Sirach as contained in the Oshk’i and Jerusalem Bibles. In addition, it would be worthwhile indeed to treat the last pages from the apocalypse of Esdras in the latter codex with multispectral imaging to enhance their readability. In the case of 150.  This was suggested by Lerner, Evrei Gruzii ot Ėllenizma do pozdnego feodalizma, 10: “Леонти Мровели попросту увясывает приход евреев в Картли с хорошо известными ему судьбоносными событиями в истории еврейского народа –​с падением Первого и Второго храмов.”

193

194

194

Jost Gip p ert

apocryphal texts relating to Genesis, a search for the Khobi manuscript would be of extreme importance in order to verify its contents. The Georgian tradition is too rich and, at least in parts, too important to leave the history of the texts concerned unexplored.

Selected Bibliography Bensly, R. L. The Fourth Book of Ezra: The Latin Version. Texts and Studies 3.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895. Blake, R. P. “Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la Bibliothèque patriarcale grecque à Jérusalem [1].” ROC, 3 ser. 3 = 23 (1922–​1923): 345–​413. –​–​–​. “The Georgian Version of Fourth Esdras from the Jerusalem Manuscript.” HTR 19 (1926): 299–​375. –​–​–​. “The Athos Codex of the Georgian Old Testament.” HTR 22 (1929): 33–​56. –​–​–​. “The Georgian Text of Fourth Esdras from the Athos Manuscript.” HTR 22 (1929): 57–​105. Cagareli, A. A. Памятники грузинской старины въ Святой Землѣ и на Синаѣ: Православный Палестинский сборникъ 4.1. Sankt Petersburg: Akademija Nauk, 1888, 143–​92 and 193–​240. –​–​–​. Свѣдѣния о памятникахъ грузинской письменности. T.  I, vyp. 2.  Sainkt Petersburg:  Akademija Nauk, 1889, 143–​92 and 193–​240. Dočanašvili, E. Mcxeturi xelnac’eri (Ek’lesiast’e, Sibrdzne Solomonisa, Keba Kebata Solomonisa  .  .  .  ). Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1985. Džavaxov [Džavaxišvili], I., Государственный строй древней Грузіи и древней Арменіи I. Тексты и разысканія по армяно-​грузинской филологии 8. Sankt Peterburg: Akademija Nauk, 1905. Garitte, G. Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï. CSCO 165, Subsidia 9. Louvain: Durbecq, 1956. Gigineišvili, B., and E. Giunašvili. Šat’berdis k’rebuli X sauk’unisa. Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1979. Gippert, J. Iranica Armeno-​Iberica. Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen [1]. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Iranistik 26. Sitzungsbericht der phil.-​ hist. Klasse 606. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993. –​–​–​. ed.,. The Old Georgian Palimpsest Codex Vindobonensis georgicus 2. In co-​operation with Zurab Sarjveladze and Lamara Kajaia. Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi, Series Ibero-​Caucasica 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. Gloveli, S., ed. Georgian Manuscripts in the Regions of Georgia: Catalogue. Materials for publication prepared by G.  Gagnidze, Sh. Gloveli, D.  Gogashvili, M.  Karanadze, Th. Otkhmezuri, N.  Chkhivadze. Tbilisi:  National Centre of Manuscripts, 2015. Haelewyck, J.-​C. Clavis apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Klijn, A. F. J. Die Esra-​Apokalypse (IV. Esra). GCS. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992. Kourcikidzé [Kurcik’idze], C. La caverne des trésors. Version géorgienne. Editée. CSCO 526. Scriptores iberici, 23. Louvain: Peeters, 1993. –​–​–​. Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripebis kartuli versiebi (X–​XVIII ss. xelnac’erta mixedvit). I. Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1970. –​–​–​. Dzveli aġtkmis ap’ok’ripuli (arak’anonik’uri) c’ignebis kartuli versiebi. II. Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1973. –​–​–​. Adamis ap’ok’ripuli cxovrebis kartuli versia. (Dzveli kartuli ap’ok’ripuli lit’erat’uris dzeglebi 1.) Tbilisi: C’m. Irineos Lionelis sax. bibliur-​teologiuri inst’it’ut’i, 2003. Mahé, J.-​P., trans. La caverne des trésors. Version géorgienne. CSCO 527, Scriptores iberici 24. Louvain: Peeters, 1993. Melikišvili, N. Ioseb Plaviosi, Motxrobani iudaebrivisa dzuelsit’q’uaobisani. I. Tbilisi: Mecniereba, 1987. Stone, M. E. The Armenian Version of IV Esra. UPATS 1. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. –​–​–​. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. –​–​–​. Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve. SVTP 14. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Tarchnišvili, M. Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur. Città del Vaticano:  Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1955. Violet, B. Die Esra-​Apokalypse (IV. Esra). 1. Tl.: Die Überlieferung. GCS 18. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910. –​–​–​. Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt. GCS 32. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924.

195

9

Christian Arabic John C. Reeves

Works Discussed 1 Enoch Jubilees 4 Ezra 2 Baruch Testament of Adam Christian Arabic literature represents an enormous corpus of biblically affiliated lore which remains remarkably underexploited by most modern scholars of Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature. Several reasons contribute to this neglect. First, the overwhelming majority of students who pursue the study of so-​called intertestamental literature come to it from an academic background in biblical studies, a program of research and pedagogy whose scope since the first third of the twentieth century has seldom embraced the languages, histories, and literatures of minority religions—​much less the dominant one—​within the Islamicate world. Second, twentieth-​century scholarship experienced a major explosion of interest in these noncanonical works thanks to a remarkable succession of manuscript discoveries, such as those associated with the Cairo Genizah, Nag Hammadi, and Qumran, almost all of which had import for the revision of older hypotheses about the origin, editorial development, and growth of the canonical scriptures for the varieties of Jewish, Christian, and allied religious expressions that emerged during the Hellenistic and Roman periods of Near Eastern history. This is certainly an understandable excitement. However, the overwhelming focus of scholarly attention to date has been on issues of genealogy and taxonomy, and much less energy has been expended on equally

196

196

Joh n C .  R eeves

important topics such as the history of the transmission of individual or clusters of works across religious and linguistic boundaries. This in turn has led to an inordinate obsession with a text’s hypothesized origins as opposed to its extant physical history, an uncritical privileging of imagined textual Vorlagen over the empirically attested manuscript evidence, and the generation of some questionable historical presumptions about the age, social context, and cultural distribution of a number of works. Despite the efforts of a few perspicacious scholars (e.g., Robert A. Kraft and Michael E. Stone) to redress this methodological imbalance and to reshape the contours of this kind of inquiry toward a more responsible set of critical assumptions,1 the majority of scholars today persist in pursuing a theoretically flawed research and teaching agenda with regard to Bible and its affiliated literatures that perpetuates a problematic status quo and that leans on some very fragile reeds for its cogency. The immense size of the textual corpus and the space constraints on this essay limits our consideration of Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha in Christian Arabic sources to one basic area; namely, the sorts of materials relevant to our concerns that are available in the popular and influential universal histories produced by Christian writers such as Eutychius (Sa‘īd b. Biṭrīq) of Alexandria († 940),2 Agapius (Maḥbūb b. Qusṭanṭīn) of Manbij († c. 950),3 and the Arabic version of the so-​called secular history of the justly celebrated Bar Hebraeus (Abu’l-​Faraj b. al-​‘Ibrī, † 1286).4 I want to also draw attention to interpretative assemblages like the intriguing Karshuni scriptural catena which was published by Paul A. de Lagarde in the nineteenth century,5 an important anthological resource whose contents remain largely ignored even after a century and a half of relative availability.6 I am acutely aware of the large quantity of parascriptural materials, almost all of which remains unpublished, that can be culled from the catalogues of Arabic

1.  A  number of works from throughout their careers could be cited here, but for convenient encapsulations of their views, see R. A. Kraft, Exploring the Scripturesque:  Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts ( JSJSup 137; Leiden:  Brill, 2009); and M. E. Stone, Ancient Judaism:  New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011). 2.  M. Breydy, ed., Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien (2  vols.; CSCO 471–​72; Scriptores arabici 44–​45; Louvain: Peeters, 1985); and L. Cheikho, ed., Eutychii patriarchae Alexandrini Annales: Pars prior (CSCO 50, ser. arab. III, t. 6; Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1906). Breydy’s edition is based on Ms. Sinaiticus Arabicus 582, the earliest version of the chronicle, which is also considerably shorter than what is found in the sources Cheikho used for his edition. The later manuscripts thus appear to be augmented and supplemented with materials that were originally not part of this chronicle. An excellent recent contribution to the identification of apocryphal lore within the chronicle of Eutychius is Uriel Simonsohn, “The Biblical Narrative in the Annales of Sa‘īd ibn Baṭrīq and the Question of Byzantine-​Orthodox Identity,” Islam and Christian-​Muslim Relations 22 (2011): 37–​55. 3.  A. Vasiliev, “Kitāb al-​‘ Unvān:  Histoire universelle écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, première partie (I),” PO 5 (1910): 561–​692, “. . . seconde partie (I),” 7 (1911): 458–​591, and “. . . première partie (II),” 11 (1915):  5–​144. Note also L. Cheikho, ed., Agapius episcopus Mabbugensis Historia universalis (CSCO 65, Scriptores arabici 5; Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1912). 4.  Bar Hebraeus, Ta’rīkh mukhtaṣar al-​duwal, ed. A. Ṣāliḥānī (Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1890). 5.  P. de Lagarde, ed., Materialen zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (2  vols.; Leipzig:  Teubner, 1867), 2.2–​182. 6.  A rare exception is M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, “Tradition and Religious Authority: On a Neglected Christian Parallel to Mishna Abot 1,1–​10,” HUCA 66 (1995): 169–​201.

197

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

manuscripts held by the major European and Middle Eastern libraries or which are identified in the magisterial compilations of Graf,7 Haelewyck,8 and Denis.9 These of course require careful inspection, and it is certainly possible that some of these manuscripts may furnish some grist for the mills of those scholars who are in quest of fresh primary sources for the elucidation of early Jewish literature. Much of this material, however, likely will prove more useful for studying the ongoing Christian fabrication and production of biblically allied pseudepigrapha for liturgical, theological, and apologetic purposes, with only superficial—​if any—​connections to analogous Jewish or Muslim works. As a prominent example of the kinds of textual riches that can be uncovered by diligent research, one can point to Mount Sinai Arabic 589, a Christian Arabic manuscript which may date from the ninth century and which contains Arabic versions of three first-​ century Jewish pseudepigraphical apocalypses: the Apocalypse of Baruch (i.e., 2 Baruch), the Epistle of Baruch (i.e., 2 Baruch 78–​87 in most editions of the Apocalypse and which frequently circulates as a self-​standing piece), and the work known as 4 Ezra.10 While the writings that comprise this manuscript were copied by the same hand, close study of these writings has indicated that the Baruch and Ezra compositions stem from different translators, both of whom appear to be translating from a Syriac text. At least two other Arabic translations of 4 Ezra—​as well as a number of fragments—​were known prior to the late twentieth-​century publication of this manuscript, but both of these manuscripts appear to have been translated from a Greek, or in one case possibly a Coptic, text.11 Texts such as these provide valuable information about the reception history of these undeniably ancient examples of Jewish apocalyptic literature and the ways in which they retained their relevance and vitality within certain eastern Christian communities of the Islamicate world. The translation into Arabic of Jewish and Christian scriptural (and parascriptural) works is a historical process that remains contentious and obscure. There is no direct evidence for the existence of Arabic “Bible” translations prior to the time of the redaction and the promulgation of the Qur’ān,12 and the earliest recognizable citations of Bible by Muslim scholars appear in works authored during the eighth and the ninth centuries, the same time incidentally when our earliest Christian Arabic manuscripts appear. This is unlikely to be coincidental or accidental. As at least one scholar has plausibly suggested, the Christian 7.  G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (5 vols.; Città del Vaticano:  Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944–​1953). The first two volumes are the most relevant for our present purposes. 8.  J.-​C. Haelewyck, Clavis Apocryphorvm Veteris Testamenti (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998). 9.  A.-​M. Denis, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-​hellénistique (2 vols.; Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). 10.  P. Sj. van Koningsveld, “An Arabic Manuscript of the Apocalypse of Baruch,” JSJ 6 (1975): 205–​207; M. E. Stone, “A New Manuscript of the Syro-​Arabic Version of the Fourth Book of Ezra,” JSJ 8 (1977): 183–​84; F. Leemhuis et al., The Arabic Text of the Apocalypse of Baruch (Leiden: Brill, 1986); and A. Drint, The Mount Sinai Arabic Version of IV Ezra (2 vols.; CSCO 563–​564, Scriptores arabici 48–​49; Leuven: Peeters, 1997). 11.  For references to the relevant bibliography, see Graf, Geschichte, 1.219–​21; Drint, Arabic Version, 2.i–​vi; and E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–​A.D. 135), rev. and ed. G. Vermes et al. (3 vols. in 4; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–​1987), 3.1.304. 12.  G. Böwering, “Recent Research on the Construction of the Qur’ān,” in G. S. Reynolds, ed., The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context (London: Routledge, 2008), 70. Apart from some inscriptions and brief notations, there is no evidence for the existence of any written Arabic literature in extended form prior to the Qur’ān itself.

197

198

198

Joh n C .  R eeves

(and Jewish) production of biblical, liturgical, and apologetic works in the scriptural language of Islam can be viewed as a direct response to the aggressive marketing of a “supersessionist” Qur’ān and its Prophet among these two biblically affiliated communities.13 Early polemical works such as the “Treatise on the Triune Nature of God” published in the late nineteenth century from a Mount Sinai manuscript by Margaret Dunlop Gibson feature an astonishingly wide collection of biblical proof-​texts in juxtaposition with citations from the Qur’ān,14 a dynamic illustrative of the potent dialectic interaction between the respective proponents of these two scriptural collections.15 The progressive arabicization and Islamicization of conquered Christian majority regions like Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Mesopotamia intensified under the ‘Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-​Malik (685–​705 ce) and his immediate successors, with the result that Greek virtually disappears as a viable language for Christian expression within the Islamicate world by the eighth or ninth centuries. This does not however mean that the avenues were closed to the transmission of written resources between Christian and Muslim literary circles. The translation of works from Greek, Syriac, and Middle Persian into Arabic was a prominent activity among the intellectual elite of ‘Abbāsid society in Baghdad during the eighth and the ninth centuries, and it was spearheaded by a formidable group of Christian, Jewish, Ṣābian, and Muslim scholars. Most of this translation activity concentrated naturally on works of mathematical, scientific, and philosophical import. While not formally connected with the state-​ supported effort of collecting, preserving, studying, and building upon the intellectual wisdom associated with the earlier imperial cultures, it seems heuristically useful to consider “biblical” translations as forming part of this larger enterprise. Recognizable biblical passages in Arabic occur within the surviving literary remains of a small number of early Muslim tradents and scholars such as Ka‘b al-​Aḥbār (assuming for the sake of this argument his historicity),16 Wahb b. Munabbih, Ibn Isḥāq,17 Hishām b. al-​Kalbī, Ibn Qutayba, and Ya‘qūbī. While the sources from which these and other early commentators have drawn their quotations remain largely opaque, it seems probable that they are ultimately reliant upon existing translations prepared for internal use by Christians, Jews, or other biblically affiliated religious groups. With regard to Christian involvement, Sidney Griffith has called attention to the Syrian and Palestinian ecclesiastical centers, and especially the

13.  S. H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2013); and Griffith, “When Did the Bible Become an Arabic Scripture?” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 1 (2013): 7–​23. 14.  M. Dunlop Gibson, ed., An Arabic Version of the Acts of the Apostles and the Seven Catholic Epistles . . . . (Studia Sinaitica 7; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1899), 74–​107 (text), 2–​36 (trans.). 15.  See Graf, Geschichte, 2.27–​28; Griffith, Bible, 121–​22 and 125–​26; and S. H. Griffith, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008),  53–​57. 16.  For the possibility that Ka‘b is a “pseudepigraphon,” see J. C. Reeves, “Jewish Apocalyptic Lore in Early Islam: Reconsidering Ka‘b al-​Aḥbār,” in J. F. Ashton, ed., Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland (AJEC 88; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 200–​16. 17.  See now J. Witztum, “Ibn Isḥāq and the Pentateuch in Arabic,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 40 (2013): 1–​71.

19

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

monastic communities located in and around Jerusalem and the Judean desert, as likely sponsors and facilitating agents of this effort.18 An important point to remember in this discussion is that “Bible” does not represent a hermetically sealed category for these late antique interpreters and translators, no matter what their own religious affiliation might be. As Griffith also emphasizes, the “Bible” that is recited, studied, and transmitted among these Near Eastern communities is an “interpreted Bible,” adopting a label popularized by James L. Kugel to denote forms of “biblical” texts which verbally incorporate characters, locales, events, motifs, and themes that are not linguistically present in those versions of “Bible” which Jews, Christians, or other groups deem to be “canonical.”19 A narrative rendition of the story about the protoplasts Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden—​found in the text established by the medieval Masoretes in Gen 2:4b–​3:24—​might feature additional actors like Satan or Samael, additional plot developments such as an expression of remorse on Adam’s part for disobeying the commandment about eating the forbidden fruit, or even brand new episodes such as the one wherein the death and funeral arrangements for Adam are described. Distinctive connective typologies are sometimes teased out of what are separate characters or events in the canonical collections. Much of this embellishment (when viewed through a canonical lens) derives from parascriptural works such as early midrashic compilations, exegetical speculations and homilies, and so-​called apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, such as the extensive corpus of Adamschriften that Michael E. Stone and other modern scholars have done so much to unpack and expound.20 A simple cursory review of the stories about Adam that are transmitted by early Muslim scholars such as those mentioned above, or that figure in the universal chronicles penned by Christian authors writing in Arabic like Agapius or Eutychius, easily demonstrates that it is this “interpreted Bible”—​and not any of its “canonical” versions—​that forms the master narrative for both Christian and Muslim raconteurs of “biblical history,” and moreover, that it is this “interpreted Bible” which has perhaps the strongest claim to being the “Bible” which was first translated into the Arabic language. The grand narrative which governs the form and content of “biblical history” as recounted by these writers is what can be termed the Cave of Treasures cycle of biblical legendry. It receives its name from that of an originally Syriac compilation of Christian provenance dating from approximately the sixth or seventh centuries whose temporal parameters stretch from the creation week to the death and resurrection of Jesus. The cycle of stories associated with the legendary “Cave of Treasures,” the locale for humanity’s first

18.  S. H. Griffith, “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic,” Muslim World 78 (1988): 1–​28; and S. H. Griffith, “From Aramaic to Arabic: The Languages of the Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” DOP 51 (1997): 11–​31. 19. Griffith, Bible, 91–​95. For the concept of the “interpreted Bible,” see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), xvii–​xx. 20.  M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993).

199

20

200

Joh n C .  R eeves

tomb, sanctuary, and depository for sacra, extends, however, well beyond its written registration in the Syriac language. They comprise an intricate textual network of interlaced hiero-​historical compositions extant in various editions in Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic or, in other words, most of the important linguistic spheres of the Christian East during late antiquity and the Middle Ages. The cycle furnished what quickly became the dominant narrative for structuring and recounting the pre-​Christian past among oriental Christian and Muslim historians from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries of the Common Era. The following works are important components of the cycle: (1) the several Syriac versions of the so-​called Cave of Treasures;21 (2) the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and eventually Greek forms of the pseudepigraphon known as the Testament of Adam; (3) the Arabic work christened by Gibson as the Kitāb al-​majāll (“Book of Rolls”);22 (4) the Ethiopic Gadla ’Adām (“Strivings of Adam”);23 and (5) the Arabic and Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter and Qalēmenṭōs (i.e., Pseudo-​Clementine) literature,24 an enormous mass of exegetical and traditional lore which possesses little if any overlap with the more familiar Pseudo-​ Clementine Homilies and Recognitions long associated with pre-​Islamic Syro-​Palestinian forms of Christianity. A number of historical and eschatological writings exhibit their reliance upon certain strands of tradition found exclusively in this cycle of texts, such as the Apocalypse of Pseudo-​Methodius, the so-​called Chronicle of Zūqnīn, the Ta’rīkh of al-​ Ya‘qūbī, portions of the Ta’rīkh al-​rusul wa’l-​mulūk of al-​Ṭabarī, the Murūj al-​dhahab of al-​Mas‘ūdi, the Annales of Eutychius, the Chronicon of Michael Syrus, the so-​called Book of the Bee attributed to Solomon of Baṣra, the Syriac Chronicle ad annum 1234, and the Chronicon syriacum authored by Bar Hebraeus. A few scholars have suggested (although with little sustained argument) the cycle’s affinity with “gnostic” —​and more particularly Sethian—​strands of Jewish and Christian thought, and some have proposed (again with largely underdeveloped arguments) that Jewish extra-​canonical materials like the Enochic corpus and the Hebrew Book of Jubilees were utilized by these sources.

21.  C. Bezold, Die Schatzhöhle ‘Mē‘ārath Gazzē’ (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1883–​1888); and Su-​Min Ri, ed., La Caverne des Trésors: Les deux recensions syriaques (CSCO 486–​87, scrip. syri 207–​8; Leuven: E. Peeters, 1987). 22.  M. Dunlop Gibson, Apocrypha Arabica (Studia Sinaitica 8; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901), 1–​56 (text); 1–​58 (trans.). Gibson’s Arabic text was misleadingly reprinted with an Italian translation by A. Battista and B. Bagatti, La Caverna dei tesori ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1979), 1–​56 (text). The “Book of Rolls,” however, is not a translation of the Syriac Cave of Treasures. 23.  A. Dillmann, Das christliche Adambuch des Morgenlandes (Göttingen:  Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, 1853), E. Trumpp, ed., Gadla ’Adām:  Der Kampf Adams (Abhandlungen der philosophisch-​ philologischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 15.3; München:  Verlag der k.  Akademie, 1881); S. C. Malan, The Book of Adam and Eve, also called The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (London:  Williams and Norgate, 1882); A. Battista and B. Bagatti, Il combattimento di Adamo ( Jerusalem:  Franciscan Printing Press, 1982); and R. W. Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation:  A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 136–​40. 24.  E. Trumpp, ed., Das Hexaëmeron des Pseudo-​Epiphanius (Abhandlungen der philosophisch-​philologischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 16.2; München: Verlag der k. Akademie, 1882), and Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation, 136–​40.

201

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

Of particular significance is the place of the Testament of Adam in this complex of texts and traditions. Three formally distinct sub-​texts are customarily embraced by this larger rubric: (1) a horarium specifying what entities offer prayers and praise to God at fixed intervals over the course of a twenty-​four-​hour period; (2) a so-​called prophecy of Adam recorded by Seth which foretells the coming of the Flood and the eventual advent of Jesus; and (3) an angelology which supplies names for nine different categories of angels. While the components of the Testament of Adam exhibit a clear literary relationship with the Cave of Treasures cycle of stories, the precise nature of this relationship remains muddled. The Testament of Adam circulates as a self-​standing, independent work within Syriac scribal circles, but in other linguistic traditions such as Arabic, Ethiopic, or Georgian, it is embedded within the larger Cave of Treasures story-​line at its proper sequential point (namely, right before Adam’s death) in the running narrative. The crucial role which the physical cave plays in the cycle of Cave of Treasures stories—​it functions simultaneously as ancestral tomb, favored shrine, and archival depository for artifacts, offerings, and sacred writings—​grants some plausibility to the notion that the Testament was originally an integral part of the Cave narrative. On the other hand, the disjointed character of the Testament’s “components” in Syriac and Greek, arguably the oldest extant forms of this particular textual network, point to the likelihood that it originally enjoyed an independent status. Further complicating the picture about the codicological environment of the Testament is the new evidence stemming from recent close study of the medieval manuscript fragments of the Hebrew language magical grimoire known as the Sefer ha-​R azim, or “Book of Secrets,” wherein further apocryphal lore tied to Adam, his repentance subsequent to his expulsion from Paradise, and his signal role in the transmission of knowledge to future generations occurs.25 It appears possible that some of the Andalusian zoharic traditions about the roles played by caves in the deposit and recovery of antediluvian esoteric writings, some of which have Adamic connections, may refract or echo materials ultimately tied to oriental works like the Testament of Adam or even the encompassing Cave of Treasures cycle of protoplastic lore.26 In addition to a visible reliance on the Cave of Treasures cycle of tales for much of their “biblical” content, it is also noteworthy that several of the aforementioned Christian and Muslim historical compilations apparently rely on the lost late eighth-​century chronicle of the ‘Abbāsid court astrologer Theophilus of Edessa († 785). His historical work, authored most likely in Syriac, is generally thought to be the so-​called “eastern source” that supplies

25.  B. Rebiger and P. Schäfer, Sefer ha-​R azim I und II: Das Buch der Geheimnisse I und II (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 1.106*–​109*, and 2.1, 12–​14, and 179–​85. A Christian Arabic work which displays a number of thematic and even verbal connections with the Jewish Sefer ha-​R azim complex of traditions has been partially published by Alexander Fodor, “An Arabic Version of Sefer ha-​R azim,” JSQ 13 (2006): 412–​27. Note also that there is some related Adamic lore visible in the medieval magical texts Sefer ha-​Yashar (not to be confused with the later aggadic narrative work bearing the same title) and Sefer ha-​Malbush published by Irina Wandrey, “Das Buch des Gewandes” und “Das Buch des Aufrechten”: Dokumente eines magischen spätantiken Rituals, ediert, kommentiert und übersetzt (TSAJ 96; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 26.  E.g., Zohar 1.117b–​118a; cf. 1.37b and 1.55b.

201

20

202

Joh n C .  R eeves

much of the information for the events spanning the years 630–​750 that is shared by such linguistically disparate authorities as the Greek Chronographia of Theophanes,27 a work which continues that of his friend and mentor George Syncellus;28 the largely lost Syriac language chronicle of Dionysius of Tell-​Maḥrē, a work which was in turn later heavily excerpted by the Chronicon of Michael Syrus († 1199) and the anonymous Chronicon ad annum 1234; and the Christian Arabic chronicle known as the Kitāb al-​Unvān prepared by the Melkite bishop Agapius of Manbij († c. 950). These and other chronological compilations have recently been painstakingly mined by Robert Hoyland in order to reconstruct Theophilus’s missing chronicle.29 While the overwhelming bulk of our surviving evidence for this lost source pertains to the years following the rise of Islam, it is sometimes assumed that Theophilus began his work with Creation and thus would have had sections dealing with biblical characters, events, and perhaps even calculations pertaining to calendrical and astronomical lore. It is very likely, for example, that the following summary of the seventh antediluvian forefather Enoch’s career which is furnished by Agapius30 is heavily indebted to the lost chronicle of Theophilus:31 According to what is in the authentic rendering (of the Torah),32 Enoch had lived for 165 years when he fathered Methuselah, and he was alive for 200 years after he had fathered Methuselah. Thus his (total number of ) years amounted to 365 years. Over the course of his entire life he would entreat God to remove him to Paradise. Finally God responded to his prayer and accepted his plea, and God transported him to Paradise. (This happened) at the completion of 200 years after the birth of Methuselah and 13 years (sic!) after the birth of Lamech.33 On the other hand, according to the corrupted Torah which the Jews possess and the Syriac rendering 27.  C. de Boor, ed., Theophanis Chronographia (2 vols.; Lipsiae:  B. G.  Teubneri, 1883–​85); and C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor:  Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–​813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). 28.  A. A. Mosshammer, ed., Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chronographica (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1984); and W. Adler and P. Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 29.  R. G. Hoyland, Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam (TTH 57; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011). 30.  Vasiliev, “Kitāb al-​‘ Unvān: ... première partie (I),” 591.1–​592.3. 31.  Convincingly argued by K. van Bladel, The Arabic Hermes:  From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 172–​75. The indiscriminate blending of pagan and Christian sources in this passage suggested to W. Adler that Agapius knew “some garbled material ultimately derived from Panodorus”; cf. his Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1989), 104. 32.  I.e., the Septuagint. See, e.g., the fuller statement found in Vasiliev, “Kitāb al-​‘ Unvān: . . . seconde partie (I),” 554.8: “This (i.e., the sum of 2242 years for the number of years from Adam to the Flood) is in accord with (that of ) the ‘correct Torah’ which the 72 produced when they translated it for Ptolemy.” There are a number of other places where Agapius warns against using the “mutilated Torah” of the Jews or the Peshitta that was prepared on its basis. The unusual notion that it is the Septuagint—​as opposed to any Hebrew or other versions—​which registers the pristine articulation of Jewish scripture is repeated (from Agapius?) by the Muslim writer Mas‘ūdī, Kitâb at-​Tanbîh wa’l-​Ischrâf (2d ed.; Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum 8; ed. M. J. de Goeje; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 112.13ff. 33.  A mistake. This number should be “33.”

203

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

(i.e., the Peshitta) which is a copy of it, one finds written in it that Enoch had lived for 65 years when he fathered Methuselah and that he was alive for 300 years after he had fathered Methuselah. God removed him to Paradise at the completion of 300 years after the birth of Methuselah and 113 years after the birth of Lamech, the father of Noah. Now he (i.e., Enoch) is Idrīs. One of the philosophers also has claimed that Enoch –​who is Idrīs –​discovered, revealed, and provided guidance about writing, alphabetic characters, the stars, and arithmetical computation. Mānāthōn (i.e., Manetho), the Egyptian sage and astrologer, asserted that God raised Enoch until he traveled all around the ecliptic and discovered the constellations of the zodiac34 that are on it, the stationary and wandering stars, the lots (?),35 the planetary fields of influence, the decans made up of tens and the constellations which rise in them,36 and other similar secrets of star lore. For that reason it is said that his book on the stars is called The Book of Meanings. All the Ḥarrānians—​those who worship idols and the celestial bodies—​are devoted to the doctrine of Mānāthōn the Egyptian. This unusually detailed description of the cultural contributions of Enoch, including most significantly his discovery of astrology, does not derive from the Syriac Cave of Treasures. The latter work attributes the invention of that “science” (termed kaldāyūtā “Chaldeanism”) to the wicked Nimrod, a figure which it also associates with the appearance of imperial authority, idolatry, and misguided Zoroastrian cultic and social practices.37 However, a contemporary of Theophilus—​the Church of the East catholicos Theodore bar Konai—​does explicitly blame Enoch for the invention of astrology (kaldāyūtā),38 and one can point to demonstrably older sources where Enoch is indeed fingered as being involved in its discovery and/​or promulgation; e.g., Jub. 4.17–​19 (authentically Second-​Temple era statements which are extant in Syriac!), or within a Hellenistic Greek fragment attributed to the so-​called Pseudo-​Eupolemus.39 If Agapius’s report about Enoch’s astrological prowess is indeed indebted to Theophilus, one wonders whether some of the other unusual content associated with biblical characters or events that can be found within the works of his recognized derivatives might also be attributed to this same source. Both Michael Syrus and Bar Hebraeus explicitly mention the earlier Alexandrian Christian chronicler Annianos exploiting material from a so-​called “Book of Enoch,” with Michael actually supplying some brief quotations from what we recognize as the Enochic Book of Watchers in Syriac

34. Cf. Q 15:16, 25:61, and 85:1. 35.  So van Bladel, Arabic Hermes, 173 n. 30. Vasiliev renders as “les horoscopes.” 36.  For most of this terminology, see W. Hartner and P. Kunitzsch, “Minṭaḳat al-​burūdj,” EI2 7:81–​87. 37. Syriac Cave of Treasures (ed. Ri), §27. 38.  Theodore bar Konai, Liber Scholiorum, ed. A. Scher (2 vols.; CSCO 55, 69; Paris:  Carolus Poussielgue, 1910–​1912), 2.286.5–​6. Theodore says that the second-​century Edessan philosopher Bardaiṣan made this claim about Enoch and kaldāyūtā. 39.  Apud Euseb., Praep. evang. 9.17.8. See also the sources signaled by B. Z. Wacholder, “Pseudo-​Eupolemos’ Two Greek Fragments on the Life of Abraham,” HUCA 34 (1963): 83–​113 at 96–​97.

203

204

204

Joh n C .  R eeves

dress.40 Might these Annianos excerpts have been passed to Michael and his copyist via the eighth-​century chronicle of Theophilus? Could the well-​known Syriac renderings of the approximately 161 verses from the Hebrew Book of Jubilees that appear in the narrative presentation of the pre-​Moses era of biblical history of the anonymous Chronicon ad annum 1234 have come through the same source?41 Could Theophilus also be the actual source for certain otherwise unknown chronographic sources mentioned by derivative writers, for example, Michael Syrus or Bar Hebraeus, such as that of “Menandros the magus” (Mnndrws mgwš’) or that of “the second book of Asaph” (ktb’ dtryn d’sp)?42 If the answer is affirmative, then we have at least one more avenue by which older primary texts—​and most importantly early Jewish and Christian works—​could have entered into the Syriac and then the Christian Arabic literary traditions, from which in turn appreciative Muslim writers like Mas‘ūdī could draw.43 Additionally, part of the stream by which Annianos and his citations from early Jewish sources reached much later Christian chronographers like Bar Hebraeus or even Indo-​Persian historians like al-​Juzjānī (fl. thirteenth cent.) appears to flow through the astrological compilations of Abū Ma‘shar al-​Balkhī (d. 886).44 But we should return to our more focused consideration on Christian Arabic works. It is unfortunate that our oldest historical texts authored by Christian scholars writing in Arabic have not survived, such as that of the famous translator Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq († 877) which apparently began with Adam and continued up to the ninth century,45 or that of 40.  J.-​B. Chabot, ed., Chronique de Michel de Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–​1199 (4 vols.; repr., Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963), 1.7–​8 (trans.) and 4.3–​4 (text); Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon syriacum, ed. P.  Bedjan (Paris:  Maisonneuve, 1890), 3.7–​11; and S. P. Brock, “A Fragment of Enoch in Syriac,” JTS n.s. 19 (1968): 626–​31. For Annanios in Syriac and Arabic sources, see the thorough treatment of van Bladel, Arabic Hermes, 139–​47. 41.  These verses were extracted by E. Tisserant, “Fragments syriaques du Livre des Jubilés,” RB 30 (1921): 55–​86 and 206–​32. Note also J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text (CSCO 510, Scriptores Ethopici 87; Lovanii: Peeters, 1989), 258–​70, 287–​88, and 290–​96. Tisserant concluded that these Syriac citations from Jubilees had been translated directly from a Hebrew version (pp.  229–​32), an opinion apparently shared by Brock, “Fragment,” 631, and J. C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 9–​10. At the outset of his narrative, the anonymous compiler cites chroniclers like Eusebius of Caesarea, Andronicos, Jacob of Edessa, George the bishop of the Arabs, and “Annianos the Alexandrian monk” as among his primary historical sources. See J.-​B. Chabot, ed., Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum 1234 pertinens (2 vols.; CSCO 81–​82; Paris: Reipublicae, 1916–​1920), 1.26–​27. 42.  Michael Syrus, Chronicon (ed. Chabot), 1.21–​22, and Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon syriacum (ed. Bedjan), 8.24. Asaph has been tentatively identified as “Pseudo-​Josephus”; see H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1880–​1885), 2.445 and 280. Gelzer’s “Pseudo-​Josephus” (Adler:  “interpolated Josephus”), however, always combines textual materials stemming from Jubilees with the name of Josephus (note the discussion of Adler, Time Immemorial, 191–​93), whereas the character of Nimrod is absent from the account provided in Jubilees about the generation of the dispersion, the building of the Tower, and the postdiluvian reappearance of idolatry and wickedness. 43.  The historical works of Agapius and his Egyptian contemporary Eutychius are praised by Mas‘ūdī, Tanbīh (ed. de Goeje), 154.12–​16. This same passage (154.16–​155.2) goes on to say that Mas‘ūdī (d. 956) had seen a copy of the “book (kitāb) of the Egyptian monk”; the printed text’s ‘thn’yws should be emended to ‘ny’nws as suggested by E. Honigmann, “Notes sur trois passages d’al-​Mas‘oudi,” Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 12 (1952): 177–​84. 44.  van Bladel, Arabic Hermes, 135–​47. For the Enochic traditions present in al-​Juzjānī, which are essentially identical to those contained in Bar Hebraeus, see S. S. Hartman, Gayōmart:  Étude sur le syncretisme dans l’ancien Iran (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1953), 151–​55; Adler, Time Immemorial, 127–​28; and van Bladel, Arabic Hermes, 145. 45. Graf, Geschichte, 2.124; and R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of the Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1997), 440.

205

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

Qays al-​Mārūnī († c. 908) which also seemed to start with the creation week and come to a close in the first decade of the tenth century.46 We would otherwise have a fuller picture of the kinds of cultural information attached by Christian annalists to particular biblical characters or narrative events, and we would be in a better position to assess the possible contributions of older apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature to the ways in which these materials were formulated and packaged within Christian Arabic works. Comparison of historical works produced by a single author in multiple linguistic registers—​as in the well-​known instance of Bar Hebraeus—​can produce some interesting results. One notes, for example, that the Arabic version of his so-​called secular history, a work which almost all the standard reference works erroneously consider to be a religiously neutral abridgement of its supposed Syriac prototype,47 credits the antediluvian forefather Seth with the invention of writing and booklore,48 an important achievement that is curiously absent from his Syriac chronicle. Agapius had made a similar claim more than three centuries earlier,49 and the same attribution was extremely popular within the Byzantine Greek chronographic corpus.50 It is noteworthy that Michael Syrus, otherwise perhaps the most important source for the chronography(s) of Bar Hebraeus, flatly states: “They say that Enoch was the first person to discover the art of producing books and written characters,”51 and that he has nothing to say about the alleged literary prowess of Seth (apart from his excerpt from Josephus recounting how “the descendants of Seth” erected and inscribed astronomical knowledge on two stelae of baked clay and stone).52 It would seem that Bar Hebraeus’s more immediate source for this particular nugget of information may have been the Book of the Bee attributed to Solomon of Baṣra, a work heavily indebted to the Cave of Treasures cycle of legends. Therein we read: “some people say that knowledge of books (first) went forth on the earth during the time of Seth, but the Church does not accept this.”53 But perhaps more importantly for our particular concerns, Bar Hebraeus identifies Mt. Hermon as the place to which the progeny of Seth relocate in order to devote themselves to worship and asceticism, thereby winning for themselves the label “sons of God.”54 This particular datum of course is crucial to recognizing the Enochic (as opposed to the Cave of Treasures) patrimony of what has become a thoroughly euhemerized version of the familiar biblical notice about the marriages contracted between the “sons of God”

46. Graf, Geschichte, 2.94; and Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 440. 47.  The widely accepted notions that the Ta’rīkh mukhtaṣar al-​duwal of Bar Hebraeus abridges his Syriac chronicle and was specially prepared for a Muslim readership have been convincingly refuted by L. I. Conrad, “On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus,” Parole de l’Orient 19 (1994): 319–​78. 48.  Bar Hebraeus, Ta’rīkh (ed. Ṣāliḥānī), 9.3. 49.  Vasiliev, “Kitāb al-​‘ Unvān: . . . première partie (I),” 587.8–​9. 50.  Note the references cited by Adler, Time Immemorial, 105 n. 117. 51.  Michael Syrus, Chronicon (ed. Chabot), 1.9 (translation) and 4.4 (text). 52.  Ibid., 1.5–​6 (translation). 53.  E. A. W. Budge, ed., The Book of the Bee: The Syriac Text . . . with an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), 29.14–​16 (text), 28 (trans.). 54.  Bar Hebraeus, Ta’rīkh (ed. Ṣāliḥānī), 9.4–​6; compare Chronicon syriacum (ed. Bedjan), 4.16–​25.

205

206

206

Joh n C .  R eeves

and human women during the generation of the Flood (Gen 6:1–​4).55 It is only in literature that has some genuine affiliation with the Enochic Book of Watchers that this “holy mountain” bears the name “Hermon” (cf. 1 En. 6.6). In the Syriac version of his “secular history,” those “sons of God” are also called Watchers, those who descend from Hermon to the plain below are two hundred in number, and they have a king named Samyāzōs (i.e., Shemiḥazeh).56 The presence of each of these motifs is also crucial for solidifying an Enochic patrimony (cf. 1 En. 6.3–​7). By way of contrast, one might compare the manner whereby the Melkite historian Eutychius (Sa‘īd b. al-​Biṭrīq) narrates the same incident involving the characters portrayed by Gen 6:1–​4:57 And Yared after 162 years fathered Enoch (cf. LXX Gen 5:18). Now as for the progeny of Cain the murderer, their men were like stallions neighing after the women, and the women would (likewise pursue) after the men shamelessly, and they were fornicating and wantonly sinning, each with one another, openly and publicly. Two or three men would cohabit with one woman, and the old were more depraved than the young, fathers (cohabiting) with their daughters and sons with their mothers. Children did not recognize their parents nor did parents their children, and they dallied with pagan deities. The sound of their cries and their laughter reached the top of the holy mountain. Then when the progeny of Seth heard the noise, one hundred (sic) of their males assembled together for the purpose of descending the mountain unto the progeny of Cain the accursed. Yared adjured them by the blood of Abel not to descend from the holy mountain, but they would not hearken to his words, and so they descended. Then when they had descended, they beheld the daughters of Cain the accursed, (and saw that) they were beautiful, being naked (and going about) without shame, and they became consumed with desire (for them). So too the daughters of Cain beheld them, (seeing) that they were handsome men, giant-​like (jabābira), and so they acted as if they were wild animals, and polluted their bodies. Hence the sons of Seth came to ruin through the harlotry of the daughters of Cain. And the daughters of Cain the accursed gave birth to giants (jabābira) from their union with the sons of Seth. In the Torah it says that they were “sons of God,” having the name beney ’elohim. When they saw that the daughters of Cain were 55.  A. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch: Uebersetzt und erklärt (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1853), xlii, cited the specification of this particular locale as evidence for the Enochic genealogy of this part of the euhemeristic interpretation of Gen 6:1–​4. He was of course unaware that Michael Syrus and the Chronicon ad annum 1234 had already exploited this motif. Note also Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, 2.270 n. 2. 56.  Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon syriacum (ed. Bedjan), 4.17–​23. 57.  The earliest manuscript of this chronicle, Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 582 (see Breydy, Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien), lacks both its initial and final pages, and begins its coverage of biblical events abruptly in mid-​sentence with the life of Moses. Thus this material on the events narrated in Gen 6:1–​4 may not stem from Eutychius himself, but from a later writer who has added these traditions.

207

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

beautiful, they descended to them, and it is from them that the giants (jabābira) came to be (cf. Gen 6:2 and 4). But one errs and misunderstands (if ) he says that “angels” descended to “mortal women.” Instead, the sons of Seth are the ones who descended from the holy mountain to the daughters of Cain the accursed. For it was on account of their saintliness (chastity?) and dwelling-​place upon the holy mountain that the sons of Seth were called banū ’elōhīm;58 that is, “sons of God.” And when some say that angels descended unto mortal women, they are in error; for the substance of angels is a simple substance, and sexual plurality (i.e., gender distinction) is not part of their nature, while human beings have a complex substance, (and) sexual plurality forms part of their nature, as so too with all the animals. If angels could have sexual intercourse, there would not be left one virgin from among all human women that they would not defile.59 And when those sons of Seth who had descended from the mountain to the daughters of Cain the accursed wished to return to the holy mountain, the stone of the mountain became as fire (to their touch), and so it was not possible for them to return to the mountain. After this more fellow kinsmen began to descend from the holy mountain to the daughters of Cain the accursed.60 Both Bar Hebraeus and Eutychius accept the widespread euhemeristic interpretation of Gen 6:1–​4, which reads the “divine beings” and “mortal women” as references to the descendants of Seth and Cain. Yet notably missing from the account in Eutychius (and some others like it)61 are those explicit textual markers which could finger Enochic literature as the ultimate source for much of the imagery featured in the tale about these prohibited trysts. The mountain is not Hermon, but instead the “holy mountain” located near “the fringes of Paradise” (precisely as the Cave of Treasures expresses it). The term “Watcher” is not employed, nor does any recognizable permutation of the proper name Shemiḥazeh appear. Interestingly a faint trace (or conscious parody?) of the Enochic wordplays associated with the names “Hermon” (> ḥrm) and Yared (1 En. 6.6) may survive in Yared’s unsuccessful “adjuration” of the initial “one hundred” who decide to descend (> yrd) from the mountain “to the daughters of Cain the accursed.” A bitter polemic is even directed against what can be called the more primitive (i.e., Enochic) reading of the 58.  For this same orthography, see Bar Hebraeus, Ta’rīkh (ed. Ṣāliḥānī), 10.12; also S. Bhayro, “A Karshuni (Christian Arabic) Account of the Descent of the Watchers,” in A. Rapoport-​Albert and G. Greenberg, eds., Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman ( JSOTSup 333; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 371–​72. The latter scholar mistakenly considers the occurrence in his manuscript (an Arabic rendering of the universal chronicle of Michael Syrus) to be an “original, independent reading[s]‌” of the Enochic tradition. 59.  This tradition is based upon one found in the Syriac Cave of Treasures (ed. Ri), end of §15. There however it is demons that are incapable of sexual congress, as opposed to angels. Note also the Kitāb al-​majāll (ed. Gibson), 24.7–​17; the Ethiopic Gadla ’Adām (ed. Trumpp), 124–​25; Malan, Book of Adam and Eve, 146–​47; and G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984), 128–​29. 60. Eutychius, Naẓm al-​jawhar (ed. Cheiko), 9.3–​10.4. 61.  Ultimately based on the retelling of this story in the Cave of Treasures.

207

208

208

Joh n C .  R eeves

“sons of God” as divine beings or angels, branding it as an “error.” One is tempted to conclude that the muting of the explicitly Enochic motifs in this story by this particular strand of the Cave of Treasures cycle is a deliberate editorial strategy, originally adopted perhaps to counter the ways in which various “gnostic” groups—​such as the Manichaeans—​had exploited the older “angelic” reading of this story.62 The final example of a potentially fruitful Christian Arabic source to which attention should be drawn is the intriguing exegetical compendium contained in a Leiden manuscript that was published by Paul de Lagarde in the nineteenth century in the second volume of his Materialen zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs.63 Compiled by an unknown Jacobite scholar during the thirteenth century, it interweaves an Arabic translation of the biblical text of Genesis with patristic citations collected from a host of recognized and unknown sources. Aside from the Bible itself, the oldest named authority in this catena is the early third-​century figure Hippolytus, and it is primarily those textual fragments which are attributed to him that have received the lion’s share of scholarly attention to date.64 There are, however, a number of other curious features to this text—​now known in a number of manuscript versions65—​which should be of great interest to scholars of early Jewish literature; for example, the fascinating chain of those figures both legendary and historical who are credited with transmitting the “glorious Torah,” including names which also feature in the opening mishnayot of m. ’Abot 1.66 Some of the pseudo-​Hippolytus citations are particularly intriguing, including one which provides names for the daughters-​in-​law of Noah,67 and another which is introduced by the claim that “I have found (what follows) in an ancient Hebrew text.”68 Among its numerous “non-​Hippolytus” parascriptural citations are a number of apocryphal or otherwise unidentified texts, some of which are attributed to biblical names like Isaiah,69 David,70 or Malachi,71 but others of which are simply introduced anonymously. Given the expansion of our knowledge about parascriptural sources over the past century, a new properly critical study of these citations is sorely needed. This brief essay has illustrated the kinds of contributions which Christian Arabic sources can make to the study of early Jewish and Christian apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature. Much basic work remains to be done, as many manuscripts languish 62.  A. Götze, “Die Nachwirkung der Schatzhöhle,” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 3 (1924): 158–​59, n. 2, viewed this version as “die Polemik gegen den Engelsturz des Henoch-​Buches.” See also H. Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, oder, Die kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1874), 349. 63.  See n. 5 above. 64.  E.g., H. Achelis, Hippolytstudien (TUGAL 16.4; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897), 113–​20; and F. Schulthess apud H. Achelis, ed., Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften (GCS 1.2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897), 85–​119. L. Ginzberg refers to these fragments under the name “pseudo-​Hippolytus”; see his Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–​1938), 5.176, 184, 188, and 193. 65. Achelis, Hippolytstudien, 114–​15; and Graf, Geschichte, 2.284–​92. 66.  Poorthuis, “Tradition and Religious Authority,” 188–​98. 67. Lagarde, Materialen, 2.71.35–​72.4; and Schulthess apud Achelis, 87. 68. Lagarde, Materialen, 2.75.7; and Schulthess apud Achelis, 88. 69. Lagarde, Materialen, 2.34.31–​33; and Graf, Geschichte, 2.288 n. 4. 70. Lagarde, Materialen, 2.179.6–​8. 71.  Ibid., 2.5.25–​27.

209

Ch rist i an A r a b ic

unexamined or poorly catalogued in academic and ecclesiastical collections throughout the world. One thing, however, is certain: those scholars who immerse themselves in the study of the transmission and reception history of early Jewish and Christian texts must begin paying careful attention to the Christian Arabic literary traditions.

Selected Bibliography Adler, W. Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1989. Bar Hebraeus. Chronicon syriacum. Edited by P. Bedjan. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1890. –​–​–​. Ta’rīkh mukhtaṣar al-​duwal. Edited by Antoine Ṣāliḥānī. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1890. Battista, A., and B. Bagatti. Il combattimento di Adamo. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1982. Bezold, C. Die Schatzhöhle “Mē‘ārath Gazzē”. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1883–​1888. Repr., 2 vols. in 1: Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1981. Breydy, M., ed. Das Annalenwerk des Eutychios von Alexandrien. 2 vols. CSCO 471–​72, Scriptores Arabici 44–​45. Louvain: Peeters, 1985. Budge, E. A. W., ed. The Book of the Bee: The Syriac Text . . . with an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886. Chabot, J.-​B., ed. Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum 1234 pertinens. 2 vols. CSCO 81–​82. Paris: Reipublicae, 1916–​1920. –​–​–​, ed. Chronique de Michel de Syrien, patriarche jacobite d’Antioche, 1166–​1199. 3 vols. Paris, 1899–​1924. Repr. in 4 vols.: Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. Cheikho, L., ed. Agapius Episcopus Mabbugensis Historia universalis. CSCO 65, Scriptores Arabici 5. Beirut: E Typographeo Catholico, 1912. –​–​–​, ed. Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales: Pars prior. CSCO 50, ser. arab. III, t. 6. Beirut: E Typographeo Catholico, 1906. Conrad, L. I. “On the Arabic Chronicle of Bar Hebraeus.” Parole de l’Orient 19 (1994): 319–​78. Cowley, R. W. Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation:  A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Denis, A.-​M. Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-​hellénistique. 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Dillmann, A. Das christliche Adambuch des Morgenlandes. Göttingen:  Verlag der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung, 1853. Drint, A. The Mount Sinai Arabic Version of IV Ezra. 2  vols. CSCO 563–​64, Scriptores arabici 48–​49. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Fodor, A. “An Arabic Version of Sefer ha-​R azim.” JSQ 13 (2006): 412–​27. Gibson, M. D. Apocrypha Arabica. Studia Sinaitica 8. London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901. Graf, G. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. 5 vols. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944–​1953. Griffith, S. H. “The Monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic.” Muslim World 78 (1988): 1–​28. –​–​–​. “From Aramaic to Arabic: The Languages of the Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods.” DOP 51 (1997): 11–​31. –​–​–​. The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque:  Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008. –​–​–​. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. –​–​–​. “When Did the Bible Become an Arabic Scripture?,” Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 1 (2013): 7–​23. Haelewyck, J.-​C. Clavis apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. Hoyland, R. G. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. TTH 57. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011. Kraft, R. A. Exploring the Scripturesque:  Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts. JSJSup 137. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

209

210

210

Joh n C .  R eeves Kugel, J. L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Lagarde, P. A. de, ed. Materialen zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1867. Leemhuis, F. et al., eds. The Arabic Text of the Apocalypse of Baruch. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Malan, S. C. The Book of Adam and Eve, Also Called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. London: Williams and Norgate, 1882. Poorthuis, M. J. H. M. “Tradition and Religious Authority: On a Neglected Christian Parallel to Mishna Abot 1,1–​10.” HUCA 66 (1995): 169–​201. Rebiger, B., and P. Schäfer. Sefer ha-​R azim I  und II:  Das Buch der Geheimnisse I  und II. TSAJ 125 and 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Reeves, J. C. “Jewish Apocalyptic Lore in Early Islam: Reconsidering Ka‘b al-​Aḥbār.” In J. Ashton, ed., Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland, 200–​16. AJEC 88. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Ri, S.-​M., ed. La Caverne des Trésors: Les deux recensions syriaques. CSCO 486–​87, scrip. syri 207–​8. Leuven: E. Peeters, 1987. Rönsch, H. Das Buch der Jubiläen, oder, Die kleine Genesis. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1874. Simonsohn, U. “The Biblical Narrative in the Annales of Sa‘īd ibn Baṭrīq and the Question of Byzantine-​Orthodox Identity.” Islam and Christian-​Muslim Relations 22 (2011): 37–​55. Stone, M. E. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. –​–​–​. Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011. Trumpp, E., ed. Gadla ’Adām:  Der Kampf Adams. Abhandlungen der philosophisch-​philologischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 15.3. München: Verlag der K. Akademie, 1881. –​–​–​, ed. Das Hexaëmeron des Pseudo-​Epiphanius. Abhandlungen der philosophisch-​philologischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 16.2. München: Verlag der K. Akademie, 1882. van Bladel, K. The Arabic Hermes: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Vasiliev, A. “Kitāb al-​‘ Unvān:  Histoire universelle écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, première partie (I).” PO 5 (1910): 561–​692, “. . . seconde partie (I).” 7 (1911): 458–​591, and “. . . première partie (II).” 11 (1915): 5–​144. Witztum, J. “Ibn Isḥāq and the Pentateuch in Arabic.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 40 (2013): 1–​71.

21

10

Irish Martin McNamara

Works Discussed Apocalypse of Moses (Greek) Vita latina Adae et Evae Latin Conjoined Treatises on Adam in Vita Adae et Evae Adam Created in agro Damasceno De octo partibus of Adam’s Body The Four Elements from which Adam was Made The Naming of Adam from the Four Cardinal points/​stars/​sods The Penance of Adam and Eve 1 Enoch 2 Enoch Jubilees Sunday/​Sabbath Respite for the Damned Nauigatio sancti Brendani The XV Signs before Doomsday Jewish Tradition in the Irish Saltair na Rann Lebor Gabála Érenn, the Book of the Taking of Ireland and Jewish tradition. In this chapter I  confine myself to Irish tradition, the part of the Celtic tradition (Gaelic:  Irish, Scotch Gaelic; Welsh, Breton, Cornish) with which I  am most familiar. I study some texts for which a connection with Jewish tradition seems clear. Scholars in various branches of Irish studies, both in art and literature, have observed certain oriental influence, from as far East as Iranian, through Egyptian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian,

21

212

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

Georgian, Antiochene traditions, as well as Jewish. How explain any of these, given the geographic distance between these lands and the western isle, must be examined for each artistic and literary instance. Very often, of course, there is no clear answer, and all that can be done is record the similarities, relationships or presumed dependence. This chapter will examine some instances of relations between Irish and Jewish tradition. The word “some” in the title of the chapter is intentional. Many more instances could be examined, such as “the seven heavens” theme, creation themes, and the fall of Lucifer, the presence of Jewish traditions in major Irish works such as Lebor Gabála Érenn¸ the Book of the Taking of Ireland.1

1.  Mode of Transmission and Intermediaries The existence in Ireland of early apocryphal material and some Antiochene Psalm commentaries, not found elsewhere in Europe, or very scarcely so, has for long been noted. Bernhard Bischoff in his groundbreaking essay on early Irish exegesis noted: [In] the early period of Irish Christianity, in many respects still dark, a refuge was offered for some of the heretical and apocryphal literature which on the Continent were destined to disappear. The authentic form of Pelagius’ commentary on the Pauline Epistles, and parts of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentary on the Psalms were preserved in Ireland. Traces of the transmission of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other apocrypha point to Ireland.2 In very influential essays, J. N. Hillgarth has written on relationship between Visigothic Spain and Ireland.3 Brian Murdoch treats the question in his study of Saltair na Rann and the traditions of the Fall, in which he notes among other matters the analogues with rabbinic tradition.4 He speculates on the way such essentially haggadic ideas on Adam’s head could have reached southwest Cork, Ireland, and Airbertach mac Cosse in the tenth century. Someone known to the poet, or some traveler, might have got the legends at first hand in the Middle East and brought them to Ireland. In his study of the Irish texts on Adam’s 1.  There is a wealth of Irish and European tradition on the popular interpretation of the book of Genesis and on Adam and Eve. See B. Murdoch, The Medieval Popular Bible: Expansions of Genesis in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2003); and Murdoch, The Apocryphal Adam and Eve in Medieval Europe: Vernacular Translations and Adaptations of the Vita (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 2.  B. Bischoff, “Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Frühmittelalter,” Sacris Erudiri 6 (1954):  189–​281 at 195, reprinted in Bischoff, Mittelalterliche Studien:  Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte (Stuttgart:  Hiersemann, 1966), 1.210. English translation of the essay by C. O’Grady, “Turning-​Points in the History of Latin Exegesis in the Early Irish Church:  600–​800,” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 1 (1976): 74–​160 at 78. 3.  J. N. Hillgarth, “The East, Visigothic Spain and the Irish,” Studia Patristica 4 (1961):  442–​56; Hillgarth, “Visigothic Spain and Early Christian Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 62 C (1962): 167–​94; and Hillgarth, “Ireland and Spain in the Seventh Century,” Peritia 5 (1984): 1–​16. 4.  B. Murdoch, “An Early Irish Adam and Eve: Saltair na Rann and the Traditions of the Fall,” Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973): 146–​77 at 174–​76; for Jewish analogues, see p. 165.

213

Irish

head and its relation to Jewish tradition, David Wasserstein notes Hillgarth’s studies on the role of Visigothic Spain, gives the evidence for the presence of Jews in Visigothic Spain (sixth and seventh centuries) and favors consideration of Visigothic Spain as a link between East and West.5 Without written texts identification of intermediaries is hazardous. The texts of Theodore and Pelagius (neither of whom is heretical) more probably came from Italy directly rather than through Spain. Early apocrypha texts of the Transitus Mariae and the so-​called Infancy Narrative of Thomas are from Latin originals, without evidence of transmission through Spain. The texts of Jewish origin studied here are from known Latin texts of European distribution.

2.  Texts 2.1.  Genesis 1–​11—​the Book of Genesis—​the Hebrew Bible The Latin text of Genesis 1–​11, with an Irish translation, is cited in full in the Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland) and used as a framework for an extensive Irish composition on a supposed prehistory of the “Gaedil” (Gaels, Irish race) in Ireland. The patriarchal history, and the Exodus account, is similarly used, as are, apparently, other texts from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible).

2.2.  1 (Ethiopic) Enoch What appears to be a Latin translation of 1 En. 106.1–​18 was identified by M. R. James in 1893 in a ninth-​century manuscript written in Brittany, now in London at the British Library Royal 5.E.XIII, fols. 79v–​80r, a text published by James that same year. R.  H. Charles noted James’s edition and believed it to be a true translation of 1 Enoch, not a collection of texts. In J. T. Milik’s edition of the Qumran Aramaic fragments of Enoch, he takes up the question. He does not believe that the Latin text derives from a translation, complete or incomplete, of the books of Enoch, a position confirmed by P. Petitmengin’s analysis of the text. It thus seems far from clear that there ever was a Latin translation of the Book (or Books) of Enoch. Some fascinating references to Enoch have been noted. This would appear to be due to traditions, rather than a Latin translation of the work, mediated by channels yet to be identified.6

5.  D. Wasserstein, “The Creation of Adam and the Apocrypha in Early Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 88 C (1988): 1–​17 at 14–​16; see n. 46 for a bibliography on the Jews in Visigothic Spain. 6.  On this question, with references, see M. McNamara, “Apocalyptic and Eschatological Texts in Irish Literature: Oriental Connections?,” in M. McNamara, ed., Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage: The Middle East and Celtic Realms (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003), 75–​97 at 78–​79; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1976), 80–​81; and P. Petitmengin, “La compilation ‘De uindictis magnis magnorum peccatorum,’” in R. Gryson, ed., Philologia sacra: Festschrift H. J. Frede & W. Thiele, II (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 622–​38

213

214

214

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

2.3.  The Book of Jubilees A Latin translation of about one quarter of Jubilees (under the title Lepte Genesis) has been preserved in Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, S.P. 9/​9–​10 [olim C 73 inf.] (v–​vi), which, not of Irish origin, came from the scriptorium of Bobbio, a monastery founded in 614 ce by the Irish monk Columbanus († 615). There is no evidence that the work was known in Ireland.7

2.4.  2 Enoch A number of the texts, of presumed Jewish origin, studied below, trace their origin to 2 Enoch.8 This work, extant in two recensions, is notoriously difficult to date, and opinions range from the first century bce to the ninth century ce. Whatever its date, place of origin, or original language, we may presume that it carries Jewish traditions, which have been shown to come to Irish tradition from known Latin originals.

2.5.  The Greek Apocalypse of Moses and the Vita latina Adae et Evae The provenance, whether Jewish or Christian, of the original of this work is a matter of debate.9 Currently, most scholars believe that it is a Jewish work that has undergone certain Christian retouches that are easily identifiable. In recent years, however, some scholars have taken the opposite view, maintaining the Vita Adae et Evae was composed in a Christian milieu.10 The original Greek text (Apocalypsis Mosis) and the Latin translation or translations of it (Vita Adae et Evae) are of particular interest for our topic, since Saltair na Rann, the chief Irish carrier of material on Adam and Eve, follows the Latin text closely, but on occasion has material not found in the accepted Latin texts but present in the Greek. Clarification on debated questions would depend on the edition of the fuller Greek tradition and of the fuller Latin translations. We are now fortunate that great advances have been made on both texts in recent years. The field of both the Greek and Latin traditions has been admirably studied by Michael E. Stone.11 (The Greek tradition has been examined in a doctoral dissertation by M. Nagel).12 He identifies three distinct recensions, with preference for recension II. Michael Stone lists seventy-​three manuscripts of Vita Adae et Evae.13 Jean-​Pierre Pettorelli has studied 107 manuscripts of the work and has made a thorough examination 7.  McNamara, “Apocalyptic and Eschatological Texts,” 79–​80. 8.  A small fragment of this text in Coptic has recently been identified. See J. L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in A. Orlov et al., eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–​34. 9.  M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 58–​61. 10.  See the summary of the evidence in J.-​D. Kaestli, “Le mythe de la chute de Satan et la question du milieu d’origine de la Vie d’Adam et Ève,” in D. H. Warren et al., eds., Texts, Traditions and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon (Biblical Interpretation Series 66; Boston: Brill, 2003), 341–​54 at 347–​48, favoring a Christian origin for the work. 11. Stone, History. 12.  M. Nagel, La vie grecque d’Adam et d’Eve:  Apocalypse de Moïse (PhD diss., Strasbourg, University of Strasbourg, 1974). 13. Stone, History,  25–​30.

215

Irish

of the Latin tradition in preparation for a critical edition of the work. Death prevented him from seeing his work in print. This was done by Jean-​Daniel Kaestli, to which was added a synopsis of the Vita Adae et Evae in Latin, Greek, Armenian, and Georgian.14 In this critical edition special attention is given to Saltair na Rann, with reference to R. Thurneysen’s view expressed in 1885 that the work could not be understood without supposing the existence of a Latin text that combined elements of the Vita Adae et Evae and elements of the Apocalypse of Moses—​both in Latin. Pettorelli notes that such a text has now been found in two manuscripts to which he gives the sigla Pr (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 3832 [xii], pp. 181–​192) and Ma (Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, O 35 sup. [xiv], fol. 95r–​99v), which recension he designates as lat-​P, as distinct from the traditional recension designated lat-​V.15 He furthermore notes the literary relationship between the manuscript copy preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 5327 (x), and the style of Ennodius of Pavia and Aldhelm of Malmesbury, and thinks that more study of the vocabulary and style of this manuscript may help us determine the place of origin and history of the Vita Adae et Evae, which he inclines to think was Britain.16

3.  Traditions 3.1.  Latin Conjoined Treatises on Adam in Vita Adae et Evae In studying the Irish texts on Adam and Eve it is desirable, indeed imperative, that we do so against the background of the Latin texts. There was development of the Adam and Eve tradition in Latin independent of the Latin texts of The Life of Adam and Eve, dependent in various ways on Oriental and Jewish sources. A number of these texts once had independent existence, and came to be assembled at the beginning or the end of Latin texts of Vita Adae et Evae. Thus at the beginning of BnF lat. 5327, fols. 81r–​81v, we have texts on de octo partibus of Adam’s body, which is followed by a text on the naming of Adam from the initial letters of the cardinal points (in Greek), East (Anatalim), West (Dissis), North (Artus) and South (Mensebrion). These in turn are followed by (a) a text on the six sins of Adam after his expulsion from Paradise, (b) another text reporting that the phisici say Adam was formed from the following lands (terris): terra grioni, terra griabim, terra arabim, and terra ebolaim, and (c) a further text headed in capitals: De oc pondera 14.  J.-​P. Pettorelli, “La vie latine d’Adam et Ève: Analyse de la tradition manuscrite,” Apocrypha 10 (1999): 195–​ 296. The critical edition followed: J.-​P. Pettorelli et al., Vita latina Adae et Evae: Synopsis vitae Adae et Evae, Latine, Graece, Armeniace et Iberice (CCSA 18–​19; Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). 15.  Pettorelli has studied and edited the Paris manuscript in J.-​P. Pettorelli, “Vie latine d’Adam et d’Ève; la recension de Paris, BNF, lat.3832,” Archivum latinitatis Medii Aevi 57 (1999): 5–​22, and has done likewise for the Milan text in Pettorelli, “La Vie latine d’Adam et Ève,” Archivum latinitatis Medii Aevi 56 (1998): 5–​104, at 68–​ 104: (Deuxième partie: Une rédaction inconnue de la Vita Adae et Evae originaire de l’Italie du Nord). He notes the bearing of the Milan recension on Saltair na Rann (87 n. 143, 89 n. 146, and 142), which would favor the presence of the Ma tradition in Celtic lands from the end of the first millennium. He devotes a special paragraph to the issue in his essay on the Paris text (38–​39), citing (38–​39 n. 27) with approval Thurneysen’s words in Revue Celtique 6 (1883–​1885): 33 n. 84, in his review of W. Stokes’s edition of the Saltair. 16.  See Pettorelli, Vita latina Adae et Evae¸ 174.

215

216

216

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

unde factus est Adam., namely pondus limi, pomdus mare, p. ignis, p. uenti, p. roris, p. floris, p. feni, p. nubium, with the contribution of each of these to his person and personality. Similarly, in the English recension of the Vita Adae, in the brief text placed at the beginning of the text in Oxford, Balliol College, 228 (xv),17 and in the longer text placed at the end in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 326 (x), fol. 135r, as well as other manuscripts of the English recension of the Vita,18 with some variants—​Adam’s body formed de octo partibus, in the place where Jesus was born in the city of Bethlehem, which is in medio mundi. Adam’s body was there formed from the four corners of the world, with earth brought from there by the four archangels, a land watered by the four rivers Geon, Phison, Tigris, and Eufrate. He received his breath (flatus, spiraculum uitae) from the four winds.19 He was given his name Adam from the four cardinal points Anatolis, Disis, Archos, Mencembrion. Individual elements of this grouping can be found in other late medieval manuscripts. The text with the Octo pondera and man’s composition from the four elements (wind, earth, air and fire) is also preserved in St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 230 (viiiex–​ixin [c. 800]), p. 325, probably written at St. Denis near Paris.

3.2.  Adam Created in agro Damasceno, in the Field of Damascus Gen 2:7, 15 says that the Lord God formed man (‘adam) from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, whereupon the man (ha-​’adam) became a living being. God then took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden. That Adam was formed, created, outside of Eden invited speculation about where he was created. The Irish language prose version of Saltair na Rann on the creation of Adam says that the name of the place where Adam was created was in agro Damusgo, from which he proceeded to Paradise. The Irish text retains the name of the place in Latin.20 The Irish text is dated to about 1100 and as such is the oldest known text with this tradition. It is also found twice in Petrus Comestor’s Historia Scholastica (c. 1179). The first occurrence is in the comment on Gen 2:8, as follows: De paradiso et lignis eius: Plantauerat autem Dominus Deus paradisum uoluptatis a principio [Gen 2:8]. Quasi quaereret aliquis: Remansit homo in loco ubi factus,

17.  These texts from the beginning of the English recension have been published by J. H. Mozley, “The ‘Vita Adae,’” JTS 30 (1928–​1929): 121–​49 at 147, under the heading “Beginning of B” [B = Balliol 228]. 18.  Published by Mozley, “Vita Adae,” 146–​47, as c­ hapters 55–​57 of his edition, and in the critical edition by Pettorelli, Vita latina, 596–​97. 19.  This section with the reference to Bethlehem is absent from the Balliol text. The section of the text (ed. Mozley, “Vita Adae,” 146–​48; and Pettorelli, Vita latina, 596–​97) on the plasmatio of Adam from the four parts of the world, and his naming from the four stars has been published from the end of Sélestat [Schlettstadt], Bibliothèque humaniste, 1A [olim 1093] (vii), by M. Förster, “Adams Erschaffung und Namengebung: Ein lateinischer Fragment des s. g. slavischen Henoch,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11 (1908): 477–​529 at 518–​19. 20.  Ed. from Lebor Brec (Leabhar Breac), p. 110a (bottom) in B. Mac Carthy, The Codex al Palatino-​Latinus, No. 830 (Todd Lecture Series 7; Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1892), 48–​49, translating the Latin phrase. See the translation by M. Herbert in M. Herbert and M. McNamara, Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected Texts in Translation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 3, retaining the Latin as in agro Damasgo.

217

Irish

in agro scilicet Damasceno. Non? Ad quem ergo translatus est? In paradisum, quia Deus die tertia plantauerat. (Historia Scholastica ­chapter 14)21 The Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning. As if anyone should ask: Did the man remain in the place where he was made, that is in the Damascene field. No? Where, therefore, was he transferred to? To the paradise because God had planted (it) on the third day. The tradition occurs again in Comestor’s comment on Gen 3:23, on the sending of Adam out of Paradise: Et, sicut dixerat, emisit eum Dominus de paradiso uoluptatis ut operaretur terram de qua assumptus est [cf. Gen 3:23], in agrum scilicet Damascenum de qua sumptus fuerat, in quo Caym Abel suum fratrem interfecit [Gen 4:8], iuxta quem Adam et Eva sepulti sunt in spelunca duplici. (Historia Scholastica ­chapter 24)22 And, as he had said, The lord sent him out of the paradise of pleasure from which had been taken, that is into the Damascene field from which he had been taken, in which Cain killed his brother Abel (Gen 4:8), near where Adam and Eve are buried in the double cave (cf. Gen 23:19). The manuscript München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 11601 (xiv), at the end of the text (without a break) of the Latin Vita Adae et Evae has: “Et Adam factus est circa paradysum in ag.. (sic) damascena (!) sed Eva in paradyso de costis Ade.”23 This manuscript, along with Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 21534 (xii), form a separate group as part of a sermon collection, with ­chapters 1–​15 of the Vita.24 The reference to the ager damascenus is found in no other text of the Vita. However, Anthony Hilhorst has brought to our attention the same phrase—​in agro Damasceno or in campo Damasceno—​in the works of writers such as Garvase of Tilbury, Vincent de Beauvais, and Jacobus de Voragine in his Golden Legend.25 The question also arose as to the location of the ager Damascenus, whether it was near Damascus or near the double cave, east of Mamre, that is Hebron (cf. Gen 23:19). The latter, apparently, was Comestor’s understanding. Jerome maintained that Adam was buried in Hebron, and this view became common in later writers. A  variant reading of the Latin Life of Adam and Eve in Balliol 228 (at Vita 24) says that “Adam lived for nine

21.  A. Sylwan, ed., Petri Comestoris Scolastica Historia liber Genesis (CCCM 191; Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 28. 22. Sylwan, Petri Comestoris Scolastica Historia, 47. 23.  Edited in Pettorelli, “La vie latine d’Adam et Eve,” 222; cf. Pettorelli, Vita latina Adae et Evae, 60. 24. Pettorelli, Vita latina Adae et Evae, 136–​37. 25.  A. Hilhorst, “Ager Damascenus:  Views on the Place of Adam’s Creation,” in Miscellanea patristica Reverendissimo Domino Marco Starowieyski septuagentario professori illustrissimo viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata (Warsawskie Studia Teologiczne XX.2/​208): 131–​44 at 136–​39.

217

218

218

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

hundred and thirty-​two years in the valley of Hebron.”26 Comestor’s second text also says that the ager Damascenus was where Cain killed his brother Abel. Jerome says that, according to a Jewish tradition, Cain killed his brother Abel in Damascus, which Louis Ginzberg takes to be the well-​known city in Syria. Ginzberg also rejects what he describes as “the whimsical idea” of John a Lapide (Commentarium in Genesim) who assumed that another Damascus in the neighborhood of Hebron is meant here.27 Hilhorst has examined the texts available to him on the matter and finds that there is no clear position as to whether the location was near Hebron or Damascus.28 In sum, given its connection with Hebron and the Jewish story of Cain and Abel, the tradition can be considered as basically Jewish, although in its present form it seems to represent a medieval Latin development, taken over by Irish tradition.

3.3.  The Seven Parts from Which Adam Made—​Octo partes Adae (Adam Octipartite)—​Octo pondera unde factus est Ada On these topics we have both Irish and Latin texts, some mentioning seven or eight parts, most the octo pondera.29 We know of four Irish manuscripts with the text of the eight parts from which Adam was made, some of those identifying the text as the “uii,” seven, parts from which Adam as made. Thus London, British Library, Additional 4783 (xv), fol. 7:  Incipit:  “Is fisigh cidh dia ndearna[d]‌Adhamh.i. do uii rannaib”—​“It is known from what Adam was made, that is, from 7 parts.” As Flower has noted,30 the text is also found in three other manuscripts: London, British Library, Egerton 1782 (xvi1/​4 [1517]), fol. 45v (“Is hedh innso immorro na secht rainn dia ndernadh Adham”); Egerton 136 (xvii2/​4 [1630]), fol. 74b (“Abrom cidh dia ndernadh Adhomh”), and Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, Stowe D.IV.2 [MS 1223] (xv), fol. 53v. There are eight known Latin texts of the piece Octo pondera unde factus est Adam. Max Förster has studied the six of these texts known to him.31 (He was unaware of the aforementioned Paris, BnF lat. 5327, fol. 81, and St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek 230, p. 325.) In this essay he studies the history of this theme. He prints the Latin text, which he regards as

26.  Edited in Mozley, “Vita Adae,” 135. 27.  L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS, 1925), 5.139, n. 19. 28.  Hilhorst, “Ager Damascenus,” 140. 29.  See Förster, “Adams Erschaffung”; and R. Flower, Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the British Library [formerly British Museum] (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1992 [originally 1926]), 522–​24. For occurrences of “De octo partibus Adae” in the critical edition, see Pettorelli, Vita latina Adae et Evae, 175–​77, 200, and 259; for occurrences of “De octo pondera [sic] unde factus est Adam,” see 69, 70, 76, 165, 175, and 178–​79. 30. Flower, Catalogue, 522. 31.  Förster, “Adams Erschaffung.” There is a summary of his position in Flower, Catalogue, 522–​23. There is also a text on the Octo pondera in a ninth-​century Latin commentary on the Dies Dominica, which is probably Irish-​ related, if not of Irish origin. It comes after the mention of the infusion of the soul into Adam on a Sunday: “De octo ponderae factus est : Pondus limi, unde factus caro. Pondus salis, unde salsae sunt lacrimae. Pondus ignis, unde rubicundus est sanguis. Pondus uenti, unde est anhela. Pondus florum, unde est uarietas oculorum. Pondus nubis, unde est instabilitas mentium. Pondus roris, unde est sudor. Haec sunt VIII pondera de quibus factus est Adam. Alius pondus, id est anima, de caelestibus facta est.” Cf. R. E. McNally, ed., Scriptores Hiberniae minores. Pars I (CCSL 108B; Turnhout; Brepols, 1973), 185.

219

Irish

the source of the Irish text in Additional 4783, and considers it (a) as a Latin translation of a Slavonic text (p. 477) and (b) as a Latin text current in Western Europe from the ninth century onward. Other Irish texts follow this West-​European Latin form closely. In the Slavonic and Latin texts, but not in the Irish, there follows and account of the naming of Adam from the initials of the Greek names for the four quarters of the sky, which is clearly an integral part of the text. Förster suggests that the complete text derives ultimately from the lost Greek Book of Enoch represented by Slavonic Enoch (i.e., 2 Enoch). In a later essay,32 Förster prints the text of the text of Additional 4783, fol. 7a, and beside it the Latin text. He considers the Latin text suitable for supplying and correcting the gaps and mistakes in the Irish text, one of which he regards the “uii” (seven) on the incipit, on which he writes “lies VIII” (8). It would seem preferable to retain the manuscript’s “uii,” even if the text gives eight parts. The seven may be a remnant of an original number, nearer to the text of 2 Enoch behind it, with explicit reference to seven components of Adam. I here present a Latin text of the octo pondera, followed by an almost identical text of 2 Enoch’s seven components: De octo partibus factus est Adam. Prima pars est de limo terre scil. caro, sanguis de mari, oculi de sole, cogitaciones bone et tepidose de nubibus, flatus siue anelitus de uento, ossa de lapidibus, anima de spiritu sancto, lux autem mundi que octaua pars est a deo data est. (Balliol 228)33 And on the sixth day I commanded my wisdom to create man out of the seven components: [1]‌his flesh from earth; [second] his blood from dew and from the sun; [third] his eyes from the bottomless sea; [fourth] his bones from stone; [fifth] his reason from the mobility of angels and from clouds’ [sixth] his veins and hair from the grass of the earth; [seventh] his spirit from my spirit and from wind. And I gave him seven properties: hearing to the flesh; sight to the eyes; smell to the spirit; touch to the veins; taste to the blood; to the bones—​endurance; to the reason—​sweetness” (2 En 30.8)34 This is followed a little later by the name from the four cardinal points, East, West, North, and South (or South and North in the shorter form of the text).

3.4.  The Four Elements from Which Adam Was Made The texts relating to the formation and naming of Adam are concerned to link him (and humanity) with natural elements or named places, for instance the four cardinal points or 32.  M. Förster, “Die mittelirische Version von Adams Erschaffung,” Zeitschtrift für celtische Philologie 13 (1921): 47–​48. 33.  Edited in Mozley, “Vita Adae,” 147. 34.  In the translation of F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 150

219

20

220

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

four stars in the naming of Adam (East, West, North, South), or variant positions of these, all, however, controlled by the letters A D A M. We have other Latin and Irish vernacular texts with four components of Adam’s body taken from named places, but with such a bewildering variety in the names that is would seem impossible to determine the original form, although the piece probably has Jewish connections. 35 One text is found in the aforementioned manuscript Paris, BnF 5327, among the group of texts on Adam preceding the Vita Adae et Evae (fol. 81r–​v). It reads:36 Dicunt phisici quod de his terris sit Adam plasmatus, scilicet terra grioni, terra griabim, terra arabim, terra ebolaim. Illius terre haut est similis; uidetur affore nitens ut sol. This is immediately followed by a text, headed in capitals as De oc pondera unde factus est Adam. The English manuscripts of the Vita Adae et Evae do not have this text, but in a note referring to §56 of his edition, Mozley remarks that a parallel to this paragraph may be found in some questions and answers to the Durham Ritual37 in a twelfth-​ century Irish manuscript (part of London, British Library, Additional 37785); after “quot sunt pondera hominis? sunt octo de quibus factus est Adam” etc., comes the following: Quot sunt cispes [? Cespites] de quibus factus est Adam? quatuor sunt. Cispes de terra Garoth de qua creauit Dominus caput eius. Cispes de terra Arabon de qua factum pectus eius. Cispes de terra Auriolon de qua formatus est uenter eius. Cispes de terra Greconia de qua facti sunt pedes eius et femora eius. These names presumably represent the four parts of the world, and correspond to “de quatuor angulis terre corpus Adae factum est” of section 56 of the main English text. Other Latin texts on the topic give the place-​names as Grabunt, Arabum, and Eboloehi, or Graput, Gregem, Arabia, and Enbulexi. Variants also exist in the Slavic tradition.38 There are a number of Irish vernacular texts on the four sods from named areas from which members of Adam’s body were formed, all agreeing that there were four sods of earth, but with great variety as regards the names of the places from which these sods were taken. In a well-​known poem by Airbertach mac Cosse (dated in the text as 5199 Anno Mundi¸ and eighteen years before the millennium, corresponding to either 982 or 985 ce).39 The verses on Adam’s formation come at the end of a metric rendition of an introduction to the Psalter by Airbertach. Mac Cosse says he translated this text on Adam’s

35. Flower, Catalogue, 522–​24. 36.  Ed. Pettorelli, Vita latina Adae et Evae, 179. 37.  Förster, “Adams Erschaffung,” 493–​99. 38.  See D. Wasserstein, “Creation of Adam,” 11. 39.  The text is edited, translated, and annotated by P. Ó Néill, “Airbertach mac Cosse’s Poem on the Psalter,” Éigse 17 (1977–​1979): 19–​46 at 38–​45.

21

Irish

formation from Latin. The final verses say that Adam’s head was made from the sunny earth of Garad; his breast from the beautiful earth of Aradon; his belly from Lodain, his feet from the land of Agoria. Ó Néill is of the view that the elements of which Adam was composed, according to these verses, would seem to derive text ultimately from an apocryphal account of the vision of Enoch in 2 Enoch.40 The prose text of Saltair na Rann, immediately after the text on the naming of Adam from the four stars, says that “these are the names of the four sods of which Adam was made: namely, Malon, Arton, Biblon, Agore. Of Malon, to wit, was his head; of Arton, his breast; of Biblon, his belly; of Agore his feet.”41 A prose text in the Lebor Gabála Érenn has a similar list to that in Airbertach: Adam’s head from the land of Garad, his breast of the land of Arabia, his belly of Lodain, his legs of the land of Agoria.42 A Lebor Gabála verse account has a different list: Adam’s head from the good land of Malon; his breast from Aron; his belly from ever-​fierce Babylon; his legs from Laban; his thighs from the country of Gogoma.43 A question arises as to whether these names, in the Latin or Irish texts, are fanciful, or whether there stands behind the names and the substance of the text a definite tradition, the names becoming garbled in the process of transmission. In his notes on the Lebor Gabála, Macalister makes reference to Syriac and rabbinic tradition.44 David Wasserstein had made a detailed study of the subject and believes that behind the names and traditions there is a Jewish rabbinic tradition. He cites the text of the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 38a–​38b, noted already by other scholars:45 Rabbi Oshayah said in the name of Rab: the first man (Hebrew’ adam ha-​rišon), his body (trunk) was from Babylon (Heb. Babel), and his head from the Land of Israel (Heb. ’ereṣ Yisra’el) and his limbs from the rest of the lands [of the earth] (Heb. š’ar ha-​’araṣot); and his buttocks (Heb. ‘igbotaw), according to Rabbi Aḥa, from ‘Aqra’ de-​’Agma’. Wasserstein is of the opinion that the Jewish source as reflected in the Talmud (though not in the Talmudic version itself ) is the ultimate source of the Irish versions, and of the Latin version with Irish connections; it may also underlie the Slavonic version(s).

40.  With reference to texts in R. H. Charles’s edition of this work in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 2.448–​49. 41.  Mac Carthy, Codex Palatino-​Latinus, No. 830,  48–​49. 42.  R A.  S. Macalister, ed., Lebor Gabála Erenn:  The Book of the Taking of Ireland (Irish Texts Society 34; Dublin: Educational Company of Ireland, 1938), 26–​27; with comment 203–​4. 43.  Ibid., 174–​75, with comment 261. 44.  Ibid.,  203–​4. 45.  Wasserstein, “The Creation of Adam,” 8. The rabbinic text was already noted by Macalister, Lebor Gabála Érenn, 203.

221

2

222

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

3.5. The Naming of Adam The Naming of Adam was one of the elements of the pieces on Adam brought together in the Latin texts already mentioned.46 The same holds true for the Slavonic texts, as Förster has noted. This is not so in the Irish vernacular texts, but the piece does exist in Irish tradition. An Irish translation of it is found in the Lebor Gabála Érenn, paragraph 27,47 in the prose rendering of the Saltair na Rann, in prose and in verse (Anatole, Disis, Arctos, Misimbria),48 and in a Latin text in the Expositio quatuor evangeliorum (PL 30, col. 553B), probably from a Hiberno-​Latin text of the seventh century, a brief text which is probably accompanied by other elements of the original grouping. The context is interested in groupings of four as symbols of the four gospels. Et homo ex quatuor elementis consistit: ex aere, igne, et aqua, et terra. Ex aere, flatus: igne, sanguis: aqua, flamma, terra, corpus. Per caput coelum, ubi sunt duo luminaria: pectus, aer; venter, aquam: pedes, terram. Item, Adam a quatuor stellis nomen accepit, quod est: artis, dosis, anatholis, mesimbrio. One naturally sees as background 2 En. 30.13 (in the long recension), a continuation of the text on the seven components of Adam (Man): “And I assigned to him a name from the four components: from East –​A; from West –​D; from North –​A; from South –​M.”49 The Slavonic text presupposes a Greek background for the names of the cardinal points. 2 Enoch is notoriously difficult to date, as noted. In an edition and study of the Slavonic Book of Enoch, André Vaillant50 has maintained that the text that interests us belongs to what he considers an addition by the “first reviser,” probably in the second half of the sixteenth century, a revision which has given rise to the “long text” of 2 Enoch. Dominique Cerbelaud has made a thorough examination of the text in question, tracing its occurrence in writers of the late Middle Ages to the beginning, back to the (Greek) Sibylline Oracles, where it occurs four times. The text that interests us is SibOr 3.24–​26,51 which may be dated to the first century bce: “Indeed it is God himself who fashioned Adam, of four letters, the first-​formed man, fulfilling by his name east and west and south and north” (in that order).52 Cerbeloud notes that in this text the name of Adam is designated as “tetragrammatic,” as the unpronounceable name of God himself, and comments: “Cette allusion 46.  On this topic see Förster, “Adams Erschaffung,” 477–​529; D. Cerbelaud, “Le nom d’Adam et les points cardinaux: Recherches sur un thème patristique,” VC 38 (1984): 285–​301; and S. J. Voicu, “Adamo, acrostico del mondo,” Apocrypha 18 (2007), 205–​29. 47. Macalister, Lebor Gabála Erenn, 54–​57: Anatoile, Dissis, Arethos [Atctos], Mesimbria. 48.  Irish text with English translation edited by Mac Carthy, Codex Palatino-​Vaticanus, No. 830,  46–​49. 49.  Trans. F. I. Andersen, “2 Enoch,” 152. 50.  A. Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Henoch (Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves, 21976), 100–​101. 51.  In the translation of J. J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 362. 52.  The same wrong order (“south and north”) also occurs in manuscripts P and P2 of the long text of 2 Enoch, but manuscripts J and R have it correctly. Andersen in a note to the text (152, note m) says: “If P P2 is original (an error innocently derived from SibOr) then J R results from correction (in Slav.!) by someone who knew the solution to the riddle in Gk.”

23

Irish

confirme bien le caractère proprement juif du passage, et nous invite donc à situer les origines de notre motif dans le milieu du judaïsme alexandrine.”53 The motif and wording occurs again in some later Christian or christianised Sibylline Oracles. It was known to an Alexandrian writer in Greek. It is the source of a passage in the Liber de montibus Sina et Sion, a Christian composition of the third century, probably written in North Africa, and has influenced other African writers. It was known to the author (probably Irish) of the Expositio quatuor euangeliorum (already mentioned), and later Latin writers and also to the reviser of the Slavonic Enoch, already referred to.54

3.6.  The Penance of Adam and Eve In both the Greek Apocalypse of Moses and the Latin Vita Adae et Evae the text begins with the expulsion of the protoplasts from Paradise. This expulsion is followed by the Penance of Adam and Eve. In fact, a number of the Latin texts of the Vita are headed: De penitentia Adae et Evae. The theme of the penance of Adam and Eve forms part of Jewish legend.55 It is also found in Saltair na Rann (Canto XI, lines 1573–​1720) and in the prose rendering of the Saltair na Rann. This has been edited, with English translation, by B. Mac Carthy.56 Máire Herbert has published a new English translation,57 based on Dublin, Royal Irish Academy, 25 P 25, fols. 64vb–​65rb, collated with the Leabhar Breac text edited by Mac Carthy, and Dublin, Trinity College, H.2.16 (MS 1318: The Yellow Book of Lecan), cols. 846–​848. For another version she refers to the text edited by Alan C. Anderson,58 from Edinburgh, Advocates Library, XL (Adv. Ms 72.1.40), pp. 45b–​48b. In her notes to the text Herbert remarks that the opening section (chs. 1–​17) of the Vita Adae et Evae gives a description of the repentance of the first parents and that the present text follows the Vita so closely that this would appear to be the main, if not its sole, source. Her main texts reads, “Tiber” for “Tigris,” and in her paragraph 5 (corresponding to Vita 6–​7) there may be an influence from the Apocalypsis Mosis (29,13), in the angels and living creatures (see Vita 8,3) assembled around Adam. The mention of angels in this context, we may note, is found only in the Greek text, not in any text of the Latin Vita, nor in the Armenian or Georgian translations.59

3.7.  Sunday/​Sabbath Respite for the Damned How to reconcile the infinite mercy of God with belief in eternal punishment has presented a problem both to Jewish and Christian believers. It is only natural that some attempts

53.  Cerbeloud, “Le nom,” 298. 54.  See Cerbelaud, “Le nom,” 299–​300. 55.  See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 1.86–​89, with nn. 107–​9 in vol. 5. 56.  Mac Carthy, Codex Palatino-​Vaticanus. No. 830,  60–​71. 57.  In Herbert and McNamara, Irish Biblical Apocrypha, 8–​11, nn. 165–​166. 58.  A. C. Anderson, “Peannaid Adaim,” Revue celtique 24 (1903):  243–​53. See also M. McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1975), 19 (no. 1Bab4). 59.  See all the texts in synopsis in Pettorelli, Vita latina Adae et Evae, 774–​75.

223

24

224

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

would have been made to reconcile the two beliefs. One was belief in some temporary respite for the damned. Belief in such a respite seems to have circulated rather widely in certain Christian circles in the early fifth century. The belief of a respite each Sunday is prominent in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli), to which we shall return later. The composition purports to be a vision Paul had about the afterlife. Introductory chapters explain how and why it remained hidden until the consulate of Theodosius and Cynegius, that is about 388 ce, indicating that the Visio was launched about that year, although the original composition may have been earlier. Augustine treats of this belief of a respite for the damned, without any specific reference to Sunday or Christ’s resurrection. He mentions it in his Enarratio on Ps 105, no.2, on Ps 105:1:60 “His mercy endures until the end of the world,” or “for ever.” Commenting on this text Augustine remarks that “some [of the damned] will receive more tolerable condemnation than others; yet who would dare to say that the punishment to which one has been delivered will be mitigated, or have any pause for certain intervals, since the rich man was not counted worthy of one drop of water?” In this text of the Enarrationes (a work completed about 416 ce) Augustine rejects any idea of mitigation or break in the punishment. He takes a more lenient view in the Enchiridion (chap. 112), written in 423 for the layman Laurentius:61 It is in vain, therefore, that some, indeed, very many, out of mere human sentiment deplore the eternal punishment and the unceasing and everlasting torments of the damned, and do not believe that such things will be. . . . But let them believe, if they care to, that the torments of the damned are to some extent mitigated at certain intervals. Even so, the wrath of God, that is, their condemnation, . . . can still be understood to rest upon them. Thus, even in His wrath, that is, while His wrath endures, He would not withhold His mercies; yet, not so as to put an end to their eternal punishment, but rather to apply or to interpose some little respite from their torments. A little earlier (c. 402)  Prudentius had expressed similar sentiments in his poem Cathemerinon,62 rather obviously dependent on the Visio Pauli, although he may have been thinking of Easter Sunday rather than of every Sunday. Sunt et spiritibus saepe nocentibus poenarum celebres sub Styge feriae 60.  PL 37, col. 1406: “Sed tolerabiliorem quosdam excepturos damnationem in quorumdam comparatione legimus; alicuius vero mitigari eam cui est traditus poenam, vel quibusdam intervallis habere aliquam pausam, quis audacter dixerit, quandoquidem unam stillam dives ille non meruit” (Luke 16:24–​26) (cf. PL 47, cols. 738–​739). 61.  Enchiridion (Faith, Hope and Charity), 112; in the translation of L. A. Arand, St. Augustine. Faith, Hope and Charity (Ancient Christian Writers 3; Westminster, MD, 104–​5. See also De ciuitate Dei, 21,24,3 (PL 47, cols. 738–​739). 62.  Cathemerinon V, 125–​ 128; cf. J. Bergman, ed., Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Carmina (CSEL 61; Wien: Holder-​Pichler-​Tempsky, 1926), 30. English translation that of M. Clement Eagan, The Poems of Prudentius

25

Irish

illa nocte, sacer qua rediit Deus stagnis ad superos ex Acherunticis Even souls of the lost suffering in the depth of Hell Have some respite from pain, holding glad holiday On that night when the Lord came to the world above Up from Acheron’s pool, rising to life again. It may well be that the belief in the Sunday respite for the damned did not originate with Christians at all, but is rather a Jewish belief taken over by Christians. This is the view proposed by Israel Lévi.63 He notes the Jewish practice to prolong certain prayers at the end of the Sabbath to prolong the respite accorded to the damned, because as long as the faithful have not finished the evening office, the wicked are not obliged to return to Gehenna to recommence the cycle of suffering. He also instances a discussion between the wicked Tinneus Rufus (a Roman governor of Judea) and R. Akiba recorded both in the (Palestinian) Bereshit Rabba 11 (5) and in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 65b. The discussion is on a question posed by Tinneus Rufus to R. Akiba as to why the Sabbath differs from other days. In the course of the debate R. Akiba refers to a necromancer who can bring up the dead every day but not on the Sabbath, instancing his own father who came up from the dead every day but not on the Sabbath. Asked about the reason for this, the reply was, “The whole week we undergo judgment, but on the Sabbath we rest.” The fact that this pseudo-​discussion exists in the Babylonian Talmud and the Palestinian midrash, independent of each other, shows that the tradition existed in the fourth century ce at the latest. In his view one must conclude from the evidence that it is the Christians who have received from the Jews this belief, for long popular in Palestine as in Babylon. It came to Christians from the Jews in the second half of the fourth century.64 We may now turn to the tradition of the respite in the Latin and Irish tradition.65 The request for the respite is found both in the Transitus Mariae and the Visio Pauli, the former probably the earlier, but the latter by far the more influential in later tradition. The original of the Latin Visio Pauli, namely, the Greek Apocalypse of Paul, was composed in Egypt in (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 43; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1962), 36, with reference to Augustine, Enchiridion, 112. 63.  I. Lévi, “Le repos sabbatique des âmes damnés,” RÉJ 25 (1892): 1–​13; and Lévi, “Notes complémentaires sur le repos des ames damnés,” RÉJ 26 (1893): 131–​35. 64.  Lévi, “Le repos,” 3, and 9–​10. For Christian material, see S. Merkle, “Die Sabbatruhe in der Hölle:  Ein Beitrag zur Prudentius-​Erklärung und zur Geschichte der Apokryphen,” Römische Quartalschrift 9 (1895): 489–​ 505. A full and recent examination of the question, with a rich bibliography, is found in M. Erbetta, ed., Gli apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, III: Lettere e Apocalissi (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1969), 377–​78 n. 56. See also B. E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church:  A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1991), 121–​22. Daley makes no mention of the views of Augustine or Prudentius on this matter, but notes (on p. 76) that Ephrem does allow for the possibility that God will mitigate the exercise of his justice against condemned sinners, and may allow “some drops of water” to fall into Gehenna occasionally to refresh them. 65.  For the belief in Irish tradition, see L. Gougaud, “La croyance au répit périodique des damnés dans les légendes irlandaises,” Mélanges bretons et celtiques offerts à J. Loth (Annales de Bretagne; Rennes and Paris: Plihon et Hommay and H. Champion, 1927), 63–​72.

225

26

226

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

the third century if not slightly earlier. A copy of the early Greek edition was brought to Asia Minor from which an expanded text (known as the Tarsus text) was made in the early fifth century. The Western tradition of the work descends from a Latin translation of the Greek in its second edition. The Visio was extremely influential in the West. In the words of Theodore Silverstein, the Visio became “one of the chief formative elements in the developments of the later legends of Heaven and Hell which culminated in the Divina Commedia of Dante.”66 It is known to have influenced the Vision of St Patrick’s Purgatory, and also the Vision of Adamnán, the Visio Tnugdali, and probably other Irish texts besides. Chapters 31–​44 of the Visio describe Paul’s visitation of Hell in the company of the archangel Michael. Toward the end of this visit (ch. 44) the damned petition mercy from Michael, from the just on earth, and from Paul. To this request Jesus replies (Visio Pauli 44, end): [N]‌ow because of Michael the archangel of my covenant and the angels that are with him, and because of Paul my dearly beloved whom I would not grieve, and because of your brethren that are in the world and do offer oblations, and because of your sons, for in them are my commandments, and yet more because of my own goodness: on the day, whereon I rose from the dead I grant all of you that are in torment refreshment for a day and a night for ever.67 By the day Jesus rose from the dead every Sunday, rather than Easter Sunday alone, is probably intended. And even if not originally intended as Sunday by the original author, the text could very easily be interpreted in this sense, as its in the long Latin text of St. Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 317 (ix2/​2), where the Sunday reference is made clear: dono uobis . . . noctem et diem domenicae refrigerium in perpetuum.68 The most natural understanding of the day and the night intended would appear to be Saturday night and Sunday, although the text could be construed (and indeed was so understood by some) as extending to early Monday. The extent of the Sunday respite for the damned (and even its very existence) differs somewhat in various recensions of the Visio Pauli and in other texts making mention of the respite, such as some of the many varying forms of the Transitus Mariae. The variety on the matter in the recensions and translations of the Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) is quite interesting. The Syriac translation makes no mention of any respite. On the other hand, the Coptic version speaks of a respite for the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost (fifty days after Easter), together with the Sunday respite. This remarkable text merits citation. The

66.  T. Silverstein, Visio sancti Pauli: The History of the Apocalypse in Latin Together with Nine Texts (Studies and Documents 4; London, 1935), 3. See also P. Dinzelbacher, “Die Verbreitung der apokryphen ‘Visio S. Pauli’ im mittelalterlichen Europa,” Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 27 (1992): 77–​90. On the Visio see also M. McNamara, The Apocrypha, 105–​06 (no. 91). 67.  Visio Pauli, ch. 44; trans. M. R. James, The Apocryphal NT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 546. 68.  In T. Silverstein and A. Hilhorst, eds., Apocalypse of Paul: A New Critical Edition of Three Long Latin Versions (Cahiers d’orientalisme 21; Genève: Patrick Cramer, 1997), 162.

27

Irish

relevant section of Christ’s reply to the request of the damned is as follows (in the translation of E. A. Wallis Budge): 69 But, for the sake of Michael and My beloved Paul, I do not wish to grieve you, and those (i.e. Michael and Paul) offer up offerings on your behalf, and on behalf of your children and brethren, for there is among them who performeth my commandments. And because of my goodness, and because I rose from the dead [on this day], I will give unto you rest upon the Lord’s Day every week, and during the fifty days which follow the [day of the] Resurrection, whereon I rose from the dead. In various forms of the Transitus Mariae the case is somewhat similar with regard to the respite for the damned. In the Ethiopic version (§ 100) the damned are granted a Sunday respite until three in the afternoon.70 In the Greek Apocalypse of the Virgin (§ 29) during the days of Pentecost the damned can rest and praise the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.71 In one of the Latin versions of the Transitus,72 the Sunday respite is for three hours. The same is true of the Irish translation.73 One definition of the period of respite was from Vespers on Saturday until the hour of Terce of Monday morning. This latter we have in one Irish translation of the Visio Pauli, that in the Dublin Royal Irish Academy, 24 P 25 (xi), pp. 68–​80,74 in response to a request of Michael and Paul, Christ replies: “On account of the appeal of Mary, Michael and Paul, and the saints besides, and out of my own goodness I grant them a respite from vespers of Saturday to the third hour of prime (? teirt prime,Terce prime) of Monday.”75 In the Old Irish text Cain Domnaig, on Sunday

69.  Original Coptic text and English translation by E. A. Wallis Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, Edited with English Translation (London: British Museum, 1915), clxii (summary), 534–​47 (text), and 1043–​84 (translation); text cited on 1069 (brackets as in Budge’s original). For the Coptic version, see Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del NT, 377, n. 56, who thinks that the Coptic may represent one of the texts that have not been affected by the changes proper to the Tarsus recension of the Apocalypse of Paul. 70.  See the Italian translation in M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento. Vangeli. I/​2. Infanzia e passione di Cristo. Assunzione di Maria (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1981), 442. 71. James, Apocryphal NT, 563. See also W. Schneemelcher, “Later Apocalypses,” in R. McL. Wilson, trans. and ed., New Testament Apocrypha, II, Apostolic and Early Church Writings (London: Lutterworth, 1965), 753–​54; and the note to §100 of the Ethiopic translation in Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi I,2, 454. 72.  In Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 3550 (xiii), fol. 11r; relevant text ed. by A. Wenger in L’Assomption de la T. S. Vierge dans la tradition Byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle: Études et documents (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 5; Paris Institut français d’Études byzantines, 1955), 259. Fols. 1–​11 of this manuscript contains a known Latin Transitus, which ends (fols. 10r–​11r) with a small Apocalypse of the Virgin not found in other texts; see S. Mimouni, “Les Apocalypses de le Vierge, état de la question,” Apocrypha 4 (1993): 101–​12 at 109–​12. 73.  For the Irish texts, see C. Donohue, ed., The Testament of Mary:  The Gaelic Version of the Visio Mariae Together with an Irish Latin Version (New York: Fordham University Press, 1942), 54–​55. The “Irish” Latin text of the Dormitio has no visit of hell, and no reference to a respite for the damned. All the Irish Transitus texts, vernacular and Latin, have been critically edited (vernacular by Caoimhín Breatnach, Latin by Joseph Flahive), and are scheduled to be published in Apocrypha Hiberniae vol. II, 2, Eschatologica (Turnhout, Brepols). 74.  Ed. J. E. Caerwyn Williams, “Irish Translations of the Visio Sancti Pauli” Éigse 6 (1948–​1952): 127–​34 at 133. Translation follows that of M. Herbert in Herbert and McNamara, Irish Biblical Apocrypha, 135. 75.  The Irish text ends literally: “from Vespers of Saturday until Terce Prime of Monday,” where teirt prime may be due to a conflation of two traditions as to when precisely on Monday the respite ended. Otherwise, this Irish text follows closely the Latin of Homily 100 of Pseudo-​Bede of Recension IV of the Visio Pauli (PL 94, cols. 501–​2).

227

28

228

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

observance, it is stated that “not even those in hell are tortured on that day,”76 that is, on Sunday. It is worth recalling that a few paragraphs earlier, the same work says that Sunday observance (and thus implicitly the Sunday respite) is to be observed from Vespers on Saturday to Terce on Monday. In the Vision of Adamnán (tenth century), the respite is only for three hours on Sunday,77 although here there may be question not of the damned in hell but of the souls in Purgatory.78 In the Vision of Tundal (written by the Irishman Mark in 1149) the respite is also for three hours, but this is repeated daily rather than weekly, as in the case of the Vision of Adamnán.79 And here the daily respite is instanced only for one person (King Cormac Mac Carthy, †1138), rather that for all the damned. In Matthew Arnold’s poem “Saint Brendan,” Judas gets only one hour respite each Christmas night.80 Chapter  25 of the Nauigatio sancti Brendani is “The Unhappy Judas,” who is presented as a man sitting on a rock where he has a place of refreshment every Sunday from evening to evening, but also over the extended period from Christmas to Epiphany, from Easter to Pentecost, the feast of Mary’s Purification and Assumption, as well as the Sundays outside of these (c. 42 days). This gives a total of 12 + 50 + 1 + 1 + 42 Sundays = 106 days out of 365.81 It would appear the author had certain traditions for many at least of these respite days. The tradition of the Christmas respite came down as far as Matthew Arnold (but only for three hours); the Sunday rest is well established. The author of the Nauigatio may have a tradition of a respite from Easter to Pentecost from some eastern source (Ethiopic, Coptic); the tradition for the rest on the Assumption was built possibly on a text of the

The Latin corresponding to the end of the Irish text has concedo vobis requiem ab hora nona sabbati usque ad horam primam feriae secundae (PL 94, col. 502C; “from the ninth hour [None; three in the afternoon] on Saturday until the first hour [Prime] on Monday”). 76.  J. G. O’Keeffe, ed., “Cáin Domnaig,” Ériu 2 (1905):  189–​212 at 195; translation that of M.  Herbert, in Herbert and McNamara, Irish Biblical Apocrypha, 51. 77.  The Vision of Adomnán, § 30 in translation of C. S. Boswell, An Irish Precursor of Dante (Grimm Library 18; London: David Nutt, 1908), 43; § 38 in the translation of M. Herbert, in Herbert and McNamara, Irish Biblical Apocrypha, 145–​46. New critical edition prepared by John Carey, Fís Adamhnáin, for publication in Apocrypha Hiberniae II, Apocalyptica 2, Turnhout: Brepols (forthcoming). 78.  Thus, Gougaud, “La croyance,” 65. 79.  A. Wagner, ed., Visio Tnugdali: Lateinisch und altdeutsch (Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1882), 44. 80.  M. Arnold, “Saint Brandan,” Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold (London:  Macmillan and Co., 1898), 165–​67. 81.  See M. McNamara, “Navigatio Sancti Brendani: Some Possible Connections with Liturgical, Apocryphal and Irish Tradition,” in G. S. Burgess and C. Strijbosch, eds., The Brendan Legend: Texts and Versions (Northern World 24; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 159–​91. See also P. Lehmann, “Judas Ischariot in der lateinischen Legendenüberlieferung des Mittelalters,” Studi Medievali 2, n.s., (Stuttgart, 1959), 229–​86 [a work I  have been unable to consult]; L. Kretzenbacher, “Sankt Brandan, Judas und die Ewigkeit,” in Bilder und Legenden: Erwandertes und erlebtes Bibler-​ Denken und Bild-​Erzählen zwischen Byzantz und dem Abenland (Aus Forschung und Kunst; Klagenfurt: Habelt, 1971), P. Dinzelbacher, Judas Traditionen (Raabser Märchen-​Reihe 2; Wien:  Selbstverlag des Österreichschen Museums für Volkskunde, 1977); P. F. Baum, “Judas’ Sunday Rest,” Modern Language Review 18 (1923): 168–​82; and, most recently, K. Paffenroth, Judas: Images of the Lost Disciple (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), with rich bibliography, 179–​96 (in the section of this work on the Brendan legend see pages 125–​126, drawing mainly on the essay of P. F. Baum; while reference is made to the Voyage of St. Brendan, the text in question is really the Vita Secunda, edited by C. Plummer). See also L. Gougaud, “La croyance,” 65–​66; and St. J. Seymour, Irish Visions of the Other World (London:  SPCK, 1930), 87–​92. In Seymour’s opinion (88–​89) the treatment accorded to Judas Iscariot in the Brendan legend would appear to be unique, and thus confined to Irish literature, although parallels are found elsewhere but with obvious evidence of borrowing from the Irish legend.

29

Irish

Transitus Mariae (which speaks at most of a Sunday rest). The person who has given us the Nauigatio has presented the strongest form of this tradition on the respite for the damned (represented by Judas) known to us, a presentation depending on some traditional sources but, probably as we have it in the Navigatio, a formulation proper to the author of the work himself.

3.8.  The XV Signs before Doomsday A text that merits consideration as of Jewish origin is the one that is known as The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday.82 The fifteen-​day system is represented by four traditions (which can be reduced to three), all rather closely related: (a) the Pseudo-​Bedan, (b) that of Peter Damian († 1072); and (c) that of Peter Comestor. In each of these, the work is presented as that of Jerome which he found in a Jewish work, in annalibus Hebraeorum. The best known and most influential of the versions is that of the Pseudo-​Bedan Collectanea,83 regarded by many scholars as of early Irish origin. Whatever of this, the Fifteen Signs is very well represented in Irish texts from the twelfth century onward. All these are of Western origin. A significant new element, however, has been added to the discussion by Michael E. Stone, who has published and studied two Armenian versions, preserved in Jerusalem, texts written in 1741 ce (text I) and 1669 ce (text II).84 The first of these texts, and the older in form, is introduced with the words: “And other doctors say, ‘We have read in the books of the Jews that there are going to be fifteen signs on fifteen days before the Judgment.’ ”85 These Fifteen Signs of the Armenian texts I and II are those of the Latin tradition of Pseudo-​Bede and Comestor. Stone is aware of Heist’s position, regarding the Irish origin of the Fifteen Signs tradition, but views it with some reservations. After a detailed study of the Armenian and Irish traditions, he writes:86

82.  See McNamara, Apocrypha in the Irish Church, 128–​38, no. 104; as well as W. W. Heist, The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday (East Lansing: Michigan State College Press, 1952); and C. Gerhardt and N. F. Palmer, xv. signa ante iudicium: Studien und Texte zur Überlieferungsgeschichte eines eschatologischen Themas (Oxford: Privatdruck, 1986). The same authors later published Das Münchner Gedicht von den 15 Zeichen vor dem Jüngsten Gericht: Nach der Handschrift der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek Cgm 717; Edition und Kommentar (Texte des Späten Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit 41; Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2002). 83.  M. Bayless and M. Lapidge, eds., Collectanea Pseudo-​Bedae (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14; Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1998). All the Irish material on the Signs before Doomsday, with accompanying study of its history, has been edited for publication in Apocrypha Hiberniae, vol. II, 2, Eschatologica (Turnhout: Brepols), forthcoming. 84.  M. E. Stone, Signs of Judgement, Onomastica Sacra and the Generations from Adam (UPAT 3; Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1981), 1–​57; and Stone, “Jewish Tradition, the Pseudepigrapha and the Christian West,” in D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, eds., The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Setting ( JSOTSup 166; Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 431–​49 at 432–​35. In a communication of October 30, 2013, Professor Stone has kindly informed me that he has identified another Armenian text concerning the Fifteen Signs in Yerevan, Matenadaran M2188, fols. 242v–​243r, a miscellany of the fifteenth century (so the catalogue), in ancient Armenian used as a literary language. This he classes as the Armenian XV Signs Texts—​Recension III. It is quite different from the ones he published from two Jerusalem manuscripts in 1981. Three of the signs are basically the same in all three Armenian texts. This one lacks any introduction with mention of “the books of the Jews.” 85. Stone, Signs, 23. 86. Stone, Signs, 13–​15 at 15, with reference to Heist, Fifteen Signs, 201–​2, for the final paragraph.

229

230

230

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

“The discovery of an Armenian version which has undergone certain textual development in that language may serve to open the issue of origins once more. It could, of course, be a translation from Latin, depending ultimately on Old Irish sources. Perhaps, however, the filiation suggested by Heist should take clearer account of the possible origins of a list of fifteen signs in older writings, parallel to his suggested Irish source documents. This would not be out of keeping with the unique role of Ireland in preserving ancient texts little known elsewhere in Europe.” While granting that the Armenian texts may represent an old tradition independent of the Latin, the date of the manuscripts and the known late medieval contacts of the Armenian with the Latin Church make it more likely that in the Armenian texts on the Fifteen Signs we are dealing with Latin tradition imported into Armenia.87 Because of this, the Armenian material may be omitted from the discussion of the origin and development of this tradition. It is not easy determine the exact date or place of origin of the Fifteen Signs or its relation to Jewish tradition. The form nearest the original seems to be that of Pseudo-​Bede. If not from Jewish sources (as perhaps suggested by the title In annalibus Hebraeorum), it seems to derive from circles favorable to Judaism, and if the author was a Christian he seems careful not to derive the signs of Doomsday from Christian or biblical tradition. While the history of Christian Hebraism dates from the fourteenth century (notably Nicholas of Lyra), there were contacts between European Christian scholars and Jewish learning already in the Carolingian age.88 In his revision of the Vulgate bishop Theodulf of 87.  See also M. E. Stone, “Two Unpublished Eschatological Texts,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18 (2009): 293–​302. In Stone’s opinion one of the texts he publishes (“Concerning the Places of the Underworld” Yrevan, Matenadaran M4618) seems to reflect Latin views and is typical of material that made its way from the West into Armenia, from the Crusader period on, particularly through the Dominicans. Such an origin is indicated both by the term and concept of “Limbo” and by the idea of purgatory, neither of which is at home in the thought of the Armenian Apostolic Church or, indeed, of the Eastern churches in general. These ideas were given a pivotal medieval formulation by Albertus Magnus (1200–​1280) and much popularized by Hugh Ripelin (c. 1210–​c. 1270). M4618 is a miscellany made up of parts written at various times between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. The parts of it were copied at different places in Armenia. The second text that Stone publishes, from London, British Library Harley 5459 (xvii4/​4 [1689]), is on the Fifteen Signs. In the manuscript it comes directly after The Crucifixion of Christ and some traditions about the wood of the Cross. It is followed without any break by a document dealing with the post-​mortem state of the righteous and the wicked (fol. 101r). Stone transcribes and translates the manuscript’s setting of the Signs of the Judgement, as well as the text of that document, and the beginning of the text about the state of the righteous and wicked. The new text of the Fifteen Signs resembles the recension that Stone entitled “II” in his previous edition, though it differs from it in quite a few places. On Armenian-​Latin relations, Stone refers us to G. Dédéyan, Histoire des Arméniens (Toulouse: Privat, 1982), 317–​21. 88.  For general questions on the period see B. Blumenkranz, Les auteurs chrétiens latins du moyen âge sur les juifs et le judaïsme (Études juives 4; Paris: Mouton, 1963), Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens dans le monde occidental 430–​ 1096 (Paris: Mouton, 1960); and Blumenkranz, Juifs et chrétiens: Patristiques et moyen age (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977, with original pagination:  “XIX. Die jüdischen Beweisgründe im Religionsgespräch mit den Christen in den christlich-​lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5.  bis 11. Jahrhunderts”; “XXIII. Kirche und Synagoge:  Die Entwicklung im Westen zwischen 200 und 1200”). Wasserstein “The Creation of Adam,” 15 n. 46, gives a rich bibliography on the Jews in Visigothic Spain, e.g., S. Katz, The Jews in the Visigothic Spain and Frankish Kingdoms of Gaul and Spain (Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America 12; Cambridge, MA:  Mediaeval Academy of America, 1937); B. S. Bachrach, Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977); and J. Gill, “Judíos y cristianos en la Hispania del siglo VII,” Hispania sacra 30 (1978): 9–​110.

231

Irish

Orleans (born c. 760, †821), of Visigothic origin, had the aid of a Hebraist, most probably a converted Jew.89 From this period also dates the Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel, falsely attributed to Jerome. This is regarded as the work of a converted Jew, who probably was the Hebraist who worked with Theodulf. The XV Signa of the Collectanea could conceivably have originated in such a milieu.

3.9.  Jewish Tradition in the Irish Saltair na Rann Saltair na Rann is an Irish language poem in 150 Cantos (hence the name) on sacred history, to which some others have been added on the Fifteen Signs. The Saltair was composed about the year 988 ce.90 Its story on the history of Adam and Eve is recognized as depending on the Latin Vita et Evae, with some material not in the earlier known texts of the Vita, but present in the Greek Apocalypse of Moses. Its text and its relationship to the Vita, to Jewish and Oriental tradition have received such considerable attention, especially by St. John D. Seymour91 and Brian Murdoch92 that only passing reference need be made to it here. Its Jewish traditions would derive from the Latin Adam and Eve texts and its variants. Sections have been recognized by Seymour and Murdoch as not deriving from these Latin or Greek texts, but related rather to other Jewish and rabbinic tradition. The prose rendition of the Saltair (from around the year 1100), and thus only slightly later that the Saltair itself, has extra material not found in the Saltair. It can be presumed that these traditions were also known to the author of the Saltair.

3.10.  The Influence of the Genesis and Hebrew Bible Tradition on Early Irish Imagined Prehistory Together with traditions in Irish texts that can be clearly or probably derived from Jewish texts, there is a very rich corpus of Irish “synthetic” or pseudo-​history.93 In this corpus Irish men of letters, literati, from the seventh century onwards created a prehistory of the coming of the Gaedil (Irish) to Ireland based on the Old Testament narrative, in particular Genesis 1–​11, the history of the Patriarchs, the bondage in Egypt, the Exodus, and even Joshua, Judges and later Jewish history. This tradition kept growing to be finalized

89.  Pseudo-​Jerome, Quaestiones on the Book of Samuel, ed. A. Saltman (Leiden: Brill, 1975), and esp. “Hebrew Scholarship in the Carolingian Renaissance,” 3–​29. 90.  See G. Mac Eoin, “The Date and Authorship of Saltair na Rann,” Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 28 (1960–​ 1961): 51–​67 at 51; c. 988 is a date that is generally accepted. 91.  St. J.  D. Seymour, “The Book of Adam and Eve in Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 36 C (1922): 121–​33. 92.  B. Murdoch, “An Early Irish Adam and Eve:  Saltair na Rann and the Traditions of the Fall,” Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973): 146–​77; also Murdoch, The Irish Adam and Eve Story from Saltair na Rann, vol. 2: Commentary (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1976). 93.  On this issue see, in general, K. McCone, Pagan Past and Christian Present (Maynooth: An Sagart, 1990), esp. 30, 66–​68. For the Lebar Gabála Érenn, R. Mark Scowcroft, “Leabhar Gabhála, part II: The Growth of the Tradition,” Ériu 39 (1988): 1–​66, esp. 7, 10–​11, 20–​22, and 26–​29; and, in the Irish language, R. M. Scowcroft, “Miotas na Gabhála i Leabhar Gabhála,” Léachtaí Cholm Cille (Maigh Nuad [Maynooth]: An Sagart, 1982), 41–​98.

231

23

232

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

in the twelfth century in the Lebor Gabála Érenn, the Book of the Taking of Ireland.94 In this work Genesis 1–​11 is given in Latin and Irish translation, and “commented” on. Around this biblical work, and taking it as a model, a story is spun, tracing certain dynasties back to Japheth, or Adam, with emphasis on the Tower of Babel (Nemrod’s tower, in the Vulgate spelling, as it is called).95 What, if any, contact all this has with actual Jewish tradition, apart from such names as “Nemrod’s tower,” needs to be determined in individual cases.

3.11. Ongoing Research The foregoing has, more or less, been an initial survey of this very rich field of possible contacts between Irish and Jewish traditions. It is quite probable that further research will reveal more relationships between the two bodies of tradition and literature. From the Irish side a prerequisite here is the critical study and the publication of the Irish Latin and vernacular relevant texts. Solid beginnings have already been laid in these fields. Inspired by Professor Bernhard Bischoff ’s ground-​breaking essay on early Irish exegetical activity,96 a plan for the publication of the Hiberno-​Latin biblical commentary material has been agreed in 1987 between the Irish Biblical Association the Royal Irish Academy and Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, for publication in the series Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, in a subseries Scriptores Celtigenae. Seven volumes have already been published. A similar agreement was entered into in 1988 with the Association pour l’étude de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne (AÉLAC), for the critical edition of the material in all four sections as follows:  (a) Infancy Narratives, (b) Apocalyptica et Eschatologica, (c) Public Life of Jesus and Passion Narratives, and

94.  Much of the contents of Macalister’s notes on the texts, in his five-​volume edition of Lebor Gabála Érenn (Irish Texts Society, vols. 34, 35, 39, 41, and 44), can now be accessed in the invaluable index of names available online, at CELT (Corpus of Electronic Texts), compiled by Michael Murphy, from which the following example is taken, under: “Adam, Genealogy of—​Adam’s wife as Eve and she was drawn out of the 7th rib of his side. The children of Adam are Cain (m), Abel (m), Seth (m) or Sile (m), Catafola (f ), Calmana (f ) the twin sister of Cain, Pendan (f ), Olla (f ), Pip (f ), Pithip (f ). Cain was born in the first year of Adam. Adam supported Abel, and not Cain, in having Catafola [Calmana] as a wife, since Cain’s twin nature with Catafola was too close for a marriage”; and some other items, with twenty-​six references to volume 1 of Macalister’s edition, and to the other volumes. We may also note the completion of Macalister’s five-​volume edition of the Lebor Gabála Érenn by the index of names to these compiled by Pádraig Ó Riain: Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book of the Taking of Ireland Part, Index of Names (Irish Texts Society 63; Dublin: Irish Texts Society, 2009). It will be for future research to determine whether any or some of these traditions and names of the Lebor Gabála can be sourced or are simply imagined. Petrus Comestor, ­chapter 26 (ed. Sylwan, Petri Comestoris Scolastica Historia, 48), on the authority of Pseudo-​Methodius gives Calmana as the twin sister of Cain. 95.  I  have dealt with the question in slightly greater detail in the essay “The Multifaceted Transmission of the Bible in Ireland, a.d. 550–​1200,” in B. A. Anderson and J. Kearney, eds., Ireland and the Reception of the Bible: Social and Cultural Perspectives (Scripture Traces l; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018). 96.  B. Bischoff, “Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinischen Exegese im Frühmittelalter,” Sacris Erudiri 6 (1954):  189–​281, reprinted in Bischoff, Mittelalterliche Studien:  Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur Schriftkunde und Literaturgeschichte (Stuttgart:  Hiersemann, 1966), 1.210; English translation:  C. O’Grady, “Turning-​Points in the History of Latin Exegesis in the Early Irish Church: 600–​800,” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 1 (1976): 74–​160.

23

Irish

(d) the Apostles. Three volumes have already been published, and the material for two more is with the publishers.97 In 1989 translations of apocryphal and related material from the Old and New Testaments by Máire Herbert were published.98 To celebrate the millennium, the Royal Irish Academy organized an international conference on the possible connections between Irish tradition and the Middle East in apocalyptic and eschatological topics. A team of eminent international scholars read papers on aspects of these themes, which were later published.99 Ireland has abundant material of apocalyptic and eschatological nature, particularly on death and the other world, but not strictly apocryphal, and hence not admissible in the AELAC project. John Carey, of the Department of Early and Medieval Irish of University Cork, brought a team together to study and translate this material (about forty texts in all) for publication with introductions and notes, in two volumes under four headings:  Soul and Body (seven texts); the Seven Heavens (introduction, with seven texts); the Next World (twelve texts) and the Judgment and Its Signs (introduction, and fourteen texts).100 Finally, Jewish literature has a rich heritage on heavenly journeys where the visionary ascends through a numbered sequence of heavens, usually seven.101 Ireland has a tradition on the Seven Heavens, transmitted in a number of texts.102 Scholarly opinion is currently divided as to whether its origin or inspiration is Jewish and related to the Questions of Ezra (transmitted in Armenian),103 thus Richard Bauckham,104 or Egyptian, Gnostic, and possibly Priscillianist, as John Carey, Charlotte Touati, and others.105

97.  M. McNamara et  al., eds., Apocrypha Hiberniae I.  Evangelia Infantiae (2 vols. CCSA 13–​ 14; Turnhout: Brepols 2001); J. Carey, In Tenga Bithnua The Ever-​New Tongue: Apocrypha Hiberniae II Apocalyptica 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009); J, Carey et al., eds., Apocrypha Hiberniae II, 2 Apocalyptica (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming); and J. Carey et al., eds., Apocrypha Hiberniae II, 3 Eschatologica (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming). 98.  M. Herbert and M. McNamara, Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected Texts in Translation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989). 99.  M. McNamara, ed., Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage: The Middle East and Celtic Realms (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003). 100.  J. Carey et al., eds., The End and Beyond: Medieval Irish Eschatology (2 vols.; Celtic Studies Publications 17; Aberyswyth: Celtic Studies Publications, 2014). 101.  See J. Collins, “Journeys to the World beyond in Ancient Judaism,” in M. McNamara, ed., Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage, 20–​36 and 33–​34, for the plurality of heavens. 102.  M. McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1975), 141–​43 (no. 108). 103.  M. E. Stone, “Questions of Ezra,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 591–​99. 104.  R. Bauckham, “The Apocalypse of the Seven Heavens,” Apocrypha 4 (1993): 141–​75. 105.  J. Carey, “The Seven Heavens and the Twelve Dragons in Insular Apocalyptic,” in McNamara, Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage, 121–​36; and C. Touati, “The Apocalypse of the Seven Heavens:  From Egypt to Ireland,” in J. Carey et al., eds., The End and Beyond: Mediaeval Irish Eschatology (Celtic Studies Publications 17; Aberystwyth: Celtic Studies Publications, 2014), 171–​87.

233

234

234

M art i n Mc Na m a r a

Selected Bibliography 1. GE N E R A L

Carey, J. et  al., eds. The End and Beyond:  Medieval Irish Eschatology. 2 vols. Celtic Studies Publications 17. Aberystwyth: Celtic Studies Publications, 2014. 2. I R E L A N D :  M I D D L E E A ST E R N CO N TA C T S

McNamara, M. “Jewish Tradition, the Pseudepigrapha and the Christian West.” In D. R.  G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara, eds., The Aramaic Bible:  Targums in Their Historical Setting, 431–​49. JSOTSup 166. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. –​–​–​. “Apocalyptic and Eschatological Texts in Irish Literature:  Oriental Connections?” In Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage: The Middle East and Celtic Realms, 75–​97. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003. Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1925, 1928, 1939. Hillgarth, J. N. “The East, Visigothic Spain and the Irish.” Studia patristica 4 (1961): 442–​56. –​–​–​. “Visigothic Spain and Early Christian Ireland.” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 62 C (1962): 167–​94. 3. V Í TA A DA E ET   E VA E

Anderson, A. C. “Peannaid Adaim,” Revue celtique 24 (1903): 243–​53. Cerbelaud, D. “Le nom d’Adam et les points cardinaux:  Recherches sur un thème patristique.” VC 38 (1984): 285–​301. Collins, J. J. “Sibylline Oracles.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, 317–​472. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Hilhorst, A. “Ager Damascenus: Views on the Place of Adam’s Creation.” In Miscellanea patristica Reverendissimo Domino Marco Starowieyski septuagentario professori illustrissimo viro amplissimo ac doctissimo oblata, (Warsawskie studia teologiczne 20/​2/​2007), 131–​44. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2007. Förster, M. “Adams Erschaffung und Namengebung: Ein lateinischer Fragment des s. g. slavischen Henoch.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11 (1908): 477–​529. –​–​–​. “Die mittelirische Version von Adams Erschaffung.” Zeitschtrift für celtische Philologie 13 (1921): 47–​48. Flower, R. Catalogue of Irish Manuscripts in the British Library [formerly British Museum]. Dublin:  Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1992. [originally 1926] Mozley, J. H. “The ‘Vita Adae,’” JTS 30 (1928–​1929): 121–​49. Murdoch, B. “An Early Irish Adam and Eve: Saltair na Rann and the Traditions of the Fall.” Mediaeval Studies 35 (1973): 146–​77. –​–​–​. The Irish Adam and Eve Story from Saltair na Rann. Volume 2: Commentary. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1976. –​–​–​. The Apocryphal Adam and Eve in Medieval Europe:  Vernacular Translations and Adaptations of the Vita. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Nagel, M. “La vie grecque d’Adam et d’Eve: Apocalypse de Moïse.” PhD diss., University of Strasbourg, 1974. Pettorelli, J.-​P. “La Vie latine d’Adam et Ève.” Archivum latinitatis Medii Aevi 56 (1998): 5–​104. –​–​–​. “La vie latine d’Adam et Ève. Analyse de la tradition manuscrite.” Apocrypha 10 (1999): 195–​296. –​–​–​. “Vie latine d’Adam et d’Ève; la recension de Paris, BNF, lat. 3832.” Archivum latinitatis Medii Aevi 57 (1999): 5–​22. –​–​–​, Kaestli, J.-​D., Frey, A., and Outtier, B., eds. Vita latina Adae et Evae. Synopsis vitae Adae et Evae, Latine, Graece, Armeniace et Iberice. CCSA 18–​19. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Stone, M. E. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. Wasserstein, D. “The Creation of Adam and the Apocrypha in Early Ireland.” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 88 C (1988): 1–​17. 4. SU N DAY / ​S A B B AT H R E S PI T E F O R   T H E   DA M N E D

Donohue, C., ed. The Testament of Mary: The Gaelic Version of the Visio Mariae Together with an Irish Latin Version. New York: Fordham University Press, 1942.

235

Irish Gougaud, L. “La croyance au répit périodique des damnés dans les légendes irlandaises.” In Mélanges bretons et celtiques offerts à J.  Loth, 63–​72. Annales de Bretagne. Rennes and Paris:  Plihon et Hommay and H. Champion, 1927. McNamara, M. “Navigatio Sancti Brendani: Some Possible Connections with Liturgical, Apocryphal and Irish Tradition.” In G. S. Burgess and C. Strijbosch, eds., The Brendan Legend: Texts and Versions, 159–​91. Northern World 24. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Merkle, S. “Die Sabbatruhe in der Hölle:  Ein Beitrag zur Prudentius-​Erklärung und zur Geschichte der Apokryphen.” Römische Quartalschrift 9 (1895): 489–​505. Wenger, A. L’Assomption de la T. S. Vierge dans la tradition Byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle: Études et documents. Archives de l’Orient chrétien 5. Paris Institut français d’études byzantines, 1955. Mimouni, S. “Les Apocalypses de le Vierge, état de la question.” Apocrypha 4 (1993): 101–​12. 5. L E B O R GA B Á L A   É R E N N

Carey, J. Lebor Gabala Erenn:  Textual History and Pseudohistory. Irish Texts Society Subsidiary Series 20. Dublin: Irish Texts Society, 2009. Macalister, R. A.  S., ed. Lebor Gabála Erenn:  The Book of the Taking of Ireland. Irish Texts Society 34. Dublin: Educational Company of Ireland, 1938. McCone, K. Pagan Past and Christian Present. Maynooth: An Sagart, 1990. Ó Riain: P. Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book of the Taking of Ireland Part, Index of Names. Irish Texts Society 63. Dublin: Irish Texts Society, 2009. 6. S I GN S B E F O R E   D O O M S DAY

Bayless, M., and M. Lapidge, eds. Collectanea Pseudo-​Bedae. Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 14. Dublin:  Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1998. Gerhardt, C., and N. F. Palmer. Das Münchner Gedicht von den 15 Zeichen vor dem Jüngsten Gericht: Nach der Handschrift der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek Cgm 717; Edition und Kommentar. Texte des Späten Mittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit 41. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2002. Heist, W. W. The Fifteen Signs before Doomsday. East Lansing: Michigan State College Press, 1952. Stone, M. E. Signs of Judgement, Onomastica Sacra, and the Generations from Adam. UPATS 3. Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1981, 1–​57. McNamara, M. “The (Fifteen) Signs before Doomsday in Irish Tradition.” In Miscellanea Patristica Reverendissimo Domino Marco Starowieski Septuagenario Viro Amplissimo ac Doctissimo Oblata (Warszawskie Studia Teologiszne 20/​2/​2007), 223–​54. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Warszawskiej, 2007.

235

236

237

11

Germanic Brian Murdoch

Works Discussed Jacob Ruf, Adam und Eva Judith (Anglo-​Saxon) Judith (Vorau poems, Teutonic Order) Seyfer Yousifon Taytsch esrim ve-​arba Lampreht, Tobias Maccabees (Halberstadt, Teutonic Order) Song of the Three Holy Children (Anglo-​Saxon, Middle High German) Hans Folz, Adam und Eva Lutwin, Eva und Adam Heinrich von München, Chronicle Adams Klage Historienbibel Genesis B (Anglo-​Saxon) N-​Town  Plays Auchinleck Life of Adam and Eve Canticum de creatione Vernon Life of Adam and Eve Wheatley Life of Adam and Eve Gilte Legende John Capgrave, Abbreuiacion of Chronicles Naming of Adam (English, German)

238

238

B ri an Murd o ch

Octipartite Adam (English, German, Frisian) Muspilli Storie of Asneth Pistel of Swete Susan Jannes and Jambres (Mambres) (Anglo-​Saxon) The continental Germanic-​speaking areas (covering the various forms of High and Low German) and England both appear to have had some (limited) knowledge of what we may refer to as Old Testament apocrypha, whose roots appear to be in the Second Temple period, in Latin translation from an early stage. The reflection of these texts, or of material from them, in the various Germanic vernaculars increases, as would be expected, as those vernaculars establish themselves and develop as literary media. Specifically, vernacular reflections of the apocryphal texts concerned may be full-​scale adaptations (more often than straightforward translations), or evidence by way of allusions in larger works. The route by which individual motifs (or even whole texts) arrived in this context is rarely clear, but we must think of motifs not even at second hand, but filtered much more. The immediate crossover point will almost certainly be a Latin version, which may itself simply be reflected in a Latin theological text or commentary, and we may estimate the extent of knowledge of apocryphal texts as such from the Latin evidence. Thus Frederick M. Biggs’s 2007 handbook on apocrypha in Anglo-​Saxon England considers twenty-​four potentially known Old Testament–​related works, but as he points out, knowledge of them is questionable in a good number of cases and slight in many others. He concludes that the (Syriac) Cave of Treasures, for example, is highly unlikely to have been known in any form in Anglo-​Saxon England, and that such suggestions as have been made that it was can be explained by references to exegetical writings containing the motifs in question. There is also doubt about works such as Jubilees, and that the Antiquities of pseudo-​Philo (if that may be taken as an Old Testament apocryphon) was not in fact known in England in spite of suppositions to the contrary is a further case in point. On the other hand, the curious Jannes and Jambres does seem to have a reflection in Anglo-​Saxon England.1 With the coming of Christianity to the Anglo-​Saxons and the Germans, and the largely coincident development of vernacular literature, the first biblical texts translated or adapted into verse are canonical. In Anglo-​Saxon there are several Old Testament books in metrical form (Genesis, Exodus, Daniel, some Psalms), with far less in Old High German, apart from a single Psalm translation (Psalm 138). The second linguistic stage of High German, Middle High German, which begins to develop after about 1050, however, has already in the eleventh and twelfth centuries metrical versions of Genesis, Exodus, and

1.  F. M. Biggs, ed., The Apocrypha (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2007). Biggs’s survey of Old Testament apocrypha potentially known is on pages 3–​20, only about a fifth of his book. For a general overview, see B. Murdoch, “Biblical Apocrypha,” Medieval, Oxford Bibliographies online, 2013, http://​www.oxfordbibliographies.com.

239

Ger m a n ic

others. Reflections of early apocryphal texts are to be found principally in Middle High German and Middle English, although there is some earlier material, but it must be noted that such reflection is as likely to be in the form of small allusions in larger works as much as in full-​scale vernacular adaptations of whole texts. An early Genesis poem in Old Saxon lies behind one of the Anglo-​Saxon metrical versions, but most writing in Low German and Dutch comes later, and Old Frisian written texts date only from the thirteenth century. We may in this context leave aside the literary language of Scandinavia, Old Norse (Old Icelandic), in which there was a lively reception of apocrypha, but which is very largely restricted to New Testament texts, notably the apocryphal acts of different apostles.2 Finally, the earliest of the Germanic languages to be written down, namely Gothic, has effectively only a (partial) New Testament translation. Of the Old Testament, we have only a small amount of Nehemiah (5–​7) from an unclear and probably mixed Greek source, although the famous comment by the church historian Philostorgios that the fourth-​century Gothic Bishop Wulfila translated the whole Old Testament apart from the four books of Kings so as not to encourage the warlike Goths is probably fanciful. Assessing the reception and reflection of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha with presumed Second Temple origins presents a number of organisational problems. The order followed here is based on the works themselves, beginning with those which Jerome deemed deuterocanonical, and then following a roughly biblical order, and considering German and English reflections of each, rather than dividing the material either according to separate languages or according to the chronological priority of the vernacular materials. A preliminary illustration of some of the problems of assessing this material may be provided once more by the case of the so-​called Biblical Antiquities ascribed pseudepigraphically to Philo of Alexandria, an Old Testament chronicle from Adam to Saul with non-​canonical material. Probably of Hebrew origin in the first century bce, it was translated into Greek perhaps in around 70 ce.3 However, it is known only in Latin, in more than twenty manuscripts from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, most of them German (it appears not to have been known in England, although there was speculation on the point). It was printed as early as 1527 by Adam Petri in Basle, together with genuine works by Philo in Latin, and comments in it about the sons of Lamech may have their 2.  It may be noted, however, that the Old Icelandic (Old Norse) Maríu Saga ascribed to Kygri-​Bjorn Hjaltason, who died in 1237 or 1238, though based on the New Testament and apocryphal Marian gospels, also uses as a supplementary source the Antiquities of the Jews of Josephus. See G. Turville-​Petre, Origins of Icelandic Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), 120–​24. 3.  D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-​Philo (First Century A.D.),” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophic Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 297–​377. Note also P.-​M. Bogaert, J. Cazeaux, D. J. Harrington, and C. Perrot, Pseudo-​Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques (Sources chrétiennes; and Paris: Cerf, 1976), which contains a Latin text. See with references to medieval writings the older translation by M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (London: SPCK, 1917; repr. with introduction by L. B. Feldman, New York: Ktav, 1971). On Ruf and Petri, see B. Murdoch, The Medieval Popular Bible: Expansions of Genesis in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 2003), 93–​94. Biggs, The Apocrypha, 7–​8, notes that the work was not known in England. There is a text of Ruf ’s play in H. E. Keller, ed., Jakob Ruf: Leben, Werk und Studien (Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2008), 3.11–​261.

239

240

240

B ri an Murd o ch

first vernacular reflection in Adam und Eva, a German play of 1550 by the Swiss dramatist Jakob Ruf on the first part of Genesis. Taking note first of texts on the edge of the canon, available of course by way of the Vulgate, the book of Judith was adapted at an early stage in English and in German. An Anglo-​ Saxon version of what is in any case a heroic narrative is found in London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A.XV, the Beowulf manuscript, where it is placed at the end of the great poem. The expanded battle and description of war-​booty assimilated the biblical work to an Anglo-​Saxon heroic context in a poem of which we have around 350 lines. High German also has an extended tradition of Judith materials dating not from the Old High German period, but certainly from early Middle High German, the many versions of which demonstrate variations between Septuagint and Vulgate transmissions of the lost original. The oldest version, in a collective codex from Styria (Vorau, Chorherrenstift, 276) is a short text (Die ältere Judith) that follows the Vulgate, and the same manuscript contains, too, a more recent and unrelated Jüngere Judith. A further poem was composed in 1254 in the context of the Order of Teutonic Knights (with parallels to Joseph in the work).4 As rather later Germanic instances of the Judith-​material we might mention the Yiddish translation of the (tenth century?) chronicle Seyfer Yousifoun (printed Hebrew after 1470, Latin 1544, Yiddish rather later), and after 1579 the Yiddish Bichlein . . . fun der frumen Yudith and then the story-​bible Taytsch esrim ve-​arba, which also covers the Maccabees and Tobias.5 The tale of Judith was dramatized in the Reformation period. Of other deuterocanonical texts, twelfth-​century German has (fragments of ) a metrical version of Tobias by a priest called Lampreht, and there is an equally fragmentary piece from a now-​lost manuscript originally from Halberstadt on the Maccabees. A later full poetic version of the two deuterocanonical books of Maccabees is found together with the Teutonic Order Judith. The additions to Daniel are also represented in English and German, most notably the “Song of the Three Holy Children” (which is found also in liturgical use). In Old English the collective manuscript in the Bodleian Library in Oxford known as Junius 11 (or the Caedmon manuscript) contains the poems of Daniel and Azarias, while in early Middle High German the aforementioned Vorau codex, which contains the earlier Judith poems, also has a brief poem on the three children.6

4.  See Henrike Lähnemann, Hystoria Judith:  Deutsche Judithdichtungen vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006), for a very full study of the material in German. The Teutonic-​Order Judith is edited by R. Palgen, rev. H.-​G. Richert, Judith, 2nd rev. ed, (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1969). 5.  H. Dinse, Die Entwicklung des jiddischen Schrifttums im deutschen Sprachgebiet (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1974), 179–​80, lists late Yiddish versions of deuterocanonical books and narratives ( Judith, Maccabees, Susanna, and Tobias). See also J. Baumgarten, Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature, ed. and trans. J. C. Frakes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 82–​162. 6.  For the additional texts noted, see for Old English the Anglo-​Saxon Poetic Records series (New York: Columbia University Press):  I. The Junius Manuscript, ed. G. P. Krapp, 1931, and IV. Beowulf and Judith, ed. E. V.  K. Dobbie, 1953). In German, the early texts are in F. Maurer, Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1964–​1970) 1.398–​407 (Three Children, Judith), 2.225–​59 ( Judith), 2.522–​35 (Tobias),

241

Ger m a n ic

In terms of full-​scale apocryphal works, the best attested example in later medieval German and English is that of the apocryphal Adam material, presented of course always in a Christian context, and notably linked with the Christian material relating to story of the cross before Christ.7 The precise origins of the various Adam-​apocrypha remain unclear, and of the most relevant text, the Life of Adam and Eve, we have only Christian versions. It seems unlikely that there was a coherent Hebrew version, although individual elements will have had an early origin.8 The earliest form (though with a late manuscript transmission) is in Greek, but knowledge of the work in Germanic writings is by way of the extensive and varied Latin tradition of the Vita Adae et Evae. The Hebrew work known as the Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer is later and probably influenced by Christian versions.9 The Latin Vita Adae et Evae—​if it is appropriate to speak of a single work, in fact, given the extent of variations and additions—​is well-​represented in manuscripts in Germany, and was both translated and adapted. A  prose translation (with some errors) was made, for example, by Hans Folz as late as 1479, and he printed a metrical version the following year. This is of course an extremely early printing of an apocryphal work in a vernacular language, and we may recall that it was the German-​speaking area that saw the first printing of the Latin Antiquities of Pseudo-​Philo in the sixteenth-​century. The earliest and in this case independent metrical version of the Adam-​apocryphon by the Austrian Lutwin, written around 1300, has some original elements, most notably the treatment of Eve, who loves Adam more than she loved Paradise; but it is integrated without comment into a biblical narrative. The manuscript of this version also contains one of the few sets of illustrations of the apocryphon.10

and 3.595–​604 (Halberstadt, Maccabees). For the later Maccabees text, see K. Helm, Das Buch der Makkabäer in mitteldeutscher Bearbeitung (Tübingen: Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 1904). 7.  The best starting-​point for the complex history of Adam-​apocrypha is M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992). See also M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (Sheffield, UK: Academic Press, 1997). On medieval vernacular versions of the Vita, see B. Murdoch, The Apocryphal Adam and Eve (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 8.  The question is much discussed in G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone, and J. Tromp, Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (SVTP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2000), see 215–​31 (Anderson, “The Original Form of the Life of Adam and Eve: Proposal)” and 347–​63 (de Jonge, “The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of Adam and Eve”). 9.  The Greek text is edited by J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical Edition (Leiden: Brill, 2005). A full edition of the complex Latin tradition has now been published after extensive work by the late J.-​P. Pettorelli in the Corpus Christianorum apocryphal series: J.-​P. Pettorelli et al., Vita latina Adae et Evae: Synopsis vitae Adae et Evae, Latine, Graece, Armeniace et Iberice (CCSA 18–​19; Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). This replaces what was for too many years the standard edition, published by W. Meyer in 1878. See also G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994). For the later Hebrew text, see G. Friedlander, Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1916). 10. Murdoch, Apocryphal Adam and Eve, considers in detail the German and English translations and adaptations of the Latin Vita Adae in the Middle Ages. Full details of the German versions mentioned are given in ­chapter 5. The illustrations in the (later) manuscript of Lutwin are presented by M.-​B. Halford, Illustration and Text in Lutwin’s Eva und Adam: Codex Vindob. 2980 (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1980). It may be noted that other vernacular adaptations of the Adam-​book by way of its Latin form—​most notably into Irish—​go back to the tenth century. Texts are as follows: B. Murdoch, Hans Folz and the Adam Legends: Texts and Studies (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1977); M.-​B. Halford, Lutwin’s Eva und Adam: Study, Text, Translation (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1984); A. R. Miller, “Eine deutsche Versübersetzung der lateinischen Vita Adae et Evae in der Weltchronik Heinrichs von München,” in H. Brunner, ed., Studien zur “Weltchronik“ Heinrichs von München (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1998), 1.240–​332.

241

24

242

B ri an Murd o ch

There is an independent German rhymed text sometimes known as Adams Klage (Adam’s Lament), and the apocryphal Adam-​narrative was also used both in rhymed chronicles, such as that of Heinrich von München, and in prose Historienbibeln, vernacular narrative Bibles augmented with other material, including apocrypha. The versions found in these latter Bibles have sometimes been adapted back into prose from earlier metrical chronicles, with rhymed passages still discernible, and they provided for a wide dissemination of the story. It must be stressed again, however, that the apocryphal Adamic material in German, whatever its ultimate source may have been, is invariably Christian, with emphasis on the penance-​motif in which Adam and Eve fast in different rivers (of which the non-​paradisiacal Jordan—​perhaps a later substitution—​pauses with all its fish to assist Adam’s prayers). Even if ritual immersion lies behind the motif, it is almost always represented as a penance formally imposed upon Eve and then upon himself by a priest-​ like Adam. More importantly, the whole apocryphal narrative is almost invariably linked in German and English with the strong tradition of the Holy Rood legends, in which the tree that becomes the cross grows from the head of Adam from seeds from paradise buried with him. In English, the pattern is similar to that of German, both in date and in extent, if we leave aside the vague possibility of one early influence: it is (just) possible that the Anglo-​ Saxon Genesis B has a reflection of the apocryphal Adambooks in the devil’s disguise when tempting Eve, but New Testament influence is equally plausible. Later in England there is at all events again a full tradition of the Latin Vita Adae et Evae, and indeed one group of manuscripts represents a quite distinct redaction; it is also frequently integrated with the Holy Rood material. There are two lengthy Middle English versifications and a number of prose translations and adaptations, and the narrative is mentioned in chronicles at a late stage. One motif (Eve’s request that Adam should kill her) is even used in the great English mystery-​cycles, in the N-​Town plays.11 An incomplete metrical Life of Adam is found in the Auchinleck Manuscript—​now Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, NLS Adv MS 19.2.1 (xiv2/​4 [1330–​40]) —​which contains romances and lives of the saints, and is unusual in that it omits the striking and indeed interesting motif of the static river, nor does the devil take on explicitly angelic form. The other metrical adaptation, the Canticum de Creatione (Oxford, Trinity College, 57), gives a date, 1375, when þis rym y telle yow/​Were turned into englisch, and it goes on to tell us (certainly spuriously) that it was originally in Hebrew, then Latin and from that, English. The poet’s immediate source was indeed Latin, and although Greek is not mentioned, the retention of garbled and presumably

A version of Adam’s Klage is found in F. von der Hagen, Gesammtabenteuer (Stuttgart and Tübingen: Cotta, 1850; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961), 1.1–​16. 11.  Bibliographical references to all the texts noted here (and other prose versions) are in Murdoch, Apocryphal Adam and Eve, ch. 3. The most recent edition of the N-​Town plays is that by S. Spector, The N-​Town Play: Cotton MS Vespasian D.  8 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1991). The texts of the Canticum de Creatione and the Auchinleck Life of Adam are in The Apocryphal Lives of Adam and Eve, ed. B. O. Murdoch and J. A. Tasioulas (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002).

243

Ger m a n ic

unrecognised Greek words in the text points back further. A Hebrew antecedent for the Vita Adae may be implausible, but the claim here is an interesting one; probably it implies only a general link to the Old Testament and to its authority. Overall the poem is close to the Latin Vita with the Holy Rood material integrated. There are several English prose versions, the earliest roughly contemporary with the Canticum de Creatione and found in another collective manuscript of considerable variety, the Vernon Manuscript (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Engl. poet. a. 1 [SC 3938–​42], [xivex]), which has the biblical creation, the separate legend of the naming of Adam, the fall of the angels, and the biblical fall of Adam and Eve, as well as the Vita plus the Holy Rood. Unusually the devil in this version is originally called Sachel and only later named Lucifer, but it is unclear where the name comes from. The naming of Adam from the four quarters, as angels fly back with the initial letters of stars, is found at the end of the English redaction of the Latin Vita, and has earlier roots, to which reference will be made later. A second English prose version (which is extant in various different forms) again combines the Vita Adae in the typically English redaction with a complex version of the naming legend, and then one of Adam’s creation from eight parts.12 The location of some of the English prose texts, however, is of interest, since the apocryphon occasionally found its way into manuscripts of the large, well-​attested and influential hagiographic collection known as the Gilte Legende. This derives from the Legenda aurea of Jacobus de Voragine, which was augmented and translated into French by Jean de Vignay as the Légende dorée. An English translation made in 1438 by an anonymous “synfulle wrecche” sometimes has the apocryphal Adam-​material added at the end, perhaps indicating a degree of uncertainty about its validity.13 Finally, in the Abbreuiacion of Cronicles, written in 1462–​1463 by the Augustinian friar John Capgrave, the tale of Adam’s and Eve’s penance is again mentioned;14 Capgrave refers to a book called “The Penance of Adam,” which he actually declares is “Apocriphum, whech is to sey ‘whan þe mater is in doute’ or ellis ‘whan men knowe not who mad þe book’.” He seems not to know the text very well, but he does know it, and he knows, furthermore, that it is not biblical, but rather one of the “bokes, Þat be not of so grete auctorité as is Þe scripture.” Capgrave is an interesting witness to the precise reception of the apocryphal Adambook, and that it was still known as late as the end of the fifteenth century. Adam’s creation and naming are separate apocryphal motifs which are, as indicated, attached to the Latin and vernacular Adambooks in English and German. They link, however, with another apocryphon, that known variously as 2 Enoch, The Secrets of Enoch, or Slavonic Enoch. It survives in various Slavonic languages, in two recensions, a shorter and a 12.  For the Vernon text, see N. F. Blake, Middle English Religious Prose (London: Arnold, 1972), 103–​18. The second version is represented by that in M. Day, The Wheatley Manuscript (London:  Oxford University Press, 1921), 76–​99, and by that found in the Gilte Legende. 13.  R. Hamer, ed., Gilte Legende II, with V. Russell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 991–​1015. This penultimate chapter (178) is followed only by “Five Wiles of Pharaoh.” 14.  P. J. Lucas, ed., John Capgrave’s Abbreuiacion of Cronicles (London: Oxford University Press, 1983), 12.

243

24

244

B ri an Murd o ch

longer, and more recently it has also been attested in a Coptic fragment. It is clearly Greek in origin, but may have had Hebrew or Aramaic antecedents, and may date from the first century CE.15 The apocryphon has Enoch visiting the seven heavens, another concept that survives in vernacular texts (and which is also found in other apocryphal apocalypses), but the long recension has the legend of Adam receiving his name from the initials of the four cardinal points, a letter-​play that works only in Greek, and also that of the microcosmic Adam, the notion of his creation from various elements in nature, seven in the apocryphon, usually eight in vernacular reflections. The two legends are found together or separately in Latin, and both are found in Anglo-​Saxon and in later English, as well as in German, not always in conjunction with the Adambook. The motif of the (octipartite) microcosmic Adam in particular is well-​known in English (and in Irish; it may have been transmitted from a Hiberno-​Latin Liber de numeris), in the Old English Solomon and Saturn and the Middle English Cursor Mundi, as well as in the Adambook-​versions. In German both legends, especially the creation, are also found in the context of the Adam material. In Low German, finally, although there is very little material at all in what is known as Old Frisian, one of the legal codices which make up most of what survives in that language includes the legend of Adam’s creation from eight parts.16 The route from the (lost) origins of what we know as the Slavonic Enoch to the appearance in vernacular English and German (and Irish) writings of the motifs of the seven heavens, Adam’s naming, and his creation will have been long and circuitous. Robert E. McNally, who drew attention to the motifs in the Irish Liber de numeris commented that the real link between Jewish apocrypha like this and the vernacular Middle Ages was by way of Latin exegetical writers, sometimes as well-​known as Augustine.17

15.  See G. Macaskill, The Slavonic Texts of 2 Enoch (Studia Judaeoslavica 6; Leiden: Brill, 2013), with both versions. See also the earlier edition by A. Vaillant, Le Livre des Secrets d’Hénoch (Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 1952). Of the major collections of Old Testament apocrypha, the relevant passage on the naming and creation of Adam in the long text is found in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2. Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, 150–​52. The Coptic fragments discovered by Joost L. Hagen at Qasr Ibrim in Southern Egypt are discussed in A. A. Orlov et al., eds., New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012). For a Latin text, see M. Förster, “Adams Erschaffung und Namengebung: Ein lateinisches Fragment des sogenannten slawischen Henoch,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 11 (1907–​1908): 477–​529; the text is found in the Durham Ritual, and Förster sees the Old English text in Solomon and Saturn as a direct translation, although this may not be the case. 16.  On the Germanic vernacular versions of the creation motif, with bibliographical details of individual texts, see J. M. Evans, “Microcosmic Adam,” Medium Aevum 35 (1966): 38–​42; H. L. C. Tristram, “Der homo octipartitus in der irischen und altenglischen Literatur,” Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 34 (1975): 119–​53; and Biggs, The Apocrypha, 4–​6 (English); R. Köhler, “Adams Erschaffung aus acht Teilen,” Germania 7 (1862): 350–​53; R. A. Wisbey, “Marvels of the East in the Wiener Genesis and in Wolfram’s Parzival,” in W. D. Robson-​Scott, ed., Essays in German and Dutch Literature (Publications of the Institute of Germanic Studies 15; London: University of London Institute of Germanic Studies, 1973), 1–​41; R. Finckh, Minor mundus homo (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1999); and B. Murdoch, “The Old Frisian Adam Octipartitus,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 40 (1994): 131–​38 (Frisian). The same Frisian legal codex—​the first Emsingo codex (Groningen, Universiteitsbibliotheek, PE 13), produced shortly before 1400—​also contains (cited expressly from Augustine) the month-​by-​month development of the child in the womb, with the soul appearing in the fifth month. 17.  R. E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959), 25–​28. On page 27 he notes that the naming motif is used by Augustine more than once.

245

Ger m a n ic

Further Enoch apocrypha may have had a reflection in English and German medieval writings. The oldest of them, I Enoch, is known also as the Ethiopic Enoch, again from the language in which it survives in its fullest form, the earliest parts of which date from the third and second centuries bce. There are fragments of an earlier Greek version, and Aramaic fragments of all its parts except the Similitudes were found at Qumran. Its origins were either Hebrew or Aramaic, although it is a composite work, and the first of its five books contains the important tale of the Watcher angels, which may have some reflection. There has been speculation that the work was known in the Middle Ages and influenced vernacular texts and art in both Anglo-​Saxon and German, not only on the angelic motif. It has, however, also been denied that there was any widespread Latin version that could have provided an immediate source.18 Enoch is associated with Elijah (Elias), who was biblically also taken directly into heaven without physical death, and their joint conflict with and defeat by an adversary or the Antichrist at the end of the world is prophesied in the Apocalypse of Elijah, which has survived only in a few Coptic manuscripts. The text may have a first-​century ce Jewish source, but the text as we have it is completely Christianized, and it is more difficult here than with many other apocrypha, even, to establish the Jewish-​Christian balance, something not helped by the existence of a (later?) Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah.19 The motif of the apocalyptic battle (linked with the reference to the two witnesses in the New Testament Apocalypse of John) is found in New Testament apocrypha such as the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter, the Coptic History of Joseph the Carpenter, and the Gospel of Nicodemus, and there is even an individual apocryphon on the theme preserved only in Old Irish called “The Two Sorrows of the Kingdom of Heaven.” The Enoch and Elijah legend was not restricted to apocryphal works, and is found once again in commentaries and sermons. That apocalyptic battle may have links, too, with 4 Ezra, which also makes clear the punishment of sinners, and also with the so-​called Sibylline texts. The specific battle with the Antichrist gives us probably the earliest instance of an apocryphal motif in Old High German, in the ninth-​century poem Muspilli (“The Destruction of the World”), which is essentially an apocalypse, a vision of the soul’s fate at the end of all things.20 18.  The most recent edition is that by M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). On its (possible) use in Anglo-​Saxon, see Biggs, The Apocrypha, 8 (most interestingly perhaps on the speculation about a link with Beowulf ’s monsters). See also E. Coatsworth, “The Book of Enoch and Anglo-​Saxon Art,” in K. Powell and D. Scragg, Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-​Saxon England (Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 2003), 135–​50. She devotes much attention to the ambiguous portrayal of Tubalcain, although his presentation is negative not only in I Enoch but also in Josephus, in the seventh-​century history of Pseudo-​Methodius, and in the Biblical Antiquities of ps.-​Philo. On the neutral and Watcher angels in German (including classical Middle High German), see Wisbey, “Marvels of the East,” and G. Dunphy, “On Neutral and Fallen Angels,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 96 (1995): 9–​13. 19.  See the introduction to the text (translated by M. Kuhn) in H. D. F. Sparks’s edited collection, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 755–​73, with comments on the relationship to the different and probably later Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah and bibliographic details of original texts. See on the question of origins, now also R. J. Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?” JBL 95 (1976): 447–​58. 20.  H. Finger, Untersuchungen zum “Muspilli” (Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1977), 15–​31, looks at the potential apocryphal sources of—​or rather (since he is clear on patristic transmission of ideas), the ultimate origins of motifs in—​the Old High German text. He comments, too, that the Ezra-​apocalypse is far more widely known than that

245

246

246

B ri an Murd o ch

Other apocrypha were known in medieval England and Germany—​at least, motifs found in them do appear in other vernacular works. Even direct references in Latin ecclesiastical writings do not necessarily mean that the text was actually known; it has been asserted that Jubilees, for example, was known in Anglo-​Saxon England, the evidence being its naming in an English-​Latin commentary, where is a possible echo, too, of the Assumption of Moses. However, as Frederick M.  Biggs rightly makes clear, “positive evidence is slight.”21 The position is more complicated with individual motifs, such as, for example, the legend of the death of Cain at the hand of Lamech, a much-​varied narrative found in midrashic writing, in a number of apocryphal works (such as the Adambooks) in different forms, disseminated in the Christian west in commentaries and handbooks like Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica, and then encountered in a large number of vernacular writings, including several in early English and German.22 Collections of Old Testament apocrypha usually include Joseph and Aseneth, another work for which there has been debate on its age, its Christian or Jewish origins, and its original language, which was probably Greek. It may date from as late as the fifth century CE, though it has been placed earlier. There are two distinct Latin versions, and it is found in the Speculum Historiale of Vincent of Beauvais. The story (it has regularly been seen as a “Jewish romance or novella”) is of the princess Aseneth’s love for and marriage to Joseph after a religious conversion (she is named in Gen 41:45 as being given to Joseph by Pharaoh, and has a penitential prayer in this text). Plots to take her from Joseph fail, and Joseph eventually rules over Egypt, passing the crown eventually to Pharaoh’s grandson. The text, which builds a new narrative upon a brief biblical reference, was well-​known in the Middle Ages, and there is a late-​fourteenth century metrical Middle English Storie of Asneth.23 Further expansions of the tale of Joseph, especially of his involvement with Potiphar’s wife (sometimes seen as the mother of Aseneth) are also found in English and German, though of Elijah. See also A. Masser, Bibel-​und Legendenepik des deutschen Mittelalters (Berlin: Schmidt, 1976), 125–​45. P. Lendinara also examines the knowledge of the Sybilline texts: P. Lendinara, “The Versus Sybillae de die iudicii in Anglo-​Saxon England,” in Powell and Scragg, Apocryphal Texts and Traditions, 85–​102. On the Irish material see D. Ó Croínín, The Irish Sex Aetates Mundi (Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1983), 146. 21. Biggs, The Apocrypha, 6–​7, and Biggs, “Introduction and Overview of Recent Work,” in Powell and Scragg, Apocryphal Texts and Traditions, 1–​25, esp. 22–​23. The entire essay is of some importance. The assertion is made by M. Lapidge in B. Bischoff and M. Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 199–​200. 22.  See Murdoch, Medieval Popular Bible, 70–​95, on the Lamech-​legends. On Lamech and other Old Testament figures in German, see R. G. Dunphy, Daz was ein michel wunder: The Presentation of Old Testament Material in Jans Enikel’s Weltchronik (Göppingen:  Kümmerle, 1998). Dunphy is interesting, too, on legends associated with Noah. 23.  C. Burchard, Joseph und Aseneth, with C. Burfeind and U. B. Fink (Leiden:  Brill, 2003) is the most recent full critical edition and introduction. Burchard considers the text to be Jewish in origin. See on the genre S. West, “Joseph and Asenath: A Neglected Greek Romance,” CQ 24 (1974): 70–​81. The Middle English version of the work is edited by R. A. Peck, Heroic Women from the Old Testament in Middle English Verse (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 1991). This edition also contains two extracts from the early fifteenth-​century Middle English Metrical Paraphrase of the Old Testament ( Judith, and the canonical narrative of Jephthah and his Daughter from Judg 11:34–​40) 109–​53. The whole text of the Paraphrase covers Genesis to Kings, plus Ruth, Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith and part of 2 Maccabees. It is edited by U. Ohlander, A Middle English Metrical Paraphrase of the Old Testament (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1955–​72).

247

Ger m a n ic

these do not necessarily derive from single apocrypha.24 Individual motifs associated with further Old Testament characters (such as Noah, Job, Solomon, Melchidezek), which, again, may have origins in specific apocryphal writings, are transmitted to German and English writings again by way of Latin commentaries, appearing in adaptations of biblical books, chronicles, and large-​scale biblical histories such as the Cursor Mundi. So, too, of course, in Yiddish, the language originating in Germany in the Middle Ages and used by Ashkenazic Judaism, we find midrashic elements or reflections of apocryphal writings—​ on Joseph, for example—​and we may refer to the vernacular expanded women’s Bible, the late and much-​printed Tse’ena-​u’rena. In the context of the Middle English Storie of Asneth it is appropriate to refer also to a further quasi-​apocryphal narrative of debatable origin (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek), namely that of Susannah and the Elders, which appears in chapter thirteen in the Septuagint and Vulgate Daniel, and of which there is a Middle English rhymed and alliterative version, again from the late fourteenth century, called The Pistel of Swete Susan. There is also a small fragment of the tale in medieval Low German verse, probably from the early fourteenth century.25 One final reflection of apocryphal texts in Old English that is of some interest is the curious apocryphon included by James H. Charlesworth in his collection as Jannes and Jambres, these being the names (also Jamnes and Mambres, with other variations) associated with the two magicians set against Moses in Exod 7:10–​12.26 The names come in fact from the New Testament (2 Tim 3:8), but their story seems to have been known in Jewish circles at an early stage, possibly as early as the first century ce. There are Greek versions (Origen knew of them) and a Latin text in a London manuscript (British Library, Cotton Tiberius B.V, fol. 87) has an Old English translation (and an illustration) of what seems to contain an episode of their story, in which Jannes warns his brother Mambres about being sent to hell as a punishment for magic. Caution is needed with any consideration of the reflection of Second Temple period apocrypha in Old and Middle English or in the medieval continental Germanic languages. The widespread use of extrabiblical material is, as scholars such as Frederick M.  Biggs and Achim Masser have made clear and as is to be expected, predominantly of New Testament apocrypha, and although small instances have been indicated, major works such as Jubilees seem not, in fact, to be much known. Further, for individual motifs that may be located in an early apocryphon, the route of transmission is likely to be by

24.  .Murdoch, Medieval Popular Bible, 165–​67, discusses other extrabiblical material on Joseph, attached mostly to the tale of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, with German, English, Yiddish, and other examples. 25.  The English poem is in Peck, Heroic Women, 73–​108. The metric form is elaborate. The fragmentary Low German Susanna is in W. Stammler, Mittelniederdeutsches Lesebuch (Hamburg: Hartung, 1921), 73. See also W. Stammler, Geschichte der niederdeutschen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1920; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977), 22. 26. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol.2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, 427–​42. See also A. Pietersma, The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians (Leiden: Brill, 1994) with the Coptic text. Biggs, The Apocrypha, 10–​11, discusses the English text.

247

248

248

B ri an Murd o ch

means of the church fathers, and direct knowledge of any given apocryphon is rare. The figures of Adam and of Enoch (and Elijah), then at a slightly different level of Lamech, Noah, and Joseph are all prominent, with the Adambooks—​Christianized largely (but not only) by the addition of the Holy Rood material—​the most widely known Old Testament apocryphon. In terms of location, this text, and motifs from other apocryphal works are found independently, in adaptations of the biblical Genesis-​narrative, in chronicles, in biblical histories, and even (as with appending of the Vita Adae to the Gilte Legende) in a hagiographic context. That one element from the Adamic apocrypha, in which Eve asks for death, should appear in a public literary work, a play from one of the great mystery cycles, is of some significance.

Selected Bibliography Anderson, G. A., M. E. Stone, and J. Tromp. Literature on Adam and Eve:  Collected Essays. SVTP 15. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Anglo-​Saxon Poetic Records: I. The Junius Manuscript, ed. G. P. Krapp (1931), and IV. Beowulf and Judith, ed. E. V. K. Dobbie (1953). New York: Columbia University Press. Baumgarten, J. Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature. Edited and translated by J. C. Frakes. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2005. Biggs, F. M. The Apocrypha. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2007. Charlesworth, J. H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophic Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Dinse, H. Die Entwicklung des jiddischen Schriftums im deutschen Sprachgebiet. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1974. Dunphy, R. G. Daz was ein michel wunder: The Presentation of Old Testament Material in Jans Enikel’s Weltchronik. Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1998. Erffa, H. M. von. Ikonologie der Genesis. 2 vols. Stuttgart, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1989–​1995. Finger, H. Untersuchungen zum “Muspilli.” Göppingen: Kümmerle, 1977. Fowler, D. C. The Bible in Early English Literature. London: Sheldon, 1977. –​–​–​. The Bible in Middle English Literature. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1984. Gentry, F. G. A Companion to Middle High German Literature to the 14th Century. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Lähnemann, H. Hystoria Judith:  Deutsche Judithdichtungen vom 12. bis zum 16, Jahrhundert. Berlin:  W.  de Gruyter, 2006. McNally, R. E. The Bible in the Early Middle Ages. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959. Masser, A. Bibel-​und Legendenepik des deutschen Mittelalters. Berlin: Schmidt, 1976. Maurer, F., ed. Die religiösen Dichtungen des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts. 3 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1964–​1970. Morrell, M. C. A Manual of Old English Biblical Materials. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1965. Murdoch, B. The Medieval Popular Bible. Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 2003. –​–​–​. The Apocryphal Adam and Eve in Medieval Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. –​–​–​. “Biblical Apocrypha.” Oxford Medieval Bibliographies online. New  York:  Oxford University Press, November 2013, http://​ www.oxfordbibliographies.com) –​–​–​, and J. A. Tasioulas, eds. The Apocryphal Lives of Adam and Eve. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2002. Peck, R. A., ed. Heroic Women from the Old Testament in Middle English Verse. Kalamazoo, MI:  Medieval Institute, 1991. Pettorelli, J.-​P., et al. Vita latina Adae et Evae: Synopsis vitae Adae et Evae, Latine, Graece, Armeniace et Iberice. CCSA 18–​19. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. Powell, K., and D. Scragg, eds. Apocryphal Texts and Traditions in Anglo-​ Saxon England. Cambridge, UK: Brewer, 2003. Severs, J. B., and A. E. Hartung. A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050–​1500. 11 vols. New Haven, CT: Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1967–​2005.

249

Ger m a n ic Stone, M. E. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBLEJL 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. Wisbey, R. “Marvels of the East in the Wiener Genesis and in Wolfram’s ‘Parzival.’” In W. Robson-​Scott, ed., Essays in German and Dutch Literature, 1–​41. London: Institute of Germanic Studies, 1973. Witte, M. M. Elias und Henoch als Exempel, typologische Figuren und apokalyptische Zeugen: Zu Verbindung von Literatur und Theologie im Mittelalter. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987.

249

250

251

B

Corpora

25

253

12

The “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” as Category and Corpus Lorenzo DiTommaso

The recent publication of the first volume of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:  More Noncanonical Scriptures (MOTP)1 offers scholars an ideal vantage-​point from which to review the major trends in Pseudepigrapha research since the publication of the last milestone collection, James H. Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (OTP),2 thirty years ago. Most significant in this regard is MOTP’s expansion of the corpus, which signals a return to the “maximalist” conception of the Pseudepigrapha that defined the category during its early history. This chapter discusses the Pseudepigrapha as a category and a corpus, their historical relationship and the dynamics of change, and the impact of changes over time on issues regarding early Jewish texts and traditions in Christian transmission. * * * “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—​neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—​that’s all.” —​Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-​Glass 1.  R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila, and A. Panayotov, eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:  More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013). 2.  J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1:  Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983); Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-​Hellenistic Works (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985). See section 3 of the “Selected Bibliography” in this chapter for other reviews of research since the publication of the OTP.

254

254

L oren zo D iTo mm a so

The “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” is both a category and a corpus, and it is important to get their relationship straight.3 As a corpus, the Pseudepigrapha is a set of literary units4 that has been intentionally assembled—​nothing more or less. Each unit in this corpus is a “pseudepigraphon” (pl. pseudepigrapha), a word that is based on the ancient Greek ψευδεπίγραφα but is not identical to it.5 In the final analysis, the collection of items called “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” is made up of pseudepigrapha. This statement is accurate in all cases, yet is without meaning. It clarifies nothing; it is a tautology. Hence Sebastian Brock’s penetrating question, which he posed in his review of the first volume of the OTP and which gets to the heart of the matter:  “What constitutes an Old Testament pseudepigraphon, and can there then be said to be a meaningful corpus of literature constituted by such ‘Old Testament pseudepigrapha’?”6 Literary corpora can and do change over time. (“Change” here is distinguished from simple growth, for example, through the identification or discovery of new units.) In some cases, an existing corpus is split into two or more new corpora. In other cases, two or more corpora are merged to form a new corpus. A third type of change occurs when a corpus either admits new kinds of units or no longer admits the kinds it once did. All three types of change may be observed in the history of Pseudepigrapha research, although the third is by far the most significant. But corpora do not evolve of their own accord. The contents of the eighteenth-​ century Pseudepigrapha collections of Sgambati and Fabricius in the early eighteenth century are strikingly different from those of Kautzsch and Charles two centuries later, and the more recent collections of Charlesworth and of Bauckham et al. are as dissimilar from each other as they are from the older collections. What is the impulse for change? It seems clear that the corpus “Pseudepigrapha” is the expression of a conceptual category. When the category changes, so does the corpus. The problem is that “Pseudepigrapha” is a synthetic category. Every definition that scholars have proposed reveals its artificial nature. Some definitions resort to describing the category in terms of what it is not, creating a “wastebasket taxon.” Others require a surfeit of qualifying adjectives. Still other definitions rely on too many exceptions to the

3.  M. E. Stone, “Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” Abr-​Nahrain 24 (1986): 167–​77, remains a fine introduction to the issues discussed in this chapter. 4.  My use of the term “unit” is explained below. 5.  In the ancient world, “pseudepigrapha” referred to writings in scrolls or books with a false superscription, the implication being that they were forgeries (cf. Serapion of Antioch, apud Euseb., Hist. eccl., 6.12; for earlier examples, see Polyb., Hist., 23.5, Plut. De Frat., and D. H., Dem. 57 and Din. 10–​11). “Spurious attribution” was the meaning of the term as it came down to the editors of the first collections of “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” in the eighteenth century. The label has since lost this technical meaning, partly because many of the biblical texts are also pseudonymous, and partly because a significant minority of items in later collections are not. For this reason (among others), the designation alone cannot define the corpus. See MOTP 1.xviii–​xx for a fine overview of the issues. 6.  S. P. Brock, review of OTP 1, JJS 35 (1984): 200–​209 at 201.

25

OT P as C at eg ory a n d Co rp us

rule. All are functionally extensional, insofar that the category ends up being defined by its contents, rather than by a suite of necessary and sufficient conditions. For example, Charlesworth states that “the Pseudepigrapha must be defined broadly so as to include all documents that conceivably belong to the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.”7 In other words, the “Pseudepigrapha” is the set of all the items that one thinks ought to be part of the Pseudepigrapha. In view of this logic, it is no wonder that some scholars have recommended that the category be abandoned.8 The arbitrary nature of the category is demonstrated in historical fluctuations to the size and composition of the corpus. This plasticity has been expressed in variations to the number and nature of the literary units among the standard collections that have appeared over the past 300 years. Although each collection is unique, certain macrotrends may be observed. A survey of Pseudepigrapha research over this period is instructive in this regard. It reveals a four-​stage contraction and expansion of the category (and thus the corpus) in its scholarly usage:9 (i) Sgambati, Fabricius, and maximalist origins (