Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Exploring the Scripturesque

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

Hindy Najman Department and Centre for Study of Religion at the University of Toronto Associate Editors

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen

Benjamin G. Wright, III Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University Advisory Board

j.j. collins – j. duhaime p.w. van der horst – a. klostergaard petersen j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j. sievers g. stemberger – e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. tromp VOLUME 137

Exploring the Scripturesque Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts

By

Robert Alan Kraft

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kraft, Robert A. Exploring the scripturesque : Jewish texts and their Christian contexts / by Robert Alan Kraft. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism; v. 137) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17010-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Apocryphal books (Old Testament)—Relation to the New Testament. 2. Bible. N.T.—Relation to the Old Testament. 3. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 5. Judaism—Relations—Christianity. 6. Christianity and other religions—Judaism. 7. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.–210 A.D. 8. Christianity—Origin. 9. Judaism—Controversial literature—History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series. BS1700.K73 2009 229’.9061—dc22 2009020448

ISSN: 1384-2161 ISBN: 978 90 04 17010 0 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................

vii

PART ONE

GENERAL CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY Chapter One. The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity .....................

3

Chapter Two. The Pseudepigrapha and Christianity, Revisited: Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions .......

35

Chapter Three. Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe .........................................

61

Chapter Four. The Weighing of the Parts: Pivots and Pitfalls in the Study of Early Judaisms and their Early Christian Offspring ........................................................................................

83

Chapter Five. Combined Review: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Edited by James H. Charlesworth The Apocryphal Old Testament, Edited by H.F.D. Sparks .....

93

PART TWO

SELECTED SPECIFIC STUDIES Chapter Six. Reassessing the “Recensional Problem” in Testament of Abraham ................................................................

109

Chapter Seven. “Ezra” Materials in Judaism and Christianity ....................................................................................

129

Chapter Eight. Towards Assessing the Latin Text of “5 Ezra”: The Christian Connection ...........................................................

149

vi

contents

Chapter Nine. Enoch and Written Authorities in Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs .......................................................................

163

Chapter Ten. The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and its Echoes of Judaism ........................................................................

173

PART THREE

SOME RELATED STUDIES Chapter Eleven. Pliny on Essenes, Pliny on Jews .......................

199

Chapter Twelve a–b. Philo on Seth, Philo on Enoch .................

209

Chapter Thirteen. Philo’s Treatment of the Number Seven in On Creation ...................................................................................

217

Chapter Fourteen. Philo and the Sabbath Crisis: Alexandrian Jewish Politics and the Dating of Philo’s Works .............................................................................................

239

Chapter Fifteen. Tiberius Julius Alexander and the Crisis in Alexandria according to Josephus .............................................

249

Review and Prospects ........................................................................

261

Comprehensive Index (with Bibliography, Abbreviations, URLs) ..............................................................................................

263

INTRODUCTION When Hindy Najman proposed that I contribute a volume of essays to this series, I was at first resistant, since I would want to update and to some extent coordinate the materials, which would take significant time and energy, and my own commitments to publication had been, since around 1990, to electronic distribution. Nevertheless, in addition to Hindy’s powers of persuasion and her promise to provide some graduate student help at the initial stage, there was a certain logic to gathering together some of the materials that had appeared over the years and presenting a more coherent package that could highlight their attempted contributions to scholarly discussion. These essays span about a third of a century and focus on interfaces between Jewish materials and the worlds in which they were transmitted and/or perceived, especially Christian contexts. The lead essay, which was first delivered to the 1976 SNTS congress at Duke University, spent most of its early life as an electronic publication (on Ioudaios from 1990, updated version on http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/ rak/publics/pseudepig/pseudepold) before Bill Adler and John Reeves rescued it for hardcopy appearance.1 Some of my colleagues jokingly spoke of it as one of the most cited non-publications (conventionally speaking, of course) of which they were aware. In any event, it became a conventionally published essay in 1994 with filled out and updated footnotes by John Reeves, which led to further reflection and updating in a presentation I gave at the Tel Aviv Conference of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (SNTS) in 2000.2 For the present purposes, I’ve attempted to supply cross references and cut down on any overt overlaps between those two initial essays in hopes that they will illustrate some progress more than mere repetition. They are, in many ways, the heart and backbone of this collection. For the title, I’ve adopted the term “scripturesque” to cover all those materials and traditions, whether they later became canonical or not, that seem to have been respected

1

Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (ed. John C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 55–86. 2 “Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions,” JSJ 32 (2001) 371–395 (below, Chapter Two).

viii

introduction

as “scriptural” by some individuals or communities in the period prior to (or apart from) the development of an exclusivistic canonical consciousness in some Jewish and Christian circles. Also of a more general nature, providing further conceptual context, are the essays on the “parting of the ways,” the review of Charlesworth and Sparks, and the survey of early Christian accusations of Jewish textual tampering. Although these appeared originally over a similarly long period of time, the need for adjustment to the present format has been relatively minor, apart from inserting various cross references and occasionally adding more recent bibliographical references as appropriate. Most of the other essays gathered here deal with details, whether for those unknown authors and compilers of the materials here called “pseudepigrapha” (a category designation that I have come to view as inappropriate and/or misleading, without yet finding a more satisfactory substitute) or for known authors such as Philo and Josephus. Some of the sections started out as electronic publications of a quite unpolished nature (e.g., the concluding section on the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, based on the minutes from the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins in 1970–1971, here combined with more recent material), while others were more formal hardcopy print publications. I’ve attempted to provide some sort of historical context for each, as well as a bit of new “glue” where needed to pull things together. Almost all of the essays in this anthology have been (and will continue to be) available electronically through my web page, and in the electronic versions of some of these materials, different colors have been used to distinguish “original” from updates and modifications. Since this sort of approach does not seem to be practical or desirable in this print form, the hardcopy reader will not be burdened with such developmental mapping. One exception: where my own hardcopy publications are represented, the original pagination is indicated in double square brackets, although there has been no attempt to retain the original hardcopy footnote numbers. A word is in order about my desire to update the information in the notes—and sometimes also in the text—with reference to other (especially more recent) relevant publications and related materials. I began to do this note by note, but soon realized that at almost every point, it would be appropriate to refer to the extensive bibliography

introduction

ix

compiled in print form by Lorenzo DiTommaso3 and also to say something like “pursue these topics through your internet search engine” (e.g., google.com). The internet is full of additional information (and sometimes misinformation)—and especially bibliography—that can help the reader to fill out the pictures being presented, and there are many responsible sites to facilitate the task, such as the online “Research Guide for Christianity” from the Yale University Divinity School Library at http://www.library.yale.edu/div/indexgde.htm. Frequent reference will also be made to the links found on my own web page at http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html, especially for my own electronic publications and projects. The explicit listing of internet addresses can become tedious in printed form, and for that I apologize. Hopefully the listing of these materials in the comprehensive index will help those who are interested. The electronic version of these essays is more convenient in this regard, since it can include clickable links without the redundancy of the visible internet addresses. And for readers with access to JSTOR (the online Journal STORage project), many of the articles cited herein are available online, along with reviews of many of the books.

3 Lorenzo DiTommaso, A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999 (JSPSup 39; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)—unfortunately not (yet [2008]) available online.

PART ONE

GENERAL CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER ONE

THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN CHRISTIANITY1 In autumn of 1975, I was asked to prepare a paper for the 1976 annual meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (SNTS) at Duke University on “The Christianity of the Pseudepigrapha,” a topic closely related to my sabbatical project for 1975/76. After struggling with this assignment from a variety of perspectives, I finally decided to modify the title to “Christianity and the so-called Jewish Pseudepigrapha,” or more concisely, “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity.” Thus I have chosen to deal less with precise details within particular pseudepigrapha, and more with questions of methodology that arise in the study of these writings.2

[1.1]

1 Special credit and appreciation are owed to John C. Reeves (then [1994] of Winthrop University, now [2008] University of North Carolina in Charlotte), whose patience and diligence in filling out my roughly outlined footnotes and submitting them for my final revision and/or approval made it possible for this more fully documented form of the essay to be included in the anthology that he has edited entitled Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars 1994) 55–86. Any variations and additions in the notes of the electronic version, printed here, represent modifications subsequent to that March 1994 print version. The paragraph numbering represents an attempt to facilitate reference to the electronic version, in which normal hardcopy pagination (enclosed in double brackets, colored red in the electronic format) is less obvious. The footnotes in what follows have been significantly expanded, and no attempt is made to correlate their numbering with that of the 1994 print version. 2 This essay had rested uneasily in my files for more than 15 years, waiting for me to find/take time to annotate it! As the years passed, I considered simply rewriting and updating it. But now that it has been “dusted off” at long last, I have decided to leave the text basically as it was delivered in 1976, and to do all the significant updating in the notes. Otherwise, its original flavor and (at least to me) excitement will have been diluted and sometimes simply lost. Much relevant research has appeared in the intervening years, of which the footnotes attempt to give some notice. In various particulars, the essay does need to be rewritten today [1994] and periodically. But in its general thrust, its challenge to responsible scholarship still stands. In the footnotes, OTP refers to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85; see below, Chapter Six), and EJMI to Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (ed. R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Philadelphia/Atlanta: Fortress/Scholars Press, 1986).

4

chapter one

I must confess at the outset that I am relatively unhappy about some of the directions that 20th century scholarship has been traveling in the study of this rather amorphous collection of writings that have been preserved to the modern period primarily by Christian efforts but are attributed to or closely identified with various heroes and heroines of pre-Christian Jewish tradition. Not that I think many of the conclusions reached in pseudepigrapha scholarship are necessarily wrong; on the contrary, I believe that much modern work is of great scholarly significance and suspect that most of the conclusions are relatively accurate. By and large, these [[56]] “pseudepigraphical” writings ought to be examined for any light they may be able to throw on the pre-rabbinic Jewish situation. Certainly we need to use all available help to illuminate that shadowy and variegated period! Nevertheless, I am unhappy about the relatively uncontrolled and hasty approach pursued by most scholars in sifting these materials for clues regarding Judaism. I am convinced that there is also a great deal to learn about Christianity from careful study of the “pseudepigrapha,” and that in most instances it is premature to distil from these writings information about pre-rabbinic Judaism before they are thoroughly examined for their significance as witnesses to Christian interest and activities.3

[1.2]

Problem Areas In a nutshell, my discontent centers on the following areas of study which seem to me to be inadequately pursued in much current investigation of the pseudepigrapha:

[2.1]

3 I am not the first to make such observations or to think them of foundational importance. Note, for example, Marinus de Jonge’s treatment of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition, and Origin (Leiden: Brill, 1953), and the prize essay contest sponsored with his encouragement by the Teyler Foundation at Haarlem (The Netherlands) in 1985, on the subject “An investigation concerning the use and transmission of originally Jewish writings (and/or writings incorporating much Jewish traditional material) in Early Christianity,” which in turn made special reference to such discussions as: J. Jervell, “Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen,” Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (ed. C. Burchard, J. Jervell, and J. Thomas; Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 36; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969) 30–61; or H.W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), Introduction ##8–9. Subsequently, the discussion became the focus of the monograph by James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, Or Other? (Leiden: Brill, 2005), among other relevant studies.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

5

1. Comparative Linguistic Analysis. Little if any systematic attention has been given to how the vocabulary and syntax employed in the preserved manuscripts and forms of a given pseudepigraphon relate to vocabulary and syntax found in other writings from approximately the same time in the same language. As we all know, languages change over the years and often display local variations. To what extent is it possible to classify the Greek of a particular pseudepigraphon as hellenistic Egyptian, or as early byzantine from Antioch, or perhaps even as early modern? What post-hellenistic linguistic features recur in various Greek pseudepigrapha? What is the history of transmission and translation of these materials into such languages as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Old Slavic, to mention only the most obvious? What can be learned about the most recent stages of development in a writing by careful attention to these linguistic matters?4 I see this as an avenue for discovering more precisely who was interested in these materials at what periods. Is it possible to identify in time and space schools of revisors or translators? Insofar as details of [[57]] linguistic analysis are difficult to convey satisfactorily in an oral presentation, I will not elaborate on these matters here [in 1976]. But this approach will be facilitated considerably by the increase in relevant linguistic tools such as Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon, 5 [2.2]

4

It has come to be expected that scholars worry about whether the original language of any given writing was Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek or whatever, but few have concerned themselves with the language(s) in which the text has survived as a piece of valuable historical information in its own right. Some earlier authors comment on this type of problem, but do not exploit it fully: for example, M.R. James describes the language of “The Apocalypse of Sedrach” as “neo-Greek” since it “degenerates not seldom into modern Greek” (Apocrypha Anecdota 1 [Texts and Studies 2.3; Cambridge: CUP, 1893] 127–28; see further below, pp. 122–24), but is mostly concerned about parallels to earlier materials in language and ideas. (S. Agourides, in OTP 1.606, also simply notes in passing the “late” linguistic features of that text.) For the early Greek translations of Jewish scriptures, H. St. J. Thackeray attempted to establish some linguistic-geographical correlations in his 1920 Schweich Lectures published as The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: H. Milford, 1921, 1923 [2nd ed.]), but not many have pursued that sort of approach further. In more recent times, see David Satran, “Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy Man,” Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 33–48, and his unpublished PhD dissertation at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Daniel (1985). 5 A Patristic Greek Lexicon (G.W.H. Lampe, ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961).

6

chapter one

Gignac’s Grammar of Greek Papyri,6 the various concordances and lexicons in preparation covering such materials as Philo, Josephus, and the Greek pseudepigrapha themselves, not to mention the ambitious computer-based Thesaurus Linguae Graece (TLG) project or the proposed Septuagint lexicon.7 Methods such as R. Martin’s “syntactical analysis” of Greek translated from Hebrew or Aramaic also should prove helpful when adapted for use with the Greek pseudepigrapha.8

6 Francis Thomas Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (2 vols.; Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichita 55; Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica 1976–81). 7 Efforts and products along these lines have multiplied in recent times, especially with the advent of computer-based texts and tools. The ability to search and analyze the data interactively is rapidly coming to replace the static concordances and linguistic aids of the past, and such “hardcopy” tools can in any event be produced more easily now with computer assistance—as for example, A.-M. Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudepigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987); also the various publications in “The Computer Bible” series edited by J. Arthur Baird et al. (published by Biblical Research Associates, College of Wooster, Ohio). Now that the magnificent TLG data bank of Greek literature is almost complete (TLG updated CD-ROM “D” appeared in 1993; the material became available online for subscribers after CD-ROM “E” appeared around 1997), along with pioneering efforts in more detailed analysis (such as the Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies [= CATSS] project, co-directed by Emanuel Tov [Hebrew University] and myself; see the Packard Humanities Institute [PHI] CD-ROM 1, 1987; PHI CD-ROM 5.3, 1992; PHI CD-ROM 7, 1996), major advances in comparative linguistic research can be expected. For some publications related to the CATSS project, see the online list. Josephus and Philo are both available in the TLG data bank, along with virtually all Greek literature through the 6th century CE and beyond, and can be searched for concording and other purposes quite easily. Peder Borgen (Trondheim, Norway) also has created an electronic Philo data bank for the production of concordances and other tools—see Borgen with Keare Fuglseth and Roald Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). On Josephus, see also the more traditional tool edited by K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973–83). I am not sure where the related Josephus lexicon project begun by Thackeray and Marcus (4 fascicules; Kohut Memorial Foundation; Paris, Guenther 1930–1955) now stands, after the death in 1986 of its continuator, Horst Moehring (Brown University). A team of Australian scholars, including John A.L. Lee and Gregory Horsley, is engaged in the creation of a new Moulton-Milligan lexicon to the NT, with computer assistance. The classic collection of Latin Christian literature, Migne’s Patrologia Latina (1844–65), is also searchable online for subscribers to the Chadwyk-Healy data bank. For other examples of computer projects and tools, see John Hughes, Bits, Bytes, & Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), and more recently The Humanities Computing Yearbook: 1989–90 (ed. Ian Lancashire; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). The online HUMANIST discussion group, under the guidance of Willard McCarty, celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2007—its archives can provide further relevant information and bibliography. 8 Raymond A. Martin, Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (SBLSCS 3; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974); idem, “Syntax Criticism of the Testament

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

7

I am less familiar with the resources available for work in other relevant eastern Christian languages, but suspect that the situation there is not more encouraging. 2. A second, closely related area of concern is The Role of the Pseudepigrapha in Christian Thought. Why was a particular writing preserved and transmitted? By whom? For whom? How was the writing understood and interpreted? With what other writings was it associated? What can we learn about Christianity from each document, and especially about non-Latin and non-Greek Christianity? In what follows, I intend to explore this approach in greater detail. 3. A third problem area is the Formulation of Satisfactory Hypotheses Regarding Origins and Transmission of Pseudepigrapha. If a writing has been preserved only by Christians, as is normally true for the pseudepigrapha, how strong is the possibility that the writing actually was compiled in its preserved form(s) by a Christian? To what extent is it possible that some or all of the supposedly Jewish contents are actually Christian in origin? What are suitable criteria for distinguishing “Jewish” from “Christian” elements? Is it possible that Christians appropriated the document or some of its Jewish contents from Jews in the medieval/byzantine period? What do we know of Jewish-Christian contacts after 135 ce?9 What do we know of Christian writing and reading habits

of Abraham,” Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg; SBLSCS 6; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 95–120. See also Benjamin G. Wright, “A Note on the Statistical Analysis of Septuagintal Syntax,” JBL 104 (1985) 111–14. 9 See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: Étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425) (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1948; 2d ed. 1964 with a “postscriptum”); English translation, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425) (trans. H. McKeating; New York: OUP, 1986); John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: OUP, 1985) 113–91. Regarding specific Church Fathers, see A.L. Williams, Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho (London: SPCK, 1930), esp. the Introduction; Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments (ed. S.G. Hall; Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) and more recently I. Angerstorfer, Melito und das Judentum (Regensburg: Universität Regensburg, 1986); David P. Efroymson, Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and its Role in His Theology (PhD dissertation, Temple University, 1976); idem, “The Patristic Connection,” Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity (ed. Alan Davies; New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 98–117; N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge: CUP, 1976); Robert L. Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971); idem, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). Similar studies with their

8

chapter one

during the first millennium of Christian existence? What are acceptable criteria for the identification of “glosses,” “interpolations,” “redactions” and “recensions,” and how do [[58]] these types of literary activity differ from each other?10 Who translated these materials from one language to another, for what reasons, and under what conditions? Again, a more detailed look at crucial aspects of this problem area will follow. In short, there seems to be a wide spectrum of important issues on which little attention has been focused and for which little precise information is presently available—issues of primary importance that require close examination before a suitably careful and consistent use can be made of “pseudepigrapha” for purposes of reconstructing preChristian, or at least pre-rabbinic Judaism. Recent developments in the study of Christian and Jewish history and literature offer promising rewards in this regard. I have already mentioned some of the more helpful tools for linguistic study. The fantastic increase in the number of known manuscripts and, through inexpensive mail-order microfilms, in their accessibility, will hopefully lead to significant new insights about the literature that is already well known as well as providing access to hitherto little known or unknown writings and traditions.11 Current interest in the relationships between emerging orthodoxy and its heterodox competitors in both Christian and Jewish settings12 also

[2.3]

focus on e.g., Epiphanius and Jerome (see the PhD dissertation in Hebrew by Hillel Newman, “Jerome and the Jews,” Hebrew University, 1997), would also be illuminating. For further bibliography and updated information, look for the relevant terms through an internet search engine. 10 For further details, see my article “Reassessing the ‘Recensional Problem’ in Testament of Abraham” (included below, Chapter Six). 11 In addition to various efforts at cataloguing existing manuscripts (e.g., the project of Marcel Richard at Paris), note the development of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont and the Hill Monastic Library Project in Minnesota. But in general, the interest in microform seems to have waned somewhat, or at least is being challenged by the development of computer technologies capable, among other things, of capturing (e.g., on CD-ROM) and even transmitting (on the international electronic networks) digitized images (equivalent to color photographs), enhancing and otherwise manipulating the images, and linking images and transcribed text along with other pertinent items in a “hypertext” electronic environment. A growing number of older and newer editions and translations of ancient texts are finding their way into electronic collections and archives in this new technological world. On electronic resources and developments in general, see Lancashire, Yearbook (above n. 7). Examples of online images abound, easily located through internet search engines and online lists. 12 There have been a number of recent works relating to the multiplicity of forms of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world. See, e.g., the “new Schürer,” G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, eds., Schürer’s The History of the Jewish People in the

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

9

provides a healthy context for reexamining the various pseudepigrapha, and the growing awareness among students of religious history of the possible value of insights and approaches drawn from anthropological-sociological studies should not be ignored. (I think especially of studies of so-called “millennial/millenarian movements” in various times and places, as this may apply to the production and use of various apocalyptic writings.)13 Contemporary Use of the Term “Pseudepigrapha” [3.1] The term “pseudepigrapha” is not a precise term in contemporary scholarly usage. It has become useful primarily by default, and against the theological background of the discussion of the “Old Testament” canon among Christians. Especially in the byzantine Greek church, the traditional term for the literature with which we are concerned was “apocrypha”—as distinct from “canonical” and “ecclesiastical” [[59]] literature recommended for use in Christian churches. But modern protestant scholarship came to restrict the term “apocrypha,” used with reference to Jewish literature, to those particular writings or portions of writings accepted as “deutero-canonical” by Roman Catholics (with

Age of Jesus Christ (4 vols. in 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87); John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983); S.J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987); E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Gabriele Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); for a more traditional synthesis of the same evidence, see L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). A survey and analysis of mid 20th century scholarship on Judaism to about 1980 can be found in EJMI. More recent internet information abounds also on this subject. For some recent studies on varieties of early Christianity, see the following note. 13 For an application of such insights to early Christianity, see John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975), and the literature cited there; idem, Religious Studies Review 5/3 (1979) 174–80; W.D. Davies, “From Schwietzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi,” JBL 95 (1976) 529–58; G. Theissen, The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); idem, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); D.J. Harrington, “Sociological Concepts and the Early Church: A Decade of Research,” TS 41 (1980) 181–90; W.A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983); R.A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); idem, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989). On millennarianism, see further below, n. 54.

10

chapter one

some ambiguity regarding Prayer of Manasseh and 4 Ezra/2 Esdras) but not included among the classical Jewish canonical scriptures. Thus some other term was needed to designate works attributed to or associated with revered persons of pre-Christian Jewish tradition that were considered neither canonical nor “apocryphal” in the limited sense of “OT Apocrypha.” The term “pseudepigrapha” has come to serve this function in relation to ostensibly Jewish material, although most scholars have retained the more traditional sense of the term “apocrypha” in dealing with so-called “NT Apocrypha” (not “pseudepigrapha”!). The exact range of items included as “pseudepigrapha” also varies considerably.14 The standard older editions by E. Kautzsch (1900) and R.H. Charles (1913) agree in employing the term in a very restricted sense for about a dozen or so writings including the Letter of Aristeas, 4 Ezra and the Psalms of Solomon. Charles even published Pirke Avot, Aḥikar and the Zadokite fragment among the pseudepigrapha. At the opposite end of the scale, with regard to inclusiveness, is P. Riessler’s German edition of some 61 allegedly “non canonical ancient Jewish writings” (1928) other than Philo and Josephus. Judging from such late 20th century projects as the Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece, edited by A.-M. Denis and M. de Jonge, or M. Philonenko’s Textes et Études series, or the history of H.F.D. Sparks’ long awaited British edition (see its preface!), or J.H. Charlesworth’s ambitious Duke-Doubleday edition [see reviews below, Chapter Five], or the work of the SBL Pseudepigrapha Group, the inclusive use of the term now predominates. Although I am not particularly fond of the term “pseudepigrapha,” I also employ it in a radically inclusive sense to indicate writings attributed to or associated with persons known primarily from Jewish scriptural [3.2]

14 The editions and monographs cited in this paragraph are well known in the field. Recent literature that provides a larger context for this discussion includes EJMI (above, n. 2), with standard abbreviations and an appendix on editions; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981; revised edition 2005); Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M.E. Stone; CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1984); and the more recent anthologies such as La Bible: écrits intertestamentaires (ed. A. Dupont-Sommer and M. Philonenko; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), Charlesworth’s OTP, and The Apocryphal Old Testament (AOT, ed. H.F.D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). For a review article on the last mentioned works, see M.E. Stone and R.A. Kraft, Religious Studies Review 14/2 (1988) 111–17 and below, Chapter Five. Extensive bibliography can also be found in DiTommaso, Bibliography (2001) and, of course, online.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

11

tradition, and a few other similar writings such as the “Sibylline Oracles” (as an example of supposedly “pagan” prophecy).15 [[60]] Modern Methodologies in Studying Pseudepigrapha [4.1] Not all scholars are methodologically self-conscious. There is often

a tendency to be overawed by the results achieved by scholarly giants of past generations, without careful reevaluation of their operating procedures and presuppositions. We build on “the assured results of critical scholarship” without consistently analyzing how those results emerged. And many of us shy away from detailed work with the preserved texts themselves—I mean the actual manuscripts or facsimiles thereof—relying instead on whatever printed editions are conveniently available. Thus we and our students are too often unaware of the extremely complicated and often tenuous processes by which suspicions have been turned into hypotheses and hypotheses into “assured results,” which become enshrined as foundation stones for further investigations. In the modern investigation of “psudepigrapha,” the strong desire to throw light on a relatively obscure period of Jewish history that was believed to be of great significance for early Christian studies played an important role. The earliest pioneers of pseudepigrapha study tended to be understandably cautious in attributing hitherto unattested works to Jewish authorship, but were relatively quick to identify newly recovered writings with titles found in ancient lists. M.R. James is perhaps a good example of caution in the former regard—he seldom attached the unqualified adjective “Jewish” to the numerous psudepigraphic texts he helped to rescue for scholarly investigation. Other influential scholars, however, including some well-versed in Jewish traditions such as Louis

[4.2]

15 After all, the etymological sense of “falsely attributed authorship” applies equally to some writings included in the traditional Jewish and Christian canons, and some of the writings usually discussed under the wider heading of “pseudepigrapha” do not have the same sort of authorship ascription problem—e.g., Lives of the Prophets, 3–4 Maccabees. Furthermore, the more recently discovered materials from the Judean Desert (“Dead Sea Scrolls”) need to be worked into the broader classification scheme somehow. For a discussion of some of these issues, see Stone and Kraft in Religious Studies Review 14/2 (1988) 111–17; see also Kraft’s review in JBL 106 (1987) 738 [below, Chapter Five]. Note that Sparks preferred to use the term “apocryphal” in its general sense in AOT. My use of “scripturesque” in the title of the present collection is an attempt to level this terminological playing field.

12

chapter one

Ginzberg or Kaufmann Kohler argued strongly for the Jewish origin of numerous traditions and sections in the pseudepigrapha.16 Riessler represents this latter perspective. It is worth noting how important the argument from parallel passages was in these earlier investigations— M.R. James would list page after page of alleged verbal reminiscences to NT writings, with the conclusion that the writing being examined had made use of the NT and thus was Christian [[61]] in its present form. In contrast, Ginzberg would list at length the parallels to known rabbinic Jewish traditions and conclude that the basic core of the writing was Jewish. In this connection, assumptions about “canon formation” and acceptance played a major role. We have, hopefully, come a long way in our critical awareness if not in our actual practice from simple “parallelomania” as Samuel Sandmel has dubbed it.17 Most of us no longer assume that virtually any phrase that appears in NT literature necessarily originated there. We have become more aware of diversity within pre-Christian Judaism including the presence there of emphases on faith, on special knowledge, on imminent eschatological salvation, among other things. Now Qumran has supplied good examples of even such seemingly Christian ideas as the divine sonship of God’s eschatological agent, appropriation of God’s promised new covenant, eschatological asceticism and the religious importance of baptisms and special meals.18 We have also become more aware of diversity in early Christianity—of a wide range of beliefs and attitudes ranging from a relatively conservative and cultic [4.3]

16 Examples may be found in the relevant articles by these scholars in the Jewish Encyclopedia (ed. I. Singer; 13 vols.; New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901–1907). E.g., see L. Ginzberg, “Abraham, Apocalypse of,” 1.91–2; “Abraham, Testament of,” 1.93–6; “Adam, Book of,” 1.179–80; “Baruch, Apocalypse of (Greek),” 2.549–51; “Baruch, Apocalypse of (Syriac),” 2.551–56; K. Kohler, “Job, Testament of,” 7.200–2; “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 12.113–18. See also L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–38). 17 Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962) 1–13. 18 The journal Revue de Qumrân (1958–) is devoted to the study of these materials. For a general update and bibliography, see J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Judean Desert,” EJMI, ch. 5; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (rev. ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). For regular updates, bibliography is conveniently found online at the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature site (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/).

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

13

Jewish sort of Christianity to a highly philosophical and/or mystical dualistic gnostic Christianity.19 [4.4] In the study of the pseudepigrapha, realization of pre-rabbinic Jew-

ish pluralism has played a much more influential role than recognition of early Christian pluralism. Perhaps this is only natural. After all, most Christianity built on a Jewish base and introduced relatively little that could be called uniquely Christian, beyond specific references to Jesus of Nazareth and other personages or events of specifically Christian history, or the trinitarian God-language that arose in classical Christian circles and became standardized by the 4th century. For the most part, Christians appropriated Jewish scriptures and traditions, Jewish liturgical language, Jewish eschatological hopes, Jewish ethical ideals, and many Jewish practices.20 Reflecting such a setting, most Christian writings contain apparently “Jewish” elements and aspects, as is obvious to any contemporary NT student. The problem comes in attempting to place a label on such materials. At what point do I describe an originally Jewish ethical tract that has been adopted and perhaps also adapted by Christians as [[62]] “Christian” rather than “Jewish”? And if a Christian author who has been trained to think about religious life and conduct in ethical terms that derive from Judaism now writes an ethical treatise based on that author’s own views—not simply copying an older tract—is the author not writing a Christian work—even though it may have all the characteristics of a Jewish work?21

19 See, for example, Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934); 2nd ed., reprinted and supplemented by Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1964); English translation, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity (ed. R.A. Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; also available online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/new/BAUER00.htm). 20 Other areas for further exploration include the physical formats (e.g., scrolls, separate pages, codices) and modes of collecting (e.g., “library” issues, scrolls with multiple works) as well as scribal conventions; see Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004). For some of my own excursions into such areas, see the online listing at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/early/lxx/jewsihpap.html and at http://ccat.sas.upenn .edu/rs/rak/courses/735/book/book.html. 21 The actual and suspected history of the “Two Ways” traditions provides an excellent illustration of the problems. See my Barnabas and the Didache = volume 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary (ed. R.M. Grant; New York: Nelson, 1965) (also online), and the literature discussed there.

14

chapter one

This methodological problem is perhaps best illustrated by quoting some actual operating procedures of earlier scholars. In his 1893 History of Ancient Christian Literature, Adolf Harnack included a valuable, pioneering section entitled “Jewish Literature Appropriated, and sometimes Reworked, by Christians.”22 Harnack argues that Christians sometimes imitated the style of older Jewish forgeries, thus making it impossible any longer to distinguish Jewish from Christian elements. In this connection, Harnack suggests that the investigator will seldom err if the following rule is observed: “Whatever is not clearly Christian is Jewish”!23 L.S.A. Wells enunciates a similar philosophy in his study of the Adam-Eve materials in Charles’ Pseudepigrapha volume: “The complete absence of references, direct or indirect, to Christian notions of Incarnation, Redemption, even of Christian higher moral teaching, would make it impossible to assign to most of the work a Christian origin.”24 [4.5]

Dissenting voices were also heard occasionally, but were clearly in the minority. I have already alluded to the cautious approach taken by M.R. James. Similarly, F.C. Burkitt’s 1913 Schweich Lectures on Jewish and Christian Apocalypses provide a good example. Burkitt is explicitly critical of the tendency to proclaim as “Jewish” virtually any writing that is not overtly Christian. Regarding Slavonic (or 2nd) Enoch, he writes,

[4.6]

I do not know that a Christian romance of Enoch need differ very much from a Jewish romance of Enoch. And . . . the whole question of the channels by which rare and curious literature found their [sic] way into Slavonic requires fresh and independent investigation.25

According to the Harnack-Wells approach, a pseudepigraphon would be considered Jewish until proven otherwise; Burkitt would reverse the situation and put the onus of proof on those claiming Jewish origin. [[63]]

22 Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius I: die Überlieferung und der Bestand 2 (Leipzig, 1893; 2nd ed. reprinted Leipzig: Hindrichs, 1958); “Űbersicht über die von den Christen angeeignete und z[um] Th[eile] bearbeitete jüdische Litteratur,” 845–65. 23 Ibid., 861. 24 APOT 2.126–27. 25 F.C. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (London: Milford, 1914) 76.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

15

Although I am emotionally disposed towards a position like that of Harnack-Wells, it is clear to me that the James-Burkitt approach is methodologically more defensible. Except in rare instances where Jewish fragments or clear early patristic usage renders the Jewish origin or location of a writing virtually beyond dispute (as with the “OT” deuterocanonical writings, some form of Aḥ ikar and 1 Enoch, Aristeas), the preserved pseudepigrapha are known only from relatively late Christian manuscripts of various sorts. Clearly the pseudepigrapha, including those of demonstrable Jewish origin, have had a long association with Christianity and deserve more than passing attention in that context. Once their setting in Christianity has been recognized more clearly, it may be possible to pose more carefully the questions of origin and early transmission.

[4.7]

Attitudes to the Pseudepigrapha in Pre-Modern Christianity On the whole, the pseudepigrapha were viewed as a threat by leaders of classical Christianity, Greek and Latin, from about the midfourth century through at least the ninth. The gradual standardization of Christianity that was achieved in the internal battles against heterodoxy and the external achievement of official recognition in the Roman worlds (west and east) exhibited itself in the formation of an exclusive Christian scriptural canon. Aspects of the problem were recognized already in the late second century. Irenaeus rails against the Marcosians for “introducing an innumerable number of apocrypha and of counterfeit writings which they themselves created to amaze the foolish who do not understand the true writings” (Against Heresies 1.20.1=1.13.1). Perhaps around the same time, or not too much later, the author of the Muratorian canon rejects compositions associated with various heterodox groups including “those who composed a new book of Psalms for Marcion.”26 [5.1]

[5.2] To what extent these early testimonies had allegedly Jewish writings

in view is not clear. But the principle of opposition to unacceptable heterodox writings is quite plain, and is continued even more explicitly in later authors. According to Athanasius, who writes [[64]] from 26 Numerous websites can provide the text and information on the “Muratorian canon,” also known as the “Muratorian fragment”—use your favorite search engine.

16

chapter one

Alexandria at a time when Christianity had successfully withstood the attempts of emperor Julian (“the apostate”!) to revive old Roman “paganism” and is about to be proclaimed as the official religion of the Roman empire, the “apocryphal” books (that is, our “Jewish” pseudepigrapha, among others) are a “device of heretics” who compose them at will and assign them ancient dates to mislead the simple. Athanasius speaks with disdain of books ascribed to Enoch, and apocryphal books of Isaiah and Moses. Similar negative attitudes are found in such other later 4th century authors as Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, Rufinus and Jerome, while the prohibition of pseudepigrapha is buttressed with more extensive lists of titles in such later sources as the ps-Athanasian Synopsis of Scriptures (6th c.?), the ps-Gelasian Decree (6th c.?), the so-called Catalogue of 60 (canonical) Books (6/7th c.?), the Stichometry of Nicephorus (9th c.), and elsewhere.27 Among the writings to be avoided are those associated with the names of Adam, Enoch, Lamech, Abraham and the Patriarchs, Joseph, Eldad and Modad, Jambres and Mambres, Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Baruch, Sofonia, Zachariah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, the Sibyl, and various angels. One list even refers to a “book of the giant named Og who is said by the heretics to have fought with a dragon after the flood” (ps-Gelasian Decree)!28 Not all the preserved notices are equally negative. In the 2nd century, Justin Martyr accuses the Jews of excising certain passages from their scriptures in order to counter their use by Christians, including a passage attributed to Ezra and a reference to Isaiah’s death by means of a wooden saw (Dialogue 72, 120)29—in Justin’s view, of course, the excised materials are not “pseudepigrapha” (as they become for us!)

[5.3]

27 See H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: CUP, 1902; supplemented by R.R. Ottley, 1914; reprinted, New York: KTAV, 1968; also online) part 2 chap. 1; also the “new Schürer,” History 3/2.797–98. Such “canon lists” and related materials are conveniently available on the web—e.g., at http://www .bible-researcher.com/canon8.html. 28 On “Og and the Giants,” see my online update of the section from M.R. James, Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: their Titles and Fragments Collected, Translated and Discussed (London: SPCK, 1920) also available online. 29 See further R.A. Kraft, “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe,” Paganisme, judaisme, christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique: Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon (ed. Benoit et al.; Ouvrage publie avec le concours de l’Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1978) 207–26 (included below, Chapter Three, also online).

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

17

but authentic scripture. Justin also refers with favor to various Greek philosophical authors as to “the Sibyl and Hystaspes” (Apology 20). Even more striking is the practice of Clement of Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century, who shows an extremely wide acquaintance with a great variety of writings, Jewish, Christian and “pagan,” as well as with [[65]] “Jewish scriptures” in a strict sense.30 He is less concerned with what writings people use than with how they use the writings, including scripture (Stromateis 6.[15].124.3). Indeed, he believes that the scriptures are filled with mysteries that can only properly be understood by the true Christian gnostic whose life is in accord with the apostolic tradition. And non-scriptural literature also contains valuable material when understood properly—that is, “gnostically.” Clement cites “Paul” as exhorting his readers to “take also the Hellenic books, read the Sibyl, . . . and take Hystaspes to read . . .” (Stromateis 6.[5].43.1). Elsewhere Clement quotes material attributed to “Enoch” (Ecl Proph 2.1), to “the prophecy of Ham” (Stromateis 6.[6].53.5, indirectly, from Isidore’s Exegetica of the Prophet Parchor),31 to a non-canonical revelation by “Sofonia the prophet” (Stromateis 5.[11].77.2), and refers to Moses’ “assumption” (Comm on Jude 9 and Stromateis 1.[23].153.1—at least referring to the event, if not the name of a writing). In none of these passages, nor in numerous other references to what are now non-canonical Christian materials, does Clement apologize or show discomfort about his use of such sources. [5.4] The situation is recognizably different when we examine the evidence from Origen, who inherits Clement’s openness and exposure to a wide variety of sources but who also betrays some revealing reticence in using what came to be considered non-canonical sources. At least in the later part of his life, when he worked from Caesarea on the Hexapla, he was in first hand contact with Jewish informants and

30 See the index of scriptural citations supplied in the four-volume Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller edition of Clement of Alexandria (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 12, 15, 17, 39) begun by O. Stählin in 1905 (Leipzig: Hinrichs), and partly revised by Ludwig Früchtel (1960) and Ursula Treu (1970–85)—the 4th ed. of volume 2 appeared in 1985. Unfortunately, the Strasbourg project does not include non-scriptural citations in its Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature patristique (7 vols. thus far; ed. J. Allenbach; Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975–). 31 See Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (London: Hollis and Carter, 1960; reprinted, Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1986) 20.

18

chapter one

traditions.32 For him, the Jewish scriptural canon was fairly well defined as is evident from his work on the Hexapla, his preserved list of canonical books, and his “exegetical” writings (scholia, homilies, commentaries). Nevertheless, he does not forsake the sympathetic use of extra-canonical, presumably Jewish works and traditions, although he sometimes prefaces such with words like “if anyone accepts such a writing”—so with reference to a passage about angels disputing at Abraham’s death (Homily on Luke 35), to a long quotation from the “Prayer of Joseph” (Commentary on John 2.31/25), to an “Isaiah Apocryphon” about the death of the prophet (Commentary on Matthew 13.57/23.37). Elsewhere he also shows knowledge of the book or books of Enoch (Against Celsus 5.54–55), of [[66]] Joseph-Aseneth materials (Selections in Genesis 41.45), of a Book of Jannes and Mambres (Homily on Matthew 23.37(25)/27.9) and of an apocryphon of Elijah or of Jeremiah (Homily on Matthew 27.9) among other non-canonical references. Thus Origen stands in personal tension between a relatively firm, exclusivistic view of scripture that apparently was present in some of the churches (and/or perhaps in the Jewish circles) with which he was in contact and the relatively less restrictive attitudes of his predecessor Clement. A couple of decades earlier, in North Africa, Tertullian had revealed similar reticence in citing the book of Enoch regarding fallen angels, in full recognition that some Christians rejected it because it was not included by the Jews in their scriptural collection (Cult Fem 1.3). Around the middle of the third century, Origen’s pupil Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria c. 247–264) admits to having read “both the compositions and the traditions of the heretics” despite a warning from one of the presbyters that he would thereby injure his soul. But, in a vision, God instructed Dionysius to read everything at hand so as to be able to test and prove everything—and thus he was able to [5.5]

32 See in general N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (New York: CUP, 1977); R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: a Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959). Studies that focus upon specific correspondences between the teachings of Origen and the Sages include E.E. Urbach, “Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation,” Scripta hierosolymitana 22 (1971) 247–75; R. Kimelman, “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation,” HTR 73 (1980) 567–95; and D.J. Halperin, “Origen, Ezekiel’s Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses,” Church History 50 (1981) 261–75.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

19

refute heresy all the more powerfully (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.7.1–3; cf. 7.24). Even at the end of the 4th century (Filaster of Brescia) or as late as the 8th century (John of Damascus) we still hear faint ecclesiastical voices arguing, in the same vein as Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, that enlightened Christians can profit from any and all available literature. But for the most part, the orthodox spokesmen of whom we know throughout this period were violently opposed to the pseudepigrapha, associating such writings with heterodox groups and even accusing the heretics of having forged some if not all of this material.

[5.6]

Alleged Heterodox Christian Transmitters of Pseudepigrapha [6.1] Some of the orthodox Christian sources attempt to identify specific

heterodox groups which produced, or at least used allegedly Jewish pseudepigraphical writings. Other heterodox groups are also described in terms that suggest an openness to such literature. In the [[67]] earliest period, apart from amorphous “Jewish Christian” outlooks for which wide use of Jewish materials would be fully expected, we hear of Elkesaites (early 2nd century) with their special traditions and their “Book of Elksai.”33 Some decades later Basilides is said to have had a special Psalm Book,34 and the 2nd century Montanist apocalyptic orientation appears to be well suited to the use of pseudepigraphic apocalyptic writings. (Tertullian argues for accepting “Enoch” as scripture, perhaps even before his Montanist alignment.) Irenaeus accuses the followers of Mark the gnostic of using and of forging apocrypha (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.20.1=1.13.1) in the late 2nd century. About the same time, 33 There is revived interest in the Elkesaites, partly due to the recent discovery and publication of the Cologne Mani Codex (see below, n. 37). Consult Origen apud Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.38; Hippolytus, Refutation 9.13–17; 10.29; Epiphanius, Panarion 19.1–6; 53.1; W. Brandt, Elchasai: ein Religionsstifter und sein Werk (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912); A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 54–67; idem, “Elchasai and Mani,” Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974) 277–89; G.P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1985); A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, “Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780),” Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5 (1970) 97–217, esp. pp. 133–60. For a recent attempt to link the Elkesaites to Jewish literature and institutions, see J.C. Reeves, “The Elchasaite Sanhedrin of the Cologne Mani Codex in Light of Second Temple Jewish Sectarian Sources,” JJS 42 (1991) 68–91. 34 For references and discussion, see Bauer, Orthodoxy, 170 n. 42.

20

chapter one

Lucian of Samosata satirically describes the temporarily converted Peregrinus as having authored many books for his Christian associates (Peregrinus 11). Passing reference is perhaps appropriate here to the relatively obscure Melchizedekian Christians35 and to the reputed Syrian rhapsodist Bar Daisan.36 [6.2] In the 3rd century, Mani consciously selected “the writings, wisdom, apocalypses, parables, and psalms of all the previous religions” for use in his Manichaean super-religion.37 His background seems to include close contacts with Elkesaites and Marcionites, at the very least. Unfortunately, the extent to which our allegedly Jewish pseudepigrapha

35 Epiphanius, Panarion 55. Interest in this sect has been spurred by the discovery and publication of Melchizedek texts from both Nag Hammadi (Nag Hammadi Codex IX 1) and Qumran (11QMelch). See A.S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI,” OtSt 14 (1965) 354–73; J.T. Milik, “Milki-sedeq et Milki-resa‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972) 95–144; F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: CUP, 1976); P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa‘ (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981); E. Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQ Melkisedeq,” RevQ 12 (1987) 483–513; B.A. Pearson, “The Figure of Melchizedek in the First Tractate of the Unpublished Coptic-Gnostic Codex IX from Nag Hammadi,” Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 200–8; Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (ed. B.A. Pearson; Nag Hammadi Studies 15; Leiden: Brill, 1981). 36 On a possible connection between Bar Daisan and the Odes of Solomon, see W.R. Newbold, “Bardaisan and the Odes of Solomon,” JBL 30 (1911) 161–204; J. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (trans. John A. Baker; Chicago: Regnery, 1964, from Theologie du judeo-christianisme; Paris: Desclee, 1958) 30–3; H.J.W. Drijvers, Bardaisan of Edessa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1966) 209–12. 37 The quotation is taken from Kephalaia 154; see C. Schmidt and H.J. Polotsky, “Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten,” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1933) 41 (text p. 85). Our knowledge about the milieu from which Manichaeism sprang has been augmented by the discovery and publication of the Cologne Mani Codex. See L. Koenen and C. Romer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Abbildungen und diplomatischer Text (Bonn: Habelt, 1985); idem, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Kritische Edition (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988). For an English translation of the initial portion of the Codex, see Ron Cameron and Arthur J. Dewey (trans.) The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon. inv. nr. 4780) “Concerning the Origin of his Body” (SBLTT 15; Early Christian Literature Series 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1979). A recent comprehensive study that incorporates the new information about Mani is S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1992). For an extensive summary treatment and bibliography, see Werner Sundermann’s article “Cologne Mani Codex” in the online Encyclopedia Iranica (c 1990; http://www .iranica.com/newsite/).

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

21

might have been used among Manichaeans is presently unknown.38 According to the Coptic text of Athanasius’ famous Easter letter of 367, unspecified apocryphal works also were used by the Meletian sect, which sometimes was closely identified with the Arians. A few decades later, Epiphanius names a great many books allegedly used by heretical groups: the Borborite gnostics use books in the name of Ialdabaoth and of Seth as well as an apocalypse of Adam and various books attributed to Mary and the Apostles (Panarion 26.8.1); other gnostics use a Gospel of Eve (26.2.6f.) and a book of Noriah, wife of Noah (26.1.3–4); the Sethians write books in the name of great men such as Seth, or his offspring called Allogenes, or Abraham (an apocalypse), or Moses (39.5.1); the Archontics create “apocrypha” with such names as the Small and Great Symphonia or the Ascent of Isaiah or books in the name of Seth (40.2.1, 7.4). Also from the late 4th century we hear of the Priscillians in Spain who used [[68]] apocryphal-pseudepigraphical books associated with prophets such as Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others and who were accused of Manichaeanism and of magic.39 Some of their views seem to have survived among the medieval Cathari (and Albigenses?).

38 The Cologne Mani Codex contains five citations from otherwise unknown pseudepigraphic works attributed to Adam, Seth, Enosh, Enoch, and Shem. Albert Henrichs has suggested that Cologne Mani Codex 7.2–14 reflects dependence upon the Testament of Abraham; see Henrichs, “Thou Shalt Not Kill a Tree: Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales,” BASP 16 (1979) 105–6; idem, “Literary Criticism of the Cologne Mani Codex,” The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978 (ed. B. Layton; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1980–81) 2.729 n. 20. A reliance upon Jewish Enochic literature has been vigorously advocated by J.C. Reeves, “An Enochic Motif in Manichaean Tradition,” Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen; Louvain: International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1991) 295–98; idem, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992). 39 See H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976); Andrew Jacobs, “The Disorder of Books: Priscillian’s Canonical Defense of Apocrypha,” HTR 93 (2000) 135–59.

22

chapter one Resurgence of Interest in Pseudepigrapha in Mainstream Christian Circles

Very few Greek manuscripts of allegedly Jewish pseudepigrapha have survived from the period prior to the 9th century.40 To what extent this is a reflection of official orthodox hostility, or even censorship, or is simply due to the general paucity of materials that have survived from that early period is difficult to determine. In any event, from the 10th century onward there is a growing flood of Jewish pseudepigraphical materials in Greek, especially those that deal with the lives and deaths of ancient righteous persons.41 From the 14th century onward, various apocalyptic pseudepigrapha MSS appear in Greek, including both the popular reward-punishment scenes of the afterlife (as in Dante’s “Comedy”)42 and the more cosmic surveys of the mysteries of past and future history. Again, it may be simply due to coincidence that the preserved MSS are so late in date, but at least this information provides a starting point for further investigation. The main point I wish to make here is that by the later byzantine period, the orthodox Greek transcribers readily transmitted and used pseudepigraphical materials. The primary justification seems to be an avid interest in martyrology and hagiographic narrative.43 Greek liturgical practice provided a framework for this by stipulating specific dates on which to commemorate the saints and martyrs of the Christian tradition—including pre-Christian Jewish notables. As nearly as I can determine, the Christian Latin

[7.1]

40 For the evidence, see A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1970); S.P. Brock, “Other Manuscript Discoveries,” EJMI 157–73; also DiTommaso’s Bibliography (2001). 41 See especially the materials collected by F. Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (3 vols.; 3rd ed.; Bruxelles: Société Bollandistes, 1957). 42 For the development of such materials, see Martha Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), followed by her Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: OUP, 1993). 43 An interest that I have largely overlooked, but that may have served as a preserver of traditions and “pseudepigrapha awareness” at a more “scientific-historical” level, is in world chronography, more clearly identified and documented by William Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to Georgius Syncellus (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 26; Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1989), esp. 80–97. In various ways, pseudepigraphic literatures seem to have been able to serve a wide range of interests in the “middle ages,” including science (especially astronomological and calendric issues), history, popular piety (especially with folkloristic tales), and ordinary worship (e.g., with models of prayer/hymn language). The interrelationship of such motives among Christian transmitters deserves closer study.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

23

manuscript tradition shows much less sustained interest in the Jewish pseudepigraphical materials in the late medieval period, although some noteworthy Latin MSS or fragments dating from the 6th century (Jubilees, [Assumption of] Moses, Ascension of Isaiah) to the 9th Century (Life of Adam, 4 Ezra) are known. [[69]] [7.2] The situation in eastern Christian circles other than Greek is more

difficult to assess because so little pertinent scholarly work has been done therein. There are a great many relevant early Coptic materials, from the 4th century onward, which seems to indicate that the canoncentered orientation of Shenoute and his monastically inclined followers was by no means universal among literate Coptic Egyptian Christians.44 There is also a significant amount of relatively early material in Syriac,45 notably 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra from a 6th century MS, and the Psalms and Odes of Solomon from the 10th century. If it is assumed that most of the pseudepigrapha now preserved in Arabic were translated from Syriac, the impression that Syriac Christianity suffered little from the anti-pseudepigrapha attitudes of the orthodox Greek Christians is fortified. When we turn to the national churches in which the Armenian (from the 5th century),46 Ethiopic47 (from the 4/5th? century) and Old Slavic (from the 8th? century) languages were central, we are flooded with copies of a great variety of pseuepigraphical texts, dating mostly from the 12th century onward. These riches lie mostly untapped, and almost no precise information is available about the conditions under 44 See, e.g., Janet Timbie, Dualism and the Concept of Orthodoxy in the Thought of the Monks of Upper Egypt (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1979). For general background on the development of Christian communities in Egypt, see Bauer, Orthodoxy ch. 2, and more recently, Birger Pearson and James E. Goehring (eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). For a recent survey, David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton: University Press, 1998). 45 See David Bundy, “Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Literature,” SBL Seminar Papers 1991 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 745–65. 46 On Armenian materials, see especially Michael E. Stone, Studies in the Pseudepigrapha, with Special Reference to the Armenian (SVTP; Leiden: Brill, 1991); idem, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers 1–2 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006) and below, n. 65. 47 A project to microfilm Ethiopic manuscripts was undertaken by the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library (HMML) of St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota, in conjunction with Vanderbilt Divinity School and with cooperation from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in 1971 and has continued as circumstances and funding have permitted since then. A brief introduction to the Ethiopian Monastic Manuscript Library (EMML) is available online.

24

chapter one

which the pseudepigrapha were introduced among those Christians. I have little idea of the extent to which other relatively early Christian literatures and traditions such as those in Gothic, Georgian, Old Irish,48 Nubian, Sogdian, or Anglo-Saxon49 can contribute additional materials of relevance to this discussion. [7.3] In a nutshell, the situation seems to have been approximately as follows: From about the 4th century onward, classical Greek and Latin Christianity tended to oppose the (public) use of non-canonical religious literature and to identify it closely with heterodoxy. But as the threat of “the old heresies” waned, and as hagiographical traditions became more and more important to orthodoxy, the Greek churches came to accept and rework certain types of pseudepigraphical literature in great quantity. It is possible, as Lebreton once suggested,50 that orthodox editors actually purified some apocrypha of their heretical connections and sought “beneath gnostic accretions some harmless primitive tradition.” It is not clear where the Greeks obtained the [[70]] pseudepigraphical writings and traditions. My hunch is that many were preserved in Greek by monastics whose concern for personal piety and whose passive disdain for what was felt to be the tainted herd-mentality of urban organized Christianity led them to ignore prohibitions of such material. Chronographic and related “scholarly” interests doubtless played a role as well (see above, n. 43). Apparently many pseudepigrapha were available in such languages as Coptic or Syriac even from the 4th to 9th centuries, and it is not likely that they would have disappeared extensively in Greek. Nor is it impossible that some traditions that had disappeared in written Greek form could be reintroduced from oral sources or from non-Greek literature. Our

48 Martin McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1975); see also his (ed. with Maire Herbert) Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected Texts in Translation (Edinburgh: Clark, 1989). 49 See Frederick M. Biggs et al., “Apocrypha,” Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: a Trial Version (ed. Biggs, T.D. Hill and P.E. Szarmach; Binghamton NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1990). A good example of the crossfertilization of some of these developments can be seen in E. Ann Matter, “The ‘Revelatio Esdrae’ in Latin and English Traditions,” RBén 92 (1982) 376–92. Other examples may be found in the electronic logs of network discussion groups such as ANSAX-L and MEDTEXTL (listed, with others, at http://pages .towson.edu/duncan/acalists.html). 50 Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, The History of the Early Church (trans. Ernest C. Messenger; New York: Collier, 1962 [1944–47 original]) 4.90.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

25

knowledge of eremetic outlooks, literary practices, and contacts with other monastics of various language groupings is extremely poor, especially for the period from the 5th through the 9th centuries. And our knowledge of general developments in non-Latin Christianity in that period is not much better. What influence did the rise and spread of Islam during the 7th through the 9th centuries have on this situation? We know that there were concerted efforts by Muslim leaders and scholars to translate all sorts of Greek and Syriac materials into Arabic, especially in the late 8th and early 9th centuries.51 This doubtless brought many literate Christians and Jews who knew at least Syriac and perhaps also Greek into closer contact with each other. And Muslims were interested in Jewish and Christian traditions of various sorts, including apocalyptic, as is evident from Islamic literature.

[7.4]

[7.5] Furthermore, reports of the discovery of non-canonical ancient Jewish writings come from this period—including the report of a Nestorian Christian leader (Timotheos, ca. 800) whose informants seem to be in fairly close contact with the Jewish discoverers.52 The Jewish Karaite movement53 develops in the late 8th century, with adherents who look

51 The individual preeminently associated with this effort was the Christian physician Hunayn b. Ishaq (809–874 CE), regarding whom see G. Strohmaier, “Hunayn b. Ishak al-‘Ibadi,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 (1954–2005; vol. 3, 1979) 3.578-81. For a general discussion, see M. Plessner, “Science: The Natural Sciences and Medicine,” The Legacy of Islam (ed. J. Schacht and C.E. Bosworth; 2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon: 1974) 425–60, esp. pp. 430ff. 52 O. Braun, “Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I über biblische Studien des 9. Jahrhunderts,” OrChr 1 (1901) 299–313 (German text and English translation of the letter is also online). In his letter, Timetheos recounts a report (received from some Jewish converts to Christianity) of the recent discovery of a number of biblical and non-biblical manuscripts in a cave near Jericho. These manuscripts were removed to Jerusalem for further study. For more discussion of this find and its possible significance for Qumran, see O. Eissfeldt, “Der gegenwartige Stand der Erforschung der in Palastina neu gefundenen hebraischen Handschriften,” TLZ 74 (1949) 597–600; R. de Vaux, “A propos des manuscrits de la mer Morte,” RB 57 (1950) 417–29; A. Paul, Écrits de Qumran et sectes juives aux premiers siécles de l’Islam (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1969) 94–6. 53 For the origin and history of the Karaite schism, see S.W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (18 vols.; 2nd ed.; New York and Philadelphia: Columbia University Press and the Jewish Publication Society, 1952–83) 5.209–85; L. Nemoy, et al., “Karaites,” EncJud 10.761–85. Regarding the possible reliance of the Karaites upon non-canonical sources, see H.H. Rowley, The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952) 22–9, and Y. Erder and H. Ben-Shammai, “The

26

chapter one

with favor on Jesus as a Jewish righteous teacher and who present an elaborate angelology to mediate between God and his creation. Karaite tradition also knows of an influential Jewish messianic movement in this period, and there is a spate of Jewish would-be messiahs in succeeding centuries. Whether apocalyptic [[71]] pseudepigrapha had any role in these phenomena is unknown to me, but the possibility deserves mention. The probable connection between the Karaites, the Cairo geniza materials and the Dead Sea sectaries (or at least their cave-deposited literature) should not be overlooked in this connection. Whether any significant “millennarian movements” developed in eastern Christianity in the same period, and how they related to Jewish movements, would also be worth knowing for our purposes. The period around the year 1000 seems to have witnessed a rise in apocalyptic expectations in Christian circles,54 but the detailed story remains to be written. Similarly, the history of contacts between Jews and Christians in this period, and especially with Christians who spoke Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and perhaps even Old Slavic, also has yet to be written. I suspect it would be extremely enlightening for pseudepigrapha studies. Indeed, it probably cannot be written without careful attention to the topic of “the pseudepigrapha in Christianity.”

[7.6]

Connection of Karaism with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Apocryphal Literature,” Cathedra 42 (1987) 53–86 (Hebrew). Some scholars have also assessed the complicated problem of whether traces of the “pseudepigrapha” have survived in the literature of classical Judaism. In addition to the references cited in n. 16 above, see H. Albeck, “Agadot im Lichte der Pseudepigraphen,” MGWJ 83 (1939) 162–69; Y. Dan, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Hebrew Literature,” EncJud 3.186–87; idem, Ha-sippur ha-‘ivri beyemey ha-baynayyim (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974) 133–41 (Hebrew); M. Himmelfarb, “R. Moses the Preacher and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” American Jewish Society Review 9 (1984) 55–78. 54 H. Focillon, The Year 1000 (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), but see Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) 88, 306 n. 1. For general discussions of medieval millenarianism, see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (3rd ed.; New York: OUP, 1970); P.J. Alexander, Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire (London: Variorum, 1978); idem, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). See now the work of the “Center for Millennial Studies” at Boston University (http://www.mille.org/) and such articles as by its founder-director Richard Landes, “Apocalyptic Expectations Around the Year 1000” (1996).

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

27

Working Backwards Towards the Origins Methodological rigor requires us to work from what is more or less securely known towards what is unknown or only suspected. In the study of ostensibly Jewish pseudepigrapha, the area of what is unknown dominates. Nevertheless, some controls are available to help chart a path for further investigation. We do possess copies of certifiably Jewish writings that have been transmitted over long periods of time by Christian transcribers.55 The most obvious examples are the canonical writings. There is extremely little evidence that Christian copyists tampered in a tendentious manner with those works. A couple of problematic passages appear in some manuscripts and/or versions of Psalms and even more rarely elsewhere. The mysterious “Sexta” version of Hab 3.13 is reported to have rendered the Hebrew leshua (“to save”) as διὰ Ἰησοῦν (dia Ihsoun—“through Joshua/Jesus”), which has been taken as evidence that the translator was Christian.56 Allegedly Christian abbreviations of key terms (e.g., man, heaven, salvation) and key names (especially Jesus) appear throughout the [[72]] manuscripts, but do not affect the meaning.57 Occasionally prefixed superscriptions or affixed subscriptions to particular scriptural writings contain clearly Christian comments, but these are just as clearly differentiated by the annotator from the sacred text itself.58 Various claims have been made to the effect that Christian transcribers have sometimes changed an “OT” text to harmonize with a variant NT quotation of that text, but such allegations are extremely difficult to substantiate.59 On the whole, [8.1]

55 See Kraft, “Transmission” (below, Chapter Three). Some recent studies of the Christian transmission of Jewish materials include David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1993); James C. VanderKam and William Adler, eds., The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1998). 56 E.g., Swete, Introduction, 56. 57 On the treatment of such “nomina sacra” in the manuscript traditions, see Ludwig Traube, Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 2; Munich: Beck, 1907), and A.H.R. Paap, Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries AD: the Sources and some Deductions (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 8; Leiden: Brill, 1959). Much more has appeared on this topic subsequently, as a search of the web will show; e.g., Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 58 For a few examples, see Chapter Three below, n. 15. 59 See further below, in Chapter Three, for some examples.

28

chapter one

the evidence is strong that Christian transcribers were very careful and faithful to the text when they copied Jewish writings that they considered scriptural.60 To what extent Christian transcribers may consciously have eliminated “Christian” sorts of variants they found in the Jewish scriptural MSS in order to foster scriptural harmony and sanctity can no longer be determined.61 It is certainly not at all impossible that at a very early period in Christian history, before the issue of scriptural canonization had become such an obsession, characteristically Christian changes were introduced into some Jewish “scriptural” texts, only to prove an embarrassment at a later date, when the Jewish origin and orientation of the Christian “Old Testament” text became a cornerstone of the emerging orthodox faith.62 But that is uncontrolled conjecture on my part, given the present state of the evidence. On the other hand, there is strong evidence that some Christian transcribers sometimes did insert tendentious changes into the (noncanonical) Jewish texts they transmitted. The Josephus tradition is perhaps the best known example with its extremely laudatory testimony about Jesus and the various additions of possibly Christian significance in the Old Slavic version.63 I am not aware of any similar problems with Philo texts64 or with the most widely accepted “deutero-canonical” [8.2]

60

See Kraft, “Transmission” (below, Chapter Three). As claimed by M.R. James for one Latin recension of 5 Ezra (see below, Chapter Eight); see now also Theodore A. Bergren, Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin and Early History (SBLSCS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), and my own article “Towards Assessing the Latin Text of ‘5 Ezra,’ ” Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendhal on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and G.W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 158–69 (included below, Chapter Eight). 62 To the extent that “Jewish” origins could be seen as evidence of both age and authority, Christian copyists might have had a tendency to emphasize “Jewish” features and eliminate what seemed to them to be obvious Christian “corruptions” in certain texts. 63 For literature discussing the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.63–4), see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII–XIX (LCL; ed. L.H. Feldman; reprinted, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) 419–21; the “new Schürer,” History 1.428–41; L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937–1980 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984) 679–703; J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2009) 1.56–88; S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1971). Regarding Slavonic Josephus, see the references in “new Schürer,” History 1.60–1; Meier, Marginal Jew 1.71–2 n. 5. 64 See now the careful study by Runia, Philo (above, n. 55). There is an interesting phenomenon in the Philonic textual tradition in which one family of MSS contains a different text type for the Jewish scriptural quotations, but there is nothing overtly 61

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

29

writings. Text-critical problems do exist in all these works, but there is nothing characteristically Christian about the preserved variants. Perhaps more detailed study of the entire textual tradition (including versional evidence) would modify this impression, since modern editors are usually more concerned with establishing the supposedly original form of the text than with identifying late and tendentious variants. But for the moment, the available evidence does [[73]] not suggest that Christian transcribers regularly tended to insert characteristically Christian passages into the Jewish texts they copied. Occasionally a relatively clear instance appears, either as a variant in the textual stream or, as with the Josephus passage about Jesus, as material that seems highly incompatible with its supposed Jewish origins. Although the apocalypse dubbed “4 Ezra” cannot be classified as “certifiably Jewish” on the basis of external criteria alone, its textual transmission offers a good example of what appears to be Christian interpolation in some witnesses. At 4 Ezra 7.28, where the other extant versions refer to “messiah” or to “my son the messiah,” Latin manuscripts have “my son Jesus.” While it is possible that an original “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ/Messiah” reference has been removed by copyists because of its incongruity with the rest of the document, it is more likely that Christian interest caused the insertion of the specific name “Jesus.”65 [8.3] The evidence is also clear that Christians sometimes radically revised and reedited texts they transmitted. This can be seen most clearly with certifiably Christian texts, where no question arises as to whether the revisions had already taken place under Jewish auspices. It should be unnecessary to list examples—if the synoptic problem or the western text of Acts do not seem to be immediately relevant, the three recensions

or identifiably “Christian” about the results (despite the conjecture of Katz to this effect)—indeed, Barthelemy argues for a “Jewish” reviser; see Runia 24f for a succinct survey of the relevant literature and arguments, starting with Peter Katz, Philo’s Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: CUP, 1950). See now my essay “Philo’s Bible Revisited: the ‘Aberrant Texts’ and their Quotations of Moses,” Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne with the collaboration of B. Doyle; Louvain: Peeters, 2005) 237–53 [an expanded version with working notes appended is available online]. 65 Compare the Armenian version at Paraleipomena Jeremiou 9.14, and see n. 74 below.

30

chapter one

of the letters of Ignatius66 or the modification of Didache for incorporation into the Apostolic Constitutions67 should suffice to illustrate the point. In fact we needn’t even go that far afield. The Ascension of Isaiah is a patently Christian composition in its preserved form, whatever one thinks about its opening sections which many scholars treat as a separate Jewish document and call the “Martyrdom of Isaiah.” Virtually the same material as is present in the Ascension of Isaiah appears in a reshuffled and equally Christian form in a 12th century Greek text entitled “Prophecy, Apocalypse and Martyrdom of . . . Isaiah.”68 [8.4] Similar types of editorial activity are also demonstrable on the part

of Jewish transmitters of Jewish literature. We have received two rather different forms of the biblical book of Jeremiah.69 Ben Sira is preserved in variant Hebrew forms.70 My point is that the presence of [[74]] two or more versions of the same basic material in Christian hands does not necessarily mean that the variation originated with the Christians. There are numerous problems of this sort among the pseudepigrapha. Two radically different forms of Testament of Abraham have been preserved.71 The Adam-Eve literature is found in a seemingly endless variety.72 66 See M.P. Brown, The Authentic Writings of St. Ignatius (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963); W.R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 3–7. 67 See R.A. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache (1965) 58–9 (online). 68 Ed. O. von Gebhardt, “Die Ascensio Isaiae als Heiligenlegende,” ZWT 21 (1878) 330–53; see the updated description by M.A. Knibb in OTP 2.146. 69 A long form (represented by MT) and a shorter form (at Qumran and OG). For discussion, see E. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual History,” Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J.H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 211–37; and more recently, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992, 20012) 319–27. 70 See A.A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study (The Hague: Mouton, 1966); P.W. Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 51–62; Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) esp. 1.1. 71 See Chapter Six, below, and more recently E.P. Sanders, OTP 1.871–873. 72 See M.D. Johnson, OTP 2.249-51, with reference also to J.L. Sharpe, Prolegomena to the Establishment of the Critical Text of the Greek Apocalypse of Moses (PhD dissertation, Duke University, 1969). Among related texts mentioned by Johnson are Apocalypse of Moses, Life of Adam and Eve, Cave of Treasures, Combat of Adam and Eve, Testament of Adam and Apocalypse of Adam (p. 250). See also D.A. Bertrand, La vie grecque d’Adam et Eve (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1987); W. Lowndes Lipscomb, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); M.E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

31

Various recensions of the Lives of the Prophets exist.73 There are shorter and longer forms of Paraleipomena Jeremiou.74 “5th Ezra” appears in two significantly different Latin forms.75 How do we know who has made the changes and for what reasons? With regard to writings that have been preserved in a relatively less complicated state, how do we know we are not simply victims of circumstance who have inherited only one stage (the latest?) of a rather lengthy development? By and large, the desired control evidence is inconclusive. Other lines of approach, such as careful linguistic analysis in relation to a wide selection of literature from approximately the same period, need to be carefully explored. There is another type of control that would be very helpful, but strict methodological considerations make it difficult to isolate. I expect that there were self-consciously Christian authors who wrote new works that focused on Jewish persons or traditions and contained no uniquely Christian passages.76 Motives for producing this sort of quasi-Jewish literature would vary from the rather innocent homily on the heroic life of a Job or a Joseph to what we might call premeditated forgery for apocalyptic or hagiographical or some other purposes. But unless we have the testimony of some informed and reliable witness to what is taking place, we have only the evidence contained in the writing itself. And if, by definition, the writing contains no uniquely Christian elements, we will be at a loss to identify it as of Christian origin! [8.5]

[8.6] Of course, we do have witnesses from Christian antiquity who claim

to know that some Christians were forging Jewish pseudepigrapha. It is a polemical claim made and repeated from the late second century

73

See E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen: J.J. Heckenhauer, 1893) 1–83; T. Schermann, Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo, Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicate (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907); idem, Propheten- und Apostellegenden nebst Jungerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte (TU 31.3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907); C.C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (JBL Monograph Series 1; Philadelphia: SBL, 1946); D.R.A. Hare, OTP 2.379–84. 74 The situation is summarized by S.E. Robinson, OTP 2.413–14, under the title “4 Baruch”(!). See also R.A. Kraft and A.-E. Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (Missoula: SBL, 1972). 75 See now Bergren, Fifth Ezra (1990). 76 See also Sparks, AOT xiv–xv.

32

chapter one

onward.77 But as with most polemically conditioned claims, we do well to take it with a large lump of salt. The claim is probably accurate to the extent that heterodox groups made [[75]] use of Jewish, or apparently Jewish, pseudepigrapha. But the accusation that the heterodox were actually writing or compiling such works in an original manner can hardly be accepted at face value from witnesses like Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Epiphanius. We only reach a methodological impasse along this avenue of inquiry, although I suspect that the polemicists are at least partly correct! From my perspective, “the Christianity of the Pseudepigrapha” is not the hidden ingredient that needs to be hunted out and exposed in contrast to a supposed native Jewish pre-Christian setting. On the contrary, when the evidence is clear that the material has been preserved only in Christians contexts, the Christianity of it is the given, it is the setting, it is the starting point for delving more deeply into this literature to determine what, if anything, may be safely identified as originally Jewish. And even when the label “originally Jewish” can be attached to some material in the pseudepigrapha, that does not automatically mean pre-Christian Jewish, or even pre-rabbinic Jewish. It might mean post-Jamnian Jewish, rabbinic Jewish or Karaite Jewish, for example; unless one assumes that neither the rabbis nor the Karaites ever reshaped traditions to be more useful for their immediate purposes, it could mean originally Jewish from Islamic times!78

[8.7]

Furthermore, in a Christian setting that is almost obsessed with multiplying examples of God’s righteous athletes who struggled and conquered their demonic opponents in life and even in death, the characteristically Christian elements in a sermon or a narration may be entirely coextensive with possible Jewish interest. In a Christian setting that is self-conscious of its Jewish heritage and thrives on visions and

[8.8]

77 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.20.1 (Marcosians); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25; Athanasius, Festal Letter 39; Epiphanius, Panarion 39.5.1 (Sethians), 40.2.1 (Archontics). 78 The possibility of Samaritan Jewish should also be noted. See, for example, Ross S. Kraemer, “Could Aseneth be Samaritan?” A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (ed. Benjamin G. Wright III; Scholars Press Homage Series 24; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 149–65; Davila, Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha (2005), also mentions other possible Jewish-related groups (e.g., “Galileans”), as well as Samaritans.

the pseudepigrapha in christianity

33

revelations, how can one tell whether the predictions and prescriptions found on the mouth of an Adam or Seth were put there by a Jewish or a Christian author? We need to examine the literature as it has been preserved for us, attempt to recreate the conditions under which it was preserved and transmitted, and then perhaps we will be in a position to identify the sort of “Jewishness” it might represent. For the most part, and with significant exceptions (e.g., at least part of the “1 Enoch” anthology), this has not been the normal approach to the pseudepigrapha in recent decades.79 I believe that our knowledge of Christian pluralism has suffered from [[76]] this fact, and although our awareness of early Jewish pluralism has profited, this has been at the expense of methodological rigor and may be paying us an inflated dividend.

79 D.W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 11–33; see also M. de Jonge’s Testaments . . . a Study (1953) and subsequent related publications. Note also M.R. James’ suggestion (above n. 61) that the more “Jewish” sounding version of 5 Ezra might be due to Christian editorial excision of overtly “Christian” elements!

CHAPTER TWO

THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND CHRISTIANITY, REVISITED: SETTING THE STAGE AND FRAMING SOME CENTRAL QUESTIONS1 1. Introduction As those who know me well will understand, I am not usually in favor of simply reading formal prepared papers to groups of informed scholars as a way of advancing study of the topics at hand.2 I think that such an uninterrupted public oral approach often is ineffective, and in any event may be an irresponsible use of available time and resources. Thus I propose to follow up on the excellent general opening remarks made earlier by Dan Harlow,3 to present some additional ideas about the topic, and to encourage input and discussion from the group as we proceed. Perhaps then we can make better progress towards identifying issues that call for closer attention. [[372]] As usual, my focus is on method—on self-conscious and consistent approaches to the subject, exercising as much “control” as possible, by which I mean operating from the more securely known aspects to the more problematic.

1 Based on a presentation made at the SNTS Congress in Tel Aviv, Israel, in August 2000, a version of which appeared in JSJ 32 (2001) 371–95; an updated version has been made available on the internet. 2 The primary background for this discussion is my article drafted for the 1976 SNTS meeting at Duke University a quarter century ago (above, Chapter One). In what appears below, I’m especially grateful for the comments and suggestions from the participants of the 2000 SNTS Seminar, most notably from Jan Willem van Henten, and subsequent to the Seminar from Ross S. Kraemer and Marinus de Jonge. The central point(s) that I want the reader to take from this presentation are that the subject is extremely complex, and in many respects the surface of scholarly research has barely been scratched. In what follows, I attempt to examine various facets of the situation, from various vantage points, and with particular focus on the methodological problems encountered. Relevant literature in the subject area is vast, and I do not try to do much more here than to give some pointers to recent research. I apologize for the repetitions, which reflect my frustrations in finding effective ways to approach this complex subject. 3 “The Christianization of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 3 Baruch,” JSJ 32 (2001) 416–44.

36

chapter two

With most of the materials of interest for this study—“Jewish sources”—our main avenue of discovery starts in Christian contexts. That is, with rare exceptions provided mainly by discovery of ancient manuscripts (most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls) and by continuous Jewish transmission, our knowledge of “Jewish sources” relating to the period of Christian origins comes through Christian interests and transmission. While this fact is widely recognized, it is not always taken seriously in the study of those materials. For example, while we are often warned—quite appropriately—that the rabbinic Jewish sources are relatively “late” in their preserved forms and therefore can only be used with great care and caution in the study of Christian origins, the same sort of methodological circumspection seldom is voiced with regard to the use of the “pseudepigrapha” and related materials, which are often also relatively “late” as we find them in their preserved forms and have come to us through clearly Christian hands and interests. (For examples see further below.) This does not mean that it is impossible to use such materials to “get back” to the earlier period that may be the focus of our interest, any more than the rabbinic sources should be considered irrelevant or impervious for such purposes. What it does mean is that similar care is necessary in determining how to use these materials responsibly. They are, first of all, “Christian” materials, and recognition of that fact is a necessary step in using them appropriately in the quest to throw light on early Judaism. I call this the “default” position—sources transmitted by way of Christian communities are “Christian,” whatever else they may also prove to be. This is not a new insight, as is clear from reading many of the pioneers of the study of these materials (e.g., Batiffol, M.R. James, Harnack).4 But it is an insight that tends to get lost as scholarly confidence grows [[373]] in our ability to recognize what is “Jewish” (or otherwise nonChristian) in the sources. Yet that ability, as with all historical research, is not something static. New discoveries and new insights change the playing field in various ways, sometimes almost imperceptibly, some-

4 See Pierre Batiffol, “Le Livre de la Prière d’Aseneth,” Studia patristica: Études d’ancienne littérature chrétienne (vol. 1.2; Paris: Leroux, 1899–90) 1–115; Montague Rhodes James, “Introduction” to R.L. Bensly’s edition of The Fourth Book of Ezra (TS 3.2; Cambridge: CUP, 1895); Adolf Harnack, Geschichte 1.2 (1893; 2nd ed. reprinted Leipzig: Hindrichs, 1958); “Übersicht über die von den Christen angeeignete und zum Theil bearbeitete jüdische Literatur,” 845–65.

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

37

times quite radically, so that what were once considered to be clear and firm results of scholarship require re-evaluation in the light of more recent information and approaches. This is what I sometimes refer to as the “methodological spiral” with which we operate—it is not a circular argumentation5 insofar as each new piece of evidence can modify our understanding so that we can ask the same questions from a slightly (or sometimes radically) different vantage point.6 For our present study, for example, the meanings of “early Jewish” and of “Christian” are in some ways significantly different from what they may have been the last time around on the spiral of responsible and informed research. The bottom line, at this point in the discussion, is that with reference to sources preserved and used by the Christian traditions, the “default” position is that they must first be understood within their Christian contexts as the starting point for attempting to use them responsibly for purposes of determining their possible contributions to our knowledge of earlier Jewish contexts. The burden of proof lies with claims of Jewishness, and the route to establishing the probability of early Jewish connections is complex and fraught with problems both regarding definitions/assumptions (method) and regarding reliable information (data). 2. Framework of the Seminar Discussion In an attempt to provide a detailed overview of the issues, I presented a preliminary grid on the large chalkboard in the seminar room. It called attention to three main areas of concern: (1) methodological issues in modern scholarship, (2) types of early Christian treatment of “Jewish” materials, and (3) types of relevant ancient sources (as well as [[374]] recent studies) available for the investigation. Further observations were invited from the participants:

5 For example, it would be circular to argue (and also begs the question) that a certain text that shows concern for the fate of Jerusalem must be Jewish since we know from such texts that concern for the fate of Jerusalem was a characteristically Jewish feature (and presumably would not be of interest to Christians)! 6 In our example, if the text at hand shows interest in the fate of Jerusalem and comes to us by way of Christian transmission, this suggests that some Christians may indeed have had an interest in that subject and that the text (and others like it) may even have originated in such a milieu.

38

chapter two 1. Methodological Issues:

motivations/interests definitions/assumptions controls analogy

2. Types of Treatment:

faithful & complete faithful selections revisions new compositions

3. Types of Sources:

“scriptural” apocalyptic prophetic/oracular hymns/prayers commentary hagiographic homiletic chronographic ethical

2.1. Methodological Issues With reference to modern research and researchers, why do we care about these issues and materials? Some of us may be looking for clues about early Judaism and are impatient about the process by which such information is uncovered. Others may want to concentrate on early Christian interfaces with Judaism (positive, negative or neutral) and are content to focus their investigations on that period, without much reference to what may have preceded or followed. Still others may be mainly interested in the adoption and adaptation of these materials into ongoing Christianity, long after the period of presumed origins and of initial tensions with Judaism has passed. Our conclusions are often dictated to some extent by our interests, although we may not always be self-conscious of that fact. The group briefly explored the related problem of definitions and assumptions. Arguments are often determined in advance by how one defines such terms as “Christian,” “Jewish,” “original text,” “recension,” etc. Sometimes the categories, even when carefully defined, can overlap in confusing ways (see below on Boyarin’s recent discussion of martyrology!). Assumptions about attitudes to “scriptural” authority or to the establishment of “the canon” often color arguments [[375]] unduly (and anachronistically). If we really believe that Christians appropriated their selection of Jewish scriptures and saw themselves as legitimate owners and protectors—as standing and participating in that tradition—why

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

39

should it be difficult to believe that Christians could produce “Jewish” sounding supporting materials? A third area of methodological concern is the search for firm evidence on which to base arguments, and the appropriate use of analogies to extend arguments beyond the firm controls. For example, we have the plethora of Dead Sea Scroll materials that almost certainly comes from a halakhically rigorous apocalyptically oriented early Jewish milieu in Palestine and that includes fragments of some writings otherwise known only from much later Christian copies and/or translations (e.g., the Enoch materials, Jubilees, Tobit, Epistle of Jeremiah). Can we legitimately argue from such control cases that other similar writings that are not represented among the surviving DSS probably were, by analogy, also present in that sort of Jewish Palestinian milieu?7 Or how comfortable can we be with sociological arguments about millennial communities in the early Jewish and early Christian worlds being analogous in certain otherwise unattested regards to apparently similar groups that exist in the modern world and have been studied directly by modern scholars?8 It is important to be aware of the types of evidence available as well as the sorts of arguments used to move beyond the details to synthetic reconstructions. 2.2. Types of Early Christian Treatment of “Jewish” Materials With regard to early Christian treatment of “Jewish” materials, a range of theoretical possibilities exists and sometimes can be verified in the preserved texts. Clearly there were faithful copies made and [[376]] transmitted for centuries of some Jewish writings including but not limited to what came to be considered “canonical” Jewish scriptures. There also exist some “composite” Christian productions that include

7

Albert Sundberg, for example, in his essay “ ‘The Old Testament of the Early Church’ Revisited” (Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel, ed. Thomas J. Sienkewicz and James E. Betts, published by Monmouth College Illinois, 1996: also available online at http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/) comments that “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha utilized by early Christians but not found at Qumran include: Apocrypha: 1, 2 Esdras, additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1, 2 Maccabees; Pseudepigrapha: Letter of Aristeas, the Books of Adam and Eve, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Sibylline Oracles, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Baruch, Greek and Syriac Apocalypses of, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Maccabees.” Other titles could be added to the list as well. 8 See note 12 in my “Pseudepigrapha” article (above, Chapter One) for references to such approaches, including more recent literature to about 1990.

40

chapter two

discrete segments of Jewish sources, juxtaposed with other materials (e.g., the “Odes” anthology that circulated alongside the scriptural Psalms);9 these are also “faithful” copies, but have been incorporated into new contexts. Examples of originally Jewish writings that have been revised to include Christian interests also are almost certainly represented—the evidence ranges from relatively minor text-critical adaptations to more extensive “recensional” activity (e.g., Assumption of Isaiah, Paraleipomena Jeremiou, Didache’s Two Ways section, parts of Sibylline Oracles).10 What is more difficult to illustrate is the end of the spectrum that would identify “original” Christian compositions of an apparently “Jewish” sort. Perhaps, at least, some works of prayer and/or praise would be obvious candidates. 2.3. Types of Relevant Ancient Sources As for the presumably ancient data and their transmission history, recent studies help illustrate how little we really know. Clearly there were many varieties of early Christian groups (as also of Jewish groups, not to mention Christian/Jewish groups, and of course individuals who may or may not conform to any group, and groups that might be the main defining category and included Jewish and/or Christian members,

9 These Odes are normally included with the biblical Psalms in editions of the LXX/ OG—e.g., in A. Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, vol. 10 of the Göttingen Septuagint (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931 [corrected edition 1967]), and in the 2 volume Septuaginta edited by Rahlfs (1935 and subsequent corrected editions from the Würtembergische Bibelanstalt in Stuttgart). 10 Recent studies of these works include: Enrico Norelli, L’Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi (Origini/CISEC, Centro interdipartimentale di studi sull’ebraismo e sul cristianesimo antico, Universita degli studi di Bologna, nuova ser. 1; Bologna: EDB, 1994); Mauro Pesce, ed., Isaia, il diletto e la chiesa: visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva nell’Ascensione di Isaia (Atti del convegno di Roma, 9–10 aprile 1981; Brescia: Paideia, 1983); Mauro Pesce, Il “Martirio di Isaia” non esiste: l’Ascensione di Isaia et le tradizioni giudaiche sull’uccisione del profeta (Centro Stampa Baiesi, 1984). Jens Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1994) and Fourth Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou). Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2005); Bernd Schaller, Paralipomena Jeremiou (JSHRZ 1/8; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1998) 659–777; JSP Issue 22 (2000) [entirely devoted to Par.Jer.]; A. Momigliano, “From the Pagan to the Christian Sibyl,” The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays (ed. A.C. Dionisotti, Anthony Grafton and Jill Kraye; Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 16; London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1988) 3–18; H.W. van der Sandt and D. Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen: van Gorcum, 2002). See further the DiTommaso Bibliography (2001).

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

41

such as “magic practitioners,” astronomers, or educators and literati of various sorts), each perhaps with its own attitudes towards Jewish materials. We have little information on the dynamics that may have existed within and among [[377]] such groups, including any motivation to appropriate, adapt or even formulate “Jewish” materials. Some recent studies that suggest fresh approaches to some of these problems will be noted in more detail below. We can identify various streams of traditions of Jewish pedigree that flourish, or at least survive, in Christian circles alongside of what comes to be considered “scriptural.” Should we attempt to develop and apply different criteria to the study of each? We find apocalyptic continuities (e.g., 4 Ezra, 2–3 Baruch, 6 Ezra), prophetic and oracular pronouncements (e.g., 5 Ezra, Sibylline Oracles), hymnody and prayers (e.g., “extracanonical” Psalms, Apostolic Constitutions 8), scriptural interpretation (e.g., Philo), hagiography/martyrology (e.g., 4 Maccabees, Lives of Prophets), homilization and storytelling (e.g., on Joseph and his asceticism, Jeremiah’s fate, tales of the patriarchs), attention to chronography and antiquity (e.g., Jubilees, Josephus), ethics (e.g., the “Two Ways” traditions), perhaps even “magic.”11 The Christian development of “Dialogues with Jews” claims to connect to Jewish source materials but seems to take on a life of its own; its history may provide some clues to how some Christians treated Jewish sources. What are we to 11 Some of these genres and/or themes have received some attention recently: e.g., apocalyptic and prophetic materials—T. Bergren, Fifth Ezra (1990) and Sixth Ezra: the Text and Origin (New York: OUP, 1998); J.W. Marshall on the NT book of Revelation (see below, nn. 15 and 35); Dan Harlow (above, n. 3); martyrology—G.W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: CUP 1995); Jan Willem van Henten, “Zum Einfluss jüdischer Martyrien auf die Literatur des frühen Christentums (2: Die Apostolischen Väter),” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II:27/1 (ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993) 700–23; also “The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: Some Remarks on the Continuity between Jewish and Christian Martyrology, with Pagan Analogies,” Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective (ed. M. Lamberigts and P. van Deun; BETL 117; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 303–22; van Henten and Friedrich Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 2002); D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); tales and traditions of various sorts—Ross S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Revisited (Oxford: OUP, 1998); James Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: the Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990) and 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); see also n. 10 above on Paralipomena Jeremiou. This listing can be expanded greatly by consulting DiTommaso’s Bibliography (2001), and through internet searches.

42

chapter two

do with Epiphanius’ bold claims about the Jewish convert to Christianity, “count” Joseph, and the Jerusalem Hebrew archives he allegedly accessed? What sorts of texts were available in the Jewish Christian communities mentioned by Jerome? [[378]] Asking the questions is relatively easy, but developing reasonable approaches to such wide-ranging materials takes much care and effort. As already noted above, it is not only a question of the history of relatively homogeneous and discrete documents, but also of different sorts of collections and compositions, from the fairly mechanically juxtaposed library such as 1 Enoch or the Odes to relatively more amalgamated examples of various sorts. At the level of textual detail, is it sometimes possible to determine when “Christian” scribal activities are responsible for particular phenomena? When we encounter texts that have been translated, can we determine what sorts of translators were involved and what they might have contributed to possible transformations of the texts?12 And what can be said about those texts that have survived in two or more distinct “recensions”? Can we identify the Jewish or Christian affiliation of certain editors? By what criteria, and with what controls?13 3. In Other Words: A More Orderly Restatement of the Situation So much for attempting to chart or briefly to identify the main problems. What can be done, or hoped for, from this vantage point? Christians made various uses of pre-Christian Jewish (and other) materials. By “Christians” I mean people who considered themselves to be adherents of Jesus whom they viewed as God’s “Messiah/Christ” and, in the context of religion, the most significant being to have entered

12

Occasionally we can catch a glimpse of the process, as with the 6th century Syriac translation of the Aseneth materials; see Kraemer, Aseneth, 225. On translation issues more generally, see William Adler, “Ad verbum or ad sensum: the Christianization of a Latin Translation Formula in the Fourth Century,” Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 321–48. 13 See, for example, M.E. Stone, “The Study of Armenian Apocrypha,” A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (ed. B.G. Wright; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999) 139–48; J.C. Reeves, “Reconsidering the ‘Prophecy of Zardust,’ ” in ibidem, 167–82 (with reference to Manichaean materials and traditions); and on recensional issues, my own essay “Reassessing the ‘Recensional Problem’ in Testament of Abraham” (below, Chapter Six).

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

43

the human realm. By “Jewish” I refer to people who saw themselves in continuity with the traditions associated with Moses and ancient Israel and with communities known as “Jewish” in their world. It is not incompatible for a person to be both Jewish and Christian, in this [[379]] definitional situation, but as persons in Christian communities come to see themselves as more and more distinct from other connections, Jewish or non-Jewish, that aspect of the definitional problem simplifies.14 Christians who self-identified as “Jewish” produced literature of various sorts, from the letters of Paul to collections of Jesus traditions (Gospels of the Hebrews, Nazarenes, Ebionites, etc.) to adaptations of apocalyptic materials (e.g., Apocalypse of John, probably),15 and doubtless various other productions. To the extent that it is possible to identify these Christian Jewish contributions, I will not include them in the following discussion but will try to focus on the afterlife of probably “pre-Christian” or early “non-Christian” materials (while unavoidably slipping here and there). Many of these pre- or non-Christian Jewish sources were copied and transmitted for centuries in Christian contexts without significant modification. This can be easily verified with regard to Jewish scriptural writings and to many other works such as most of the “apocrypha” and some of the “pseudepigrapha,” notably those attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The practice of copying such things faithfully is not only demonstrable from these surviving whole texts for which we have virtually identical pre- or non-Christian copies, but also from the quotations and long excerpts that appear in various contexts, from occasional, almost incidental usage to organized anthologies such as “testimony books” and more substantive efforts like Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel. Some Christians also copied and transmitted “pagan” writings

14

Definitions are necessarily arbitrary, and my preference is to focus on self-identifications (when they can be detected) and minimal requirements otherwise. Literature on the subject is vast. For a sampling of struggles with these issues, see my “Judaism on the World Scene,” The Catacombs and the Colosseum (ed. S. Benko and J.J. O’Rourke; Valley Forge: Judson, 1971) 81–98 [also online]; and more recently, S.J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Boyarin, Dying for God (1999); John Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: OUP, 2000). 15 On the question of the “Jewish” authorship of the Apocalypse, also known as Revelation, see John W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 10; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001).

44

chapter two

of various sorts, which need to be taken into account when arguments are made attempting to connect the impetus to accuracy in copying with Christian concepts of scriptual authority.16 [[380]] Certain texts seem to have sufficiently strong secondary attestation to be treated as carefully copied pre- or non-Christian Jewish writings. The early and sometimes extensive references to Josephus as a source for Jewish history create a presumption in favor of accepting the relatively late and clearly Christian copies of his works as reliable—with allowances, of course, for a suspicious passage here and there;17 similarly Philo. And the correspondences between Josephus and most of 1 Maccabees increase the probability that the latter is equally Jewish in origin, if early Christian claims to that effect fail to convince.18 The remaining “apocrypha” also find secondary attestation in early Christian sources, even if the extant MSS appear to be from Christian hands, and often very late. Again, clear evidence of Christian textual tampering is difficult to find in these texts, thus underlining the possibility that responsible transmission has occurred in similar, but less well documented, instances. Some pre-Christian Jewish sources, such as those included in the Greek “Odes,” were rather mechanically placed alongside materials that were revered as characteristically Christian, much as the Jewish “OT” writings came to be juxtaposed with “NT” writings when the megacodex technology made it possible in the fourth century. The Greek Odes often circulated along with the biblical collection of Psalms; the Odes include poetic passages from the Christian Gospels along with poetic selections from Jewish scriptures. Of course, from the relevant Christian perspective there is probably nothing unusual about this. All

16 There are some easy cases. For what I prefer to call “Jewish scriptures,” we have non-Christian manuscripts and fragments in Hebrew and Aramaic, and sometimes even in Greek. We can judge how faithful the Christian copyists have been by comparing those copies with the others—our problem becomes a matter of textual criticism. And on the whole, there is virtually no evidence of overt Christianization in these control cases. Does that fact make it easier to treat similarly, by analogy, other possibly or even apparently pre-Christian Jewish texts for which similar non-Christian evidence is not present? Sometimes, but not always. And how do I determine the most responsible approach? 17 On problematic passages such as the reference to Jesus, see above Chapter One, n. 63, and below, at n. 19. 18 On “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” see I. Gafni in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. L.H. Feldman et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 116–31.

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

45

such scriptures came to be considered Christian property. Probably similar attitudes underlie the development of hagiographical sources, where holy people from the amalgamated Jewish-Christian traditions are revered side by side; and similarly with the development of ethical handbooks such as the Two Ways material (used by Barnabas and the Didache) and its relatives and descendants. Pre- or non-Christian Jewish materials also were reworked in Christian hands in ways that rather clearly betrayed the Christian contribution, through explicit reverence for Jesus, or the mention of characteristic Christian themes such as the trinity. Sometimes this phenomenon occurred in the copying of texts and can be witnessed through textcritical [[381]] comparisons, where one manuscript or family contains the Christian adaptation while other witnesses do not. A notorious example is the laudatory passage about Jesus in extant Greek MSS of Josephus (Ant 18.[3].63f), which is lacking in an Arabic witness and is inconsistent with what else we know about Josephus—although in the 18th century, Whiston could argue that it was authentic and helped prove that Josephus was a Christian.19 On a smaller scale, something similar can be seen in 4 Ezra 7.28, where most versions refer to “Messiah,” but the Latin has “Jesus.” Examples could be multiplied.20 This shows that while Christians copied many texts without significant alteration, this was not true of all. Pre-Christian Jewish materials also were reworked in Christian hands so that the lines between source and appropriation have become blurred, making it difficult to determine what was old and what newer material. It is clear that the extant recensions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs contain much pre-Christian Jewish material, and even preserve a literary form that is quite ancient. It is equally clear that in the preserved texts, Christian interests sometimes have left their mark, at least in one or another recension, complicating the question of the compositional “origins” of what has survived. Similar observations can be made with the material now bundled under the title Ascension of Isaiah, or with Paraleipomena Jeremiou, or with the collected Lives of 19 William Whiston’s translation and notes (1736) live on in updated forms (e.g., the Hendrickson edition of 1987) and on the internet. In his “Appendix: Dissertation 1,” Whiston argues the case for Josephus as a (Jewish) Christian. The Arabic text that lacks the laudatory wording was published by S. Pines (see my “Pseudepigrapha,” Chapter One above, note 63 for this and related references). 20 This and some other examples are discussed in my “Transmission” (Chapter Three below pp. 64–74).

46

chapter two

the Prophets, or the Adam/Eve compositions, among other texts.21 It is this last category of materials that has especially captured the attention of scholars who attempt to distil as much information as possible from [[382]] the extant sources about the Jewish settings that produced and/or strongly influenced the early developments in Christianity. One of the issues worth discussing is whether any clearer guidelines have emerged in recent decades for determining what can or cannot be considered as pre- or non-Christian in these situations, or for that matter, what can be considered clearly Christian?22 4. Some Selected Details—Towards a Renewed Effort The following three “exhibits” attempt to provide a sampling of different ways in which some Christians handled Jewish texts they had received. Exhibit 1: accurate text but improbable interpretation: Slightly more than a century ago, the description of the “Therapeutae” found in the Philonic tractate On the Contemplative Life was dismissed by Licius (1879) as a late 3rd century Christian forgery in Philo’s name in support of the emergence of Christian monasticism. As David Runia reports in his masterful study of Philo in Early Christian Literature, “his thesis received the seal of approval from the eminent triad of German 21 Relevant literature is voluminous and many of the earlier treatments are listed in my “Pseudepigrapha” article (above, Chapter One), especially nn. 3 (Testaments), 68 (Ascension of Isaiah and related texts), 72 (Adam/Eve traditions), 73 (Lives of the Prophets), and 74 (Paraleipomena Jeremiou). For more recent studies, see above n. 10 and also Marinus de Jonge, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays (NTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991); Robert G. Hall, “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,” JBL 109 (1990) 289–306 (see also JBL 113 [1994] 463–84); Jonathan Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Marinus de Jonge, “The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of Adam and Eve,” Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (ed. G. Anderson, M.E. Stone and J. Tromp; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 347–63, and the literature there cited (especially de Jonge and Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997]); David Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Anna Maria Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum (JSHRZ 1/7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997) [based on her Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum I–II (TSAJ 49–50; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1995–1996)]. 22 See now Davila, Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha (2005).

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

47

scholars, Zeller, Harnack and Schürer.” Even Conybeare’s 1895 refutation “did not persuade all scholars (most notably not Schürer).”23 Yet today this blip on the screen of scholarly repartee goes largely unnoticed. Why? Was there not good reason to question the existence of such a body of monastics in the pleasant rural areas to the west of Alexandria at such an early date? Eusebius had treated this account as proof of early Christian monastic/ascetic presence in Egypt, and even reported that Philo had met with Peter in a trip to Rome. Eusebius concludes: “It is clear to everyone that Philo wrote these things after [[383]] he had encountered the first heralds of the teaching which accords with the gospel and the customs handed down to the apostles from the beginning” (HE 2.17.24). Eusebius explains at some length just what Christian practices are being mentioned, even what scriptural texts are being read by the Therapeutae. Yet when Eusebius actually gives excerpts from Philo’s tractate, they are in agreement with the preserved textual tradition and lacking in any obvious Christianized insertions or manipulations. Can we learn anything useful from this situation?24 Exhibit 2: from margins to text, reshaping in reproducing: Some relatively early manuscripts of the Song of Songs include headings, rubrics describing the perceived thrust of the following section of text. The interpretation is clearly Christian—“Christ” is seen as a participant in the drama, and is explicitly named as such. Whether this format reflects an older tradition is discussable.25 This is similar to the situation with Eusebius and the Therapeutae, except that it provides a

23

D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 32. Issues worth exploring include: explicit copying in relation to perceived meaning (commentary) in antiquity; the role of perceived historical contexts (what is or is not considered possible) as a basis for modern scholarly evaluation; the influence of modern interests (e.g., in marginalizing monasticism, as has been claimed regarding Licius’ motives) on scholarly conclusions. David Runia also reports on how later Christians used Eusebius’ report, including various modifications of the content, to emphasize the Christian aspects (Philo in Early Christian Literature, 227–31). In addition, the fact that all of our main MSS of Philo’s writings have been transmitted by Christians complicates the matter of evaluating the accuracy of Eusebius’ excerpts. It is highly probable that Eusebius knew and used a text that agrees with the later MSS, but it is not demonstrable that there had been no Christian editing of the text before it reached Eusebius. 25 See Jay C. Treat, “Lost Keys: Text and Interpretation in Old Greek Song of Songs and its Earliest Manuscript Witnesses” (PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996). 24

48

chapter two

much easier step from the textual “incidentals” to later copies of the text itself. Examples could be multiplied.26 Exhibit 3: creating and recreating: In the “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” which is preserved in a relatively late Christian textual form full of ideas and phraseology that have parallels in a wide range of archaic Jewish sounding texts, we find both [[384]] simple textual issues (e.g., “race of men” genos ANWN [abbreviated by overline] sometimes apparently becomes “race of Christians” genos XNWN [abbreviated by overline]) and we find passages such as at the start of ch. 7: “Hear, Ezra my beloved—I who am immortal took up a cross, tasted vinegar and gall, and was put into a grave. And I raised up my elect and called up Adam from Hades so that the race of men [would not languish there (the text has a lacuna)].” This material cries out for careful text-critical attention, but for the moment let it serve as an example of apparently “Jewish” material expanded in clearly “Christian” directions. As has been noted, it is not alone.27 5. The Larger Problem in General: From Jewish Texts to Christian Contexts Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls and some early rabbinic materials, very few actual manuscripts of Jewish writings have survived from the period prior to the 8th century ce that were not transmitted by Christian copyists and users.28 Sometimes the literature transmitted by Christians contains passages that clearly reveal Christian interests or

26 More strictly text-critical in nature are examples from the Testament of Asher 7.3 (“concerning the Christ”), which probably attests a move from margin to text in the witnesses that include it; or 4 Ezra 7.28 (mentioned above) where “my son Messiah” becomes “my son Jesus” in the Latin; or Lives of the Prophets: 2 Jeremiah, predicting a virgin birth, perhaps deriving from a marginal comment in the manuscript tradition. 27 The use of the figure Ezra in medieval Christian circles is fascinating in itself. For a recent convenient introduction to that material, see M.E. Stone, “A New Edition and Translation of the Questions of Ezra,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 293–94. See also E. Ann Matter, “The ‘Revelatio Esdrae’ in Latin and English Traditions” (1982) 376–92. 28 There are some Greek biblical fragments (papyri and parchment), and some nonbiblical Cairo Geniza fragments also qualify (e.g., Ben Sira, Damascus Document, Sefer ha Razim); possibly also 3 Enoch.

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

49

expressions that are not likely to have been possible prior to the advent of Christianity in its various forms and permutations. Sometimes there are problematic passages that some interpreters see as “Christian” while others consider them to be “Jewish.” Why care? What is at stake? The answers to such a basic question vary widely, even when posed in an academic scholarly setting such as this. For those interested in recovering as much as possible about the earliest manifestations of “Judaism(s),” especially in “pre-Christian” or “non-Christian” settings, the payload is obvious. Sometimes the desire to know clouds the process, and materials that for some reason seem essentially “Jewish” are assumed to be so until proved otherwise. On another curve in the methodological spiral are scholars whose primary interest is in knowing as much as possible about the “Christian” circles that preserved and presumably found some value in such [[385]] materials, and for such people—if I may oversimplify for the moment—the materials are “Christian” until proven otherwise. There are, of course, as we have already noted, various in-between-positions in which one talks about original Jewish sources that are reshaped in Christian contexts (recensions), or about old texts that are “interpolated” somewhat mechanically (textual variation), or the like. Some investigators are interested in continuities, others more in discontinuities or divergences. As is true in such human endeavors, our answers are usually shaped by our motivating interests and by our prior perceptions about how things must have worked. Philo’s Therapeutae could not have existed, at least not the way Eusebius understood the materials. But we now understand the report differently. It should come as no surprise that whatever one’s motivating interest may be, the path to convincing conclusions is strewn with nearly insurmountable obstacles. Clear communication even among the most responsible scholars is difficult since such basic terms as “Jewish” and “Christian” are slippery at best and can vary widely over time and in differing cultural and geographical locations. A provocative assessment of the situation can be found in the introduction to Daniel Boyarin’s recent studies Dying for God (above, n. 11). Although he seems to me clearly to overstate the case, Boyarin’s emphasis on “the permeability of the borders between so-called Judaism and so-called Christianity in late antiquity” (21) reminds us of the dangers of making simplistic judgments regarding origins, influences, and adaptations in the literature that concerns us. Our labels are often inadequate and can be seriously misleading. We don’t know what relevant varieties of “Judaism” existed

50

chapter two

in antiquity, nor do we know the range of early “Christianities”; with rare exceptions, we don’t know whether or how such communities drew their “borders” or related to each other. And we know even less about all but a few of the various specific individuals whose activities made it possible for us to speak of “communities.” The simple older approach that easily drew distinct lines back from the developed, authoritative “orthodoxies” of the 4th century and later, whether “rabbinic” Jewish or Classical Christian, has long been known to be inadequate, even if its ghost still haunts us more often than we might like. 6. A Search for Controls What does this mean in practical terms, for our scholarly interests? Surely there are indicators that by definition must be called “Christian” [[386]] (even if, with a Boyarin, we might sometimes modify the classification to “Christian Jewish,” and for the “transitional period” of Paul and his contemporaries, we might feel very uncomfortable about the arbitrariness of such labeling)29 such as clear references to Jesus as Lord and/or savior, or to the miraculous/mysterious birth of Jesus, or to the blessed trinity, or to the categorical perfidy of the “Jews,” and the like. But what would constitute clearly “Jewish” indicators, apart from what seem to be polemical anti-Christian materials such as in the Toledot Yeshu?30 Appropriation of pre-Christian Jewish sources and ideas is clear and demonstrable in later, self-consciously non-Jewish

29 The definitional crisis created by appeal to the participants’ self-understanding is unavoidable. Paul understands himself to be Jewish and deserves to be taken seriously in that context; at the same time, he is also self-consciously a follower of Jesus as Messiah/Christ in a sense that will become increasingly more difficult to hold in tension as the eschatological end fails to arrive and the various ongoing communities come into greater competition and conflict, for various reasons. There is evidence that a similarly dual self-understanding may have survived for a long time in some areas (see Jerome’s reports of “Jewish Christians” [see below, Chapter Four, n. 13]), but in the GrecoRoman world(s) reflected in most of our surviving sources, it seems to have had less staying power. At the start of this essay, I chose to avoid this area of ambiguity, but it needs to be kept in mind as a further complicating factor. For some recent pertinent studies, see especially the literature on Paul, such as: Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford: OUP, 2000). 30 Basic information on Toledot Yeshu/Jeshu is available online including relevant materials from the “Jesus” article in the Jewish Encyclopedia 7 (by “S[amuel] Kr[auss]”; 1901–1906).

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

51

“Christian” contexts, such as Eusebius and his successors. Part of the question before us is the extent to which self-conscious “Christians” who do not see themselves as also “Jewish” may have produced/originated such apparently “Jewish” materials. Nor is it beyond the pale of possibility that in some instances, originally non-Jewish “Christian” materials may have been modified by (Christian) Jewish hands, just as probably happened to some “pagan” materials (e.g., in the “Jewish” Sibyllines). Amid such complexities, the “safe” approach, if one wishes to be methodologically responsible, would be to start with the extant MSS and work from there. Thus the “default” position would be that MSS transmitted by self-conscious Christians are “Christian” until proved otherwise. And in some instances, it is not at all difficult to prove otherwise. Some Christians were clearly capable of copying pre- or non-Christian texts accurately, just as some Christians were able to reproduce excerpts from earlier materials without interjecting their Christian interests—even when they did not really understand the material! There are situations in which respect for the text as something to [[387]] be reproduced is clearly at work, whether that is expressed in quotation formulae, or simply by making a complete copy. Concern for accurate transmission is by no means foreign to the early Jewish/ Christian world(s).31 Among the “pseudepigrapha,” things get much more murky. The Dead Sea Scroll fragments remove any major questions about the preChristian status of Jubilees and most of the collection we call “1 Enoch,” although the problem of the origins of the Parables/Similitudes section continues to be debated. If I permit myself to argue from analogy, there is no good reason not to consider that section as also Jewish in origin, but the evidence is not as decisive. And the danger of circularity in argumentation begins to become a factor: I can create a believable nonChristian Jewish context that could have produced this material, but must I do so? Should I do so? It is very tempting to do so, and in the interests of creating and testing hypotheses, it needs to happen, while also kept in perspective.32 On the other hand, I don’t need to create a

31 Perhaps Rev 22.18–9 is relevant here, especially as an example of awareness of modification in the context of materials (apocalyptic traditions) that are not noted for being quotation conscious. 32 I am not arguing against such attempts at hypothetical reconstruction, only that they should not take precedence over understanding the text as it comes to us. For

52

chapter two

context of Christian usage—that is a given. It is the safe default position. The same sorts of things could also be said of Philo’s Therapeutae, since that text also is “Christian” by default! But there, at least, a fairly consistent linguistic corpus exists for close examination and comparison. Philo’s On the Contemplative Life does not stand in isolation. As we move into more of the collected traditions about Jewish revered figures, things become even more difficult. What shall I do with the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs? I can try to divide and conquer, exercising my source-critical as well as text-critical arguments on this complex body of materials, but I’m still left with relatively late and quite popular texts of Christian provenance, with little guarantee that significant adjustment and enhancement has not taken place in Christian hands. Yes, there may be clearly pre-Christian Jewish examples of the genre, but that is hardly a convincing solution to the complex problem. The situation is similar with Lives of the Prophets, in which the layers of evolution sometimes seem to be visible and extend to what seems to [[388]] be clearly Christian activity. With the collections now associated with Isaiah (Testament-Ascension) and Jeremiah (Paralipomena), the argument could be made that the clearly Christian passages have been tacked onto the end of probably Jewish materials in an almost mechanical fashion, although unfortunately, few other similar writings exhibit that precise pattern.33 The case can be made that even some writings preserved only in secondary or tertiary translations have survived without significant Christian tampering. Jubilees and the library of 1 Enoch have already been mentioned, but why not also Slavonic Enoch (2 Enoch)? Systematic study of the activities of the Old Church Slavic translators might be rewarding here—the material on John Baptist in the “Slavonic Josephus” jumps to mind, whether it is viewed as a contribution of the translator or of the manuscript materials being translated or of the subsequent Slavic transmission. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) and the Latin Apocalypse of Ezra (4 Ezra) also seem relevant here, with the added problem of the prefixed and affixed 5 and 6 Ezra in the Latin an example of this dilemma in another area of study, see J.W. van Henten and A.J. Bij de Vaate, “Jewish or Non-Jewish? Some Remarks on the Identification of Jewish Inscriptions from Asia Minor,” BO 53 (1996) 16–28. 33 See J. Riaud, “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: his Originality; his ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (99.10–32),” JSP 22 (2000) 31–44; M. de Jonge, “Remarks in the Margin of the Paper ‘The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae’, by Jean Riaud,” JSP 22 (2000) 45–9.

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

53

tradition (but not in other versions of the Ezra Apocalypse!).34 If I treat 4 Ezra as a Jewish apocalypse, does that predispose me to do similarly with 5 and 6 Ezra? Why or why not? Would not the very slight signs of Christian interest in the Latin of 4 Ezra (“my son Jesus” in 7.28) also explain possible “Christian” phraseology in 5 Ezra (“son of God” in 2.47)? Again, it is not difficult to imagine non-Christian Jewish contexts for all of these texts, but does that mean that they should automatically “default” to Jewish in origin? Perhaps. In his 1998 Princeton dissertation, John Marshall argued that the Apocalypse of John that concludes the traditional collection of Christian “New Testament” scriptures should be treated as Jewish.35 Boyarin would doubtless applaud (see Dying for God, p. 141, n. 40). The payload here would be that the author of the Apocalypse would not have considered himself to be non-Jewish, and thus his work should be used in our reconstructions of what was possible in first century Judaism. Will this make it easier in the future to restructure our collections [[389]] of ancient sources so that the Apocalypse takes its place alongside of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, long acknowledged to be close relations? And will this nudge 6 Ezra, with its close affinities to the Apocalypse, into the “Jewish” camp? One of the arugments that led Ted Bergren to consider 6 Ezra as “Christian” was its parallels with the presumably “Christian” Apocalypse of John (6th Ezra, 15f). 7. Did non-Jewish Christians Compose “Jewish” Works? An important factor in this entire discussion concerns the intentions and talents of copyists, collectors, revisers, and authors. Unfortunately, we have little first hand evidence. Seldom do individuals emerge from our sources, whom we can interrogate, or even scrutinize, as they work. We know that there were collectors of various sorts—Clement of Alexandria has left us some school notes, Cyprian has collected “testimonies,” Eusebius was an avid excerpter, similarly John of Damascus, etc. Each had his reasons, his sources, his techniques. Numerous 34 On some of the problems of these Ezra texts, see my “Pseudepigrapha” (above, Chapter One) nn. 61 and 75 and the more recent volume by Theodore Bergren on Sixth Ezra. 35 John W. Marshall, Parables of the War: Reading the Apocalypse within Judaism and during the Judaean War (Princeton University PhD dissertation, Dept. of Religion, 1998); see also above, n. 15.

54

chapter two

sermons have survived from various authors and/or recorders. Some of them deal with “Jewish” topics and folkloristic themes—the asceticism of Joseph, the leadership of Moses, the artistry of David. To what extent did the homilists rely on identifiable sources, and how much did they contribute, de novo, to the resultant presentation? Somewhere in my filing cabinets are notes on some 4th and 5th century Christian sermons, examined with an eye to distinctively “Christian” traits that might betray their origins. Some were obviously Christian, but not all. Why shouldn’t a Christian narrator, for whom Jewish scriptures and traditions were also home territory, be expected to produce compositions that bear consistently “Jewish” features? Similarly, as reverence for saintly persons grew (“hagiography”) and liturgical handbooks were constructed to convey relevant information, how can we tell what may be old or new in the presentations? When Christian poets composed their hymns, often echoing prayers and psalms familiar to them from their scriptures, should we be surprised to find very “Jewish” sounding products? The presence in Christian hymnody of numerous Psalm-based hymns whose recent origins are known provides an instructive analogy—the words of Luther’s “Mighty Fortress” come to mind, or the “yigdol” as it appears in many Christian hymnbooks (“The God of Abraham Praise!”).36 [[390]] Some Christians became interested in chronography and world history, which drew them to other sources considered relevant. Materials were selected, summarized, recombined, harmonized, supplemented, and presented without footnotes or overt Christian indicators on every page. When we discover such materials in late medieval manuscripts, how shall we treat them? Christians worried about the weather, about their crops and various vicissitudes of life. Handbooks on interpreting the times or the thunder or other supposed indicators circulated in the names of respected savants such as Ezra (see above, n. 34) or Seth or the mysterious Sedrach. Does the mere attachment of such names produce the presumption of Jewish origins? Reasons other than the

36 Ross Kraemer calls my attention to Severus of Minorca’s Letter on the Conversion of the Jews [5th century], edited and translated by Scott Bradbury (Oxford: OUP, 1996), which includes a wild scene in which the Jews and Christians are parading through the town streets, singing the same hymns! John Chrysostom’s invectives against his congregants who also attended Jewish gatherings may also be relevant here (Kraemer, Aseneth, 246). See also the Martyrdom of Pionius 13.1–3 (mid-3rd century or later), discussed by E. Leigh Gibson, “Jewish Antagonism or Christian Polemic: The Case of the Martyrdom of Pionius,” JECS 9 (2001) 339–58.

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

55

will to believe (“wishful thinking”) are often difficult to find. The more we learn about the various interests, techniques, and products of the various Christian worlds, the more difficult it becomes to assume that late, idiosyncratic sources must derive from early Jewish origins, no matter how “Jewish” they may sound.37 An example of such frustrations is well illustrated in the recent study of the Aseneth materials by Ross Kraemer. What sort of evidence can suffice to establish the widely accepted “Jewish” origin of this fascinating text? She concludes that “the arguments for its Jewishness are largely without foundation. Although it could be Jewish, the totality of the evidence is not definitive, and several other identifications…are plausible. In particular, a strong case can be made for Christian composition and redaction” (ix). Although I might like it to be Jewish, and as Kraemer says, it could be Jewish, methodological rigor requires me to acknowledge even more strongly the default position, that without much stronger evidence than appears to be available in the current discussion, its identifiable context is Christian. And until we know in more detail who constructed whatever we will consider to be the “original” composition, and how and why, it is difficult to say more on that issue.38 [[391]] It is tempting to decide that all of these materials ought to “default” to Judaism at one level or another (source criticism often smooths out any problems by moving quickly to an examination of the compositional ingredients), and that has been the tendency of 20th century scholarship.

37 An interesting example is Charlesworth’s claims about the calendric “Treatise of Shem”—from a Syriac 15th century MS; why call it Jewish? Why date it to the 1st century BCE? (OTP 1.473). I am not suggesting that such conclusions are impossible, only that they are premature without some careful discussion of “astrological” speculations in the world from which the actual text derives. 38 Kraemer summarizes much of the history of recent scholarship on this material, which concerns not only issues of date and provenance, but also of textual recensions and their relative value (the works of M. Philonenko and of C. Burchard are of special note). Other interesting problems are raised by such texts as the Barlaam and Josaphat materials (compare Aḥ iqar, Aesop), Odes of Solomon, History of the Rechabites. Less problematic, at least in my judgment, are, for example, Testament of Moses, “pseudoPhilo’s” Biblical Antiquities, 3 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon. The picture with reference to 4 Maccabees is complex, and it continues to receive special attention in the context of the study of “martyrdom”—e.g., Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (1995), Boyarin and van Henten, etc. (above, n. 11). Some other texts with close relationships to 4 Maccabees are also generating interest; see Sigrid Peterson, Martha Shamoni: A Jewish Syriac Rhymed Liturgical Poem about the Maccabean Martyrdoms (Sixth Maccabees) (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2006).

56

chapter two

As should be obvious, I would urge a more cautious approach to the situation, and where controls and clear indications are lacking, start with the historically clearest context, which in most instances will be Christian. 8. Prospects and Conclusions 8.1. More is needed by way of collating and editing texts. Although I have made some bold generalizations about lack of overt Christian influences in the textual transmission of certain books, biblical and nonbiblical, I suspect that there is a great deal more evidence of significance to digest. Of course, there is a great difference between the situation in which a book is represented by dozens or even hundreds of MSS and when very few or only one MS has survived. Versional evidence, which is especially important for many of the “pseudepigraphical” writings, also deserves more thorough and more systematic study. I suspect that much more can be learned from this mass of challenging material, especially about the attitudes and outlooks of the Christian reader-copyists at work. 8.2. More studies of control cases are desirable. Control cases are those in which we can be relatively “sure” about the evidence and thus can argue with greater confidence from analogy and probablity in similar situations (see above, and the attached Appendix). Unfortunately, with regard to “Jewish” materials, there are too few ancient descriptive accounts of what went on in the transmission process. Accusations are found of opponents tampering with texts (e.g., already in Justin39) on both sides of the process, and we sometimes can witness an attempt [[392]] to preserve or even restore old forms that had become corrupt, as with Origen’s work on the Hexapla. Quotations and excerpts are sometimes given from what to us are extra-biblical allegedly Jewish sources (e.g., Tertullian on the first section of “1 Enoch,”40 many others on assorted points of interest), marginal comments sometimes exhibit how various “new” things could become incorporated into subsequent

39 Justin, Dialogue 72 and 120; see further my “Pseudepigrapha” (above, Chapter One) n. 29. 40 Tertullian, De cultu fem. 2–3 (see also De idol. 4 and 15).

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

57

copies, but on the whole we are guessing about the dynamics of the processes. 8.3. Recognition of non-Jewish interests and attitudes in transmitting the materials may help us determine what is more or less likely to be older traditional material. Are there identifiable uses to which Christians put the traditions; e.g., in hagiography and martyrology, with a focus on “faith” and faithfulness/endurance, or in ascetic and moral examples, emphasizing celibacy and frugality, or in apocalyptic anticipation, whether cosmic/millennial in nature or more individually oriented? Are there situations in which it is possible that non-Jews produced Jewish-sounding sources or edited existing sources to sound more Jewish (e.g., to “prove” the antiquity of certain ideas or to “correct” perceived corruptions)? One of the dangers here is the circularity of argument, if it is suggested that something would have been “impossible” in pre/non-Christian Judaism or, for that matter, “impossible” as a Christian claim (even when found in manuscripts transmitted by Christians!).41 8.4. Despite such obstacles, I would argue that it is potentially productive to try to imagine what sort of pre- or non-Christian perspectives (“pagan” as well as Jewish) might have produced the problematic [[393]] materials—as long as this is the result of the sort of prior investigation that begins with the evidence where it is preserved (i.e., mostly in Christian contexts) and is not simply assumed as the default position. Although I am a firm advocate of careful, close textual work, fixation on the texts alone will get us only so far. Seldom do the texts provide

41 Examples of how rich this area of exploration can be may be found in some of the essays in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage (1999): e.g., Michael Stone notes a very active interest in Jewish writings by some Armenian writers (“The Study of the Armenian Apocrypha”); Ross Kraemer explores possible Samaritan involvement in the production and transmission of the Aseneth story (“Could Aseneth be Samaritan?”); John Reeves demonstrates what can be expected from Manichaean circles, with their interests in apocalyptic materials among others (“Reconsidering the ‘Prophecy of Zardust’ ”); Bill Adler makes us wonder how someone like Julius Africanus might be of relevance for the larger picture (“Julius Africanus and Judaism in the Third Century”); Jackie Pastis looks at aspects of the dialogues material (“Jewish Arguments against Christianity in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila”); David Efroymson explores the roots of Augustine’s anger at Judaism (“Whose Jews? Augustine’s Tractatus on John”). And when Islam comes along with its somewhat ambivalent attitudes to both Judaism and Christianity, how is the situation affected?

58

chapter two

their own labels, their own maps of how they relate to other materials under examination, or even their own explications of the author’s (or authors’) intentions. Our conclusions depend on a variety of judgments, based on what we think we know about historical, conceptual, cultural, and literary contexts, on how good our historical imaginations and intuitions may be, on what we consider useful or relevant analogies, and the like. Appendix: Searching for Analogies—Some Agendas for Future Research Is it possible to shed light on the intentions and/or procedures of the copyist-editors by examining various analogous situations? Here are some suggestions in note form (hopefully not too cryptic!) on possible approaches. I apologize for resorting to traditional shorthand with such labels as “heretical” (representing internal debates within Christianity, for the most part), “pagan” (non-Jewish and non-Christian), “barbarian” (non-Greek, or non-Greco-Roman), and the like. Test Scenario 1: explicit reproduction of sources: Christian quotations/excerpts from Jewish works (e.g., Eusebius) Possible controls/analogies: – Christian excerpts from “heretical” Christian works (e.g., by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Epiphanius); – Christian excerpts from “pagan” works (e.g., by Eusebius); – Jewish excerpts from Jewish works (e.g., by Philo, Josephus); – Jewish excerpts from “pagan” works (e.g., by Philo, Josephus); – “Pagan” excerpts from “barbarian” works (e.g., by Herodotus). Aspects to explore: – establishing a level of trust (or suspicion) in the excerpter’s accuracy – recognizing varieties of perspective, understanding – recognizing limitations and possibilities of particular languages – adjusting for the excerpter’s selectivity (what is omitted?) [[394]] On the whole, where excerpting is intentional and relatively uncomplicated by other factors (textual transmission, translation, etc.), it seems relatively reliable—the intention to reproduce is a key element to ascertain.

the pseudepigrapha and christianity, revisited

59

Test Scenario 2: transmission of whole works: Christian copying and/or translating of Jewish works (e.g., Jewish scriptures, Philo, Josephus, etc.) Possible controls/analogies: – Classical Christian transmission of objectionable Christian works (e.g., Tertullian the Montanist, ps-Clementines); – Heterodox Christian transmission of contested Christian works (e.g., Marcion’s use of Paul, Heracleon’s use of Gospel of John); – Christian transmission of “pagan” works (e.g., Plato, Cicero); – Christian transmission of Jewish transmission of “pagan” works? (e.g., Sibylline Oracles, ps-Hecataeus, etc.); – Jewish transmission of Jewish works (e.g., scriptures, Damascus Document, Ben Sira); – “Pagan” transmission of “foreign” works? (e.g., Hermetic Corpus, “Magic”). Aspects to explore: – are there distinctions of how different types of literature (e.g., “scripture”) are treated? – what do the copyists intend to do with the materials? – evidence of textual tampering, warnings against it, etc. – the rise and proliferation of variant “recensions.” Some test cases encourage trust in accuracy (e.g., “scriptural” texts), but in general, the situation is confused and frustrating; what makes a transmitter feel justified in introducing intentional changes? Test Scenario 3: construction of presumably “new” works from older material, often by unmarked collecting and juxtaposing, but also by reshaping editorially: Christian appropriation and reuse of Jewish materials as “Jewish” (or sometimes without such association) Possible controls/analogies: – Christian collecting and mixing of congenial older materials (e.g., Odes, Synoptics, Two Ways, sermons, apocalypses); – Christian adaptation of “pagan” material (e.g., Physiologus, Sibylline Oracles, chronography and history);

60

chapter two – Jewish collecting and mixing of older traditions (e.g., Pentateuch, Josephus, Philo’s Life of Moses); [[395]] – Jewish adaptation of “pagan” material (e.g., Aḥ ikar at Elephantine, Sibyllines?); – “Pagan” adaptation of “foreign” material (e.g., Isis/Osiris myths).

Aspects to explore: – where are clues to editorial efforts likely to be found? – looking for “seams” in the materials, or unjoined pieces elsewhere – imagining concepts of “ownership” and perceptions of legitimate continuities. There is little hope for clarity here, with each item requiring individual attention as a whole and in its parts; the more skillful (or possessive and transformative) the editing/composing, the more difficult to move behind it. But by paying attention to these related phenomena concerning the use of texts and traditions in roughly the first millennium of the common era, it may be possible to make more progress in the study of the fate of Jewish materials in Christian hands—and beyond that, in uncovering evidences of early Judaism preserved by Christian transmitters and composers.

CHAPTER THREE

CHRISTIAN TRANSMISSION OF GREEK JEWISH SCRIPTURES: A METHODOLOGICAL PROBE1 For some time I have been interested in the question of how to identify and/or distinguish “Jewish” and “Christian” elements in that vast and variegated body of allegedly “Jewish” materials that has been preserved for centuries by Christian transmitters. Modern interpreters have made a variety of ad hoc claims about what is of “Jewish” origin and what may be a “Christian” interpolation or addition or revision. I am seeking to determine whether careful and comprehensive analysis of such materials may reveal any patterns or produce any insights that will be useful for evaluating such claims and for providing a more secure basis from which to proceed in future discussions.2 Jewish Greek scriptures provide an excellent body of materials on which to attempt such analysis. The Septuagint [LXX] (by which I mean only the Old Greek Pentateuch translation) and other Old Greek [OG] translations of various parts of Jewish scripture3 are relatively accessible today, by comparison with most other allegedly Jewish writings from the Greco-Roman world. For most scriptural books, critical

1 This essay first appeared as pp. 207–26 in Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique: Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon (ed. A. Benoit et al.; Ouvrage publié avec le concours de l’Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1978). It was intended as an attempt to approach an old set of problems from new perspectives. I have not been able to research every aspect of the subject with equal diligence, and hope that other students of this material will provide additional information that has come to their attention. 2 For another approach to the same set of problems, see now Robert A. Kraft, “The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments,” The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (ed. Scot McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan; London: British Library; New Castle: Oak Knoll Press, 2003) 51–72. See also Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997). For additional probes into technical aspects of the problem, see also the related online materials. 3 On the complexities of this matter, see the articles on “Septuagint” and on “Greek Versions, Minor” by R.A. Kraft, E. Tov and K. O’Connell in the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976).

62

chapter three

editions4 or at least extensive collections of textual variants5 are available. Numerous Greek and versional MSS are preserved from centuries of Christian transmission.6 [[208]] But with a few exceptions in the “deutero-canonical” (or “apocryphal”) materials, the pre-Christian Jewish origin of the various scriptural writings is beyond reasonable doubt, and Semitic texts similar to those from which the ancient Greek translators worked are still available and have been preserved through the ages by non-Christian transmitters. Thus for these writings a number of control elements exist which are not available for most other allegedly Jewish materials transmitted exclusively by Christians. The fact that, from relatively early times, many Christians came to consider these writings as “authoritative scripture” tends to complicate the matter somewhat. We might expect that canonical scriptures would, in general, receive more self-conscious care from copyists than would less revered writings. Indeed, it might even be suspected that as self-consciousness of the sacred status of Jewish scriptures increased among Christians, suspicion about any overtly Christian phraseology in those presumably pre-Christian writings might also increase among some Christian commentators and copyists.7 Ancient writers and readers were not unaware of the fact that textual changes sometimes were introduced into MSS in the process of transmitting them.8 We must be alert to the hypothetical possibility that, just as an Origen or a Jerome attempted to bring the Greek or Latin materials into closer conformity to the then available Hebrew/Aramaic text, so a similar motivation to excise any suspiciously blatant “Christian glosses” might have been in operation in some Christian circles. Perhaps we should not expect to

4 Most notably in the editions produced by the Göttinger Septuaginta-Unternehmens. See the details at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html. 5 As in the “Larger Cambridge Septuagint,” ed. A.E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St.J. Thackeray [1906–1940]. 6 Many of the versional materials still require much attention before their precise contribution to the study of Jewish-Greek scriptures can be assessed satisfactorily. I suspect that the data treated in this essay would be swelled significantly if more information from the versions were readily available. 7 A seemingly opposite tendency—to revel in supposedly explicit “prophetic” anticipations of Christian truth—characterized especially those Christians who collected traditional “scriptural testimonies” of various sorts to support their convictions. But even these collections of “prooftexts” seldom include citations of unambiguously Christian origin. An air of mysterious ambiguity is maintained in the “prophetic proofs,” which makes it extremely difficult to identify with sufficient precision the origins of the material. 8 An obvious example is Rev 22.18–9.

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

63

find much evidence of characteristically Christian phraseology in extant copies of Greek Jewish scriptures. Claims that tendentious tampering with Jewish scriptural texts has taken place are not unknown in antiquity. In the second century, Justin and Irenaeus object to an allegedly tendentious Jewish revision of the Greek of Isaiah 7.14 wherein “young woman” (νεᾶνις—neanis; so Theodotion and Aquila) has replaced the presumed older rendering “virgin” (παρθένος—parthenos).9 Indeed, Justin also accuses Jewish polemicists [[209]] of removing from the Greek scriptural translations certain supposedly pro-Christian materials (πολλὰς γραφὰς—pollas graphas, “many passages”) in which “the crucified one is proclaimed as God and man and crucified and dying.”10 Justin attempts to support his claim by citing four examples: 1. an “interpretation” attributed to “Ezra” regarding “the law concerning passover” and the salvific benefits of trusting in the paschal sacrifice; 2. a statement from “Jeremiah” concerning plots against a person who is treated like a sacrificial lamb; 3. another passage “from the words of the same Jeremiah” about how the Lord preached salvation to Israel’s dead; 4. the phrase “from the wood/tree” as spoken by “David” in “the ninety-fifth psalm” where it says “The Lord reigned from the wood/tree” (Ps 95/96.10). Of these four passages, the second is still to be found in all known MSS and versions at Jeremiah 11.19 (Justin admitted that it was still present in “some copies” found in Jewish synagogues), and the fourth has left traces in several witnesses to Ps 95/96.10 (see below). But the “Ezra” text and the second “Jeremiah” passage are not preserved in any

9

Justin, Dialogue 67.7, 71.3 and 84.1–3; Irenaeus, AH 3.21(23).1. Dial. 71–73; see also Eusebius, EH 4.18.8 (summarizing Justin) and below, Chapter Seven, original pp. 126f. (Later, in Dial. 120, Justin adds that the Jews have excised references to the death of Isaiah as well.) 10

64

chapter three

known biblical MS, and have been treated as “Christian fabrications” by most commentators.11 Although rabbinic Jewish sources also comment about changes being introduced into Greek scriptures, the complaint is not specifically against Christians, and the alleged changes are not characteristically Christian in flavor. A relatively late tractate, partly supported by both Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, gives two variant reports about translations of Torah into Greek under king Ptolemy and then lists “thirteen” (actually fourteen) passages allegedly “altered” in the Greek by the original translators.12 [[210]] The listed changes are relatively minor matters, but in at least two passages, the direction of the supposed change runs counter to traditional Christian interests (and the preserved LXX text!) regarding plurality in the Godhead. The Jewish sources complain that Gen 1.26 “Let us make man” has been changed to “I will make man,” and Gen 11.7 “Let us go down” to “Let me go down.” Both passages, with the accepted Hebrew (and LXX) plural designations, played a positive role in Christian apologetics. Judging from available printed editions, the preserved Greek MSS and the versions derived from the Greek contain very few passages of unmistakably Christian intent—that is, “Christian glosses or interpolations.”13 There are, to be sure, various peripheral or superficial “Christian” characteristics in some witnesses such as (1) certain introductory or

11

For example, J. Otto, Iustini . . . opera 1.2 (Jena, 18773) 257 n. 1 (but not 260 n. 11); A. Harnack, Geschichte 1.2 (1893) 850; H.B. Swete, Introduction (19022 = 19143) 424 and 479; A. Resch, Agrapha (Leipzig, 19062) 305 and 321f.; A.L. Williams, Dialogue with Trypho (1930) 151 n. 3 and 153 n. 1. 12 The more extensive material appears in the 8/9th century Masseketh Sopherim 1.7–10. The lists of alleged changes also are found in p. Megilla 1.71d and b. Megilla 9a. A convenient collection of these materials in English translation may be found in H. St.J. Thackeray, The Letter of Aristeas (London: SPCK, 1918) 89–95. See now, Abraham Wasserstein and David Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: CUP, 2006) chapter 3. 13 In his pioneering 1893 essay “Die von den Christen angeeignete und z[um] Th[eile] bearbeitete jüdische Litteratur” [The Jewish literature adopted by the Christians and in part reworked] (Geschichte, 1.2), Adolf Harnack recognizes the possibility of such but does not attempt to list “tendenziöse Überlieferungscorrecturen” [tendentious corrections during copying] (whether of Jewish or Christian origin) in Jewish scriptural materials transmitted by Christians (see 849 and 864 #1). Swete claims that it is “improbable that the Greek OT was willfully interpolated by Christians, or that, if they attempted this, the existing text has been affected by it to any appreciable extent” (Introduction, 479). But to my knowledge, the available evidence has not yet been suitably collected to permit satisfactory evaluation of such a claim.

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

65

concluding comments about a given text,14 (2) marginalia, decorations and headings associated with the running text,15 (3) use in the text itself of certain abbreviations of terms and names popular in Christian circles (e.g., Christ, Joshua/Jesus, savior, salvation, crucifixion).16 A fairly large body of patently Christian blocks of material also has found its way into the collections of Psalms and Odes in most preserved MSS—e.g., in Rahlfs’ 1931 Göttingen edition, Ode 9 derives from Luke 1.46–55 plus 68–79, Ode 13 is from Luke 2.29–32, and Ode 14 is an explicitly Christian hymn to the triune God.17 It has even been argued that some of the “later Greek versions” of Jewish scripture, [[211]] such as that attributed to Symmachos, are Christian productions of a sort—Ebionite Christian in the case of Symmachos18—but even here the allegedly “Christian” elements are not particularly strong or obvious!19 In short, although a rather large number of undeniably Christian copies of various portions of Jewish scriptures exist, there is relatively little evidence in the biblical texts as such of tendentious, unambiguously Christian editing.20 The

14 E.g., scribal colophons or notes as at the end of 2 Esdras (= Ezra-Nehemiah) in MSS B and S or the end of Esther in S. 15 E.g., MS S inserts running headings written in red between blocks of text in Canticles to identify the speakers. At Cant 1.7 the heading reads “to the bridegroom Christ” (πρὸς τὸν νυμφίον χν [abbreviation overlined]). See also Treat, Lost Keys (1996). Decoration at the top of a page of the University of Pennsylvania Museum’s Coptic Psalter includes a stylized red and black abbreviation of the name Jesus Christ. On this MS, see R.A. Kraft, “An Unpublished Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex at the University of Pennsylvania Museum in Philadelphia: a Preliminary Report,” Biblical and Armenian Studies (ed. M.E. Stone; Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976) 81–9. 16 In addition to the well-known treatments of the “nomina sacra” and related abbreviations by L. Traube (Nomina Sacra, 1907) and A.H.R.E. Paap (Nomina Sacra, 1959), see more recently K. Treu, “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich,” Kairos 15 (1973) 140f. (and n. 68) [translated by William Adler and myself as “The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire” and also added to the listserver of the IOUDAIOS Electronic Seminar, 14 August 1991]. See also Lawrence W. Hurtado, “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal,” JBL 117 (1998) 755–73, and more recently The Earliest Christian Artifacts (2006). 17 The numbering and exact content of the Odes collection differs significantly in the various MSS and versions. See Rahlfs’ comparative lists on pp. 79f. of his Göttingen edition. 18 See especially H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1949) 33–7. Eusebius (EH 6.17), Jerome (Illustrious Men 54) and other Christian authors support this claim. Jerome (ibid.) also identifies Theodotion as an Ebionite. 19 See Schoeps, “Symmachusstudien I,” ConNT 6 (1942) 65–93 and below on the use of “Christ/Messiah.” 20 Probably additional relevant data are to be found in the various versional MSS, but at present that material is relatively difficult to access and/or use.

66

chapter three

evidence that is available has been divided into various subgroups for purposes of the present discussion: 1. passages in which the title “Christ/Messiah” appears in a manner that may betray specifically Christian interests; 2. the use of what may seem to be Christian terminology, especially that derived from traditions about the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus; 3. passages in which it is alleged that the peculiar textual form of certain well-known early Christian quotations from Jewish scripture has been read/copied back into the scriptural MSS themselves through the efforts of overly zealous (or perhaps relatively undisciplined) Christian transmitters. Decisions about the relevance of passages in the first two categories depends mainly on the critic’s ability successfully to identify uniquely “Christian” interests; the third category depends less on judgments regarding characteristically Christian theological habits or attitudes than on the critic’s evaluation of an extremely complicated text-critical situation. I do not propose to deal with the third category in detail, but only to suggest the context in which profitable discussion can best take place. Christ/Messiah Passages Schoeps claims that a primary example of how Symmachos’ Christian orientation has affected his efforts as a translator may be seen in the fact that he (like Theodotion) renders the Hebrew title měšiaḥ not by ἠλειμμένος (ēleimmenos), the translation used by Aquila the Jew, [[212]] but by Χριστός (christos).21 The force of this sort of argument is weakened if one also considers Theodotion to be Jewish, although it could be maintained that Theodotion worked at a time when Christianity had not yet become a serious threat to Judaism22 and thus would

21

Schoeps, Theologie (1949) 36. D. Barthélemy, for example, would date “Theodotion” to the middle of the first century of the common era; see his Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée 22

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

67

have no need to avoid using Χριστός (christos), while Symmachos (and Aquila before him) worked at a time when Christianity was such an obvious threat that no Jew would use Χριστός (christos) for Hebrew měšiaḥ .23 Such arguments are difficult to control. We simply do not have sufficient evidence about what Greek-speaking Jews in the 2nd and 3rd centuries ce might or might not have done in this regard. It is interesting to note that in some Christian MSS there is evidence of what may be a conscious “recensional” tendency towards writing χρηστός (chrēstos—worthy one) rather than Χριστός (christos), when an “anointed one” is mentioned in Jewish scripture.24 The origins of this phenomenon are not clear. It may well be theologically neutral—a case of simple itacism that has become frozen in one branch of the MS tradition.25 Or it may be an attempt to differentiate between the Christian Christ and various pre-Christian anointed persons. It might even derive from Jewish practice in copying Greek scriptures, although that seems less likely, at least for copies made before Christianity was recognized as a possible threat. An unambiguously Christian variant—doubtless a scribal slip—does appear in a single Greek MS at 2 Macc 1.10, where the text refers to “the group (or “race”; γένους—genous) of anointed (χριστῶν—christōn) priests” who startlingly become “Christian priests” in codex 58.26 Perhaps more of this sort of unconscious emendation would be found in the MSS if they were subjected to closer scrutiny. For example, variations caused by confusion between the overlined abbreviations for “Lord” (ΚΣ), “God” (ΘΣ) and “Christ” (ΧΣ) are not infrequent in Greek MSS. It would probably be inaccurate to attribute the introduction

d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premiére siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (Leiden: Brill, 1963) and my review of this work in Gnomon 37 (1965), especially 480 [also online]. 23 Symmachos is usually dated to the closing decades of the second century. His work is known to Origen in the early third century (see Swete, Introduction, 49f.). 24 Especially in 1–2 Samuel, where MSS acxc2e2 are consistently involved. 25 Does a similar itacistic tendency appear in NT MSS for the title/name christos? A control factor could be sought there. 26 See also 1 Chron 26.22 = Ps 104.15 for χριστῶν. Perhaps a somewhat related phenomenon is the repeated reference to “the race of Christians” in the Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (ed. C. v. Tischendorf; Leipzig, 1866), where an older form of the text almost certainly had “the race of mankind/humanity.” The regularly abbreviated ἀνων (anōn = ἀνθρώπων—anthrōpōn) has become Χριστιανῶν (christianōn—perhaps also abbreviated to Χρανῶν [xranōn] or something similar).

68

chapter three

of references to “Christ” to anything consciously tendentious in such passages as: [[213]] 2 Sam 23.3 “fear of God” (MS A “. . . of the Lord”; MSS Bx “. . . of [the] Christ”) 2 Macc 3.30 “the almighty Lord” (MS 19 “. . . God”; MS A “ . . . Christ”) Sirach 47.11 “the Lord took away his sins” (MS Bc2 with Old Latin support, “Christ. . .”). A more interesting and certainly a more self-conscious change in an “anointed one” passage is found in the so-called “Sexta” version of the Prayer/Ode in Habakkuk 3.13, as reported by Jerome: OG represents MT quite closely—“you went out to save ( εἰς σωτηρίαν—eis sōtērian, Hebrew lěyēša’) your people, . . . to save (τοῦ σῶσαι—tou sōsai, Hebrew lěyēša’) your anointed ones” The “Barberini” text reads similarly—“you appeared for the salvation (ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ—epi sōtēria) of your people, to redeem (ῥύσασθαι— rhusasthai) your elect ones” “Sexta” has “you went out to save (τοῦ σῶσαι—tou sōsai) your people through Jesus your anointed (διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν χριστόν σου—dia Iēsoun ton christon sou).” For obvious reasons, the “Sexta” text has impressed readers as being a blatantly Christian production.27 But despite its “Christian” tone—and appeal—the text also makes reasonable sense in a Jewish context as a reference to Joshua the mighty warrior leader for whom the sun and moon stood still (Josh 10.12f, cf. Hab 3.11) and who slew the wicked adversaries (Josh 10.22–27, cf. Hab 3.13b). The extant Hebrew text still preserves a double use of the Hebrew word yš’a (“to save”) here, which at some point in the development of this difficult passage (if not originally) may have been read in Jewish circles as a play on the name “Joshua” (which means “YHWH saves” or something similar). The same sort of explicit wordplay lies behind Sirach 46.1 (“Jesus/ Joshua . . . who in accord with his name became great with reference to the salvation of his elect ones”) as well as behind Matt 1.21 (“Call his name Jesus/Joshua, for he shall save his people”). Thus a “Jewish” origin 27

E.g., Swete, Introduction, 56: “the Christian origin of Sexta betrays itself at Hab 3.13,” despite Jerome’s claim that “Sexta” is the work of a Jewish translator. Swete adds (56, n. 2) that “no doubt the primary reference [in Sexta’s Hab 3.13] is to Joshua . . ., but the purport of the gloss is unmistakable.”

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

69

of the “Sexta” version of Hab 3.13 seems entirely possible, especially assuming that “Sexta” was translated under conditions in which [[214]] Christianity was not yet viewed as a threat to Judaism. Conversely, it would be difficult to imagine “Sexta” as a Jewish translation at a time when Jews and Christians were in conscious conflict.28 A remaining mystery is why Christian protagonists even after Jerome did not make wide use of this convenient and congenial “proof text”? Apparently fidelity to the accepted Old Greek version outweighed polemical value in such a matter? Another messiah/christ passage of interest for the present investigation is Isa 45.1, which in all preserved Greek biblical MSS reads, “Thus says the Lord . . . to my anointed, Cyrus (Κύρῳ—kyrō).” But Jerome claims to know of many Greek as well as Latin witnesses that have “erred” by reading “Lord” (κυρίῳ—kyriō) rather than Cyrus here. Indeed modern editions of Barnabas 12.11 have “Lord” and juxtapose this “proof text” with Ps 109/110.1 (“The Lord said to my Lord . . .”), as do various other later Christian authors (especially in the Latin tradition).29 Mention should also be made of 1 Sam 24.7(6) in this connection, where most Greek MSS have David referring to Saul as “my Lord the anointed of the Lord.” The origin of the Isaiah reading may be a simple mistake (Κύρῳ/κυρίῳ—kyrō/kyriō) or conscious “correction” of the Greek text (with the aforementioned parallels in mind?). There is no reason to insist that it originated as a peculiarly “Christian” change, although Christians certainly capitalized on the text. What is somewhat startling is the absence of such a congenial reading in preserved Greek MSS. Indeed, even in Barnabas 12.11, some of the preserved Greek MSS have Κύρῳ (kyrō) not κυρίῳ (kyriō), although the latter makes better sense in the context; and in ps-Gregory of Nyssa, Testimony 16, the “Cyrus” form of the text is quoted but is presented as fulfilled in Christ. Thus in this instance, self-conscious fidelity to a less useful form of the text

28 For a convenient summary of early Christian traditions about the discovery of “Sexta” in an earthenware jar, see Swete, Introduction, 54f. In addition to the materials noted there, mention should also be made of the claim found in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila 3.10 (ed. Coneybeare, 1898; see further below chapter 10) that two unidentified translations (presumably “Quinta” and “Sexta”—i.e., the “5th” and “6th” after LXX/OG and “the three” of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachos) were discovered in storage jars at Jericho Nicopolis (= Emmaus!) during Vespasian’s conquest of Jersualem. 29 For a listing of the patristic references, see my “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis,” JBL 79 (1960) 342 [also online].

70

chapter three

seems to have all but obliterated the κύριος (kyrios) variant as such in the Greek tradition. Perhaps a few other messiah/christ texts deserve mention, although the case for tendentious Christian tampering does not seem particularly strong in any of them. Reference to “the oil of anointing” (τοῦ χριστοῦ [tou christou] or τῆς χρίσεως [tēs chriseōs]) in Lev 21.10 is conflated in some witnesses to read “the oil of anointing (χρίσεως [chriseōs] or χρίσματος [chrismatos]) [[215]] of the anointed one” (so bw, see M).30 Ezekiel 16.4 reads, according to many Greek MSS, “. . . and you were not washed in water.” But several witnesses add the phrase “for salvation,” which reflects the extant Hebrew lěmišě’i,31 and a few have “of (or for?) my anointed (or anointing)”—τοῦ χριστοῦ μου (tou christou mou). Possibly the latter reading reflects a real or imagined Hebrew variant měšîhî for mišě’î. There is little reason to attribute it directly to Christian interests. Finally, Daniel 9.25–26, in its various Greek versions, agrees with the preserved Hebrew in speaking of messiah/christ. The so-called Old Greek text, however, seems especially confusing here: . . . and after seven and 70 and 62, χρῖσμα (chrisma—an anointing?) will be removed and shall not be, and a kingdom of gentiles/nations will devastate the city and the holy place with the christos (μετὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ), and its/his completion will come with wrath even until the time of completion.

Even if self-consciously Christian motivation produced this text, and that seems doubtful to me, it is interesting to note once again that the text (and indeed, the Old Greek translation of which it was a part!) barely survived in the hands of Christian transmitters. “Theodotion’s” Greek of Daniel, which stands much closer to the Masoretic Hebrew/ Aramaic, is found in almost all extant Greek MSS.

30 See also Lev 21.12. The LXX translator(s) seem to use χριστός (christos) in the sense of “anointing” rather than necessarily “anointed one” in several pentateuchal passages. Whether later Christian readers and copyists would still be able to understand the text in the way it was intended is difficult to determine. 31 Probably Origen’s Hexaplaric text is responsible for the longer Greek text—εἰς σωτηρίαν (eis sōtērian) is also a reading attributed to Aquila and Theodotion.

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

71

Suffering/Crucifixion and Other Passages Most of the remaining scriptural passages in which Christian ideas about Jesus allegedly played a formative role are found in the Psalms. Christians copied and recopied the Greek collection of Psalms, usually supplemented with the Odes, more than any other portion of Jewish scripture, judging from the number of preserved MSS. Whether the same sort of Christian self-consciousness about the Jewish nature of “OT” scriptures obtained with respect to the Psalms deserves closer attention—as we have seen, there seems to have been no attempt to disguise the explicitly Christian components in the Odes collection (above, p. 65). Perhaps some Christians saw Psalms (and Odes) as just as much a [[216]] Christian as a Jewish collection and thus felt less uneasy about apparently overt Christian phraseology in some Psalms. Indeed, even apart from allegedly Christian additions, both the Hebrew and the Greek form of Psalms contain striking parallels to the Christian traditions about Jesus’ suffering and death (e.g., in Ps 21/22, Ps 68/69). Did this encourage some Christians to include even more such details in their copies of Psalms? An examination of the questionable passages is a first step towards dealing with such possibilities. We have already noted (above, p. 63) that Justin thought Jews had excised the words ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου (apo tou culou) from Ps 95/96.10. Numerous preserved MSS and versions (especially “western” and south Egyptian) also support this reading, which Justin viewed as pre-Christian, prophetic and original.32 It is not, however, found in the extant Hebrew text or in the well attested northern Egyptian Greek text. Its origin remains a mystery. If it is a Christian addition, it predates Justin (and probably Barnabas, as well—see Barn 8.5) and thus developed in the first century of Christian existence. Most Christians would probably hear it as a reference to Jesus’ victorious crucifixion and perhaps would even consider the passage an answer to Deut 21.23, “cursed is anyone who is hanged ἐπὶ ξύλου (epi culou—on wood/tree).”33 But ξύλον (culon) also was used even in Christian materials to refer to “the tree of life” (see Rev 2.7, 22.2, etc.), and the possibility also needs to be explored that Justin’s text of Ps 95/96.10 might have been taken to 32

Other Christian witnesses that attest Justin’s form of Ps 95/96.10 include Barnabas, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, and Gregory Maximus. 33 Cited, e.g., by Paul in Gal 3.13, Justin in Dial 96, and Tertullian in Against the Jews 10 (in close proximity to the problematic form of Ps 95/96.10).

72

chapter three

mean that “the Lord reigned from the tree (of life).” Traditions about the “tree of life” and its relationship to other ξύλα (cula—various rods, the cross of Jesus, etc.) abound in Christian and Jewish materials.34 Until such a possible setting can be examined more fully, the question of the origin of ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου (apo tou culou) in Ps 95/96.10 should perhaps be left open. There may yet even be a place for the phrase in pre-Christian Jewish thought! [[217]] A closely related allegedly “Christian” variation appears in a few relatively early witnesses35 to Ps 50/51.9 and was also known to the Nestorian Timotheus I (ca. 800), who claims it was confirmed by the discovery of Hebrew scrolls in a cave by some of his contemporaries.36 Ps 50/51.9 is a text used liturgically by Christians:37 Cleanse me with hyssop and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.

After the word “hyssop,” the aforementioned witnesses add “from (or perhaps, “dipped in”) the blood of the tree” (ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ξύλου (apo tou haimatos tou culou), and after “wash me,” some of them also add “from it” (ἐξ αὐτοῦ—ex autou). Again, the Christian appeal of the passage is clear, but how this variant originated is not so clear. The link of “blood” and a “tree” or “wood” appears in other passages (e.g., Barnabas 12.1) and may have its immediate background in texts dealing with apocalyptic signs (see 4 Ezra 5.5) or perhaps with martyrological legends like the death of Isaiah (sawn asunder with a wooden saw; sawn while hidden in a hollow tree).38

34 See J. Daniélou, “La Vie suspendue au bois (Deut. 28.66),” Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne (Les Testimonia) (Paris: Beauchesne, 1966) 61f. Daniélou also shows that Tertullian (Against the Jews 11.9, cf. 13.11) and various later fathers include the words “on the tree/wood” in quoting Deut 28.66. No biblical MSS support this reading, which may have arisen in “proof-text” literature by conflation with Deut 21.23 (κρεμάμενος—kremamenos, see Deut 28.66 κρεμαμένη—kremamenē), but this material is clearly of interest for discussing the similar phrase in Ps 95/96.10 and the larger question of Christianized biblical quotations. 35 The 4th century Greek papyrus 2013 with its 12th century ally MS 1093 (excerpts) and the Sahidic Coptic version; also in the 4th century Achmimic Coptic version (but not Greek, Latin or Syriac text) of 1 Clement 18.7. 36 See Braun, “Ein Brief,” 306f. 37 See R.A. Kraft and A. Tripolitis, “Some Uncatalogued Papyri of Theological and Other Interest in the John Rylands Library,” BJRL 51 (1968) 144 n. 1 [also online]. 38 The “wooden saw” tradition appears in various Christian sources and Martyrdom/ Ascension of Isaiah 5. The “hollow tree” version is found in rabbinic sources. See L. Ginzberg, Legends 4 (1913) 279 and the notes thereto.

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

73

Language that sounds suspiciously like the Christian crucifixion traditions also appears in some MSS of the “penitential” Psalm 37/38. In verse 14 (13) the primary witnesses mentioned in note 35 above have the words “I was suspended/hanged by them” (ἐκρεμάμην ὑπ’ αὐτῶν—ekrememēn hyp’ autōn), while at the end of verse 22(21) the Bohairic Coptic version adds “and they nailed my flesh.”

Neither of these ideas is foreign to Greek Jewish scriptures—for example Lam 5.12 speaks of (Israel’s) rulers being “hanged by means of the hand(s)” of the adversaries, and the classic text in Deut 21.23 curses anyone “hanged on a tree/stake”; Ps 118/119.120 has “from fear of you they nailed my flesh” (Masoretic Hebrew, “my flesh bristled”), and the idea of hands and feet being “digged” (“pierced”?) occurs in Ps 21/22.17 (although the Greek word there is different, and the extant Hebrew differs significantly)—but their [[218]] presence in these texts of Ps 37/38 probably reflects Christian use of the Psalm in describing Jesus’ crucifixion. The Greek MSS of Isaiah also contain a variation of relevance for the present discussion. At the end of Isa 53, MS 86mg and the Sahidic have the following words, which Ziegler designates as “additamentum christianum”: they pursued (him) and they persecuted (him); they took him (captive) and the Lord forgave them.

While this sort of summary is not unharmonious with the tone of the surrounding material in Isaiah (suffering servant, forgiving Lord; see also Isa 55.7) and might conceivably have found its way into the book apart from specifically Christian interests, it is difficult to resist the intuition that this addition stems from Christian concerns (see e.g., Luke 22.54, 23.34). In either event, the actual Greek wording is not specifically Isaianic, nor does it reflect well documented Christian formulae. The final words of the problem passage also are paralleled in the Greek of Job 42.10, “the Lord . . . forgave them [Job’s “friends”] their sin” (. . . ἀφῆκεν αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν—aphēken autois tēn hamartian)— material that is lacking in the preserved Hebrew text. Perhaps this also should be credited to Christian influence, although the suggestion seems much less convincing here where all preserved MSS contain the problematic passage. A few other passages sometimes are mentioned as possible “Christian” additions or alterations, but the reasons are hardly compelling. Rahlfs

74

chapter three

includes a variant text of Ps 49/50.6 supported by several southern Egyptian witnesses among “Christian passages” but admits that there is “nothing specifically Christian” about the material.39 At Ps 151.3, after the words “he is Lord, he hears,” the Bohairic version reads uniquely, “all those who call upon him”—an idea found also in Ps 144/145.18f. and in Joel 2.32/3.5 (which is cited by NT authors at Acts 2.21 and Rom 10.12ff.; see also 1 Cor 1.2). While it is not necessary to demand that a Christian originated this conflation, it is not inconceivable that a Christian added the phrase. Finally, the inner-Greek confusion of the original ἰάματα (iamata, “healings”) and the secondary ἱμάτια (himatia, “garments”), which is attested in numerous MSS at Isa 58.8, may be mentioned as another example of a popular Christian “proof text.” But there is no need to posit a Christian origin for this development, which is completely understandable in terms of normal textual confusions. [[219]] Influence of Aberrant Quotations on the MSS Another, more indirect type of Christian influence on Greek Jewish scriptures has also been claimed. The argument goes roughly like this: 1. Christian authors sometimes quoted Jewish scriptural passages in textual forms that differ significantly from the Old Greek. 2. Familiarity with and reverence for the Christian form of the quotation developed among Christians (especially with regard to New Testament materials). 3. Thus in transmitting Old Greek MSS, Christian copyists sometimes substituted (consciously or unconsciously) the aberrant Christian form of the material, in part or in whole. I do not propose to deal with this sort of argument, or the evidence to which it appeals, at any great length here. It is a very complicated issue, involving technical text-critical considerations as well as impressions about the development of Christian attitudes towards what came to be 39 Rahlfs’ Göttingen ed. of Psalms (1931) 32. The “addition” echoes Zeph 1.12 and reads: “and in the last days God will search Jerusalem with a lamp.”

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

75

“New Testament” as compared with “Old Testament” literature. The question of the development and Christian use of “proof text” collections also is important here, as is illustrated by such passages as Isa 45.1 (or 58.8) and Ps 95/96.10 discussed above. Although I have tried to gear the present essay to passages actually or allegedly preserved in Greek MSS and derivative versions, the number of possibly tendentious Christian contributions to Jewish scriptural material would be swelled considerably if early Christian and patristic “proof text” references were also examined systematically (see, e.g., above, n. 34). Methodologically, discussion of these problems often reverts to special pleading. It has long been acknowledged that considerable textual variation had developed in the transmission of Jewish Greek scriptures by the time Christianity emerged. Text-critical efforts to group the variants, identify textual and recensional streams and ultimately recreate the earliest recoverable form of texts have continued apace. On the whole, variant forms of texts that appear in scriptural quotations found in a Philo or a Justin or a Clement are treated with some respect, recorded and classified if possible, as possible contributions to our knowledge of the complex textual situation in Greek Jewish scriptural readings in their time. But because the NT writings themselves ultimately gained the status of “sacred scripture” among the people who came to be mainly responsible for the transmission of Jewish scriptures in Greek, evidence of textual variation drawn from NT quotations often has come to be [[220]] treated differently.40 If agreement is found between a NT quotation and some Greek MSS of Jewish scripture in what is judged to be a “variant” form of text, the evidence from the MSS often is explained as the result of conscious or unconscious “harmonization” towards the

40 See, e.g., the summary of scholarly opinions given by K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the OT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 19682 = reprint of 1954 original with a new introduction by the author) 169 (esp. n. 5)–74. A notable exception to this approach is H.B. Swete, whose passing comments in Introduction, 395 deserve special mention in the present discussion: “The witness of the NT almost invariably goes with codd. SAF and Lucian against the Vatican MS [B], and . . . its agreement with cod. A. is especially close. [Footnote to W. Staerk, ZWT 36 (1893) 97f.] It may of course be argued that the text of these authorities has been influenced by the NT [footnote reference to Zahn, Einleitung 2, p. 314ff.]; but the fact that a similar tendency is noticeable in Josephus, and to a less extent in Philo, goes far to discount this objection.” It is true that Swete did not have access to the text-critical materials now available, which have helped put the old discussion about the relative value of the “great Uncials” into better perspective, but his general impressions still deserve attention and should not summarily be ignored on that account.

76

chapter three

NT form of the quotation. In its most extreme form this sort of argument precludes the possibility of using the MSS as evidence that a NT quotation attests a variant text form available to the author. Instead, it is suggested either that the NT author created the variants that appear in his quotation or that the source from which the NT quotations derived its variants did not survive to exert any independent influence on the preserved MSS of Jewish scriptures. The situation with regard to Psalm 13/14.3 provides an excellent example and is neatly summarized by Rahlfs.41 In Rom 3.10–18 Paul cites a series of OT passages as evidence that all humans are under sin. He begins with what is first a rather free, then a literal rendering of Ps 13.1–3, and continues with other OT passages of similar content (Ps 5.10, 139.4, 9.28, Isa 59.7–8, Ps 35.2), but without giving any new formula of citation. On this basis, ancient Christians have enriched their Psalter and have also inserted into the Psalter after Ps 13.1–3 everything that Paul added to Ps 13.1–3 (but they did not add it to the basically identical passage in Ps 52.2–4). This Ps 13.1–3 passage is present in the northern and southern Egyptian texts and in the western text. It is also preserved by Origen and is only obelized, whence it also is found in the vulgate, which contains a translation of the hexaplaric LXX text in its Psalter. Only Lucian manages to suppress it completely, and thus it is not part of the official text of the Greek church; nevertheless the Syriac translation of the Lucianic text does contain it, presumably because it was very popular.

But this sort of analysis simply assumes that Paul created the composite text. If, as I tend to believe, Paul actually derived [[221]] this block of material from a source available to him, the entire question must be reformulated in a different light. Is it not possible that Paul knew a text of Ps 13/14 (or of Ps 52/53) which was already expanded in this manner? Or that he knew a “proof text” type of collection (perhaps introduced by the general summary heading now found in Rom 3.10–11) that also independently influenced MSS of the Psalms?42 If we reject such suggestions and follow Rahlfs’ analysis, how can we explain why (1) Rom 3.10–11, the neat and balanced opening rubric, has had no 41

Psalmi cum Odis (= vol. 10 of Göttingen Septuagint; 1931) 33–4 [my translation]. Swete, Introduction, 252, is remarkably restrained and balanced on this issue, compared to Rahlfs: “whether it [the long form] was brought into the text . . . from the Epistle, or was already in the Greek Psalm as known to St. Paul, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. But it doubtless had its origin in the Rabbinical practice of stringing together passages excerpted from various [scriptural] books . . . and it may have existed under this form in a collection of testimonia used by the Apostle.” 42

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

77

impact on the same Psalm MSS that allegedly adopted Rom 3.12–18 wholesale? (2) Other composite quotations found in Romans have had so little influence on the Greek scriptural MSS, relatively speaking?43 If Paul has influenced virtually all representatives of the three oldest text forms of Psalms in this one instance, does that mean that these three textforms derived from a single textual archetype that was influenced by Paul? If so, that archetype must be of very early date, much earlier than the fourth/fifth century in which the different textforms are relatively widely attested and significantly earlier than the third century from which the oldest preserved example of the “composite” Psalm passage comes (MS 2019) and the time when Origen presumably obelized it in the Hexapla. Indeed, it would seem to be difficult on a strictly textcritical basis to date such a supposed archetype late enough to itself have been influenced directly by Romans 3, which was written in the mid-first century. Alternatively, one might argue that the Romans passage independently influenced different streams of the textual developments in Psalms— thus no single, early archetype behind the identified textforms would be necessary. But such a theory would have to account for the relative homogeneity of the preserved witnesses (e.g., the opening words of the Romans quotation have left no trace in any of the Psalm MSS). On the whole, Rahlfs’ [[222]] hypothesis of Pauline influence on Ps 13/14 seems unconvincing. And if the expanded text in Psalms were not caused by Christian familiarity with Paul, there is no reason to attribute the expanded form to “Christian” influence at all. Neither the material contained in the quotation nor the resulting thrust of the composite quotation is characteristically Christian. Even if it were a pre-Pauline Christian compilation, and I seriously doubt that it could be such for some of the textcritical reasons adduced earlier, we would have no way to ascertain that inductively from the text itself. New Testament literature abounds with quotations from Jewish scriptures (and/or closely related material), many of which deviate in some way form the majority of preserved Greek MSS of Jewish scriptures 43 MS 55 at Ps 68/69.23–24(22–23) shows a closer relationship to Rom 11.9–10 (which possibly conflates a phrase from Ps 34/35.8 into the quotation) than do the other Psalm MSS. In Rom 11.26–27 material is juxtaposed without interruption from Isa 59.20f and 27.9, with no apparent impact on MSS of Isaiah. In Rom 9.25f. a strange form of something like Hos 2.23 is directly prefixed to material from Hos 1.10, with the entire block introduced as from “Hosea,” but the MSS of Hosea seem to be virtually unaffected. See also below on Rom 11.34f.

78

chapter three

(and related witnesses). Quite possibly the Christian form of a quotation sometimes influenced the later textual tradition in Jewish scriptures, but in most instances it is impossible to establish that as a strong probability. Numerous claims are made, resting on the slimmest of arguments or no arguments at all. Apparently the mere presence of a textual variant in a NT quotation and also in a few MSS of the Old Greek for the passage quoted is enough to call forth such a claim. Even an experienced and normally cautious editor such as Joseph Ziegler falls into this trap. In assessing the peculiarities of MS A for his critical Göttingen edition of the Greek Isaiah (1939) Ziegler observes (p. 27): Frequently it also shows influence of NT passages. Thus in 9.2, A reads in agreement with various other MSS καθήμενος (kathēmenos, from Mt. 4.16) instead of πορευόμενος (poreuomenos) and in 59.8 ἔγνωσαν (egnōsan, from Rom 3.17) instead of οἴδασι (oidasi, first occurrence). The present tense τελευτᾷ (teleuta) in 66.24 instead of τελευτήσει (teleutēsei) derives from Mark 9.48 and is only found in A and 456. Likewise the Christian addition in 40.14 taken from Rom 11.35 has found entrance into A (as well as in S* and various minuscules).

But the picture is neither so simple nor so clear when one examines the data more closely. The quotation in Mt 4.15–16 contains five significant divergences from most OG texts of Isa 9.1–2 (not including two major “omissions” and a transposition, none of which are attested by MSS of Isaiah). Three of these five are not found in any MSS of Isaiah (first occurrence of γῆ [gē, OG χώρᾳ—chōra]; καὶ τοῖς καθημένοις [kai tois kathēmenois, OG οἱ κατοικοῦντες—hoi katoikountes]; αὐτοῖς [autois, OG ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς—eph’ hymas]). Another is found in a single MS of Isaiah (ἀνέτειλεν—aneteilen, OG λάμψει—lampsei)—which perhaps has been influenced by the Matthew material. The fourth, which is noted by Ziegler, is attested by a number of Old Greek witnesses in addition to MS A, and clearly predates A. If the Matthew tradition originated these variants, and if Matthew’s quotation exerted strong influence on the Greek transmission of Isaiah, why is the influence displayed only in one or two instances out of a [[223]] possible five (or eight, counting “omissions” and transpositions)? It would seem to me more probable that, at least in the case of καθήμενος (kathēmenos), both Matthew and the Greek MSS of Isaiah have been influenced by a pre-Matthean form of the text which already read “sat” rather than “went.”44

44

See further, Krister Stendahl, School (1968) 104–6.

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

79

The other examples cited by Ziegler are equally complicated. ἔγνωσαν (egnōsan) in Isa 59.8 is also clearly older than MS A, and indeed is part of the composite Psalm passage (Rom 3.10–18) discussed above. If the long form of Psalm 13/14.3 is considered to be pre-Pauline, then this particular reading ages accordingly. But in any event, even in the second occurrence of οἴδασι (oidasin) in Isa 59.8—material not quoted in the Paul/Psalm passage—the variant ἔγνωσαν (egnōsan) appears in two Greek MSS and ἔγνω (egnō) is attributed to Symmachos! Possibly τελευτᾷ (teleuta) is an instance of direct or indirect NT influence on Isaiah, although it should be noted that (1) Mark 9.48 is less a conscious quotation than a frozen cultural phrase and doubtless would have had a history of its own prior to and apart from Mark, (2) several significant witnesses to the text of Mark also have the future tense, (3) the phrase also circulated quite early with future tense in Christian circles apart from Mark (e.g., 2 Clem 7.6, 17.5). But the sequence τελευτᾷ . . . σβεστήσεται (teleuta . . . sbestēsetai) in the A text of Isaiah 66.24 is difficult to defend and has probably been caused by familiarity with the abbreviated phrase in the form known from Mark. But why σβέννυται (sbennutai) does not also appear in A (as in Mark) is difficult to understand. The aphorism occurs about 50 times in the TLG data (as of July 2008), almost never in the Markan form cited by Ziegler, but often as a saying of Jesus, and a few times with the order of “worm . . . fire” reversed. Complexity of exact transmission is evident, even while the point of the aphorism remains clear. The hymnic passage in Rom 11.34f. presents problems similar to those noted above with reference to Ps 13.3//Rom 3.10–18. The first portion of the Romans material is virtually identical to the first two thirds of the preserved Greek in Isa 40.13. (Incidentally, Paul uses the first and last thirds of the same passage to form a rhetorical question in 1 Cor 2.16; he seems to know these phrases intimately, not simply as “quotations.”) But Rom 11.35 is best paralleled in content by the preserved Hebrew of Job 41.2/11 (“who has first given to me, so that I should repay him?”)—in Greek, the passage reads “or who will oppose me and endure,” which makes good sense even in the Hebrew context, but is far from the wording found in numerous Greek MSS at the end of Isa 40.14—not near the end of 40.13, where we would expect it if direct influence from Rom 11.34f. were the explanation. And again, the MSS of Isaiah that support the problematic text represent relatively diverse family groupings and point to an archetype that must go back at the very latest to the 3rd century ce. If the “extra” material in Isa 40.14 came from Romans, why is it not joined to [[224]] Isa 40.13? Could it

80

chapter three

be a displaced Greek version of Job 41.2/11, joined to the Isaiah material because of similar content (I imagine the general rubric “who can challenge the Lord?”). Is it possible that Paul knew such a secondary collection of similar materials, to which he passingly alludes (in Rom 11 and in 1 Cor 2) and which also had its impact on the MS tradition of Isaiah 40? Such a solution seems to deal with the evidence in at least as satisfactory a manner as the solution Ziegler represents—indeed, in what is to me a preferable manner. The situation with regard to other NT and early Christian quotations is similar to that in the above samples.45 The Greek MSS of Jewish scriptures seldom preserve any consistent pattern where a reverse influence of aberrant NT quotations on their apparent sources can be alleged with confidence. The evidence seems to be haphazard and sporadic. In many instances, the theory of “NT” influence on LXX/ OG texts generates as many problems as it claims to solve. The more we learn about the development of various types of Christianity and of Christian self-understanding, the more difficult it is to accept some of the assumptions with which the theory seems to operate—e.g., that apparent deviations by early Christian authors from what we know or can reconstruct as the earliest recoverable text of Jewish Greek scriptures must have originated from the Christian authors or that NT writings quickly assumed a relatively wooden position of verbal authority vis-à-vis Jewish scriptures and other Jewish and/or Christian traditions. Indeed, there is much reason to speak of “secondary” scriptural compilations of various sorts emanating from Jewish sources and available to early Christian authors—“proof-text” collections, scripturalsounding psalms and prayers/hymns, continuously updated prophetic and apocalyptic materials, aphoristic quotations, and the like. In this sort of context, older approaches to this aspect of “Christian” influences on the textual transmission of Greek Jewish scriptures need careful reevaluation, with equal attention to technical textcritical problems and to the broader issues of how Judaism and Christianity were developing and relating to each other in the relevant periods of history.

45 I will make no attempt to identify the relevant publications here. Discussion of aspects of the general problem may be found in Stendahl, School (1968) especially III–IV and 169–82.

christian transmission of greek jewish scriptures

81

Conclusions From the viewpoint of strictly controlled methodology, the results of this probe are extremely tentative. It is easy to [[225]] criticize the way things have been done, but difficult to propose satisfactory alternatives. In many ways, study of Greek Jewish scriptures is still in its infancy, without adequate tools or enough trained workers to take more than slow, short steps in progressing towards its goals. Knowledge of the Jewish world(s) from which Christianity derived has rapidly increased since the mid 20th century and will continue to do so as more new data are made available and digested. Early Christianity also is being viewed from new perspectives, and our appreciation for variety and diversity within both Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman world has increased greatly. Study of Christianity in the byzantine/ medieval world has not made comparable progress and remains an obstacle to the sort of methodologically self-conscious approach that I wish to encourage. Our suppositions about what is or is not possible or probable in pre-Christian and non-Christian Jewish circles need to be carefully re-evaluated and reformulated. Similarly, our appreciation for what motivated Christians to transmit, embellish, reshape and transform various Jewish materials throughout the ages needs to be increased if we are to attempt to draw the shadowy line between what may be called “Jewish” and what is clearly “Christian.” For the topic at hand, overtly Christian influences on the transmission of Jewish scriptures, most of the older claims can be dismissed because the assumptions on which they were based are no longer convincing. My impression, which needs considerable further testing, is that the passing of time did not increase the likelihood that Christian copyists would continually insert more and more blatantly Christian material into the texts with which they worked. Indeed, the reverse may have been true, in general—as time went on, and as Christianity won its battles for social acceptance and legitimation as well as for inner consolidation, the sorts of motivation, which at one time might have encouraged the introduction of “Christian interpolations” into transmitted texts (whether Jewish or pagan), became less influential. Jewish scriptures could be accepted for what they were and should be preserved as such. As a rule, tendencies to tamper with the texts would tend to date from relatively early times, from periods of stress with respect to self-identity (especially vis-à-vis Judaism or perceived “heresy”). This also seems true for textual criticism in

82

chapter three

general, where the earliest period in the transmission of written materials is likely to be the period of greatest variety, before sufficient distance and appreciation has been achieved to produce a more self-consciously deliberate treatment of the material. And as time goes on, the early variations often become domesticated [[226]] into the ongoing streams of transmission, perhaps even by a conscious process of selection (as in “recensional” activity). We all but lose sight of the early varieties—the “Quintas,” “Sextas” and “Septimas,” even the Theodotions and Aquilas and Symmachoses. I suspect there may have been a fairly active period in which some Christians strengthened their Christian claims by editing copies of Jewish scriptures in as favorable a manner as they dared.46 But I find it almost impossible to identify (or recreate) concrete evidence of such activity. Much of the more blatant evidence probably no longer exists—it would have been edited out of the ongoing streams long since. And the evidence that may still exist cannot be isolated with confidence because its strength and appeal lay in its ambiguous nature with respect to Judaism—it is part of God’s prophetic, revelatory mystery and is “Christian” only to those who know how to read it! To others it is simply archaic—a vestige of an ancient Jewish heritage. But this is precisely how many Christians viewed scriptural materials that are patently, demonstrably Jewish—the beloved passages from Psalms or Isaiah or Jeremiah! If Isaiah had not survived as scripture, and we suddenly came across a quoted passage in our Christian literarure containing the words now found in Isaiah 53, we would be almost compelled to call it “Christian composition/interpolation” (etc.), without further discussion. We would be dead wrong, because we had not appreciated what was possible within the broad framework of what we call ancient Judaism. My conclusion, and intuition, with regard to alleged “Christian” tampering with Jewish scriptures is that a thorough re-examination of the problem is in order and that a strictly controlled approach will, in the long run, serve us well in the quest for a more satisfactory understanding of our Christian and Jewish heritages.

46 That Christians sometimes tampered with their own proto-canonical and/or canonical writings is argued by Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: OUP, 1996). This is a related issue that deserves closer examination in the present context.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE WEIGHING OF THE PARTS: PIVOTS AND PITFALLS IN THE STUDY OF EARLY JUDAISMS AND THEIR EARLY CHRISTIAN OFFSPRING1 In the study of early Christianity, we often hear references to the “Parting of the Ways” as the process or result of Christianity declaring itself independent of its Jewish origins, and of Judaism reciprocally rejecting Christianity.2 It is quite obvious that the “ways” that led to classical Christianity and rabbinic Judaism did indeed “part” by the fourth century ce. This becomes true simply by definition, since in those classical Christian and classical Jewish communities, each understood the other as “other.” To be a “Christian” involved in part not being a “Jew,” and vice versa. They came to understand themselves as exclusively different “religions,” and/or perhaps also, at times, exclusively different cultural options. But the path to such a simple and clear answer is littered with the sorts of complexities that surround all historical and social developments, that is, all human developments; these complexities get masked by the urge to make and keep things clear and simple. It was doubtless with this in mind that the organizers of the Princeton colloquium selected the confrontational title, “The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.” To issue such a challenge to “common knowledge” (or exclusive definition) may appear, on the surface of things, to be a bold step, but it constitutes an invitation to look more closely at the micro-histories behind that “common knowledge” in order to determine what other trajectories may be ascertained. A challenge is offered to a unilateral development 1 This essay appeared originally as pp. 87–94 in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ed. Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed; Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 95; Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 2003). 2 See, for example, James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991); also idem (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, ad 70 to 135 (The Second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, Durham, September 1989; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1992).

84

chapter four

model. Ockham’s razor is blunted if not shattered, and one of the major results is to explore quite closely the interrelationships of the various parts and participants and [[88]] particularities that in various ways produced the familiar medieval/classical landscape. In an obvious attempt to be clever, I’ve christened this deconstructive exploratory process “The Weighing of the Parts.” Although there is a rash of modern literature that is relevant to this subject, I will make no attempt to survey it extensively or directly but will pay some attention, by way of footnotes, to aspects of two recent contributions, from Gabrielle Boccaccini and Seth Schwartz.3 Several points need to be made, some methodological and others evidentiary. Since effective methodology cannot take place in a vacuum (true by definition; otherwise it would not be considered “effective”), these aspects of method and data cannot always be separated. One of the first lines of attack on traditional assumptions and arguments is the recognition of how many “parts” there are to be “weighed”! It is fashionable in some scholarly circles today to speak of “Judaisms” (rather than simply “Judaism”) in the period prior to the ever increasing success of “rabbinic” authority;4 regarding Christianity, we hear fewer voices speaking of “Christianities” in the early period, but the same recognition is captured with the oft heard references to early Christian “varieties,” including discussions of whether such varieties as “gnosticism” can be considered legitimately “Christian.”5 The vocabulary used

3

Gabrielle Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), especially the “Introduction: The Intellectual Quest of Rabbinic Origins and Roots”; and Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 bce to 640 ce (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001). 4 The use of “Judaisms” became popularized by the anthology entitled Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: CUP, 1987), edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green and Ernest S. Frerichs. Boccaccini is sympathetic: “Neusner’s approach has already left its clear imprint on Judaic studies (‘from Judaism to Judaisms’) and the indication of a much promising method of studying rabbinic origins and roots as a comparison of systems of thought that ‘took place in succession to one another’ ” (Roots of Rabbinic Judaism [2002] 14; citing Jacob Neusner, The Four Stages of Rabbinic Judaism [London: Routledge, 1998]). Schwartz emphasizes the variety without embracing the plural terminology: “It is difficult to imagine any serious scholar ever again describing the Judaism of the later Second Temple period as a rigorous, monolithic orthodoxy, as was still common only a generation ago” (Imperialism, 4–5); or again, “In this book I assume that ancient Judaism was complex, capacious, and rather frayed at the edges,” although not “multiple” (p. 9). 5 For example, James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1990–92); Walter Bauer, with Georg Strecker, Orthodoxy (1971).

the weighing of the parts

85

is perhaps less crucial than the situation it attempts to represent—there are many “parts” to be recognized and weighed in the close study of these materials! And, [[89]] indeed, this multifaceted situation does not automatically disappear with the “victory” of the respective classical forms of these religions. There continue to be variant, sometimes competing, forms within and sometimes somewhere between each tradition (e.g., Samaritans, Karaite Judaism, Cathar Christianity, Mandeans, Manicheans, “mysticism” of various sorts). In some ways, there is little that is new in these observations. The presence of “Jewish” groups and/or perspectives labeled Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and more, comes straight from the ancient sources. Modern supplementation, by attempting to give actual social reality to ancient Jews with apocalyptic, wisdom, Enochic, hellenistic, or other foci, simply increases the possible “parts” we need to deal with.6 On the Christian side of the ledger, our ancient reporters mention especially “docetics” and “gnostics” of various stripes, and more vaguely “Judaizers” as well as “chiliasts” and the like; modern study has refined things further by categorizing the “parts” as Pauline, Johannine, syncretistic, reformist (e.g., Cynics), and so forth.7 The naming process is relatively easy. Weighing the parts in relation to each other and to the respective surrounding worlds is quite another matter.8 [[90]]

6 Boccaccini provides an excellent example of an attempt to isolate various tendencies and socio-religious interests within Judaism, especially in the period that he labels “middle Judaism.” See his Middle Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), followed by Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), and now Roots of Rabbinic Judaism (2002). 7 For a general overview of the earliest Christian materials, see Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: OUP, 2003). See also above, n. 4. 8 In the opening chapter of his Roots of Rabbinic Judaism (2002), entitled “Introduction: The Intellectual Quest of Rabbinic Origins and Roots,” Boccaccini attempts to survey the work of his recent predecessors, including: E.P. Sanders (“covenantal nomism” as the common denominator or “essence” of Judaism); Lawrence H. Schiffman (an “evolutionary model” in which “the essence of Judaism is its history,” which leads to the rabbinic stage); Shaye J.D. Cohen and Martin S. Jaffee (a more ethnocentric model in which “Judaism is the history of its people”); and Jacob Neusner (“the history of Judaism is the history of Judaisms”). Seth Schwartz, whose book would not have appeared in time for Boccaccini to use, would probably fit somewhere between Schiffman’s “evolutionary” approach and Neusner’s “skepticism,” and he uses a large measure of the emphasis on variety and change attributed to Cohen and Jaffee. Schwartz argues for a general “coherence” around “the three pillars of ancient Judaism—the one God, the one Torah, and the one Temple” within which there was “messiness, diversity, and unpredictability of the effects of this system in Jewish Palestinian society in the first

86

chapter four

Definitions and assumptions play crucial, often unrecognized roles in such discussions. If “Judaism” really is taken to be meaningful only in some sort of direct relationship with what it became in its later classical forms (I hesitate to oversimplify even here and say “form” in the singular)—a definitional assumption that seems to be alive and thriving even in some contemporary scholarly circles—then some aspects of the ancient evidence will be privileged over others (e.g., legal and ritual interests, “biblical” connections, separatism, roots-awareness).9 It becomes difficult, for example, to imagine someone, or some group, being at the same time “Jewish” and uninterested in aspects of ritual law (e.g., circumcision, food restrictions). Were there such people? Of course. Why should that world be so different from ours? Are they important for purposes of understanding historical developments and processes? Of course. To ignore them or pretend they didn’t exist is to neglect an aspect of the real world that creates both attraction and reaction, perhaps revulsion, at the very least. Philo is well aware of such situations, and he tries to tread a fine line between them. For him, understanding (often hidden) meanings is crucial, but he is wary of throwing out the baby with the bath water in failing to find an appropriate balance between such meanings and the activities that they relate to and/or interpret.10 Probably his nephews, Marcus Julius Alexander and Tiberius Julius Alexander, both active in Roman civil

century.” He also notes “the existence of a subsidiary ideological system—basically, a mildly dualistic mythological narrative—that implicitly contradicted the main one.” For Schwartz, “the main sects were in fact an integral part of the Torah-centered Judaean mainstream elite . . . the three main sects are evidence not simply of Judaism’s diversity but also of the power of its ideological mainstream. For their part, the Christians illustrate the proposition that there were limits to acceptable diversity in ancient Judaism, for those who remained Jewish did so by affirming their adherence to the Torah and at least the idea of a temple, while the rest in short order ceased to regard themselves as Jews” (Imperialism, 49). 9 As noted above, the most important categories for Schwartz’s treatment of Palestinian Judaism in the “second temple” period are God-Torah-Temple (but with lots of variations), which he finds compatible with Sanders’ “covenantal nomisim.” Some would add the idea of election/peoplehood and the “promised land” (e.g., Dunn, Partings of the Ways [1991]); see also Boccaccini‘s presentation of the Cohen-Jaffee approach, in the preceding note). 10 The classic Philonic passage is from Migration of Abraham 86–93. Philo sometimes seems caught between his epistemological idealism (attention to essences and meanings) and his socio-political realism (avoiding conflicts or criticisms that weaken community)—a dilemma doubtless encouraged by his Platonic orientation, which values both aspects.

the weighing of the parts

87

service, were less committed to such compromise. Would that make them less “Jewish”? For fruitful pursuit of all such discussions, clear and consistent definition is basic. In my experience, most “arguments” about this subject area are actually valid or invalid (successful or unsuccessful) “by definition.” That is, if the definitions being used for “Jewish” or “Christian” were clear and explicit, arguments about whether this or that individual or text or phenomenon could be considered “Jewish” (or “Christian”) would simply become unnecessary. If my understanding of “Jewish” does not permit me to apply that term to data in which Jesus is [[91]] uniquely and self-consciously revered, it may be necessary to explore the extent to which a given historical witness does or does not reverence Jesus; when that has been determined, the choice of labels will be self-evident. In such an approach the parts may still be in need of weighing, but that will take place inside of the boundaries imposed by the definition.11 But the practice of imposing definitions upon material is not the only possible approach, and in my estimation it is less satisfactory, for historical purposes, than attempting to let the materials define themselves. Admittedly, such relativizing of labels (i.e., definitions) can

11 Interestingly, in his otherwise provocative and instructive treatment of Palestinian Judaism’s relationship to “Imperial Power,” Schwartz seems carefully to avoid proposing or establishing any definition of “Judaism” beyond his rather fuzzy (and largely assumed rather than argued!) triad of God-Torah-Temple, over against which he sees various shades of deviation. For example, “how can the centrality of God-Temple-Torah in Jewish self-definition be proved? What about the Judaean settlements at Elephantine or, more chronologically relevant, at Heliopolis/Leontopolis in Egypt? Or the worshipers of the Most High God settled in the Cimmerian Bosporus? Did these Jews, too, if that is what they considered themselves, live in symbolic worlds whose central components were the Temple and the Torah?” (Imperialism, 50). He then argues that the centrality of Torah-Temple are “not a priori an eternal truth of Jewish identity, uncontingent on changing social and political conditions” (p. 50) but the result of a process, and that originally “pagan” areas in Palestine that “passed under Judean rule all now became in some sense Jewish” (p. 51) and “had by and large internalized some version of the ideology that was centrally constitutive of Judaism, [but] we must not assume that their Judaism was indistinguishable from that of the Judaeans” (p. 52). Further on, Schwartz mentions the Diaspora, where the legal and social contexts were different, and notes that “it is in the Diaspora that one finds clearest evidence of radically anomalous types of Judaism, as well as a constant trickle of people both in and out of Judaism” (p. 74). He does not show any awareness or provide any discussion of the value of definitions for his project, and it is clear that although he recognizes the value of “self-identification” as an important factor, he does not limit himself to it as the central definitional criterion. These aspects of his otherwise very instructive study are, I think, distressingly problematic.

88

chapter four

lead to confusing situations in which self-identifications (“I am a Jew”) may be in conflict with assessments made in the same world (“You are not really a Jew”). Even then, however, we can learn more about the historical situation by recognizing the apparent confusion than we can by ignoring it or defining it away. For our “Parting of the Ways” and/or “Weighing of the Parts” perspectives, historical self-identification (explicit or suspected) may force the modern scholar to develop new categories and vocabularies that are more satisfactory for the task. If, in their own understandings, Herod the Great and his successors were “Jewish”—as were Philo and his nephews, Jesus and his opponents, Paul and the other “apostles,” Hillel and Shammai, Josephus and Bar Kokhba, etc.—our task as would-be “insiders” is to refine our categories in order to enable better [[92]] understandings of the situation(s). This holds similarly for the “Christianity” of such people as Marcion, Montanus, Mani, Valentinus, and the like. And this requires a whole lot of “weighing” within the historical contexts that produced the available evidence (and with an awareness of our own motives and contexts). What issues were important to the historical participants, and how do those issues affect our historical understandings? Complexity is the normal state of human social existence, and complexity is certainly the rule with reference to the situations under examination here. Prior to the emergence of self-conscious “Christianity,” and even after that, there was significant diversity within the seedbed from which classical Judaism later emerged. And from its very start within that seedbed, Christian varieties would also be expected to be in evidence—is it likely that all of the earliest followers of Jesus as Messiah/Christ shared the same attitudes to such things as Jewish ritual or eschatological expectations or sources of authority or the value of material/physical existence? Is there any reason to expect such conceptual “unity” at the earliest period of what comes to be called “Christianity”?12 While it is clear that the definitional simplicity of mutually exclusive self-understandings (“Jewish” means, among other things, not “Christian,” and vice versa), where it exists, shows parted 12 Schwartz acutely observes, without attempting further detail: “Jesus was the figure expected to usher in the end of the dominion of evil and the beginning of the rule of God; he and his followers were renowned for their ability to manipulate demons and free people from their influence. It was a movement, or rather a loose collection of related groups, that took shape around a distinctive understanding of the [eschatological] myth complex, a movement in which the Torah was not ignored (it could not possibly have been) but was definitely of secondary importance” (Imperialism, 91).

the weighing of the parts

89

ways, it is not clear that historically, every user of these terms “Jewish” or “Christian” (or their functional equivalents) would accept the exclusivist element. At the start of the fifth century, Jerome scoffs at those whom he claims to have encountered in the Syro-Palestinian region who would accept both designations (for Jerome, “they are neither”!),13 and we are left to [[93]] speculate whether their multi-sidedness is indicative of a self-understanding that had continuity from the very outset of “Christianity.” Various clues are scattered along the path (e.g., Justin in his dialogue with Trypho on the reception of “Jewish” believers in “Christian” communities;14 the rabbinic traditions concerning Elisha ben Abuya [“Aḥer,” the “other” oriented one];15 Tertullian on Christians as a “third race”),16 but it is difficult to connect the dots with any confidence or consistency. And why, after all, should we care? Some of us are simply nosy, inquisitive. We want to have answers to as many of the “why?”s as we can handle—or at least be able to frame appropriate questions. We are uncomfortable with overly comfortable answers. Some of us may want to explore different solutions to old problems. If Judaism and Christianity were not always mutually exclusive by definition, perhaps some sort of contemporary rapprochement can be recreated with reference to the historical developments; history

13 Jerome, Epistle 112.13, to Augustine (apparently also designated “Epistle 79” in some sources) [PL 22.0924/746–47]: Quid dicam de Ebionitis, qui Christianos esse se simulant? Usque hodie per totas Orientis synagogas inter Judaeos haeresis est, quae dicitur Minaeorum, et a Pharisaeis nunc usque damnatur: quos vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum Filium Dei, natum de virgine Maria, et eum dicunt esse, qui sub Pontio Pilato passus est, et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus: sed dum volunt et Judaei esse et Christiani, nec Judaei sunt, nec Christiani. [What am I to say about the Ebionites, who pretend that they are themselves Christians? To this very day, throughout all the eastern synagogues, there is a heresy/sect among the Jews which is called “of the Minim” and is condemned even now by the Pharisees. Those people are commonly designated “Nazarenes,” who believe in Christ as Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and they acknowledge that he is the one who suffered/died under Pontius Pilate and was resurrected, in whom we also believe. But while they wish to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians!] 14 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 46–7. 15 E.g., b. Hagigah 15a; see also Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) and the discussions it engendered. 16 E.g., Tertullian, Scorpiace 10: Illic constitues et synagogas Judaeorum, fontes persecutionum, apud quas Apostoli flagella perpessi sunt, et populos nationum cum suo quidem circo, ubi facile conclamant, “Usquequo genus tertium?” (PL) [Will you plant there both synagogues of the Jews—fountains of persecution—before which the apostles endured the scourge, and heathen assemblages with their own circus, forsooth, where they readily join in the cry, “Death to the third race”? (NPNF)]

90

chapter four

provides basic justification for trying to reset the clock to a more favorable time and situation. Some of us revel in the unusual, in what seems to challenge the accepted norms. Some of us are looking for evidences of “influence,” to try to trace the various tides and ripples on the troubled sea of human history. Some want to focus on the continuities of history, to trace the roots of what has survived to the present. Whatever our motives, we collect the clues and sift the variegated sands to recreate or recapture what we think is a more accurate picture of this aspect of our historical past, which also is to some degree our historical heritage. How can we proceed responsibly in such difficult waters? We are driven partly by reaction to commonly accepted oversimplifications, although we are always in danger of making the same mistakes in our own reformulations. To be aware that mono-directional models need to be avoided is one thing, actually to avoid them is another. We are also forced to make much use of arguments from analogy—what we can see in our own worlds clearly happening elsewhere or elsewhen may provide us [[94]] with the possibility, other things being similar, that the same sorts of things happened in the period or materials we study. Thus we build up probabilities on the basic assumption that individuals and groups operating under similar conditions will operate similarly. To the extent that our impressions about what is similar are accurate, and to some degree persuasive, we fill in some of the missing blanks in the historical records. And we operate on sort of a spiral of exploration, which comes around to the same questions and subject matter every so often but with fresh insights and sometimes even new evidence that has been acquired since the previous time around, thus moving the discussion to a new level. Since we can’t all be experts in everything that is significant or necessary for our investigations, a major factor in this weighing and reweighing process is the identification of trustworthy partners and resources in the process. Whom do you trust in areas outside of your expertise? And why? What does all this have to do with the “Parting of the Ways” or “The Weighing of the Parts” in exploring the respective developments of those complexities covered by the terms “early Judaism” and “early Christianity”—and what followed them in both the “classical” formulations and also otherwise? Our most basic definitions and assumptions tell us that at a most obvious level (“the big picture”), the ways did part, although perhaps at different times and under different circumstances in different locations in the course of history. But by weighing the

the weighing of the parts

91

parts—that is, by recognizing the immense diversity that existed (and to some extent still exists) within and between the targeted traditions and attempting to understand how the representatives interacted, or perhaps refused to do so—we may be able to begin to understand more fully, if not more clearly, what was involved in the various processes out of which classical Judaism and classical Christianity shaped themselves and gradually became dominant (at least from the perspective of traditional Western history) and definitionally mutually exclusive from the fourth century onward.

CHAPTER FIVE

COMBINED REVIEW1 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments; Volume 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983 and 1985. The Apocryphal Old Testament, Edited by H.F.D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. These volumes (OTP 1–2, AOT) have been reviewed, individually or in combinations, in part or in whole, in various publications by various scholars with various insights, commendations and complaints.2 There is general consensus that the diverse reading publics, whether specialists or generalists or somewhere in between, have profited from the appearance of these works, whatever the shortcomings. Since the following review often will be bluntly critical in its evaluations, let me emphasize at the outset that I can and do appreciate the enormous amount of useful effort, especially on the part of the respective editors, that has gone into producing these anthologies, and I readily admit that we are better off with them than we would be without them. Serious students and scholars who deal with early forms of “Judaism” and the heritages they left will need to consult these volumes regularly, especially the set edited by Charlesworth. I would purchase these books, at least

1 This combined review appeared originally in Religious Studies Review 14.2 (April 1988) 113–17; some additional material, including some from my separate review of Charlesworth in JBL 106 (1987) 736–39, has also been incorporated here. Since my comments are largely methodological in nature, it seemed appropriate to include this revised version of the review at this point. 2 See e.g., Richard Bauckham “The Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha,” JSNT 26 (1986) 97–117; Sebastian P. Brock, Review of Charlesworth, vol. 1 in JJS 35 (1984) 200–9 and of vol. 2 in JJS 38 (1987) 108–14; David Hay, Studia Philonica Annual 1 (1989) 127–28; George W.E. Nickelsburg, CBQ 50 (1988) 288–91; see esp. Michael E. Stone’s companion review to this one, RSR 14 (1988) 111–13.

94

chapter five

at the original prices in 1983–1985.3 This is a strong, if not unqualified, recommendation! Nevertheless, these works have serious shortcomings to which users should be alerted. Since ultimately the editors, Charlesworth and Sparks, rightly or wrongly bear the responsibility for such failings as well as receive the praise for the successes, this review will concentrate on the overtly “editorial contributions” in the respective materials. Much could and should also be said about the individual contributions (see, e.g., Brock’s review), but that will not be the focus here. Serving as general editor to such corpora can be a frustrating, time consuming, and largely thankless task. One is not well advised to jump into it lightly. It requires a great deal of time and effort, depends on the work of others with whom the editor may not completely agree and leaves the editor open to various sorts of criticism both of the whole and of its parts. It requires a special combination of personal and professional traits and talents to do it successfully. The larger the number of contributors, the more potential for problems. The wider the range of coverage, the more difficult the organizational task. And so forth. If an editor is fortunate and/or very talented, the work can all be made to fit together with relative “homogeneity” of some sort, and the plusses will outweigh the minuses. Frequently things do not work out so neatly. Few people would have accepted the assignment faced by Charlesworth or by Sparks, and doubtless each person confronted with such a task would have done things slightly differently. From the outset, there are obvious significant differences between Charlesworth and Sparks as editors as well as between the circumstances that gave birth to the respective editions, and these differences color the final products. When Charlesworth was offered this assignment by the publisher in 1972, he was an energetic junior faculty member (PhD 1967) who was actively pursuing dissertation related research on the Odes of Solomon and related topics and was serving as secretary to the steering committee of the recently founded (1969) SBL Pseudepigrapha Group. He had already published a couple of articles, and his new edition of the Syriac Odes (1973) was about to go to press.4 He

3 The prices have, of course, skyrocketed in the meantime; these volumes are still available in 2008 (Sparks appeared in paperback in 1985; Yale University Press reissued Charlesworth in 2007). 4 The Odes of Solomon: the Syriac Texts (Oxford, 1973; reprinted, with minor corrections, by Scholars Press, 1977).

combined review

95

knew that the Sparks edition was (as we then thought!) nearly ready for publication after about fifteen years of preparation [!] and that the Pseudepigrapha Group steering committee thought it premature to try to produce a more sophisticated anthology of such writings, before considerably more textual and editorial activity on individual works had been undertaken. Nevertheless, he succumbed to the wooing of the press and rashly contracted on his own to edit an anthology of translations by specialists, and to write all the introductions himself. When these arrangements were announced, there was a flood of reactions from other members of the Pseudepigrapha Group, including the strong recommendation that Charlesworth not attempt to author all the introductions. He took this advice, with the result that in the “Duke-Doubleday” OTP, the introductions are mostly written by the respective translators and/or their redactors. Sparks, on the other hand, was already professor of biblical interpretation (since 1952) at Oxford when in the late 1950s he became involved in what seemed to be a fairly straightforward in-house proposal by the Oxford Press to update the translations found in R.H. Charles’ Pseudepigrapha volume,5 perhaps adjusting the contents somewhat, and to provide brief new introductions (with bibliographies) to produce a saleable companion volume to the perennially useful New Testament Apocrypha edited by M.R. James.6 Sparks was not at that time, nor did he become, a publishing technical scholar in Jewish pseudepigraphical matters (his publication activities have tended to focus on the New Testament, especially the Gospels, and on text critical matters, especially Latin), but he was already an experienced editor with appropriate knowledge of the materials to be edited and appropriate stature for coordinating the team of revisors/translators that was appointed. The overall character of the respective resulting editions reflects these circumstances. Under Sparks’ direction, OTA turns out to be a very convenient, relatively “solid,” “safe,” and “standard” Oxford edition. It doesn’t take many chances (e.g., “the extant fragments of the apocryphal Ezekiel . . . were thought too insubstantial to merit inclusion,” 5 R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) [= APOT]. 6 M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses, with other Narratives and Fragments Newly Translated (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924, supplemented ed. 1955); this has now been replaced by J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James (Oxford: OUP, 1993).

96

chapter five

xv), and is self-conscious about its connections to its predecessors (e.g., “I can only hope that the result [of modernizing the translations] will not be judged too aggressively modern,” xi; “In practice the differences in content between our volume and Charles’s second volume [on “Pseudepigrapha”] are nothing like so great as the above remarks might suggest. . . . There is an essential core common to both volumes,” xv–xvi). Its format is consistent: After the relatively compact editor’s Preface and other front matter, the 25 selected “apocryphal” texts are presented in the chronological order of the “biblical” figures/events with which they are associated, from Jubilees (creation) and the Enoch literature through to the Ezra-Sedrach cycle. The individual introductions by Sparks are usually about 4–6 pages in length (1 Enoch is 11 pages, Testament of Jacob is 1 page) and deal almost exclusively with questions of title, attestation, and textual witnesses/transmission. Then comes a solid and relatively extensive, if “select,” bibliography of editions, translations, and “general” treatments, also by Sparks. (On balance, the Sparks bibliographies appear to be more helpful than those in Charlesworth.) The translations of the various texts were prepared by a team of collaborators, sometimes simply updating the material in Charles (e.g., Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah) but usually preparing entirely new translations (e.g., Knibb on 1 Enoch, Turner on Testament of Abraham, de Jonge on the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Brock on Psalms of Solomon), and contain frequent footnotes limited to textual/translational issues. At the end are indices of scriptural references, ancient and modern authors/works, and subjects/topics. Thus Sparks has produced a competent and very useful handbook in a style that does indeed fall somewhere in between Charles and M.R. James (whose Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament is reflected in the rationale for choosing documents as well as for organizing them in a biblical-biographical chronology).7 But it lacks the excitement and stimulation that might have been generated by a more expert and more adventurous approach in the introductory treatments (compare, e.g., Brock’s brief comments on the books covered by OTP 1 for a sample of such stimulation from one of Sparks’ team of translators). Under Charlesworth’s editorial hand, OTP is a much more complex and varied compilation—it is at the same time bolder and brasher, more energetic, less balanced, less sure of itself, more vulnerable, and

7

Lost Apocrypha (1920) [also online].

combined review

97

in the long run, more exciting and rewarding. Surely some of this is the result of the editor’s own rather rash enthusiasms, but much of it is also due to the relatively younger expert collaborators he enlisted to prepare the introductions and translations in OTP. Here we often find ourselves on the cutting edges (and ragged edges!) of research into these materials, with the problems—and rewards—generated by such a situation. The advice that Charlesworth not attempt by himself to write all the introductions clearly has paid off, in general. What is sacrificed in homogeneity of style and approach is atoned for amply in these other ways. Not that every contribution to OTP is a gem; indeed, there are some major disappointments. But taken as a whole, the quality pieces predominate, or at least are worth the price of the whole collection. That Charlesworth deserves to be criticized for various editorial failures (see below) cannot obliterate the fact that despite these failures, the volumes are overall a success. And they provide a basis for scholarly progress in the study of these literatures that may be more difficult to establish from the Sparks edition. The editorial structure of the Charlesworth edition is complex. As general editor functioning with a board of advisors (R.E. Brown, W.D. Davies, W. Harrelson, B.M. Metzger, R.E. Murphy, J. Strugnell), Charlesworth contributes an “Editor’s Preface” (xv–xvii), an “Introduction for the General Reader” (xxi–xxxiv), and brief introductions to each of the six subsections (apocalyptic, testaments, “OT expansions,” wisdom/philosophy, prayers/psalms/odes, and fragments of lost works). In addition, there are three prefaces by other writers (see details below) and a general introduction to the supplementary fragments of lost works, by John Strugnell. Such a plethora of introductory treatments is not in itself necessarily distracting, since it may be helpful to have certain divergent types of general information located separately. Unfortunately, in these volumes the diversity of treatments and locations makes it difficult to get an accurate, comprehensive picture of the editorial context of this collection. Some of the matters in the “Editor’s Preface” would fit the general introduction better, such as the organization of the volumes, the coverage requested from individual contributors in the introductions to specific works, and the approach to translation style. Questions of definition, inclusion, and exception that are raised in the introductions to subsections would have been more valuable (also) in the general introduction (e.g., when is an “apocalypse,” or a “testament,” not an apocalypse/testament?). Because of its more homogeneous nature, the Sparks volume suffers less from this sort of distraction. The single

98

chapter five

“Preface” by Sparks tells about the evolution of the volume, describes the approach it adopts, and defends its selectivity in content. How do the editions compare with respect to definition of the subject area and choice of texts for inclusion? For Sparks, the rationale for choosing which works to include involves “whether or not a particular item is attributed to (or is primarily concerned with the history or activities of) an Old Testament character (or characters).” Nevertheless, “to have included everything which satisfies this criterion would have been impossible. In making our choices we have been guided principally by a desire to produce a collection as representative as possible of the various types of literature within the field—i.e., History (and Legend), Testament, Apocalypse, Psalms, etc.” (xv). But nowhere in the volume is there any significant discussion of why these specific “representatives” have been chosen or of what constitutes, or differentiates, one “type” from another. Sparks does note that the “Testament” of Abraham does not have the trappings of “normal” testaments (see also 734) and thus might be better titled “The Narrative of the Death of Abraham” (395–96), and he observes that the “Apocalypse of Sedrach” “is not an apocalypse as the term ‘apocalypse’ is usually understood” (953), but otherwise makes little attempt to take note of such matters. He isn’t really interested in discussions of types, as much as in discussing titles. In his task as editor, Charlesworth rightly attempts to cover a wide range of materials in these introductory treatments and to touch base with various aspects of the collective whole. It is not difficult to pick quarrels here and there. On the larger issues, he fails to provide any consistent definition or rationale for the selection of texts in the collection. This is admitted, though in a very convoluted manner, in the key paragraph at the bottom of p. xxv: I have had to take a stance on the definition of ‘pseudepigrapha’. . . . The following collection . . . has evolved from the consensus that the Pseudepigrapha must be defined broadly so as to include all documents that conceivably belong to the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. The present description of the Pseudepigrapha is as follows: . . . the above comments do not define the term ‘pseudepigrapha’; they merely describe the features of this collection.

Thus, apparently, this collection of Jewish and Christian materials is largely arbitrary, but many of its representatives have common features such as attribution “to ideal figures in Israel’s past” and/or the claim to contain a message from God and/or a close relationship to OT “ideas and narratives” (not to mention forms) and/or focus on Jewish materials

combined review

99

dating from 200 bce to 200 ce (xxv). This impression of arbitrariness is fortified by the very next paragraph, which explains the exclusion from this collection of “other writings, although they may have some characteristics of the Pseudepigrapha” (xxvi). Charlesworth’s “stance,” then, is not to operate within the framework of a rationalized definition but to choose from a wide miscellany of possible candidates. Charlesworth, on the other hand, attempts to be very conscious of types and classifications, as has already been noted. His decision to spread the nets widely and “include all documents that conceivably belong to the OT Pseudepigrapha” results in a collection of 52 writings plus various “fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works,” which makes this an extremely valuable collection, quantitatively. Unfortunately, as noted, the rationales for doing so are muddled, the criteria for inclusion/exclusion seem extremely arbitrary, and the explanation of how and why we have these materials at all is almost completely lacking, leaving the relatively uninformed reader with a misguided sense that despite the occasional caveats to the contrary, there must be some sort of cohesion in this miscellany of materials. In contrast, Sparks does not attempt to make an extensive or organized collection, and even eschews referring to “the pseudepigrapha” for fear of implying that there is a sort of “trito-canonical” collection alongside the canonical and deutero-canonical (= “the Apocrypha”) works (xvii). How does Charlesworth’s edition fare on such issues of detail, thrust, and tone? There is good news, and there is bad news. That is the good news, in a nutshell. It is useful and convenient to have in print and in English such extensive collections of non-canonical and non-rabbinic “Jewish” writings from antiquity. Charlesworth has provided the largest collection, similar in scope to Riessler’s German collection,8 with sizable introductions to each work (unlike Riessler, but approaching the pattern in R.H. Charles’ 1913 APOT ). Unfortunately, the overriding concept behind the project is relatively unclear and the specific contents of Charlesworth’s two volumes are very uneven with reference both to the introductions and to the translations. Not all of the original assignees saw their task through to completion, and not all were sufficiently “expert” in their contributions to insure consistently high quality to the collection. While the editor can hardly be held responsible for all the quirks of fate that governed this process, he is not entirely blameless

8

P. Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Augsburg: Filser, 1928).

100

chapter five

for how it all finally worked out. The scholarly “texture” in these two volumes—especially in volume 1—is very uneven, ranging from very very high quality to relatively embarrassing. This is unfortunate, and the editor must share the blame as well as the credit. Sparks’ collection is less ambitious, being caught between the two models (both published by Oxford Press) of Charles’ Pseudepigrapha volume for the number and type of writings selected, and of M.R. James’ Apocryphal NT for the brevity of introductions and the targeted audience. Since Sparks wrote all the introductions himself and attempted to “modernize” the Charles-like translations at a late prepublication stage, his volume has more homogeneity. Nevertheless, in reacting to certain aspects of Charles’ principles for selecting “Jewish” “pseudepigrapha”—and indeed, moving towards James’ biographical organizational principle as evidenced in his Lost Apocrypha of the OT (1920 see above n. 7)—Sparks has not contributed any clarity to what these books may or may not represent or how they can best be used in historically conscious research. The introductions to the individual books consistently deal with questions of what textual witnesses exist, when the work was known and by whom. Sometimes they give a précis of the work. They almost never attempt to address the questions of literary form/type or of the historical dynamics that might have produced such pieces of literature. Despite “modernized” translations, the overall approach has a stable, but archaic tone. Fresh Directions, Misdirections Both editions consciously include some “late documents, and Christian expansions of early Jewish writings” (OTP, xv; see AOT, xv). For Charlesworth, this is because they “frequently preserve edited portions of early Jewish writings” (xv), while for Sparks it is because it is difficult to draw a clear line between “Jewish” and “Christian” in the literature he selects (xv). This inclusive approach has definite advantages—writings need not be arbitrarily carved apart to isolate only the allegedly “Jewish” sections (as in APOT, e.g., with Martyrdom/Ascension of Isaiah, Sibylline Oracles, 2 Enoch), and potentially relevant materials associated with the name of a specific revered person can be represented more fully (e.g., Adam, Ezra-Sedrach). Unfortunately, although Charlesworth states that “the late documents . . . must not be read as if they were composed by contemporaries” (i.e., in the 200 bce to 200

combined review

101

ce range; xv and xxv) and Sparks acknowledges the probability “that Christians also wrote works with a traditionally Jewish background” (xiv), the respective editors nowhere provide a general discussion of how such texts are to be read—in Charlesworth’s introductory materials, it is only the “Foreword for Jews” (sic!) by the late Samuel Sandmel that begins to open the door to what should have been a major section of the general introduction to OTP, namely, the transmission history (which is largely Christian transmission!) of the documents in general [see Chapters One and Two above]. That Sparks shows much more awareness of these problems does not in itself bring him any closer to a satisfactory presentation of the complex situation. Neither editor makes significant headway in providing a map of Christian uses and production of “Jewish” sounding materials. Charlesworth’s recognition of “the variegated, even contradictory, nature of the ideas popular in many sectors of post-exilic Judaism” and of “the rich vitality and diversity of Judaism during the early centuries” (xxix) accurately reflects current scholarship and is a valuable introductory note in a collection of this sort. Unfortunately, the editor neutralizes these observations on the very same page by disclaiming, without further explanation, contemporary scholarship’s “tendency to emphasize unduly [sic!] the diversity in Early Judaism. While it is now recognized that foreign ideas penetrated deeply into many aspects of Jewish thought, and that sometimes it is difficult to decide whether an early document is essentially Jewish or Christian, it is, nevertheless, unwise [sic!] to exaggerate the diversity in Early Judaism. In the first century Judaism was neither uniformly normative nor chaotically diverse.” One wonders whether some sort of hidden agenda lies behind this rather ambivalent, even question-begging, presentation. Sparks neglects to discuss this important issue altogether. [See above, Chapter Four, for further discussion.] Charlesworth wants his volumes to be received in a broadly ecumenical context, “for the scholar and for the interested non-specialist,” and “without confessional bias” (xv). Unfortunately, the prefatory materials, which are paged in roman numbers and are identical in each volume (except for volume-specific contents and lists of contributors), seem to have just the opposite effect. The general, one page “Foreword” by the late George MacRae is followed by another one pager, “Foreword for Christians” by James T. Cleland, the contents of which seem largely irrelevant and unenlightening, but for which some explanation and context is found

102

chapter five

in Charlesworth’s introduction to the Prayer of Manasseh in vol. 2, p. 632, which refers to the “widely influential sermon on Manasseh that was delivered periodically by the late James Cleland, James B. Duke Professor of Preaching and Dean of the Chapel at Duke University.” A somewhat longer “Foreword for Jews” (which should be recommended to non-Jews as well!) by the late Samuel Sandmel then follows, with astute comments contextualizing both the “Pseudepigrapha” texts and their modern study in relation to Judaism and to Jewish and Christian scholarship. It is a pity that some form of this fine piece was not used as the sole “Foreword,” and that the well-meaning but ultimately unnecessarily divisive triad of forewords abandoned—or at least the sectarian titles suppressed! An unfortunate tone for the volumes is set here and is mildly enhanced by the use, “for convenience” (xv), of “Old Testament” (why not “Jewish Scriptures”?) and of “bc/ad” (why not bce/ce?). Sparks, on the other hand, shows no awareness that there is even a potential problem here and speaks consistently in clearly Christian confessional tones of the words of “Our Lord” (xvii) as well as of “Old Testament,” bc/ad, and the like. Commendably, Charlesworth emphasizes the dangers of reading back later attitudes to Jewish biblical “canon” into the period on which his volumes attempt to focus— to call the Pseudepigrapha ‘non-canonical,’ or the biblical books ‘canonical,’ can be historically inaccurate prior to ad 100. . . . It is potentially misleading to use the terms ‘non-canonical,’ ‘canonical,’ ‘heresy,’ and ‘orthodoxy’ when describing either Early Judaism or Early Christianity (xxiv).

Unfortunately, much of the very organization of the collection, not to mention the assumption behind various statements both by the editor and by some individual contributors, is that “OT” precedes “Pseudepigrapha” and becomes the standard by which to recognize and with which to compare the forms and contents of the latter: e.g., “the Pseudepigrapha illustrate the pervasive influence of the OT books upon Early Judaism” (xxviii), “the traditions in the OT provided the framework and most of the presuppositions for the following testaments” (773), “Early Judaism was a religion bound to and defined by the Book, the Torah. . . . The biblical narratives were clarified, enriched, expanded, and sometimes retold from a different perspective” (2.5, introducing the section called “expansions” of “OT” and legends). This sort of approach tends to preclude the possibility of recognizing in the “expansions,”

combined review

103

etc., materials that may predate, or be independent of, what came to be the “biblical” tradition. Sparks is even more guilty of making the assumption of canonical priority but is at least more consistent in that he seems unaware that there is a problem. Sparks’ own interests seem to be quite limited, vis-à-vis such issues, perhaps in an effort to keep things brief. He does not usually concern himself with questions of what the internal evidence from a writing might reveal about its setting, outlook, audience, reason for preservation, etc.—the interactions of form and content, of literary history and social history. His interests tend to focus on external, textual evidence—what references are made to a text, what manuscripts are preserved and in what languages, what can we determine about its date and origin and history from this material? He still pursues the “old” questions so obvious in the approaches of M.R. James, R.H. Charles and their associates, in which assumptions about canonical centrality govern the way in which similarity to canonical content is interpreted—here we find an echo of the New Testament, here is a development of an “Old Testament” theme. It comes as no surprise to find that one of Sparks’ earliest publications dealt with the Old Testament in the Christian Church.9 AOT is permeated with the imprint of unexamined presuppositions about canonical priority, and with an overconfidence about our abilities to identify vague quotations (e.g., his treatment of quotations found in the Epistle of Barnabas is problematic at almost every point)10 that is reminiscent of an earlier style of scholarship that needs to be reassessed and revised if it is to be convincing or productive today. Sparks provides much useful “hard” data about the subjects he treats, and his bibliographical listings are extremely helpful. But the introductions are one-sided and tend to neglect the issues that will prove to be most productive for providing historical perspective on these sources. As they stand, these editions will certainly cater usefully to the recent growth of interest in “early Judaism”11 and the survival of Jewish-like

9

Sparks, The Old Testament in the Christian Church (London: SCM, 1944). See further Kraft, The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and Their Sources (PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 1961; brief summary published in HTR 54 [1961] 300). [Electronic version in process]) and Barnabas and Didache (1965; sections in electronic form also); Pierre Prigent, L’Épître de Barnabé I–XVI et ses Sources (Paris: Libraire LeCoffre, 1961). 11 See e.g., G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature (2005); “new Schürer,” History 3.1; M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings (1984). See also the emergence of general introductions 10

104

chapter five

literature and traditions in Christian circles.12 The new translations often are based on new textual analyses or information and more than occasionally have been prepared by one of the persons most closely and productively associated with scholarly research related to that document (e.g., in AOT, Knibb, Turner, Kuhn, de Jonge, Brock, Emerton; in OTP, Alexander, Collins, Stone, Klijn, Kee, Spittler, Burchard, Harrington, Robinson, van der Horst, Sanders, Wright, J.Z. Smith, Attridge, Charlesworth). Sometimes we are provided with the very first published English translation (e.g., in OTP, Testament of Adam, Apocalypse of Daniel, History of the Rechabites). Many of the introductions in OTP are excellent contributions—some even go far beyond what might be expected in such a format (e.g., Philip Alexander’s introduction to 3 Enoch). Unfortunately, some of them are disappointing or inconsequential. In addition, some opportunities to advance scholarship in obvious and useful ways are missed, such as the failure (in OTP) to treat 5 and 6 Ezra as separate works (who doubts this?), or (in both editions) to move towards clearly distinguishing the discrete parts of the “1 Enoch” library (e.g., in OTP, this could be done by means of page headings that reflect the major titles that are inserted into the running text; inexplicably, the Sparks edition neglects even to insert such subtitles into the text, despite Sparks’ acknowledgement that 1 Enoch “is plainly divisible into five subsidiary ‘books’ ” [173]). Especially unfortunate, in the Sparks edition, is the failure to give the expert translators noted above the opportunity to say some things by way of introduction to the texts they translate. What is at stake in this loss can be sampled quite clearly by reading Brock’s detailed review of OTP 1 or Knibb’s introduction to the Martyrdom/Ascension of Isaiah in OTP 2, which moves the discussion so far beyond the basic matters covered in Sparks’ treatment of the same document. Hopefully, if the Sparks volume is reissued in the not too distant future, such supple-

such as J.C. VanderKam, Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). For other recent literature see Chapter One above, n. 11. 12 See Kraft, “The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity,” pp. 174–99 in vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism and other Graeco-Roman Cults (ed. J. Neusner; M. Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975) and online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/ Judaism/heritage.html. See also Marinus 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 (Leiden: Brill, 2003) and Davila, Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha (2005).

combined review

105

ments can be added to enhance its value—and hopefully at a price appropriate to encourage classroom use! What have we learned from the appearance of these editions? How has research on these materials been advanced, or retarded? What issues call for careful clarification or reconsideration? Certainly any attempt mechanically or unreflectively to segregate “Jewish” from “Christian” elements and influences must be abandoned and the criteria by which such judgments are made must be reassessed. Sparks sees this more clearly than Charlesworth did, at least at the level of textual transmission and its implications. But there is much room for further discussion and research. Furthermore, the special pleading involved in assuming canonical priority where parallels or influences are suspected also needs to be avoided if this literature is to receive a fair hearing. Indeed, perhaps it is time to demolish the obfuscating traditional and/or theological structures that make it so difficult to juxtapose, without prejudicing the results, discussions of such similar documents as Daniel, the Enochic Dream Visions, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse of John and the Ascension of Isaiah (and Shepherd of Hermas?)! Nor should we shy away from exploring “new” groupings, such as the sort of “prophetic-hortatory” stream that seems to characterize a work like 5 Ezra as well as an Amos or Jeremiah—is it adequate simply to dismiss non-canonical examples as “derivative”? Moving beyond overt “canonical” parallels, the “Jewish” heritage(s) include works that focus on interpreting the external signs available in nature, whether in a Qumran context (e.g., “horoscopes,” and perhaps the Enochic Book of Heavenly Luminaries) or in medieval (?) calendric speculations (Treatise of Shem, Revelation of Ezra; see Brock’s review). What comes to be known as “hagiographa,” and similar developments of “martyrology,” have their representatives and echoes in the materials at hand. How do Jubilees, or Josephus, relate to “chronography” in the later sense as well as to other early attempts to periodize history? These and similar questions are easier to conceptualize in reaction to the editorial issues raised by the volumes under review. What, after all, is the point of selective categorization by type? A “trajectories” approach, whether applied primarily to material linked with certain ancient figures (as in Sparks) or also to certain categories of literature (as in Charlesworth), is best served by examining the largest practical sampling of eligible material. The opportunities for significant progress in understanding, at both the micro and the macro levels, are significantly increased as it becomes easier to examine apparently

106

chapter five

similar items more openly and efficiently. Of course, no one book or multi-volumed edition can do all this in a convenient format. The new availability, in (mostly) satisfactory new translations, of the sorts of literatures dealt with by Sparks and Charlesworth hopefully will serve to facilitate such avenues of approach. Perhaps this is the greatest overall benefit to be derived from the editorial shortcomings of those editions, that by failing to establish any clear and convincing rationale for the selection of documents collected, they help open the doors more widely to breaking down the remaining barriers that impede a truly new synthesis.

PART TWO

SELECTED SPECIFIC STUDIES

CHAPTER SIX

REASSESSING THE “RECENSIONAL PROBLEM” IN TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM1 Study of the Testament of Abraham (TAbr) has proved especially difficult because of the complicated problems involved in assessing the relationship between the two radically different Greek forms (“recensions”) in which it has been preserved. Briefly, the relevant data currently available may be outlined as follows:2 1. Shorter Form (“Recension B”). Schmidt identifies three sub-groupings of Greek MSS, two of which (E-Slav and MSS ADC) go back at least to the 11th century (the date of their oldest extant representative) and the third to the 14th century (MSS BFG). Another sub-group is not known from Greek MSS but is preserved in the closely interrelated Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic versions, and seems to be represented already by a fragmentary fifth-century Sahidic MS.3 There is also a Roumanian version containing an “abridged” short form, the oldest MS of which is from the 16th century.4

1

The original version appeared in G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham (SBLSCS 6; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976) 121–37—also available as an electronic resource from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/pseudepig/TAbrRecensions.html or on the listserv of the IOUDAIOS Electronic Discussion Group. For more recent discussion of this material, see Dale C. Allison, Jr., Testament of Abraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). 2 A new edition of the material had been promised by J. Smit Sibinga and F. Schmidt, but it has not yet appeared. Most of the following information comes from Schmidt’s 1971 dissertation: Francis Schmidt, “Le Testament d’Abraham: Introduction, édition de la recension courte, traduction et notes” (Thèse Strasbourg, 1971), which later appeared in published form as F. Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham: Introduction, edition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction (TSAJ 11; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986). For precise bibliographical information, see Nickelsburg, Studies on the Testament of Abraham (1976) 12. For more recent bibliography, see DiTommaso’s Bibliography. 3 M. Weber of the Institut für Altertumskunde at the University of Cologne planned to publish this material; see M. Philonenko, Le Testament de Job: Introduction, traduction et notes (Semitica 18; Paris: Adrien-Maisoneuve, 1968) 61 n. 1. 4 For a critical edition and translation of the Roumanian version, see Nicolae Roddy, The Roumanian Version of the Testament of Abraham: Text, Translation, and Cultural Context (SBLEJL 19; Atlanta: SBL, 2001).

110

chapter six

2. Longer Form (“Recension A”). Schmidt lists 18 Greek MSS of the longer form, the oldest of which is from the 13th century (MS E). There is, in addition, a Roumanian version of the longer form (its oldest MS is 18th century), which agrees closely with Greek MSS DLM (14th to 16th centuries). Some of the “longer form” MSS have relatively shorter texts (although there does not seem to be a family relationship among them) than others—e.g., K (16th century), N (17th century), O (18th century). Schmidt also notes the existence of 12 other Greek MSS (mostly 15th through 18th centuries) that had not yet been classified with precision in 1971.5 Thus the oldest preserved attestation is for the Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic shorter form, which seems to have been in circulation already in fifth-century Egypt. Extant evidence for other shorter form [[122]] sub-groupings and for the longer form dates from much more recent times. Analysis of possible references to TAbr in ancient and medieval/byzantine lists and writings have not proved particularly helpful in establishing clear evidence for the earlier existence of TAbr in any of its known forms.6 The writing was relatively popular in byzantine Christian circles as material used in commemoration of the lives and/or deaths of the “holy fathers” (particularly Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) on the liturgical calendar. “Recension” Problems in Other Literature There is nothing particularly unique about the existence of differing “recensions” of the same material in the literature preserved by Christians throughout the byzantine/medieval period. A wide range of phenomena, from relatively simple textual variation within a rather closely related group of MSS (similar to that within NT MSS, including

5 For a brief treatment of both recensions, see Émile Turdeanu, “Le Testament d’Abraham en slave et en roumain,” Oxford Slavonic Papers 10 (n.s.) (ed. Robert Auty, J.L.I. Fennell and I.P. Foote; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) 1–38. See also Émile Turdeanu, “Le Testament d’Abraham,” Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains (SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 201–18; E.P. Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” OTP 1. 871–904; and F. Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham (1986). 6 Most of the evidence was discussed by M.R. James, The Testament of Abraham (TS 2.2; Cambridge: The University Press, 1892) 7–34. His desire to find that the extant TAbr was referred to by Origen was rejected immediately by reviewers such as Schürer and Weyman (see below, n. 15).

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 111 the “western text” problem in Luke-Acts!) to extremely divergent and complex situations (like the “synoptic problem” in NT) is well attested. With particular reference to writings with a strongly “Jewish” flavor, including Greek Jewish scriptures, the following examples may help to illustrate the extent of the problem: 1. Largely quantitative differences, with longer or shorter versions of what seems to be virtually the same base text—e.g., Job or Jeremiah in the Old Greek forms compared with Hexaplaric forms “corrected” towards the known Hebrew text; the two Greek forms of Tobit; the form of Testament of Job in MS V compared with that in S or P; the longer and shorter forms of Paraleipomena Jeremiou, and probably of Joseph and Aseneth; various forms of the Lives of the Prophets. On the whole, the difficult situation regarding Greek forms of Testament of Solomon also seems to fit here, at least according to its editor, McCown,7 and perhaps “Apocalypse of Moses”/Life of Adam and Eve as well. On the strictly Christian side of things, the longer and shorter versions of the Ignatian Corpus provide an excellent example of this phenomenon worked out in a relatively mechanical manner. [[123]] 2. Largely qualitative differences, with alternative ways of stating the same things and no clear reflection of a single Greek Vorlage behind the differing forms—e.g., in material that is translated from Semitic such as the Old Greek vs. Theodotion-Aquila-Symmachos (etc.) in general (and especially in Daniel) or the Old Greek vs. the Barberini version of Habakkuk 3 in Greek Jewish scriptures. Perhaps the relationship of Old Greek Ezra-Nehemiah to “1 Esdras” also fits best under this heading. 3. A combination of (1) and (2) with large-scale quantitative differences in versions of the same material that do not seem to share a common Greek base. Perhaps the two Greek forms of Esther illustrate this phenomenon (if indeed they represent different Greek base texts); at least in some passages, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs also seem to fit into this category.

7

C.C. McCown, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922) 32–8. See now Sarah Schwarz, “Building a Book of Spells: Textual Development and Social History in the Testament of Solomon” (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2005).

112

chapter six Theories about the Relation of the Recensions in TAbr

TAbr is an excellent example of the third category. Although they tell basically the same story, the longer and shorter versions of TAbr have very little in common with regard to their vocabulary and syntax. And while the “longer” form frequently supplies materials not present in the “shorter,” the opposite sometimes occurs. This complex situation received much attention from M.R. James in his early edition of the text, and has been reexamined from various perspectives thereafter.8 James was ambivalent about the relationship of the different forms. “[Recension] A presents us with what is on the whole the fullest, clearest and most consistent narrative. Its language, however, has been to some extent medievalized. B is an abridgement whose language is on the whole more simple and original than that of A . . ., [but] it is not an abridgement made from A. [The Arabic (James did not have access to the Coptic and Ethiopic) represents] an independent abridgement, not made from either A or B, though as a rule more nearly related to B than to A. . . . It inserts matter not found in A or B, and is shorter than either” (p. 49). “B preserves the greatest proportion of the original language, A the greatest [[124]] proportion of the original story” (p. 51). James concludes that TAbr, as he tries to reconstruct it from the preserved witnesses, is “a very much mangled rechauffe” of an earlier, now lost (as of 1892) Apocalypse of Abraham,9 preserving “all the main features of the old book”—TAbr is a “popular” Christian work composed in second-century Egypt (incorporating some earlier legends) by a “Jewish Christian” (at least for the apocalyptic portion; p. 23) and received its present preserved form(s) “perhaps in the 9th or 10th century” (p. 29).10

8

For other surveys of the literature, see Schmidt’s dissertation (1971) 1.115–24, and Mathias Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham: introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension greque longue suivi de la traduction des testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales (SVTP 2; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 24–8 and 77f. 9 The publication by Nathanael Bonwetsch of an old Church Slavic version of an Apocalypse of Abraham (Die Apokalypse Abrahams. Das Testament der vierzig Märtyrer [Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897]) doubtless caused James to have second thoughts; see his relatively vague statements in Lost Apocrypha (1920) 17 [also online]. 10 The position of James is followed, on the whole, by W.A. Cragie in his introduction to the first English translation of TAbr in the supplementary volume to the “Ante-Nicene

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 113 There were immediate reactions and disagreements. Kohler and Ginzberg (see also Ehrhard)11 argued that TAbr was of Jewish origin, and Ginzberg implied that the differing Greek recensions were separate (and not very faithful) translations of a Hebrew original. Riessler also posited a Semitic original and preferred the shorter12 form (B) to the “christlich überarbeitet” [Christian reworked] longer form. Box continued the same general line of argument, speaking of a first-century Palestinian Hebrew original that was freely adapted into Greek in Egypt (Alexandria?) and must be reconstructed from both the longer and the shorter Greek forms (following James).13 A modification of [[125]] this approach is implied by Kohler’s 1923 description of TAbr as a Jewish “Alexandrian product of the first Christian century”—see more recently D. Flusser’s claim that TAbr was “composed by a Jew, writing in Greek, and was possibly based on a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original.”14 On the other side of the coin, some critics viewed TAbr as clearly a Christian composition (not “Jewish Christian” with James), and even dated it later than did James. Schürer pointed out that such legends and apocalyptic materials were composed by Christians for a long time, Weyman compared TAbr to post-Constantinian “Christian” writings from Asia Minor, and Weinel thought TAbr was “probably a very late Christian book.”15 These critics also agree that TAbr cannot be identified with the story told by Origen about the death of Abraham, as James attempted to do.

Library” series (American ed. = “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 10) in 1897 and also by J.-B. Frey in his article for the Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. 1 (1928) 33–8. 11 K. Kohler, “The pre-Talmudic Haggada II.C.—The Apocalypse of Abraham and its Kindred,” JQR 7 (1895) 581–606; L.Ginzberg, article in Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1901) 93–6; A. Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung von 1884-1900: vol. I, Erste Abteilung, Die vornicänische Litteratur (Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1900) 184–85. See also J. Kaufmann (ed. M. Soloweitschick) in Encyc. Judaica 1 (1928) 564 and the unsigned article in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1939) 40. 12 Altjüdisches Schrifttum (1928) 1333. See also his longer article on “Das Testament Abrahams, ein jüdisches Apokryphon,” TQ 106 (1925) 3–22. 13 G.H. Box, The Testament of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1927) vii–xv and xxviiif. 14 Kohler, Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1923) 77 and 80 (he does not specify what he thinks the original language was); Flusser in Encyclopaedia Judaica 1 (1971) 129. Flusser considers the longer “version” more original than the shorter but declines to propose a specific date of composition for the work. 15 E. Schürer, review of James in TLZ 18 (1893) 279–81; see also his Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 19094) 338f; C. Weyman, review of James in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893) 642f; H. Weinel, “Die spätere christliche Apokalyptik” Eucharisterion 2 (Festschrift Gunkel; ed. H. Schmidt; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923) 170–72.

114

chapter six

In more recent discussions, Turner has subjected the language and content of the two Greek forms of TAbr to close scrutiny and presents a suitably complex picture of the origins and relations of the two.16 He finds that B contains Greek material of very early date—perhaps as early as parts of Jewish Greek scriptures and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (203)—but that the preserved form of B dates from the late second or the third century, “from the same period, if not the same hand or school, as the original edition of the Testament of Solomon” (190). Since the A form does not seem to be derived directly from B, and yet seems secondary to B, Turner suggests that [[126]] Recension B . . . is a shortened form of an older text [of Egyptian, Jewish origin—see his ch. 5], and Recension A is dependent on this rather than on our present text [of B]. This is supported by the fact that occasionally the one recension is found to supplement the other, and that they make better sense when taken together (207). . . . Recension B is earlier and closer in form to any original Hebrew work [that may underlie the preserved materials]. Recension A was a later translation made either directly from the Hebrew, or else it is a recension of such a translation [i.e., of the older form of B? see above and Turner, 203]; it is not based on Recension B, as the language in parallel passages does not overlap (211).

Turner would date the A version “in its present form . . . after the fifth or sixth centuries. I do not think it is a Christian redaction” (217–18). Indeed, it may rest on a third-century edition of the longer form; any “Christian influence came after the separation of the recensions” (213). In his 1971 dissertation, Schmidt speaks with less hesitation about the relationship of the “recensions.” For him, TAbr is a product of “popular Essenism” (see Kohler in 1895), written (“probably”) in Hebrew in Palestine during the first half of the first century ce, then translated into the short Greek form before the beginning of the second century. The long form is a revision of the (Palestinian) short form, made in the Jewish Diaspora of lower Egypt in the opening years of the second 16 N. Turner, The Testament of Abraham: a Study of the Original Language, Place of Origin, Authorship, and Relevance (unpublished Univ. London Thesis, 1953). Some of his conclusions were summarized in his article “‘The Testament of Abraham’: Problems in Biblical Greek,” NTS 1 (1954/55) 219–23. The following discussion and quotations are drawn from a revised, shortened form of his dissertation, which he kindly supplied to the author in 1973.

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 115 century.17 Schmidt has modified his conclusions slightly with regard to relative dating in the article included in the Nickelsburg (1976) volume: The shorter form of TAbr is now dated to the second half of the first century (with the question of its original language left more open), and the longer form to the second or perhaps the beginning of the third century, with possibly an “intermediate form” (represented by the preserved Coptic) developing sometime in between.18 Nickelsburg’s 1972 study of one aspect of the TAbr material led him to radically different conclusions regarding the relation of the longer and shorter forms.19 He concluded that “Recension A is prior to Recension B” with respect to the judgment scene and the “one soul” material and thus called for a reassessment of the relation of the two forms (58). In his new contribution to the problem, prepared for the revised volume in which the present essay first appeared, Nickelsburg reaffirms his earlier position in words reflecting M.R. James’ conclusions cited above: The structure of Recension A is more primitive than that of Recension B, although the latter may contain some primitive elements and wording which were revised in Recension A (97). [[127]]

Delcor also discusses the “recensional” problem but comes to no firm conclusions. He sees both A and B as developments from a common “Greek original”20 of Jewish Therapeutic origin (73) composed around the turn of the era (76–7), and traces both to an Egyptian setting (78), although the respective forms differ widely from each other in outlook (14). The Main Issues and Types of Argument This is not the place to enter into a detailed evaluation of the various detailed arguments advanced over the years. It is helpful, however, to

17

Schmidt, “Le Testament d’Abraham” (1971) 118–21. See Francis Schmidt, “The Two Recensions of the Testament of Abraham: In Which Direction Did the Transformation Take Place?” Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. Nickelsburg, 1976) 76–80. 19 George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Eschatology in the Testament of Abraham: A Study of the Judgment Scene in the Two Recensions,” SCS 2 (1972) 180–227. In slightly revised form in Nickelsburg, Studies on the Testament of Abraham (1976) 23–64. 20 Delcor, Le Testament d’Abraham (1973) 6, see also 34. 18

116

chapter six

attempt to identify the sorts of arguments and issues on which the discussions have been based: 1. Language. On the whole, the commentators seem to agree that the Greek of the shorter form often has a more “primitive” flavor than that of the longer form, in relation to other preserved examples of Jewish and early Christian Greek. The language of form B also has more of a “Semitic” cast, although A is not lacking in Semiticistic passages or constructions. On the other hand, a relative preponderance of “later” words and constructions appear in A by comparison with B (see esp. Turner). 2. Coherence in Form and in Content. According to some commentators (e.g., James and Nickelsburg, as noted above), the preserved form(s) of A sometimes present a relatively coherent sequence and structure in sections that are more problematic in B. Occasionally a detail in B can best be explained in terms of what is found in A, which is taken as an indication that B is an abridgment of A. 3. Thought World. Schmidt attempts to argue that only the longer form contains characteristically “Egyptian” expressions and ideas, while both forms reflect “Palestinian-Essenic (-Iranian)” themes. Thus B is thought to represent an earlier development which came to be “Egyptianized” in the A form. “Recensions” and the “Original”: What Model to Use? Unfortunately, much of the discussion about the “recensional” problem in TAbr has not been sufficiently self-conscious about what is thought to constitute the “original” of TAbr and how the preserved materials are thought to relate to such an “original.” The possibilities are manifold, and any attempt to describe them in detail would be extremely complex. Questions about the interrelation of MSS exhibiting virtually the same narrow textual base (textual criticism proper) [[128]] often overlap and blend with questions about the relation between two or more larger textual units which have similar content but fairly divergent basic texts (often called different “recensions,” or versions or forms of a writing). Questions about originally independent smaller units of written or oral materials which may be added to a “recension” by its editor are closely related to problems regarding the use of such materials in the “original” composition of a writing that contains traditions of various sorts (e.g., legend, apocalypse, parenesis). Supportive evidence from the literatures of hellenistic-Roman and byzantine/medieval times is

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 117 available for a great number of possible models. An attempt is made below to outline some of the more obvious possibilities as they relate to previous discussions of TAbr. As will become apparent, individual aspects of some of the models are interchangeable. (1) Preserved Greek Original →

Preserved Greek Recension

(2) (Lost Gk Orig) →

Preserved Gk Rec #1 →

Preserved Gk Rec #2

(3) (Lost Gk Orig) <

→ →

Preserved Gk Rec #1 Preserved Gk Rec #2

(4) (Lost Semitic Orig) →Preserved Gk Translation →

Preserved Gk Recension

(5) (Lost Semit Orig) → (Lost Gk Translation) →

(then patterns ##2 or 3 above)

(6) (Lost Semit Orig) <

→ →

Preserved Gk Trans #1 Preserved Gk Rec #2

(7) (Lost Semit Orig) <

(Lost Gk Trans #1) → (Lost Gk Trans #2) →

Preserved Gk Rec #1 Preserved Gk Rec #2

(8) (Lost Semit Orig) <

(Lost Semit Rec #1) →

Preserved Gk Trans #1 Preserved Gk Trans #2

(Lost Semit Rec #2) → (9) (Lost Semit Orig) <

(Lost Semit Rec #1) → (Lost Semit Rec #2) →

(10) (Various Individual Traditions in Gk and/or in Semit) <

(Lost Gk Trans #1) → Preserved Gk Rec #1 (Lost Gk Trans #2) → Preserved Gk Rec #2 → Preserved Gk Orig #1 → Preserved Gk Orig #2

(11) (Various Individual Semitic Traditions) <

(Lost Semit Orig #1) →Preserved Gk Rec #1 (Lost Semit Orig #2) →Preserved Gk Rec #2

(12) (Various Individual (Lost Semit Orig #1) → Semitic Traditions) < (Lost Semit Orig #2) →

(Lost Gk Trans #1) → Preserved Gk Rec #1 (Lost Gk Trans #2) → Preserved Gk Rec #2

Variations on these models, or other similar models are not difficult to construct. Additional complicating factors that deserve at least passing mention include the possible existence and interpenetration of more than two “recensions” in Semitic forms, or in Greek forms; possible complications arising from material being translated from

118

chapter six

one language/dialect to another, then later being retranslated to the former (e.g., Hebrew Æ Aramaic Æ Hebrew #2, or Greek Æ Coptic Æ Greek #2); possible periods of primarily oral transmission based on [[129]] an earlier written text and resulting in a later written text (e.g., Greek text #1 Æ oral transmission Æ Greek text #2). And when the demonstrable realities of cross-fertilization between textual/recensional streams during centuries of transmission are recognized, the possible developments and relationships become almost infinitely complex! Without any recognition of the many possibilities, not to mention serious discussion of which possibilities are more or less likely with reference to TAbr, confident solutions to the “recensional problem” in TAbr seem quite unwarranted. The relevance of such considerations for discussions of the relationship between the shorter (B) and longer (A) forms of TAbr should be obvious. The argument that one of the extant forms essentially derives (by expansion or abridgment or adaption) from the other assumes a model such as those at the top of the chart. It is really more concerned with reconstructing the “original” of TAbr than with exploring strictly “recensional” problems and would be largely irrelevant in models ##10–12, where no single “original” is envisioned. General Critique of Earlier Arguments Indeed, a host of relatively unexplored assumptions undergird the aforementioned arguments from language, coherence and thought world concerning the relationship of the preserved “recensions” and their respective origins. Can we assume, for example, that the soughtfor “original” of TAbr was composed (compiled?) by an author/editor who was self-conscious about consistency or coherence (i.e., “recension” in its strictest sense)? It is neither impossible nor improbable that the author/editor of the “original” simply gathered materials at hand and juxtaposed them in whatever way proved most convenient at the time. We cannot simply take for granted that such a person would be concerned with (or even aware of) the fact that some of the materials might be structurally or actually incompatible or incomplete (e.g., an episode or two derived from what was once a more coherent apocalypse, a vignette about Sarah or Isaac no longer moored to similar materials). To apply such a criterion for determining relative chronological priority and/or “originality” of a writing is to predetermine arbitrarily

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 119 how the “original” must have been. Supporting evidence for such an assumption is not easy to find, especially in the sort of materials represented in TAbr. The argument that both forms of TAbr preserve evidence of a common outlook (Iranian-Palestinian-Jewish according to Schmidt), but [[130]] that a characteristically different perspective (“Egyptian/Alexandrian”) has been superimposed upon it in only one of the two preserved forms has similar weaknesses. Is there any reason to believe that characteristically “Palestinian” (if such terminology is appropriate!) Jewish traditions were unknown among Jews in Egypt (or anywhere else, for that matter!), or that characteristically “Egyptian” (?) Jewish traditions were unknown in Palestine (etc.) at any time during the hellenisticRoman period (or even later)? Schmidt appeals to Turner’s linguistic arguments for positing a Hebrew original of TAbr and argues that it is “natural” for such a Hebrew writing to be of Palestinian provenance. Interestingly, however, Turner himself argued strongly for an Egyptian/Alexandrian origin of even the proposed Hebrew original! More data are needed in this discussion! The cultural-geographical labels are perhaps convenient, but are also potentially misleading. Nevertheless, Schmidt’s argument that one form of TAbr superimposes a different perspective on an outlook common to both forms is significant for the recensional question if we can assume that there is some sort of direct literary relationship between the two preserved Greek forms. But that assumption also remains to be demonstrated, or even argued with precision. And if we appeal to models like ##10–12 above, the problem of relative priority and “originality” of the preserved forms loses much of its significance. The “Egyptianized” form could be just as “original” as the other, if they both used traditional, non-Egyptianized Jewish materials. At the present stage of developments in the study of TAbr, however, this seems to be a relatively unrewarding line of discussion. Until the “recensional problem” is examined with greater care, firm conclusions regarding the “original” or TAbr are premature. Unexamined assumptions also plague the use of potentially more controllable evidence such as vocabulary and style in the preserved Greek forms of TAbr. The presence or absence of “Semitic” ’ Greek in a particular section of TAbr may not tell us anything directly about the composition or recension of TAbr, but only about the background of one of the sources used by the compiler—or added by a redactor! The presence of “late” words/constructions is perhaps potentially more

120

chapter six

telling, if it can be assumed that some direct and significant relationship obtains between the date of the preserved MSS and the date of the textual archetype they represent (whether that archetype is the “original” composition or a recension thereof). Presence or absence of “Septuagintal” terminology is also potentially relevant, if only we could trace with some precision the history of Jewish Greek scriptural [[131]] texts in Jewish and Christian hands in the relevant times and places. But hard data in these matters are difficult to obtain, and we often remain happily unaware of the precariousness of the foundations/assumptions on which our discussions rest. In short, the view one takes of the “recensional problem” is closely intertwined with one’s view of the origin of TAbr and of the Jewish and/or early Christian world(s) in which it is thought to have originated. If one assumes that an actual Hebrew or Aramaic original text of TAbr once existed (not simply Semitic “sources” and traditions, whether written or oral), one can appeal to translation differences to account for some of the fundamental diversity in vocabulary and syntax between the preserved longer and shorter forms. If one thinks that there once was a single Greek original of TAbr (whether that was a translation or not) from which all other extant forms derive, one’s options for discussing the “recensional problem” are more limited. It is doubtful that any satisfactory solution either to the “recensional problem” or to the problem of the origins of TAbr will emerge until such possibilities are discussed in detail and assessed carefully in the light of available evidence (including analogies from how other similar writings developed). There is a great deal of available relevant evidence that can be drawn from various sources. Unfortunately, in our impatience and enthusiasm to discover and interpret new data of possible significance for our field(s) of primary interest (e.g., Jewish pre-rabbinic literature and thought), we are too often prone to neglect the basic task foundational to all controlled historical investigation of working carefully and consistently from what is securely known or relatively sure to what is unknown or only suspected. Working Backwards towards the Origin of TAbr This much is clear: A short form of TAbr was available in Sahidic in fifth-century Egypt, and from at least the eleventh century onward, TAbr in various forms and languages had become very popular among eastern

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 121 Christian copyists and compilers who transmitted hagiographical material for use in connection with the liturgical calendar for remembering the lives and/or deaths of revered persons. The same can be said of a large body of writings, including several for which Jewish origin has sometimes been claimed—e.g., Lives of Adam and Eve, Lives of the Prophets, Paraleipomena Jeremiou, Testament of Job.21 Whatever the ultimate origins and [[132]] literary history of these materials, their place in Christian usage (and piety) is well attested simply on the basis of the preserved MSS. And it is here that our quest for solutions about earlier phases of development must begin if we are to pursue a systematic and rigorously controlled approach to the problem. When we start with the preserved Greek materials, two obvious lines of investigation are open once the basic, text-critical relationships within the families of MSS are established: (1) Analysis of primarily linguistic features (vocabulary and syntax) found in each identifiable textual stream, and (2) careful attention to determining for what reasons the texts were transmitted and the uses to which they were put by the preservers. Ideally, the data from such investigations would converge to produce at least a rough picture of the circumstances (date, place, occasion) that gave rise to the available textual streams. If, as would often be the case, there remained questions as to whether the text had an earlier history, used older sources, etc., such questions could then be discussed with more precision by using similar approaches. Since we already know (from the Sahidic version) that the shorter form (B) was in circulation half a millennium earlier than its oldest available Greek attestation, studies on that material could move more quickly and surely towards the earlier periods, in comparison to studies of the longer form (A). There is, of course, nothing new to this type of analysis. Unfortunately, we often lose sight of the intermediate steps in our impatience to move from the known MSS to the “original.” Studies of TAbr and its “recensional problem” have tended to be deficient in these regards. For example, although M.R. James had already noted, almost in passing, certain “late” or “medieval” syntactical features found especially in TAbr’s longer form (A), this matter has not been examined in any detail by subsequent commentators. Turner does focus attention on 21 For a convenient and indispensable handbook to such materials, consult F. Halkin, Bibliotheca (19573), and the Analecta Bollandiana series in general.

122

chapter six

what he considers to be “Christianization” of some words and passages in TAbr (based on James, 50f.), but fails to offer a systematic study of all the data—Turner treats syntax only in connection with his claim that TAbr often contains Semiticized Greek. It is entirely possible, however, that close attention to syntactical features in this and related materials could provide clues to identifying with more precision the most recent recognizable stages of development, perhaps even kinds of “school activity” that took place among Christians in editing and circulating primarily “Jewish” texts. Unfortunately, appropriate information about pertinent aspects [[133]] of “scribal” practice in the byzantine period including the conditions under which new copies and editions of older materials were produced is not conveniently accessible.22 Some information can be distilled from detailed acquaintance with codicological, text-critical and philological data from the period, but that is a demanding and time consuming path. Nor is there much information conveniently available regarding Christian (and Jewish?) motivation for preserving and consulting the various writings of “Jewish” cast that have survived through the byzantine period. Consequently, few students of Judaism and Christianity in the hellenistic-Roman period are in a position even to begin the sorts of investigations suggested above. And insufficient awareness of or focus upon these aspects of the investigation of TAbr have contributed heavily to the methodological inadequacy of some of the arguments offered in discussions of the “recensions,” and ultimately of the “original text” of TAbr. Towards a more Satisfactory Linguistic Analysis The brief comments of James and Turner regarding syntactical features in TAbr have been alluded to above, and Martin’s detailed syntactical analysis is available.23 While this is not the place to attempt a new and systematic examination of the data, it is perhaps fitting to provide a few guidelines regarding what needs to be done if the methodology outlined 22 Some helpful material is available in works such as R. Devreesse, Introduction a l’étude des manuscrits grec (Paris: Klincksieck, 1954). 23 “Syntax Criticism of the Testament of Abraham” (1976) 95–120; Martin concludes that the shorter version (his “B”) is more Semitic than the longer (“A”), although both recensions seem to rework an earlier Greek translation made from a Semitic Vorlage (96).

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 123 above is to be pursued with rigor. It would be extremely helpful if we could identify with some precision the characteristic linguistic features that might be expected in materials that are produced, reworked, or updated by Christian editors for byzantine Christian usage. Awareness of certain obvious changes that appear as hellenistic Greek develops towards modernity is indispensable at this point. To the extent that the origin and popularity of some changes could be pinpointed with reference to time and place, precision in analysis would proceed apace. A detailed handbook of updated data from the byzantine period would be extremely valuable to the student of these materials.24 [[134]] M.R. James gives two examples of “late forms and constructions” in the longer “recension” of TAbr—εἰπεῖν τινα (eipein tina; “to tell someone,” in the accusative) rather than τινι (tini; dative) or πρός τινα (pros—“to” someone in accusative) and ἀπὸ (apo) plus accusative (rather than genitive). He adds that “the neo-Greek particle ἄς (as, a contraction of ἄφες [aphes]—“permit that,” “in order that”) appears in the 14th century MS B of the shorter form at 5.4. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon lists only one example of ἄς, from the seventh century; it also occurs in chapters 26–27 of the Apocalype of the Holy God-Bearer (Mary), which M.R. James edited from an eleventh-century MS (Apocrypha Anecdota 1, 1893). Liddell-Scott9 includes ἀπὸ (apo) + accusative as a construction found “in later Greek” and refers to a fourth/fifth century papyrus; Lampe also lists two sixth-century church fathers as examples of this phenomenon (assuming that the extant MSS accurately preserve sixth-century usage). The εἶπεν τινα (“he told someone,” in accusative) construction is not normal in TAbr (πρός τινα is most frequent) but does appear in chs. 1, 4, and 15. It is also found several times in the Apocalypse of Sedrach (ed. James in Apocrypha Anecdota 1, from a 15th century MS)25 and occurs at least once (2.24) in the closely related Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (ed. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae [1866],

24 For an introductory survey of the developments in post-classical Greek (with extensive bibliography) see R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1969). More extensive, but also somewhat outdated material is available in A.N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time. Founded upon Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (London: MacMillan, 1897); see now the work of the “Institute for Modern Greek Studies” [online] and the Wikipedia online article on “Byzantine Greek.” 25 E.g., in the TLG text, at 10 (twice) and 15, εἶπεν Σεδρὰχ τὸν θεόν (“Sedrach told God”); the dative also occurs in 2, εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἡ φωνή (“the voice told him”).

124

chapter six

p. 26 n. 30, from a 15th century MS).26 Careful attention to these and other similar phenomena, facilitated now by the ability to search the TLG data bank, would perhaps provide desired clues to the more recent history of some of the writings under consideration. It is in this connection that R. Martin’s attempt to isolate syntactical criteria for identifying translation Greek suggests new possibilities of analysis while at the same time failing to be sufficiently controlled for immediate application to material such as TAbr. Martin’s primary focus in developing his technique was New Testament literature—could it be demonstrated that portions of Acts, the gospels, etc., were translated from Semitic sources? His control data were drawn from non-translated literature of relatively known date (hellenistic and early Roman periods) and from known translation literature of approximately the same period. But it is clear that the Greek language (and its various dialects) underwent various changes in the centuries [[135]] from New Testament times to the present. Insofar as the influence of Christianity came to be very strong in Greek-speaking areas (primarily the eastern Roman, or byzantine world), it is not impossible that in some respects Christian Greek came to assimilate some syntactic features that originated in or corresponded to the world of earlier “translation-Greek.” In order to apply “syntax criticism” convincingly to materials of unknown date and origin, a wider spectrum of control data would be needed, including examples from various sorts of Christian writings from the second or third century onward. Such a spectrum of characteristic syntactical features needs to be constructed, with close attention to date, location, and even (if possible) education/training of the author, not to mention type of literature (e.g., poetry vs. narrative or discourse; homiletic vs. polemic or theological/philosophical treatise). It might then become possible to measure texts like the longer or shorter forms of TAbr against that spectrum and arrive at more convincing results. For the moment, however, unless we assume that both forms of TAbr are datable to around the turn of the era or assume that Greek syntax did not change significantly during the first millennium of the common 26 Turner also mentions “εἶπε (eipe) with accusative of indirect object” in “Recension A” as possible but relatively “more doubtful” evidence of Semitic/Hebraic influence on TAbr; he notes that in Greek, “verbs of saying . . . often govern a direct object” (68), but that is not particularly relevant for the question of what construction is used to designate the addressee. On the broader issue of the declining use of the dative, see J. Humbert, La disparition du datif en grec (du Ier au Xer siècle) (Collection Linguistique 23; Paris: Champion, 1930) esp. 37f., l62ff., 185–89; also Browning, Greek, 17, 43, 64.

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 125 era, at least for the criteria used by Martin, his attempt at applying his analytic techniques to TAbr must remain unconvincing—along with being potentially promising!27 The Thought Worlds of the Copyists and Compilers In addition to applying linguistic criteria in an attempt to determine more precisely the most recent history of the document(s) under examination, content and (if possible) intent need to be analyzed within the framework of the identifiable transmitters of the material. What needs were met by Christians copying and recopying TAbr? Did the different forms of TAbr have different functions for their users? Were the motives at work in the transmission and preservation of such materials sufficient to cause the actual composition and/or construction of some of the materials themselves? It should not be assumed that a document composed or compiled by a Christian will necessarily contain characteristically “Christian” contents. Little systematic information is available [[136]] on such issues as the above, although the tireless work of the Bollandist fathers in Belgium has created tools and studies that can be used with great profit in this aspect of the investigation.28 In very general terms, it is obvious that Christians came to view and use their Jewish heritage in a variety of ways.29 Overtly Christian interests in themes that are thought to point concretely to the coming and activity and significance of Joshua/Jesus the Messiah/Christ abound, and have received wide notice. But Christian interest was not limited to “christologically oriented” materials from Judaism that were applied specifically to Jesus and his appearance in history. Many Christians still looked for a future eschatological/apocalyptic consummation, and thus helped maintain a continuity with similar pre- and non-Christian Jewish interests. This applies not only to the preservation of large bodies of Jewish materials relating to the end times but also to the reworking

27 In another connection, I hastily applied Martin’s criteria to some fourth-century Christian homiletic material (preserved in MSS of later date) that almost certainly did not originate as translated Greek. Nevertheless, some of the results fell within Martin’s ranges for translation Greek, possibly partly because of the influence of Semiticizing Greek (via Old Greek scriptures, etc.) on the homilist and his tradition, and perhaps also because of the homiletic nature of the materials. 28 See above, n. 21. 29 See R.A. Kraft, “Multiform Jewish Heritage” (1975) 174–99 and online.

126

chapter six

of such materials in forms that range from covertly Christian (e.g., Greek Apocalypse of Esdras or of Sedrach) to obviously Christian (e.g., Apocalypses of various Apostles and of Mary). Christians who produced ethical treatises often treated their Jewish ethical heritage similarly—preserving, reworking, initiating. But to the degree that the nature of the material requires fewer explicit references to characteristically Christian persons and views, to that degree it is difficult to distinguish what “originated” from Christian as opposed to Jewish pens or minds. To a large extent, many Jews and Christians had similar attitudes towards such things as praise of God (prayers, psalms), ideals of personal and community morality (what constitutes “righteous” living), and expectations regarding future rewards and judgment (personal and cosmic). As had already been true in pre-Christian Jewish contexts, the ancient heroes of Jewish scripture and tradition were used widely as examples in homiletic exhortation and community commemoration. The author of Hebrews 11 helps set the stage for what later explodes into the rich Christian hagiographical tradition preserved for us. And Christian monasticism provided an eager vehicle for heightening the focus on “righteous persons” of every sort who could serve as moral examples for the spiritual athletes struggling towards the goal of perfection. Is it possible to trace more specifically the course of such [[137]] developments in Christian circles? How does the ideal of the righteous person change over a period of centuries, or vary from place to place? How are the eschatological/apocalyptic expectations affected as new situations arise? In what terms do authors throughout the centuries view impending death? What can we learn from a close examination of the rampant angelology/demonology of some (especially monastic) Christian materials? What contacts did Christians maintain with Jewish and Jewish Christian communities and traditions throughout the relevant period? Are there helpful clues in the multifaceted history of Christianity during its first millennium of existence that can help us understand better the ways in which Jewish traditions were preserved, adopted, adapted, expanded, abridged, and recast through the centuries? Very little systematic information is available, although the Nag Hammadi discoveries have led the way in encouraging a reassessment of older pictures of early Christian developments. Hopefully, continued efforts will be made to expose the variety of interests and activities that obtained especially among those Christians most responsible for producing and preserving the literary heritage on which we so heav-

the “recensional problem” in testament of abraham 127 ily depend. Study of writings such as TAbr will both contribute data to such an investigation and will receive new impetus from it. In any event, this seems to me to be the only available controlled route back towards solving the problems of the recensions, and ultimately the origins of TAbr. In this light, many aspects of the current discussions are simply premature, whether or not they ultimately may prove to have been accurate.

CHAPTER SEVEN

“EZRA” MATERIALS IN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY1 Introduction The Hebrew name “Ezra” (Esdras, Esdram; etymological meaning, “[God will] help”) has come to be associated with various writings of Jewish and Christian antiquity, including historical narratives, prophetic exhortations, and various apocalyptic journeys and discourses. The earliest of these works has been preserved in Hebrew (-Aramaic) by the Jewish tradition in its scriptural canon (biblical book(s) of Ezra-Nehemiah) and also in two more or less related Greek forms preserved by Christians but with no obvious evidence of characteristically Christian reworking (the “septuagintal” or “Old Greek” books of Ezra-Nehemiah [“Esdras 2”] and of “1 Esdras”). All of the other extensive Ezra materials of which we are aware have been preserved by Christians and have frequently been described as at least reflecting Christian editorial interests if not as having been composed by and for Christians. Several of the writings are now extant only in relatively late versions (e.g., Latin, Armenian) of what may have been originally Greek, or even Semitic, compositions. In Judaism and Christianity it is not at all unusual to find various writings attributed to or associated with famous names from Jewish religious history—e.g., Adam and Eve, Enoch, Abraham, Job, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, [[120]] and Baruch.2 In one sense, the Ezra material falls into the same category, but in another it presents some unique

1

This summary article appeared originally in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Roemischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase) II. Principat 19.1 Religion (ed. W. Haase; Judentum: Allgemeines; Palaestinishes Judentum; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin 1979) 119–36. It is based partly on work carried out by the author and the following advanced graduate students in seminars on various aspects of the subject: Jon Dechow, Robert Hotchkiss, and Harold Remus (on the Justin quotation); Kenneth Cohen, Martha Himmelfarb, Ross Kraemer, Ruth Sandberg, and Vici Schwartz (on Ezra Apocalypses and similar material). 2 See for example, M.R. James, Lost Apocrypha (1920) [also online]; A.-M. Denis, Introduction (1970); J.H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (SBLSCS 7; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1976); Charlesworth, OTP (1983 and 1985); Sparks, AOT; DiTommaso, Bibliography (2001).

130

chapter seven

problems. The exact identity of “Ezra” in relation to other persons and events from Jewish history apparently remained problematic for many ancient and medieval persons interested in these materials. Why did the name “Ezra” become attached to various writings? Who did the authors, editors, and transmitters think this “Ezra” was, and how did they view his function as a revered figure of antiquity? To what extent are the biblical accounts of Ezra responsible for generating other Ezra materials, and to what extent might they also be products of an older, more widely ranging perception of a person or persons called “Ezra” in Jewish traditions? The survey that follows will not necessarily answer such questions with equal precision but will attempt to present in broad outline some of the more pertinent data. 1. Biblical Traditions about Ezra The most famous Ezra of Jewish biblical tradition emerges abruptly near the end of the book that bears his name: Now after these things in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia Ezra the son of Seraiah son of Azariah son of Hilkiah son of Shallum . . . son of Phineas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the chief priest—this Ezra went up from Babylon. He was a ready scribe in the law of Moses. (Ezra 7.1–6 = 1 Esdras 8.1–3)

In Ezra 7 he is called “Ezra the priest, the scribe” (7.11, 12, 21; “high priest and reader” in 1 Esdras 9.49), while in chapter 10 he is simply “Ezra” or “Ezra the priest” (10.10, 16). Ezra 7.27–9.15 purports to be first person testimony from “Ezra” himself, while Ezra 7.1–26 and 10.lff. provide third-person narrative framework. “Ezra” appears again in the narrative of Nehemiah 8.1–13 where he is primarily “the scribe” (8.1, 4, 13; see also 12.36) but also “the priest” (8.2) or “the priest and scribe” (8.9; see also 12.26). Whereas Ezra 7.7 is dated to the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah’s narrative apparently is set between the 20th and the 32nd years of Artaxerxes (Neh 2.1, 13.6). The precise functions of this Ezra will be noted below, in comparison to other similar figures. Interestingly, this “biblical Ezra” is neglected in Ben Sira’s survey of famous Israelites, although the three other names most often associated [[121]] with leading Israel out of Babylonian exile do appear— Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and Nehemiah (Sirach 49.11–13, but Sirach’s emphasis is on rebuilding temple and city, not on return as such). Other Jewish traditions, and especially rabbinic sources, connect Ezra

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

131

closely with the restoration of Moses’ law after the exile (especially laws against exogamy) and the development of “the scribes” as an institution for study of Torah. Sometimes rabbinic sources identify Ezra with Malachi (as Jerome also notes in his Commentary on Malachi),3 and Muhammad had the impression that some Jews in the 7th century ce called Ezra “God’s Son” (Qur’an 9.30).4 The name “Ezra” also appears cryptically in three other passages in the Hebrew book of Nehemiah. In 12.1f. an Ezra is included among the chief priests who accompanied Zerubbabel and Jeshua in their return from exile. Then in 12.12f. this same Ezra is listed as the head of a priestly family whose son, Meshullam, flourished in the days of Joiakim—“these were in the days of Joiakim son of Jeshua son of Jozadak and in the days of Nehemiah the governor and of Ezra the priest and scribe” (12.26). An Ezra also is included near the front of Nehemiah’s joyful procession on the wall of Jerusalem, with “Ezra the scribe” in the lead (12.31–36). Several similar Hebrew names are also found in Jewish scriptures: ‘Ezer/‘Ezrah (1 Chr 4.4, 17; 7.21; 12.9; Neh 3.19), ‘Azer (Neh 12.42), ‘Azzer/‘Azzur ( Jer 28.1, father of “the [false] prophet” Hananiah; Ezek 11.1, father of a wicked “prince” of Israel; Neh 10.17). The names ‘Azar’el and ‘Azariah also incorporate the same Hebrew consonants. But there is no clear evidence that any of these similar names contributed directly to the Ezra traditions being discussed here. Two major areas of difficulty arise in attempting to clarify the identity and functions of “Ezra” as that name is used in the canonical and deuterocanonical books of Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras: (1) How are the various return narratives related to the supposed sequence of political events and rulers under Persia? (See Chart 1) (2) How does “Ezra” relate to other persons who are said to have led returns from Babylon to Jerusalem? (See Chart 2) The names of four different Persian rulers appear in the accounts, if we ignore for the moment the introduction of “Darius the Mede” by the Daniel tradition as a transition ruler between Babylonian and Persian world-empires. Possibly the biblical chronicler and the author/editor of 3

For a convenient survey of rabbinic and other Jewish traditions relating to Ezra, see L. Ginzberg, Legends 4 (1913) 354–59 and the corresponding notes in vol. 6 (1928). 4 Some Muslim commentators identify the 100-year “sleeper” (Abimelech? see Paraleipomena Jeremiou 5) in Qur’an 2.269 with Ezra (others with Elijah).

132

chapter seven

1 Esdras intended to identify two different rulers by the name Artaxerxes. In any event, a certain amount of suggestive symmetry appears in the accounts when viewed from this perspective, as Chart 1 attempts to show. [[122]] [[124]] Because the different Jewish leaders sometimes appear in more than one of the chart columns, it is also instructive to compare the respective traditions associated with each of them (Chart 2). It is clear that the respective editors of Ezra-Nehemiah and of 1 Esdras are not always in complete agreement and have not presented entirely coherent accounts by modern standards. Even without attempting any detailed analysis of these data (presumably the better commentaries have done so), it is obvious that there has been interpenetration and cross-fertilization of traditions in the preserved canonical and deutero-canonical accounts. Probably the references to Ezra in the lists of Neh 12.26 and 36 have been added for harmonistic purposes. The crediting of both Sheshbazzer and Zerubbabel-Jeshua for beginning to rebuild the temple is an obvious problem as is Artaxerxes’ support of the opponents in a period between Cyrus and Darius. The exact range of sources available to each editor is not known, nor the exact extent of dependence of one on the other (presumably 1 Esdras translates a Semitic source very similar to Ezra-Nehemiah). How much other material of equal antiquity concerning these persons and events may have survived in extra-canonical sources remains to be determined. Samples of similar confusions, harmonizations, etc. in other sources will be noted below. These Charts are intended simply as a partial basis for attempting to understand the many faces of Ezra’s image in other Jewish and Christian literature. 2. Extra-Biblical Traditions about Ezra A key factor in the general understanding and use of “return from exile” traditions in Judaism and Christianity was the belief that the defeat of Babylon and return to Jerusalem took place some seventy years after the destruction of the city, in fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (see Jer 25.11–12, 29.10 [Old Greek 36.10]). For the author/editor of Daniel, “Darius the Mede”5 was the agent of deliverance (Dan 9.2); for the

5 For a survey of the historical problem raised by Daniel’s claim, see H.H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel: a Historical Study of Contemporary Theories (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1935).

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

133

Chart 1 Cyrus

Artaxerxes

Darius

Artaxerxes

Artaxerxes

(Ezra 1, no. 1 (Ezra 1 Esd 2.1–15, 4.6–34, 1 Esd 5.47–73) 2.16–30)

(Ezra 5.1ff., 1 Esd 3.1–5.46, 6.1ff.)

no. 2 (Ezra 7.1ff., 1 Esd 8.1ff.)

no. 3 (Neh 2ff.)

decree to rebuild temple (1.1f., 6.3)

decree/permit to decree/permit permit to rebuild rebuild (6.6ff., to return with city walls (2.8) 1 Esd 4.43–57) aid (7.13ff.) permit to purify temple (13.6ff.)

provision of/for funds (1.4; 3.7; 6.4b)

provision of/for provision funds (6.8) of/for funds (7.15ff.)

Temple furnishings (1.7ff., 5.14, 6.5)

Temple furnishings (8.25ff.)

return of furnishings (13.9)

offerings (? 1.4b)

offerings (6.9)

offerings (7.17)

celebration of

celebration of

celebration of celebration of new year (8.1ff.)

temple dedication (6.16) sukkot (3.1ff.)

passover (6.19)

leader designated

leader permitted leader (1 Esd 6.27) permitted

Sheshbazzer (1.8, 11; 5.14, 16)

Ezra (7.13)

or assumed

or assumed

ZerubbabelJeshua (2.2; 3.2, 8; 4.3)

ZerubbabelJeshua (5.2; contrast 6.14)

opposition (4.1–5)

letter of opposi- letter of opposition (4.7–16) tion (5.3–17) reply supporting opposition (4.17–24)

[[123]]

passover (? 8.31ff.)

reply prohibiting opposition (6.1–15)

sukkot (8.17) leader permitted Nehemiah (2.8)

opposition (2.10, 19; 4.1) Opposition prohibited (7.26)

134

chapter seven Chart 2

Sheshbazzar (or Sanabassar)

Zerubbabal6 (and Jeshua the priest)

prince of Judah

bodyguard of King priest/scribe and adopted kinsman (1 Esd 3.4; 4.13, 42)

Ezra

Nehemiah6 cupbearer of King (Neh 1.11)

Davidic descent (1 Esd 5.5) governor (5.14)

governor (1 Esd 6.27, 29)

returns with temple furnishings (1.11)

governor (Neh 5.14; 10.1) returns with aid and temple furnishings (8.25ff.)

returns to rebuild walls (2.8) and return furnishings (13.9)

fasting (8.21) passover (? 8.35)

purifies cultic worship (Neh 13.6ff., 11ff., 31f.)

new year and sukkot (Neh 8.1ff.)

enforces sabbath (Neh 13.15ff.)

bans exogamy (10.1ff.)

bans exogamy (Neh 13.23ff.)

memoirs (7.27–9.15)

memoirs (Neh passim)

prayers (9.6ff., Neh 9.6ff.)

prayers (Neh 1.4ff., etc.)

rebuilds altar (3.3f.)

sukkot (3.4ff.)

begins temple foundations (5.16)

begins temple foundations (3.10; 5.2)

6 Ginzberg, Legends 4 (1913) 352 (and notes in vol. 6 [1928] 437f.) reports a rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 38a, top) equating Zerubbabel and Nehemiah. We might also expect someone to have identified Jeshua with Ezra.

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

135

Chronicler, it was Cyrus (Ezra 1.1–1 Esdras 2.1–2 Chron 36.22; see also Isa 44.24–45.7!). For many other persons interested in the return, the exact name of the Persian ruler was apparently less important than the fact of restoration and the person of the Jewish leader in that restoration. The conclusion of the 70-year period was the focus of interest, not details of ancient political history. Sometimes other factors also were involved, as when Hippolytus asks regarding Dan 9.25: [O]f what anointed one (“Christ”) does it speak other than Jesus son of Josedek who at that time returned [[125]] with the people and in the 70th year, when he had rebuilt the holy place, offered a sacrifice in accord with the law. . . . For after the return of the people from Babylon who were led by Jesus son of Josedek and Ezra the scribe and Zerubbabel son of Salathiel from the tribe of Judah there were 434 years [= the “62 weeks” of Dan 9.25–26] until the coming of Messiah/Christ . . . (Commentary on Daniel 4.30–31).

Hippolytus reckons the “seven weeks” (= 49 years) of Dan 9.25 as the remainder of the 70 years of captivity, since for him Daniel has this vision in the 21st year after the destruction of the city (4.30). Elsewhere, in commenting on the vision of Daniel 2, Hippolytus claims that the Persian empire lasted 245 years (or 230 in 4.24) and Alexander’s Greek empire 300 years (2.12). How he squared these numbers (545 plus some years from the start of the Roman empire) with the above interpretation of Dan 9.24f. is not readily apparent. For present purposes, only his apparent treatment of “the return” as a single event (JeshuaEzra-Zerubbabel) need be noted. Among Christian authors, the problem of who “Ezra” was and when he lived often is affected by the larger question of how to interpret the aforementioned “prophetic” passages in Jeremiah and Daniel. Writers who attempted to take world history seriously and relate it to what they considered “prophetically” true came up with a variety of answers. Clement of Alexandria, an early contemporary of Hippolytus at the beginning of the 3rd century, states that “the captivity lasted for 70 years until the second year of Darius Hystaspes . . . when Haggai and Zachariah and the angel of the twelve [= Malachi] prophesied and Jesus [= Jeshua] son of Josedek was high priest. And in the second year of King Darius . . . Zorobabel . . . was sent to raise and furnish the temple in Jerusalem” (Strom 1.[21].127.2–3; see also 1.[21].123). In this same section, Clement reports that

136

chapter seven Zorobabel . . . obtained from Darius permission to rebuild Jerusalem and with Esdras returned to the ancestral land. Through him [Ezra?] came about the redemption of the people and the recognition and restoration of the divinely inspired oracles, and the passover peace-offering [or “salvation”] took place and the dissolution of foreign marriages (1.124.1–2).

Permission to return was given by Cyrus, but the actual return occurred under Darius “the first” (Hystaspes). But in another context Clement is aware that Ezra “the Levite, the priest” flourished under Artaxerxes (at least 72 years later, according to the chronology in Strom 1.128), and “in an inspired state he prophesied by renewing again all the ancient scriptures,” which had been destroyed (or “corrupted”?) at the time of Nebuchadnezzar (Strom 1.[22].149.3). Compare the similar passage in Irenaeus AH 3.21.2 [24.1]: After seventy years when the Jews went up to their own region, then [or perhaps “thereafter”] in the times of Artaxerxes . . . [God] inspired Ezra, the priest from the tribe of Levi to rehearse all the words of the previous prophets [or possibly “the former prophets”] and restore to the people the legislation given through Moses.

In the interests of accurate world chronography, other writers place Ezra relatively later in the Persian period and separate him from the [[126]] initial return to Jerusalem. Thus Josephus had already distinguished four returns, of which Ezra’s was the third. For Josephus, Ezra was a righteous high priest and friend of King Xerxes (note the parallel to Zerubbabel, friend of Darius, and Nehemiah, friend of [Arta]xerxes!) and died as an old man in Jerusalem (Ant 11.121–158).7 Presumably the early chronographers of Christianity such as Julius Africanus and Eusebius made similar distinctions.8 Certainly the Paschal Chronicle does—it briefly lists Esdras twice (or is it two Esdrases?) in quick succession, in the 74th Olympiad (ca. 480 bce) as a “priest among the Jews” and in the 79th Olympiad (ca. 460 bce) as a “teacher of the grammar [or “script”] of

7 The claim that Ezra was a friend of Xerxes is rejected by Syncellus (see n. 11 below). Josephus’ treatment of some of the other problems is interesting: he has both Darius the Mede and “his relative” Cyrus conquer Babylon (Ant. 10.248), and Nehemiah’s return receives separate treatment as later in Xerxes’ reign (11.168ff.). In Apion 1.128–60, Josephus refers to both the “70 years” duration of the destruction (1.132) and more exact dating (1.154, 159). 8 Eusebius, Prep. Evang. 10.9–10, seems to date the end of the exile to both the second year of Darius (10.9 [483d]) and the first year of Cyrus (10.10 [488d], citing Africanus). According to Syncellus (below, n. 11), Africanus viewed Ezra as active under Artaxerxes.

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

137

the holy laws.”9 Writing around the 6th century ce, Malalas describes Nehemiah as a priest of Davidic lineage and a eunuch who returned to Jerusalem 40 years after the first return, accompanied by Ezra “the prophet and governor”(!?). Ezra provided holy vessels and the “priestly [or “sacred”] books that were found” and “wrote copies from memory of the books not found”10 (see also Suidas under “Esdras”). For George Syncellus (9th c.), the relatively later dating of Ezra is quite firm and the opinions of earlier authors are discussed in some detail.11 But other, less historically self-conscious traditions about Ezra also were in circulation among Christians, emphasizing other alleged functions of Ezra. In general, Ezra’s role as a scholar of the law and a dissolver of mixed marriages receives little notice among Christians. He is remembered most widely as the one through whom God restored scriptures (see above, Irenaeus, Clement, Malalas, Suidas), and Tertullian suggests that those “scriptures” even included books like Enoch (HabMul 1.3). Perhaps the reference by Malalas and Suidas to the “books not found” was also meant to refer to the extra-canonical writings. Justin even claims that the Jews had excised from their scriptures a passage in which Ezra, in the priestly-cultic context of Passover, uses language congenial to Christian ideas of salvation (Dial 72.1). If this is a clue that in some circles a battle was being fought to validate Ezra as a spokesman for a Christian “belief ”-oriented perspective as over against Ezra the champion of Jewish law, it stands virtually alone. When Lactantius cites the same “Ezra” passage more than [[127]] a century later (DivInst 4.18.22 = Epitome 48) it is clearly used to highlight Jewish rejection of Jesus, but the Jews are not accused of removing the passage from scripture. Lactantius seems to be unaware of any problem regarding the source of the “Ezra” quotation, which he includes among other “testimonies of the prophets.” A rather ambiguous reference to Ezra’s cultic-priestly function is also found in the prayer of Apostolic Constitutions 7.37: as God accepted the sacrifice of Ezra at the return, may he accept Gentile

9 Chronicon Paschale (ed. Ludwig A. Dindorf; Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 9; Bonn: Weber, 1832) 304–5. Ezra receives very brief notice by comparison with the section on Nehemiah, who is dated ca. 452 BCE. 10 Malalas, Chronographia 6 (ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 8, 1831, 160f.). 11 Syncellus, Chronographia (ed. W. Dindorf, CSHB 6.1, 1828, 421–80). For an English translation, see William Adler and Paul Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos: a Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: OUP, 2002).

138

chapter seven

prayers—Ezra 8.35f. might be in view, or some other tradition like the Passover observation mentioned by Justin and Lactantius. In a few sources, “Ezra” is pictured as a “prophet.” As we have seen, Malalas used this title and Lactantius seems to consider his “Ezra” quotation as a prophetic testimony. Clement of Alexandria quotes a passage from 4 Ezra (5.35) as “Esdras the prophet” (Strom 3.[16].100.3), perhaps intending to differentiate the author of that apocalypse from another Ezra (“priest and scribe”), but he also describes the latter Ezra as “prophesying” (see above). In the 4th/5th centuries, some Christian sources clearly distinguish between two important Ezras from the period of the Babylonian exile and return. The anonymous compiler(s) of the Latin tractate(s) on Inventiones Nominum speak(s) of Ezra “the prophet” to whom God spoke from a bush (see 4 Ezra 14.1), son of Chusi (see 5 Ezra 1.1 in MSS CM), and restorer of written Jewish scriptures, and “the priest” Ezra who lived a century (?) later.12 Epiphanius also speaks of two Ezras, apparently near contemporaries. He describes an Ezra who was a priest during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and was sent from Babylon to instruct the Samaritans in the law. This Ezra wanted to keep the Israelites separate from the Samaritans and thus gave only the Pentateuch to the latter, written in the old script used at Sinai, but not the prophetical books. Epiphanius distinguishes this Ezra from another Ezra called (or “son of ”—so Georgian) Salathiel (see 4 Ezra 3.1) son of (or “associate of ”—so Coptic) Zerubbabel son of Jeconiah (see 1 Chr 3.17).13 Epiphanius does not call either Ezra a “prophet.” [[128]] 12 M.R. James published two somewhat divergent texts of this material, based on 8th century manuscripts, in JTS 4 (1902/03); see section G-28/ p. 224 (Chusi pater Hesdrae, prophetae maioris; see also the notes on pp. 239f.) and G-49/ p. 230 = A-45/p. 231 (Duo sunt Hesdrae, unus [+ est G] propheta filius Chusi ad quem dominus de rubro [+ sicut ad Moysen G] locutus est, qui et legem [so A: quique memoria sua G] renovavit [+ divinas scripturas quas Nabuchodonosor incenderat. Litterasque hebraeicas ludeis inmutasse, et fecisse eis litteras Assirias, ut non commiscerentur Samaritanis. In diversa manu scribuntur, ipse dictus est iure peritus G]. Alius [+ est Hesdra filius Helia G] sacerdos scriba [so A: scriba, sacerdos G] et doctor [+ legis A] qui reversus est [so A: cum reliqo papulo G] de captivitate Babylonis [+ ascendit G]. Inter ambos [+ autem G] sunt anni [+ ferme G] C [so G: I in A]). See also M.R. James, “Ego Salathiel Qui Esdras,” JTS 18 (1916/17) 167–69. 13 De XII Gemmis, in the section on “Onyx.” For the Georgian and Coptic versions see the edition by R.P. Blake, in Studies and Documents (ed. K. and S. Lake; London: Christophers, 1934) 186–89 and 275. See also M.R. James, “Salathiel qui et Esdras,” JTS 19 (1917/18) 347–49. Another tradition that may reflect some connection between Ezra and Samaria appears in Paraleipomena Jeremiou 8, where “Jeremiah” requires the dissolution of exogamous marriage for the returning Israelites before they can enter Jerusalem. Those who refuse to leave their non-Israelite mates then settle Samaria.

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

139

Finally, there is a lengthy description of Ezra as prophet, miracleworker, sage, and priestly mediator in the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon 32–34.14 This section interrupts the flow of the narrative about Jeremiah and contains various themes of interest: 32. Ezra is one of 70 Hebrew youths “in the school of the Chaldeans” when Cyrus the Persian succeeds Nebuchadnezzar and increases the burdens on the Hebrews (compare traditions of Israel in Egypt before the Exodus; also Daniel and his youthful companions in Dan 1.3–7). “The Spirit of the Lord” is on Ezra. When Ezra’s water-pitcher breaks, he uses his robe to carry water (compare Jesus in Infancy Gospel of Thomas 11). His teacher predicts that he will deliver his people from captivity. He grows in knowledge and grace. He strikes a rock and it gushes forth water (compare Moses), confounding the Chaldean detractors. 33. Cyrus taunts the Hebrews and receives a strong sign that they should soon return to Judaea. 34. “And it came to pass after that the 70 years of the captivity were nearly completed. And Ezra son of Johanan and Daniel son of Ezra and Ezekiel son of Buzi (Ezek 1.3), those three were prophets, and the word came to them while they were prophesying in Babylon.” They lead the 70 youths to the wilderness to offer a sheep as a sacrifice. Ezra prays that God will accept the sacrifice (see ApostConst 7.37), remember his covenant, and deliver his people. God sends the angel Eremiel who causes fire to consume the sacrifice (compare Elijah on Carmel). (35ff. Jeremiah leads the return as in Paraleipomena Jeremiou. Ezra plays no further role.) The picture of Ezra as a prophetic person is, for the most part, affirmed also in the extra-canonical texts with which Ezra’s name is associated. The extent to which any of these texts themselves contributed to this image of Ezra, or depended on an already extant tradition about Ezra as a prophet and/or apocalyptic seer, is difficult to determine. Probably the apocalypse now preserved in Latin (and other languages

14

Ed. K.H. Kuhn, Le Muséon 83 (1970) 95–135 and 291–350.

140

chapter seven

derivative from Greek) as chapters 3–14 of “4 Ezra” is the oldest extant example of such materials. It identifies its “prophet” (see 12.42) author as “Salathiel who is also called Ezra” and dates itself in the 30th year after Jerusalem’s destruction (3.1; compare 1.1). Ezra receives a series of dreams and visions. In chapter 14, Ezra hears a voice from a bush and is explicitly compared to Moses. Reference is made to secret revelations to Moses as well as those [[129]] made public (14.6). Ezra asks that God’s spirit be given him to write the law that has perished and other things by which people may live. Ezra takes five scribes, retires for 40 days, and with supernatural aid dictates 94 books in hitherto unknown characters. Of these, 24 were made public, but 70 were kept only for “the wise” (14.45–46). Presumably the Apocalypse ended with an assumption of Ezra to heaven (see 8.19b; 14.9 and the end of the non-Latin versions). Nothing is said about this Ezra being a priest or leading a return to Jerusalem. An earthly restoration of the city does not seem to be anticipated (see e.g., 10.50ff.). Clement refers to this work as by “Ezra the prophet” (Strom 3.[16].100.3). The Greek Apocalypse of Esdras also begins with a vague reference to “Esdras the holy prophet and beloved of God” who received his revelation in “the 30th year,” on the 22nd day of an unnamed month, while in his house. Otherwise it provides little by way of information to add to the picture of Ezra other than some interesting parallels to Moses when Ezra faces death near the end of the book. His death date is given as 28 October. With the short work (“5 Ezra”) now preserved only in Latin as chapters 1–2 of 4 Ezra, serious text-critical problems are present in the opening words. The family of MSS represented by C and M briefly identifies the author as “Esdras son of Chusi, in the days of Nebuchadnezzar” (see Inventiones Nominum, above), while the MSS represented by S and A provide a long genealogy similar to that found in Ezra 7.1–5 but framed by the words “The second book of Ezra the prophet [sic!] son of Seraiah . . ., who was a captive in the region of the Medes in the reign of Artaxerxes King of the Persians.” Near the end of this writing Ezra is commissioned on “Mt. Horeb” (as Moses in Ex 3.1) to go to Israel but is rejected and turns to those who hear and understand (2.34; SA speak of nations or gentiles here). He receives a final vision and angelic commission on “Mount Zion.” As will be noted below, several other works circulated which claimed some connection with Ezra. I have not yet been able to examine all of

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

141

them in detail, but those that I have examined add nothing of significance to the traditions about “Ezra” noted above. From this somewhat diverse array of sources mentioning “Ezra” the following characteristics or functions of Ezra deserve notice. (1) leader of a return to Jerusalem from Babylon (Ezra/1 Esdras, etc.). (2) priest who offers prayers and sacrifices (Ezra/1 Esdras, Justin). (3) scribe and enthusiast for assiduous study of Torah (Nehemiah, Epiphanius). (4) champion of endogamous Jewish marriage (Ezra) and of Israel’s separation from Samaritans (Epiphanius). (5) restorer of Jewish scriptures after destruction of temple (4 Ezra, etc.). (6) originator of new type of Hebrew letters (4 Ezra, rabbinic trad.; cf. Paschal Chronicle, Epiphanius). (7) “prophet” (Ezra, Gk Apocal. Esdr., Clement, Inv. Nom., Malalas). [[130]]

(8) recipient of apocalyptic secrets (4 Ezra, etc. [see below]). (9) miracle worker (Apocr. Jer.). (10) companion of angels (Apocr. Jer., Gk Apocal. Ezra, 4 Ezra, 5 Ezra). The following variations with regard to Ezra’s lineage, associates, and time of floruit also appear: (1) son of Chusi in Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar (5 Ezra in MSS CM, Inv. Nom.). (2) son of Johanan and father of Daniel (?) in Babylon under Cyrus (Apocr. Jer.). (3) = (or son of) Salathiel son of (or associate of ) Zorobabel son of Jechoniah (Epiphanius). (4) = Salathiel, in Babylon 30 years after the destruction (4 Ezra). (5) in Babylon under Cyrus and/or Darius (Clem. Alex., Apocr. Jerem.). (6) returned with Zerubbabel 70 years after the destruction (Neh 12.1, Clem. Alex., Hippol.). (7) = Malachi (rabbinic tradition also known to Jerome). (8) son of Seraiah and early contemporary of Nehemiah under Artaxerxes (Ezra/1 Esd.). (9) friend of Xerxes (Josephus, see Suidas; denied by Syncellus). (10) son of “Helia” (? Helkia, see Ezra 7.1), a century later than no. 1 (MS G of Inv. Nom.). (11) slept for a century, from before the destruction (Muslim tradition).

142

chapter seven

The question remains as to whether any helpful patterns can be reconstructed from these data to illuminate the perceptions of Ezra held by the various persons who read and transmitted and ultimately originated the different Ezra materials. 3. Literature Associated with Ezra The extant documents that focus on or are attributed to Ezra are of several different types (for present purposes, significant sections of more inclusive writings such as the Ezra sections of canonical EzraNehemiah are also listed). (1) Narratives in which Ezra is a priest and interpreter of Jewish law who leads a return to Jerusalem and/or reinforces strict law observance: [[131]]

Ezra 7–10 (includes a short prayer-confession along with some firstperson narrative) Neh 8–9 (or 10) (includes a long prayer) 1 Esdras 8–9 (includes material from both of the above sections) There is no indication in these materials that Ezra is viewed as a prophet or seer, or as a new Moses, although some reference to his “understanding” and “wisdom” appears (e.g., 1 Esd 8.7; cf. Neh 10.28). He is certainly depicted as an intercessor for Israel in Neh 9. He also initiates and participates in cultic functions such as the fast in Ezra 8.21ff., the offerings in the 7th month (8.35) and the first month (10.19), reinstitution of Sukkot along with public reading of law (Neh 8.3,14f.), and reaffirmation of the covenant with God (Neh 9.38). Possibly this category of materials also once included a more lengthy narrative in which Ezra was depicted as celebrating a Passover with the returned exiles. The text mentioned by Justin may well be of preChristian origin (there is nothing characteristically “Christian” about its terminology, despite the persisting claims that it is a “Christian” composition15), and the presence of a major Passover celebration in the return traditions (Ezra 6.19) strengthens the possibility that Ezra

15 My students and I have done a detailed analysis of the language of Justin’s “Ezra” quotation and are convinced that it could derive as easily from a non- or pre-Christian Jewish pen as from a Christian. This evidence must await separate publication.

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

143

would have been associated with a Passover at some point. Indeed, since 1 Esdras opens rather abruptly with an account of Josiah’s Passover (2 Chr 35, see 2 Kgs 23.21), which followed the renewal of the covenant, it might be that the Ezra traditions behind 1 Esdras once also included a covenant renewal Passover under Ezra. Interestingly, the Passover of the returned exiles in 1 Esdras 7.10ff. is not associated directly with Ezra or with covenant renewal, although separation from the abominations of the local people is mentioned (as also in Ezra 6.21). Furthermore, the context of Ezra’s Sukkot celebration (see especially Neh 8.17) is sufficiently reminiscent of Josiah’s Passover in 2 Kgs 23.22 to strengthen the suspicion that Ezra once may have been associated with a major Passover celebration instead of (or in addition to) the Sukkot celebration we now find in the sources. (1a) Narratives in which Ezra is a priestly prophet and miracle worker designated to lead the return from the exile: Jeremiah Apocryphon 32 and 34 Parallelism with Moses (and with Jesus) is fairly obvious here. Ezra is pictured as wise and a wonder worker as well as one who offers a sacrifice and a prayer of mediation. He also is in contact with angels. The presence of this explicitly Ezra material in an extensive work dealing with Jeremiah is interesting, especially since the picture of Jeremiah here (e.g., as in [[132]] Paraleipomena Jeremiou) otherwise also reflects some Ezra-types of traditions (e.g., return to Jerusalem, prohibition of exogamy). (2) Prophecies and Apocalypses received by Ezra in Babylon during the first few decades of the exile: 4 Ezra 3–14 (implies Ezra’s assumption to heaven at the end) 5 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 1–2) in MSS CM Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (Ezra dies at the end) In these materials, Ezra is one who proclaims or witnesses God’s judgment and to some extent serves as an intercessor (except, perhaps, in 5 Ezra). He is in the presence of angels and learns things not normally known to humans. In 4 and 5 Ezra, he recounts various aspects of Israel’s history. In form and content, 5 Ezra is relatively closer to “prophecy” than to “apocalyptic” as such. Perhaps the most influential section of these materials is 4 Ezra 14, with its story of Ezra as a new

144

chapter seven

Moses, restoring in hitherto unknown characters the destroyed scriptures, both those public and those secret. There is no hint of Ezra being a priest or of a return to an earthly city of Jerusalem. (2a) Prophetic messages received by Ezra in Babylon during the reign of Artaxerxes: 5 Ezra (= 4 Ezra 1–2) in MSS SA. The presumably intentional identification, in MSS SA, of the Ezra of 5 Ezra 1.lff. with the priestly Ezra of Ezra 7.1–5 apparently has left no other traces in 5 Ezra and is almost certainly a secondary development. (3) Works in which neither of the above identifications/settings is specified (or which have not yet been examined for those elements):16 Armenian Inquiries or Questions of “the prophet Esdras” (only partly available; similar in tone to 4 Ezra) Latin “Vision of the Blessed Ezra” (similar to the Greek Apocalypse) Various works associating Ezra with calendric knowledge: – Greek Prognostikon of Lunar Days, from the prophet Esdras17 (basically historical data linked to certain days); – Latin (etc.) Revelation of Ezra attributed variously to “Esdras,” “Esdras the chief priest,” or “Esdras the prophet”18 (predictions [[133]] of what the year will be like in relation to the day of the week on which it starts); – Ethiopic Description by “the prophet Ezra the priest” of the best days on which to engage in various activities;19

16

Only works that unambiguously bear the name Ezra are included here. The work known as “6 Ezra” (4 Ezra 15–16) does not claim to be by Ezra except indirectly, through its inclusion with 4 and 5 Ezra in the Latin tradition. Thus “6 Ezra” is not discussed in this article. For bibliographical and other data on most of the works listed below, see Denis, Introduction (1970) 93–6, Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (under “Ezra”) and DiTommaso, Bibliography (2001). 17 See F. Nau, “De deux opuscules astrologiques attribués au prophète Esdras et d’un calendrier lunaire de l’ancien testament attribué à Esdras, aux Égyptiens et même à Aristote,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 12 (1907) 14–21. 18 The various MSS give varying attributions. Nau, “Opuscules,” also published a document of this type attributed to the prophet Ezra. 19 Ed. by Nau, “Opuscules.”

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

145

– Ethiopic (Falasha) Apocalypse (not yet examined); – Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra the Scribe, when he was in the desert with his Disciple Karpos, concerning the Arabs.20 In terms of general content, there are three types of revelation associated with Ezra—commission for Ezra to proclaim judgment on living Israel (5 Ezra); questions and answers about God’s justice in dealing with sinners (4 Ezra, Questions of Ezra), and especially about rewards and punishments after death and/or visions of (and itineraries through) heaven and hell (Greek Apocalypse, Latin Vision); and information about the significance of certain calendar days (Prognostikon, Latin Revelation, etc.). If one wishes to identify a document which contains enough of the above elements to serve as a “common denominator, 4 Ezra 3–14 is certainly appropriate. The Ezra of this lengthy apocalypse is perplexed about the problem of evil and the fate of God’s people. His questions often take the form of challenges (see also Greek Apocalypse, and to a minor extent Vision, with the plea “Lord, spare the sinners”). He receives information from angels, has visions, dreams dreams, and is one of a chosen few (8.62). He learns about God’s secrets, about history and its consequences, about times and seasons (e.g., 6.7, 10.39, 13.58). He bewails the fate of sinful mankind, and especially Israel, and is told that in the last times the remnant of the lost ten tribes will return and be gathered on Zion (13.35–50, see 5 Ezra). He is the last of the prophets (12.42), living near the end of the times, a humble and thus fitting intercessor (8.46–56) who respects and observes God’s law (7.45, 9.37, 13.64). He is, in many ways, a new Moses who is not required to experience natural death. The direct points of contact between this Ezra and the Ezra of the aforementioned narratives seem to be four: both live in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s destruction, show an awareness of the main outlines of Israel’s history, are extremely concerned about the Israelites observing God’s law, and serve as intercessors for Israel. The differences are noteworthy—there is no overt evidence of any priestly interests in 4 Ezra 3–14 or of the possibility of a return to the earthly Jerusalem. Endogamy/exogamy is not an issue, nor is the continuance of temple

20 See J.-B. Chabot, “L’Apocalypse d’Esdras,” Revue Sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 2 (1894) 333–46. We have not yet examined this document in full.

146

chapter seven

worship (sacrifice, etc.). Indeed, for 4 Ezra God liberates and blesses non-Judahites, almost as replacements for fallen Judah. [[134]] 4. Synthesis and Suggestions How are we to understand the development and origins of these diverse traditions? Shall we trace them all to a single common root? The narratives concerning the priestly Ezra seem to be the earliest preserved evidence. Has the prophet Ezra developed from them? If so, that stage of the development has left virtually no traces, and it taxes the imagination to create a satisfactory explanation. The priestly Ezra of the biblical traditions is not described in language that encourages his being transformed into a prophet, although that is not in itself sufficient demonstration that it did not happen that way. Perhaps, then, the tradition of Ezra the prophet is more ancient and gave rise to the priestly biblical personage? Such a development might be understandable if we suppose that there was a strong Ezra tradition in which Ezra emerged like a second Moses and appeal to him was made in some sort of polemical context. There are several suggestive elements in the preserved traditions—the prophet Ezra sometimes supports a non-Judahite elect remnant (4–5 Ezra) and sometimes is vaguely connected with Samaritan history (Epiphanius). He preserves “secret” books for the few who understand (4 Ezra 14). Such a figure could be made more palatable, if he could not be “forgotten” completely (see Ben Sira), by emphasizing his interests in law and in the temple and its cult to the exclusion of other aspects. But it is equally possible that at the earliest stages, respective traditions about a priestly Ezra and a prophetic Ezra developed independently. Whether a single historical figure gave rise to both, or two (or more) Ezras were being remembered, can no longer be ascertained with confidence. But at the earliest stage in which we clearly have these two Ezra figures represented in the literature—namely, the date of 4 Ezra (unless 5 Ezra is earlier)—it seems quite probable that they would have been considered to be two different persons. As time went on and as the Christian preservers of such materials became more and more focused on canonical literature and less open to the often perplexing varieties of material offered in the “apocryphal” and “pseudepigraphical” texts, the prophetic Ezra tended to be ignored or transformed into other traditional persons (like the prophet-priest Jeremiah) or harmonized

“ezra” materials in judaism and christianity

147

with the priestly Ezra.21 At present, we can only glimpse this conjectured development in a few isolated instances. [[135]] Hopefully, continued research will produce a more complete picture of these developments and/or will erect a more satisfactory framework within which to understand the complex Ezra materials that have been preserved, including those described above.

21 In MSS SA of 5 Ezra 1.1ff., the biblical Ezra seems to have replaced the mysterious “Ezra son of Chusi.” That the development here went in the opposite direction is extremely unlikely on text-critical grounds! For a discussion of some of the historical and textual problems surrounding 5 Ezra, see G. Stanton, “5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century,” JTS 28 (1977) 67–83 (especially 68, n. 4 and 69, nn. 1–2), and more recently, Bergren, Fifth Ezra (1990). The relation of Ezra and Jeremiah traditions, as in the Jeremiah Apocryphon or in Paraleipomena Jeremiou, requires closer attention.

CHAPTER EIGHT

TOWARDS ASSESSING THE LATIN TEXT OF “5 EZRA”: THE CHRISTIAN CONNECTION1 “5 Ezra” is a curious and challenging little work, crying out for detailed examination.2 It exists only in Latin, which presumedly was translated from Greek. The text has received minimal attention (as of 1986) from modern scholarship,3 despite its presence on the fringes of the Latin Christian canonical scriptures.4 5 Ezra provides living proof that one need not wait for new manuscripts to be uncovered in graves or caves to engage in work on hitherto virtually unexamined materials, and its contents seem directly relevant to questions about early Christian use of Jewish materials.

1

This essay appeared originally in Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. George W.E. Nickelsburg with George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 158–69 [and a lengthened form, dated 6/17/85, online]. Appreciation is extended to the participants in my graduate seminars on the Ezra materials, one of which (Fall 1982) was conducted jointly with Michael E. Stone (Hebrew University), especially Theodore Bergren, Allen Callahan, Mary LaRue, Stephen Taylor and Benjamin Wright. The present study is an extension of some of the methodological observations in my “Transmission,” 207–26 (above, Chapter Three). 2 “5 Ezra” is used here to designate the writing that has been prefixed in Latin Vulgate (= Vg) editions to the Ezra-Apocalypse proper (“4 Ezra”). In modern English translations of the Apocrypha, 5 Ezra usually comprises the first two chapters of “2 Esdras.” (“6 Ezra” refers to the similarly brief writing appended to 4 Ezra in the Vg editions; i.e. “2 Esdras” 15–16.) 3 Modern general studies examined for this article are listed in the comprehensive index at the end of this volume. A classified computer based bibliography for 4–5–6 Ezra compiled by Theodore Bergren proved to be most useful. Nevertheless, because of space considerations, footnoting in the present article will be minimal. One of the most intelligent general treatments of 5 Ezra, especially for its awareness of textcritical issues, is that by Stanton, “5 Ezra” (1977), although I cannot agree with some of his assumptions or with the main thrust of his article. A separate fascicle on 5–6 Ezra by H. Stegemann has been announced for the series JSHRZ 3 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973–), but it does not seem to be available yet; 4 Ezra (ed. Josef Schreiner) and an “Ezra Apocalypse” (ed. Ulrich B. Müller) appeared in fascicle 5 (1980). Now there are separate monographs by Theodore Bergren on Fifth Ezra (1990) and Sixth Ezra (1998). 4 It is interesting that neither the Jerusalem Bible nor the New American Translation, both of which emanate from Roman Catholic scholarly circles, include the Latin 4–5–6 Ezra library.

150

chapter eight

My interests in exploring the interfaces between early Judaism and early Christianity were stimulated while studying with Krister Stendahl and his colleagues, and I gratefully offer this survey essay in partial repayment. Many new investigations need to be conducted and new possibilities/syntheses tested if historical research on Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman period is to progress as effectively as it might. The study of 5 Ezra illustrates some of these needs and approaches. This brief essay focuses on a set of problems that is absolutely basic to the study of any writing, but with reference to 5 Ezra has been left “for dessert,” as it were—the question of establishing the text. In the first instance, this means assessing the relationship between two groups of Latin manuscripts (designated “SA” and “MEC” respectively) which are in general agreement on the overall outlines of 5 Ezra but diverge widely in various specific details. To my knowledge, no published critical edition of all the extant witnesses exists (as of 1986).5 Most translations of 5 Ezra depend, quite arbitrarily, on only one side of the Latin tradition (SA), which happens to have exerted the major influence on the existing Latin Vg editions. To illustrate this fact, the chart that follows tests several translations on what James thought were the strongest passages for arguing the preferability of the MEC text, plus a few passages that have received favorable judgment from other commentators or editors (1.22, 2.3, 2.5, 2.13, 2.36). If an editor notes the textual problem, this is indicated by “n” (=note)—“n+” means noted with favor for the variant, “n-” means rejection of the variant, “(n)” means without comment. 5 The most complete Latin edition of this material had been the Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (ed. R. Weber with B. Fischer et al.; Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975; new edition Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), which is based on SA and admits to being selective about MEC readings included in the apparatus to 5 Ezra. The appendix to Bensly’s edition (TS 3.2, 1895) gives the complete text of MS C, with variant readings of M noted in the apparatus but does not include this material in the “main text” which is based on SA. Violet’s editions of 4 Ezra proper (GCS 18 [1910]; GCS 32 [1924]) do not include 5 Ezra but do discuss the various Latin MSS of 4–5–6 Ezra. Additional textual material is noted by D. de Bruyne, “Quelques nouveaux documents pour la critique textuelle de l’Apocalypse d’Esdras,” RevBén 32 (1920) 43–7, and most recently by Bergren (Fifth Ezra, 1990). The main Latin mss are listed here (full collations of E and L were not, to my knowledge, available in 1986):

S A M E C L

= = = = = =

Sangermanensis (Paris, BN Latin 11504/5), dated 821/822. Ambianensis (Amiens, Bib.Communale 10), 9th century (Corby). Mazarinaeus (Paris, Bib.Mazarine 3/4), 11/12th century (Cordeliers). Epternacensis (Luxemburg, Bib.Nat. 264), 11th century. Complutensis (Rome, Abbey S. Girolamo photocopy), 10th century. Legionensis (Leon, Real Colegiata San Isidoro 1.3), dated 1162.

the latin text of “ ezra”: the christian connection 151 Variant (MEC//SA)

Wein.1–2 Riess. Ball =Duen. (AV)

Oest. (RV)

Myers Knibb RSV (NEB)

Metz.

1.1

MEC= SA

SA

SAn-

SAn

SA(n) SA

SA

1.10 cast into sea// struck down

SA=

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

1.11 Bethsaida//no mention

MEC= SA

SA

SA

SAn

SA(n) SA

SA

1.11 South(midday)//east MEC= SA

SA

SA(n)

SAn+

SAn

son of Chusis// genealogy

SA(n) SA(n)

1.22 bitter//Amorite

MEC= MEC SAn

MEC

MECn MEC

MEC MEC

1.32 apostles//their

SA=

SA

SA

SAn+

SAn

SA

SA

SA

1.32+ text of M//[lacking] SA=

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

1.37 apostles wit.//I wit.

SA

SA

SAn+

SAn

SA

SA

SA

1.39f. less order//ordered MEC= SA

SA

SAn-

SAn

SA

SA

SA

2.3

before him//before me

SA=

SA

MECn SAn+

SAn

SA

SA

SA

2.4

your covenant//my SA= covenant

SA

SA

SAn+

SAn

SA

SA

SA

2.9

land to hell//lumps SA= & heaps

SA?

SA

SAn+

SAn

SA

SA

SA

2.13 Ask//Go

SA=

MEC= MEC SA

MECn+ MECn MEC

MEC MEC

2.23 signs of resurr.//seal SA= the dead

SA

SA

SA

SAn

SA

SAn

SAn

2.36 ensnarer of//receive SA= joy of

SA

SA

SAn+

SAn

SA

SA

SA

2.36 savior command.// savior witness

SA=

SA

SA

SAn+

SAn

SA

SAn

SAn

2.37 joy of glory//joy

SA=

SA

SA

SA

SAn

SA

SA

SA

Thus the value of the various claims about origin, authorship, date, provenance, and “message” of 5 Ezra is severely compromised by uncertainties about the text. The consensus of modern scholarship seems to be that 5 Ezra was composed in Greek by a (Jewish) Christian in the second half of the second century at an unknown but perhaps “western”

152

chapter eight

location and that it exudes “anti-Jewish” polemics in a prophetic-apocalyptic presentation with a special reverence for Christian martyrs.6 It is described as highly imitative and derivative in its language and ideas—a pastiche of scriptural phrases from both Jewish and Christian sources. My own discomfort with this consensus is partly the result of working with this and similar texts and partly an overreaction to the absurdity of having such neat answers before the textual basis is more firmly established for asking the questions! Nevertheless, one cannot “establish the text” by working in a vacuum. If this were a detailed study of all the relevant data, my approach would be to try to view the preserved textual materials from as many historically and linguistically defensible perspectives as possible in order to establish as clear a set of options for comparison and evaluation as possible. Since the preserved texts, whatever their differences, seem to ask to be seen as presenting a pre-Christian Jewish writing, one of the perspectives I would attempt to explore is the extent to which the oldest recoverable text can be read in that light. Since the preserved textual witnesses also, in their present forms, emanate from clearly Christian circles, I would try to hold in balance the question of how the Christian readers understood and used, and consciously or unconsciously modified these materials. Textual work is in many ways circular—or better, “spiral,” since it ought to make progress as it moves round and round among the variable items of data. The “critical text” I try to recreate is greatly influenced by the often unexamined assumptions that influence me and the options I choose to exercise at any given point, whether those are linguistic options or semantic or more broadly historical. And the resultant “established text” in turn provides evidence to strengthen such (assumptions and) options!

6

Some opinions (see the bibliography for details on these sources):

Ultimately Semitic source: Riessler, Schneider (possibly) Jewish Christian origin emphasized: Oesterley, Daniélou (“Ve Esdras,” 1972), Turner Arguments for date in mid-2nd c. CE: Stanton, (Volkmar 160), (Knibb) vaguely 2nd c.: Weinel last half of 2nd c.: Oesterley, Plöger, Duensing (ca 200) end of 2nd c.: Daniélou (“Ve Esdras,” 1972) vaguely 2nd/3rd: Schneemelcher (Hilgenfeld 268, Gutschmid 251+, Labourt 5/6th c.,) Western location: Hilgenfeld (Rome), Weinel [19041], Duensing (W. Orient!) (Lücke & Gutschmid apud Weinel [19041] = Egypt) Prophetic form: Riessler, Schneemelcher Martyr focus: de Bruyne.

the latin text of “ ezra”: the christian connection 153 The continuous text of 5 Ezra is not known to us in any ancient language other than Latin. That is itself somewhat unusual. Further, the Latin manuscripts present the two significantly variant text forms mentioned above: “type SA” (traditionally dubbed “French”) and “type MEC” (“Spanish”). I resist calling them “recensions,” because the question has not yet been carefully examined as to whether both stem from a single Latin prototype and thus reflect conscious editorial activity that created the differences. If 5 Ezra was originally written in Latin (so Labourt and Daniélou!), they can only be recensions; if, as I suspect is more likely, it existed earlier in Greek (I did not say originated in Greek, since questions about its possible Semitic origins also need to be asked), the two Latin text types could conceivably stem from two more or less independent Latin translations, or one text type could reflect revisional activity towards a Greek “recension” that differed significantly from the Greek text that was first rendered into Latin. Various possibilities exist.7 Only a close study of the preserved witnesses can give rise to controlled probabilities.8 Modern commentators all affirm that 5 Ezra betrays “Christian” interests in its preserved form(s), although a few would argue that it may have originated in Jewish circles and was later reworked (Riessler sees it as “probably Essene” in origin).9 Much of the evidence adduced to posit the Christian character of 5 Ezra is relatively superficial (see below), and the presentation of the evidence is usually relatively unreflective about the basic assumptions that are operating with regard to Judaism and/or Christianity in the Greco-Roman period.10 The presentations are also largely unimaginative. One might have expected, for example, to find some commentator holding that there had been an older Greek Jewish writing that Latin translators “Christianized.” No such claim has been found in the literature consulted for this essay. Already in its hypothetical Greek form, 5 Ezra is assumed to have been a Christian

7 See my “Reassessing the ‘Recensional Problem’ in Testament of Abraham” (Chapter Six above). 8 Bergren, 5 Ezra (1990) discusses the evidence in detail, especially in his ch. 7, where he comes to no firm conclusion about the original language of 5 Ezra. His discussion in ch. 4 of the complex relationships between the two “recensions” inclines towards explaining the differences within the Latin context, while not entirely excluding other possibilities. 9 There is a tendency to consider a Jewish source as more possible for the material in the first part of the book (to 2.9 or 2.31). 10 E.g., that terms used technically by Christians could have had no significant prehistory in Judaism.

154

chapter eight

production. None of the recent commentators presents evidence pro or con as to whether a Semitic form of the work might possibly lie behind the presumed Greek (as is commonly assumed for 4 Ezra proper).11 The only detailed published study of the textcritical relationships between the preserved Latin witnesses to 5 Ezra of which I am aware is by M.R. James in his introduction to Bensly’s posthumous edition of the extended Latin “4 Ezra” (i.e., 5 Ezra + 4 Ezra + 6 Ezra). James presents instance after instance in which he argues that the MEC text preserves readings that could have given rise to the SA text, but which are not likely to have been produced from the SA text. Especially provocative is James’s claim that the MEC text is sometimes to be preferred because it is more overtly “Christian,” whereas the editors of the SA text “corrected” it to sound more authentically “Jewish” as well as to read more smoothly in Latin.12

11 Ball’s notes include occasional references to presumed Semitic readings behind the preserved Latin, while Riessler (see also Schneider) affirms that a “Hebrew” base text underlies the work. 12 James deals with the following variant contexts (MEC // SA). He considers those marked with “*” to provide the best evidence for preferring the MEC type text (listed first) over the SA type. The symbol “<” indicates that the material is lacking (“omitted”):

title–1.1 * son of Cush // canonical genealogy Nebuchadnezzar // Artaxerxes prophet (priest) // second 1.10f * Bethsaida // < .15f with army // < (cf ) .19 > // bread of angels .20 leaf coverings (cf ) .21 filios eorum // Philistinos .22 amaro // Amorreo .23 indigne // ignem .25 [rough] // [smoother] .26 they . . . minds and // you . . . > .26b shedding blood // homicide .30 pullos // filios .31 non mandavi // [carnis] repudiavi .32 apostolorum // illorum “The temptation to get rid of the mention of apostles (here and in i.37) from a soidisant Old Testament prophecy is an evident one: and though I am well aware that the words “Christian interpolation”—a catchword of modern criticism—lie very ready to the reader’s lip, I am sure that the tendency to make a forgery look more plausible must also be taken into account. We are dealing now with what is in any case a very bald Christian forgery: and the belief is gaining upon me as I examine it, that it was much balder when it left the writer’s hand than it is in the French [i.e. SA type] text.” (James, li) .32+ * long text of M // <

the latin text of “ ezra”: the christian connection 155 James’s impressively learned study is also somewhat haphazard and sufficiently idiosyncratic and unconvincing that it has left little impact on the text-critical decisions of subsequent editors and commentators, with the notable exceptions of Stanton, Oesterley, and to a lesser extent Weinel(-Duensing). In English speaking circles, the KJV/AV (= Ball) had followed the standard Clementine Vg text quite closely, and the RV (= Oesterley) made only minor adjustments, usually to accord with SA readings that differed from the old Vg edition. RSV (see Metzger) and NEB (= Knibb) also all but ignored the MEC materials.13 Only Stanton and Oesterley, in their occasional comments, and Myers, in his extensive descriptive footnotes, provide the English student with an inkling of how potentially significant the MEC text is in relation to that of SA. In German, the Weinel-Duensing tradition adopted a few of the MEC readings, as is obvious to anyone who examines the

At this point in the text of MS M there is a lengthy passage not found in any other Latin witness, but paralleled in part by the 7th century (?) Greek Acts of Silvester. James uses it to further his argument about the history of the text of 5 Ezra: “Omission [of this passage] by homoeoteleuton in the French [SA type] text is also [as in MS C of MEC] possible; but I incline to believe that the passage, being original, was omitted there of set purpose, as being too obviously Christian.” .36f testati sunt apostoli // testor .39f * [ jumbled names] // [ordered names] 2.2 sibi progeneraberunt // eos generavit .8f * usque ad infernum // in piceis glebis . . . .15 (cf ) as a dove her children .18 Jer-Isa-Dan // Isa-Jer .21 [longer text] // > .23 * sealed ones = 1st in resurrect. // bury & seal the dead, be first .29 all fear me // my hands guard .31 fulness of your glory // > .32 praesta aliis // praedica illis .33 Chobar // Choreb .34 diminiutio hominem // (cf ) .36f salv. mandatum esse / salv. commendatum .42 nemo poterat // non potui .43f mirari cepi et // miraculo tenebar tunc .45 fili dei // dei James notes that in 2.45 the SA type text speaks of confessing “God’s name” where MEC has “the name of God’s son.” He concludes that the former “has removed a Christian touch” (lx). .46 > // in manus tradit [smoother] .47 > // bravely stand for Lord’s name 13 Stanton’s amazement at this fact deserves to be underlined (“5 Ezra” [1977]).

156

chapter eight

opening words of 5 Ezra in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson side by side with the RSV or NEB! Two other special studies that reflect favorably James’s positive judgment about the value of the MEC text of 5 Ezra deserve mention. The noted French scholar of Latin Christian materials, Donatien de Bruyne, argues that 5 Ezra 2.33–48 (which he dubs “Revelatio Esdrae”) is a separable fragment of a lost apocalypse that has also left its mark on the old liturgical language of the Roman Churches.14 De Bruyne speaks favorably of James’s preference for the MEC text and expresses the hope that Violet will produce a critical edition of 5 Ezra based on those materials. (He didn’t.) Also of interest is Albrecht Oepke’s judgment about the text of 5 Ezra found in his deceptively titled and wide-ranging study of relationships between “Church and Synagogue” which begins with the identification of a quotation from 5 Ezra 1.24 in the 10/11th century (?) work entitled De altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae.15 Oepke argues that at least for this passage, the MEC text is preferable to that of SA. Although the differences are quantitatively minor, they are qualitatively significant and can serve to introduce us to a larger set of issues. The introductory formula in De altercatione hints at some of the basic problems encountered in 5 Ezra: Lege quid tibi Esdras ex persona salvatoris scripsit: (Read what Esdras in the person of a/the savior wrote to you).

The author of De altercatione identifies “Esdras” (so MEC; “Ezra” in SA) as the source, but also knows that at some points, this Ezra sounds very much like the Christian “savior,” speaking to the “synagogue.” The first sentence of the presumed quotation underlines this point. Ad meos veni et me mei non receperunt (I came to mine and mine did not receive me).

Oepke does not know what to do with these words, so he treats them as a reformulation of John 1.11 (Vg In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt), placed in the mouth of Jesus himself by means of the phrase

14 “Fragments d’une Apocalypse perdue,” RevBén 33 (1921) 97–109. He compares 5 Ezra with a 9th(?) century Liber Responsalis from Gaul that is published in PL 78 726–852. See also Daniélou (Latin Christianity, 1977). 15 “Ein bisher unbeachtetes Zitat aus dem fünften Buche Esra,” ConNt 11 (1947) 179–95.

the latin text of “ ezra”: the christian connection 157 ex persona salvatoris. Perhaps. But it is also possible that some form of 5 Ezra, from which the remainder of the quotation clearly derives, once contained a similar statement on Ezra’s lips. Note that the SA text (but not MEC) of 5 Ezra 2.33 has Ezra saying, “When I came to them [Israel] they rejected me” (ad quos cum venirem reprobaverunt me). Elsewhere in 5 Ezra, the speaker (usually “the Lord”) often complains of such rejection: e.g., 1.7–8, 1.14, 1.25, 1.34, 2.1, 2.3, 2.5–7. Then follows the identified material from 5 Ezra 1.24:

De altercatione

5 Ezra 1.24 MEC text

SA text

quid tibi faciam, Jacob?

[same]

[same]

noluit me audire Juda.

noluit obaudire me J.

noluisti me obaudire J.

transferam me

[same]

[same]

ad alteram gentem.

ad gentem alteram

ad alias gentes

et dabo illi

et dabo eis

nomen meum

[same]

et custodientes

ut

custodient

custodiant

legitima mea.

[same]

What shall I do to you, J.

[same]

[same]

He did not want me

He did not want

You did not want

to hear Judah!

to obey me, Judah.

to obey me, Judah!

I will turn my attention

[same]

[same]

[same]

to other nations

and will give it

and will give them

to another nation!

my name

[same]

and they will surely

so that

keep

they may keep

my requirements.

[same]

The MC text is clearly reflected here at two points: the statement relating to Judah (either construed in one of the above ways, or more probably “Judah did not want to hear me”) and the reference to “nation/race” in the singular. Taken in isolation, neither point is convincing evidence of the superiority of MEC. With regard to the Jacob/Judah couplet, SA seems smoother and more typical of Semitic poetic/prophetic

158

chapter eight

parallelism, with both of the offending parties addressed directly. The reference to “nation/race” in the singular is supported by the subsequent singular pronoun (illi), but then is compromised by the plurals in the next clause (-entes -ent). Again, SA is structurally more balanced (“smoother”), although the pleonasm of MEC (custiodentes custodient) could be considered a “Semitism” and viewed as more “primitive” than the simpler parallel in SA. Oepke is not primarily concerned about assessing these details in terms of basic text-critical categories such as which is “the more difficult” reading to explain (lectio difficilior), syntactical awkwardness, etc. His main focus is theological: “The French text [SA] is concerned with the gentiles in general, but the Spanish [MEC] with the Christians as the new people of God or ‘third race.’ Thus the theological opposition is more precisely presented in the Spanish. That can hardly be attributed to the reviser. Rather, the Spanish text probably preserves the original reading of the presumed Greek original. The readings of the Spanish text are often noteworthy, while the French polishes unintelligible difficulties in it” (180). Although this is not one of the contexts discussed by James, he would certainly have been pleased with Oepke’s conclusion: here is another example in which the originally “Christian” outlook of the work is neutralized by the SA revision. But this passage in isolation need not be viewed that way. One could also argue that an originally relatively smooth and theologically less pointed (i.e., more “Jewish”) text (SA) has been corrupted seriously in transmission while also, at least at one point, becoming better geared to the needs of its Christian users (MEC). The analysis by Oepke seems to assume James’s conclusion about the more overtly “Christian” character of the MEC text. I suspect that James himself never seriously tested the possibility that in the pre-Latin Greek form(s) of 5 Ezra, we might be dealing with a Jewish writing. Nor does James consider that the relationship between the two Latin text types might be other than one of direct dependence—e.g., that each might reflect relatively independent attempts to translate a (slightly different) Greek 5 Ezra, using similar approaches to translation. With regard to the preferability of reading “another nation” with MEC in 5 Ezra 1.24 (not SA “other nations”), Oepke is almost certainly correct, but for reasons he never explicates. Both Latin text types of 5 Ezra provide ample evidence that the idea of one special nation/people over against another special nation/people is an often repeated theme

the latin text of “ ezra”: the christian connection 159 in this material.16 The “people that is coming” (1.35–38) to replace/displace the original people (Jacob, Judah, Israel) seems to become “my people” in 2.10, while the original “my people” (1.5) either disappears as such or is reinstated without fanfare in 2.15–32: The relationship of the “people” in 2.41 (MEC, “the people that was called from the beginning”; SA “your [Ezra’s] people . . .”) and in 2.48 (MEC “that very people”[?]; SA “my people”) to the original people and to the “people to come” is not entirely clear unless 2.33 indicates irrevocable rejection by and of the former. This consistent pattern of using the singular for the two special “people/nations” is broken only by the SA text with its plural references in 1.24 (see above) and in 2.34 “I say to you, nations that hear and understand” (MEC has “I say to you who hear and understand”). The thematic framework of 5 Ezra, then, is partly similar to materials found especially in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, and some of the other oracular prophets of ancient Israel: God’s people stand condemned for their sins, rebellions, thanklessness, etc. Thus God rejects Israel and lavishes attention on another “people” (1.24, 1.35–40, 2.10–15). Nevertheless, God remembers his own (with all the ambiguities implied in that phrase) and will be merciful to them in the end (2.16–32, 2.34–41). The hortatory eschatological section in 2.34(33)–41, spoken by Ezra (not directly by the Lord, as with previous discourses in 5 Ezra), culminates with Ezra describing an apocalyptic type scene on Mount Zion in which “God’s son” puts crowns on the white robed persons who had valiantly confessed their God in the world (2.42–48).

16 Concern about “the two peoples” (see Gen 25.23) is evidenced in early Judaism and early Christianity. See the comments on Barn 13.2 in my Barnabas and the Didache (1965) and in P. Prigent’s edition of Barnabas (SC 172, 1971). Oepke’s connection of the passage with concepts of “the third race” (Christians) is unnecessary. Elsewhere in 5 Ezra there are also a few plural general references to “the nations”: 1.11 (SA 2.7, 2.28). On the theme of rejection:

1.7 inritaverunt me et consilia mea spreverunt 1.8 non obaudierunt (?) legi meae, populus indisciplinatus 1.14 mei obliti estis 1.25 me dereliquistis 1.34 mandatum meum neglexerunt 2.1 audire noluerunt sed irrita fecerunt mea consilia 2.3 educavi vos cum laetitia, amittam (amisi SA) vos cum luctu . . . 2.5 noluerunt testamentum tuum (meum SA) servare 2.7 respuerunt (spreverunt SA) testamentum meum 2.33 respuerunt mandatum hoc (Domini SA)

160

chapter eight

To what extent is all this necessarily “Christian”? Certainly the parallels between 5 Ezra and Jewish and Christian scriptures prove little. 5 Ezra contains no explicit (formula) quotations from other works. Unless we assume that whenever words and phrases that occur in “biblical” writings are also found elsewhere, the extra-biblical uses must be derivative, there is no way to determine whether a writing such as 5 Ezra is dependent on scriptural texts, is used by scriptural texts, or independently reflects the same sort of language that also appears in the scriptural texts. In general, the parallels between 5 Ezra and early Christian literature are not sufficiently characteristic of Christian interests and activities to be persuasive: “As a hen gathers her brood under her wings” (1.30; see Matt 23.37 and par); “Your house is desolate” (1.33; see Matt 23.38 and par); “Ask and you will receive” (2.13; see Matt 7.7 and par, John 16.24); “Pray . . . that your days may be shortened” (2.13; see Matt 24.22); “Watch!” (2.13; see Mark 13.37 and par). Such passages are in the NT gospels (especially Matthew, as Stanton elaborates), but that is hardly proof that the author of 5 Ezra got them from the gospels or wrote at a later date than the gospels. Similarly, various words and phrases in 5 Ezra 2.33–48 can be paralleled in the NT book of Revelation (e.g., 6.9–11). The origins of all these materials, both for the NT writings and for 5 Ezra, may be a common store of prophetic-apocalyptic materials available to those writers (see Daniélou [“Ve Esdras,” 1972] for various “Jewish Christian” themes in 5 Ezra). More serious candidates for the “Christian” label are the references to “God’s son” in the “apocalypse” of 5 Ezra 2.42–48. He is described as “a youth of great stature, preeminent over all” (2.43). Whether those on whom he is placing crowns are thought to have “confessed him” in the mortal world, or “confessed God,” is problematic (2.45 “they have confessed the name of God” [SA = M, but C has here “God’s son”]; 2.47 “He is son of God whom they confessed”—does the “confessing” pertain to God or to God’s son?). What relationship there may be between this sort of imagery, descriptions of the divine spirit as exceedingly tall, etc., and such passages as the description of the resurrection event in the Gospel of Peter, deserves further discussion in the context of Jewish expectations regarding divine agency in the last times (see Daniélou [“Ve Esdras,” 1972]). Unless we imagine that the eschatological idea of “God’s son” was first created by Christianity—a contention rendered even more questionable by the Qumran materials [see e.g., 4Q246]—we cannot neglect the possibility that 5 Ezra provides pre- or non-Christian evidence of this figure.

the latin text of “ ezra”: the christian connection 161 The MEC text has other allegedly blatant “Christian” touches. One is the long “addition” after 1.32 which is only found in M (not in [E?]C) and refers to delivering “Lord almighty” to death by suspending him on a tree. I do not wish to contend that this is not Christian; nor do I wish to argue (as did James) that it belongs to the earliest recoverable text of 5 Ezra. The MEC text has two references to “apostles.” In 1.32 “I sent you my servants the prophets whom you took and killed, and you tore apart the bodies of the apostles” (SA has “their bodies”); in 1.37 “The apostles are witnesses to the people who are about to come” (SA has “I [presumably the Lord] call to witness the gratitude of the people that is to come”). The Greek word apostle is, of course, known from contexts other than Christian. It means a legate, one sent on behalf of another. Semitic language traditions in early Judaism can also speak of such legate-apostles, as can Greek literature in general. Presumably there was a rich background behind the technical application of this word to early Christian missionaries (as in Paul), and to the twelve disciples of Jesus. Can the MEC text of 5 Ezra, with its prophets and apostles, be understood in the light of such a setting? (Compare Luke 11.49, which is in the form of a quotation!). This is certainly worth investigation! Other arguments for the “Christian” origin of 5 Ezra may be encountered, perhaps to enhance the cumulative effect of the evidence presented above. Of special interest both for its methodological and factual absurdity and for its text-critical relevance is the claim found in the otherwise often helpful commentary by Oesterley regarding the term “Lord Almighty”: “This title of God stamps the passage [1.28] as Christian” because it occurs in 2 Cor 6.18 and in Revelation but not in the Hebrew scriptures. Myers also comments on the phrase, noting that it occurs six times in 5 Ezra, and almost as an afterthought that it also occurs in the Greek Jewish scriptures (“LXX”) and in Sirach! All other considerations aside, this hardly constitutes evidence of “Christian” phraseology. In addition, it is doubtful that the oldest recoverable text of 5 Ezra had the designation; it appears only once in MEC, at 1.33 where the M text has its long addition. Otherwise, the MEC text has simply “Lord” where SA has “Lord Almighty.” I have only scratched the surface of the sorts of textual, philological, formal, and historical/conceptual research that need to be done on this provocative little literary package. On the whole, if not in every particular, James’s judgment that the MEC text is superior to that of SA seems demonstrable. Of course, each individual context requires careful

162

chapter eight

analysis. James’s suggestion that the complicated Latin textual situation in 5 Ezra preserves evidence in SA of Christian de-Christianization of a would-be “Jewish” text is exciting and deserves close scrutiny. My own tentative conclusion is that he is wrong in this instance (but not necessarily for every other writing as well) and that the MEC type of text can be understood better as a relic of pre- or non-Christian “Judaism” in its broader sense. It is not clear to me that the SA text developed directly from the MEC type; SA and MEC may at points preserve independent variant versions of the underlying Greek textual stream, which itself undoubtedly contained a certain amount of diversity. I am dubious that a Semitic original lay behind the lost Greek form(s), although the evidence has not yet been carefully tested. With regard to matters of “form,” 5 Ezra 1.4–2.32 seem to me to have constituted a unit of primarily “parenetic/confrontational prophetic” type Jewish material—the sort of material on which little study has been done for Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman period. The largely biblical, priestly genealogy of 1.1–3 (SA) is patently secondary. We are dealing in 5 Ezra with Ezra the prophet!17 The exact relationship of 2.33–41 (words of Ezra) and of 2.42–48 (what Ezra saw) to what preceeds and to each other, in terms of literary development, is not yet clear to me. This material brings 5 Ezra closer to more typically “apocalyptic” materials, with 2.33–41 serving as a bridge from the previously “prophetic” outlook. In any event, 5 Ezra is in these and other regards significantly different from 6 Ezra, which seems to me to be even more clearly Jewish and of an “oracular prophetic” (political oracles) type that also deserves serious attention. But that is another essay.

17

See my “ ‘Ezra’ Materials in Judaism and Christianity” (above, Chapter Seven).

CHAPTER NINE

ENOCH AND WRITTEN AUTHORITIES IN TESTAMENTS OF THE 12 PATRIARCHS1 Books associated with Enoch are frequently mentioned, often in passing, in the surviving literatures of early Judaism and early Christianity, and it is not always possible to determine whether the references or allusions are to works that have survived under the name of Enoch (especially in the library called “1 Enoch” or the “2 Enoch” materials). This investigation attempts to explore the several “Enoch” references in the surviving witnesses to the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.”2 An appendix listing the occurrences (with variations) of the terms ἔγνων (I know) and ἀνέγνων (I read) and related passages is provided as well. 1. The Text-critical (Recension-critical) Problems The two most extensive “recensional” type differences reflected in the surviving manuscripts of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are between the text represented in Greek MS b (= de Jonge “fam 1” and included in Charles’ “beta” group) and that in Greek MSS chij (near the end of de Jonge’s “fam 2” stemma, basic to the “alpha” text of Charles). This presentation focuses on an evaluation of the evidence from MS b (sometimes joined by the incomplete witness k), relative to the variants contained in the different manuscript groupings represented by glmdA[rmenian], efaS[lavonic], cn, hij.3

1 This paper was originally presented at the SBL 1993 Pseudepigrapha Symposium, Washington DC, and has not appeared in hardcopy publication before this. 2 The textual information is drawn from the editions of R.H. Charles (The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Edited from nine MSS together with The Variants of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and Some Hebrew Fragments [Oxford: Clarendon, 1908]) and M. deJonge (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: a Critical Edition of the Greek Text [Leiden: Brill, 1978]). Note that the TLG text (as of July 2008) is that of M. de Jonge, Testamenta xii patriarcharum (2nd ed.; PVTG 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 1–86. 3 See comparative stemma charts by Charles and de Jonge.

164

chapter nine 2. The Problem of the “Storyline”

Since the work (or anthology?) called “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” purports to be the words of each aged patriarch to his children/ successors,4 it assumes a situation prior to Moses and the development of what has come to be known as Jewish “scriptures.” It talks a great deal about “words/teachings” (λόγοι—logoi) and “law” (νομός—nomos) and “commandments” (ἐντολαί—entolai), but seldom in relation to written formats. When it does refer to written authority, it almost always identifies such either with Enoch (usually as the or a “book” of ) or with the “tablets” (ἐν πλαξὶ—en plaxi, presumably understood to be in the heavens, as some MSS explicitly state). It also uses “letter” (γράμμα—gramma) language on a few occasions to speak about literacy and education, including the ability to “read” (ἀναγιγνώσκειν— anagignōskein, in most witnesses) the law of God (TLevi 13.2 [omitted in MSS chij]—in a poetic chapter that Kee thinks “intrusive”).5 3. References to the (Heavenly) “Tablets” TLevi 5.46 Καὶ συνετέλεσα τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἐμμώρ, καθῶς γέγραπται ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν —Levi’s angelic guide instructs him to avenge Dinah, whereupon Levi comments “and at that time I dispatched (sunetelesa) the sons of Hemmor, as it is written in the tablets [MS g has “deeds” (πράξεσι—praxesi)] of the heavens [MSS chij have “of the fathers,” perhaps reflecting confusion in reading abbreviated words7]”—the potentially embarrassing story of Simeon and Levi deceitfully slaughtering Hamor and his supporters is told in Gen 34.25ff.

4 See the similar “testamentary” pattern in Genesis 49, where Jacob addresses each of his sons, the patriarchs, before he dies. 5 Howard Kee, OTP 1.792. See also TReuben 4.1 “be occupied with learning” (ἐν γράμμασι—en grammasi). For some related details, see the Appendix. 6 This passage is lacking in the extracts preserved by MS k. 7 In the development of abbreviations used especially in Christian texts, both “heavens” (OUNWN) and “fathers” (PRWN) usually occurred, overlined; similarly “of men” (ANWN), which also occurs in variant forms of this formula, usually would have been abbreviated. A similar sort of variation may be found in parallel passages from the Apocalypse of Sedrach and Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (“race of men” [ANWN], “race of Christians” [XRNWN?]).

testaments of the  patriarchs

165

TAsher 2.108 Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν οὕτως εἶπεν —At the conclusion of a lengthy discussion of good deeds done in an evil context, where both types of action would thus be judged evil, “. . . for God also said this [see var: explicitly hij] in the tablets [var S: books (βιβλίοις—bibliois), g adds: in deeds (πράξεσι—praxesi)] of the heavens [var: of the commandments chij]”—the immediate allusion is to the hare, which is considered “unclean” for not having split hooves, despite also having the “clean” feature of chewing its cud.9 TAsher 7.510 Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὅτι ἀπειθοῦντες ἀπειθήσετε αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀσεβοῦντες ἀσεβήσητε εἰς αὐτόν, μὴ προσέχοντες τὸν νόμον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων —Asher instructs his children, including the expectation that “a man” will come from God to help save the day, but Asher “reads [var eaf chij: knows] in the tablets of the heavens [var g: in the deeds (πράξεσι—praxesi) of men; om i.t.t.o.t.h. chij]” that they will be rebellious towards him and will “not pay attention to the law of God, but to the commandments of men.”11 Cf. TZebulon 9.5 Ἔγνων ἐν γραφῇ πατέρων μου, ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἀποστήσεσθε ἀπὸ Κυρίου —Among warnings about not becoming divided, “I recognize (egnōn) in the scripture (grafēi) of my fathers that in the last days you will depart from the Lord . . .” I suspect that this is another of the Enoch or “tablets of heavens” passages, which has become corrupted in all the manuscripts (abbreviated “fathers” [ΠΡΩΝ] and “heavens” [ΟΥΡΩΝ] would be very similar), judging from the formulaic language and the textual variations present in similar contexts—thus it probably once had something like “I read in the tablets of the heavens that . . .” Cf. TJudah 20.3f. Καίγε τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὰ τῆς πλάνης γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου· καὶ ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν γνωρίζει Κύριος.

8

This is lacking in “l”; also TAsher 1–6 is lacking in k’s extracts. See Lev 11.6, Deut 14.7; for an early Christian interpretation of such laws, see Barnabas 10. 10 This is lacking in “m.” 11 Note that the chij text is significantly different in its reading “for I know that you will be disobeyingly disobedient to him . . .” (no reference to the tablets). 9

166

chapter nine

(4.) Καὶ οὐκ ἔστι καιρός, ἐν ᾧ δυνήσεται λαθεῖν ἀνθρώπων ἔργα· ὅτι ἐν στήθει ὀστέων αὐτὸς ἐγγέγραπται ἐνώπιον Κυρίου. —In a context discussing the two spirits vying in humans, “the things of truth and the things of waywardness are written ( gegraptai) on the breast (stēthos) of a man, and the Lord knows each one of them; . . . for in the breast of his bone it is inscribed (eggegraptai) before the Lord.” There are some features here that might encourage the idea that behind this text lies a reference to the tablets and/or a book of Enoch. 4. References to Book(s)/Scripture of Enoch TSimeon 5.4 Ἑώρακα γὰρ ἐν χαρακτῆρι γραφῆς Ἐνὼχ ὅτι υἱοὶ ὑμῶν μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἐν πορνείᾳ φθαρήσονται, καὶ ἐν Λευὶ ἀδικήσουσιν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ —In the context of warnings about envy and sexual promiscuity, “for I have seen (heōraka) in the writing (en charaktēri) of the scripture (grafēs) [var chij γραφίδι—grafidi] of Enoch that your sons with you [om w.y. chij] will be corrupted by fornication and will deal unjustly with Levi by a sword.” TLevi 10.5 ὁ γὰρ οἶκος, ὃν ἂν ἐξελέξηται Κύριος, Ἱερουσαλὴμ κληθήσεται, καθὼς περιέχει βίβλος Ἔνωχ τοῦ δικαίου —Levi’s descendants will be so wicked that Jerusalem cannot bear them, the temple veil will be rent and they will be disgracefully scattered; “for the dwelling (oikos) which the Lord will select shall be called Jerusalem [var dm: Israel; var d: holy; om s.b.c.J. f], as a [var chij: the] book of Enoch the righteous contains (periechei).” It appears that the anachronism of “Jerusalem” (and also the temple and its veil!) being mentioned at such an early time, and probably also the potential difficulty of abbreviated words (Jerusalem = ILHM; Israel = IHL), have produced some confusion in the transmission of this passage. The problem is addressed by referring vaguely to a prediction.12 TLevi 14.1 Καὶ νῦν, τέκνα, ἔγνων ἀπὸ γραφῆς Ἐνώχ, ὅτι ἐπὶ τέλει ἀσεβήσητε ἐπὶ Κύριον, χεῖρας ἐπιβάλλοντες ἐν πάσῃ κακίᾳ, καὶ αἰσχυνθήσονται ἐφ’ ὑμῖν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ὑμῶν, καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι γενήσεται χλευασμός.

12

See also TLevi 15.1, TJudah 23.5, TBenjamin 9.

testaments of the  patriarchs

167

—After the poem of TLevi 13 (see above) on observing God’s law and acquiring wisdom, “and now [var therefore chij: + my m e chij], children, I know (egnōn) from a [var e: the] scripture (apo grafēs) of Enoch [f.a.s.o.E. om chij; var k: + the righteous] that at the end (epi telei, or similarly) [var chij: + of the ages] you will act impiously against the Lord. . . .” It is interesting to note that Milik identifies one of the 4Q Aramaic scraps with this context and finds in it an explicit reference to Enoch after a passage about the moon and heavenly lights.13 TLevi 16.1f. Καὶ νῦν ἔγνων ἐν βιβλίῳ Ἐνώχ, ὅτι ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδας πλανηθήσεσθε, καὶ τὴν ἱερωσύνην βεβηλώσητε καὶ τὰς θυσίας μιανεῖτε, (2) καὶ τὸν νόμον ἀφανίσητε καὶ λόγους προφητῶν ἐξουθενώσητε, ἐν διαστροφῇ διώξετε ἄνδρας δικαίους, καὶ εὐσεβεῖς μισήσητε, ἀληθινῶν λόγους βδελύξησθε —After reference to the destruction of the temple and subsequent captivity in the previous chapter, “and now I know (egnōn [var d, perhaps correctly: I read (anegnōn)]) in a [var d: the] book of Enoch [i.a.b.o.E. om chij] that you will wander (or go astray) for seventy weeks . . . and you will set the law aside and nullify the words of the prophets . . . you will abominate the words of the true witnesses (alēthinōn).” TJudah 18.1 Ὅτι καίγε ἀνέγνων ἐν βίβλοις Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου, ὅσα κακὰ ποιήσετε ἐπ’ ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις —After warning about the dangers of money and beautiful women, and reference to the kingly centrality of Judah, “for even so I read (anegnōn [var eaf: I know (egnōn); var chij: I know (egnōka)] in books [var gld: a book] of Enoch the righteous [i.b.o.E.t.r. om chij] how many bad things you will do in the last days”—specifically porneia (sexual impropriety) and love of money. TZebulon 3.4 ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἐν γραφῇ νόμου Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται, τὸν μὴ θέλοντα ἀναστῆσαι σπέρμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, ὑπολυθήσεσθαι τὸ ὑπόδημα, καὶ ἐμπτύεσθαι εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον —In an unusual explanation of the actions surrounding the sale of Joseph into slavery, the focus is placed on the purchase of shoes with

13

See TLevi 14.3f.

168

chapter nine

the money that was received by the brothers, symbolizing distain for Joseph’s lording it over them; “wherefore in a scripture of a law [of a law om d, perhaps correctly] of Enoch [var chij: Moses] it is written that the one who does not desire to raise up seed to his brother shall have his shoe pulled off and be spit upon in the face” (see Deut 25.5–10). But since Joseph’s brothers did not want him to live, the Lord removed them as “Joseph’s shoe” and when they went to Egypt Joseph had their shoes removed before the gate, where they did reverence to Joseph as Pharoah’s representative—and they were spit upon! TDan 5.6 Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου, ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ Σατανᾶς —In a ringing condemnation of the expected evils of Dan’s descendants, including acting like the gentiles and consorting with loose women, “I read (anegnōn) in a book of Enoch the righteous [var chij: + and I know/find] that your leader is the Satan. . . .” The textual evidence suggests that the text behind chij, as is normal for that text type (see above), did not refer to the book of Enoch here (“and I know” is the expected text of chij, here preserved as a doublet). TNaphthali 4.1 Ταῦτα λέγω, τέκνα μου, ὅτι ἀνέγνων ἐν γραφῇ ἁγίᾳ Ἐνώχ, ὅτι καίγε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀποστήσεσθε ἀπὸ Κυρίου, πορευόμενοι κατὰ πᾶσαν πονηρίαν ἐθνῶν, καὶ ποιήσετε κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνομίαν Σοδόμων —After warnings not to alter nature’s way (God’s way) like the idolatrous gentiles or the Sodomites, reference is made to the fall of the watchers, whom God cursed at the flood and on whose account God ordered the earth to be uninhabited by dwellers or produce. “I say these things [var deaf chij: + to you], my children, because I read (anegnōn [var eaf chij: I know (egnōn)] in a [var c: the] holy [ldeaf chij om] scripture of Enoch that even you yourselves will be estranged from the Lord, proceeding according to every wickedness of the gentiles, and you will do every lawless deed of Sodom [var d: demons].” The idea that the watchers were, in part, seduced by deceitful women and influenced the birth of giants by appearing as apparitions while the women were having intercourse with their husbands, appears in TReuben 5, but without any explicit reference to Enoch traditions. Cf. TNaphthali 5.8—Καὶ εἶδον, ὅτι ἤμην ἐκεῖ που, καὶ ἰδοὺ γραφὴ ἁγία ὤφθη ἡμῖν, λέγουσα· Ἀσσύριοι, Μῆδοι, Πέρσαι, Ἐλιμαῖοι, Γελαχαῖοι,

testaments of the  patriarchs

169

Χαλδαῖοι, Σύροι, κληρονομήσουσιν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τὰ δώδεκα σκῆπτρα τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. —The patriarch has a dream about Levi and Judah being elevated by grasping the sun and moon, but Joseph seizes the bull with eagle’s wings and ascends on high. “And I saw (eidon) that I was . . . [confused text], and behold a holy scripture (grafē hagia) appeared to us [var m: me] saying” that various nations would share the captivity of Israel. Whether and to what extent this “scripture” is to be associated with either the heavenly tablets or the book(s) of Enoch is no longer clear, but the passage is suggestive of such a background.

TBenjamin 9.1 Ὑπονοῶ δὲ καὶ πράξεις ἐν ὑμῖν οὐ καλὰς ἔσεσθαι, ἀπὸ λόγων Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου. Πορνεύσετε γὰρ πορνείαν Σοδόμων —In the context of warnings against sexual misconduct, “I perceive (uponoō) [var c+: I tell you] that deeds shall be among you that are not good [t.d.s.b.a.y.t.a.n.g. om c+], [var l: + now I also read (anegnōn); var d: + for I know (egnōn)] from [var d: + the book of] the words [var c: oracles] of Enoch the righteous. For you will engage in the porneia (sexual misconduct) of Sodom. . . .” The same textual features as appear in several other Enoch passages are present in some witnesses here, suggesting that similar developments in transmission lie behind the preserved texts. 5. Chart of Significant Textual Relations/Features

MS b and most others (de Jonge)

MSS c hij (Charles) [x indicates rare occurrances in the Testaments]

TSim 5.4 Ἑώρακα γὰρ ἐγὼ ἐν χαρακτῆρι Ἑώρακα γὰρ ἐγὼ ἐν χαρακτῆρι γραφῆς Ἐνὼχ γραφίδι [x] Ἐνὼχ TLev 5.4 καθῶς γέγραπται ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ καθῶς γέγραπται ἐν πλαξὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν τῶν πατέρων 10.5 καθὼς περιέχει βίβλος Ἔνωχ τοῦ δικαίου

καθὼς π. ἡ βίβλος Ἔνωχ τοῦ δικαίου

14.1 ἔγνων ἀπὸ γραφῆς Ἐνώχ

ἔγνων

16.1 ἔγνων (/ἀνέγνων d) ἐν βιβλ(ί)ῳ Ἐνώχ

ἐγὼ ἔγνωκα [x]

170

chapter nine

Chart (cont.) MS b and most others (de Jonge)

MSS c hij (Charles) [x indicates rare occurrances in the Testaments]

TJud 18.1 ἀνέγνων ἐν βίβλοις (/βίβλῳ dg) Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου

ἔγνωκα [x]

TZeb 3.4 ἐν γραφῇ νόμου (om d) Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται

ἐν γραφῇ νόμου Μωυσέως γέγραπται

TDan 5.6 Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου

Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου καὶ ἔγνων (εὗρον hi)

TNaf 4.1 ἀνέγνων ἐν γραφῇ ἁγίᾳ Ἐνώχ

ἔγνων ἐν τῇ (om hi) γραφῇ Ἐνώχ

TAsh 2.10 ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν οὕτως εἶπεν

ὁ Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τῶν ἐντολῶν οὕτως εἶπεν

7.5 Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τῶν

ἔγνων

οὐρανῶν

TBen 9.1 Ὑπονοῶ δὲ καὶ πράξεις ἐν λέγω ὑμῖν οὐ καλὰς ἔσεσθαι, ἀπὸ λόγων ἀπὸ λογίων [x] Ἐνὼχ τοῦ Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου (see d, ἔγνων γὰρ ἀπὸ δικαίου τῆς βίβλου λόγων Ἐνὼχ τοῦ δικαίου)

6. Conclusions Clearly there is a battle in the background of the preserved texts of the Testaments over the presence or absence of explicit references to Enoch, to a book or books of Enoch, and also to the heavenly tablets. The ancestor of manuscript c and its allies (hij) is the most obvious “anti Enoch” witness, and the same textual stream avoids identifying the tablets as “heavenly.” Why this should be can only be conjectured. It seems less likely that the Enoch references are additions to an earlier text that made little or no reference to Enoch, than the opposite. Factors that could contribute to the demise of Enoch include the failure to find appropriately corresponding passages in the preserved Enoch literature and the hesitation to use “scripture” language in connection with Enoch at a time when “canonical” concerns marginalized the Enoch literature or stigmatized it. Perhaps a general distancing from certain forms of apocalyptic traditions also played a role (as, e.g., with the formerly “heavenly” tablets?), although much apocalyptic influence remains in

testaments of the  patriarchs

171

all full texts of the Testaments.14 On the other hand, MS d sometimes appears to preserve even more “Enochic” flavor than even its close associates, as in TLevi 16.1f, TZebulon 3.4, and TBenjamin 9.1. Appendix on terminology for “knowing” and “reading” in the Testaments ἔγνων (egnōn) and ἀνέγνων (anegnōn) and related passages TLevi 13.2 . . . ἀναγινώσκοντες ἀδιαλείπτως τὸν νόμον τοῦ Θεοῦ— . . . that they might read [var e d: know] the law . . . 14.1 [see above] ἔγνων ἀπὸ γραφῆς Ἐνώχ, ὅτι—I know from [om chij] . . . that TJudah 18.1 [see above] I read [var eaf chij: knew] in . . . TZebulon 9.5 [see above] Ἔγνων ἐν γραφῇ πατέρων μου, ὅτι—I knew in the scripture of my fathers that . . . TDan 5.6 [see above] For I read in . . . [var chij: + and knew] TNaphtali 4.1 [see above] For I read [var eaf chij: knew] in . . . TAsher 7.5 [see above] For I read [var eaf chij: knew] in . . . TReub 6.8 Λευί, ὅτι αὐτὸς γνώσεται νόμον Κυρίου—Levi knows Lord’s [var: God’s chij] law TSim 2.13 ἔγνων, τέκνα, ὅτι περὶ Ἰωσὴφ—I know concerning Joseph 2.14 Ἔγνων γάρ, ὅτι πονηρὸν πρᾶγμα ἐνεθυμήθην ἐνώπιον Κυρίου—I know that (refers to sinfulness/porneia) 3.4 ἔγνων ὅτι ἡ λύσις τοῦ φθόνου διὰ φόβου Θεοῦ γίνεται—I know that (regarding redemption from sin) 4.3 ἔγνων ὅτι δικαίως πάσχω, καὶ οὐκ ἐλυπούμη—I know that (I suffer and am freed) TLevi 4.1 Νῦν οὖν γινώσκετε, ὅτι ποιήσει Κύριος κρίσιν—Now you know [var: ginwske g chij] that Lord judges

14

For the suggestion that one of the varieties of pre-Christian Judaism focused on Enoch (“Enochic Judaism”), see Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis (1998). While it is not impossible that there were non-Christian recensional developments such as noted here in Jewish manuscripts and/or traditions, it seems more likely that Christian concerns were at work. On the revival of Christian interest in Enoch materials in the byzantine period, see William Adler, Time Immemorial (1989).

172

chapter nine 13.3 ὅτι πᾶς, ὃς γνώσεται νόμον Θεοῦ τιμηθήσεται—For everyone who knows God’s law is rewarded . . . 17.8 ὅτι αὐτοὶ γνώσονται, οἱ ποιοῦντες αὐτά—For those who do these things know

TJudah 10.3 αὐτὸς οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτήν—He [Er] had not known her [Tamar] [note the much shorter context in chij !] 10.4 καίγε οὗτος ἐν πονηρίᾳ οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτήν—He also [Onan], in a wicked act, knew her not 11.4 Γνοὺς δὲ ὃ ἐποίησε—But knowing [var chij: epignous] what he did 12.10 ἐνόμιζεν, ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἔγνω ὅτι—I thought that no one would know that . . . TIss 1.15 Καὶ ἔγνω Ἰακὼβ τὴν Λίαν—And Jacob knew Leiah [var d: in that night !] 7.1 καὶ οὐκ ἔγνων ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἁμαρτίαν εἰς θάνατον—And I do not know on me a sin . . . 7.2 οὐκ ἔγνων ἄλλην—I knew no other [om chij] TZeb 1.4 Οὐκ ἔγνων, τέκνα μου, ὅτι ἥμαρτον—I knew not, my child [om m.c. gldmeaf chi(?)j] that TNaph 2.5 . . . ἣν οὐκ ἔγνω Κύριος—. . . which knew not the Lord. 3.4 . . . τέκνα μου, γνόντες ἐν στερεώματι—. . . my children, know [see vars] in the firmament . . . TGad 5.6 Ταῦτα ἐγὼ ἔσχατον ἔγνων μετὰ τὸ μετανοῆσαί με—These things I knew last, after . . . 8.2 Ἔγνων γὰρ ὅτι ἐπὶ τέλει ἀποστήσονται . . .—For I know that . . . TJos 3.9 Καὶ νοήσας ἐλυπήθην . . .—And knowing this I was grieving . . . 6.6 Νῦν οὖν γνῶθι, ὅτι . . .—Now, then, know that . . . 7.7 Καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω, ὅτι . . .—And I knew not that . . . 10.5 Γινώσκουσιν οἱ ἀδελφοί μου, πῶς . . .—My brothers know how . . . 15.2 ἰδοὺ ἔγνωμεν, ὅτι . . .—Behold we knew that . . . 17.4 ἔγνωσαν ὅτι . . .—They knew that . . . TBenj 9.5 Ἔγνω δὲ οἷος . . .—Now I knew which . . . 10.2 Γινώσκετε οὖν, τέκνα μου, ὅτι . . .—You know, then, my children, that . . .

CHAPTER TEN

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA AND ITS ECHOES OF JUDAISM1 Interest in this text has spawned a number of dissertations and detailed studies, which are listed here for convenience:2 1 The following discussions are taken respectively from my presentation to the 2005 SBL session “Recent Scholarship on the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila”—with papers from Robert Robertson, Jacqueline Pastis, Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath (in absentia), Donal Nilsson, William Varner, and Lawrence Lahey (see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ rs/rak/temp/dialTA.htm)—and from the 1971 PSCO seminar files (http://ccat.sas.upenn .edu/psco/archives/psco08-min.txt). 2 For discussions and enumeration of such anti-Judaica in general, see (chronologically; also Harnack Geschichte 1 [1893] 92ff. and the PSCO 08 minutes): 1882 Adolf Harnack. Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter. Section 2.9 “Die dem Aristo von Pella beigelegte Schrift: Jason’s and Papiskus’ Disputation über Christus” 115–30. TU 1 (Berlin). 1883 Adolf Harnack. Die Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani, nebst Untersuchungen über die antijüdische Polemik in der alten Kirche (und Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians [137–53]), TU 1.3. [See also the 1904 Bratke edition, below; here Harnack argues that S-T is based on Jason & Papiscus, but he retracted that theory in Geschichte 1 (1893) 95] 1889 The “Introduction” to the Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo, ed by A.C. McGiffert, Dialogue Between a Christian and a Jew (Marburg/New York: Christian Literature Co.). 1898 The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, ed by F.C. Conybeare (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series 8; Oxford: Clarendon) esp. pp. xxxiv–lvii; and photo of MS at p. 65 [hereafter A–Z]. 1900 H.B. Swete, Introduction to the OT in Greek (1902; supplemented ed. by Ottley, 1914), summarizes relevant material from T-A concerning Aquila (pp. 31f.) and the list of Jewish scriptural books (p. 206). 1904 Evagrii Altercatio Legis inter Simonem Judaeum et Theophilum Christianum, ed by E. Bratke. CSEL 45 (and Harnack [1883] before him). 1914 J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’empire Romain: leur Condition Juridique, Economique, Sociale 1 (Paris: Guenther) 53–76. 1919 A. Marmorstein, ”Jews and Judaism in the Earliest Christian Apologies,” The Expositor 17, 73–80 and 100–16. 1920 G. Bardy, Les trophées de Damas: controverse judéo-chrétienne du VIIe siècle (PO 15:2. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Companie) 189–275 [19–105]. 1921 G.F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14, 197–254. 1932 A.B. Hulen, “The ‘Dialogues with the Jews’ as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity,” JBL 51, 58–70 and especially 62 n.6. 1935 A.L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos: a Bird’s-eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: CUP).

174

chapter ten

– Robert G. Robertson, “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University ThD Diss., 1986) i–cxxix. – J.H. Declerck, Anonymus dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti (CCSG 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994) 3–111. – Jacqueline Pastis, “Representations of Jews and Judaism in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Construct or Social Reality?” (PhD dissertation University of Pennsylvania, 1995 [1994]). – Donald Nilsson, “Studies of the New Testament Traditions in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila” (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996). – Lawrence Lahey, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.” In Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (ed. William Horbury; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999) 106–21. – Lawrence Lahey, “Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine JewishChristian Debate in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila,” JJS 51 (2000) 281–96. – Lawrence Lahey, “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Critical Greek Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduction including a Source-critical Study” (PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, 2000); accepted for the series Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck).

1946 B. Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt Augustins: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der judisch-christlichen Beziehungen in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 25; Basle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn). 1948 M. Simon, Verus Israel; see especially chs. 5–6 and the bibliography; supplemented in the 1964 reprint with a “postscriptum” (English translation by H. McKeating, OUP 1986). 1949 R. Wilde, The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries (Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 81. Washington D.C.). 1950 Albrecht Oepke, Das neue Gottesvolk in Schrifttum, Schauspiel, bildender Kunst und Weltgestaltung (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann). 1951 B.P.W. Stather Hunt, Primitive Gospel Sources (New York: Philosophical Library). 1956 B. Blumenkranz, Disputatio Iudei et Christiani et Anonymi Auctoris disputationis Iudei et Christiani continuatio / Gisleberti Crispini; ad fidem codicum recensuit prolegomenis notisque instruxit B. Blumenkranz (Stromata patristica et mediaevalia 3; Ultaiecti [Utrecht] / Antuerpiae: In Aedibus Spectrum). 1966 B.P.W. Stather Hunt, “Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila, a late survival of an early form of Christian apologetic,” TU 93, 70–5.

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

175

– Jacqueline Pastis, “Dating in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Revisiting the Earlier Vorlage Hypothesis,” HTR 95 (2002) 169–95. – Alexander Pereswetoff-Morath, A Grin Without a Cat, I: ‘Adversos Judaeos’ Texts in the Literature of Medieval Russia, 988–1504 (Lund Slavonic Monographs 4; Lund University, 2002). – Renate Bauer, Adversus Judaeos: Juden und Judentum im Spiegel altund mittelenglischer Texte (Münchner Universitätsschriften 29; New York: P. Lang, 2003). – William Varner, Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila: Introductions, Texts and Translations (Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005). The task is formidable. How is “our” dialogue of Timothy and Aquila similar to, or perhaps distinct from, other examples of the same “genre”? All such “dialogues” purport to argue, usually successfully, with a Jewish representative, although the extent to which this may be historically accurate varies from case to case (see Jackie Pastis’ dissertation). They all make wide use of Jewish and Christian scriptures and/or traditions, although the degree of faithfulness to such sources (and/or the version used) is sometimes questionable. And there seems to be some level of genetic relationship between many of them, so that the careful reader is encouraged to explore questions of intermediate or immediate sources beyond those ultimately indicated by biblical quotations and allusions. (Robert Robertson’s dissertation deals with much of this, and Lawrence Lahey carries the arguments forward). In his edition of the dialogues of Timothy and Aquila [=T-A] and Athanasius and Zacchaeus [=A-Z] nearly a century ago, Conybeare (following up on work done especially by Harnack) tried to pursue the question of relationships and sources of those two dialogues with results that still merit close attention. He found a number of striking similarities with Epiphanius, and with Eusebius and the Paschal Chronicle, which suggested to him that some sort of common material lay in the background. For Conybeare, that lost and mysterious mother of such Christian/Jewish dialogues, Papiscus and Jason, provided a possible conjectural solution that remains alive today (see especially Lahey), along with or alongside of possible early “testimonia” collections or similar sources. In any event, Conybeare showed that there were certain shared features between T-A and A-Z, with a nod as well in the direction of Simon and Theophilus [S-T], that deserved much closer attention. Such matters are easier to deal with now that William Varner’s new edition and translation of these three works has appeared.

176

chapter ten

On the dissimilar side: (1) While T-A ends, like most, with the conversion of the Jewish spokesperson, it is less one-sided along the way than most such writings, resembling Justin and Trypho in this respect more than A-Z or a host of others. (2) Similarly, while T-A presents most of the same discussion points as the dialogues in general—Jesus is the expected Messiah, was involved in creation, and despite his predicted death is indeed deity—it also contains some unique Christian nuances, some of which seem relatively archaic (as Don Nilsson details in his dissertation on gospel tradition in T-A). (3) Regarding “historical” claims, T-A provides some otherwise unattested information about persons and events especially in the second quarter of the second century, such as Hadrian’s reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem and the translator Aquila’s biographical details and textual work (including his changing the Hebrew text!). T-A also has a unique passage about other Greek translations of Jewish scriptures that were discovered “in jars” around the year 70 (3.10). (4) With regard to knowledge of the Semitic languages, at several points T-A self-consciously supplies meanings, some rather unusual, for specific names and terms, much like what is found in Epiphanius’ explanations in Weights and Measures. (Lahey 1999 explores most of these in detail): – ARŌNA [ἀρῶνα 3.12, “Ark of the covenant”], – EMMA-NOUEL [ἐμμά νουήλ 8.5f., “with us” (Syriac) “God”

(Hebrew)], – DIDICH [διδιχ 9.3, “mine” (ἐμός)], – THELLASARASAR [Θελλασαράσαρ 9.17, king of Babylon], – JEBLAEM [ Ἰεβλαὲμ 16.2ff.; Abraham’s servant (not called – – – – – –

Eleazar)], NECHŌTHA [νεχωθά 20.15, “crypt” (κρυπτήρ)], MANNA [μάννα 22.8, “what is this” (τί ἐστι τοῦτο)], AMALEK [Ἀμαλὴκ 23.4f., “Antichrist” (ἀντίχριστος)], SABEK [σαβὲκ 32.2, “release” (ἄφεσις)], NEANIS [νεάνις ἐν τῷ ἑβραικῷ ἐστίν 34.16, “virgin” (παρθένος)], ELOEI ELOEI LEMASABACHTHANI [ἐλοεῖ ἐλοεῖ λεμασαβαχθανί 55.24, as in Matt 27.46 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί με ἐγκατέλειπας;)]

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

177

[For details, see Lahey 1999 and further below, from http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/psco/archives/psco08-min.htm#Set6]. (5) With specific reference to the scriptural quotations, while T-A uses most of the same passages from Jewish scriptures as are found in other dialogues—notably from Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel—it also expands this area in interesting directions, including self-conscious use of “Solomon’s Testament” (Solomon’s sacrificing, or crushing, of locusts) and of “apocrypha”: there are quotations from Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Bel/Dragon; but not Judith (although it is included in T-A’s main list, 3.17a) or Tobit, although Tobit is mentioned explicitly as one of the “apocrypha” (3.17b along with Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach). Christian “apocrypha” are also mentioned, alongside the accepted gospel (singular), acts of the holy apostles, their epistles, and 14 letters of Paul (3.22)—indeed, our Aquila wonders if the idea that Mary is a virgin after Jesus’ birth comes from Christian apocrypha (18.3). Against this very general background, I will comment briefly on three areas that seem to me worth closer exploration in the context of other such texts. Unfortunately, for these Greek materials the wonderful TLG data bank is frustrating to use, since although it contains versions of most or all of the relevant Greek texts, it does not easily permit simultaneous searches of T-A (grouped under SCRIPTA ANONYMA ADVERSUS JUDAEOS) and many of the comparable Dialogues such as A-Z (under Athanasius) or prooftext collections such as ps-Epiphanius (under Epiphanius; see further below). Still, some “electronically facilitated research” is possible. 1. Concepts of “scriptures” and “the scripture/Bible”: Although the author/editor of T-A can think of Jewish scriptures collectively (17.2, “old and new covenant”; see also 22.4, 30.7 “covenant of the law”), he usually does not. In general, he uses language indicating a plurality of authoritative works—“the holy scriptures,” “books” (22 or 27 or more)—although within this collection there may be sub-collections such as “the book of the twelve prophets” (12.13, 48.12) or the “new book” that combines Baruch, Lamentations, and Jeremiah (10.10). Aquila also knows that Paul’s epistles (fourteen; see 3.22) are numbered in the “new covenant” (56.3, see also 3.19, 3.21). Since the technological ability to gather all biblical writings together under one set of codex

178

chapter ten

covers is not attested before the 4th century, and even after that is relatively rare, I’m interested in whether the language of such “canon” discussion changes much in the process. Under what conditions do we find “the Bible” (or even “the OT”) as an integral unit?3 At an even more specific level, the author of T-A makes a distinction between the mode of revelation, and presumably then the perception of authority, pertaining to the four books of Genesis through Numbers, on the one hand, and the fifth book of Deuteronomy on the other. “The fifth book is the Second-law (“Deuteronomy”), not dictated through God’s mouth but presented as a second law through Moses—wherefore neither was it placed in the ΑΡΩΝΑ, that is, in the ark of the covenant. This constitutes the Mosaic Pentateuch” (3.12–13). Since it has been noted that rabbinic Judaism avoided attributing Pentateuchal quotations directly to Moses, while Christian prooftexters seem to have no such hesitations, I wonder if such a passage might be part of a broader discussion.4 Presumably it is fueled by an exegetical question: what does Deut 31.26 mean when Moses instructs the Levites to place “this book of the law” (i.e., Deuteronomy, freshly written) “alongside (ἐκ πλαγίων) the Ark”? Ps-Athanasius points out that the tablets of the law were in the ark, so that the written second law was put beside them (Synopsis scripturae sacrae {TLG 2035.071} PG 28 page 309 line 6). Cyril of Alexandria, on the other hand, argues that this action leaves room for Christ to be central, with the law respected but on the periphery (Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. {TLG 4090.097} PG 69 page 677 line 31). T-A later cites Deuteronomy by name in 34.17 (“it/he says”) and 38.5–7 (“Moses testified, . . . he said”). The closest known parallel to T-A’s treatment of Deuteronomy comes, not surprisingly, from Epiphanius: “There were placed in the ΑΡΩΝΑ [?], that is, the Ark, four books: Genesis . . . Numbers. For it was in the 38th year of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt that Deuteronomy was commanded to be written and placed by the side of the ark and not joined to these four, so that it might not obscure” the significance of the number four (Epiphanius, Weights 35 Syr apud Robertson, 138). Elsewhere, Epiphanius also has the idea that the Wisdom books of

3 See Kraft, “The Codex and Canon Consciousness,” The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody MA: Hendrickson 2002) 229–33 (item 14) [see also the expanded online electronic draft at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Christianity/Canon]. 4 See Kraft, “Philo’s Bible Revisited” (2005).

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

179

Solomon and Sirach are useful, but not among the centrally authoritative books “and thus were not kept in the ΑΡΩΝΑ, that is, the Ark of the covenant” (Weights 4 apud Robertson, 138). It is interesting, perhaps even significant, that in S-T 1/4, the Jew cites Deuteronomy by name as a “sacred and venerable book” in which God speaks, and later there are several explicit formulae mentioning “Deuteronomy” (5/20 [twice], 6/22, 6/25 [actually quoting Exodus!], 7/28). And for S-T, it is only in these Deuteronomy quotations that Moses is named as speaker (5/20, 6/22, 6/25 [but actually Exodus 23.7—oft quoted as “law”—thus easy to identify with Deuteronomy—and even apparently denied to Moses in the Anonymous Dialogue 8.274, “it is not by Moses as the Jews teach but is a law of nature”]), but not in other pentateuchal references. Since one of my longstanding research interests is early Christian appropriation and adaptation of Jewish scriptural passages and traditions, I decided to try to take a closer look at the situation in T-A, for comparison with other prooftexting literature. For clarity, I have tried to divide the task into two parts: the use of introductory formulae, and the textual contents of the quoted material. As it turns out, there is too much that still needs to be done with this material—several dissertations or monographs or even articles cry out for the attention of dedicated researchers—but here are some impressions, none of which are necessarily new or original: 2. That the author/compiler of T-A sometimes relies, directly or indirectly, on “testimony/prooftext collecting” and its techniques is perhaps best illustrated by T-A chapter 10, which surveys the life of Jesus in terms of a series of topics, each of which is introduced with a set formula (“Now concerning. . .”) and matched with a passage or passages from Jewish scriptures. This same technique is well illustrated by the “testimony book” attributed to Epiphanius, edited by Robert Hotchkiss in the SBL Texts and Translations series (1974), and can be found in various other sources from late antiquity (e.g., Barnabas, Justin). Whether closer exploration of this aspect of T-A can get us back to a very early stage of Christian development, perhaps in some connection with the mysterious proto-dialogue of “Jason and Papiscus,” seems probable to me, although the route is not entirely clear. Although most of the quotations in T-A have clear introductory formulae and can be traced to Jewish Greek scriptural sources with which they generally conform, there are some interesting exceptions. The reference to Solomon’s “covenant/testament” in which the king

180

chapter ten

sacrifices (so Timothy) or crushes (so Aquila) locusts is probably the most obvious and amusing—and it is presented as being well known to both discussants (9.11–13). Similarly, although there seemed to have been an agreement at the outset that arguments would rest on only the accepted Jewish books, not including the “apocrypha,” there are places in which the Christian cites by name from Baruch (as included in the “Jeremiah” corpus) with only mild murmerings from Aquila (S-T includes an unidentified “Baruch” quote in 4.17) and from Wisdom of Solomon and “Esdras” (? 1 Esdras; 10.24) with no objection and a discussion of a tradition found in Bel and the Dragon (about Habakkuk and the fiery furnace) that both disputants cite. There are also a couple of anonymous references to material found in Sirach. Interestingly, S-T 3.12 cites Sirach 24 as spoken “through Solomon.” An example from unproblematic scriptures is the treatment of Habakkuk 1.5 (“. . . I am doing a work in your days that you will never believe . . .”) in T-A 18.11 (“in another passage it says”) and in 38.13 (“thus he/it said through Hosea”). As was noted above, T-A treats “the 12” Minor Prophets as one book. Perhaps that can explain the ascription of the Habbakuk passage to “Hosea,” presumably the first of the twelve, although such misattribution is often thought to be a sign of confusion caused by copying and recopying strings of excerpts. In the New Testament book of Acts, the same passage is attributed to “the prophets” (13.41), and indeed, various Christian authors preserve versions of that vague formula, presumably under the influence of Acts. The accurate ascription to Habakkuk is found on the Greek side only in the Chronicon Pascale and in Cosmas Indicopleustes, who appears to be citing the Chronicon Pascale directly. On the other hand, the Latin S-T 7/28 also explicitly identifies Habakkuk as the source. This sort of evidence tends to encourage the idea that at least some of the quoted materials are taken not directly from biblical manuscripts but from deritive collections of excerpts (or even “floating excerpts”) such as we know existed in various forms. 3. The textual affinities within the quoted materials are not easy to identify, given the wide range of variation in the known Greek scriptural manuscripts, and in the MSS of T-A, not to mention the additional complications introduced by paying attention to indirect witnesses (other quotations especially). Robert Robertson has exhaustively (and perhaps exhaustingly?) drawn up charts of attested variants to determine whether identifiable patterns of variation exist in the quotations in

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

181

T-A. On the whole, there are no such patterns. This is not unexpected, since the attempt to identify thoroughgoing “recensions” (e.g., Hexaplaric, Lucianic, Catena) by examining the mostly much later LXX/OG MSS is methodologically suspect, especially for any witnesses earlier than the fourth or fifth centuries, when a few whole Bibles (“pandects”) began to be produced. Before that time, biblical books circulated in codices with limited contents or scrolls that contained only one or two full-sized books, which would have made the maintenance of a homogeneous “text type” extremely difficult if not completely impossible, even if there were individuals or schools that produced and distributed such consistently edited copies. If the fourth century (at the earliest) is about the time our full version of T-A comes together (see Pastis 2002 for a discussion of date issues), making use also of earlier materials, we can hardly expect to find clear-cut textual patterns. Of course, later copyists of T-A might have introduced “corrections” and “adjustments” from the texts with which they were familiar, making our detective work all the more complicated. Robertson found some evidence of such procedures, especially in MS O of the T-A material. What we do find is that the Daniel materials in T-A silently represent the translation popularly attributed to “Theodotion,” a situation that is not at all surprising, even though the Christian spokesman knows of Theodotion and other scriptural translators/translations and seems to think of them as distinct from his authoritative Greek texts (3.9ff.). Some of the “variations” found in other T-A quotations are attested, again unsurprisingly, in other prooftexting literature such as Justin’s Dialogue, although a great deal of work remains to be done in gathering and digesting this sort of evidence. T-A gives several relatively lengthy passages from the Minor Prophets (“the Twelve”), and especially from Hosea and Zachariah, which I hoped might show some knowledge of the “kaige” translation discovered at Naḥal Ḥ ever and known to Justin. 5 This hope was dashed, but out of the rubble emerged a somewhat consistent pattern of variation that deserves even closer analysis than Robertson was able to give it. Did the author/compiler of T-A have access to a special edition of the Minor Prophets that has not survived in the manuscripts? When he ascribes a passage from

5 For an overview of this textual development, see Kraft, “Reassessing the Impact of Barthelemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later,” BIOSCS 37 (2004) 1–28 [for a fuller online version, see http://ccat.sas.upenn/edu/rs/rak/publics/judaism/barthel04.html].

182

chapter ten

Habakkuk to “Hosea,” is this because Hosea is the lead section in the composite book of the twelve? But he does cite from several of the other Minor Prophets by name elsewhere. Moving forward with this type of material into relatively unexplored but highly promising directions will not be easy, even with the increasing number of new traditional and electronic tools. For example, T-A cites Lam 4.20 twice in almost exactly the same textual form (10.41, 11.8), and once in a conflated context (6.5). Robertson takes the first step of collating these materials against the text and apparatus of Ziegler’s 1957 Göttingen edition of Jeremiah-Baruch-Lamentations and notes only three variations in which T-A differs from Ziegler’s text but has support from one or more witnesses in the Göttingen apparatus. In T-A 10.41, this is one of several prooftexts anticipating the bad treatment received by Messiah Jesus; in T-A 11.8, the passage is one of three attesting the titles Messiah and Lord. T-A 6.5 is part of a montage about God’s SUMBOULOS (Advisor) who was in the beginning (Prov 8.27f., Gen 1.1), before time (Mic 5.1), without known origin (Isa 53.8), by the spirit/breath of our face which is Messiah Lord (Lam 4.20?) who searched the whole way of knowledge . . . (Baruch 3.37f.). The most interesting of these passages—the montage—is not attested elsewhere in the online TLG materials, unfortunately. But the independent quotation from Lamentations is widely used among the Christian authors in the TLG bank, with five giving only the first phrase (“the spirit before our face is the Messiah Lord”—see also Ps-Epiphanius Testimonies 5.29) and another eight completing the quotation in the same way as in T-A (“who was siezed because of our corruptions, of whom we said: Let us live under his shadow among the gentiles”—see also Ps-Epiphanius Testimonies 41.3, lacking the last 3 words; S-T 6/22 has an odd shortened form), although two of them omit “who was seized . . . corruptions.” So there are lots of prooftext parallels with which to compare the textual form(s) in T-A. But if we can trust Jean Daniélou (Études, 1966, 76f.), this passage appears over 30 times in the Greek and Latin sources he examined, all of which would need to be reviewed to obtain a more complete picture. Ziegler, unfortunately, does not detail such evidence in his Göttingen LXX/OG edition. But to make an accurate assessment of this material in T-A and similar texts, it all needs to be explored closely.6 6 An interesting short catena of scriptural quotations couched in dialogue form also is to be found in the Acts of Philip 77–79 (Philip vs. Aristarchus).

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

183

There is not time, nor energy, to pursue these matters further in this setting. And the tools are only gradually emerging. [End of 2005 presentation.] The sixth session of the 1970–71 Phildelphia Seminar on Christian Origins was convened by co-chairman Sheldon Isenberg. After customary introductions and announcements, the Seminar continued a discussion begun at the January 26 meeting on the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, led by participants in the University of Pennsylvania advanced seminar on Christian Origins, Robert Kraft, Betsy Purintun, and Donald Nilsson. In place of a formal presentation, several items were distributed to the membership with the announcement of the meeting. These were: (1) a sample of a translation of the work, consisting of the first 3 chapters and the last, as prepared by the aforementioned University of Pennsylvania Seminar; (2) a list of passages in which Semitic words are interpreted, as revised from the earlier session; (3) a list of other passages of possible interest. Highlights from the evening’s discussion are recorded in the minutes, on which the following is based. The 1971 translation7 is still a tentative one, based on the text as presented by Conybeare, and two other MSS collated by Goodspeed. A few emendations have been made when they seemed relatively certain. The chapter and verse divisions are by the University of Pennsylvania Seminar; all words in parentheses are in the text. So far, we have no knowledge of any other MS of this work, or of any versional material.8 The portions distributed to the Seminar give the narrative setting of the work and also the explanation by the discussants of the scriptural canon used. Note that the narrative section at the end does not seem to follow through with that given at the beginning. Perhaps the framework is really part of another work, or of several works (see, e.g., Pastis 1994/5 and 2002). There appear to be no firm clues as to the date of the dialogue, although it would seem that in its present form it is no earlier than the 4th century (and perhaps as late as the 6th). This work and Epiphanius seem to have had access to many of the same sources, although neither can be said to be derived from the other. This similarity of sources is most evident in their somewhat analogous approach to the canon and to Jewish/Roman history (see above, e.g., on Deuteronomy).

7 This full translation can be found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/courses/ rels/735/dialogues/Dial-Tim-Aquila. 8 More recent translations by Varner and Lahey have been noted above.

184

chapter ten

A most unusual aspect of this dialogue is its treatment of scriptural citations, especially those from the Gospels. The Jew on several occasions quotes from the Gospels by name, while the Christian ordinarily cites Jesus material without direct attribution or even a necessary connection to a Gospel source. The apocryphal material cited does not seem to agree with any known source, although it resembles parts of the Gospel of Peter in its description of the conversations of the dead who rose at the crucifixion (53.9–15). For the most part, the Christian handles the Jesus material in a nonliterary manner but gives literary “proofs” from Jewish scriptural (“OT”) sources (for details, see Nilsson 1996). Likewise, it may be noted that many of the usual arguments found in Jewish-Christian dialogues are missing. The Jew does not directly accuse the Christian of ditheism (but this is hinted at in 1.8; see below) but instead readily admits the possibility of a co-agent with God at the creation.9 Nor is there much by the Christian about the futility of works of the Law or other such “Pauline” type arguments. It may be that at the time this literature was produced, these arguments were no longer cogent or that this material was transmitted in circles for which such matters had not been highlighted. Sample of Translation by Betsy Purintun, Donal Nilsson, Harold Remus, and Robert Kraft; edited by Robert Kraft Dialog Between a Christian and a Jew, Whose Names Were, Respectively Timothy and Aquila, Which Took Place in Alexandria in the Days of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria10 1.1a When our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ had been manifested throughout the whole inhabited earth, and the prophetic voices had been fulfilled, and the apostolic teachings shone forth, and faith in the holy triad11 had been confirmed for everyone and everywhere in the whole inhabited earth,

9

See Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (1977) and the discussions it engendered. Title P: V adds “The Most Holy” (Archbishop). See 57.11; E has “Disputation Between a Christian by the Name Of Timothy and a Hebrew Philosopher by the Name of Aquila.” 11 1.1a holy triad PV: E has “holy and homoousian triad.” 10

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

185

1.1b licentiousness was being routed and virtue was establishing its rule, animosity was being expelled and hospitality was flourishing, the devil was being put to shame and God was being glorified. 1.2 But the demon who hates good, seeing that God was being glorified and worshiped and that his own works were coming unstrung and being despised, was extremely provoked. 1.3 And he entered into a certain Jewish man by the name of Aquila, just as in the garden of paradise he entered the ‘weak vessel,’ the woman, by means of the serpent—so also now he entered a Jew. 1.4 Now it is clear that he could not speak against Christ through a Christian, and it is also clear to all that our Lord Jesus Christ (who was, humanly speaking, Jewish) was proclaimed by Jews, for all the prophets were Israelites.12 1.5 This Aquila, then, went around in the synagogues interpreting the divine scriptures and saying that the Christ is still to come;13 “for,” he said, “the one whom the Christians worship is not the Christ but is a man just as we are, and he was condemned to be crucified as a blasphemer because he claimed to be God’s son. 1.6 For the divine scriptures also teach us to worship one God alone, for thus it is written: Hear Israel, the Lord your God is one, and beside me there is no God [Dt 6.4]. 1.7 And again, he says to Moses at the bush: I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, your fathers [Ex 3.6].14 1.8 And he teaches us through all the prophets and in the historical books and everywhere in general to worship one God and not two. 1.9 As for this Jesus, we know whence he comes, and we know the name of his father and of his mother.15

12 1.4 the syntax and meaning are not entirely clear (there are also several minor variants); perhaps read “announced” for “proclaimed.” 13 1.5 still to come: or perhaps, “about to come”; 1.5 worship PV: now worship E; 1.5 God’s son EP: God (?) V (text not clearly legible). 14 1.7 at the bush: or perhaps, “in the passage concerning the bush’ (see Mk 12.26 par; Philo Somn 1.194). 15 1.9–10 almost the same words are attributed to a Christian gospel writing below in 5.12 (“as the memoirs about him have it in the so called gospels. . .”).

186

chapter ten

1.10 But when the Christ comes, no one will know whence he comes!” 2.1 Now one day Aquila was sitting in a certain place frequented by the Jews and speaking to the Jews who were present concerning such matters. 2.2a And while he was saying these things, a certain Christian by the name of Timothy who was present and heard him saying these things,16 after making the seal of Christ17 (that is, the sign of the cross) on his forehead and heart, said to Aquila: 2.2b Would you like to get together with me somewhere so that we might conduct an investigation of this matter based on the holy scripture? 2.3 And the Jew said: Certainly—if you would like to, let’s do so! 2.4 And the Christian said: When would you like? 2.5 And the Jew said: Tomorrow. 3.1a So it happened on the morrow that they sat at a place called Dromos,18 and when a large audience had gathered, the Jew immediately said: 3.1b On the basis of which writings do you want to conduct the discussion, my good man?19 3.2 Timothy the Christian said: You don’t reject any book from the law or the prophets, do you? 3.3 The Jew said: Before God almighty, far be it from me to repudiate any of the inspired scriptures! 3.4 The Christian said: By your mentioning the name of the almighty God the one who speaks through you is now put to shame! 3.5 The Jew said: And who is the one who speaks through me? 3.6 The Christian said: You are not yet able to learn, but afterwards you will hear. 3.7 The Jew said: So then, what are the books on the basis of which you wish to conduct the dialogue with me? 3.8 The Christian said: I mentioned this matter to you because there are also certain other apocryphal books; for they are also included in the covenant20 of God.

16 17 18 19 20

2.2a or possibly, “a certain Timothy who was called a Christian” (?). 2.2a of Christ: literally, “in Christ.” 3.1a the word Dromos means public walk, concourse (or even racecourse). 3.1b = 3.7 the Greek has a double form “which and what writings/books.” 3.8 covenant: with specific reference to the scriptural writings (“testament”).

the dialogue of timothy and aquila 3.9 3.10a 3.10b

3.11a 3.11b

3.12a 3.12b 3.13 3.14

3.15

3.16 3.17a 3.17b

21

187

And the 72 Hebrew translators21 translated them, as did Aquila and Symmachos and Theodotion. And two other versions were also found hidden in jars, one in Jericho and one in Nicopolis (which is Emmaus); but we do not know who translated them, for they were found in the days of the desolation of Judea, which took place under Vespasian. Now these are the inspired books, acknowledged by both Christians and Hebrews: the first book, that of Genesis; second, Exodus; third, Leviticus; fourth, Numbers22—these are the books23 dictated by God’s mouth and written by the hand of Moses. And the fifth book is Deuteronomy, which was not dictated by God’s mouth24— thus neither was it deposited in the Arona25 (that is, in the ark of the covenant). This constitutes the Mosaic Pentateuch.26 The sixth book is Jesus [= Joshua], son of Naue; seventh is Judges with Ruth; the eighth book is 1 and 2 Chronicles; the ninth book is 1 and 2 Kingdoms [= 1–2 Samuel]; the tenth book is 3 and 4 Kingdoms [= 1–2 Kings]; eleventh, Job; twelfth, the Psalter of David; thirteenth, the Proverbs of Solomon; fourteenth, Ecclesiastes with Canticles; fifteenth, the Twelve Prophets; then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and further, Ezekiel; then Daniel, and further, Esdras [Ezra-Nehemiah = 1 Esdras ?] makes twenty.27 The twenty-first book is Judith; twenty-second, Esther; for the 72 translators handed down to us Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach among the apocrypha.

3.9 72 Hebrew translators P: om. 72 V; Hebrews E; perhaps read “72 translators.” 3.11b So V: P reverses Leviticus and Numbers. 23 3.11b books V: inspired books P. 24 3.12a not dictated by God’s mouth: E adds “but was given as a second law through Moses.” 25 3.12b Arona V: Aron P (= Epiphanius). 26 3.13b (f.77r/p.66): the book of Deuteronomy was not dictated by God, and thus was not deposited (with Gn-Ex-Lv-Nm) in the ARŌNA—that is (tout’ estin), in the Ark of the Covenant. The same tradition and etymology is found (with additional details) in Epiphanius Weights and Measures 35 (see also 4b). 27 3.16 then (om V) . . . then (om V) . . . and further EV: 16 . . . 17 . . . 18 . . . 19 . . . 20 PE. 22

188

chapter ten

3.18 These are the 22 books that are inspired and canonical28—there are, in fact, 27,29 but they are counted as 22 because five of them are double and because there are only 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet—but all the rest are included among the apocrypha. 3.19 The Jew said: And which are the ones handed down to you in what you call the “New Covenant”? 3.20 The Christian said: What need do we have for them? 3.21 The Jew said: So that just as you intend to refute me on the basis of the canon, I may refute you on the basis of the Covenant you accept. 3.22 The Christian said: The first book is the Gospel, then the Acts of the holy apostles, and further, their epistles and 14 epistles of the apostle Paul. 3.23 We acknowledge these, but all the rest are apocrypha; and if you wish to say anything based on the apocrypha, you yourself will also have to listen. [Skip to the Conclusion] 57.1 The Jew remained30 dumbfounded for about an hour, saying nothing. 57.2 The Christian said to him: Have you understood all these things, O man of God? 57.3 The Jew said: I have understood. 57.4 The Christian said: And what is your opinion concerning all these things? 57.5 The Jew said: In truth you have persuaded me from every side that he is God of gods and Lord of lords and King of kings, and that our fathers sinned greatly by laying hands on him. 57.6 Now, then, man of God, tell me what I may do to be saved. 57.7a The Christian said: If you believe with all your heart, and with all your mind,31 and with all your strength, and with all your understanding, get up, be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on the name of the lord Jesus, so that you, along with the others who hear, may hear the psalmist-king and prophet and patriarch David when he says: 28 29 30 31

3.18, 21 Canonical . . . canon (Endiathetos . . . diathetos). 3.18 27 EP: 26 V. 57.1 (57.10) remained or perhaps, “sat” (“sit” in 57.10). 57.7a mind M: power V (see text problems of Deut 6.5, Mark 12.33 parr, etc.).

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

189

57.7b Blessed are those whose transgressions have been forgiven and whose sins have been covered over [Ps 31(32).1]. 57.8 And when he had said these things, the Christian stood up, because the crowd clamored for the believer32 and said: “The faith of the Christians is victorious!” while the king and his revered bishop33 applauded. 57.9 And the Jew got up and fell at the feet of the Christian, and raising his voice in wailing he said to the Christian. The Lord will require my soul at your hands if you do not make me a Christian. 57.10 And the Christian made him get up, telling him to remain there. 57.11 And the Christian went before the most holy bishop [and told him of the Jew’s request. 57.12 Whereupon the bishop replied:]34 “My son, the husbandman who toils ought to be first to partake of the fruits; you have toiled, so you first take the fruit.” 57.13 But when he said, “I am not one of the clergy,” the bishop went quickly into the church.35 57.14 And when he had given the salutation of Peace, he ordained him deacon; and once again giving the salutation of Peace, he made him presbyter. 57.15 And he gave him other presbyters and deacons for the service of the liturgy, and they gave him a parchment inscribed with the invocations and prayers of the rite. 57.16 And the most holy Timothy, henceforth a presbyter, went off with the other priests and deacons to the place where Aquila was waiting eagerly, and taking him, he brought him into the church. 57.17 And he performed the entire rite, and baptized him in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, renaming him Theognostos.

32 57.8 the crowd clamored for the believer: or perhaps, “the believing crowd cried out” (the imagery of contestants in an amphitheater ?!). 33 57.8 his revered bishop: literally, his angelic bishop (angelic in the sense of celibate or even monastic-ascetic? cf. Luke 20.36). 34 57.11–12 the text is obviously faulty, and requires that something like the material in brackets be supplied. 35 57.13. . . 16 church. . . church: kyriakon. . . ekklesia.

190

chapter ten

57.18 And partaking of the undefiled mysteries, the latter became a receptacle of the Holy Spirit—once a Jew, but now a Christian by the grace of God, once a wolf, but now become Christ’s sheep. 57.19 And the presbyter Timothy took him into his own house, and they were continually glorifying together Father and Son and Holy Spirit—to whom be all honor and glory for ever and ever, amen.36 Passages in which Semitic Words are Interpreted 3.12 the ARŌNA is the ark of the covenant (ἐν τῷ ἀρῶνα, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ τῆς διαθήκης)—an unproblematic reading. 8.5f (f.82v/p. 69bf.): after quotation from Isa 7.14 = Mt 1.23 (EMMANOUEL, which means ‘God is with us’); but so that you may know this too, half is Syriac and half Hebrew; for EMMA in Syriac means ‘with US,’ while NOUEL in Hebrew means ‘God’ (ἵνα δὲ καὶ τοῦτο γινώσκῃς, ὅτι τὸ ἥμισυ συριστί ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ ἑβραϊστί· τὸ γὰρ ἐμμά, συριστὶ ἑρμηνεύεται μεθ’ ἡμῶν, τὸ δὲ νουήλ, ἑβραϊστὶ ἐρμηνεύεται θεός). We have found no parallels for this strange explanation, although exactly the same wording is found in the TLG citation for the entry “Emmanouēl” from the 11th century Etymologicum Gudianum, Additamenta in Etymologicum Gudianum (ἀάλιον—ζειαί) (e codd. Vat. Barber. gr. 70 [olim Barber. I 70] + Paris. suppl. gr. 172). {4098.003}.37 9.3 (f.83r/p. 70a) (Aquila speaking). Wherefore also when Solomon was born, he (God?) said DIDICH, which means ‘mine’ (διὸ καὶ ὅτε ἐγεννήθη εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς διδιχ ὁ ἑρμηνεύεται ἐμός). Probably 2 Sam 12.25, where Solomon is called YeDiDYaH (= beloved of YHWH), lies in the background. By dropping the initial Y, we are left with DIDIH in Hebrew, which could be transliterated into Greek as DIDICH (see, e.g., SIRA = SIRACH—but normally the Hebrew letter ayin is transliterated by Greek chi). In Aramaic, DIDI = ‘mine’ (DIDIH = ‘yours’). The imagery of Qohelet (e.g., 2.16, 6.3, 7.10; my 36 57.19 benediction as in P: V has “glory, honor, power and adoration, now and always, and for ever and ever, amen.” 37 TLG cites as its source E.L. de Stefani, Etymologicum Gudianum (fasc. 1 & 2; Leipzig: Teubner) 1:1909; 2:1920 (repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965) 1:1–293; 2:294–580.

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

191

beloved, mine) also is relevant here. In T-A 9.3 (DIDICH), we see a quite common confusion. The Midrash on the appropriate verses in Qohelet is a play on this corruption or confusion of meaning. 20.15 (f.97v/p. 785): . . . even down to the NECHOTHA, which means ‘hidden vault’ (ἕως καὶ τὰ νεχωθά, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται κρυπτήρ). See 2 Kgs 20.13 = Isa 39.2 (storehouse). Also Jerome Hebrew Names 46.27, NECHOTHA = styracem eius vel aromata (his styrax [an odiferous tree gum] or perfumes). 22.8 (f.99r/p. 79f.): Did they not . . . cast contempt on the manna which the Lord rained on them, and they said MA AN OUDEN (read MAAN HOU DENA?), which means ‘what is this?’ (οὐκ εἶπαν καὶ τότε, ἐξουδενοῦντες τὸ μάννα ὃ ἔβρεξεν αὐτοῖς κύριος, καὶ ἔλεγον μάννα οὐδέν, ὁ ἑρμηνεύεται, τί ἐστι τοῦτο;). In Ex 16.15, MT has MaN HU’; targ Onk has MaNa’ HU’; Targ PsJon has Ma’aN HU’. In Aramaic, DeNa’ = ‘this’; thus perhaps Ma’aN HU’ DeNa (?). 23.4/5 (f.99v/p. 80): (after allusions to the Ex 17.8–11 story) . . . but AMALEK means ‘anti-christ’—wherefore he was also compared to the devil (in Ex 14.14) (Ἀμαλὴκ δὲ ἐρμηνεύεται ἀντίχριστος, ὅθεν καὶ τῷ διαβόλῳ ἀφομοιώθη). Justin identifies Amalek with ta daimonia (Dial 49.8; see also Cyprian ad Fortun 8, Theodoret Quest Ex 34), and TReub 6.12 (Slavonic) speaks of a/the messiah of Judah conquering the devil in the seen and unseen wars (see Ex 17.8ff. in the fathers, with reference to the “hidden hand” that defeats Amalek). 32.2 (f.109r/p. 85): (the binding of Isaac story) . . . a ram caught by its horns in a plant SABEK, that is (tout’ estin), ‘of forgiveness/loosing’—for SABEK thus means ‘forgiveness/loosing’ (ἐν φυτῷ σαβέκ—τοῦτ’ ἐστιν τῆς ἀφέσεως· τὸ γὰρ σαβὲκ οὕτως ἑρμηνεύεται ἄφεσις). The reference to SBK in Gen 22.13 was frequently interpreted to refer either to forgiveness or to the cross by Christian commentators. The idea of forgiveness probably arises from a confusion of SBK/SBQ, since the latter (with initial shin) can mean ‘to loose, forgive’ in Aramaic. The same identification is already found in a fragment attributed to Melito (Otto #12)—see also Athanasius, Quaest 98, ad Antiochum, and Procopius (6th cent.) Comm Gen (PG 87/1.391). But more usually SABEK symbolized the cross.

192

chapter ten

34.16/20 (f.111r/p. 87): (on the Greek translations of Isa 7.14.) If he indeed said ‘neanis,’ it is because NEANIS is in the Hebrew! But so that I also may be correctly understood by you, NEANIS means ‘virgin’ (parthenos), for it says in Deuteronomy, “If a man comes upon a virgin—NEANIS—in the field. . . ” (see Dt 22.25 and 28). Know, then, O Jew, that NEANIS is the same as ‘virgin’ (ἡ νεάνις παρθένος ἑρμηνεύεται. . . γνῶθι οὖν, ὦ Ἰουδαῖε, ὅτι ἡ νεᾶνις καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἕν ἐστιν). Probably this interpretation rests on the use of the niphal form of ‘ANS = “one who is raped” in some midrash on the Dt 22 passage. We have found no parallels. 55.24 (f.136v/p. 103): the ELOEI ELOEI LEMA SABACHTHANI passage (Ps 21[22].1) is presented here in the same manner as in Mt 27.46, with the meaning ‘my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’ (ἐλοεῖ ἐλοεῖ λεμασαβαχθανί, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί με ἐγκατέλειπας). Other Selected Passages of Possible Special Interest 4.20 (f.79r/p. 67): In discussing the phrase ‘let us make man’ (Gen 1.26), the Jew interprets the plural to refer to angels, and the Christian replies that ‘if it were not that you have admitted angels (as a possible interpretation), you would be putting forth a teaching of Samaritans’ [if that is what the Greek means!]. Something similar is said in Justin Dial 62 about an unnamed ‘sect’ known to Trypho, which refers Gen 1.26 to angels, while ‘Jewish teachers’ are said to interpret the passage as referring to God himself or to the stoicheia [elements or elementary forces]. Among Christian heresiologists (e.g., Epiphanius) there is a tendency to equate Samaritans with Sadducees as denying the existence of angels; there are also “gnostic” groups of Samaritan origin that claim the world is the creation of angels. 5.12 (f.80r/p. 68): The Jew quotes material attributed to “his [Jesus’] memoirs” = the gospels (5.12 τὰ ὑπομνήματα αὐτοῦ περιέχουσιν ἐν τοῖς λέγετε εὐαγγελίοις—see also T-A 1.9–10 note): We have found out whence he comes, and his parents are with him, so how can this one be God?

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

193

Compare Johannine materials such as Jn 6.42, 7.27f., 8.14, 9.29f. Justin also speaks of the “memoirs” of the followers of Jesus, also known as “Gospels” (Apol 66.3 ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια—see also 67.3, Dial 105). 9.7 (f.83r/p. 70): Among Solomon’s shortcomings is mentioned the tradition “that he worshipped graven images and slaughtered locusts to them.” The Jew objects that Solomon did not slaughter, but against his will he crushed them in his hand—and that this story comes not from the book of Kings, but from Solomon’s Testament. Indeed, in TSol 26.1ff. (ed. McCown), Solomon sacrifices five locusts in the name of Raman and Moloch (Jebusite gods) in order to win a lovely Jebusite woman whom he wants to add to his harem—“thinking nothing of the blood of locusts” he did so. The citation from the Testament of Solomon may be the earliest reference to that work by name.38 9.17/20 (f.83v/p. 70): The king of Babylon who deports and then restores Manasseh (see 2 Chr 33.10–13) is named THEL(L)ASARASAR (Θελλασαράσαρ). For the name SARASAR in the Greek materials dealing with this period, see 2 Kgs 19.37 = Isa 37.38. 16.2/4 (f.92v/p. 75b): Abraham’s unnamed servant of Gen 24.2f. is called JEBLAEM (Ἰεβλαὲμ) here (although T-A 31.2 gives no name), not ELIEZER as in Gen 15.2. Rabbinic tradition knows of various names applied to the servant, but this exact form does not seem to be present. 20.21 (f.98r/p. 79a): Hadrian is said to have used the stones of the Jewish temple destroyed in 135 ce to build a theater. The association of information about Hadrianic relationships to Judaism, and to the Bar Kochba revolt in 132–135, with the lost Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus is striking and may suggest that T-A is somehow drawing on similar material if not that very source (see further Lahey [2000]). The Jewish Greek translator Aquila is pictured (39–40) as a proselyte and former convert to Christianity who was brother-in-law of Hadrian and was appointed overseer of Hadrian’s works; Aquila not only corrupted Greek scriptures but also Hebrew (compare citations of Jason and Papiscus and Epiphanius). After

38

See now Sarah Schwarz, Building a Book of Spells (2005).

194

chapter ten

Hadrian found Jerusalem devastated in 135 ce, he took the remaining Jews to Hebron and slew them ‘four at a time for (EIS ?) a measure of barley’ (repeated in T-A 49.32 ἀνὰ τεσσάρας εἶς μόδιον κριθῆς); see Paschal Chronicle to the year 119 (PG 92.613/254)—Jews were sold for a horse’s ration. 39–40 (f.115v–119r/pp. 89–92): The detailed list of hellenistic kings (with lengths of rule) is unusual at points and has interesting parallels in the Paschal Chronicle and in Epiphanius Weights and Measures. The tradition that Ptolemy Philadelphus wrote two letters to the Jerusalem Jews to procure texts and translators for the Septuagint is alluded to in Justin, Apol 31 (see Augustine City of God 18.42) and is paralleled in detail in Epiphanius (Weights and Measures 10–11)—the more widely known Aristeas tradition speaks of only one letter. 49.31 (f.130r/p. 98): Jerusalem was overthrown, in accord with what was written in Isaiah, by Vespasian and Titus, and its inhabitants were slain by the sword, for then mothers ate (or perhaps, slew) children (τότε γὰρ ἔφαγον μητέρες τέκνα—cf. Isa 14.21, 57.5). The theme of cannibalism at the fall(s) of Jerusalem is present in other sources such as Josephus (War 6.[3.4].201–219) and Melito’s Paschal Homily 52.39 It is not clear what Isaiah material is intended here. Challenges The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila is a rich mine of materials that merits further close examination, especially in the context of early Christian prooftexting and reported dialogues with Jews. The ways in which authoritative texts and associated arguments were passed along and adapted to new contexts in these materials are manifold, and there are strong reasons to believe that T-A sometimes transmits significantly older materials of interest for the student of the history and development of Jewish and Christian relations and of “scriptural” text forms and interpretations employed in that continuously developing trajectory. T-A provides a good base from which to refine further the old

39

See, for example, Honora H. Chapman, “ ‘A Myth for the World’: Early Christian Reception of Infanticide and Cannibalism in Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 6.199–219,” SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta: SBL, 2000) 359–78 (online at: http://lucite.org/lucite/ archive/josephus/chapman2000.pdf ).

the dialogue of timothy and aquila

195

simplistic approach that looked for identifiable consistent “text-types” in a world not yet ready or able to produce the needed evidence, except perhaps in a very limited way—a world of scrolls and small-scale codices, of excerpting and selective reporting (whether oral or written—or a combination of both), of etymological traditions and interests in sometimes multilingual milieux. As we gain access to increasingly more sophisticated tools to investigate such situations, perhaps it will be possible to gain more insight into the worlds that produced these materials, and to find answers to some of the “old” problems as well as discovering more new avenues to explore.

PART THREE

SOME RELATED STUDIES

CHAPTER ELEVEN

PLINY ON ESSENES, PLINY ON JEWS1 A key passage in the discussion of ancient “Essenes” is Pliny the Elder’s description in Natural History 5.73. Pliny does not claim to be original in this encyclopedic work; indeed, he gives long lists of sources (Roman/Latin and otherwise) in his detailed index of the work (now called “volume 1” of the 37 published volumes [scrolls]).2 Pliny claims that his subject matter is “sterile”—the nature of things, real life—compared to more entertaining works that afford opportunity for digressions (excessus) or orations and discourses or wondrous occurrences (casus mirabiles) or various events (eventus varios), agreeably spoken or pleasant to read (iucunda dictu aut legentibus blanda; Preface 12). Nevertheless, he does include various entertaining and wondrous reports in his compilation, and his report about the “Essenes” in volume 5 is one such example. In the aforementioned index, Pliny describes this volume as dealing with “sites, groups (gentes), seas, towns, harbors, [[256]] mountains, rivers, measurements, and people present and past” for the designated areas of the eastern Mediterranean. 1

The original print version appeared in DSD 8 (2001) 255–61, in honor of Emanuel Tov; some subsequent updates have been added. My associations with Emanuel Tov date back to 1968, to a conference we both attended as promising young scholars in Uppsala, Sweden. Our common interests in the Old Greek translations of Jewish scripture led to years of collaboration directing the “CATSS” project, where Emanuel taught me his special kind of English (we still laugh together over occasional “Tov-isms”), and we both learned some of the new language of the world of electronic scholarship. His immersion in Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) activities also drew me into closer contact with that field as well, and I offer this brief excursion into the vast world of Pliny—who, I think, tells us as little about the DSS as he does about LXX/OG matters—as a token of my respect and friendship on this celebratory occasion. I look forward to many more years of “good” (tov-ish?) association, separately and together probing the depths of our chosen fields of interest. For some pictures, see my web page http://ccat.sas.upenn .edu/rs/rak/kraft.html! 2 According to Pliny’s Preface 17, he has collected in 36 volumes (not counting the index) some 20,000 items from about 2000 volumes [scrolls] by 100 authors, plus many other things from his own research and experience. The work is dedicated to Vespasian’s son and future Roman ruler, Titus. Pliny died trying to offer aid to the victims of the eruption of Vesuvius in August of 79 CE (see Pliny the Younger’s letter 6.16ff. to Tacitus). Vespasian died two months earlier.

200

chapter eleven

The more immediate context of the “Essene” passage is a survey of southern Palestine-Judea (apart from Galilee and Perea, and “supra” Idumea and Samaria), divided into ten districts (5.70) from Jericho (with its palm trees) to Emmaus, Lydda, Joppa, Acraba, Gophna, Timna, Betholeptephe, Orine (where Jerusalem had been located), and Herodium. In 5.71, Pliny describes the source of the Jordan and its flow through lake Galilee/Genesara southward to the Dead Sea (“Asphalites”), which is then described in 5.72, ending with a brief survey of sites to the east and south of it. At this point we find this passage, which contains the only description of local people in this section of Pliny’s work:3 From [or towards] the west onward,4 Essenes flee the banks [or shores] that harm;5 a group set apart [or isolated] and in the entire world beyond

3 The literature on this passage is extensive, especially since the discovery in 1946–47 of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” near the site known as Qumran overlooking the northwest curve of the Dead Sea. A useful summary of scholarly opinions may be found in Martine Dulaey, “La notice de Pline sur les esséniens (HN 5, 17, 73),” Helmantica 38 (1987) 283–93 (also published in Pline l’Ancien, témoin de son temps: Conventus Pliniani Internationalis, 22–26 Oct. 1985 [ed. J. Pigeaud and J. Oroz Retap; Salamanca and Nantes: Universidad pontificia de Salamenca, 1987]). I thank Stephen Goranson for this reference. The Latin text and English translation by H. Rackham (LCL, 1942) is conveniently annotated by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974). The following English translations are my own attempts at reflecting the difficulties of the Latin as well as providing the general sense of the passages. For a similar early Latin version of this tradition about the Essenes, probably based directly or indirectly on Pliny’s account (or its source?), see the third century CE Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium by Solinus (Stern 2.#448), 35.9–12. 4 Ab occidente . . . usque: for similar Latin constructions in NH see 6.45 and 6.209. Pliny has already described the Mediterranean coastal areas from Egypt to Syria and has moved on inland to Idumea, Samaria, Galilee, Judea proper, and Perea—pointing out along the way that Jericho has lots of water and palm groves (70); he then traces the Jordan from Panias in the north through the Genesara lake (Galilee) to the Dead Sea (71); then he locates the Dead Sea in relation to nomadic Arabia (to the east = ab oriente) and to Machaerus and the spring of Callirhoe (south = a meridie); so now there remains to be described the area west of the Dead Sea. Solinus, presumably using this same tradition, locates the Essenes in the “interior of Judea” which looks to the west, after discussing the Sodom and Gomorrah area. Note that neither Pliny nor Solinus place their Essenes in a specific settlement such as a town or city, but refer to them as inhabiting an area somewhere generally inland on the west of the lake/sea and above Engedi (apparently referring to elevation; see below n. 10). 5 Litora Esseni fugiunt (usque) qua nocent: literally something like “Essenes flee the banks/shores (usually of lakes and rivers) that harm”—Pliny is not explicit about why they flee (elsewhere, Pliny sometimes talks of people fleeing odors, fumes, snakes, etc.—but not here), nor is it clear to me what is meant by “qua nocent.” Are the banks/ shores considered harmful, and if so why? Commerce? Socialization? Fumes? Water that does not support life? It is an awkward (to me) sequence of words and does not necessarily imply what Rackham takes it to mean in the Loeb edition (“exhalations”).

pliny on essenes, pliny on jews

201

all others [[257]] extraordinary [or unique]6—without any women, stifling every urge, without money [or possessions], consort of palms.7

My suspicion is that it doesn’t have anything to do with fumes and that perhaps Pliny didn’t have a clear idea of what it meant in his source. Staying away from the noxious water of the Dead Sea makes good sense (see Diodorus Siculus [first century BCE], Bibliotheca Historica 19.98–99 [Stern 1.62]). Solinus does not refer to this detail, other than locating the Essenes in the Judean “interior” (perhaps implying high ground, “looking westward”). 6 Gens sola et in toto orbe praeter ceteras mira: Pliny likes the phrase “in toto orbe,” which occurs some 19 times in NH, including several passages that emphasize the wondrous nature of the situations reported (events, people). See the next note for Dulaey’s analysis of the structure of these lines. Solinus speaks here of the Essenes “separating themselves from the rites of other gentes.” For further discussion of some of these issues, see the indexed archives (http://www .mail-archive.com/[email protected]/thrd4.html#00447) of the discontinued Orion Online Discussion Group (active through 2002). On 6 June 2001 Stephen Goranson called attention to the following passage from the review by Adam Kamesar of Vermes and Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (review in JAOS 111 [1991] 134–35): . . . Synesius, Dio 3.2, where the Essenes are described as a ‘polis hole eudaimon’ . . . . This phrase is translated with the words ‘an entire and prosperous city’. . . . Yet it must be remembered that Dio is a Stoic of sorts, and he regards a polis not so much as a place of habitation, but as a ‘group of people living under the rule of law in the same place’ (Oratio 36.20; cf. 36.29 and H. von Arnim, Stoicum veterum fragmenta, III:80–81). Indeed, that in this passage polis should be translated and understood with reference to this definition (cf. the rendering “Gemeinwesen’ in Adam and Burchard, 39) may be confirmed by the fact that it is employed [p. 135] in apposition to the word ‘Essenes.’ Accordingly, we should be wary of pressing the distinction between the description of the Essenes as a ‘polis’ in Dio/Synesius and as a ‘gens sola’ in Pliny . . .; for the latter phrase should probably be rendered ‘a people living on its own,’ and not as Goodman translates, ‘a people unique of its kind’ . . . Likewise, ‘eudaimon’ should not be translated by an adjective with material connotations such as ‘prosperous,’ for the author is clearly thinking of that sort of eudaimonia which accrues to a city as a result of the virtue and concord of its inhabitants (see von Arnim, SVF, 1:61). In fact, in the immediately preceding sentence (omitted by Goodman), Synesius had mentioned Dio’s description of the ‘bios eudaimonikos’ of an individual, a Euboaean hunter who lived a highly austere life in the wilderness but nevertheless achieved an outstanding degree of happiness (Oratio 7). Therefore, in all probability Synesius is referring to a description of the Essenes in which the latter are praised for a similar accomplishment in a group setting. Subsequent threads in the Orion archives from June–July 2001 such as “Pliny’s Esseni,” “Are Essenes Jewish?” and “Essenes and Jews/Judeans” are also worth examining in this context, especially since some of them are direct responses to my suggestions. See also my follow-up of 25 June 2001 in those archives. 7 Sine ulla femina, omni venere abdicata, sine pecunia, socia palmarum: Largely on formal grounds, Dulaey argues that “socia palmarum” refers to the reliance of this people who have no private possessions on trade in palm dates in the area (e.g., Ain Feshka), taking it as an elaboration of “without possessions” (for Dulaey [285] these lines contain three two-part statements—on Essene uniqueness, sexual purity [neither heterosexually involved nor homosexual], and economics—apparently a rather standard

202

chapter eleven In a day, from an equal number of associates a crowd is reconstituted, bloated by the multitude of those whom, exhausted in life, to their [i.e., Essene] customs fortune drives in waves;8 thus through thousands of years [or ages]—incredible to report—a group is eternal in which no one is born!9 [[258]]

device in classical rhetoric). This seems to me somewhat strained. I am not so sure that the “socia palmarum” requires literal palm trees in Pliny’s understanding but may simply be an idiom describing the solitariness and social isolation of this exemplary people. Pliny is amazed at the non-procreative survival of this “gens” which he here calls “socia” (associate, companion, etc.). Socius/socia can also mean marriage partner, and it seemed possible, even probable, that Pliny (and/or his source) had this nuance in mind here—this amazing “gens” has no human mates, but cohabits with the palms (why not with the rocks?). What I expected to find here was not a reference to trees, but to the uniqueness or exemplary nature of the group, and indeed, my Latin dictionary lists “palmaris, -e” in that sense (“excellent, admirable”), but I don’t find any such uses elsewhere in Pliny. Perhaps his source said something of that sort (societas palmare?), and he misinterpreted. I don’t know if “palmaris” is sufficiently old in that meaning to serve such a hypothesis. (I would also reject, “out of hand” as it were, reading “palmarum” as referring to the human hand rather than the tree, and thus finding an ironic, perhaps, homosexual twist to Pliny’s language about these non-procreative people.) In the end, I convinced myself that “a companion people of palm trees” need not depend on the known presence of real trees to make Pliny’s rhetorical point—although in fact, palm trees were abundant in the general area (including Jericho to the north) that Pliny is describing. Perhaps a further search of early Latin literature would reveal whether “palm” gets used this way by other authors of the period. Solinus is very close to Pliny’s wording here: nulla ibi femina, venere se penitus abdicaverunt, pecuniam nesciunt, palmis victitant (no women are there, they reject trade [selling] completely, they own no property, they feed on palms). 8 In diem ex aequo convenarum turba renascitur, large frequentantibus quos vita fessos ad mores eorum fortuna fluctibus agit: Again, the very positive assessment of the lifestyle of this amazing people is evidenced. It is not clear exactly due to what circumstances the exhausted newcomers are driven—in general, the personal burdens of life seem to be in view, but perhaps also unfavorable “fortunes” of various sorts (old age, economic failure, warfare, disease, famine, etc.). The text is quite vague. Solinus makes a slightly different point, that although many people flock to them from every “gens,” only those who display chastity and innocence are admitted. 9 Ita per saeculorum milia—incredibile dictu—gens aeterna est in qua nemo nascitur! For Pliny, this is one of those incredible stories—yet true (like Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” feature in newspapers since the middle 1900s)—similar to the amazing tales of gymnosophists, etc. (Tales from the Frontiers?). Solinus echoes this wording closely: nemo ibi nascitur . . . ita per inmensum spatium saeculorum, incredibile dictu, aeterna gens est cessantibus puerperiis (no one is born there . . . thus through an immense span of years, incredibly, there is an eternal gens although childbirths cease). From the Online Orion Discussion Group (see above, n. 6), on 6 June 2001, Russell Gmirkin comments: Kamesar’s review is consistent with my own understanding of the political vocabulary underlying Dio (which is also present in Pliny’s passage on the Essenes) and Dio Chrysostom’s political interests. However, I fail to see how this tends towards a “Stoic view of the Qumran Jewish Essenes.” Rather, this is more in the Aristotelian/Peripatetic tradition, in which political institutions and ideas of various obscure groups around

pliny on essenes, pliny on jews

203

Below them, there had been a town Engada,10 second to Jerusalem [Jericho?] in fertility and the forests of palm-groves, but now another

the world were collected for what insight they might provide. As such this tends to confirm some relation with Nicolas of Damascus, who was an Aristotelian (see his autobiography and comments by Wacholder), wrote a paradoxographical “collection of strange customs” for Herod (largely dealing with political institutions around the world) and of course wrote on the Essenes. I have already commented on Orion on the paradoxographical vocabulary prominent in Pliny’s description of the Essenes. Thus for instance, Pliny’s commentary on perpetuation of a community by adoption of others—“Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on forever”—is a typical Aristotelian/paradoxical theoretical formulation of no historical value, but expresses (in typical purple prose) interest in unique/bizarre political institutions of others. [This was followed up in discussion with George Brooks (Tampa, FL), on 7 June 2001, with:] Note the giveaway “incredible to relate” in the Pliny passage. “Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on forever.” The reference to incredible matters is practically stock phraseology in paradoxography (and in others describing doubtful assertions by paradoxographers). Also, please observe that the reference to “thousands of ages” in Pliny does not mean the Essenes historically had a long past, though some have interpreted it this way. It could be equally interpreted to mean Pliny’s source thought they would have a long future. With this adoption thing, they could go on forever! [and later with:] Whether Pliny’s source had accurate information or not is another question; whether he was even concerned with accuracy is yet another; his presentation is more literary and paradoxical than factual. [and further] There may be a case that the Essenes practiced celibacy and/or adoption. If so, it would come out of Josephus and Philo. My main point above was that the passage in Pliny was of questionable accuracy due to its literary genre (paradoxography) and its tendency to model the Essenes as the mirror opposite of biblical Sodom. By questioning its accuracy, I did not mean to definitely assert its inaccuracy on the point of adoption: I was raising questions, not asserting answers. 10 Infra hos Engada oppidum fuit: now Pliny takes his survey back towards the lake, from which his Essenes were said to have fled (see above, n. 4), and moves southward towards Masada and also to the presumably lower elevation of the Engedi ruins. I take “infra hos” here to be primarily a reference to elevation, noting that Pliny also uses “super” (“above”) to refer to geographical elevations in his descriptions—see 5.70 (the immediate context of our passage!), 6.78, and 7.26. Solinus reads the material similarly: Engada oppidum infra Essenos fuit, sed excisum est (the town Engada was below the Essenes, but has been destroyed). For subsequent discussions of the location issue, with the claim that elevation and not direction was the point being made by Pliny (although not necessarily by his source[s]), see the Online Orion Discussion Group archives (above n. 6) under the “Pliny” related topics. The competing claims were especially voiced by Stephen Goranson (downstream, south) and Ian Hutchesson (lower in elevation, away from the smelly lake).

204

chapter eleven [or a second] killing-field [or graveyard].11 Then comes Masada, a cliff fortress, and itself not very far from the Asphalt Lake.12 Thus far Judea.13

Does Pliny recognize this “Essene” gens as Jewish? The fact that they are located in Judea is not necessarily decisive, and Stern perceptively asks (1.480), “Did Pliny or his source think of the Essenes as a special gens, separate from the Jewish nation though geographically included in Judaea . . . ? This view is perhaps echoed by Josephus, who finds it necessary to emphasize that the Essenes are Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν γένος (B.J. 2.119)—Jews with regard to gens.” Elsewhere in the Natural History, Pliny mentions Jews or Judaism in several evaluative connections, but never with complimentary comments: 12.111–13 (Stern #213). The balsam shrub is native to Judea but was brought to Rome by “the Vespasian emperors” and “it now serves [Rome] and pays tribute along with its race (cum sua gente) [i.e., Judeans]. The Jews did violence to it as also to their own lives, but the Romans protected it in response, and there has been warfare over a bush!”14 [[259]] 13.46 (Stern #214). A type of date offered by the Romans to honor the gods is called “chydaeos” by the “Judaea gens,” which is noted for contempt of divine authority.15

11 secundum ab Hierosolymis fertilitate palmetorumque nemoribus, nunc alterum bustum: it has been suggested that the text should read “Jericho” rather than “Jerusalem”—note that the “palm groves” had already been mentioned in connection with Jericho (5.70). Solinus comments that despite the ravages of war, the famous palm groves of Engedi remain. 12 Inde Masada castellum in rupe, et ipsum haut procul Asphaltite: Solinus combines the final two sentences into the simple statement that the “castellum” of Masada is the terminus of Judea. 13 Et hactenus Iudaea est (see n. 12 above). 14 Saeviere in eam Iudaei sicut in vitam quoque suam; contra defendere Romani, et dimicatum pro frutice est. This suggests that during the first revolt, some Jews may have attempted to destroy the balsam groves rather than surrender such a valuable asset to the enemies, but the Romans were able to preserve this economic booty. Known locations in which balsam was grown include the areas near Jericho and Engedi (for references see Stern 1.490). 15 Nam quos ex his honori deorum damus, chydaeos appellavit Iudaea gens contumelia numinum insignis: Presumably this refers to Jewish failure to honor the emperors as divine.

pliny on essenes, pliny on jews

205

30.11 (Stern #221). In Pliny’s long discussion of “magic” and its unfortunate presence throughout the inhabited world, he speculates that the study of medicine gave rise to magic (associated especially with Zoroaster and the Persians), which led further to “religion” and to “astrology.” He identifies a branch of the development popularized in Greek circles by Democritus, at the time of the Peloponnesian War, then mentions briefly “another faction” that developed from Moses and Jannes and Lotapes and also the Jews, many thousand years after Zoroaster.16 Magic also took hold among the Romans, although laws were created to control some aspects, and became especially despicable recently under Nero. Pliny quite clearly and unambiguously despises the practice of “magic,” although he does not condemn out of hand everyone he associates in some way or another with magic (e.g., Homer, Democritus, Plato). 31.95 (Stern #223). In a long discussion about the uses of salt, Pliny inserts information on “garum,” a sort of sauce made from fermented fish remains. He describes variations of this product and adds that another sort is used in Jewish superstitions regarding purity and even sacred rites, which is made from fish devoid of scales.17 Given such passages, I am surprised by Stern’s note on #214 to the effect that “This is Pliny’s one reference to Jews or Judaea that has an indisputably anti-Semitic ring” (1.495). More to the point, I would think, is that Pliny never refers explicitly in a complimentary manner to Jews or their activities, and when he does add “value laden” comments, they have a definitely negative cast (Jews are involved with [[260]] purity superstitions, magic, violence against Roman interests, contempt of divine “numen”). As he himself readily acknowledges, Pliny used a variety of sources for his information. Thus it is not a simple matter to determine precisely

16 Est et alia magices factio a Mose et Ianne et Lotape ac Iudaeis pendens: Stern provides extensive notes with bibliography on these names. It is not clear that Pliny and/or his source(s) here would identify Moses with the Jews. 17 Aliud vero est castimoniarum superstitioni etiam sacrisque Iudaeis dicatum, quod fit e piscibus squama carentibus: The reference to fish lacking scales contrasts with the Mosaic prohibition against eating or even coming into contact with such fish (Lev 11.9–12), unless Pliny’s source referred to de-scaled fish or unless the otherwise unattested rite intentionally involved the use of prohibited food. Whether this has any relation to the use of fish products for protection against evil spirits and for healing in Tobit 6, 8, and 11.7–13, is a matter of conjecture.

206

chapter eleven

what his own attitudes may have been or exactly what the sources may have reported or intended. My aim here is not to explore all of those side issues, important in their own right, but simply to point out that based on the available information in Pliny, there is little reason to believe that he thought of the “Essenes” as Jewish, and some reason to think that he did not make such a connection. If this sort of ambiguity was more widely present in the Greco-Roman world and was known to authors such as Philo and Josephus, it would help explain why they both make the clear claim that the “Essenes” they describe are indeed “Jewish” (Philo, Every Good Man is Free 75; Josephus, B.J. 2.119).18 Ethnically unidentified “Essenes” may have been otherwise lauded by ancient reporters such as Pliny. In sum, Pliny does not refer to the Essenes as being at a specific settlement (town) but depicts them as a “gens” identified with an area to the (north-?) west of the Dead Sea, distinct from Jericho and Engedi, for some reason avoiding the nearby banks (of the Jordan and/or the Dead Sea?). He does not claim that they were Jewish or that they were obliterated or even disrupted, in the recent catastrophe that demolished Jerusalem/Jericho and Engedi (and brought the balsam bush to Rome), but he suggests that they live on as a “gens aeterna”! He does not necessarily claim that they had palm trees of their own or, for that matter, anything of their own. That Pliny had any first hand knowledge of this rather “romantic” Essene presence is doubtful to me, but that he attests the existence in his world of reports about [[261]] such a marvelous and mysterious group seems clear. It also seems reasonable

18 Philo’s failure to identify the “Therapeutae” as explicitly Jewish is interesting. His description of them in On the Contemplative Life certainly seems to put them into a generally “Jewish” category—seventh day assemblies (30, 36), guided by the sacred instructions of the prophet Moses (65, 87), reenactment of the Exodus (85–87), etc.—but his claim that this sort of “genos” exists in many places (21), loyal to the “fatherlands” in which the adherents were born (18) or where they reside (22) suggests that a more general extra-Jewish phenomenon is envisioned as the context of this report. See also Philo’s brief and less developed (thus earlier?) treatment of the Essenes in the fragment from Hypothetica in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica (8.11.1–2), where associations with Moses and Judea are mentioned, but birth status (ethnicity?) is explicitly denied at the outset to be a criterion for membership—of course, in a non-reproductive group, this may be more of a comment about reproduction (members are not born into the group) than ethnicity. Note also Philo’s closing words in this excerpt, regarding the high repute in which the Essenes are held, even among great kings (8.11.18)!

pliny on essenes, pliny on jews

207

to me that the blurry/muddled tradition he reports is not completely irrelevant for discussions about ancient Qumran, its occupants and its environs. But I wouldn’t want to try to build much on this part of Pliny’s reporting!19

19 Embedded in the Orion Discussion Group listings (see above, n. 6) are my own added comments on some of the issues, including my attempt on 16 June 2001 to summarize the discussions to that point (see also the follow-up comments in my posting on 20 June 2001):

“I will . . . simply list some of the observations that seem to me to be pertinent (for those who did not wade through the relevant postings [on the Orion discussion list]): 1. Pliny locates his “Esseni gens” in a general area “from the west” of the Dead Sea, having already noted places or areas from the east and to the south. 2. This Esseni area (real or imagined) avoids the undesirable aspects of the coastline (Solinus describes the area as inland/interior; note also possible connections with traditions on the location of Sodom—see Gmirkin’s posting of 7 June 2001). 3. The area is part of Pliny’s Judaea, itself thought of in general as “elevated” (super) in relation to Samaria and Idumea (both of which are placed along the Mediterranean coast by Pliny). 4. Thus “from the west” (Esseni land) one goes “infra” (down in elevation) to the ruins of Engedi, and thence to the rock-fortress Masada, also near the Dead Sea. 5. Pliny’s information seems to be at second hand or worse in this entire section, with the Essene vignette probably coming from a “Believe it or Not” (paradoxigraphical?) sort of composition relating to that part of the world (especially the general “Judaea” area). Thus I would say that Pliny’s account is basically irrelevant for arguments about Qumran’s possible Essene connections.”

CHAPTER TWELVE A

PHILO ON SETH: WAS PHILO AWARE OF TRADITIONS THAT EXALTED SETH AND HIS PROGENY?1 The main Philonic Treatments are: On the Posterity and Exile of Cain—deals at length with Seth in relation to Cain and Abel through an expressly nonliteral interpretation of Gen 4.25. Questions and Answers on Genesis—includes brief comments about Seth based on Gen 4.25 and 5.3. 1. It is clear from Josephus (Ant 1.2.3–3.1 §§68–72) that in the first century Jewish traditions existed that credited virtuous Seth and his virtuous, communally harmonious progeny with astronomical/astrological discoveries which were inscribed on two stelae for preservation through the impending destruction by the flood. 2. Philo attributes special significance to Seth and his descendants as symbols, not as historical figures, and seemingly with great restraint. They are not connected with astrological lore or with stelae, nor are they associated with the “angels” (which Philo views as wicked spirits) in Gen 6.1–4. 3. Philo does not mention explicitly interpretations of Seth materials with which he is in disagreement. (But he does not normally present materials in a polemic context throughout his preserved writings.) 4. Seth represents “healing” (ἴασις) for Adam’s expulsion (= involuntary failure), in contrast to Cain’s voluntary flight from God, which affords of no cure (Post 10; compare later legends about Seth’s quest for the oil of healing, etc.—any relationship?). Seth and Cain both produce some descendants with identical names (parallel genealogies; ENOCH = χάρις σου [“your gift”], METHUSALEH = ἐξαποστολὴ θανάτου [“sending

1 This relatively brief note appeared originally in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978 (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 457–58.

210

chapter twelve (a)

forth of death”], LAMECH = ταπείνωσις [“humility”]), but Cain’s have negative significance while Seth’s have positive (Post 40–48). 5. Seth represents a “new beginning” (παλιγγενεσία) in relation to Abel, who came from above (so QuaesGen) to below and now has returned above [[458]] (Post 173); Seth is ἀρχή (“beginning”) of another γένεσις (“creation”; QuaesGen), starting from human virtue and “growing” (as a plant that is watered; Seth = ποτισμός [“watering”]) towards the perfect and uncreated (see Post 124, 172–173). Seth is ἀρχηγέτης (“originator”) of those who acknowledge God’s gift (ENOCH = “gift”) of all good things and who flee a life full of evils so that God translates/removes them (as was done to ENOCH) from a corruptible to an immortal γένη (“race”; Post 42–43). 6. Seth is σπέρμα ἕτερον (a “different seed”; Gen 4.25) with regard to Abel, with the idea of continuity, but explicitly is not σπέρμα ἀλλότριον (“a foreign seed”), with the idea of contrast or disjunction (Post 172; thus he is not ἀλλογενής [“another race”], at least with respect to Abel—is Philo opposing a current interpretation?). In relation to Cain, Seth is ἐχθρόν (“foreign”), σπέρμα ἕτερον (a “different seed”) in a contrasting sense. 7. Seth represents a level of ἐπιστήμη (“understanding”) that became the basis from which Noah began, and in turn Noah developed παιδεία (? “learning”), which became the basis for Abraham, who then developed σοφία (“wisdom”), which served as the basis for Moses, the one who is πάντα σοφός (“completely wise”). Numerologically this sequence is represented in ten generations from Seth (or Adam) to Noah, ten more from Shem to Abra(ha)m, and seven (an even more perfect number! [see Chapter Thirteen, below]) from Abraham to Moses (Post 173–174; it seems that Philo counts Abram/Abraham as both the end of the group to which he gives his name and the start of the new group [compare Matt 1.17 on Jesus/Christ as possibly counted as two]; it is less clear that Noah plays a similarly dual role; the precise numbering of the generations from Adam to Enos is problematic—see Abr 12). Elsewhere Philo uses other symbolic arrangements of the early patriarchs—see especially Abr 7–47 (Enos-Enoch-Noah compared with Abraham-Isaac-Jacob). Certainly Philo’s ahistorical treatment of Seth leaves the door open for the possibility—no, probability—that alternative, perhaps competing,

philo on seth

211

interpretations existed among his contemporaries and probably his predecessors. Unfortunately, Philo does not provide enough information about other such approaches for us to recreate any with any degree of probability. Clearly there were Christian interpreters who followed similar paths in which “Seth” played a glorified role, as certain “gnostic” sources demonstrate. Whether Philo’s approach had a direct influence on any of them is worth discussing, as is the possibility that they were heirs of any of the suspected alternative approaches that may have been available among Philo’s contemporaries.2

2 Such issues are complex and have been hotly debated. See, for example, A.F.J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature (NovTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1977) and also Klijn’s note entitled “A Seminar on Sethian Gnosticism” in which he reviews the book that was produced from this Yale conference, in Novum Testamentum 25 (1983) 90–4. See further Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984); John D. Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History,” Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (ed. C.W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986) 55–86 and also Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Études, 6; Leuven and Paris: Peeters/Québec Les Presses de L’Université Laval, 2001); Birger A. Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).

CHAPTER TWELVE B

PHILO JOSEPHUS, SIRACH AND WISDOM OF SOLOMON ON ENOCH1 The Question How much did Philo (or Josephus, etc.) know about Jewish traditions that centered on the figure of ENOCH as an important revealer and righteous person? The Primary Data Josephus Ant. 1.85: “When he [Anoch] had lived 365 years he went up [or, returned, ἀνεχώρησε] to the deity, whence there is no record of his end.” Josephus Ant. 9.28: “About that time Elias was no longer seen [or, became invisible] among men and no one knows to the present time his end . . . . And concerning Elias and Enoch, who lived prior to the flood, it is recorded in the sacred books that they became invisible and no one saw their death.” Compare Ant. 4.326: “. . . As he [Moses] was still speaking with Eleazar and Joshua/Jesus, when a cloud suddenly stood over him; he disappeared into a certain cleft [or, ravine; see Gen 34.6 MT]. But he recorded in the sacred books that he died, fearing lest they should dare to say that on account of the superiority of his virtue he went up [or, returned, ἀναχωρῆσαι] to the deity.” (Elsewhere in this context Josephus uses death terminology of Moses.) Sirach 44.16 (49.14) and Wisdom of Solomon 4.10–15, see below, “observation” no. 5 and the final summary.

1 This summary material first appeared as pp. 253–57 in SBL 1978 Seminar Papers 1 (ed. P.J. Achtemeier; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978).

philo on enoch

213

Philo Posterity of Cain 33–74: Three descendants of Cain are contrasted with those of Seth who have identical names—Enoch (“your gift”), Methusaleh (“sending forth death”) and Lamech (“humiliation”). The Sethian Enoch symbolizes those with whom God is well pleased and who thus translocate from perishable to imperishable existence so that they are no longer found among the multitudes (43). Philo Change of Names 27–42: The designation “God” identifies the creative aspect of deity, who has created especially the wise and the good persons who strive to destroy the earthly aspects of existence and foster the powers of mind and soul. Such persons are well pleasing to God but are hard to find—as was Enoch [[254]] (34; see Gen 5.24). Some philosophers say that wisdom and the wise person do not exist. But wisdom and the wise do exist, although they cannot be seen by the wicked. So Enoch symbolizes the person who is well pleasing to God, who is hidden from sinful mortals and shuns their company. This person is translocated from the mortal to the immortal life (38)—he typifies the wild ecstatic, but wisdom also has tamer children like Abraham, who practice piety without disdaining the human sphere (39). Philo Abraham 7–59: A comparison between respective symbolic triads of Enos-Enoch-Noah (hope, repentance/reorientation, uprightness/ perfection) and Abraham-Isaac-Jacob (instruction, character/integrity, disciplined practice). Enoch represents reorientation and betterment with respect to sins—changes from worse to better, from ignorance to learning, from impropriety to propriety, resulting in a life of solitude and isolation from corrupting (society based) influences (17–26). “Enoch’s” characteristic is change which causes God to be pleased; “he was not found” means either that the old life disappears or that the virtuous person withdraws from the mulitudes to a solitary life (20–23). Thus “Enos” hopes but does not attain, “Enoch” partly attains (in the last part of life), and “Noah” is from the start perfect uprightness relative to “his generation” (47). But Abraham-Isaac-Jacob represent absolute virtue in the stable context of law and nationhood (48–59). (For a parallel treatment of μετάνοια, without specific reference to “Enoch,” see Virtues 175–186.) Philo Rewards and Punishments 10–27: Treatment similar to Abr 7–59 on the two triads. “Enoch” fled the bodily context to that of the soul, gained a different home and virtuous solitude (μόνωσις, 15–21). (For similar praise of relative solitude, see Every Good Man is Free 62–75.)

214

chapter twelve (b)

Philo Questions on Genesis 1.79–87: Gen 4.26 and 5.1: “Enos” = “man” = human reasoning/mind, which is capable of hope leading to joy leading to good. [Comments on the genealogical lists in Gen 5.9–21 are lacking.] Gen 5.22, 21–23: As “Cain” symbolized reception of mercy/forgiveness, “Enoch” symbolizes the repentance that forgiveness tends to produce. Thus even though “Enoch” was not completely perfect, his turning towards piety/virtue/God makes him “pleasing to God.” (Various numerological interpretations follow.) Enoch sinned prior to his repentance/reorientation, went through a period of purification from ἀδικία (unrighteousness), and became perfect in virtue. [[255]] Gen 5.23–24: At the end Enoch is again described as “pleasing to God” because he is an immortal/incorporeal soul and because he persevered in uprightness after penitence. Gen 5.24: As with worthy and righteous men, Enoch does not die but changes position from a sensed/visible plane to incorporeal/intelligent form. He became invisible and could not be found, just as later with Moses (whose burial place was not known) and Elijah (who ascended). Gen 5.29: “Noah” symbolizes justice, which gives rest from the problems of the earthly nature. Observations 1. To a large extent the pre-diluvian generations are symbolic lessons (not literal “historical” persons) to Philo. That is their almost exclusive function; whether he ever seriously considered them as actually historical is problematic. From Noah onward, and especially from Abraham onward, Philo deals with what he considers to be historical figures concerning whom he also often draws symbolic lessons. 2. Philo’s attitude to the “Enoch” from Seth’s line is entirely positive, even when “Enoch” symbolizes transition from corporeality/shortcoming (sin) to incorporeality (pleasing God). 3. When Philo compares and contrasts Enos-Enoch-Noah with Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, an underlying contrast between individual/isolated activity and social/political/corporate activity seems evident. Thus “Enoch” becomes an ecstatic solitary in pursuit of virtue and Noah’s

philo on enoch

215

perfection/righteousness is only relative to his (evil) generation, but Abraham exhibits absolute virtue as a whole/social person in a commonwealth structured by constitution/law. “Enoch” escapes from the multitudes, Abraham lives righteously in society. 4. Almost in passing, Philo sometimes identifies Enoch with special knowledge/understanding (even with “ecstatic” insight), but it is not clear whether Philo derived this spontaneously from his treatment of the scriptural text or relied on older, more developed traditions about Enoch’s “wisdom” (etc.). 5. The origin of Philo’s identification of “Enoch” with repentance is obscure. Unlike with the parallel identifications, Enos-hope and Noahrighteousness, preserved texts of Genesis make no overt reference to Enoch “repenting,” although the wording in Gen 5.22 (Enoch walked with or was pleasing to God after he sired Methusaleh) might suggest such an interpretation. Since Philo is not alone among Greek-Jewish sources in associating Enoch with repentance (see Sirach 44.16 “an example of repentance” in the majority [[256]] of Greek witnesses, although the Hebrew and a few Greek witnesses have “a sign of knowledge” and Syriac lacks the entire reference to Enoch; perhaps Wisdom 4.10–15, where God removed the one who pleased him from among the wicked, consciously reflects a similar Enoch tradition although his “repentance” is not part of the picture in Wisdom), it is possible that Philo derived this feature from an extant exegetical or hagiographical tradition about Enoch and the (wicked) generation in which he supposedly lived. The conjecture that a less-than-perfect, once-sinful Enoch was created to counter exorbitant apocalyptic glorification of Enoch (so e.g., Box and Oesterley in the Charles edition of Sirach; compare Ginzburg in Legends of the Jews 5, 156f. and 163) finds little direct support from these texts. Philo seems to have no objection to glorifying “Enoch” and his elevated understanding, but in the larger picture, Abraham and Moses provide Philo with even better models of virtue/righteousness/perfection. 6. The summary treatment accorded Anoch/Enoch by Josephus is somewhat startling and may reflect Josephus’ hesitancy, obvious also elsewhere, about commenting on eschatological/apocalyptic themes. It is difficult to imagine that Josephus did not know various extrabiblical legends and traditions regarding Enoch, considering Josephus’ awareness of such materials in connection with other biblical person-

216

chapter twelve (b)

ages (e.g., Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham). Perhaps Josephus is pursuing a consciously low-key approach to Enoch in opposition to other claims made for Enoch (see also Ant. 1.106 on how long life of the antediluvians helped them make discoveries in astronomy and geometry, especial1y those who lived 600 years or more; Enoch lived only 365!)—notice how the passage about Moses’ death/end lends itself to a similar interpretation—but this cannot be demonstrated for Enoch from Josephus’ own words. Summary For Josephus, Anoch/Enoch is neither a revealer nor a holy person and is distinguished only for his unusual end (death?). Josephus does not even mention that Enoch was “pleasing to God” (contrast Ant. 1.75 on Noah, whom “God loved”). For Philo, Enoch does symbolize virtue (in solitude) and understanding (with ecstasy), which characterize a person “well pleasing to God,” but Enoch’s total situation is sometimes viewed as secondary to that of Abraham (or Moses) as a life-paradigm, probably largely because of Philo’s conception of the socio-political models associated with these respective names. [[257]] For Wisdom of Solomon, Enoch (? unnamed) represents a righteous person with correct insight, pleasing to God, whom God removes early from life to guard him from the corrupting influence of surrounding wickedness. For Ben Sira and his grandson, Enoch is pleasing to God and an example of knowledge (Hebrew text) or of repentance (Greek).

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

PHILO’S TREATMENT OF THE NUMBER SEVEN IN ON CREATION 1 The “Problem” It is tempting to say that the author of On Creation2 was inebriated with thoughts of numbers in various connections and relationships. Whether and to what extent he might have been unusual for his time and training is one aspect of the problem. That he is usually perceived as unusual in this regard from our modern perspectives is obvious in the literature. My own interest in these matters is closely related to the fact that when I was first learning about the ancient Pythagoreans and their interpretations of reality in terms of number, I never could force myself, in scholarly empathy, into their world. Plato was difficult enough in his otherness. Now that I have been studying these issues for several decades, I find myself still largely an outsider. And this is itself seductive. Previous Work3 Karl Staehle was searching for the presumed common source of arithmological traditions that surface in the first few centuries of the

1 This paper was originally delivered for the SBL Philo Group, November 1996 (New Orleans) and has not appeared previously in hard copy. 2 Please note the following abbreviations and symbols to be used throughout this article: Op = On Creation (De Opificio Mundi) LA = Allegorical Interpretation (Legum Allegoria) decad = the unit (one) and numbers up to and including ten Translations are based on the Loeb edition, but sometimes have been modified. 3 Much of the homework for this study has been done in two valuable publications: Karl Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia, a 1929 Tübingen dissertation published by Teubner (Wiesbaden) in 1931; and Horst Moehring, “Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” a paper presented at the 1978 SBL sessions and published in volume 1 of the “SBL Seminar Papers” from that

218

chapter thirteen

common era, especially in the works of Theon of Smyrna (2nd century, writing on Plato’s mathematical ideas) and Anatolios of Alexandria and Caesarea (3rd century, on the first ten numbers—the “decad”), in addition to Philo. Previous research had focused on the possibility that commentarial traditions on Plato’s Timaeus provided the answer, perhaps filtered through a lost work of that much-lost yet apparently highly influential author, Posidonius of Apamea in Syria (circa 100 bce), whose “neo-Pythagorean” interests are also frequently highlighted. Staehle, following other studies, thought it was unlikely that the main carrier of the common materials was commentary on the Timaeus, but that there was an early and influential arithmological treatise (author and title unknown) from around the end of the 2nd century bce (perhaps of “Alexandrian” provenance), that dealt with the decad and was used, directly or indirectly, by Posidonius, Philo and various other authors. His detailed examination of arithmological passages in all of Philo is aimed at reconstructing more of the suspected common source. Staehle relies heavily on the work of Frank Egleston Robbins in attempting to unravel the question of Philo’s source(s) for his arithmology.4 Robbins thinks that Posidonius wrote a work περὶ κριτηρίου (peri kritēriou) that was itself dependent on an earlier arithmetic source that shows up also in Anatolios and in a slightly different form in Theon and some allies.5 Philo is also a witness to this lost arithmological source.6 Indeed, Robbins attempts to place Philo more precisely into the flow by close analysis of Op, concluding that Philo and Anatolios tend to year (pp. 191–227). This has now been republished, after his untimely death in 1986, in a Moehring memorial volume (The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion in Memory of Horst R. Moehring [ed. John Peter Kenney; BJS 304; Studia Philonica Monographs 1; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995]) and is described as representing “a stage in the development of a study of arithmology in Philo that has been undertaken as part of the effort of the Philo project research team under the leadership of Burton Mack at the IAC [Institute for Antiquity and Christianity] at Claremont” (p. 191). I am unsure whether any of Moehring’s related research has survived beyond the article on “Moses and Pythagoras: Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in Philo” (ed. Elizabeth Livingstone; Studia Biblica 1978, 1: papers on Old Testament and related themes; JSOTSup 11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1979). For more bibliography, see the online site “Number Symbolism in the Mediterranean before A.D. 1000: a Select Bibliography,” ed. Joel Kalvemaki [for his 2006 dissertation on number symbolism, see http://www .kalvesmaki.com/Arithmetic/dissabstract.html]. 4 See Frank Egleston Robbins, “Posidonius and the sources of Pythagorean Arithmology,” CP 15 (1920) 309ff. and “The Tradition of Greek Arithmology,” CP 16 (1921) 97–123. 5 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 15. 6 Philo’s Decal 29 is a key text.

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 219 agree against Theon et al. in certain test cases. Staehle is not so sure about such a precise analysis, while agreeing with the general thrust of the reconstruction. General questions about text-critical considerations both with regard to the lost source and with Philo’s works themselves are mentioned but not pursued.7 Horst Moehring is interested in Philo’s exegetical techniques and looks at the entire Philonic corpus with an eye to the function of arguments associated with the number seven. Moehring agrees with Staehle on the probability of a neo-Pythagorean source used by Philo, especially in Op and LA, and explores the lengthy section on the number seven in Op in greater detail. An interesting issue raised by Moehring’s analysis is the significance of his attempt to distinguish “Greek” aspects or elements of Philo’s material from “characteristically Jewish” ones. If Philo, as a Greek Jewish interpreter, understood his universe in PlatonicPythagorean terms, as seems to be clear in general, what is the value of such a distinction? For Philo, at least, if truth is unified, all these interpretations could be legitimately “Jewish” as well. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that throughout his literary life Philo was entirely consistent and unwavering in his attitudes to and use of materials that he knew were controversial for some. On this subject, the comparison between the Philo of Op and the Philo seen elsewhere on the matters termed “Greek” by Moehring might well be useful. And perhaps some progress towards creating better labels might also be made. Much of Moehring’s article deals with more explicitly exegetical connections of the number seven in Philo’s writings, apart from the long list in Op and its parallels. His conclusions regarding the Op materials will be critiqued in more detail below. In general, Moehring finds that arithmology is a frequently used exegetical tool for Philo, but it is only one among several and must be judged as an integral part of his entire exegetical approach. . . . In his arithmology, Philo makes heavy use of Greek myths and symbols, which he applies to purely Jewish concepts. . . . Arithmology allows Philo to stress two points: a) the cosmic and human order described by Moses is of universal validity . . .; b) this order is represented most clearly and purely in Jewish law, liturgy, and tradition; the Jewish religion is, therefore, the most ‘natural’ religion . . . . The superiority of the Jewish tradition

7 Other authors consulted by Staehle and listed in his notes include the following: Chalcidius, on Plato’s Timaeus; Varro; Capella; Favonius Eulogius, commentary on Scipio; Macrobius, commentary on Scipio; Theologoumena Arithmetica.

220

chapter thirteen is not esoteric in character: as can be shown through arithmology, it is reasonable and demonstrably so.8

Thus Moehring has himself underlined the terminological dilemma to which I have already referred. If this is an accurate depiction of Philo’s conceptual world, which requires that Philo’s understanding of religious (and “philosophical”) truth encompasses whatever is true in any available linguistic and cultural contexts, “Greek or barbarian,” then we must find a way of speaking about that world in terms more appropriate to Philo’s perceptions. He is, after all, a Greek Jew and a Jewish Greek, and his arithmological meanderings may demonstrate this as clearly as anything else in his extensive writings. Annotated Synthesis of the Data Provided by these Scholars9 Philo encloses the body of his lengthy treatment of the number seven in Op 89–128 between the following glowing passages: I doubt whether anyone could adequately celebrate the properties of the number seven, for they are beyond all words. Yet the fact that it is more wondrous than all that is said about it is no reason for maintaining silence regarding it. Nay, we must make a brave attempt to bring out all that is within the compass of our understanding, even if it be impossible to bring out all or even the most essential points (Op 90).10 These and yet more than these are the statements and philosophical insights of men on the number seven, showing the reasons for the very high honor which that number has attained in nature, the honor in which it is held by the most approved investigators of the mathematical science among Greeks and barbarians, and the special honor accorded to it by that lover of virtue, Moses . . . (Op 128a).11

8

Moehring, “Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool,” 218. My procedure has been to start with Moehring’s section on the Op materials on pp. 200–5 of his article, expanding, reordering, and modifying the material as I proceeded. Thus in what follows, much of his wording will remain, sometimes undifferentiated from mine, and at some points the descriptive monologue will move off into one-sided dialogue, as I add some observations and critical comments. I apologize for any awkwardness and repetitions caused by this mode of presentation. 10 All translations of Philo are based on the Loeb English translations, sometimes modified. 11 Also see Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 39. 9

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 221 The intervening sections in Op (just over 13 Loeb Greek pages of the 66 in the total treatise) comprise about 20% of the treatise12 and include a large number of the Greek or Latin arithmological associations known from antiquity for the number seven, with much of the material also being found in LA 1.8–16, packaged in only 2 pages of Loeb Greek. Moehring notes that W.H. Roscher has listed over a hundred different functions of the number seven (or its multiples) reaching all the way from the cult of Apollo to the use of seven black beans for magic purposes and in connection with the cult of the dead.13 According to Moehring, the Op section “contains only three short passages of unmistakably Jewish content,”14 and they are not considered integral to the section:15 – Op 89 (see Staehle, 33e): Creation of the world is in accordance with the properties of the number six, a perfect number, after which the Father sanctified the seventh day as the birthday of the cosmos. – Op 116 (see Staehle, 55): Law enjoins the keeping of the greatest and most public festivals at the time of the equinoxes, each of which falls in a seventh month from the other (using “inclusive” reckoning).16 – Op 128:17 Moses exceeded the scientists among the Greeks and barbarians in according honor to the number seven by incorporating it into the Law and by ordaining the observance of the seventh day as holy. Moehring observes that “even in this perfunctory bow to Moses, Philo describes the purpose of the sabbath observance in purely universalistic

12 Moehring estimated 23.26% by counting all the numbered sections that deal with “seven.” 13 See Roscher, “Die enneadischen und hebdomadischen Fristen und Wochen,” Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Kgl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 21.4 (1903) 196; “Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen,” ibid. 24.1 (1904); “Die Hebdomadenlehre der griechischen Philosophen und Arzte,” ibid. 24.2/6 (1906). 14 This and the following citations from Moehring are from “Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool,” 200–5. 15 Staehle is not particularly interested in them, since he is looking for Philo’s general hellenistic Greek source(s). 16 It is not clear to me that even this sort of calendar allusion deserves to be called “Jewish” by Moehring’s standards, since Philo could be understood to mean that cultures in general have legislated spring and fall festivals (i.e., does “law” here necessarily mean the Law of Moses?). 17 See above, the conclusion quoted from Op 128.

222

chapter thirteen

and philosophical terms—‘giving their time to the one sole object of philosophy with a view to the improvement of character and submission to the scrutiny of conscience.’” In contrast, in this long section of Op, Philo includes, in addition to the relatively straightforward arithmological statements, a number of interesting quotations from Greek authors and allusions to Greek institutions. Moehring argues that unlike the characteristically “Jewish” associations mentioned above, these form an integral part of the section and cannot be deleted without violating the structure of the whole, although in some instances this seems questionable—as a comparison with the parallel material in LA, which has only one of these explicitly identified references (the first) and that in a significantly different form, illustrates (see further details below). The passages mentioned by Moehring as most significant are the following: – Op 100 (see Staehle, 43–44): Thus “other philosophers” liken the number seven to the motherless Nike (that is, Athena = Minerva), also a virgin [or, “and Parthenos,” as a name]—an account has her appearing out of the head of Zeus; but the Pythagoreans liken seven to the one who governs everything (i.e. Zeus), the motionless one, concerning which Philo explicitly quotes the 5th century bce Pythagorean Philolaus: “There is one God eternal, governing and ruling everything, alone, motionless, himself like (only) to himself, different from (all) others.” The LA 1.15 parallel has significant differences but does refer more vaguely to a tradition associated with “the Pythagoreans.”18 – Op 104–105a (see Staehle, 62a): This section includes a long quotation attributed to Solon—a poem on the ten stages of a human’s lifetime, each stage seven years long. Similar material appears in LA 1.10, introduced by the vague “they say” and limited to comments on only three stages. – Op 105 (see Staehle, 62b): Here we find a quotation from Hippocrates on the seven stages of a human lifetime, also employing multiples of seven years in the stages. For similar LA material, see the previous paragraph. – Op 119 (see Staehle, 65): This section includes explicit and rather incidental reference to Plato saying that, through the mouth, mortal

18

See further below.

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 223

–

–

–

–

things have their entrance, immortal things their exit. In Timaeus 75D, Plato actually establishes a contrast between necessary things (ἀναγκαῖα—anagkaia) and best things (ἄριστα—arista). The context in Philo is that the mouth is one of the seven openings in the head. The parallel section in LA 1.12 does not mention the Plato connection. Op 124 (see Staehle, 59): This is a reference to Hippocrates concerning the time needed for the solidification of the seed and the formation of the embryo in childbirth. There is no parallel passage in LA. Op 126 (see Staehle, 73): Here we find a reference to the seven vowels of the Greek language [α ε η ι ο υ ω ].19 A shorter parallel appears in LA 1.14b. Op 127 (see Staehle, 74): This section contains etymologies for both the Greek and Latin words for seven, which prove that seven is a holy number.20 No parallel appears in LA. Op 128 (concluding section summary; see Staehle, 75): Here Philo tells us that the most approved investigators of mathematical science (presumably including astronomers) among the Greeks and barbarians (non-Greeks) pay honor to the number seven. Again, no parallel appears in LA.

As has been noted, a similar, detailed summary of the properties of the number seven is also to be found in LA 1.5–18. In the paragraph preceding the LA section, Philo states the purpose of his arithmological speculations, which of course, he ascribes to Moses himself: “Moses’ wish is to exhibit alike the things created of mortal kind and those that are incorruptible as having been formed in a way corresponding to their proper numbers” (LA 1.4b).21 This introduction to the discussion of seven in LA closes with an unattributed, perhaps “proverbial,” saying22—“Naught that is born does

19 Moehring adds “appropriate for Ionian”; why this passage is thought by Moehring to be specifically “Greek” as opposed to “Jewish”—including Greek-speaking Jews—escapes me. 20 Again, why Moehring sees this as “Greek” as opposed to “Jewish” is not clear. Despite the Loeb formatting, which joins Op 127 to what precedes, it is possible to read it rather as the start of a summary statement that continues into Op 128; in any event, it serves well as a transition to that concluding section. 21 Moehring underscores the importance of this passage for understanding the entire system of arithmology in Philo. 22 This is traceable to Euripides, frg 839.

224

chapter thirteen

ever die/ Its severed parts together fly/ And yield another shape/”—in which the author stresses the integral link between birth and death, an idea Philo will put to use in his discussion of the relationship between the numbers one and seven. Otherwise, with the following exception, the LA section does not include the explicit references to Greek authors listed above.23 The section closes in LA 1.15 with a reference to “the Pythagoreans, mythologizing,” who liken the number seven to the ever-virgin and motherless one (Athena), who neither was born nor will bear;24 this is followed by a resumptive reference to Gen 2.2, in accord with the commentary format of LA, so that the predominantly “Greek” main part of the section is, as it were, framed by two specific references to things unmistakably Jewish—namely, the consecutive text of Genesis.25 A quick summary of the purely arithmological statements on the number seven, without specific application to biblical texts, would have to include the following items, following the sequence in Op 90–127. They constitute the basic material that Philo uses in his exegetical application of arithmology. In what follows, the exact order in Op will be followed, using its section numbers as identification marks. Staehle and Moehring both list these items, but with different organization and sequence suiting their respective purposes, thus possibly blurring any subtleties in Philo’s chosen order. Staehle also conveniently excerpts the relevant Greek texts and provides brief references to similar passages in other ancient authors. Op 91 (see Staehle, 40): Definitional—there are two categories of “seven” or “seventh” in terms of the properties and relationships of numbers: (1) within the decad consisting of seven units and determined by the sevenfold repetition of the unit—Philo returns to this aspect in Op 95, as an introduction to the discussion of harmonies, etc.; and (2) outside the decad.

23 See below for a comparative overview of the relative contents of the lists in Op and LA. 24 Compare with Op 100 above, which gives a somewhat different view of the “Pythagorean” position. 25 Why Moehring thinks this is worth mentioning escapes me, since the format of LA expects such framing; as has been noticed elsewhere, Moehring’s attempt to distinguish the “Greek” from the “Jewish” is to some extent forced.

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 225 Op 92–94 (see Staehle, 41a): Outside the decad: starting from one, the desired number is obtained by doubling, tripling, etc., to the seventh place in the sequence: e.g., (x2) = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 (x3) = 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, 729 (x4) = 1, 4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096 (x5) = 1, 5, 25, 125, 625, 3125,15625 (x6) etc. In Op 92a, the latter type (outside the decad) is described as superior (although in Op 95a, the former type is called “not at all inferior” to the other!); the seventh term of any regular procession, starting from unity and with a ratio of 2, 3, or any number, is both a cube and a square [it is a mathematical given that the third item in the sequence will always be a square, the fourth a cube, and the seventh both a square of the cubed number and a cube of the squared number], combining both the corporeal and the incorporeal.26 This mathematical phenomenon is obviously of great interest to Philo, for he returns to it in another context in Op 106 (see Staehle, 41b), where he emphasizes the elements 3 and 4 that combine to make up seven (within the decad!) as they relate to the aforementioned progression based on doubling, where the third item is a square, the 4th a cube (still within the decad—4 and 8), and the 7th (64, outside the decad) is both a square (of 8) and a cube (of 4). Thus the same mathematical phenomenon does double service. Op 95–96 (see Staehle, 42): Transitional—returning to the general mention of this category in Op 91, Philo presents mathematical observations about “seven” or “seventh” within the decad: Op 95b–96 (see also 107–110; see Staehle, 46): All partitions of the hebdomad produce musical harmony:27 7 = 1 + 6 (6:1 greatest distance from highest to lowest note) 7 = 2 + 5 (5:2 fullest power in harmonies, almost like diapason)

26 In other places, such as QG 1.77, Philo will argue that the ones are prior to the tens both in order and in power, so that seven is more archetypal and elder than seventy. 27 Philo’s enthusiasm for musical harmonies appears elsewhere in his writings—e.g., Post 103–11, Contempl 80 and 84, QG 3.3—but is not usually expressed in arithmetic terms.

226

chapter thirteen

7 = 3 + 4 (4:3 first-harmony, the sesquitertian or diates saron). Op 97 (see Staehle, 48): Similarly, with geometric relations, in the rightangled triangle, 3 and 4 (components of 7) produce the right angle. Op 98 (see Staehle, 49): The hebdomad is also the starting point of all plane and solid geometry, or: the hebdomad is the starting point of all things corporeal and incorporeal. Op 99–100 (see Staehle, 43–44):28 The hebdomad within the decad is uniquely neither product nor factor. For this reason some “other philosophers” have likened it to the motherless Athena, also a virgin. “The Pythagoreans” liken it to the governor of all (Zeus).29 Op 101 (see also 111; see Staehle, 50):30 Transitional section, noting that the hebdomad serves as a symbol in both the intelligible and the sensible world: (1) In the world of the intellect, it is a symbol for “that which is exempt from movement and passion,” as has been shown above; (2) In the world of the senses, the hebdomad is a most essential force [in the movement of the planets], from which all earthly things derive advantage. Op 101b (see Staehle, 56):31 On the circuits of the moon—the phases of the moon last seven days. Op 102 (compare 98 and 106; see Staehle, 49): Spacial relations in the material universe illustrate aspects of seven. Op 103–105a (compare with LA 1.10; see Staehle, 62a): There are ten stages of seven years each in a person’s life (attributed to Solon).32

28

See also LA 1.15, Mos 2.210, QG 2.12, Spec Leg 2.56, Heres 170 and 216, Contempl 65, Praem 153, Decal 102. 29 Moehring notes that seven is likened to Athena or Zeus no fewer than eleven times in Philo—“the use of motifs from Greek religion is obviously not a problem for Philo.” 30 See Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 50. 31 See also LA 1.8, Spec Leg 1.178. 32 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 17, refers to F.E. Robbins’ discussion of such details as the arrival of teeth in 7 months (Theon et al.), which is not found in Philo, Anatolios, or Clement of Alexandria. It is not difficult to imagine how “growing of teeth” (number of months) and “shedding of teeth” (number of years) could become confused or amalgamated in the traditions. See the Solon quotation which mentions both growing

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 227 Op 105 (compare LA 1.10; See Staehle, 62b): There are seven ages in a human’s life, in multiples of 7 years, although not entirely continuous (attributed to Hippocrates)—i.e. stage 5 = 21 years and stage 7 is perhaps open ended.33 Op 106 (see above Op 98, 102, and Staehle, 41): On how “in the order of nature” 3 represents a plane, 4 a solid, and both are part of the mathematical sequence leading to correspondence of cube and square. Op 107–110 (see Staehle, 47):34 The hebdomad is absolutely harmonious, the source of the most beautiful scale, which contains all the harmonies (see also above on Op 95b–96): that yielded by the interval of 4 that yielded by the interval of 5 that yielded by the octave. Op 111 (see Staehle, 50):35 This section is transitional. Having explored the significance of seven in the incorporeal world, Philo now takes a closer look at seven in the visible universe. Op 112 (see Staehle, 51): Heaven is girded by seven zones.36 Op 113 (see Staehle, 52):37 There are seven planets and they cause a variety of earthly phenomena.38 (Later, in Spec Leg 2.56f. [see Staehle, 57], Philo states that because of its influence upon the stars the hebdomad is called καιρός—kairos, time).

and shedding together (Op 104–105a) and Op 103b, where only “growing” is mentioned in Philo’s introductory summary for the first seven years! 33 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 17, refers to Robbins’ discussion of what happens at 21 years, where Theon et al. focus on beard and size, and on girth at age 28, while Chalcidius et al. say beard at 21 and size at 28. Staehle notes that Philo has similar deviation between the details in Op 105 (beard at 21, full growth at 28) and in LA 1.10 (full growth at 21)! Also see Staehle, 62c on this. 34 See also Mos 2.210. 35 See also LA 1.8a. 36 Note that Dionysius of Halicarnassos (1st century BCE) in AntiqRom 2.5.3.6ff. speaks of five. 37 See also LA 1.8b, Spec Leg 2.57, Decal 102, QE 2.78. 38 Moehring notes that in Spec Leg 1.16, Philo comes close to the basic principle of astrology, when he speaks of the sun, the moon, and the other stars “in accordance with their sympathetic affinity to things on earth acting and working in a thousand ways for the preservation of the All.” At the same time he warns against “supposing that they alone are gods.”

228

chapter thirteen

Op 114 (see Staehle, 53):39 Ursa maior consists of seven stars, which sea pilots use to advantage.40 Op 115 (see Staehle, 54): The Pleiades consist of seven stars. Op 116 (see Staehle, 55): The two equinoxes are seven months apart.41 Op 117a (see Staehle, 58): This section is transitional—just as earthly things depend on the heavenly bodies in their hebdomadic relationships, so the number seven is important in human matters. Op 117 (see Staehle, 63):42 The irrational part of the soul has seven components (5 senses, speech and generation). Op 118 (see Staehle, 64):43 The body consists of seven outer parts (head, chest, stomach, 2 hands, 2 feet) and seven inner parts (σπλάγχνα— splagchna, stomach, heart, lung, spleen, liver, 2 kidneys). The order is reversed in LA, with other minor deviations of detail.44 Op 119 (see Staehle, 65):45 The head has seven essential parts (2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 nostrils, mouth).46 Op 120 (see Staehle, 66): There are seven things that can be seen—corporality, extension, shape, size, color, motion, rest. Op 121 (see Staehle, 67):47 There are seven different intonations of the voice—acute, grave, circumflex, rough, smooth, long, short.

39

See also LA 1.8c. Note that Aristotle and others speak of 12 stars in the “Bear”; Alexander of Aphrodisias (ca. 200 CE) says there are 12, but that the “Chaldeans” number them differently. 41 As noted above, Moehring considers this to be one of the three passages in Op 89–128 in which Philo introduces a clearly Jewish element. Philo says that “each of the equinoxes occurs in a seventh month” and refers to “law” that calls for major public festivals at each time; Moehring assumes that Philo is adducing the sacred character of the hebdomad as a reason for the dates of the highest Jewish festivals. 42 See also LA 1.11, QG 2.12. 43 See also LA 1.12. 44 Staehle, 17, notes that Robbins finds στόμαχος (stomachos, stomach) only in Philo and Anatolios, while Theon et al. have γλῶσσα (glōssa, tongue). 45 See also LA 1.12d. 46 Instead of “head,” LA has “face,” in agreement with most of the other sources noted by Staehle. 47 See also LA 1.14d. 40

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 229 Op 122 (see Staehle, 68):48 There are seven types of motion—up/down, right/left, forward/back, rotary.49 Op 123 (see Staehle, 69):50 There are seven bodily excretions—tears, nose mucus, mouth phlegm, urine, feces, perspiration, sperm.51 Op 124a (see Staehle, 59): Semen solidifies for embryo formation in seven days, according to Hippocrates.52 Op 124b (see Staehle, 60):53 Menstruation lasts at most seven days (apparently also attributed to Hippocrates). Op 124c (see Staehle, 61):54 Fetuses that come to birth in the seventh month survive (possibly also attributed to Hippocrates), while those born in the 8th month tend to expire.55 Op 125 (see Staehle, 70):56 Illnesses reach their critical stage (κρίσις—krisis) on the seventh day. Op 126a (see Staehle, 71):57 This section is transitional. The number seven also is influential in grammar and music. Op 126b (see Staehle, 72):58 The lyre has seven strings. Op 126c (see Staehle, 73):59 There are seven vowels (not named as such). Op 127 (see Staehle, 74): Etymologies are given for both the Greek and Latin words for seven, which prove that seven is a holy number. As

48

See also LA 1.12a. Note that in LA 1.4, Philo uses the same list (minus rotation) in support of the number six. See Staehle, 38. 50 See also LA 1.13a. 51 Staehle notes no parallels to this tradition. 52 Note the connection with the mention of sperm at the end of the immediately preceding series. 53 See also LA 1.13c. 54 See also LA 1.9b. 55 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 17, reports the observations of Robbins that only Philo and Anatolios give such a brief notice here, while Theon, Chalcidius, Varro, Capella, Favonius, Macrobius, and the Theologoumena make additional observations. 56 See also LA 1.13b. 57 See also LA 1.14a. 58 See also LA 1.14c. 59 See also LA 1.14b. 49

230

chapter thirteen

noted above, this section serves well as a transition to the concluding statements. Op 128 (see Staehle, 75): The most respected investigators of mathematical science (presumably including astronomers) among the Greeks and barbarians (non-Greeks) pay honor to the number seven, as does Moses with the sabbath day law. Towards Some Conclusions Moehring makes the following concluding observations about this material: 1. Philo almost certainly took it over from some neo-Pythagorean work either on arithmology in general, or on the number seven. The Greek origin of the list is obvious from the references to Greek mythology and the quotations from authors. 2. Although Philo has collected in the list a veritable armory of data, a glance at the list of the passages in which any of the items reoccurs outside the lists themselves in Op and LA indicates that he actually made very little use of this material in his own exegetical work. Only items from Op 99–100, 101b, 113, and 117 occur in any of the other treatises of the Philonic corpus. Among these, the most frequently used statement is one of Greek provenance: the number seven can be likened to the goddess Athena. The rest of the repeated items all refer to the seven planets in general or to the moon in particular. 3. These observations seem to justify the conclusion that Philo occasionally introduced arithmological statements for their own sake, without putting them to work as exegetical tools in connection with specific biblical passages. It should be noted, however, that this is more obvious in the case of the hebdomad than with any other number, if for no other reason than that for no other number does he introduce so long and detailed a list of statements. 4. The shorter list of statements on the hebdomad in LA is based upon the longer one in Op. Not only do many of the items occur in the same sequence,60 but even the transitional clauses are strictly parallel:

60

See the lists below.

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 231 Op 101 // LA 1.8—transition to the sensible world61 Op 117 // LA 1.9—transition to observations relating to humans.62 Op 126a // LA 1.14a—transition to observations on sciences.63 The only exception to this pattern is the transitional clause introducing the hebdomad within the decad, which is found only at Op 95. The introductory statement on the hebdomad quoted above also has no parallel anywhere in Philo. By way of modification and supplementation, I offer the following observations: It seems to me that the relationship between these two lists is much more complex than Moehring suggests and may hold some valuable clues to Philo’s literary activities. Here is an overview of the roughly 20 items that are paralleled, first following the order found in Op, then the order in LA: According to the order in Op Op

Topic

LA 1

99a 100 101a 101b 103 105 113 114 117a 117b 118a 118b 119a 121 122 123 124b

unbegotten, unbegetting motherless and virgin realm of sense/nature stages of the moon ability to procreate attainment of maturity seven planets great bear constellation heavens affect earth parts of the soul parts of outer body parts of inner body parts of the head/face voiced accents types of motion bodily discharges menstrual period

15b 15c 8a 8d–e 10b 10c 8b 8c 9a 11 12c 12b 12d 14d 12a (see also 4!) 13a 13c

61 This is actually less a “transition” in LA than it is the proper start of the arithmological section. 62 Contrary to what Moehring claims here, the transition actually comes in Op 102, to the perfecting power of 7, and is quite different from LA 1.9, which moves fairly smoothly from heavenly bodies to their influence on humans. 63 This is a good parallel, including grammar and music.

232

chapter thirteen

Table (cont.) Op

Topic

LA 1

124c 125 126a 126b 126c

fetuses in womb illnesses on grammar (and music) the lyre vowels

9b 13b 14a 14c 14b

According to the order in LA 1 Op

Topic

LA 1

101a 113 114 101b 117a 124c — 103 105 117b 122 118b 118a 119a 123 125 124b 126a 126c 126b 121 99a 100

realm of sense/nature seven planets great bear constellation stages of the moon heavens affect earth fetuses in womb human speech develops ability to procreate attainment of maturity parts of the soul types of motion parts of inner body parts of outer body parts of the head/face bodily discharges illnesses menstrual period on grammar (and music) vowels the lyre voiced accents unbegotten, unbegetting motherless and virgin

8a 8b 8c 8d 9a 9b 10a 10b 10c 11 12a (see also 4 !) 12b 12c 12d 13a 13b 13c 14a 14b 14c 14d 15b 15c

Organizationally, each list has a certain coherence. The Op material follows a fairly obvious, often explicitly described, flow and provides much more procedural commentary by the author. Occasionally it appears to be repetitious, but even the repetitions fit the flow. The list in LA, on the other hand, provides few clues to its organization beyond the statement in 8a that it deals with evidence from “nature.” Still, sequences of three can be seen in the ordering, whether

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 233 Philo was aware of or intended this or not—e.g., heavenly bodies (planets, great bear, moon), human development stages (only the first 3 are mentioned!), body parts (inner, outer, face), bodily functions (discharges, illness, menstruation), grammar/music (vowels, lyre, accents). Not covered by such an analysis are the sections on development of fetuses, which can be seen as an appropriate lead-in to the three stages of human growth, on parts of the soul, and on bodily motions, which are themselves in sequence between the stages of human development and the parts of the body. A look at the detailed differences between the treatment of seven in these treatises, could suggest that the LA material is sometimes less developed than that in Op or is developed in a different manner or is a rather careless or awkward summary. Seldom does LA show signs of more sophistication than Op! A possible exception is in LA 1.1564 on how seven, following the perfection of six, is in some senses the same as the monad—something that seems to be implied in Op 89, but is not explicitly stated.65 LA 1.4 on the six “mechanical” motions,66 followed by 1.12 on the seven (adding “rotation” to the list) is difficult to assess. Staehle mentions parallels to both approaches, so it is unlikely that the addition of “rotation” was a specifically Philonic contribution. But if LA is based on the material in Op, it also does other things with that material. LA 1.10a, on the development of speech in the first seven years of human development, is quite different from the outline of stages attributed to Solon and/or Hippocrates in Op 103–105, where the shedding of teeth is at issue, and while Op goes on to list 10 stages of human existence (the Solon tradition) or seven (Hippocrates), LA only mentions the first three seven year periods, without attribution to any specific authority. Furthermore, LA has humans reaching full maturity (defined in terms of growth) in stage 3, at 21 years of age, while Op has this accomplishment (defined in terms of strength [103] or growth [105]) in stage 4, at 28 years. It could be argued that in writing LA, Philo recognized the artificiality of the “Solon” and “Hippocrates” cycles and abandoned those schemes or that in Op Philo had learned more about the cycle theories and had added to the arsenal—or that 64

See also Deus 11, 13 and Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 45. Moehring points out that the affinity between one and seven plays an important role in Philo, who also demonstrates it on the basis of the biblical text. 66 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 38. 65

234

chapter thirteen

different influences operated on Philo in different ways when he wrote the two treatises in question, incompatible with the simple model of direct development. LA 1.15 has Pythagoreans comparing the number seven to “the evervirginal motherless one,” but in Op 100, the Pythagoreans are credited with likening it to the motionless sovereign while unidentified “other philosophers” make the Nike/Athena identification. Has Philo learned something between the writing of LA and Op, or is something else happening here? It is doubtful that he had Op clearly in mind when he wrote the LA summary, unless he had changed his mind about who claimed what (or no longer cared). Finally, LA tends to neglect the more theoretical evidences found in Op (e.g., on musical harmonies or mathematical relationships or geometrical forms), focusing much more summarily on bodies in nature,67 although LA 1.15 does end on a more abstract mathematical note. Of course, Philo’s expected distinction between the world of ideas and the world of the senses comes into play here, with LA focusing on the latter. Also absent from LA are the following “sense world” items: Op 102b, on the seven dimensions of bodies—length, breadth, depth, point, line, surface, solid; Op 112a, on the seven zones that gird the heaven—artic, antartic, summer and winter solstices, equinox (apparently counting as one; but see Op 116!), zodiac, and the milky way (!), but Philo refuses to count the horizon; Op 115, on the seven stars of the Pleiades; Op 116, on the two equinoxes, each in a 7th month from the other (with attendant festivals); Op 120, on the seven dimensions of what is seen—presence, extension, shape, size, color, movement, rest; Op 124a, on semen solidifying to form the embryo in seven days (Hippocrates). Such evidence is rather frustrating to interpret, insofar as there are other reasons to believe that Op is a relatively “early” production relative to the larger Philonic corpus and relative to the “allegorical” treatises. Pos-

67

See LA 1.7b/8a.

philo’s treatment of the number seven in on creation 235 sibly Op went through two or more editions before reaching the form we have. Or, LA on these arithmological materials reflects a waning of interest and of recollection that produces a rather pale reflection of the more impassioned and wide-ranging treatment in Op, which also probably found its way into Philo’s lost treatise On Numbers (possibly written about the same time as Op).68 It is noteworthy that Staehle first seems to agree with Cohn in placing Op after QG69 and thus thinks that On Numbers was already available or at least on Philo’s agenda before Op appeared,70 but presumably did not include a treatment of the number seven! But then Staehle recognizes the difficulty of squaring such a chronology with the statement in Op 52 that seems to look to the production in the future of a treatise On Numbers and admits without conviction that perhaps Op actually preceded the Questiones commentaries.71 I would incline to the latter possibility, at least for a “first edition” of Op. It is also possible that the conjectured single treatise On Numbers was in reality a series of treatises or an evolving work that defies exact pinpointing in the existing Philonic cross-referencing. The pieces of evidence are unharmonious if not conflicting, precluding any simple solution at this time. On what seems, viewing the two lists comparatively, to be an obvious tendency in LA to play down the association of the traditions with known literary and scientific authorities (Solon, Hippocrates, philosophers and grammarians, etc.—and even when “Pythagoreans” are mentioned, what is the flavor of the term “mythologizing” applied to them?!), we might ask whether this is better understood as a phenomenon of “youth” flowing from lack of precise knowledge or perhaps of mature “conservativism,” which has abandoned some aspects of early rebelliousness or idealism, or some other factor (failure of memory, reliance on a different source, adjustment to different audiences)—including the possibility of revisional stages fathered by Philo himself, or occurring during the transmission of his writings. If I am forced to draw some tentative conclusions from all this, my feeling is that Op is a product of confident informed and enthusiastic

68 See Op 15, perhaps suggesting that a treatment of the One was available, and Op 52, on the intention to write on number four, or perhaps on numbers in general. 69 Apropos 4.151, a possible reference to On Numbers; see also 3.49, 4.110, and Mos 2.115. 70 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 8 n. 1. 71 Staehle, Die Zahlenmystik, 9.

236

chapter thirteen

youth, from an author who has not yet felt the sting of criticisms from his associates and others from whom he expected support. His discourse on seven is a draft of what he also included in On Numbers around the same time, but never introduced in such a full sampling in subsequent writings. If LA is based directly on that material, it is a faint and extensively reworked echo. It is easier for me to believe that Op is an improved version of what appears in LA, or perhaps simply an alternate version. I can also understand LA as a faint and toned down echo of the more inclusive and sophisticated tradition by an author who had lost or laid aside some of the boldness or brashness he once exhibited. Alternatively, but with less enthusiasm, I might resort to a theory of early and later editions of Op to explain how LA might reflect such a weak form of the “seven” tradition, being based on the early edition that was considerably strengthened later, after On Numbers had been completed. There are many paths; but they are all conjecture.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

PHILO AND THE SABBATH CRISIS: ALEXANDRIAN JEWISH POLITICS AND THE DATING OF PHILO’S WORKS Years of studying with Helmut Koester and reaping the benefits of his work have helped to underline and bring into clearer focus that cornerstone of critical research: “Things are not always what they seem,” or better, “. . . what others have made them to seem.” Illustrations can be drawn from every corner. In what follows, I wish to explore and reopen some aspects of that still largely unmined treasure trove, the works of Philo the Jewish Alexandrian, with particular reference to some hints in Philo’s writings that seem to me to refer to a hitherto unexplored aspect of Jewish involvement in the Alexandrian political scene.1 [[132]]

1 This essay first appeared in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. Birger A. Pearson et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 131–41. It is a “work in progress” type report, with many open leads and loose ends left to explore. A related aspect is examined in my article “Tiberius Julius Alexander and the Crisis in Alexandria according to Josephus,” which follows below. There has not yet been much opportunity to discuss these matters with other current researchers in the field of Philonic studies such as David Winston, Abraham Terien, or Peder Borgen and their associates. Some use has been made of the convenient electronic texts prepared and distributed by the TLG project then directed by Theodore Brunner at the University of California, Irvine, and of the IBYCUS Scholarly Computer system for searching and manipulating this material. Of conventional scholarly publications, special use has been made of the Loeb Classical Library volumes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press) on Philo, edited and translated by G.H. Whitaker and F.H. Colson (vols. 1–5, 1929–1934) and by Colson alone (vols. 6–10, 1935–1962), with indices by J.W. Earp (in vol. 10) and two supplementary volumes by Ralph Marcus (1953). The older English translation by C.D. Yonge (London: H.G. Bohn, 1854) has also been consulted at points. Frequent reference has also been made to the works of E.R. Goodenough, especially his Introduction to Philo Judaeus (Oxford: Blackwell, 19622) and his Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938). For matters dealing with the Embassy to Gaius and associated issues, E.M. Smallwood’s Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1961) has been very useful. Indeed, after the initial draft of this essay had been submitted to the editors, the following directly relevant article was brought to my attention: “Philonic Anonyms of the Roman and Nazi Periods: Two Suggestions,” by Daniel R. Schwartz in the SPhilo 1 (1989) 63–73. The “suggestion” by Schwartz anticipates and neatly complements the present study! See below, n. 6.

238

chapter fourteen

My main conclusions and their immediate ramifications are as follows: (1) Philo’s negative treatments of Joseph as a symbol of the political person often reflect a specific set of political events experienced by Philo (in Egypt) involving problematic actions of a Jewish political figure; (2) Philo’s positive treatment of Joseph as a symbol of the (Jewish?) political person was almost certainly written prior to the crisis reflected in the negative treatments; (3) The most obvious candidate for sparking the negative treatment would seem to be Philo’s nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander, who first appears in preserved sources as a major political figure around 42 ce and disappears from the sources shortly after 70;2 (4) If Philo is reacting to political activities of Tiberius Alexander, the date of the publication of Philo’s allegorical treatises may be considerably later than usually has been assumed. The larger context of these observations is an interest on the part of myself and my students in examining more closely the chronological clues present in Philo’s writings.3 We have convinced ourselves that some significant, perhaps even startling, things remain to be said about the course of Philo’s life and the sequence of his literary activities. Goodenough, for all of his foundational and magisterial work on Philo, has probably done us a disservice by encouraging us to abandon the search for evidences of chronological progression within the Philonic corpus. That Philo envisioned different audiences for different writings or series of writings seems highly probable, but it by no means follows that chronological distinctions between various works might not also be possible.

2 My main source of detailed information on Tiberius Julius Alexander and related subjects is E.G. Turner, “Tiberius Iulius Alexander,” JRS 44 (1954) 54–64. 3 Our route to Philo was via an examination of translation techniques in antiquity, which led us to Philo’s etymologies, and thence to such tantalizing phenomena as Philo’s (early?) use of “Chaldean” to designate the language that he consistently calls “Hebrew” in the (later?) “allegorical” treatises. (C.K. Wong prepared a preliminary study of this usage, subsequently published as “Philo’s Use of Chaldaioi,” SPhilo 4 [1992] 1–14.) This has led us to look (1) for other possible systematic changes in the Philonic corpus as clues to the internal sequence of writing and also (2) to Philo’s own cross references and autobiographical allusions within the corpus. My thanks are offered to the various undergraduate (in an exciting “general honors” seminar) and graduate students, and other associated colleagues in my advanced seminars, who have shared in this work—especially William Adler, Kass Evans, Noel Hubler, Alan Humm, Allen Kerkeslager, Ross Kraemer, Lynn LiDonnici, David Rech, Jay Treat, C.K. Wong and Benjamin Wright.

philo and the sabbath crisis

239

The Crisis over Jewish Public Attitudes to Rulers The one sure date in Philo’s career that every commentator recognizes is the crisis that led to the Jewish embassy to Rome around the year 40 of [[133]] the Common Era. Philo presents himself as the most appropriate spokesman in that group of (five) Jewish envoys (“Embassy to Gaius” [Legatio ad Gaium] 182), but the names of his companions are not recorded. It has been suggested that Philo’s (younger?) brother Alexander might have been with the group, since he somehow found himself in prison (in Rome?) when Claudius became emperor in 41 ce and released him.4 I do not know if anyone has suggested that Philo’s nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, might also have been present, since he emerges at the outset of Claudius’ reign with a civil position in Egypt (ca. 42–44) and soon thereafter becomes prefect of Judea (46–48). There is a strong possibility that the Jewish envoys (and their supporters?) were still in Rome when Gaius Caligula was succeeded by Claudius (so E.G. Turner). The background and course of events leading to the embassy are described in some detail by Philo in his essays known as “On Flaccus” and “Embassy to Gaius.” Josephus also mentions these events rather briefly (Antiquities 18.[8.1].257–260). The main public issue of contention that is reported by these sources is the failure of Jews to erect honorific statues to the Roman rulers, which became a catalyst for rioting against the Jewish meeting places and populace and a reevaluation of traditional Jewish privileges. The disastrous results led to the sending of embassies, from the Jews and from their accusers, to the emperor Gaius, who died before the issues could be resolved. Claudius inherited the problem and finally brought it under control by means of official letters and edicts. The Crisis over Sabbath Keeping This is not the only public political crisis concerning Jewish practice and privilege that Philo describes in his writings, although it receives by far the most detailed attention. In the treatise entitled “On Dreams” (De somniis) of which two of the original three (or more?) “books” 4 E.G. Turner (“Tiberius Iulius Alexander” [1954] 58) discusses the details, including the close family ties with Agrippa and his family. See Josephus Antiq 19.[5.1].276–77.

240

chapter fourteen

have survived, Philo becomes uncharacteristically autobiographical and confrontationally indignant about a series of recent events that challenged the traditional Jewish sabbath observance in Egypt. The context is a discussion of the two dreams of the young man Joseph in Gen 37.5–11. Philo’s picture of Joseph here is quite negative—Joseph represents human vanity that seeks “addition” of sense-related luxuries to the ideally simple life. His brethren rightly criticize him, reflecting the attitude of right reason towards vainglory. In the end, Joseph will change his stance and be remembered (see Dreams 2.105–109), but the main focus in Dreams 2.5–109 and 2.110–154 is on Joseph as a symbol of failings due to conceit. [[134]] Joseph’s first dream, where sheaves of wheat bow down, introduces the problem of earth-generated vanity and luxury. The second, where the heavenly bodies bow down, draws attention to the folly of humans exalting themselves over nature itself (2.115–117). Thus the Persian king Xerxes tried to change nature and even attacked the sun (2.117–120), and the Germans are reported to use their weapons to try to repel floodwaters (2.121–122)! At this point we find a third example, based on Philo’s own experience, the main features of which are as follows (in an intentionally mechanical rendering): (123) But not a day or two ago I knew a certain one of the rulers who, since he had charge of the leadership and protection of Egypt, determined to upset our traditions, and especially to abrogate the most holy and most awesome law that concerns the sabbath, . . . and to do other things that ignore established custom, thinking that it would be the beginning of a change of habit concerning the other things and of transgression of all things, if he were able to destroy the sabbath tradition. (124) And when he saw that neither those he was pressuring were submitting to the commands nor did they subdue the remaining multitude but they took the matter gravely and heavily, and since they were mournful and downcast as at enslavement and sacking and destruction of a native land, he decided with a word to instruct them to transgress, saying: (125–126) [Speech describes possible calamities and asks] (127) “Will you sit in your synagogues assembling the usual group and safely reading the holy books and if anything is not clear explaining it and extensively spending time and studying the native philosophy? (128) No, but discarding all these you will strip down to help yourselves and parents and children and the other relations and loved ones, and if truth be told, also possessions and money, to prevent their destruction.” (129) “Indeed, I my very self am,” he said, “all the preceding—whirlwind, war, cataclysm, thunderbolt, a plague of famine and disease, the earthquake shaking and overthrowing what firmly stood; not just a name for fate’s necessity but a power, visible, standing near!”

philo and the sabbath crisis

241

(130) What then shall we say that the one who proclaims such or merely thinks it is? Is he not from somewhere else? Beyond the ocean, then, or metacosmic, some new evil, since indeed he dared to compare his all-unfortunate self to the all-blessed? (131–132) [Further rhetorical examples of his conceit] . . . insofar as he a man thinks himself superior to the other creatures.

There can be little doubt that Philo intends to speak of a real person of authority in Egypt (parallel to Xerxes and the Germans) or that the events to which he refers happened recently and derive from his personal knowledge. The Greek phraseology is not detached and formalistic—“Very recently I knew. . . .” Philo’s flow of words is lively and impassioned. The issues are [[135]] extremely serious to him—not simply the unnamed ruler’s expression of blasphemous vanity but also the situation that produced such insolence: an attack on the Jewish sabbath tradition, and through it, on Jewish law and practices in general. But who is this dastardly villain, and when did such events happen? Colson is content to note (in agreement with Edersheim and Ewald) that Flaccus does not seem to fit the bill (despite Mangey’s claim) and that perhaps one of his immediate predecessors (Iberus or Vitrasius Pollio) is in view.5 Goodenough, in his Politics of Philo Judaeus (1938), devotes an entire chapter to this and similar passages to argue that here Philo is expressing “politics in code” to attack Roman oppression in general in a manner that “would seem quite innocuous if, as was unlikely, it fell into Roman hands” (21). Goodenough declines to identify the specific ruler or crises described by Philo. It “may have been Flaccus, but I doubt it. . . . [Philo’s] reference . . . seems to indicate the prefect immediately preceding the incumbent at the time of writing.”6 Goodenough does not think there was enough time left in Philo’s life for him to write this and associated works after the reign of Gaius (and Flaccus). It seems to me that in such discussions, the commentators miss some crucial features of Philo’s invective throughout Dreams 2 and similar passages, especially passages about Joseph. Goodenough is mostly correct that the specific reference to a specific ruler in 2.123, which seems to depart from “the general allegorical mazes” of the surrounding discussions, “is no break at all since Philo has been talking about the Romans

5

Loeb Philo 5 (1934) 609. Politics 29–30. D.R. Schwartz (“Philonic Anonyms” [1989]) takes issue with these conjectures and takes a step toward what seems to be a more reasonable solution by identifying the culprit as Tiberius Julius Alexander around the year 42. 6

242

chapter fourteen

all along” (30). My only quarrel with Goodenough here would be the precise definition of “Roman.” Goodenough clearly means hated Roman outsider. But I think Philo is concerned in these passages primarily with the (suspect) Roman insider—that is, with political authority exercised by persons of Jewish origin within the Roman system. The Joseph of Genesis is an obvious model: one of the brethren who becomes second in command in ancient Egypt (note Dreams 2.43–47). The specific problems described in Dreams 2.123–132 all deal with basically internal Jewish customs and concerns. The key issue highlighted is sabbath observance, which admittedly could easily be a point of contention for non-Jewish authorities since it has an impact on such key economic issues as work schedules. The privilege of retaining customary observances—including sabbath—among Jews in the Roman world was, according to Philo and other sources from that period, consistently reaffirmed by Augustus and his [[136]] successor (see Embassy 155–161; sabbath observance is mentioned specifically only in passing in 158). It is also true that in discussing the Gaius Caligula crisis, Philo can view Jewish customs as a connected unit, so that a challenge to one element constitutes a threat to all (see Embassy 117–118). Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that any non-Jewish Roman ruler tried to use sabbath observance as the wedge to overthrowing Jewish customs in general or that the motivation of Flaccus and/or Gaius was to overturn all Jewish customary observances. The villain of Dreams 2.123, however, is described as wanting to attack sabbath observance as a step towards overthrowing Jewish customs in general. The various hints that surround the central passage suggest that he is an insider, who should know better—see e.g., 2.135–138, on the pseudo-dream nature of the justification presented by the “not well cleansed” oppressor, or 2.144, which suggests that a traitor from the inside is responsible for the crisis, or the images of fountain and herd in 2.150–154, which seem to reinforce that picture. Similarly the Joseph introduced in the general statements of 2.10–16 seems to represent inside pressures caused by vanity and conceit, which threaten to overthrow the existing equilibrium. With regard to Joseph’s first “dream,” Philo makes no attempt at explaining away the obvious indications in the biblical story that Joseph is functioning among his parents and brethren (e.g., 2.33, 2.41–47). Similarly, it seems to be the insider who is described as (in danger of) failing in such passages as 2.68–70 or 2.78–84, and the praise of brethren who oppose this tyrant

philo and the sabbath crisis

243

(e.g., 2.93–104) best fits the picture of inner Jewish tensions. Philo even looks to the time of reconciliation for this vain and misguided antagonist (2.105–109). Philo’s Uses of the Joseph Figure/Story As is well known, Philo’s treatments of Joseph vary greatly throughout the Philonic corpus, from the largely sympathetic presentation in “On Joseph” (one of the “expositional” treatises) to the ambivalent or critical passages scattered throughout the “allegorical” series of writings.7 The evidence in Goodenough’s brief footnote on this matter (Politics 33 n. 50) is filled out very helpfully by Colson’s comments in the general introduction to Loeb Philo 6 (xii–xiv [1935]), and in even greater detail by the extremely useful annotated index of names [[137]] by J.W. Earp in Loeb Philo 10 (1962). Colson follows Goodenough in explaining the differing depictions as due to Philo’s “chronic vacillation of character” (or, in Colson’s rephrasing, “chronic tendency to see both sides of a question alternately or even simultaneously” [xiii])—Goodenough, of course, also notes that the different series of writings were aimed at different audiences. I find these explanations less than satisfactory. The Joseph of Philo’s “exposition” “On Joseph” is the representation of the political person, a lifestyle that stands over against the life of learning/instruction (Abraham), of “nature” (Isaac) and of practical application (Jacob). This image of Joseph is highly favorable. It is his brothers, filled with envy, who are villains in the story concerning Joseph’s two dreams—in contrast to what has been summarized above from the treatment of Joseph in “On Dreams.” Philo spins off no allegories at this point in “On Joseph,” nor does he draw any pointed lessons. There is no hint of the negative Joseph imagery found in “On Dreams” 2 and elsewhere in the “allegorical” series of writings. Outside these “allegorical” treatises of Philo and the “On Joseph,” references and allusions to Joseph are rare and seem quite positive (e.g., On Rewards and Punishments [De praemiis et poenis] 65, on Jacob’s twelve ideal 7 The general distinction between Philo’s “expositional” writings (“On Creation,” “On Abraham,” “On Joseph”; perhaps also “Life of Moses”), which tend to deal with the biblical text in a fairly straightforward manner, and his “allegorical” treatises (Loeb volumes 1–5, except “On Creation”) is widely accepted and rests on strong internal and external evidence. See L. Cohn, “Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos,” Philologus Supplementband 7 (1899) 385–436.

244

chapter fourteen

sons/tribes), and where Philo has occasion to speak of apostasy within Israel in this material, as in Special Laws (De specialibus legibus) 1.54–58, the Joseph imagery seems to play no role. Several of the “allegorical” treatises, on the other hand, make explicit mention of Joseph and often represent him as symbolic of negative features, in general accord with the picture in “On Dreams.” The following passages seem closely related to the “On Dreams” treatment and to each other in some of their emphases: “Worse Attacks Better” (Quod deterius potiori insidiari solet) 5–31, “God’s Immutability” (Quod Deus immutabilis sit) 111–121, “Agriculture” (De agricultura) 55–66, “Sobriety” (De sobrietate) 10–15, “Flight” (De fuga et inventione) 126–131. Notable features include the contrast between Joseph and his various types of (half-)brothers, the “youthfulness” of Joseph, the stages of Joseph’s quest to find his brothers, and his need for worthy instructors. The passage in Flight seems much less specific, much less personally involved than the others, and may have been written significantly earlier or later than the crisis mentioned in Dreams 2. Another group of “allegorical” treatise passages presupposes the negative imagery of Joseph but holds out explicit hope for his rehabilitation: “Change of Names” (De mutatione nominum) 89–96, 171–174, 214–215; “Migration of Abraham” (De migratione Abrahami) 16–24, 158–163, 203–207. Similarly, “Allegorical Laws” (Legum allegoriae) 3 both chides Joseph the statesman (3.26, 3.179) and praises Joseph as a model for withstanding temptation (3.237–242). A few other, only mildly critical references to Joseph occur in the “allegorical” [[138]] treatises—“Cherubim” (De cherubim) 128 (Joseph was imprecise in assigning the cause of true interpretation of dreams), “Cain’s Posterity” (De posteritate Caini) 78–82 (even Joseph is deemed “successful” in things God gives him), “Confusion of Tongues” (De confusione linguarum) 71–72 (Joseph symbolizes the least mature of the “good” tendencies, slightly better than the “bodily” Egyptians), “Who is Heir” (Quis rerum divinarum haeres) 251 and 256a (Jacob is amazed that Joseph “still lives to virtue and rules the body”). Identifying Philo’s Historical “Joseph” In several of these negative portrayals of Joseph, the details sometimes seem to be more precise than might be expected from some sort of general allegory, based on what we know of the biblical narratives and

philo and the sabbath crisis

245

of Philo’s usual procedures. Philo appears to have a specific person and situation in mind, perhaps supplementing the picture found in Dreams 2. Thus “Joseph” is depicted as engaging in philosophical debate—see especially Worse 6–12 (17, 28b), on how “Joseph” is motivated by the “political” rather than “truth” in his position that the one perfect “good” involves the combination of the traditional three types of “goods”; compare Agriculture 55–66, which spells out more clearly the biblical textual base of this symbolism in the contrast between “cattle tending” (political controlling) and “shepherding” (rational leadership). Philo’s “Joseph” is able to achieve his political goals, to a point, but then significant opposition occurs from the “brethren”—e.g., Agriculture 59. It is not clear to me whether the tirade against superficial religious ritual in Worse 20–21 is aimed at Philo’s “Joseph” (the analogous attack on illegitimate acts of “self-control” in Worse 19 seem not to be), although certainly political activity in Philo’s world would involve a leader in such issues and activities. The emphasis on “Joseph’s” wealth (e.g., Change 91), and that he came from a wealthy family (e.g., Worse 13–14), find sufficient explanation in the biblical narrative. That he is really an older person, although described as “young,” may border on historical allusion (see Immutability 120 and Agriculture 56—does Philo have someone specific in mind?), but Sobriety 10–15 also provides a biblical textual basis for the observation. Indeed, the idea that “Joseph” needs to return to the “older” viewpoints (Sobriety 15), to have a change of perspective (Dreams 2.105–109), is propounded by Philo on the basis of his biblical texts with such firm conviction that one wonders whether this also reflects a perceived historical turnabout by “Joseph”—or even whether the historical “Joseph” villain is dead by the time Migration 16–24 is penned. This much seems to me to be clear: the real crisis described in Dreams 2.123–132, which is sparked by the Joseph story but is not directly linked to explicit “Joseph” imagery at that point, has to do with a Jewish political [[139]] leader and Jewish community issues and has spilled over to the surrounding “Joseph” symbolism throughout Dreams 1 and 2 (e.g., 1.219–225, 2.78–84, 2.101–104). It probably also leaves its mark in some of the other “Joseph” lessons in other tractates in the “allegorical” series and may in fact have helped Philo to create some characteristics of his generalized allegorical “Joseph.” I suspect that a careful study of the Joseph material from this perspective may help to

246

chapter fourteen

determine the order in which Philo wrote the relevant passages, some of which are rife with emotional involvement, others of which are quite calm and detached. It seems to me virtually impossible that Philo could have written “On Joseph” after these developments! But who is this Jewish political figure? Our knowledge of political details in Philo’s world is very spotty, but we do have examples from Philo’s own family of very involved Jewish leaders. At some point, Philo’s brother Alexander bore the title “alabarch” (or perhaps “arabarch”), the exact implications of which are not known—it is usually presumed to relate directly to matters of money on the general (not simply the Jewish) Alexandrian political scene. One of Alexander’s sons, Marcus Julius Alexander, died relatively young (around the year 44, probably in his twenties), but seems to have had some significant exposure to the Egyptian (Alexandrian?) fiscal and civic scene. Another son, Tiberius Julius Alexander, is clearly active in eastern Mediterranean political life from the 40s through the 60s in various connections: he was “epistratēgos” in the Thebaid area of Egypt around the year 42, when his brother Marcus was also active in commerce in that area; he became procurator of Judea from about 46–48; sometime in the reign of Nero (54–68) he was procurator of Syria;8 around the year 63 he was a military officer in the Armenian area; in 66 he was appointed prefect of Egypt; and we lose sight of him after his involvement as a staff officer with Titus in the siege of Jerusalem in 70, although he may reappear as a prefect of the Praetorian Guard in Rome.9 On the face of things, Tiberius Julius Alexander makes an excellent candidate for Philo’s “Joseph” of the Dreams tractates. He is politically active in Egypt (if not in Alexandria) at a relatively early date, is described by Josephus (Ant. 20.[5.2].100) as one who abandoned the ancestral customs and is thought by many commentators (e.g., Turner 56, Goodenough’s Introduction 50 [ambiguously], Colson Loeb 9.447) to be the “Alexander” of Philo’s philosophically argumentative treatises

8 See J.P. Reys-Coquais, “Syrie Romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien,” JRS 68 (1978) 71 n. 369 (see also L’Année épigraphique for 1978, #819). I am indebted to Kass Evans for this information. 9 For details, see E.G. Turner, “Tiberius Iulius Alexander” (1954), especially 58–61. An updated study of the lengthy edict of Tiberius Alexander to the Alexandrians in 68 CE in the context of the present essay might be instructive; for bibliography on the edict, see Turner, 60 n. 32, to which should be added G. Chalon, L’Edite de Tiberius Julius Alexander: Étude historique et exégétique (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 5; Olten: Graf, 1964).

philo and the sabbath crisis

247

“On Providence” (De provedentia) and [[140]] “Alexander: That Irrational Animals Possess Reason” (De animalibus)—a conjecture that may be relevant to the discussion of the “Joseph” description in Worse 6–12. The possibility that Philo’s “Joseph” is his own brother Alexander cannot be dismissed out of hand, although there is no evidence that Alexander ever challenged Jewish custom in the way Dreams 2.123–132 suggests. Nor do we know enough about Alexander to determine whether he might have had the political power suggested by Philo’s tirade. We know less about Marcus or about other Jewish political figures in Egypt at that time. But is it possible that Philo could have written a large portion of his “allegorical” treatises after Tiberius Julius Alexander had gained the sort of power indicated in Dreams 2?10 The most obvious situation would be in the late 60s, when Tiberius Julius Alexander was prefect of Egypt. Josephus describes in some detail, as a precipitating factor in the development of hostilities in Palestine between Jews and the Roman rulers, problems encountered by Tiberius Alexander at the beginning of his governance of Alexandria and Egypt (War 2.[18.7–8].487–497). Although Tiberius Alexander at first tries to talk the Jewish rebels out of their precarious position, Josephus says nothing to suggest that the “ancestral customs” are at issue. If Philo’s “Joseph” of Dreams 2 is Josephus’ Tiberius Alexander of the year 66, we will need to read a great deal between the lines. But it may well be worth the try. How old would Philo have been when Tiberius Alexander was governor of Egypt? Probably no younger than in his seventies, assuming that his “appropriate age” among the representatives to Gaius around the year 40 (Embassy 182) means that he was born no later than 5 bce, and probably a few years prior to that.11 He might even have been in

10 A further consideration to be noted is the apparent intention voiced by Philo in Dreams 1.168 of writing a treatise on Abraham being guided by instruction. For various reasons I would resist the conclusion that this is a reference to the existing work “On Abraham,” although the description in Dreams 1.168 invites that possibility. 11 The commentators differ widely on the questions of Philo’s birth and flourit, and thus on how long after the Embassy crisis Philo might have been literarily active. The key passage is Embassy 182, which combined with Embassy 1, has been taken to suggest that Philo is somewhere around 50 years old, and possibly older in 40 CE. (Philo’s numerological periodization of life’s stages in “Creation” [De opificio mundi] 103–105 suggests that “elderly” and “old” apply after 49 years of age; the partial parallel in “Allegorical Laws” 1.9–10 does not deal with the older periods.) It should be noted that elsewhere in Philo the word used in Embassy 182 (“age”) frequently, if not normally, occurs in references to youth and vitality, not old age (e.g., Abraham 195), and thus

248

chapter fourteen

his eighties by the [[141]] year 66 ce. There is no question that some authors in their seventies and eighties have produced cogent and extensive writings. Whether Philo was one of them remains to be explored in greater detail. If that is deemed improbable, other possibilities for the “Sabbath Crisis” situation at an earlier date (perhaps under a younger Tiberius Julius Alexander; see Schwartz) deserve consideration.

Philo might be comparing his prime-of-life status to the more advanced ages of his fellow ambassadors. Embassy 1 does use a more normal word for “aged,” presumably referring to the time when Philo writes the essay (not the time of the embassy visit itself ), but not necessarily to be taken at face value. Other pertinent issues include the possible age of Philo’s brother Alexender and thus of Alexander’s children Marcus and Tiberius. A.D. Nock argues that for Tiberius Alexander to be epistratēgos of Thebais in 42 CE, he must have been born around 10 CE (he thinks Goodenough’s estimate of around 20 CE “is too late”); see Nock, “Philo and Hellenistic Philosophy,” Classical Review 57 (1943) 78 and n. 13 [reprinted in vol. 2 of Nock’s Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (ed. Z. Stewart; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1972) 561]. If Philo’s periodization of the fifth hebdomad of life, from 29–35, as childbearing age is accepted as a convenient measure (Creation 103–105), Philo’s brother might be born around 20 BCE, with perhaps a ten year window on either side. Was Marcus older than Tiberius? Was Alexander older than Philo? I am assuming that Philo would have been about 20 years older than Tiberius Alexander, which is certainly neither impossible nor improbable, given the data currently at our disposal.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

TIBERIUS JULIUS ALEXANDER AND THE CRISIS IN ALEXANDRIA ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS1 The context of this examination of Josephus’ information about Tiberius Julius Alexander is set by my article on “Philo and the Sabbath Crisis” (Koester Festschrift, reprinted as Chapter Fourteen above) and by the independent (and prior) treatment by Daniel Schwartz of “the governor of De Somniis 2.123–132.”2 Philo speaks with strong feelings and in some detail about a crisis caused in “Egypt” in the recent past by “one of the rulers” who attempted to bully the observant Jews into forsaking their sabbath customs, for some unexplained reason. Philo sees this as the first step towards pulling Jews completely away from their “ancestral customs.” Philo describes the episode in the context of a fairly unsympathetic treatment of the dreams of Joseph the patriarch (On Dreams 2.110–154), and the entire Joseph symbolism here could be read as referring to a Roman ruler of Jewish origin. Since the most obvious and best known Jewish Roman ruler in Egypt around the time of Philo was Philo’s nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander (= TJA), it seemed logical to examine the surviving reports about TJA to see whether he might qualify as the antagonist in Philo’s tale. Schwartz argues that Philo may be referring to the early 40s, when TJA held one of his first Roman assignments, as “epistratēgos” of the Thebaid.3 Josephus does not mention that appointment, but he does narrate in some detail an

1 This essay first appeared in print in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, presented to John Strugnell on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday (ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin; College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5; Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1990) 175–84 and online at the same time. 2 D.R. Schwartz, “Philonic Anonyms” (1989) 63–73. I did not see the article by Schwartz until my essay on “Philo and the Sabbath Crisis” (Chapter Fourteen above) had been submitted to the editors of the Helmut Koester Festschrift (Birger Pearson and Norman Petersen), but I am pleased at the ways in which our independent insights and hypotheses supplement each other. 3 See E.G. Turner, “Tiberius Iulius Alexander” (1954), especially 58. We know of this appointment not from ancient historical records, but from an inscription on the temple at Dendera (OGI 663).

250

chapter fifteen

episode that deserves close attention from a considerably later period, to which we shall turn below. The results of this probe are not conclusive. The descriptions by Philo of the “sabbath crisis” and by Josephus of the Alexandrian riots around the time that TJA became Roman governor of Alexandria and Egypt (66–70) can be made to complement each other without too much difficulty. But there is not enough detail [[176]] and corresponding overlap in the two accounts to be sure that they depict the same events. If Philo is referring to the activities of his nephew as governor of Alexandria/Egypt, however, this would necessitate a radical revision of the chronology of Philo’s later life and his literary career. It seems to me that the evidence is sufficiently suggestive to encourage such a reevaluation, even if all the details of the following discussion are not considered persuasive. Tiberius Julius Alexander in the Antiquities As has sometimes been noted, Josephus’ attitude to TJA seems somewhat more positive in the War than in the Antiquities.4 Actually, Josephus mentions TJA only once in the Antiquities, the famous passage in which TJA is described as not maintaining the ancestral customs. (Josephus does not say that TJA “apostasized,” despite the frequent claims to that effect!) The complete context is as follows (Ant. 20.[5.2].100–103), in an intentionally wooden/mechanical rendering: Now there came as successor to Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, son of the Alexander who was also alabarch in Alexandria, who both in family heritage and in wealth surpassed those there with him. He also differed in his piety to God from his son Alexander, for that one did not remain steadfast in the ancestral customs. [101] At this time also the great famine in Judea came about, when also Queen Helena, having purchased with much money grain from Egypt distributed it to the needy, as I related previously. [102] Along with these events, the sons of Judah the Galilean, who caused the people to revolt against the Romans when Cyrenius was taking a census of Judea, as I made clear in the previous accounts, were brought to trial—Jacob and Simon—whom Alexander ordered to be crucified. [103] Herod King of Chalcis, having removed from the high

4 So, for example, Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 150; E.G. Turner, “Tiberius Iulius Alexander” (1954) 63.

josephus on the crisis in alexandria

251

priesthood Joseph son of Camei, gave the succession of office to Ananias son of Nedebaius. And to Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus became successor.

Tiberius Julius Alexander in the War, Part One This account of events in Judea around the years 46–48 is somewhat fuller than the parallel passage (published more than a decade earlier) in the War. It also depicts TJA in a light not even hinted at in the War references. Indeed, Josephus makes it a point to say in War 2.[11.6].220 that neither TJA nor his immediate predecessor Cuspius Fadus made any changes to the traditional Jewish patterns when they [[177]] governed Judea without significant incident.5 TJA is not contrasted with his father (or with anyone else) with regard to “piety,” nor is there any mention of the execution of Jewish insurgents. The entire passage runs as follows, speaking about the death of Agrippa I in 44 ce: Now [Agrippa] left three daughters born of Cypros—Bernike and Mariamme and Drusilla—and a son from the same mother—Agrippa. Since he was entirely a child, when Claudius again made the kingdoms a province he sent Cuspius Fadus as a governor, then Tiberius Alexander, who [plural], since neither did anything that disturbed the local customs, kept the nation in peace. [221–222 tells of the death of Herod of Chalcis, his survivors, and his relation to the larger family of Herod the Great] [223 = 12.1] Now after Herod, who ruled over Chalcis, died, Claudius inserted into the kingdom of his uncle, Agrippa son of Agrippa. But of the other province Cumanus received the governorship from Alexander, and under him began disturbances and again there occurred destruction of Judeans/Jews.

A few paragraphs later (2.[12.4].235), Josephus mentions an undifferentiated “Alexander” as a leader, along with Eleazar son of Deinaeus, of retaliatory actions of Jews against Samaritans during the governorship of Cumanus. This Alexander does not appear in the parallel passage from Antiquities (20.[6.1].120), and it would seem difficult to identify him with TJA since the actions described here are immediately countered by Cumanus and his troops. Still, in the aftermath of the situation Cumanus is recalled to Rome, and the Jews are vindicated in their complaints against the Samaritans, so it is not completely impossible that somehow 5 In Ant. 20.[1.1–2.]1–14 and 20.[5.1.]97–99, the rule of Fadus is depicted as encountering various problems with Jewish unrest.

252

chapter fifteen

TJA was involved in the situation and his political career furthered (or at least not hindered) thereby. But the ancient sources do not give us enough information to pursue this possibility with any confidence. We next encounter TJA, in Josephus’ account of the Jewish War, when TJA becomes governor of Egypt under Nero (66 ce). The context is the troubles in Jerusalem under the Roman governor Florus who provokes an escalation of Jewish unrest when he takes money from the temple treasury (2.[14.6].293–308). Josephus notes that (2.[15.1].309): At this very time King Agrippa happened to have gone to Alexandria so that he might get together with Alexander who had been entrusted with Egypt by Nero and who had been sent to manage (it). [[178]]

Josephus does nothing else with TJA at this point in the narrative. The picture returns to Jerusalem, where Agrippa’s sister Bernike attempts unsuccessfully to pacify matters. Finally, Agrippa himself returns from Alexandria in 2.[16.1b].335, with no further mention of TJA. Agrippa gives a lengthy speech that emphasizes the futility of resisting Roman might (2.[16.4–5].345–404) but is ultimately unsuccessful as civil war and open rebellion against Rome break out in Jerusalem and throughout the Syro-Palestinian area (2.[17.1–18.6].405–486). Josephus does not hesitate to give examples of how the hope of saving one’s life could lead to partial or complete abandonment of one’s prior position, both by Romans (the Roman commander Metilius agrees “to Judaize to the extent of circumcision” in 2.454) and by Jews (e.g., Simon son of Saul at Scythopolis in 2.469–476, who first fights with the Scythopolis Jews against his marauding countrymen then, at the treachery of the non Jewish Scythopolitans, “corrects” his misguided actions by slaughtering his family and committing suicide). The question of taking up arms on the sabbath is an explicit issue (see 2.392–393 [Agrippa’s pleas], 2.456 [the deceitful victory of the Jerusalem rebels], 2.457 [the massacre of Jews at Caesarea]), as is the matter of Jews accepting in the temple precincts the reverential acts and gifts of “outsiders” (2.414) and of Jews making offerings in the temple for the Roman rulers (2.410). Tiberius Julius Alexander in the War: the Alexandrian Crisis It is against this background that TJA reappears in Josephus’ narrative, as follows (2.[18.7].487)—again an intentionally wooden/mechanical representation of the Greek is provided:

josephus on the crisis in alexandria

253

Now in Alexandria there was continuous antagonism against the Jewish community by the indigenous people, ever since having received support from the Jews against the Egyptians Alexander gave them the privilege of alliance [or, a gift for assistance] to dwell in the city having an equal portion with the Greeks. [488] The honor was continued for them even by the successors (of Alexander) who also partitioned for them their own place so that more purely it might provide a better mode of living than by mixing with foreigners, and they permitted them to be called “Macedonians.” And when the Romans acquired Egypt neither the first Caesar nor any of his successors supported reducing the honors of the Jews bestowed by Alexander . . . . [489] But there were collisions of them unceasingly with the Greeks, and although the rulers punished many day by day from both sides the antagonism was fanned instead. [490] And then, since also elsewhere there was disorder, theirs was loosed all the more. And indeed, when the Alexandrians were gathered concerning an embassy they were about to send to Nero there streamed together into the amphitheater along with the Greeks [[179]] many of the Jews. [491] Now when the adversaries caught sight of them, immediately they cried out saying “enemies” and “spies.” Then rushing forward they laid hands on them. And the rest were scattered since they fled, but when they captured three men they dragged them off to burn them alive. [492] Now the whole Jewish community arose in defence and at first threw stones at the Greeks, but then grabbing lanterns they ran to the amphitheater threatening to burn in it the attendees to a man. And they quickly would have done this except he—Tiberius Alexander the governor of the city—repelled their angers. [493] Now he did not, indeed, by using weapons begin to enlighten them but by secretly sending the notables to them he exhorted (them) to cease and not to provoke the Roman army upon themselves. But scoffing at the exhortation the insurgents ridiculed Tiberius. [494] And he, understanding that without a major calamity those rebelling would not cease, let loose on them the city-based two divisions of Romans and with them 2000 soldiers from Libya by chance in transit to the destruction of the Jews. And he permitted (them) not only to destroy but also to ravage their possessions and to burn down their houses. [495] Now they by rushing eagerly into the so-called “D” district (for the Jewish community was concentrated there) fulfilled their orders, but not without shedding their own blood. For the Jews by closing ranks and placing the better of their armed persons to the front resisted as long as possible, but once having collapsed they were killed without further ado. [496] And manifold ruin was theirs; some were siezed in the field, some were forced together into the houses. And the Romans set those afire after plundering their contents, and neither mercy for infants nor respect for old age came to their minds but through every age bracket they advanced slaughtering, [497] so that the whole district was flooded with blood and five myriads of dead were heaped up; and not even the remnant would be left if they had not turned to supplication. But having

254

chapter fifteen compassion on them Alexander ordered the Romans to move off. [498] They, then, by custom being obedient stopped the killing on command, but the populace of Alexandrians because of excessive hatred were hard to restrain and with difficulty were dragged off of the corpses. [499] Such was the calamity that took place at Alexandria. But Cestius decided no longer to keep quiet since on all fronts the Jews were being involved in war. [500] And taking from Antioch the twelfth . . . .

The story strikes me as extremely peculiar in various respects. The main villains seem to be the anti-Jewish “indigenous people” or “foreigners” at first, who conspire with and then give way to the antagonistic “Greeks” at some point, who in turn seem to be equivalent to the “populace of Alexandrians” near the end. What characterizes them, regardless of what they are called, is enmity towards the “Jewish [[180]] community” of Alexandria, which seems to be treated as a unit once the hostilities erupt. At the outset, however, only some Jews attend the meeting of the “Alexandrians,” along with some “Greeks,” and the opponents take issue with this Jewish presence. Based on Josephus’ claim that Jews of Alexandria had special priviliges and equal rights with the “Greeks,” it is not clear whether there was anything illegal or suspicious about Jews attending an assembly of Alexandrians! Nor is it stated why an embassy to Nero was contemplated or whether Jewish issues were under discussion in that context. Indeed, the “privileges” emphasized by Josephus at the beginning of the narrative have to do with status in Alexandria and make no mention of peculiarly Jewish practices or perspectives. Even when TJA tries to solve the (unexplained) problem by sending a delegation of “notables” to mediate with the “insurgents,” we are not told what was discussed. We are left completely in the dark with regard to any specific issues other than hatred of Jews by the general (non-Jewish) populace. The secondary villain of the story seems to be the Roman troops, which include not only those from the local Alexandrian garrison but also a contingent from Libya that apparently is en route to Palestine to help quell the disorders there. At one point, the troops are mentioned almost as though they had independent authority to act in such situations (the Jewish insurgents are warned not to provoke the wrath of the army on themselves!), although it soon becomes clear that they answer to TJA’s orders—he turns them loose, allows them to kill and plunder, and later in pity he commands them to withdraw. Thus TJA is described as being in control, at least of the troops, of acting wisely in attempting to find a peaceful solution, and of showing compassion

josephus on the crisis in alexandria

255

and thus saving some of the Jews who were being slaughtered by the tens of thousands. He does not seem to be seen as a villain in the whole episode! Apparently, from Josephus’ point of view in the War, TJA did what needed to be done to control the situation in Alexandria while the rebellion in Palestine grew rapidly out of hand. Later References to Tiberius Julius Alexander in the War There are several subsequent references to TJA in the War: In 4.[10.6].616–618 is found the story of how Vespasian quickly sought support from TJA, while the latter was still governor of Alexandria and Egypt, in order to consolidate power in the east when Vespasian’s soldiers forced the emperorship upon him—TJA enthusiastically complies, and Vespasian’s rule henceforth is officially dated from that event. In 5.[1.6b].45–46, TJA is praised for his good will and insight as well as for his experience and maturity in military matters as Titus appoints him leader of the reconstituted army once the emperorship of Vespasian had been secured. [[181]] In 5.[5.3b].205 is a brief mention of TJA that serves to identify his father Alexander who had plated the gates of the temple with silver and gold (this is the only mention of TJA’s family in the War!). In 5.[12.2].510 TJA is entrusted with the second watch, after Titus, around the beseiged city of Jerusalem. In 6.[4.3].237–242 Titus confers with TJA—who is again pictured as being in charge of all the forces in some sense—and with the four generals of specific armies and with the procurator of Judaea about whether to destroy the temple; Titus decides not to do so, and gains support from TJA and two others. Clearly, the Josephus of the War presents TJA as an important and positive figure, one of the better examples of Roman officialdom. Interestingly, in the War Josephus never dwells on the “Jewishness” of TJA or his family, although if one knows, one can see it shining through (e.g., TJA sends secret messengers to the Jews in Alexandria and takes pity on them; his father plates the temple gates in precious metals! TJA opposes burning the temple, in agreement with Titus and

256

chapter fifteen

two others). Still, if the reader of the War did not know that TJA was of Jewish descent, that fact would not be particularly obvious from the narratives themselves. And almost nothing is learned of TJA’s family from his various appearances in the War. It is in the Antiquities that the larger family is given a role in Jewish history, with TJA’s rich and genealogically well connected father Alexander (described as “alabarch” in Ant. 18.259, 20.100, and in 19.276 also as an “old friend” of the emperor Claudius, for whose mother Antonia he had served as trustee!) as moneylender to Cypros and thus to her husband the Jewish king Agrippa (Ant. 18.159–160); with TJA’s uncle Philo heading the Alexandrian Jewish delegation to Gaius (Ant. 18.259–260); with TJA’s brother Marcus Julius Alexander as husband to princess Bernike, daughter of Agrippa (Ant. 19.277); and with TJA himself as not maintaining the ancestral laws, in contrast to his father’s piety towards God. Conclusions and Suggestions The reason for such contrasting treatments by Josephus is not immediately apparent. Perhaps TJA was still alive and in power when Josephus published the surviving Greek edition of the War around the year 80.6 There is some reason to believe that TJA was located in Rome after the close of the Jewish Palestinian [[182]] rebellion in the early 70s.7 Perhaps Josephus knew, or suspected, that TJA would not appreciate a published discussion of his Jewish background and connections, for whatever reasons. In any event, both Vespasian and Titus are mentioned as recipients of copies of at least sections of the War in Greek (Life 358–363), and they certainly qualify as having been powerful supporters of TJA—good reason in itself for Josephus to deal with TJA carefully and sympathetically! That Josephus moved in the circles of “notable Jews” (see e.g., War 7.447–450) who would be likely to know much more about TJA than is indicated in the War is certain, if his autobiography can be trusted on this matter (correspondence 6 On the date of Josephus’ War, see Cohen, Josephus, 84–90. Cohen himself concludes that “in BJ 1–6 we have a relatively coherent uniform work finished as a whole before 81” (90), which was one stage in a series of revised editions. Thus Vespasian may have seen parts of the work in progress, but probably not the whole work as we have it. 7 See E.G. Turner, “Tiberius Iulius Alexander” (1954) 61–4, on TJA as prefect of the praetorian guard in Rome.

josephus on the crisis in alexandria

257

with Agrippa II is reported in Life 364), although it could be argued that much of the detailed family information was digested by him only after the War had been published. In any event, the passage of more than a decade between the appearance of the War in Greek and the publication of the Antiquities may have encouraged Josephus to speak with more freedom, although still very briefly and mostly respectfully, about these matters associated with TJA. Is it possible to make a strong connection between Philo’s account of “the sabbath crisis” (On Dreams 2.123–132) and Josephus’ story of the Alexandrian confrontation under TJA around the year 66? The general situations as described can be made to have some common elements; a (presumably Jewish) Roman ruler of Egypt8 tries to deal with a serious crisis involving the Jewish community. In Philo, he resorts directly to threats; in Josephus, TJA sends respected Jewish mediators secretly to try to persuade the rebels to submit, with at least an implied threat (don’t provoke the army!). Philo does not report the outcome. His point is the deity-usurping arrogance of the ruler—a perspective to be compared to Josephus’ words about how the insurgents ridiculed (“blasphemed”!) TJA. But how could Philo fail to mention the catastrophic results, if indeed the slaughter permitted by TJA and described by Josephus was in view? It could be answered that the wonder is that Philo came this close to describing any specific events from his own times in his exegetical treatise, not that he failed to describe more! He gives such little explicit attention to contemporary situations in these writings. It was not his aim to discuss the fate of the Jewish community in this context and we cannot demand that he do so, although we can marvel that he did not. [[183]] The ruler in Philo’s story is advocating abandonment of sabbath observance, as a step (thinks Philo) towards changing external Jewish habits in general; it is not clear what the specific issues are behind Josephus’ story. Elsewhere, Josephus does report on attempts to force the cultically observant Jews to give up keeping sabbath—a Roman ruler in Asia Minor two centuries earlier tried this but was officially rebuffed

8 Philo’s language seems to me to be stronger than Schwartz allows in his attempt to identify the ruler with TJA as a minor Roman official hundreds of miles from Alexandria (“Philonic Anonyms” [1989]). Philo’s wording requires not only “rulership” of some sort, but also “the leadership and protection of Egypt” (a stock phrase in Philo for people in authority). While this might be stretched to refer to a young “epistratēgos” in the Thebaid, it does not strike me as the most likely possibility.

258

chapter fifteen

(Ant. 14.[10.21].245), and not long after the TJA episode, Josephus reports, the son of a Jewish leader in Syrian Antioch incites the antiJewish Antiochians against the Jews and tries to prove his opposition to Jewish customs by (among other things) forcing the Jews not to rest on sabbath (War 7.[3.3].46–53; Josephus claims that this policy spread briefly to other cities as well!). As was noted above, sabbath plays another role in Josephus’ story of the background of the War—in Agrippa’s lengthy conciliatory speech to the incipient insurgents in War 2.[16.4].345–404, he paints them this paradox: to oppose Rome effectively, you will have to fight on sabbath, but if you do that, how can you hope for the divine assistance you will need (2.390–394)?! Sure enough, sabbath fighting soon proved necessary (see War 2.[17.10b].456, with Josephus’ strong disapproval; note the contrasting result in 2.[18.1a].457, “on the same day”! See also 2.[19.2].517). Josephus’ own attitude is probably accurately reflected in 2.[21.8].634, where he as a general avoids taking military action on sabbath. If TJA had advocated abandonment of sabbath observance, Josephus could hardly have mentioned it with sympathy—with the possible exception of permitting Jews to resist attacks on sabbath (see Ant. 12.[6.2].274–277, 14.[4.2].63, 18.[9.2].319–324). What, then, can we make of Philo’s ruler’s attack on sabbath keeping? Was he urging the Jews to defend themselves even on the sabbath? That would explain the language about an imminent threat to life and goods, but it somehow doesn’t feel like this was the issue in Philo’s mind. Was the ruler attempting to break down the distinctions between Jews and other Roman subjects by removing any special Jewish privileges that were resented by others (not having to go to court on sabbath, for example, which Josephus notes as a privilege granted observant Jews; Ant. 16.[6.2].163)—and thus quell the riots? There are many hints in Josephus and other ancient sources that significant and influential groups of non-cultic Jews existed in antiquity, of whom TJA might be a self-conscious representative.9 Or perhaps he [[184]] was trying to enlist Jewish soldiers to help deal with the current crises and needed to 9 The presumably official language of some of the edicts cited by Josephus in Ant. 14 already seems to point in this direction, as I suggested many years ago (“Judaism on the World Scene” [1971], 85): note, for example, Ant. 14.258 “Jewish men and women who are so inclined may keep the sabbaths and fulfill the sacred rites in accord with Jewish law” (which suggests that not all Jews were so inclined); 14.234 (see 228, 237, 240) “those Jews who are Roman citizens, who seem to me to have and to observe Jewish rites in Ephesus” (which could mean that some Jews did not seem to so observe).

josephus on the crisis in alexandria

259

overcome the appeal for exemption on the basis of observance of sabbath and other Jewish laws (see Ant. 14.[10.12].226–227) to do so? We cannot know. Why were the Alexandrians under TJA planning to send an embassy to Nero? Why was Jewish presence at the meeting viewed as “spying”? Josephus does not say. But perhaps it is to some extent on the basis of TJA’s actions in the Alexandrian riots that Josephus, in the Antiquities, describes him as not abiding by the ancestral customs. Although the attempt to equate Philo’s “sabbath crisis” with the Alexandrian confrontation under TJA may fall short of being persuasive, it is an attempt worth considering. That it probably requires Philo to be in his 70s (or even 80s) when the event happened is not sufficient reason to disqualify such a possibility. Other related considerations are how much time might have elapsed between the event and the writing of On Dreams, and how many other Philonic writings were produced after On Dreams. Did Philo live through part or all of the catastrophic events in Palestine in 66–73? If so, why did he make no mention of them in his later writings? Did he ever reconcile in his own mind the role of his nephew, TJA, in those events? I suspect that perhaps he did, based on his treatment of the memorials to his “Joseph” (see Migr 16–24).

REVIEW AND PROSPECTS Hopefully, these modest contributions to the study of Jewish and Christian antiquity underline the truth of the Gilbert and Sullivan line “Things are seldom what they seem.”1 We are often dealing with what I have called elsewhere “evolved literature,” not necessarily “authored” pieces of the sort to which we have become accustomed in our modern world.2 This is especially true of the Abraham recensions, the Testaments of the Patriarchs, parts of the Enoch and Ezra cycles, and probably of the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila; on the “authored” side stands Philo, almost alone. Pliny and Josephus are, in their own acquisitive ways, somewhere in-between. How it is possible to step into these evolutionary streams at various points in order to derive firm “historical” details and conclusions is a major problem. In addition to the complex problems of continuities and discontinuities of ideas and perspectives, of “borrowing” and “adapting” earlier materials, we often neglect to take into consideration the “physical” realities of the worlds with which we deal. How shall we think about “bible” in a world of individual scrolls and similarly constrained early codices?3 Where there is no general educational system in place—if, indeed, that was the situation—how do traditions get transmitted and presentational methods developed? Where most of our written evidence comes from copies of copies that have been transmitted and possibly transformed over centuries of time through many generations of users—and sometimes only in translations, even translations of translations—how confident can we be of materials that on other grounds can be shown to have been problematic at some stages in the process? While I am not an advocate of complete historical skepticism and despair, my hope is that these essays may at least encourage the readers and users to become more self-conscious about how they approach such materials and issues, in hopes that more solid—or at least less

1

Gilbert and Sullivan, “H.M.S. Pinafore” (1878). Barnabas and the Didache (1965) 1. 3 See my “The Codex and Canon Consciousness” (2002) for some aspects of this problem. 2

262

review and prospects

unstable—grounds can be established for moving the study of these subjects forward. New tools are becoming available for the tasks, the potential of which has only begun to be tapped. In some areas of study, what took untold hours for the giants on whose shoulters we stand to accomplish (in searching for relevant parallels, for example) can now be done in minutes, leaving us with more time and opportunity to evaluate the older syntheses and hypotheses and develop new approaches, if needed. New information is being discovered as well as created, and equally important, is increasingly available electronically to the discriminating searcher. “Armchair archaeology,” and similar “armchair” manuscript study, is becoming a necessary commonplace to which the researcher can contribute as well drawing from it. The horizon is bright, but desired destinations cannot be reached automatically or effortlessly. May we all proceed with deliberate speed and due caution in the task of understanding the complex past in the context of our equally complex present and future.4

4 Further musings on the situation may be found in my 2006 SBL Presidential Address, “Para-Mania: Beside, Before, and Beyond Bible Studies,” JBL 126 (2007) 5–27 [available as a full electronic version with linked images].

INDEX Most subjects have entries in “wikipedia”—search them at http://www.wikipedia.org/; also use web searching programs such as google.com for additional information or electronic versions. See also “electronic tools and resources” below. Many of the published articles are available online through JSTOR and similar projects. Subjects mentioned in titles of books and articles are not necessarily indexed unless of particular relevance. AB = Anchor Bible ABMC = Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center abbreviation(s) 27, 48, 65 (&nn.15–16), 67 (&n.26), 79, 164, 165, 166 • in Greek MSS (see also “nomina sacra”) • “Lord” = ΚΣ, “God” = ΘΣ, and “Christ” = ΧΣ (all overlined) 67 • in Cant 1.7, “to the bridegroom Christ” (πρὸς τὸν νυμφίον χν [XN abbreviation overlined]) 65 n.15 • abbreviated ἀνων (anōn [ANWN] = ἀνθρώπων— anthrōpōn) 67 n.26, 164 n.7 • Χριστιανῶν (christianōn perhaps also abbreviated to Χρανῶν [xranōn] or [XRNWN?] 67 n.26, 164 n.7 • “of heavens” (OUNWN), “of fathers” (PRWN) 164 n.7 • used in chapter 14 217 n.2 Abimelech 131 n.4 Abraham 16, 18, 21, 54, 110, 113, 129, 176, 185, 193, 210, 213–216, 243, 247 n.10 • Apocalypse of 12 n.16, 21, 112 (&n.9), 113 n.11 • Migration of (see Philo) 86 n.10, 244 n.7 • On Abraham (see Philo) 210, 213, 243 n.7, 247 nn.10–11 • Testament of 7 n.8, 8 n.10, 12 n.16, 21 n.38, 30, 42 n.13, 96, 98 ch.6, 153 n.7, 261 Acts, NT book of 29, 111, 124, 180, 188 • 2.21 74 • 13.41 180

Acts of Philip 77–79 (Philip vs. Aristarchus) 182 n.6 A.D. = anno Domini (see CE = Common Era) Adam (protoplast) 100, 209, 210 Adam (modern author, with Burchard) 206 n.6 Adam and Eve, books of 12, 14, 16, 21 (&n.38), 23, 30 (&n.72), 33, 39 n.7, 46 (&n.21), 48, 104 (&n.12), 111, 121, 129 • Combat of Adam and Eve 30 n.72 • Life of Adam and Eve 30 n.72, 111 • Testament of Adam 30 n.72 Adler, William (Bill) vii, 238 n.3 • “Ad verbum or ad sensum: the Christianization of a Latin Translation Formula in the Fourth Century,” in J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 321–348 42 n.12 • with Paul Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos: a Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: OUP, 2002) 137 n.11 • with James C. VanderKam (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1998) 27 n.55 • “Julius Africanus and Judaism in the Third Century” in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage (1999) 57 n.41

264

index

• with Robert Kraft (translators), Kurt Treu, “The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire” [and also added to the listserver of the IOUDAIOS Electronic Seminar, 14 August 1991] 65 n.16 • Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to Georgius Syncellus (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 26; Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1989) 22 n.43, 171 n.14 Aesop 55 n.38 Agourides, S., “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” in OTP 1.606 5 n.4 Agrippa (see Herod) Aḥer (Elisha ben Abuya) 89 Aḥ iqar 10, 15, 55 n.38, 60 alabarch (arabarch) 246, 250, 256 Albeck, Hanoch • “Agadot im Lichte der Pseudepigraphen,” MGWJ 83 (1939) 162–169 26 n.53 Albigenses (see also Cathari) 21 Alexander • of Aphrodisias (ca 200 CE) 228 n.40 • the Great 135, 253 • Philo’s brother Alexander the Alabarch 248 n.11, 250, 255, 256 • Philo’s nephew Marcus Julius Alexander 86, 248 n.11, 256 • Philo’s nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander 86, 238, 248 (&n.11), ch. 15 (passim) Alexander, Philip J. 104 • Introduction to “3 Enoch” in OTP 104 • Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire (London: Variorum, 1978); idem, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) 26 n.54 Alexandria(n) (see also Clement, Cyril, Dionysius, Philo) 16, 47, 113, 119, 184, 218, 237, ch.14, ch.15 Allenbach, J. • Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature patristique (7 vols. thus far; ed. J. Allenbach; Paris: Editions

du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975–) 17 n.30 Allison, Dale C. • Dale C. Allison Jr, Testament of Abraham (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Berlin: de Gruyter 2003) 109 n.1 Allogenes 21 Altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae, De 156 Ambrose 71 n.32 Analecta Bollandiana (publication series) 121 n.21 analogy, argument from 38–39, 44, 51, 56, 58–60, 90, 120, 183, 245 Ananias son of Nedebaius 251 Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont (http://www.abmc.org/) 8 n.11 angel(s), angelology 16, 18, 26, 126, 135 (Malachi), 139 (Eremiel), 140, 141, 143, 145, 154, 164, 189, 192, 209 Angerstorfer, Ingeborg • Melito und das Judentum (Regensburg: Universität Regensburg, 1986) 7 n.9 Anglo-Saxon (see ANSAX-L) 24 (&n.49) anointed, anointing 70 (&n.30) • anointed one (see also Messiah) 67–70, 135 ANSAX-L = Anglo-Saxon Scholarly Electronic Discussion List (see electronic resources) 24 n.49 anthology • “1 Enoch” 33 • Odes 40 • Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs 164 Antonia 256 AOT (see H.F.D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament [1984]) 10 n.14, and passim aphorism 79 Apocalypses (see also Revelation) • relating to Esdras/Ezra (see also the specific entries below and Revelation of Ezra/Esdras) 140–145, 149 n.3, 156, 160 (5 Ezra) • Jewish and Christian 14, 22 n.42, 59, 93 n.2, 95 n.6, 97, 98, 116, 126, 129 n.1 • used by Mani 20 • Apocalypse of Abraham 12 n.16, 21, 112 (&n.9), 113 n.11

index • Apocalypse of Adam 21, 30 n.72 • Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac, = 2 Baruch) 12 n.16, 52 • Apocalypse of Daniel 104 • Apocalypse of Ezra (Latin, = 4 Ezra) 29, 52, 53, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 149 n.2, 150 n.5 • Apocalypse of Esdras (Greek, ed. Tischendorf, Leipzig 1866) 48, 67 n.26, 126, 140, 143, 144, 145, 164 n.7 • Apocalypse of Isaiah 30 • Apocalypse of John (see also Revelation) 41 n.11, 43 (&n.15), 53 (&n.35), 105, 161 • Apocalypse of Mary 126 • Apocalypse of Moses 30 n.72, 111 • Apocalypse of Sedrach 5 n.4, 98, 123, 126, 164 n.7 apocrypha(l) (see also deuterocanonical) 9–11, 16, 30 n.72, 39 n.7, 43–44, 62, 96, 99, 146, 177, 180, 184, 186–188 • Anglo-Saxon 24 n.49 • Archontics 21 • Armenian 23 n.46, 30 n.72, 42 n.13, 57 n.41 • Dead Sea Scrolls 26 n.53 • Elijah 18 • Ezekiel 95 • Irish 24 n.48 • Isaiah 16, 18 • Jeremiah 18, 139, 141, 143, 147 n.21 • Marcosian 15, 19 • Meletian 21 • Moses 16 • Priscillians 21 • Sirach 177, 187 • Tobit 177, 187 • Wisdom of Solomon 177, 187 apostles 47, 88, 89 n.16, 151, 134 n.12, 161, 177, 188 Apost(olic) Const(itutions) [ed. F.X. Funk (Paderborn: Schoeningh, 1905; reprinted Turin: Erasmus, 1960)] 16, 30 • 7.37 137, 139 • book 8 41 Apostolic Fathers 13 n.21 [Grant series] Apostolic teachings 184 Apostolic Tradition 17 APOT [= R.H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old

265

Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913)] 10, 14 n.24, 95 n.5, 96, 99, 100, 103, 215 Aquila (Greek translation/translator of Jewish scriptures) (“of Sinope”) 63, 66, 67, 69 n.28, 70 n.31, 82, 111, 173, 176, 187, 193 Aquila see Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila arabarch (see alabarch) Arabic 5, 23, 25, 26 • Josephus, Testimonium Flavianum 28 n.63, 45 (&n.19) • Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs 109–110, 112 Aramaic 5, 6, 44, 62, 70, 113, 118, 120, 129, 167, 174, 190 archaeology 262 archives, ancient 42 archive(s), electronic (see also electronic tools and resources) 8 n.11 Archontics 21, 32 n.77 Aristarchus 182 n.6 Aristeas, Letter of (Pseudo) 10, 15, 39 n.7, 64 n.12, 194 Aristotle, Aristotelian 202 n.9, 203, 228 n.40 arithmology, arithmetic ch.13 Arius, Arians 21 Ark of the Covenant 176, 178, 179, 187 n.26, 190, 191 Armenian (see also Lipscomb, Stone) 5, 23, 26, 57 n.41, 129, 246 • Inquiries/Questions of Esdras 144 • Paralipomena Jeremiou 29 n.65 • Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs 163 n.2 ascetic(ism) (see also celibacy) 13, 41, 47, 54, 57, 189 Aseneth (Asenath) 18, 32 n.78, 36 n.4, 41 n.11, 42 n.12, 54 n.36, 55, 57 n.41, 111 Asia Minor 52 n.32, 113, 257 assume, assumptions 12, 23, 32, 37, 38, 49, 55, 57, 69, 76, 80, 81, 84 (&n.4), 86, 87 n.11, 90, 102, 103, 105, 118–120, 123–125, 133, 140, 149 n.3, 152–154, 158, 160, 164, 219, 228 n.41, 238, 247, 248 assumption, Ezra’s 143 Assumption of Isaiah 40 Assumption of Moses 17, 23, 39 n.7, 96

266

index

astrology 55 n.37, 205, 209, 227 n.38 astronomy, astronomical 22 n.43, 41, 209, 216, 223, 230 Athanasius (4th century Christian leader) 15, 16 • Easter letter of 367 21, 32 (&n.77) • Quaest 98, ad Antiochum 191 (Ps-)Athanasius (Synopsis scripturae sacrae {TLG 2035.071} PG 28 page 309 line 6) 178 Athena 222, 224, 226 (&n.29), 230, 234 Attridge, Harold W., in OTP 104 athletes 32, 126 Augustine 57 n.41, 71 n.32, 89 n.13 • City of God 18.42 194 Augustus 242 AV = Authorized Version of the English Bible, also known as the King James Version [KJV] 155 A-Z = Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus [The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, ed. by F.C. Conybeare (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series 8; Oxford: Clarendon, 1898)] 173, 175, 177, 183 ‘Azer 131 Baird, J. Arthur, et al., “The Computer Bible” (published by Biblical Research Associates, College of Wooster, Ohio) 6 n.7 Ball, C.J., The Ecclesiastical or Deuterocanonical Books of the OT commonly called the Apocrypha (Variorum Reference Edition; London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, n.d. [post 1888]) 151, 154 n.11, 155 balsam 204 (&n.14), 206 baptism 12 barbarian 58, 220, 221, 223, 230 Barberini text of Habakkuk 3 68, 111 Bardaisan (or Bar Daisan, also known as Bardesanes) 20 (&n.36) Bardy, Gustave, Les trophées de Damas: controverse judéo-chrétienne du VIIe siècle (PO 15:2. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Companie, 1920): 189–275 [19–105] 173 n.2 Bar Kokhba 88, 193 Barlaam and Josaphat 55 n.38 Barnabas, Epistle of [Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache = volume 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation

and Commentary (ed. R.M. Grant; New York: Nelson, 1965)] 13 n.21, 30 n.67, 103 n.10, 261 n.2 • treatment in Sparks OTA et al. 103 • use of testimonia 179 • 8.5 71 (&n.32) • 10 165 n.9 • 12.1 72 • 12.11 69 (&n.29) • 13.2 159 n.16 • 18ff (see also Two Ways) 45 Baron, Salo W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (18 vols.; 2nd ed.; New York and Philadelphia: Columbia University Press and the Jewish Publication Society, 1952–1983) 5.209–85 25 n.53 Barthélemy, Dominique 29 n.64 [in quoted material, from Runia] • Les devanciers d’Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premiére siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (Leiden: Brill, 1963) [rak review] 66 n.22 • Kraft review articles online (see under Kraft) 181 n.5 Baruch, book(s) of 16, 39 n.7, 129, 177, 180, 182 • 3.37f 182 • Syriac Apocalypse (“2 Baruch”) 12 n.16, 23, 41, 52, 53 • Greek Apocalypse (“3 Baruch”) 12 n.16, 35 n.3, 41 • “4 Baruch” (see also Paral(e)ipomena Jeremiou) 31 n.74, 40 n.10 Basilides 19 BASP = Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists Batiffol, Pierre [wikipedia Dutch], “Le Livre de la Prière d’Aseneth,” in Studia patristica: Études d’ancienne littérature chrétienne, vol. 1.2 (Paris: Leroux, 1899–90), 1–115 36 (&n.4) Bauckham, Richard, “The Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha,” JSNT 26 (1986) 97–117 93 n.2 Bauer, Renate, Adversus Judaeos: Juden und Judentum im Spiegel alt- und mittelenglischer Texte (Münchner

index Universitätsschriften 29; New York: P. Lang, 2003) 175 Bauer, Walter, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934); 2nd ed., reprinted and supplemented by Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 1964); English translation, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity (ed. R.A. Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; also available online at http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/ new/BAUER00.htm) 13 n.19 19 n.34 23 n.44 84 n.5 170 n.42 B.C. = before Christ (see BCE = Before the Common Era) BCE = Before the Common Era Ben-Shammai, H., with Y. Erder “The Connection of Karaism with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Apocryphal Literature,” Cathedra 42 (1987) 53–86 (Hebrew) 25 n.53 Ben Sira (see also Sirach) 30 (& n.70), 48 n.28, 59, 130, 146, 216 Bensly, Robert Lubbock, ed., The Fourth Book of Ezra (Texts and Studies 3.2; Cambridge: CUP, 1895) 36 n.4, 151 n.5 Bergren, Theodore A. • Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin and Early History (SCS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 28 n.61, 31 n.75, 41 n.11, 147 n.21, 149 nn.1 & 3 • Sixth Ezra: the Text and Origin (New York: OUP, 1998) 41 n.11, 53 (&n.34), 149 nn.1 & 3 Bernike, daughter of Herod Agrippa I 251, 252 Bertrand, D.A., La vie grecque d’Adam et Eve (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1987) 30 n.72 BETL = Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature patristique (7 vols. thus far; ed. J. Allenbach; Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975–) 17 n.30 Biblia Sacra Vulgata (see also Vg, Latin translations) Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart:

267

Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975; new edition Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), ed. R. Weber with B. Fischer et al. 150 n.5 biblical (see also canonical) 25 n.52, 30, 40 n.9, 44, 48 n.28, 56, 64, 65, 69, 72 n.34, 86, 96, 102, 103, 129, 130–132, 146, 147, 160, 162, 175, 177, 180, 181, 203, 215, 224, 230, 233, 242–245 Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (see also LAB) 55 n.38 Biblical Research Associates, see J. Arthur Baird et al. (published by Biblical Research Associates, College of Wooster, Ohio) 6 n.7 Bickerman, Elias J. [wikipedia German], The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) 9 n.12 Biggs, Frederick M., et al., “Apocrypha,” in Sources of AngloSaxon Literary Culture: a Trial Version, ed. Biggs, T.D. Hill and P.E. Szarmach (Binghamton NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1990) 24 n.49 Bij de Vaate, A.J., with J.W. van Henten, “Jewish or Non-Jewish? Some Remarks on the Identification of Jewish Inscriptions from Asia Minor,” BO 53 (1996) 16–28 52 n.32 BIOSCS = Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BJRL = Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BJS = Brown Judaic Studies Blake, Robert Pierpont, Epiphanius De Gemmis, in Studies and Documents 2, ed. K. and S. Lake (London: Christophers, 1934) 186–189 and 275 138 n.13 blood 72, 154, 193, 253 Blumenkranz, Bernhard • Die Judenpredigt Augustins: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der judisch-christlichen Beziehungen in den ersten Jahrhunderten (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 25; Basle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1946) 174 n.2

268

index

• Disputatio Iudei et Christiani et Anonymi Auctoris disputationis Iudei et Christiani continuatio / Gisleberti Crispini; ad fidem codicum recensuit prolegomenis notisque instruxit B. Blumenkranz (Stromata patristica et mediaevalia 3; Ultaiecti [Utrecht] / Antuerpiae [Antwerp]: In Aedibus Spectrum, 1956) 174 n.2 B-M = Brooke and McLean, Larger Cambridge Septuagint [ed. A.E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H.St.J. Thackeray (Cambridge: CUP, 1906–1940); see also LXX/OG] 62 n.5 BO = Bibliotheca Orientalis body parts and functions ch.13 Boccaccini, Gabrielle • Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 9 n.12 • Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002) 84 (&nn.3–4), 85 nn.6&8, 86 n.9 • Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 85 n.6, 171 n.14 Bohairic Coptic 73–74 [Psalms] Bollandist Fathers 121 n.21, 125 Bonwetsch, Nathanael, ed., Die Apokalypse Abrahams. Das Testament der vierzig Märtyrer (Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und Kirche; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897) 112 n.9 Book of the Secrets of Enoch (see also Enoch) 39 n.7 Books of Adam and Eve (see also Adam) 39 n.7 Borborite gnostics 21 Borgen, Peder 237 n.1 • with Keare Fuglseth and Roald Skarsten, The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 6 n.7

Bosporus (Cimmerian) 87 n.11 Bowersock, Glen W., Martyrdom and Rome (Cambrdige: CUP, 1995) 41 n.11, 55 n.38 Box, George Herbert 215 • The Testament of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1927; online at http:// openlibrary.org/b/OL6709678M/ Testament-of-Abraham) vii–xv and xxviiif. 113 (&n.13) Boyarin, Daniel • Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999) 38, 41 n.11, 43 n.14, 49, 50, 53, 55 n.38 • A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994) 50 n.29 Bradbury, Scott, Severus of Minorca: Letter on the Conversion of the Jews (Oxford: OUP, 1996) 54 n.36 Brandt, W., Elchasai: ein Religionsstifter und sein Werk (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912) 19 n.33 Bratke, E., ed., Evagrii Altercatio Legis inter Simonem Judaeum et Theophilum Christianum, CSEL 45 (1904) 173 n.2 Braun, Oscar, “Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I uber biblische Studien des 9. Jahrhunderts,” OrChr 1 (1901) 299–313 (online at http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/rs/rak/courses/225/texts/ TIMOTHEOS) 25 n.52, 72 n.36 Brock, Sebastian P. • “Other Manuscript Discoveries,” EJMI 157–73 22 n.40 • Review of Charlesworth, OTP, vol. 1 in JJS 35 (1984), 200–209 and of vol. 2 in JJS 38 (1987) 108–114 93 n.2, 94, 96, 104, 105 • Psalms of Solomon in AOT 96, 104 Brooke, A.E. (see B-M, Cambridge Septuagint, LXX/OG) Brooks, George 203 n.9 Brown, M.P., The Authentic Writings of St. Ignatius (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963) 30 n.66 Brown, R.E. 97

index Browning, R., Medieval and Modern Greek (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1969) 123 n.24 Brunner, Theodore [see also TLG] 237 n.1 Bundy, David, “Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Literature,” SBL Seminar Papers 1991 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 745–765 23 n.45 Burchard, Christoph 55 n.38, 201 n.6 • with J. Jervell, and J. Thomas, Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (BZNW 36; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969) 4 n.3 • Joseph and Aseneth in OTP 2 104 Burkitt, Francis Crawford [biography at http://www.metamind.net/ burkittbio.html], Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (London: Milford, 1914) 76 14 (&n.25), 15 Byzantine • byzantine church 9 • byzantine Greek 5, 6 n.6 [Gignac] 123 (&n.24) • byzantine literature 110, 116, 122 • byzantine period 7, 22, 26 n.54, 46 n.21, 81, 122, 171 n.14 • byzantine world 124 Caesarea 17, 218, 252 Caesar (see Julius) Cairo Geniza 26, 48 n.28 Capella 219 n.7, 229 calendar, calendric 22 n.43, 55 n.37, 105, 110, 121, 144, 145, 221 n.16 Caligula (see also Philo, Embassy to Gaius) 239, 241, 242, 247, 256 Callahan, Allen 49 n.1 Cambridge Septuagint, Larger (see B-M, LXX/OG) Cameron, Ron, with Arthur J. Dewey (trans) The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780) “Concerning the Origin of his Body” (SBLTT 15: Early Christian Literature Series 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1979) 20 n.37 canon(ical) (see also biblical, deutero-canonical, apocryphal) vii–viii, 12, 38, 62, 99, 102–103, 105, 146, 154, 170, 178 (&n.3), 261 n.3 • Christian scriptures 9, 11 n.15, 15, 16, 23, 27, 28, 82 n.46, 149, 183, 188

269

• Jewish scriptures 9, 10, 11 n.15, 18, 39, 102, 129, 131, 132, 142 • lists [http://www.bible-researcher .com/canon8.html] 16 (&n.27) • non-canonical 10, 17, 18, 24, 25 (&n.53), 28, 41, 99, 102, 105, 132, 137, 139 • proto-canonical 82 n.46 Canticles (or Song of Songs, Song of Solomon; see also Jewish scriptures) 18 n.32, 47 (&n.25), 65 n.15, 187 • Cant 1.7 heading “to the bridegroom Christ” 65 n.15 catalogue(s), cataloging 8 n.11 Catalogue of 60 Books 16 Cathar(i) 21, 85 CATSS = Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies [online http://ccat .sas.upenn.edu/rak/catss.html] 6 n.7, 199 n.1 cave discoveries 25 n.52, 26, 72, 149 Cave of Treasures 30 n.72 CBQ = Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCAT = Center for Computer Analysis of Texts (see CATSS) CCSG = Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca CD-ROM [TLG & PHI] 6 n.7 CED = Centro Editoriale Dehoniano (Bologna) CEJL = Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature celibacy (see also ascetic) 57, 189 n.33, 203 Celsus 18 censorship 22 Center, Ancient Biblical Manuscript at Claremont CA 8 n.11 Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University (http://www.mille .org/) 26 n.54 Center, Orion, at the Hebrew University 12 n.18 Cestius 254 Chabot, J.-B., “L’Apocalypse d’Esdras,” Revue Sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 2 (1894) 333–346 145 n.20 Chapman, Honora H. [online CV at http://www.csufresno.edu/mcll/ faculty_staff/chapman.shtml], “ ‘A Myth for the World’: Early Christian

270

index

Reception of Infanticide and Cannibalism in Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 6.199–219 (http://josephus .yorku.ca/pdf/chapman2000.pdf [dead link?]) 194 n.39 Chadwick, Henry, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 21 n.39 Chalcidiu(s) 219 n.7, 227 n.33, 229 n.55 Chaldeans 139, 228 n.40, 238 n.3 Chalon, G., L’Edite de Tiberius Julius Alexander: Étude historique et exégétique (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 5; Olten: Graf, 1964) 246 n.9 Charles, Robert Henry [see also APOT; ] • (ed.) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) = APOT 10, 14 (&n.24), 95 n.5, 96, 99, 100, 103, 215 • The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Edited from nine MSS together with The Variants of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and Some Hebrew Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1908) 163 (&nn.2–3), 169, 170 Charlesworth, James H. [see also OTP; ] vii • (ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments; Volume 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost JudeoHellenistic Works (Doubleday, 1983 and 1985) = OTP 3 n.2, 5 n.4, 10 (&n.14), 30 n.68, 30 nn.71–72, 31 n.74, 55 n.37, ch.5, 110 n.5, 129 n.2, 164 n.5 • “Treatise of Shem” in OTP 1, 473 55 n.37 • The Odes of Solomon: the Syriac Texts (Oxford 1973; reprinted with minor corrections by Scholars Press, 1977) 94 n.4 • The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (Septuagint and Cognate

Studies 7; Scholars Press, 1976) 129 n.2, 144 n.16 chiliast (see also millennium, etc.) 85 Christ/Messiah (see also Messiah) • Jesus the Christ 42, 50 n.29, 65 n.19, 66, 69, 70, 88, 125, 135, 176, 182 Christian(s) passim (see also classical Christianity) • abbreviation of the name (see abbreviations) • and pagan literature 43–44, 58–59 • definition 42–43, 49–50, 83, 87 • eastern Christian literature 7, 23, 26 • Greek (see Byzantine and Greek) • hymnody 54 • Jewish Christian types 7, 12–13, 19, 25–26, 28, 31–33, 36–37, 40, 42–43, 50 • Latin Christian literature 6 n.7, 22 • martyrs 41 n.11 • monastic 24, 46–47 • modern scholarship 22, 38 • non-Greek and non-Latin Christianities 7, 23–26 • originally Christian 40, 51, 113, 155, 158 • philosophical—mystical—gnostic 13, 17 • in the pre Constantian period 20 [Peregrinus, Melchizedekian] 28 • transcribers 27–31, 42–45, 47 n.24, 48, 52 • varieties 9 n.13, 12, 40, 49–50, 55, ch.4 (passim) Christianization 35 n.3, 42 n.12, 44 n.16, 52 n.33, 122, 162 (de-Christianization) christos (see also Greek terms) 66, 67 (&n.25), 70 Chronicon Paschale (see Paschal Chronicle), ed. Ludwig A. Dindorf (CSHB 9; Bonn: Weber, 1832) 304–305 136, 137 n.9, 141, 175, 180, 194 Chronicles (Jewish scriptural books) 135, 187 • 1 Chron 26.22 = Ps 104.15 for χριστῶν 67 n.26 • 2 Chron 36.22 135 chronography 22 n.43, 41, 54, 59, 105, 136, 137 nn.10–11 Chrysostom, Dio 202 n.9 Chrysostom, John 7 n.9 (Wilken), 54 n.36

index circularity 37 (&n.5), 51, 57, 152 circumcision 86, 252 civil 86, 239, 252 Claremont (see also ABMC, IAC) 8 n.11, 218 n.3 classic(al) 59 • Christian(ity) (see also orthodox) 7, 13, 15, 24, 50, 59, 83–85, 90–91 • Greek language 123 n.24 • Judaism (see also Rabbinic) 10, 26, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90–91 • rhetoric 202 n.7 • text 73, 86 n.10 Cleland, James T. 101–102 Clem(ent of) Alex(andria) 17–19, 53, 75, 135, 137, 138, 141, 226 n.32 • Comm(entary) on Jude 9 17 • Ecl(loga) Proph(etica) 2.1 17 • Strom(ateis), ed. O. Staehlin and L. Fruechtel, GCS 52, 19602 • 1.[21].123 135 • 1.[21].124.1–2 136 • 1.[21].127.2–3 135 • 1.128 136 • 1.[22].149.3 136 • 1.[23].153.1 17 • 3.[16].100.3 138 140 • 5.[11].77.2 17 • 6.[5].43.1 17 • 6.[6].53.5 17 • 6.[15].124.3 17 Clement of Rome • 1 Clem(ent) 18.7 72 n.35 • 2 Clem(ent) 7.6, 17.5 79 Clementine Latin Vulgate 155 Clementines, pseudo 59 Classical Greek 123 n.24, 202 n.7 Classical Christianity (see also Christianity) 13, 15, 24, 50, 59, 83, 85, 90, 91 Classical Judaism [see also Rabbinic Judaism] 10, 26 n.53, 50, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91 codex, codices (see also Mani Codex, Nag Hammadi Codex, Psalter Codex) 13, 67 [2 Macc], 75 n.40 [NT], 122, 177, 181, 190 [T-A], 195, 261 Cohen, Kenneth 129 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 85 n.8, 86 n.9 • The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999) 43 n.14

271

• From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 9 n.12 • Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 250 n.4, 256 n.6 Cohn, Leopold 235 • “Einteilung und Chronologie der Schriften Philos,” Philologus Supplementband 7 (1899) 385–436 243 n.7 Cohn, Norman, The Pursuit of the Millennium (3d ed.; New York: OUP, 1970) 26 n.54 Collins, John J. 104 • Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983) 9 n.12 • Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 5 n.4 Cologne Mani Codex 19 n.33, 20 n.37, 21 n.38 Colson, F.H. 241, 243, 246 • LCL volumes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press) on Philo, edited and translated by G.H. Whitaker and F.H. Colson (vols. 1–5, 1929–1934) and by Colson alone (vols. 6–10, 1935–1962), with indices by J.W. Earp (in vol. 10) and two supplementary volumes by Ralph Marcus (1953) 237 n.1 Combat of Adam and Eve 30 n.72 commentary 38, 47 n.24, 203, 218, 224, 232 Comm(entary) • on Daniel, by Hippolytus 135 • on Gen(esis), by Procopius (PG 87) 191 • on John, by Origen 18 • on Jude, by Clement of Alexandria 17 • on Malachi, by Jerome 131 • on Matthew, by Origen 18 composite (texts, quotations) 39, 76–79, 182 composition(s) 15, 18, 30, 38, 40, 42, 45, 46, 54, 55, 82, 113 (&n.14), 116, 119–120, 125, 129, 142, 207

272

index

computer technology 8 n.11 ConNt = Coniectanea Noetestamentica concordance(s) 6 (&n.7) conservative 12, 235 continuities 41 (&n.11), 43, 49, 60, 89, 90, 125, 145, 194, 210, 227, 253, 261 control(s) • methodological 4, 27, 28, 31, 35, 38, 39, 42, 44 n.16, 50, 56, 58, 59, 62, 67 (&n.25), 81–82, 119, 120, 121, 124, 127, 153 • other 205, 239, 245, 254, 255 Conybeare, Frederick C. 47 • The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus and of Timothy and Aquila, ed. by F.C. Conybeare (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series 8; Oxford: Clarendon, 1898) [see also A-Z] 173 n.2, 175, 177, 183 Coptic 5, 23, 24, 109–112, 115, 118 • Athanasius 21 • Bohairic Psalms 73–74 • Epiphanius 138 (&n.13) • Jeremiah Apocryphon 139 • Sahidic Psalms 65 n.15, 72 n.35 corruption (textual) 28 n.62, 57, 82 n.46, 191 Cosmas Indicopleustes 180 covenant 12, 85 n.8, 86 n.9, 139, 142, 143, 151, 176–179, 186–190 CP = Classical Philology Cragie, W.A., introduction to the first English translation of TAbr in the supplementary volume to the “Ante-Nicene Library” series (American ed. = “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 10) in 1897 112 n.10 CRINT = Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum cross, crucifixion 48, 63, 65, 66, 71–73, 184–186, 191, 250 CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CSHB = Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae cult(ic) 12, 134, 137, 142, 146, 221, 257, 258 Cumanus 251 CUP = Cambridge University Press curse(d) 71, 73, 168 Cuspius Fadus (see Fadus) cycle (of texts and/or traditions)

• Enoch 261 • Ezra-Sedrach 96, 261 • Solon/Hippocrates 233 Cynics 85 Cyprian 53, 191 Cypros (wife of Herod Agrippa I) 251, 256 Cyrenius 250 Cyril of Alexandria 7 n.9, 178, 184 Cyril of Jerusalem 16 Cyrus 69, 132, 133, 135, 136 (&nn.7–8), 139, 141 Damascus Document 48 n.28, 59 Dan, Yose (Joseph) • “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Hebrew Literature,” EncJud 3.186–87 26 n.53 • Ha-sippur ha-‘ivri beyemey ha-baynayyim (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974) 133–41 (Hebrew) 26 n.53 Daniel son of Ezra 139, 141 Daniel, book of (see also Apocalypse of Daniel, Hippolytus) 5 n.4, 70, 84 n.3, 105, 111, 131, 132 (&n.5), 135, 181 • 1.3–7 139 • 2 (vision) 135 • 9.2 132 (&n.5) • 9.24–26 70, 135 Daniélou, Jean • The Origins of Latin Christianity (A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea 3, trans. D. Smith and J.A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), esp. 17–31 156 n.14 • The Theology of Jewish Christianity (trans. John A. Baker, Chicago: Regnery, 1964, from Theologie du judeo-christianisme; Paris: Desclee, 1958) 30–33 20 n.36 • “Le Ve Esdras et le judéo-christiaisme Latin au 2e siècle,” in Ex Orbe Religionum 1 (G. Widengren Festschrift = Studies in the History of Religions 21, Supp. to Numen, 1972) 162–171 152 n.6, 153, 160 • “La Vie suspendue au bois (Deut. 28.66),” in Études d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne (Les Testimonia) (Paris: Beauchesne, 1966) 61f. 72 n.34, 182 Dante 22

index Davies, William D. 97 • “From Schwietzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi,” JBL 95 (1976) 529–58 9 n.13 Davila, James R., The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, Or Other? (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 4 n.3, 32 n.78, 46 n.22, 104 n.12 dead, death 63, 126, 151, 155, 184, 221, 245, 253 Dead Sea Scrolls (= DSS; see also Qumran, Orion Center) 11 n.15, 12 n.18, 25 n.53, 26 (&n.53), 36, 39, 43, 48, 51, 199 n.1 de Bruyne, Donatien • “Fragments d’une Apocalypse perdue,” RBén 33 (1921) 97–109 156 n.14 • “Quelques nouveaux documents pour la critique textuelle de l’Apocalypse d’Esdras,” RBén 32 (1920) 43–47 150 n.5, 152 n.6 Dechow, Jon 129 n.1 Declerck, J.H., Anonymus dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti (CCSG 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1994): 3–111 174 default 9, 36–37, 51–57 definition(s) 31, 37, 38, 43 (&n.14), 50 (&n.29), 83–84, 86–91, 97–99, 201 n.6, 224, 242 de Jonge, Marinus 35 n.1, 104 • “The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of Adam and Eve,” in G. Anderson, M.E. Stone and J. Tromp, Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 347–363 46 n.21 • Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Collected Essays (NT Sup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 46 n.21 • with Johannes Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 46 n.21 • 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 (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 104 n.12

273

• ed. with A.-M. Denis, Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece (Leiden: Brill) 10 • “Remarks in the Margin of the Paper ‘The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae’, by Jean Riaud,” JSP 22 (2000) 45–49 52 n.33 • Testamenta xii patriarcharum, 2nd edn. [Pseudepigrapha veteris testamenti Graece 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970] 1–86 163 n.2 • with H.W. Hollander, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), Introduction ##8–9 4 n.3 • The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: a Critical Edition of the Greek Text [Leiden: Brill, 1978]) 163 (&nn.2–3) • The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition, and Origin (Leiden: Brill, 1953) 4 n.3, 33 n.79, 96 de Lange, Nicholas R.M., Origen and the Jews (Cambridge: CUP, 1976) 7 n.9, 18 n.32 Delcor, Mathias, Le Testament d’Abraham: introduction, traduction du texte grec et commentaire de la recension greque longue suivi de la traduction des testaments d’Abraham, d’Isaac et de Jacob d’après les versions orientales (SVTP 2; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 112 n.8, 115 (&n.20) demon(ic) 32, 88 n.12, 126, 168, 185 Denis, Albert-Marie • Concordance grecque des pseudepigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1987) 6 n.7 • Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 22 n.40, 129 n.2, 144 n.16 • ed. with M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece (Leiden: Brill) 10 deutero-canonical (see also canonical, apocryphal) 9, 15, 28, 62, 99, 131, 132

274

index

Deuteronomy, book of [Deut, Dt] 177, 178–179, 183, 187 (&n.26) • 6.4 185 • 6.5 188 n.31 • 14.7 165 n.9 • 21.23 71–73 • 22.25 & 28 192 • 25.5–10 168 • 28.66 72 n.34 • 31.26 178 de Vaux, Roland, “A propos des manuscrits de la mer Morte,” RB 57 (1950) 417–429 25 n.52 Devreesse, Robert, Introduction a l’étude des manuscrits grec (Paris: Klincksieck, 1954) 122 n.22 Dewey, Arthur J., (trans. with Ron Cameron), The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon. inv. nr. 4780) “Concerning the Origin of his Body” (SBLTT 15; Early Christian Literature Series 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1979) 20 n.37 Dialogues (see also A-Z, S-T, T-A, Justin, Papiscus) 41, 57 n.41, 64 n.11, ch.10 diaspora 9 n.12, 87 n.11, 114 Didache (see also Two Ways) 30, 40, 45 Di Lella, Alexander A. • The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study (The Hague: Mouton, 1966) 30 n.70 • with P.W. Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 30 n.70 dimensions (physical) ch.13 Dindorf, Ludwig A. (see also Chronicon Paschale) 137 nn.9–11 Dindorf, Ludwig August and Karl Wilhelm (Guiliemus) 137 nn.9–11 Dio Chrysostom 201–202 (nn.6&9) Diodorus Siculus 201 n.5 (Bibliotheca Historica 19.98–99) Dionysius of Alexandria 18, 19 Dionysius of Halicarnassos 227 n.36 (AntiqRom 2.5.3.6ff ) discontinuity 49, 261 DiTommaso, Lorenzo, A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999 (JSPSup 39; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) ix (&n.3), 10 n.14, 22 n.40, 40 n.10, 41 n.11, 109 n.2, 129 n.2, 144 n.16

diversity (see also discontinuity, pluralism) 12, 79, 81, 85–86 n.8, 88, 91, 93, 97, 101, 120, 141, 146, 162 docetics 85 Doresse, Jean, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (New York: Viking, 1960; reprinted, Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1986) 20 17 n.31 Drijvers, Han J.W., Bardaisan of Edessa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1966) 209–12 20 n.36 Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa I 251 dualism (see also gnosticism) 13, 23 n.44, 86 n.8 Duen. = Duensing, Hugo, “The Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra,” in W. Schneemelcher’s edition of Hennecke’s NT Apocrypha (trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 689–95 152 n.6, 155 [Weinel-D] Duke University vii, 3, 10, 35 n.2, 95, 102 Dulaey, Martine, “La notice de Pline sur les esséniens (HN 5, 17, 73),” Helmantica 38 (1987) 283–293 (also published in Pline l’Ancien, témoin de son temps: Conventus Pliniani Internationalis, 22–26 Oct. 1985, ed. J. Pigeaud and J. Oroz Reta [Salamanca and Nantes: Universidad pontificia de Salamenca, 1987]) 200 n.3, 201 nn.6–7 Dunn, James D.G. • (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, AD 70 to 135 (the second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, Durham, September 1989; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1992) 83 n.2 • The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991) 83 n.2, 86 n.9 • Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1990–2) 84 n.5 Dupont-Sommer, André, ed. with M. Philonenko, La Bible: écrits intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard, 1987) 10 n.14

index Earp, J.W., LCL volumes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press) on Philo, ed. and translated by G.H. Whitaker and F.H. Colson (vols. 1–5, 1929–1934) and by Colson alone (vols. 6–10, 1935–1962), with indices by J.W. Earp (in vol. 10) and two supplementary volumes by Ralph Marcus (1953) 237 n.1, 243 Ebionites 43 (Gospel of ), 65 (&n.18), 89 (&n.13) Ecclesiastes, book of (see also Qohelet) 187 ecumenical 101 ed. = edited by, editor Edersheim 241 edition(s), ancient 114, 122, 181, 235–236, 256 (&n.6) educator, education 41, 124, 164, 261 Efroymson, David P. • “The Patristic Connection,” Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity (ed. Alan Davies; New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 98–117 7 n.9 • Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and its Role in His Theology (Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1976) 7 n.9 • “Whose Jews? Augustine’s Tractatus on John” in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage (1999) 57 n.41 Egypt(ian) 5, 17 n.21, 23 (&n.44), 41 n.11, 47, 71, 74, 76, 87 n.11, 110–115, 119, 120, 119, 144 n.17, 152 n.6, 168, 178, 200 n.4, 211 n.2, ch.14, ch.15 Ehrhard, Albert [wikipedia Dutch and German], Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung von 1884–1900: vol. I, Erste Abteilung, Die vornicänische Litteratur (Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1900) 113 (&n.11) Ehrman, Bart D. • The New Testament: a Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: OUP, 2003 [4th ed. 2007]) 85 n.7 • The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: OUP, 1996) 82 n.46

275

Eissfeldt, Otto, “Der gegenwartige Stand der Erforschung der in Palastina neu gefundenen hebraischen Handschriften,” TLZ 74 (1949) 597–600 25 n.52 EJMI = Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. by R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (Fortress/Scholars Press, 1986) 3 n.2, 9 n.12, 10 n.14, 12 n.18, 22 n.40 Eldad and Modad 16 Eleazar servant of Abraham 176, 193 Eleazar son of Aaron 130, 212 Eleazar son of Deinaeus 251 elect(ion) 48, 68, 86 n.9, 146 electronic tools and resources (see also archives, CD-ROM, etc., and http:// pages.towson.edu/duncan/acalists .html) 8 n.11, 262 • ABZU guide (http://www.etana .org/abzu/) • ANSAX-L ([email protected] .edu) • CATSS, CCAT (http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/rak/catss.html) • HUMANIST (http://www .digitalhumanities.org/humanist/) • IOUDAIOS (http://listserv.lehigh .edu/lists/ioudaios-l/) • JSTOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/JSTOR) • MEDTEXT-L (listserv@postoffice .cso.uiuc.edu) • ORION (http://orion.mscc.huji .ac.il/ and indexed archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ [email protected]/thrd4 .html#00447) • TLG (http://www.tlg.uci.edu/) Elephantine 60, 87 n.11 Elijah 139, 213 • book of 16 • apocryphon of 18 • in the Qur’an 131 n.4 Elisha ben Abuya 89 Elksai (Book of ) and Elkesaites 19–20 (&nn.33,35) Elliott, J. Keith [profile], The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James (Oxford: OUP, 1993) 95 n.6 Emmaus (Nicopolis) 69 n.28

276

index

Emerton, J.A., “Odes of Solomon,” in AOT 104 EMML = Ethiopian Monastic Manuscript Library 23 n.47 Enc(yclopedia of ) Jud(aism) 25–26 n.53 Encyc(lopaedia) Judaica (Berlin 1928ff ) 113 n. 11 Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem 1971ff ) 113 n.14 Encyclopedia Iranica [http://www .iranica.com/newsite/] 20 n.37 Encyclopedia of Islam 25 n.51 endogamy (see also exogamy, marriage) 141, 145 endure, endurance 57, 79, 89 n.16 Engedi 200–207 Enoch 129, 209–210, ch.12 Enoch, books ascribed to 16–21, 39, 96, 137, ch.9, 261 • “1 Enoch” 15, 33, 42, 51, 52, 96, 104, 163 • Watchers 18, 56 • Parables/Similitudes 33 n.79, 51 • Dream Visions 105 • Heavenly Luminaries 105 • “2 Enoch” 14, 39 n.7, 52, 100 • “3 Enoch” 48 n.28, 104 Enochic outlook 85 (&n.6) Enosh 21 n.38 Epiphanius 8 n.9, 16, 32, 42, 58, 141, 146, 175–176, 183, 187 n.25, 192, 193 • Panarion • 19.1–6; 53.1 19 n.33 • 26.8.1, 26.2.6f, 26.1.3–4, 39.5.1, 40.2.1, 40.7.4 21 • 39.5.1 (Sethians), 40.2.1 (Archontics) 32 n.77 • 55 20 n.35 • De XII Gemmis, “Onyx” 138 • Weights and Measures 176 • 4 179, 187 n.26 • 10–11 194 • 35 178, 187 n.26 (35 & 4b) (ps-)Epiphanius, Testimonies, ed. Robert Hotchkiss (SBLTT; 1974) 177, 179 • 5.29 192 • 41.3 192 epistrategos (see also Tiberius Julius Alexander) 246, 248 n.11, 249, 257 n.8 Erder, Y., with H. Ben-Shammai, “The Connection of Karaism with the Dead

Sea Scrolls and Related Apocryphal Literature,” Cathedra 42 (1987) 53–86 (Hebrew) 25 n.53 Eremiel (angel) 139 eschatology, eschatological (see also apocalyptic) 12, 13, 50 n.29, 88 (&n.12), 125, 126, 159, 160, 215 Esdram = Esdras = Ezra ch.7 Esdras literature (see also Ezra) • 1 Esd(ras) 39 n.7, 111, 129, 131, 132, 180, 187 • 2.1–2 135 • 2.1–15 133 chart • 2.16–30 133 chart • 3.1–5.46 133 chart • 3.4, 4.13, 42 134 chart • 4.43–57 133 chart • 5.5 134 chart • 6.27, 29 133–134 charts • 7.10ff 143 • 8–9 142 • 8.1–3 (Ezra 7.1–6) 130, 133 chart • 8.7 142 • 9.49 130 • 2 Esdras (= Hebrew Ezra & Nehemiah) 65 n.14, 129 • 2 Esdras = 4 & 5 & 6 Ezra 10, 39 n.7 • 2 Esdras 3–14 (see 4 Ezra) • 2 Esdras 1–2 (see 5 Ezra) • 2 Esdras 15–16 (see 6 Ezra) • Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (ed. C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae. Leipzig, 1866) 67 n.26, 48, 123, 126, 140, 143, 144, 164 n.7 • Armenian Inquiries/Questions of Esdras 144 Essene, Essenism 85 (&n.6), 114, 116, 153 ch.11 Esther, book of 65 n.14, 111, 187 • additions to 39 n.7 ethics, ethical 13, 38, 41, 45, 126 Ethiopic (see also EMML) • Apocalypse associated with Ezra 145 • Description attributed to Ezra 144 • language 5, 23, 26 • manuscripts 23 n.47 • version of TAbr 109, 110, 112 etymology 11 n.15, 129, 187 n.26, 190, 195, 223, 229, 238 n.3 Euripides, frg 839 223 n.22

index Eusebius 51, 53, 58, 136, 175 • Ecclesiastical History [EH, HE] • 2.17.24 47 (&n.24), 49 • 3.25 32 n.77 • 4.18.8 63 n.10 • 6.17 65 n.18 • 6.38 19 n.33 • 7.7.1–3, 7.24 19 • Preparation for the Gospel [Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. K. Mras. GCS, 1954] 43 • 8.11.1–2 206 n.18 • 10.9–10 136 n.8 Evans, Kass 238 n.3, 246 n.8 Eve (see also Adam) 21 (Gospel of Eve) evolved literature 261 Ewald 241 Ex = Exodus, book of 179, 187 (&n.26) • 3.1 140 • 3.6 185 • 14.14 191 • 16.15 191 • 17.8ff 191 • 23.7 179 excerpt 43, 47 (&n.24), 51, 53, 56, 58, 72 n.35, 76 n.42, 180, 195, 206 n.18, 224 exegesis, exegetical 7 n.9, 18, 178, 215, 217 n.3, 219, 224, 230, 257 exile(s) 130–132, 136 n.8, 138, 142, 143, 209 Exodus (event) 139, 206 n.18 exogamy 131, 134, 138 n.13, 143, 145 expansions 93, 97, 100, 102, 118 exploration 13 n.20, 57 n.41, 90, 177, 179 Ezek = Ezekiel, book of 16 187 • 1.3 139 • 11.1 131 • 16.4 70 • apocryphal book of 95 ‘Ezer/‘Ezrah 131 Ezra and Ezra literature (see also Esdras, Esdram) 16, 48 (&n.27), 54, 63, 96, 100, ch.7, 261 • Ezra (Hebrew biblical book) • 6.19 142 • 6.21 143 • 7–10 142 • ch. 7 130, 140, 141, 143, 144 • 8.21ff 142 • 8.35f 138 • Ezra-Nehemiah (Hebrew biblical books) 65 n.14, 111, 129, 131, 132, 142, 187

277 • 4–5–6 Ezra, ed. R.L. Bensly, The Fourth Book of Ezra. Texts and Studies 3.2, 1895 10, 39 n.7 • 4 Ezra (2 Esdras 3–14) 10, 23, 29, 36 n.4, 39 n.7, 41, 52–53, 105, 140–146, 149 nn.2–4, 150 n.5, 154 • 3.1 138, 140 • 5.5 72 • 5.35 138 • 7.28 29, 45, 48 n.26, 53 • 8.19b 140 • 12.42 140 • 14 143, 146 • 14.1 138, 140 • 14.6 140 • 14.9 140 • 14.45–46 140 • end (non Latin) 140 • 5 Ezra (2 Esdras 1–2) 28 n.61, 31 (&n.75), 33 n.79, 41 (&n.11), 52–53, 104, 105, 140, 141, 143–146, ch.8 • 1.1 138, 140, 144, 147 n.21 • 1.1–3 162 • 1.4–2.32 162 • 1.5 159 • 1.7–8 157, 159 n.16 • 1.11 159 n.16 • 1.14 157, 159 n.16 • 1.24 156, 157, 158, 159 • 1.25 157, 159 n.16 • 1.34 157, 159 n.16 • 1.35–40 159 • 2.1 157, 159 n.16 • 2.3 157, 159 n.16 • 2.5–7 157, 159 n.16 • 2.10–15 159 • 2.15–32 159 • 2.28 159 n.16 • 2.33–48 156, 159, 160, 162 • 2.33 157, 159 (&n.16) • 2.34 140, 159 • 2.41 159 • 2.42–48 159, 160, 162 • 2.47 53 • 2.48 159 • 6 Ezra (2 Esdras 15–16) 41 (&n.11), 52–53 (&n.34), 104, 144 n.16, 149 nn.2–4, 150 n.5, 154, 162 • Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (see Esdras) • Ethiopic (Falasha) Apocalypse 145 • Questions of Ezra: Michael E. Stone, “A New Edition and

278

•

• • • •

index Translation of the Questions of Ezra,” in Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (eds.), Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 293–294. 48 n.27 works associating Ezra with calendric knowledge: • Greek Prognostikon of Lunar Days 144 • Latin (etc.) Revelation of Ezra 105, 144 • Ethiopic Description of the best days on which to engage in various activities 144 Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra the Scribe 145 Ethiopic Descriptions by Ezra 144 Latin Revelation of Ezra 144 Latin Vision of Ezra 144

fabrication 64 facsimile 11 Fadus 250, 251 (&n.5) faith, faithfulness • belief or the faith 28, 57, 184, 189 • quality of textual copies or translations 12, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44 n.16, 113, 175 Falasha (see also Ethiopic) 145 fast(ing) 134, 142 Favonius Eulogius, commentary on Scipio 219 n.7, 229 n.50 fear 68, 73, 99, 155, 212 Feldman, Louis H. • Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 9 n.12 • Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937–1980 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984) 679–703 28 n.63 • Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII–XIX (LCL; ed. L.H. Feldman; reprinted, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) 419–21 28 n.63 festival(s) 221 (&n.16), 228 n.41, 234 Filaster (Philaster) 19 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (rev. ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 12 n.18

Flaccus 239 241 242 flesh 73 Flusser, David • with H.W. van der Sandt, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place. In Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen: van Gorcum, 2002) 40 n.10 • Encyclopaedia Judaica 1 (1971) 129 113 (&n.14) Focillon, H., The Year 1000 (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) 26 n.54 food 86, 205 forgery 14, 31, 46, 154 n.12 formula 51, 73, 76, 156, 160, 164 n.7, 179, 180 Frankfurter, David, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton: University Press, 1998) 23 n.44 folklore 22 n.43, 54 fragments 7 n.9, 15, 16 n.28, 23, 39, 44 n.16, 48 n.27, 51, 95, 97, 99, 109, 156, 191, 206 n.18 Frerichs, Ernest S., Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: CUP, 1987), edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs 84 n.4 Frey, J.-B., article for the Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. 1 (1928) 33–38 113 n.10 Früchtel Ludwig, four-volume Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller edition of Clement of Alexandria (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 12, 15, 17, 39) begun by O. Stählin in 1905 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), and partly revised by Ludwig Früchtel (1960) and Ursula Treu (1970–1985) the 4th ed. of volume 2 appeared in 1985 17 n.30 Fuglseth, Keare, see Borgen, Philo Index [1999] 6 n.7 Gafni, I., “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” in L.H. Feldman et al. (eds.) Josephus, the Bible and History (Leiden: Brill, 1989) 116–131 44 n.18 Gager, John G. • Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1975) 9 n.13

index • The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: OUP, 1985) 113–191 7 n.9 • Reinventing Paul (Oxford: OUP, 2000) 43 n.14, 50 n.29 • RSR 5/3 (1979) 174–80 9 n.13 Gaius Caligula (see Caligula) Galileans 32 n.78 garment 74 GCS = Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (Berlin: AkademieVerlag) Gebhardt, Otto von, “Die Ascensio Isaiae als Heiligenlegende,” ZWT 21 (1878) 330–353 30 n.68 (Ps-)Gelasian Decree 16 Gen = Genesis, book of (see also Commentary, Philo) 177–178, 187, 224, 242 (Joseph) • 1.1 182 • 1.26 64, 192 • 2.2 224 • 4.25 209–210 • 4.26 214 • 5.1 214 • 5.3 209 • 5.9–21 214 • 5.22 214–215 • 5.23–24 213–214 • 5.29 214 • 6.1–4 209 • 11.7 64 • 15.2 193 • 22.13 191 • 24.2f 193 • 25.23 159 n.16 • 34.6(MT) 212 • 34.25 164 • 37.5–11 240 • 49 164 n.4 genre 41 n.11, 52, 175, 203 n.9 gentile(s) 9 n.12, 28 n.61, 70, 137, 140, 149 n.1, 158, 168, 182 geographical 5 n.5, 49, 119, 203 n.10, 204 geometry, etc. 216, 226, 234 Georgian 24, 138 (&n.13) Germans 240–241 Gibson, E. Leigh, “Jewish Antagonism or Christian Polemic: The Case of the Martyrdom of Pionius,” JECS 9 (2001) 339–358 54 n.36 Gignac, Francis Thomas, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and

279

Byzantine Periods (2 vols.; Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichita 55; Milano: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica 1976–81) 6 (&n.6) Gilbert, W.S. (and Sullivan, Arthur), “H.M.S. Pinafore” (1878) 261 (&n.1) Ginzberg, Louis 11–12 (&n.16) • “Abraham, Apocalypse of,” Jewish Encyclopedia 1.91–92 12 n.16 • “Abraham, Testament of,” Jewish Encyclopedia 1.93–96 12 n.16, 113 (&n.11) • “Adam, Book of,” Jewish Encyclopedia 1.179–180 12 n.16 • “Baruch, Apocalypse of (Greek),” Jewish Encyclopedia 2.549–551 12 n.16 • “Baruch, Apocalypse of (Syriac),” Jewish Encyclopedia 2.551–556 12 n.16 • The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–1938) 12 n.16, 72 n.38, 131 n.3, 134 n.6 Giversen, S., ed. Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen; Louvain: International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1991) 21 n.38 Gk = Greek (especially in ch.6) gloss (textual) 8, 62, 64, 68 n.27 Gmirkin, Russell 202 n.9, 207 gnosis, gnostic 13, 17, 19, 21, 24, 84, 85, 192, 211 God 85 n.8, 86 n.9, 87 n.11, and passim Goehring, James E., with Birger Pearson (eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 23 n.44 Goodenough, Erwin R. 237–248 • Introduction to Philo Judaeus (Oxford: Blackwell, 19622) 237 n.1, 246 • Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938) 237 n.1, 241–243 Goodman, Martin • with G. Vermes, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989) 201 n.6

280

index

• the “new Schürer,” G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, eds., Schürer’s The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (4 vols. in 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87) 8 n.12 Goranson, Stephen 200 n.3, 201 n.6, 203 n.10 Gospel(s) (see also Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) 44, 95, 124, 160, 176, 177, 184, 185, 188, 192, 193 • Gospel of the Ebionites 43 • Gospel of Eve 21, 47 • Gospel of the Hebrews 43 • Gospel of the Nazarenes 43 • Gospel of Peter 160, 184 • Gospel of Thomas (Infancy) 139 Gothic 24 Göttinger Septuaginta-Unternehmens (see also LXX/OG, B-M, Septuagint; see the details at http://ccat.sas.upenn .edu/ioscs/editions.html.) 40 n.9, 62 n.4, 65 (&n.17), 74 n.39, 76 n.41, 78, 182 Grabbe, Lester L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 9 n.12 grammar 6, 136, 229, 231 n.63, 232–233, 235 Greek passim, and the following sub-topics • abbreviations (see also above) 67 • authors 17, 24, 222, 224 • church and Christian copyists 9, 15, 22–24, 69–71, 74–76, 116, 125 • Jewish 22, 44, 48 n.28, 61–65, 67, 73–75, 80–81, ch.6, ch.7, 220, 223 • language 5 (&n.4), 7, 73, 123–124, 223 • manuscripts 73–75, 77–80, ch.6, ch.9, 215 • papyri 72 n.35 • selected specific terms (see also abbreviations, Hebrew & Latin terms, and ch.9 passim) • αἵματος τοῦ ξύλου (apo tou haimatos tou culou) 72 • ἀντίχριστος 176, 191 • ἀνέγνων (anegnōn) ch.9 passim • ἀνέτειλεν—aneteilen 78 • ἀπομνημονεύμασιν 193 • ἄφεσις 176, 191 • ἀφῆκεν αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (aphēken autois tēn hamartian) 73

• βίβλος, βιβλίοις (“books”) ch.9 passim • γένους (genous) 48, 67, 206 n.18 • γῆ (gē) 78 • γραφῆ (grafē) 63 (πολλὰς γραφὰς) ch.9 passim • ἔγνωσαν (egnōsan) 78–79, ch.9 passim • διαβόλῳ 191 • ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) 189 n.35 • ἐμός (“mine”) 176, 190 • εὐαγγέλια 192–193 • ἠλειμμένος (ēleimmenos) 66 • ἰάματα (iamata, “healings”) 74 • Ἰησοῦν (dia Ihsoun) 27 • ἱμάτια (himatia, “garments”) 74 • καθήμενος (kathēmenos) 78 • κατοικοῦντε (hoi katoikountes) 78 • κιβωτῷ (“ark”) 190 • κρεμάμενος (kremamenos) 72 n.34, 73 • κρυπτήρ 176, 191 • κυριακὸν (kyriakon [kuriakon]) 189 n.35 • κυρίῳ (kyriō [kurio]) 69, 70 • λάμψει (lampsei) 78 • νεάνις 192 • νυμφίον 65 n.15 • ξύλον (culon, ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου) 71–72 • οἴδασι (oidasi) 78–79 • παρθένος 63, 176, 192, 222 • ἐν πλαξὶ (en plaxi [placi]) ch.9 passim • πορευόμενος (poreuomenos) 78 • ῥύσασθαι (rhusasthai) 68 • σβέννυται (sbennutai) 79 • σβεστήσεται (sbestēsetai) 79 • στοιχεῖα (stoicheia) 192 • εἰς σωτηρίαν (eis sōtērian), σωτηρίᾳ (sōtēria) 68, 70 n.31 • τελευτᾷ (teleuta) instead of τελευτήσει (teleutēsei) 78–79 • ὑπομνήματα 192 • χρίσεως [chriseōs] or χρίσματος [chrismatos] 70 • χρῖσμα (chrisma—an anointing?) 70 • χριστός (christos) 66–67, 70 (&n.30) • χώρᾳ (chōra) 78

index • texts 30, 44, 62, 71, 74, ch.6, ch.7, ch.10 • translations 25, 61–65, 70, 111, 114, 117–118, 124, 129, ch.7, 162, 176, 184–194, 199 Green, William Scott; Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: CUP, 1987), edited by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs 84 n.4 Greenfield, Jonas C.; Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 48 n.27 (pseudo-)Gregory of Nyssa 69 Gregory Maximus 71 n.32 Gutschmid, Alfred von, “Die Apokalypse des Esra und ihre spätern Bearbeitungen”, ZWT 3 (1860) 152 n.6 Hab = Habakkuk, book of 16, 180–182 • 1.5 180 • ch.3 111 • 3.11–13 27, 68–69 Habakkuk, prophet 180 hagiography 22, 24, 31, 38, 41, 45, 54, 57, 105, 121, 126, 215 halakhic 39 Halkin, François, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (3 vols.; 3rd ed.; Bruxelles: Société Bollandistes, 1957) 22 n.41, 121 n.21 Hall, Robert G., “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,” JBL 109 (1990), 289–306 (see also JBL 113 [1994], 463–484) 46 n.21 Hall, Stuart G., Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments (ed. S.G. Hall; Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) 7 n.9 Halperin, David J., “Origen, Ezekiel’s Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses,” Church History 50 (1981) 261–275 18 n.32 Hanson, Richard P.C., Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959) 18 n.32

281

Hare, Douglas R.A., in OTP 2.379–84 31 n.73 Harlow, Dan, “The Christianization of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 3 Baruch,” JSJ 32 (2001) 416–444 35 (&n.3), 41 n.11 harmonization (textual) 27–28, 54, 75, 132, 146 Harnack, Adolf von 15, 36, 47, 175 • Die Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani, nebst Untersuchungen über die antijüdische Polemik in der alten Kirche (und Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians [137–153]), TU 1.3 (Berlin, 1883) 173 n.2 • “Die dem Aristo von Pella beigelegte Schrift: Jason’s and Papiskus’ Disputation über Christus,” section 2.9 in Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts in der alten Kirche und im Mittelalter (TU 1; Berlin 1882) 115–130 173 n.2 • Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius I: die Űberlieferung und der Bestand 1 (Leipzig, 1893; 2nd ed. reprinted Leipzig: Hindrichs, 1958), 92ff 173 n.2 • “Űbersicht über die von den Christen angeeignete und z[um] Th[eile] bearbeitete jüdische Litteratur,” in Geschichte 2 (1893), 845–865 14 (&nn.22–23), 36 n.4, 64 nn.11&13 Harrelson, Walter 97 Harrington, Daniel J. [profile at http:// www.bc.edu/schools/stm/faculty/ harrington.html] • “Sociological Concepts and the Early Church: A Decade of Research,” TS 41 (1980) 181–90 9 n.13 • “Pseudo Philo LAB” section in OTP 104 Hay, David M., review in SPhilo Annual 1 (1989) 127–128 93 n.2 healing 74, 205 n.17, 209 heaven(ly) 27, 106, 140, 143, 145, ch.9, 227–228, 231–234 240 hebdomad (see also seven) 225–227, 228 (&n.41), 230–231, 248 n.11

282

index

Hebrew (or Aramaic) texts, see Biblia Hebraica3, ed. R. Kittel and P. Kahle (Stuttgart, 1954) • selected specific terms (see also Greek, Latin) • ARŌNA [ἀρῶνα] (see Ark of the Covenant) 176, 178–179, 190 • DIDICH [διδιχ] 176, 190 • ELOEI ELOEI LEMASABACHTHANI [ἐλοεῖ ἐλοεῖ λεμασαβαχθανί] 176, 192 • EMMA-NOUEL [ἐμμά νουήλ] 176, 190 • leshua (“to save”) and yš’a (“to save”) 27, 68 • MANNA [μάννα] 176 • lěmišě’i (“for salvation”) 70 • měšiaḥ (“anointed one”) 66–67 • měšîhî (“anointing”) 70 • NECHŌTHA [νεχωθά] 176, 191 • SABEK [σαβὲκ] 176, 191 • YHWH 68, 190 (pseudo-)Hecataeus 59 Helena 250 Heliopolis/Leontopolis 87 n.11 hellenic 17 hellenism, hellenistic 5, 85, 99, 116, 119, 122, 123, 124, 194, 221 Hennecke, Edgar • Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tübingen/Leipzig, 1904, 19242) 156 • Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols; London: Lutterworth, 1963–65) 156 Henrichs, Albert [profile at http://www .fas.harvard.edu/~classics/people/ henrichs.html] • with L. Koenen, “Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780),” ZPE 5 (1970) 97–217, esp. pp. 133–160 19 n.33 • “Literary Criticism of the Cologne Mani Codex,” The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978 (2 vols.; ed. B. Layton; Leiden: Brill, 1980–81) 2.729 n.20 21 n.38 • “Thou Shalt Not Kill a Tree: Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales,” BASP 16 (1979) 105–106 21 n.38

Herbert, Maire, (ed. with Martin McNamara) Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected Texts in Translation (Edinburgh: Clark, 1989) 24 n.48 Hermas, Shepherd of 105 Hermetic Corpus 59 heretic(s), heretical 16, 18, 21, 24, 58 hero(ic) 4, 31, 126 Herod Agrippa I 239 n.4, 251, 256 Herod Agrippa II 251, 252, 257, 258 Herod the Great 88, 203 n.9, 251 Herod King of Chalcis 250–251 Herodium 200 Herodotus 58 Herzer, Jens [wikipedia German at http:// de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Herzer] • Fourth Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou). Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2005) 40 n.10 • Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/ Siebeck, 1994) 40 n.10 heterodox(y) 8, 15, 19, 24, 32, 59 Hexapla (see Origen; also Quinta, Sexta, Septima) 17–18, 56, 70 n.31, 77, 82, 111, 181 Hilgenfeld, Adolf, Messias Judaeorum: libris eorum paulo ante et paulo post Christum natum conscriptis illustratus (Leipzig: Sumpto Fuesiano, 1869) 152 n.6 Hill Monastic Manuscript Library [HMML] 8 n.11, 23 n.47 Hill, Thomas D. (see Biggs) Hillel 88 Himmelfarb, Martha [profile at http:// www.princeton.edu/religion/people/ display_person.xml?netid=himmelfa] 129 n.1 • Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: OUP, 1993) 22 n.42 • “R. Moses the Preacher and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” American Jewish Society Review 9 (1984) 55–78 26 n.53 • Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983) 22 n.42

index Hippol(ytus) 58 • Comm(entary on) Daniel (ed. G.N. Bonwetsch, GCS, 1897) 135, 141 • Refutation 9.13–17; 10.29 19 n.33 history 22 (&n.43), 54, 59, 89–91, 135, 145 • Jewish and/or Christian 8, 11, 13, 25 n.53, 26, 28, 44, 80, 85 n.8, 98, 125, 126, 129, 130, 143, 145, 153 n.10, 183, 194, 256 • periodization 105 • political 135 • religious 9 • Samaritan 146 • of scholarship 10, 55 n.38 • social 103 • of transmission 5, 40, 101 • of traditions and/or literature 13 n.21, 14, 41, 42, 79, 103, 120, 121, 124, 125, 155, 194 History of the Rechabites 55 n.38, 104 HMML = Hill Monastic Manuscript Library 8 n.11, 23 n.47 Hollander, Harm W., with M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), Introduction ##8–9 4 n.3 homily, homiletic 18, 31, 38, 41, 54, 124–126 • on Luke (by Origen) 18 • on Matthew (by Origen) 18 horoscope 105 Horsley, Gregory, with John A.L. Lee a new Moulton-Milligan lexicon to the NT 6 n.7 Horsley, Richard A. • Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 9 n.13 • Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 9 n.13 Horton, F.L., The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: CUP, 1976) 20 n.35 Hos = Hosea, book of 77 n.43, 159, 180–182 • 1.10 77 n.43 • 2.23 77 n.43 Hotchkiss, Robert 129 n.1, 179 HTR = Harvard Theological Review Hubler, Noel 238 n.3

283

Hughes, John, Bits, Bytes, & Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987) 6 n.7 Hulen, A.B., “The ‘Dialogues with the Jews’ as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity,” JBL 51 (1932) 58–70 173 n.2 human development stages ch.13 HUMANIST online discussion group [http://www.digitalhumanities.org/ humanist/] 6 n.7 Humbert, J., La disparition du datif en grec (du Ier au Xer siècle) (Collection Linguistique 23; Paris: Champion, 1930) 124 n.26 Humm, Alan 238 n.3 Hunayn b. Ishaq (809–874 CE) 25 n.51 Hurtado, Larry W. [profile at http:// www.div.ed.ac.uk/larryhurtado] • The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 27 n.57, 65 n.16 • “The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal,” JBL 117 (1998) 755–73 65 n.16 Hutchesson, Ian 203 n.10 hymn(s) 22 n.43, 38, 41, 54 (&n.36), 65, 79, 80 Hystaspes 17, 135–136 IAC = Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (Claremont) Ialdabaoth 21 Iberus 241 IBYCUS Computer 237 n.1 Ignatius (of Antioch) 30 (&n.66), 111 imagine, imaginations 53, 57, 58, 60, 69, 70, 80, 84 n.4, 86, 146, 160, 207, 215, 226 n.32 Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont [IAC] 218 n.3 Institute for Modern Greek Studies [online at http://ins.web.auth.gr/ english.htm] 123 n.24 Internet (for searching, e.g. google.com) ix, 8 nn.9&11, 9 n.12, 35 n.1, 41 n.11, 45 n.19 interpolation 8, 29, 49, 61, 64 (&n.13), 81, 82, 154 n.12 interpretation 41, 46, 47, 63, 95, 135, 165 n.9, 192, 194, 209–216, 217, 219, 244

284

index

interest (see also motivation) 4, 5, 8, 19 n.33, 20 n.35, 22–25, 29, 32, 36–38, 40, 45, 47 n.24, 48–57, 64, 66–70, 72, 73, 85, 86, 101, 103, 120, 125, 126, 129, 130, 135, 139, 145, 146, 150, 153, 156, 160, 161, 171, 173, 179, 183, 192, 194, 195, 199, 202 n.9, 203, 205, 217, 218, 219, 221 n.15, 225, 235, 238 intuition 58, 73, 82 Inv(entiones) Nom(inum) 138, 140–141 Ionian 223 n.19 IOUDAIOS online electronic discussion group vii, 65 n.16, 109 n.1 Irenaeus 32, 58, 137 • Against Heresies [AH] (ed. W.W. Harvey. Cambridge, 1857) • 1.20.1 = 1.13.1 (Marcosians) 15, 19, 32 n.77 • 3.21(23).1 63 n.9 • 3.21.2 [24.1] 136 Irish 24 Isaiah (prophet) 63 n.10 (death), 72 (death), 129 Isaiah, writings associated with • Isa = Isaiah, biblical book of 16, 69 n.29, 78, 82, 159, 177, 187 • 7.14 63, 190, 192 • 9.1–2 78 • 14.21 194 • 27.9 77 n.43 • 37.38 193 • 39.2 191 • 40 80 • 40.13–14 79 • 44.24–45.7 135 • 45.1 69, 75 • 53 73, 82, 182 • 55.7 73 • 57.5 194 • 58.8 74, 75 • 59.7–8 76, 79 • 59.20f 77 n.43 • 66.24 79 • Isaiah Apocryphon 18 • Isaiah, Ascent/Ascension/ Assumption of 21, 23, 30, 40, 45, 46 n.21, 52, 72 n.38, 96, 100, 104, 105 • Isaiah, Martyrdom of 30, 39 n.7, 72 n.38 • Isaiah, Testament of 52 Isidore 17

Isis 60 Islam and Muslim 25, 32, 57 n.41, 131 n.4, 141 Israel 43, 63, 73, 98, 130, 131, 138–145, 157, 159, 166, 169, 178, 185, 244 itacism 67 (&n.25) Jacob (patriarch) 21, 110, 157, 159, 164 n.4, 172, 185, 210, 213, 214, 243, 244, 250 Jacob, son of Judah the Galilean 250 Jacob, Testament of 96 Jacobs, Andrew S. [profile], “The Disorder of Books: Priscillian’s Canonical Defense of Apocrypha.” HTR 93 (2000) 135–159 21 n.39 Jaffee, Martin S., Early Judaism: Religious Worlds of the First Judaic Millennium (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997; Press of the University of Maryland, 2006/2)] 85–86 nn.8–9 James, Montague Rhodes 11–12, 14, 15, 103 • Apocalype of the Holy God-Bearer (Mary) in Apocrypha Anecdota 1, 1893 123 • “Apocalypse of Sedrach” in Apocrypha Anecdota 1 (Texts and Studies 2.3; Cambridge: CUP, 1893) 127–128 5 n.4, 123 (&n.23) • The Apocryphal New Testament, Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses, with other Narratives and Fragments Newly Translated (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924; supplemented ed. 1955) 95 (&n.6), 100 • “Ego Salathiel Qui Esdras,” JTS 18 (1916/17) 167–169 138 n.12 • “Introduction” to R.L. Bensley’s edition of The Fourth Book of Ezra (Texts and Studies 3.2; Cambridge: CUP, 1895) 28 n.61 33 n.79 36 (&n.4) 150 154 (&n.12) 155 (&n.12) 156 158 161–162 • Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: their Titles and Fragments Collected, Translated and Discussed (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1920) also available online 16 n.28 96 (&n.7) 100 112 n.9 129 n.2

index • “Salathiel qui et Esdras,” JTS 19 (1917/18) 347–349 138 n.13 • The Testament of Abraham (Texts and Studies 2.2; Cambridge: CUP, 1892), 7–34 110 n.6, 112–113, 115–116, 121–123 • Notes, in JTS 4 (1902/03) 138 n.12 Jambres (or Jannes) and Mambres 16, 18, 205 Jamnia 32 Jannaris, A.N. [bio-sketch], An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time. Founded upon Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek (London: MacMillan, 1897) 123 n.24 Jannes (see also Jambres) 18, 205 JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature JECS = Journal of Early Christian Studies Jeremiah 41, 129, 138 n.13, 146 Jer = Jeremiah, books associated with 63 • Jeremiah [canonical] 30 (&n.69), 82, 105, 111, 135, 155 n.12, 159, 177, 180, 182, 187 • 11.19 63 • 25.11–12 132 n.4 • 28.1 131 • 29.10 [OG 36.10] 132 n.4 • Jeremiah Apocryphon [Apocr. Jer.] 18, 141, 143, 147 n.21 • 32–34.14 (Coptic) 139, 143 • 35ff (Coptic) 139 • Epistle of 39 • Lives of the Prophets: Jeremiah 48 n.26 • Paralipomena [Par.Jer.] (see also “4 Baruch”) 31 (&n.74), 40 (&n.10), 41 n.11, 45, 46 n.21, 52 (&n.33), 111, 121, 139, 143, 147 n.21 • 5 131 n.4 • 8 138 n.13 • 9.14 (Armenian) 29 n.65 Jericho 25 n.52, 69 n.28, 187, 200, 202 n.7, 203, 204 nn.11&14, 206 Jerome 8 n.9, 16, 42, 62, 68 (&n.27), 69, 141 • Illustrious Men 54 65 n.18

285

• Epistle 112.13 [“Epistle 79” in some sources; PL 22.0924/746–747] 42, 50 n.29, 89 (&n.13) • Commentary on Malachi, ed. D. Vallarsi (Verona, 1734–42) 131 (&n.3) • Hebrew Names 191 Jerusalem 5 n.4, 8 n.12, 16, 25 n.52, 37 nn.5–6, 42, 74, 131–132, 135–137, 138 n.13, 140–145, 166, 176, 194, 200, 203–204, 206, 246, 252, 255 Jerusalem Bible 149 n.4 Jervell, Jacob, “Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen,” in C. Burchard, J. Jervell, and J. Thomas, Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 36; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969) 30–61 4 n.3 Jeshu (Yeshu) 50 n.30 Jeshua (associate of Nehemiah) 130–135 Jesus (see also Jeshu, Joshua) 19, 26, 27–29, 42, 43, 44 n.17, 45, 48, 50 (&nn.29–30), 53, 65 (&n.15), 66, 68, 71–73, 79, 87, 88 (&n.12), 125, 137, 139, 143, 156, 161, 176, 177, 179, 182, 184, 185, 188, 192, 193, 210 • Joshua/Jesus son of Naue (or ambiguous) 27, 68, 187, 212 • book of Joshua (Jesus) 187 • Jesus son of Josedek 135 • Jesus son of Sirach (see also Sirach) 187 Jewish (see also Judaism) passim • definition 43, 49–50 (&n.29), 83, 87 • history (see above) • originally Jewish 4 n.3, 13, 32, 40, 49, 113, 115, 158 • practices (see below) • scriptures (see also MT, OT, LXX/OG, canon, and individual books) 5 n.4, 13, 16 n.29, 17, 28, 38, 39, 44 (&n.16), 54, ch.3, 102, 111, 138, 141, 161, 176, 177, 179 • traditions (see below) Jewish Encyclopedia (13 vols.; ed. I. Singer; New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901–1907) 12 n.16, 50 n.29, 113 n.11

286

index

JJS = Journal of Jewish Studies Job 16, 31, 73, 129 • canonical book of 111, 187 • 41 79–80 • 42.10 73 • Testament of 12 n.16, 109 n.3, 111, 121 Johanan 139 141 John, Apocalypse of (see Apocalypse, Revelation) John, Gospel of, and Johannine 59, 85, 193 • 1.11 156 • 6.42 193 • 7.27f 193 • 8.14 193 • 9.29f 193 • 16.24 160 John Baptist 52 John Chrysostom 7 n.9, 54 n.36 John of Damascus 19, 53 Johnson, Marshall D., “Life of Adam and Eve,” in OTP 2.249ff 30 n.72 Joiakim 131 Joseph and Aseneth 18, 32 n.78, 36 n.4, 41 n.11, 42 n.12, 54 n.36, 55, 57 n.41, 111 Joseph, patriarch 16, 18, 31, 41, 54, 167–169, 171, 238, 241–249, 259 Joseph, “count” 42 Joseph son of Camei 251 Josephus [Works, ed. B. Niese (Berlin, 1890–1894)] viii, 6 (&n.7), 10, 28 (&n.63), 44, 52, 58–60, 75 n.40, 88, 105, 136, 141, 203, 206, ch.12b, ch.15 • Ant(iquities) • 1.2.3–3.1 209 • 1.75 216 • 1.85 212 • 4.326 212 • 9.28 212 • 10.248 136 n.7 • 11.168ff 136 n.7 • 12.[6.2].274–277, 14.[4.2].63, 18.[9.2].319–324) 258 • 14.[10.12].226–227 259 • 14.234 (see 228, 237, 240) 258 • 14.[10.21].245 258 • 14.258 258 • 18.[3].63–64 28 n.63, 29, 41, 45 (&n.19) • 18.[8.1].257–260 239 • 18.259, 20.100, and in 19.276 • 19.[5.1].276–77 239

• 20.[1.1–2.]1–14 and 20.[5.1.] 97–99 251 n.5 • 20.[5.2].100 246 • (Against) Apion 1.128–160 136 n.7 • Life [Vita] • 358–363 256 • 364 257 • War [= B.J. = Bellum] 256 n.6 • 2.119 206 • 2.[11.6].220ff 251 • 2.[12.4].235 251 • 2.[14.6].293–308 252 • 2.[15.1].309 252 • 2.[16.1b].335 252 • 2.[16.4–5].345–404 252, 258 • 2.[17.1–18.6].405–486 252, 258 • 2.[18.7–8].487–497 247 • 2.[19.2].517 258 • 2.[21.8].634 258 • 4.[10.6].616–618 255 • 5.[1.6b].45–46 255 • 5.[5.3b].205 255 • 6.[3.4].201–219 194 • 6.[4.3].237–242 255 • 7.[3.3].46–53 258 • 7.447–450 256 Joshua (Greek “Jesus”), associate of Moses 68 (&n.27), 187, 212 Joshua (“Jesus”), book of 187 • 10.12f 68 • 10.22–27 68 Joshua/Jesus (see also Jesus) 65, 68 (&n.27), 125 • in Hab 3.13 27, 68 (&n.27) Jozadak 131 JRS = Journal of Roman Studies JSHRZ = Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ = Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT = Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSOTSup = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements JSP = Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSTOR = Journal Storage project (electronic) ix JTS = Journal of Theological Studies Jubilees 23, 39, 41, 51, 52, 96, 105 Judah the Galilean 250 Judah, patriarch (see also Testament of Judah) 157, 169

index Judah, tribe or group 134, 135, 146, 159, 167, 191 Judaism (see also Jewish) passim • definition ch.4 passim • essence of 85 n.8 • “middle Judaism” (see Boccaccini) 85 n.6 • varieties (see also classical, rabbinic) 8–9 (&n.12), 40, 43 n.14, 49, 81, 84 (&n.4), 85 n.8, 87 n.11, 88, 93, 101, 171 n.14 Judaize(r) 85, 252 Judea(n) 87 n.11, 187, 200–201 (&n.4), 201 n.6, 204 (&nn.12–13), 206 n.18, 239, 246, 250, 251 Judean Desert (see also DSS) 11 n.15, 12 n.18, 19 n.19 judgment (divine) 115 (&n.19), 126, 143, 145 Julian (Emperor) 16 Julius Caesar 253 Juster, Jean, Les Juifs dans l’empire Romain: leur Condition Juridique, Economique, Sociale 1 (Paris: Guenther, 1914), pp. 53–76 173 n.2 Justin (Martyr) 16, 75, 179 • Apol(ogy) • 20 17 • 31 194 • 66.3 193 • 67.3 193 • Dial(ogue with Trypho), ed. J.C. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum 1.2 (Jena, 18773) 7 n.9, 176, 181 • 46–47 89 (&n.14) • 49.8 191 • 62 192 • 67.7 63 (&n.9) • 71–73 63 n.10, 71 (&n.32) • 71.3 63 (&n.9) • 72 16, 56 n.39 • 72.1 [“Ezra”] 129 n.1, 137–138, 141, 142 (&n.15) • 84.1–3 63 (&n.9) • 96 71 n.33 • 105 193 • 109–110 [Micah 4.1–7] 181 • 120 16, 56 n.39, 63 n.10 kaige translation (see also Barthelemy, Theodotion) 181 Kalvemaki, Joel, online site “Number Symbolism in the Mediterranean

287

before A.D. 1000: a Select Bibliography,” ed. Joel Kalvemaki [for his 2006 dissertation on number symbolism, see http://www .kalvesmaki.com/Arithmetic/ dissabstract.html] 218 n.3 Kamesar, Adam, review of Vermes and Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources, JAOS 111 [1991] 134–135 201 n.6, 202 n.9 Karaites 25 (&n.53), 26, 32, 85 Katz, Peter [aka Walters], Philo’s Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: CUP, 1950) 29 n.64 Kaufmann, J., (ed. M. Soloweitschick) in Encyc. Judaica 1 (1928) 564 113 n.11 Kautzsch, Emil Friedrich 10 Kee, Howard C., “Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs,” in OTP 1 104, 164 (&n.5) Kenney, John Peter, (ed.), The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion in Memory of Horst R. Moehring (BJS 304. Studia Philonica Monographs 1; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995) 218 n.3 Kephalaia 154 20 n.37 Kerkeslager, Allen 238 n.3 Kimelman, Reuven R., “Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation,” HTR 73 (1980) 567–595 18 n.32 KJV = King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version (1611) Klijn, A.F.J. • “2 Baruch” in OTP 104 • “Elchasai and Mani,” Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974) 277–89 19 n.33 • with G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 54–67 19 n.33 • (review) “A Seminar on Sethian Gnosticism,” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983) 90–94 211 n.2 • Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 46; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 211 n.2

288

index

Knibb, Michael A. • “Martyrdom/Ascention of Isaiah” in OTP 2.146 30 n.68, 104 • “1 Enoch” in AOT 96, 104 • on “5 Ezra” as part of The First and Second Book of Esdras (Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: CUP, 1979) 151, 152 n.6, 155 Knight, Jonathan, The Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 46 n.21 Kobelski, Paul J., Melchizedek and Melchiresa‘ (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981) 20 n.35 Kohler, Kaufmann 12 • Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1923) 77 and 80 113 (&n.14) • “Job, Testament of,” Jewish Encyclopedia 7.200–202 12 n.16 • “The pre-Talmudic Haggada II.C.—The Apocalypse of Abraham and its Kindred,” JQR 7 (1895) 581–606 113 n.11, 114 • “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Jewish Encyclopedia 12.113–118 12 n.16 Koran (see Qur’an) Kraemer, Ross S. 35 n.2, 54 n.36, 129 n.1, 238 n.3 • “Could Aseneth be Samaritan?” A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft, ed. Benjamin G. Wright III (Scholars Press Homage Series 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 149–165 32 n.78 • When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Revisited (Oxford: OUP, 1998) 41 n.11, 42 n.12, 55 (&n.38), 57 n.41 Kraft, Robert A. [most of the folowing can be accessed from the bibliography on my web page at http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/rak/kraft.html] • Barnabas and the Didache = volume 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary (ed. R.M. Grant; New York: Nelson, 1965) 13 n.21,

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

30 n.67, 69 n.29, 103 n.10, 159 n.16, 261 n.2 “Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the ‘Testimony Book’ Hypothesis,” JBL 79 (1960) 342 69 n.29 “Christian Transmission of Greek Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe,” Paganisme, judaisme, christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique: Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon (ed. A. Benoit et al.; Ouvrage publie avec le concours de l’Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1978) 207–226 (included here as chapter 3) 16 n.29, 27 n.55, 28 n.60, 45 n.20, ch.3, 149 n.1 “The Codex and Canon Consciousness,” pp. 229–233 (item 14) in The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders (Peabody MA: Hendrickson 2002) 178 n.3, 261 n.3 “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila,” PSCO seminar files from 1971 (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ psco/archives/psco08–min.txt) 173 n.1 “Enoch and Written Authorities in Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs,” presented at the SBL 1993 Pseudepigrapha Symposium, Washington DC 163 n.1 The Epistle of Barnabas: Its Quotations and Their Sources (PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 1961; brief summary published in HTR 54 [1961] 300) 103 n.10 “Essene” thread on the ORION Discussion Group listings, including my attempt on 16 June 2001 to summarize the discussions to that point http://www .mail-archive.com/orion@panda. mscc.huji.ac.il/msg00447.html (see also the follow-up comments in my posting on 20 June 2001 http:// www.mail-archive.com/orion@ panda.mscc.huji.ac.il/msg00451 .html) 2007 n.19 “ ‘Ezra’ Materials in Judaism and Christianity,” in Aufstieg und

index

•

•

•

• •

•

•

Niedergang der Roemischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase) II. Principat 19.1 Religion (Judentum: Allgemeines; Palaestinishes Judentum) ed. W. Haase (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin 1979) 119–136 ch.7 “Judaism on the World Scene,” in S. Benko and J.J. O’Rourke (eds.), The Catacombs and the Colosseum (Valley Forge: Judson, 1971), 81–98 43 n.14, 258 n.9 “The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity,” pp. 174–199 in vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism and other Graeco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (M. Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 104 n.12, 125 n.29 “Og and the Giants,” see my online update (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ rs/rak/publics/mrjames/jamesog .htm) of the section from M.R. James, Lost Apocrypha at http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/ mrjames/james.htm#og 16 n.28 with A.-E. Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (SBLTT; Missoula: SBL, 1972) 31 n.74 “Philo (Josephus, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon) on Enoch,” pp. 253–257 in SBL 1978 Seminar Papers 1, ed. P.J. Achtemeier (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978) ch.12b “Philo and the Sabbath Crisis: Alexandrian Jewish Politics and the Dating of Philo’s Works,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, edited by Birger A. Pearson et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 131–141 ch.14, 249 (&n.2) “Philo on Seth: was Philo aware of Traditions that Exalted Seth and his Progeny?” pp. 457–458 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978 (Leiden: Brill, 1981) ch.12a

289 • “Philo’s Bible Revisited: the ‘Aberrant Texts’ and their Quotations of Moses” pp. 237–253 in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. F. Garcia Martinez and M. Vervenne with the collaboration of B. Doyle (Louvain: Peeters, 2005) [expanded version online] 29 n.64, 178 n.4 • “Philo’s Treatment of the Number Seven in On Creation,” originally delivered for the SBL Philo Group, November 1996 (New Orleans) ch.13 • “Pliny on Essenes, Pliny on Jews,” Dead Sea Discoveries 8 (2001) 255–261 ch.11 • “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,” pp. 55–86 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (ed. John C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 55–86 vii n.1, ch.1, 39 n.8, 45 n.19, 46 n.21, 53 n.34, 56 n.39 • “Reassessing the Impact of Barthélemy’s Devanciers, Forty Years Later,” in BIOSCS [2005; for a fuller online version, see http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/ judaism/barthel04.html] 181 n.5 • “Reassessing the ‘Recensional Problem’ in Testament of Abraham”; the original version appeared in G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 6; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976), 121–37 8 n.10, 30 n.71, 42 n.13, ch.6, 153 n.7 • presentation to the 2005 SBL session “Recent Scholarship on the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila” (included in ch.10; see http://ccat .sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/temp/dialTA .htm) ch.10 • review of Barthélemy’s Devanciers in Gnomon 37 (1965) 67 n.22 • review of AOT in JBL 106 (1987) 736–739 11 n.15, ch.5 • review of AOT and OTP in RSR 14.2 (April 1988) 113–117 11 n.15, ch.5

290

index

• “Septuagint” and “Greek Versions, Minor” by R.A. Kraft, E. Tov and K. O’Connell in the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 61 n.3 • “Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions,” JSJ 32 (2001) 371–395; presentation made at the SNTS Congress in Tel Aviv, Israel, in August 2000, an updated version of which is available on the internet vii n.2, ch.2 • with William Adler, trans. of Kurt Treu’s “The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire” (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak// publics/notrak/Treu.htm; also on the IOUDAIOS Electronic Seminar server] 65 n.16 • “The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text (eds. Scot McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan; London: British Library; New Castle: Oak Knoll Press, 2003), 51–72 see also the related online materials at http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/ jewishpap.html 61 n.2 • “Tiberius Julius Alexander and the Crisis in Alexandria according to Josephus,” pp. 175–184 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, presented to John Strugnell on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin (College Theology Society Resources in Religion 5; Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1990) 237 n.1 ch.15 • “Towards Assessing the Latin Text of ‘5 Ezra’: The Christian Connection,” pp. 158–169 in Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. George W.E. Nickelsburg with George W. MacRae (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 28 n.61, ch.8 [expanded version]

• with A. Tripolitis, “Some Uncatalogued Papyri of Theological and other Interest . . .”, BJRL 51 (1968) 144 n. 1 72 n.37 • “An Unpublished Coptic/Sahidic Psalter Codex at the University Museum in Philadelphia: a Preliminary Report,” pp. 81–89 in Biblical and Armenian Studies, ed. M.E. Stone (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976) 65 n.15 • “The Weighing of the Parts: Pivots and Pitfalls in the Study of Early Judaisms and their Early Christian Offspring,” pp. 87–94 in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, edited by Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 95; Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck Siebeck, 2003) Krodel, Gerhard [see Bauer, Walter] Kugel, James [webpage at http://www .jameskugel.com/cv.php] • In Potiphar’s House: the Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990) 41 n.11 • Traditions of the Bible: a Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998) 41 n.11 Kuhn, Karl Heinz • “Apocalypse of Elijah,” in AOT 104 • “A Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon,” Le Muséon 83 (1970) 95–135 and 291–350 139 n.14 LAB = “pseudo-Philo” Liber Antiquitates Biblica or Biblical Antiquities 55 n.38 label 13, 32, 49, 50, 58, 85 (&n.6), 87, 119, 160, 219 Labourt, M.J., “Le cinquième livre d’Esdras,” RB 17 (1909) 412–34 152 n.6, 153 Lactantius • Div(ine) Inst(itutes), ed. J. Moreau, SC 39 (Paris, 1954–1955) 137–138 (DivInst 4.18.22) • Epitome (of the Divine Institutes), ed. E.H. Blakeney (London: SPCK, 1950) 137–138 (Epitome 48) Lahey, Lawrence 173, 175, 183 n.8

index • The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Critical Greek Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduction including a Source-critical Study. (Cambridge University PhD dissertation, 2000); accepted for the series Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck) 174 n.2 • “Hebrew and Aramaic in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.” In Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, edited by William Horbury (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 106–21 174 n.2, 176–177 • “Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine Jewish-Christian Debate in The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila.” JJS 51 (2000), 281–96 174 n.2, 193 Lamech 16, 210, 213 Lampe, Geoffrey W.H., (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 5 (&n.5), 123 Lancashire, Ian, (ed.), The Humanities Computing Yearbook: 1989–90 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 6 n.7, 8 n.11 Landes, Richard, online “Apocalyptic Expectations Around the Year 1000” (1996) 26 n.54 language(s) 5 (&n.4), 7, 8, 13, 22 n.43, 23–25, 58, 73, 103, 112, 113 n.14, 114 (&n.16), 115, 116, 118, 120, 124, 137, 139, 142 n.15, 146, 152, 153 (&n.8), 156, 160, 161, 164, 165, 170, 176–178, 199 n.1, 202 n.7, 223, 238 n.3, 257 n.8, 258 LaRue, Mary 149 n.1 Latin • church 15, 24 • language 5, 223, 229 • literature 6 n.7, 28 n.61, 52, 138–140, 144 (&n.16), 145, ch.8, 182, 199, ch.11, 221 • manuscripts 22–23, 29, 31, ch.8 • specific terms not otherwise indexed (see also ch.8 passim) • aromata 89 n.13 • styracem 89 n.13 • translation or version (see also Vg) 45, 48 n.26, 52, 53, 62, 68, 69, 72 n.35, 95, 129, 140, ch.8, 180

291

law(s) 63, 86, 130, 131, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142, 145, 146, 164, 165 n.9, 167, 168, 171, 172, 177–179, 184, 186, 187 n.24, 201, 205, 213, 215, 219, 221 (&n.16), 228 n.41, 230, 240, 241, 256, 158 n.9, 259 LCL = Loeb Classical Library Lebreton, Jules, with Jacques Zeiller, The History of the Early Church (trans Ernest C. Messenger; New York: Collier, 1962 [1944–47 original]) 4.90 24 n.50 lectio difficilior 158 legal 86, 87 n.11 Lee, John A.L., with Gregory Horsley, a new Moulton-Milligan lexicon to the NT, with computer assistance 6 n.7 legal 86, 87 n.11 legend 72, 98, 102, 112, 113, 116, 209, 215 Leo 71 n.32 Letter on the Conversion of the Jews 54 n.36 Levi (see also T[estament of] Levi) 136, 164–166, 169, 171 Levite(s) 136, 178 Lev(iticus), book of 187 (&n.22) • 11.6 165 n.9 • 11.9–12 205 n.17 • 21.10 70 • 21.12 70 n.30 lexicon 5 (&n.5), 6 (&n.7), 123 Liber Responsalis 156 n.5 library ix, 8 n.11, 19 n.20, 23 n.47, 42, 52, 104, 150 n.4, 163 Licius/Lucius Ernst 46, 47 n.24 Liddell and Scott, A Greek English Lexicon, compiled by H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, revised and augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie; supplement edited by P.G.W. Glare and A.A. Thompson (9th revised edition with supplement; Oxford: OUP, 1996) 123 LiDonnici, Lynn 238 n.3 Lieu, Samuel N.C., Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 1992) 20 n.37 Life of Adam and Eve 30 n.72 linguistic features 5 (&n.5), 6 n.7, 8, 31, 52, 119, 121–125, 152, 220 Lipscomb, W. Lowndes, The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature

292

index

(University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 30 n.72 literati 41 liturgy, liturgical 13, 22, 54, 55 n.38, 72, 110, 121, 156, 189, 219 Lives of Adam and Eve, book of 121 Lives of the Prophets, book of 11 n.15, 31 (&n.73), 41, 45, 46 n.21, 52, 111, 121 • Jeremiah 48 n.26 Loeb Classical Library = LCL Lord 50, 63, 67–69, 72–74, 80, 102, 139, 145, 155, 157, 159, 161, 165–168, 171, 172, 182, 184, 185, 188, 189, 191 LThK = Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche Lucian of Samosata 20 Lucianic text 75 n.40, 76, 181 Lücke, G.C. Friedrich 152 n.6 (& Gutschmid) Luke, Gospel of 111 (Luke-Acts) • 1.46–55 65 • 2.29–32 65 • 11.49 161 • 20.36 189 n.33 • 22.54 and 23.34 73 Luttikhuizen, G.P., The Revelation of Elchasai (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1985) 19 n.33 LXX/OG = Septuagint or Old Greek (see also B-M, Cambridge Septuagint, Göttingen Septuagint, Old Greek, Septuaginta) 5 n.4, 6, 40 n.9, 61 n.2, 62 n.4, 65 (&n.17), 69 n.28, 74 n.39, 76 n.41, 78, 180, 182, 199 n.1 Maccabees 9 n.12, 55 n.38 Macc = Maccabees, books of • 1 Maccabees 39 n.7, 44 (&n.18) • 2 Maccabees 39 n.7, 55 n.38 • 1.10 67 • 3.30 68 • 3 Maccabees 11 n.15, 55 n.38 • 4 Maccabees 11 n.15, 39 n.7, 41, 55 n.38 • 6 Maccabees 55 n.38 Macedonians 253 MacRae, George 101 • Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. George W.E. Nickelsburg with George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 28 n.61, 149 n.1

Macrobius 219 n.7, 229 n.55 magic 21, 41, 59, 205, 221 Malalas, Chronograpia 6 (ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 8, 1831, 160f.) 137 (&n.10), 138, 141 Mambres (see Jambres/Jannes and Mambres) 16, 18 man 27, 63, 64, 136, 166, 185, 188, 192, 240, 241 Mandean 85 Mangey 241 Mani & Manichaeism 20 (&n.37), 21 (&n.38), 42 n.13, 85, 88 • Cologne Mani Codex (ed. Koenen & Romer) 19 n.33, 20 n.37, 21 n.38 • Kephalaia (ed. Schmidt & Polotsky) 20 n.37 manuscript(s) [also MS(S)] 5, 8 (&n.11), 11, 15, 22 (&n.40), 23 (&n.47), 25 n.52, 27 (&n.57), 29, 36, 44 n.16, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 57, 103, 118, 120–121, 123–125, 138 n.12, 140–144, 149–155, 163–165, 170–174, 180, 181, 183, 262 & passim Marcion, Psalms for 15 Marcosian 15, 32 n.77 Marcus Julius Alexander (nephew of Philo) 86, 246–248, 256 Marcus, Ralph, LCL volumes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press) on Philo, edited and translated by G.H. Whitaker and F.H. Colson (vols. 1–5, 1929–1934) and by Colson alone (vols. 6–10, 1935–1962), with indices by J.W. Earp (in vol. 10) and two supplementary volumes by Ralph Marcus (1953) 6 n.7, 237 n.1 Mariamme, daughter of Herod Agrippa I 251 Mark, gnostic 19 Mark, Gospel of [= Mk] 79 • 9.48 78–79 • 12.26 185 • 12.33 188 • 13.37 160 Marmorstein, A., “Jews and Judaism in the Earliest Christian Apologies,” The Expositor 17 (1919), 73–80 and 100–116 173 n.2 marriage (see also endogamy, exogamy) 136, 137, 138 n.13, 141, 202 n.7 Marshall, John W. • Parables of the War: Reading the Apocalypse within Judaism and

index during the Judaean War (Princeton University PhD dissertation, Dept. of Religion, 1998) 41 n.11, 53, 53 (&n.35) • Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 10; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001) 43 n.15 Martin, Raymond A. • Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (SCS 3; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974) 6 (&n.8) • “Syntax Criticism of the Testament of Abraham,” Studies on the Testament of Abraham (SCS 6; ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 95–120 6 (&n.8), 122 (&n.23), 124–125 Martyrdom(s) 41 n.11, 55 n.38 • of Isaiah 30, 39 n.7, 72 n.38, 100, 104 • of Pionius 54 n.36 martyrology 22, 38, 41 (&n.11), 57, 72, 105 Mary 21, 89 n.13, 123, 126, 177 Masada 203 n.10, 204 (&n.12), 207 n.19 mathematics, etc. 218, 220, 223, 225, 227, 230, 234 MT = Masoretic Text 30 n.69, 69, 191, 212 Matter, E. Ann, “The ‘Revelatio Esdrae’ in Latin and English Traditions,” RBén 92 (1982) 376–392 24 n.49, 48 n.27 Matt (also Mt) = Matthew, Gospel of 75 n.40, 78, 147, 160 • 1.17 210 • 1.21 68 • 1.23 190 • 4.15–16 78 • 7.7 160 • 23.37f 160 • 24.22 160 • 27.46 176, 192 McCarty, Willard, coordinator of online HUMANIST discussion group 6 n.7 McCown, Chester Charlton, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), 32–38 111 (&n.7). 193 McGiffert, Arthur Cushman, “Introduction” to the Dialogue of Papiscus and Philo, ed. by A.C.

293

McGiffert, Dialogue Between a Christian and a Jew (Marburg/New York: Christian Literature Co., 1889) 173 n.2 McGinn, Bernard, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) 88, 306 n.1 26 n.54 McLean, N. (see B-M, LXX/OG) McNamara, Martin • The Apocrypha in the Irish Church (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1975) 24 n.48 • (ed. with Maire Herbert) Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected Texts in Translation (Edinburgh: Clark, 1989) 24 n.48 meals 18 medieval (see also byzantine) 7, 20 n.37, 21, 23, 24 n.49, 26 nn.53–54, 48 n.27, 54, 81, 84, 105, 110, 112, 175 MEDTEXTL = Medieval Text (scholarly discussion) List 24 n.49 (listed, with others, at http://pages.towson.edu/ duncan/acalists.html) Meeks, Wayne A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 9 n.13 Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2009) 1 28 n.63 Melchizedek 20 (&n.35) Meletian 21 Melito of Sardis 7 n.9, 191 • Paschal Homily 52.39 194 messiah [Christ] (see also Greek and Hebrew terms) • Jewish claimants and uses 26, 84 n.4, 191 • in text of 4 Ezra 7.28 29, 45, 48 • for Jesus the Christ 42, 50 n.29, 65 n.19, 66, 69, 70, 88, 125, 135, 176, 182 methods and methodology 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 27, 31–33, 35–39, 49, 51, 55, ch.3, 84 (&n.4), 93 n.1, 122, 149 n.1, 161, 181, 261 Metilius 252 Metz. = Metzger, Bruce M. 97 • “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” in OTP 1 (1983) 516–559 155 MGWJ = Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

294

index

microform projects (see EMML, HMML) 8 n.11, 23 n.47 Migne, J.P., Patrologia Latina [PL] (1844–1865), searchable online for subscribers to the Chadwyk-Healy data bank 6 n.7 Milik, Josef T. 167 • “Milki-sedeq et Milki-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972) 95–144 20 n.35 millennium, millennial, millenarian (see also chiliast) 8, 9 (&n.13), 26 (&n.54), 39, 57, 60, 121, 124, 126 Minim 89 n.13 Minor Prophets (“the Twelve”; see also individual books) 180–182 Modad (see Eldad and Modad) 16 Moehring, Horst • “Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” pp. 191–227 of the SBL Seminar Papers (1978), republished in The School of Moses: Studies in Philo and Hellenistic Religion in Memory of Horst R. Moehring, ed. John Peter Kenney [BJS 304. Studia Philonica Monographs 1; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995]) ch.13 passim • Josephus Lexicon project 6 n.7 • “Moses and Pythagoras: Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in Philo” (Studia Biblica 1978, 1: papers on Old Testament and related themes, ed. Elizabeth Livingstone; JSOTSup11; Sheffield: JSOT, 1979) 218 n.3 Moloch 193 Momigliano, A., “From the Pagan to the Christian Sibyl,” in A.C. Dionisotti, Anthony Grafton and Jill Kraye, The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts 16; London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1988), 3–18 40 n.10 monad ch.13 monastic(ism) 23, 24, 25, 46, 47, 126, 189 Montanus, Montanist 19, 59, 88 moon (see also astrology) 68, 167, 169, 226, 227 n.38, 230–233 Moore, George F., “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921) 197–254 173 n.2

moral(ity) 14, 57, 126 Moses 54, 129, 130–131, 136, 139, 140 Moses, writings associated with 16, 21, 29 n.64, 43, 140 • Apocalypse 30 n.72, 111 • Assumption 17, 23, 39 n.7, 96 • Ascension 18 n.32 • Life of (by Philo) 60 (see also Philo “Mos”) • Testament 55 n.38 Most High God 87 n.11 motivation(s) 38, 41, 62, 70, 81, 122, 242 movement(s) 9 (&n.13), 25, 26, 88 n.12, 226, 234 MS(S) = manuscript(s) MT = Masoretic Text (Hebrew and Aramaic; [Biblia Hebraica3, ed. R. Kittel and P. Kahle (Stuttgart: Privilegierte Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1954)] [also known as BHS, TaNaK, HBOT, OT]) 30 n.69, 68, 191, 212 Mt = Matthew (NT Gospel) Muratorian canon/fragment 15 (&n.26) Murphy-O’Connor, J., “The Judean Desert,” EJMI ch. 5 12 n.18 Murphy, Roland E. 97 music 225 (&n.27), 229, 231–234 Muslim traditions and literature (see also Islam) 25, 131 n.4, 141 Myers, Jacob M., I and II Esdras (Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 151, 155, 161 mystic(ism), mystery, mysterious 13, 17, 22, 27, 50, 54, 62 n.7, 69, 71, 82, 85, 147 n.21, 175, 179, 189, 206 Nag Hammadi (see also Gnosticism) 126, 211 n.2 • Codex IX 1 20 n.35 Najman, Hindy vii name(s) 16, 21, 27, 29, 46, 54, 65 (&n.15), 67 n.25, 68, 100, 129–132, 135, 139, 144 n.16, 155 n.12, 157, 160, 163, 176, 178–180, 182, 184–186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 205 n.16, 209, 210, 213, 216, 222, 239, 240, 243 narrative(s) 98, 112, 124 • biblical 98, 102, 244, 245 • relating to Ezra 130, 139, 142–146 • hagiographic 22 • historical 129 • Josephus 252, 254, 256

index • mythological 86 n.8 • T-A 183 Nazarenes 43, 89 n.13 Nau, F., “De deux opuscules astrologiques attribués au prophète Esdras et d’un calendrier lunaire de l’ancien testament attribué à Esdras, aux Égyptiens et même à Aristote,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 12 (1907) 14–21 144 nn.17–19 neanis (young woman) 63, 176, 192 NEB = New English Bible 151, 155, 156 Nehemiah 130, 131, 134 n.6, 136 (&n.7), 137 (&n.9) Neh = Nehemiah, book of (see also Ezra-Nehemiah) 65 n.14, 111, 129, 131, 132, 134, 141, 142, 187 • 1.4ff 134 • 1.11 134 • 2ff 133 • 2.1 130 • 2.8 133 • 3.19 131 • 5.14 134 • 8.3, 14f 142 • 8–9 (or 10) 142 • 8.1–13 130, 134 • 8.17 143 • 9 142 • 9.6ff 134 • 9.38 142 • 10.17 131 • 10.28 142 • 12.1 141 • 12.1f, 12f, 26 130, 131, 132 • 12.31–36 130, 131, 132 • 12.42 131 • 13.6ff 130, 134 • 13.11ff 134 • 13.23ff 134 • 13.31f 134 Nemoy, Leon, et al., “Karaites,” EncJud 10.761–785 25 n.53 Nero 205, 246, 252, 253, 254, 259 Nestle, E., Marginalien und Materialien (Tübingen: J.J. Heckenhauer, 1893) 1–83 31 n.73 Nestorian 25, 72 Neusner, Jacob 85 n.8 • Jacob Neusner, The Four Stages of Rabbinic Judaism (London: Routledge, 1998) 84 n.4

295

• Judaism and other Graeco-Roman Cults (ed. J. Neusner; M. Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 104 n.12 • Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs 84 n.4 New American Translation 149 n.4 Newbold, W.R., “Bardaisan and the Odes of Solomon,” JBL 30 (1911) 161–204 20 n.36 Newman, Hillel, “Jerome and the Jews,” Hebrew University dissertation, 1997 8 n.9 new Schürer (see Schürer) New Testament (NT; see also individual books) 6 n.7, 10–13, 27, 41 n.11, 44, 53, 67 n.25, 74–80, 95, 103, 110–111, 124, 160, 174, 180, 188 Nicephorus, Stichometry of 16 Nicholas of Damascus 203 n.9 Nickelsburg, George W.E. • Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters [EJMI] (ed. R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Philadelphia/Atlanta: Fortress/ Scholars Press, 1986) 3 n.2 • Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 5 n.5 • Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg; SBLSCS 6; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 7 n.8 • Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981; revised edition Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 10 n.14, 103 n.11 • Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendhal on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and G.W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 28 n.61, 149 n.1 • review of OTP in CBQ 50 (1988) 288–291 93 n.2 • (ed.) Studies on the Testament of Abraham (Septuagint and Cognate

296

index

Studies 6; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976) 109 nn.1–2, 115 (&nn.18–19), 116 • “Eschatology in the Testament of Abraham: A Study of the Judgment Scene in the Two Recensions,” SCS 2 (1972): 180–227. In slightly revised form in Nickelsburg, Studies on the Testament of Abraham (1976), 23–64 115 n.19 Nicopolis (see Emmaus, Jericho) Nilsson, Donal 173 n.1, 183, 184 • Studies of the New Testament Traditions in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation, 1996) 174 n.2, 176, 184 Nock, Arthur Darby, “Philo and Hellenistic Philosophy,” Classical Review 57 (1943) 78 and n.13 [reprinted in vol. 2 of Nock’s Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z. Stewart (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1972) 561] 248 (&n.11) nomina sacra (see also abbreviations) 27 n.57, 65 n.16 Norelli, Enrico, L’Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi (Origini / CISEC, Centro interdipartimentale di studi sull’ebraismo e sul cristianesimo antico, Universita degli studi di Bologna, nuova ser. 1; Bologna: EDB, 1994) 40 n.10 Noriah 21 North Africa 18 NPNF = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 89 n.16 NT = New Testament NT Apocrypha 10, 95 n.6 NTS = New Testament Studies Nubian 24 obelized 76–77 Ockham 84 O’Connell, Kevin, “Septuagint” and “Greek Versions, Minor” by R.A. Kraft, E. Tov and K. O’Connell in the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 61 n.3 Odes, LXX/OG book of 40 (&n.9), 42, 44, 59, 65 (&n.17), 71, 93 Odes of Solomon 20 n.36, 23, 55 n.38, 94 (&n.4)

Oepke, Albrecht • “Ein bisher unbeachtetes Zitat aus dem fünften Buche Esra,” ConNt 11 (1947) 179–195 156 (&n.15), 158, 159 n.16 • Das neue Gottesvolk in Schrifttum, Schauspiel, bildender Kunst und Weltgestaltung (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1950) 174 n.2 Oest. = Oesterley, William Oscar Emil • II Esdras (The Ezra Apocalypse) (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen, 1933); see also An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London: SPCK, 1935), 246–247 152 (&n.6), 155, 161 • with Box in the APOT edition of Sirach 215 offering(s) (see also sacrifice, passover) 133, 136, 142, 252 Og 16 (&n.28) oil 70, 209 Old Testament (OT; see also Jewish scriptures) 9, 10, 15, 27–28, 44, 64 n.13, 71, 75, 76, 97, 98, 102–103, 154, 178, 184, 218 oracles, oracular 38, 41, 136, 159, 162, 169 OrChr = Oriens Christianus Orig (= Original text, in ch.6) Origen (see also Hexapla) 7 n.9, 17, 18 (&n.32), 19 (&n.33), 58, 62, 67 n.23, 76, 77, 110 n.6, 113 • Against Celsus 5.54–55 18 • Commentary on John 2.31/25 18 • Commentary on Matthew 13.57/23.37 18 • Hexapla 17–18, 56, 70 n.31 • Homily on Luke 35 18 • Homily on Matthew 23.37(25)/27.9 18 • Selections in Genesis 41.45 18 original language 5 n.4, 113 (&n.14), 114, 115, 119, 120, 129, 153 (&n.10), 162 original text 13, 29, 38, 71, 74, 112, 114, 116, 118–122, 155, 158 Orion Center for Study of Dead Sea Scrolls (http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/ and indexed archives at http://www .mail-archive.com/[email protected] .huji.ac.il/thrd4.html#00447) 12 n.18, 201 n.6, 202–203 nn.9–10, 207 n.19 orthodox(y) (see also classical) 8, 19, 22, 23 (&n.47), 24, 28, 50, 84 n.4, 102, 222, 226, 217, 234, 258 Osiris 60

index OT = Old Testament (see MT, Biblia Hebraica, Jewish scriptures) other (groups, positions) 4 n.3, 19, 21, 32, 42, 43, 83, 89, 203 OTP = The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments; Volume 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983 and 1985) 3 n.2, 5 n.4, 10 n.14, 30 n.68, 30 nn.71–72, 31 n.74, 55 n.37, ch.5, 110 n.5, 129 n.2, 164 n.5 OtSt = Oudtestamentische Studien Otto, J., Iustini . . . opera 1.2 (Jena, 18773) 64 n.11, 191 OUP = Oxford University Press overline (see also abbreviations) 49, 65 n.15, 67, 164 n.7 Paap, A.H.R.E., Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries AD: the Sources and some Deductions (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 8; Leiden: Brill, 1959) 27 n.57, 65 n.16 Packard Humanities Institute [PHI] 6 n.7 pagan(ism) 7 n.9, 11, 16, 17, 43, 51, 57–60, 81, 87 Palestine, Palestinian 39, 64, 85 n.8, 86 n.9, 87 n.11, 89, 113, 114, 116, 119, 200, 247, 252, 254–256, 259 papyri 6 (&n.6), 27 n.57, 48 n.27, 61 n.2, 72 nn.35&37, 123 (&n.24) parable(s) (see also “1 Enoch”) 20 paradoxography 203 n.9, 207 Paral(e)ipomena Jeremiou (ed. R.A. Kraft and A.-E. Purintun. SBL Texts and Translations 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1 (Missoula, Montana, 1972; also known as “4 Baruch”) 31 (&n.74), 40 (&n.10), 41 n.11, 45, 46 n.21, 52 (&n.33), 111, 121, 143, 147 n.21 • 5 131 n.4 • 8 138 n.13, 139 • 9.14 29 n.65 parenesis 116 parthenos (virgin) 63, 192, 222 Paschal Chronicle (see also Chronicon Paschale) 136, 137 n.9, 141, 175, 194

297

passim = here and there throughout passover 63, 133–138, 142–143 Pastis, Jacqueline 173 n.1 • “Dating the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Revisiting the Earlier Vorlage Hypothesis,” HTR 95 (2002), 169–195 175, 181, 183 • “Jewish Arguments against Christianity in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila” in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage (1999) 57 n.41 • Representations of Jews and Judaism in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Construct or Social Reality? (University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation, 1995[1994]) 174 n.2, 175, 183 patriarch(s) (see also Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs) 16, 41 (&n.11), 164 (& n.4), 210 • David 188 • Joseph 249 • Naphthali 169 Paul (Apostle) 9 n.13, 17, 43 n.14, 50 (&n.29), 59, 76 n.42, 88 Paul, writings associated with 43, 85, 161, 177, 184, 188 • Rom(ans) • 3.10–18 76–77, 79 • 9.25f 77 n.43 • 10.12ff 74 • 11 80 • 11.9–10 77 n.43 • 11.26–27 77 n.43 • 11.34–35 77 n.43, 78–80 • 1 Cor(inthians) • 1.2 74 • 2 80 • 2.16 79–80 • 2 Cor(inthians) 6.18 161 • Gal(atians) 3.13 71 n.33 Paul, André, Écrits de Qumran et sectes juives aux premiers siécles de l’Islam (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1969) 94–96 25 n.52 Pauline 77, 79, 85, 184 Pearson, Birger A. • “The Figure of Melchizedek in the First Tractate of the Unpublished Coptic-Gnostic Codex IX from Nag Hammadi,” Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 200–208 20 n.35

298

index

• The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. Birger A. Pearson and Norman Petersen, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 237 n.1, 249 n.2 • Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress 1990) 211 n.2 • (ed.) Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (Nag Hammadi Studies 15; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 20 n.35 • with James E. Goehring (eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 23 n.44 penitential 73 Pentateuch(al) (see also LXX, and the individual books) 60, 70 n.30, 138, 178, 179, 187 Peregrinus 20 Pereswetoff-Morath, Alexander 173 n.1 • A Grin Without a Cat, I: ‘Adversos Judaeos’ Texts in the Literature of Medieval Russia, 988–1504 (Lund Slavonic Monographs 4; Lund University, 2002) 175 perfect(ion) 126, 210, 213–215, 221, 231 n.62, 233, 245 Pesce, Mauro • Il “Martirio di Isaia” non esiste: l’Ascensione di Isaia et le tradizioni giudaiche sull’uccisione del profeta (Centro Stampa Baiesi, 1984) 40 n.10 • (ed.) Isaia, il diletto e la chiesa : visione ed esegesi profetica cristiano-primitiva nell’Ascensione di Isaia (Atti del convegno di Roma, 9–10 aprile 1981; Brescia: Paideia, 1983) 40 n.10 Peter (apostle; see also Gospel of ) 47 Petersen, Norman • The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. Birger A. Pearson and Norman Petersen, et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 237 n.1, 249 n.2 Peterson, Sigrid • Martha Shamoni: A Jewish Syriac Rhymed Liturgical Poem about the Maccabean Martyrdoms (Sixth Maccabees) (University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation, 2006) 55 n.38

PG = Patrologia Graeca (ed. Migne) 178, 191, 194 Pharisees 85, 89 n.13 PHI = Packard Humanities Institute 6 n.7 Philadelphia (see PSCO) Philo of Alexandria [LCL volumes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press), edited and translated by G.H. Whitaker and F.H. Colson (vols. 1–5, 1929–1934) and by Colson alone (vols. 6–10, 1935–1962), with indices by J.W. Earp (in vol. 10) and two supplementary volumes by Ralph Marcus (1953)] viii, 6 (&n.7), 10, 27 n.55, 28–29 (&n.63), 44, 47 n.24, 58–60, 75 (&n.40), 86, 88, 178 n.4, 203, 206, ch.12, ch.13, ch.14, ch.15, 261 • “expositional” writings (“On Creation,” “On Abraham,” “On Joseph”; perhaps also “Life of Moses”) 243 (&n.7) • Abraham 7–59 210, 213 • Creation = Op (De Opificio Mundi) 89–128 217 (&n.2), ch.13 • 103–105 247 n.11 • Joseph 243, 246 • Life of Moses = Mos 60 • 2.115 235 n.69 • 2.210 226 n.28, 227 n.34 • “allegorical” series (Loeb volumes 1–5, except “On Creation”) 243 (&n.7) • Agriculture (De agricultura) 55–66 244–245 • Alexander: That Irrational Animals Possess Reason” (De animalibus) 247 • Allegorical Laws = LA (Legum allegoriae) • 3.26, 3.179, 3.237–242 244 • 1.4–18 ch.13 (221) • Cain’s Posterity (De posteritate Caini) 78–82 244 • Change of Names (De mutatione nominum) 89–96, 171–174, 214–215 244–245 • Cherubim (De cherubim) 128 244 • Confusion of Tongues (De confusione linguarum) 71–72 244

index • On the Contemplative Life = Contempl 46–47, 49, 52, 206 n.18 • 65 226 n.28 • 80, 84 225 n.27 • Decalogue = Decal • 29 218 n.6 • 102 226 n.28, 227 n.37 • Dreams = Somn (De Somniis) 239, 246, 259 • 1.168 247 n.10 • 1.194 185 • 1.219–225 245 • 2 241–249 • 2.5–109, 110–154 240 • 2.10–16, 33, 41–47, 68–70, 78–84, 93–104, 105–109, 123–132, 135–138, 144, 150–154 242–243 • 2.105–109, 123–132 243–245, 247 257 • 2.78–84, 101–109 245 • 2.110–154 249 • 2.123–132 249 • Embassy to Gaius (Legatio ad Gaium) 237, 239, 247 n.11 • 1 247 n.11, 248 n.11 • 117–118 242 • 155–161 242 • 182 239, 247 (&n.11) • Every Good Man is Free • 62–75 206, 213 • Flight (De fuga et inventione) 126–131 244 • God’s Immutability (Quod Deus immutabilis sit) 111–121 244 • Migration of Abraham (De migratione Abrahami) • 16–24 244–245 • 86–93 86 n.10 • 158–163, 203–207 244–245 • On Providence (De provedentia) 247 • Posterity and Exile of Cain ch.12 • Questions and Answers on Genesis = QG = QuaesGen ch.12, 225 n.26, 235 • 1.77 225 n.26 • 1.79–87 214 • 2.12 226 n.28, 228 n.42 • 3.3 225 n.27 • Questions and Answers on Exodus = QE 2.78 227 n.37

299

• Rewards & Punishments = Praem (De praemiis et poenis) • 10–27 213 • 65 243 • 153 226 (&n.28) • Sobriety (De sobrietate) 10–15 244–245 • Special Laws = Spec Leg (De specialibus legibus) • 1.16 227 n.38 • 1.54–58 244 • 1.178 226 n.31 • 2.56f 226 n.28, 227 (&n.37) • Who is Heir = Heres (Quis rerum divinarum haeres) • 170 & 216 226 n.28 • 251 and 256a 244 • Worse Attacks Better (Quod deterius potiori insidiari solet) 5–31 244–245, 247 (Pseudo-)Philo (see also LAB) 55 n.38 Philonenko, Marc 55 n.38 • ed. with A. Dupont-Sommer, La Bible: écrits intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard, 1987) 10 n.14 • Le Testament de Job: Introduction, traduction et notes (Semitica 18; Paris: Adrien-Maisoneuve, 1968) 61 n.1 109 n.3 philosopher, philosophy, philosophical 13, 14, 17, 97, 124, 184 n.10, 213, 220, 222, 226, 234, 235, 240, 245, 246 physical formats of ancient writings 13 n.20 Physiologus 59 piety 22 n.43, 24, 121, 213, 214, 250, 251, 256 Pines, Shlomo, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1971) 28 n.63, 45 n.19 Pionius, Martyrdom of 13.1–3 54 n.36 Pirke Avot 10 PL = Patrologia Latina (ed. Migne) 89 nn.13&16, 156 n.14 planet(s) 226–227, 230–233 Plato, Platonism 59, 86 n.10, 205, 211 n.2, 217–219, 222, 223 Plessner, M., “Science: The Natural Sciences and Medicine,” The Legacy of Islam (2d ed.; ed. J. Schacht and C.E. Bosworth; Oxford: Clarendon: 1974) 425–60, esp. pp. 430ff 25 n.51

300

index

Pliny the Elder ch.11 Pliny the Younger 199 n.2 Plöger, Otto, “Das 5 und 6 Esrabuch,” RGG3 2 (1958) 699–700 152 n.6 pluralism (see also diversity) 13, 33 PO = Patrologia Orientalis polemic(al), polemicists 31, 32, 50, 63, 69, 124, 146, 152, 209 Polotsky, Hans Jakob, with C. Schmidt, “Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten,” Sitzungsgerichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1933) 41 (text p.85) 20 n.37 post-exilic Judaism 101 practice(s) • Christian practices 47 • Jewish practices 13, 67, 203 (Essenes), 213 (wisdom), 239 • literary and scribal practices 13 n.20, 17, 25, 43, 122 • liturgical practice 22 • magic 205 • modern scholarly practice 12, 87 • rabbinical practice 76 n.42 Praetorian guard 246, 256 n.7 prayer(s) 22 n.43, 38, 40, 41, 54, 68, 80, 93, 97, 126, 134, 137, 138, 141–143, 189 Prayer of Azariah 39 n.7 Prayer of Joseph 18 Prayer of Manasseh 10, 102 priest(s) 67, 130, 131, 134–147, 162, 189, 251 Prigent, Pierre • L’Épître de Barnabé I–XVI et ses Sources (Paris: Libraire LeCoffre, 1961) 103 n.10 • with Kraft, ed. Barnabas (SC 172, 1971) 159 n.16 Princeton 53, 83 Priscillian 21 (&n.39) prooftexts, prooftexting 62 n.7 prophecy, prophetic 11, 38, 41 (&n.11), 62 n.7, 71, 80, 82, 105, 129, 132, 135, 136, 138, 154 n.11, 157, 160, 162, 184 • Prophecy of Ham 17 prophet(s) 21, 136, 159, 161, 167, 185–186 • Daniel 139 • David 188 • Ezekiel 139 • Ezra-Esdras (see also Salathiel) 137–147, 154 n.11, 162

• Hananiah 131 • Isaiah 18 • Jeremiah 146 • Moses 206 n.18 • Salathiel 140 • Sofonia 17 • The Twelve 177, 180 Psalms, book of 27, 40 (&n.9), 44, 54, 65 (&n.15), 71, 76–77, 82, 93, 98, 177, 187 • 5.10 76 • 9.28 76 • 13/14.1–3 76–77, 79 • 21/22 71, 73, 192 • 31/32.1 189 • 34/35.8 77 n.43 • 35.2 76 • 37/38 73 • 49/50.6 74 • 50/51.9 72 • 52/53.2–4 76 • 68/69 71, 77 n.43 • 95/96.10 63, 71 (&nn.32–33), 72 (&n.34), 75 • 104.15 67 n.26 • 109/110.1 69 • 118/119.120 73 • 129.4 76 • 144/145.18f 74 • 151.3 74 • extracanonical 41 • of Basilides 19 (&n.34) • for Marcion 15 Psalms of Solomon 10, 23, 39 n.7, 55 n.38, 96 Psalter 65 n.15 (Codex), 76, 187 PSCO = Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins [http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/psco/] 173 pseudepigrapha passim Puech, Emile, “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQ Melkisedeq,” RevQ 12 (1987) 483–513 20 n.35 Purintun, Ann-Elizabeth 183, 184 • ed. with R.A. Kraft, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (SBLTT; Missoula: SBL, 1972) 31 n.74 Pythagoras, Pythagoreanism 217–219, 222, 224 (&n.24), 226, 230, 234, 235 Qohelet, book of (see also Ecclesiastes) 187, 191 • 2.16, 6.3, 7.10 190 Quinta 69 n.28, 82

index Qumran (see also Dead Sea Scrolls) 12, 20, 25 n.52, 30 n.69, 39 n.7, 85 n.6, 105, 160, 200 n.3, 202 n.9, 207 quotation(s) 18, 20 n.37, 27, 28 n.63, 43, 51 (&n.31), 56, 58, 66, 72 n.34, 74–80, 103, 129 n.1, 137, 138, 142 n.15, 156, 157, 160, 161, 175, 177–182, 190, 222, 226 n.32, 230 Qur’an [Koran], translated by M.M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York/London, 1930) • 2.269 131 n.4 • 9.30 131 Rackham, H., ed. Pliny the Elder, Natural History (LCL, 1942) 200 nn.3&5 Rabbinic traditions and literature • pre-Rabbinic Judaism 4, 8, 13, 32, 120 • rabbinic literature • b. Hagigah 15a 89 n.15 • Masseketh Sopherim 1.7–10 64 n.12 • p. Megilla 1.71d and b. Megilla 9a 64 n.12 • Sanhedrin 38a, top 134 n.6 • rabbinical practice 76 n.42 • rabbinic tradition(s) 89, 134 n.6, 141, 193 RAC = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum race 157 • another race 210 • of Christians 48, 67 n.26, 89 (&n.16), 158, 159 n.16, 164 n.7 • of Essenes 203 n.9 • of humankind 48, 67 n.26, 164 n.7 • immortal race 210 • of Judeans 204 • of priests 67 Rahlfs, Alfred • Psalmi cum Odis, vol. 10 of the Göttingen Septuagint (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931 [corrected edition 1967]) 40 n.9, 65 (&n.17), 73, 74 n.39, 76 (&nn.41–42), 77 • Septuaginta edited by Rahlfs (1935 and subsequent corrected editions from the Würtembergische Bibelanstalt in Stuttgart) 40 n.9 Raman 193

301

RB = Revue biblique RBén = RevBén = Revue bénedictine recension(s) (= Rec in ch.6) 8, 28 n.61, 29, 31, 38, 40, 42 (&n.13), 45, 49, 55 n.38, 59, 67, 75, 82, ch.6, 153, 163, 171 n.14, 181, 261 Rech, David 238 n.3 Rechabites, History of the 55 n.38, 104 redaction, redactor 8, 55, 95, 114, 119 Reeves, John C. vii, 3 n.1 • “The Elchasaite Sanhedrin of the Cologne Mani Codex in Light of Second Temple Jewish Sectarian Sources,” JJS 42 (1991) 68–91 19 n.33 • “An Enochic Motif in Manichaean Tradition,” Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen; Louvain: International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1991) 295–98 21 n.38 • Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992) 21 n.38 • Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 42 n.12 • “Reconsidering the ‘Prophecy of Zardust’,” in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage (1999), 167–182 42 n.13, 57 n.41 • ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) vii n.1, 3 n.1 reformist 85 Reinink, G.J., with A.F.J. Klijn, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 54–67 19 n.33 rejection • rejected practices or writings 15, 18, 186, 202 n.7 (Essenes) • rejected theories 76, 110 n.6, 137 n.7, 150, 202 n.7

302

index

• the theme of rejection 159 n.16 • rejection of person or group 83, 137, 140, 159 • rejection of God 157 Remus, Harold 129 n.1, 184 Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973–1983) 6 n.7 Resch, Alfred, Agrapha (Leipzig, 19062) 305 and 321f. 64 n.11 research, researchers ix, 3, 6 n.7, 35 n.2, 36–38, 58, 61 n.1, 94, 97, 100, 104, 105, 144 n.16, 147, 150, 161, 177, 179, 199, 218, 236, 237 n.1, 262 Research Guide http://www.library.yale .edu/div/indexgde.htm ix n.2 RevBén = RBén = Revue Bénedictine RevQ = Revue de Qumrân 12 n.18 revelation(s) 17, 33, 140, 145, 178 Rev = Revelation, NT book of (see also Apocalypse of John) 41 n.11, 43 (&n.15), 53 (&n.35), 105, 160, 161 • 2.7 71 • 6.9–11 160 • 22.2 71 • 22.18–19 51 n.31, 62 n.8 Revelation of Elchasai 19 n.34 Revelation of Ezra/Esdras 24 n.49, 48 n.27, 105, 144, 145 (&n.20), 157 (&n.14) revision(s), pre-modern 5, 29 (&n.64), 38, 40, 53, 61, 63, 114, 115, 153, 158, 235, 250, 256 n.6 reward(s) 22, 126, 145, 172 Reys-Coquais, J.P., “Syrie Romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien,” JRS 68 (1978) 71 n.369 (see also L’Année épigraphique for 1978, #819) 246 n.8 Riaud, J., “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: his Originality; his ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (99.10–32),” JSP 22 (2000) 31–44 52 n.33 Richard, Marcel 8 n.11 Riess. = Riessler, Paul • Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Augsburg: Filser, 1928) 10–12, 99 (&n.8), 113 (&n.12), 151, 152 n.6, 153, 154 n.11 • “Das Testament Abrahams, ein jüdisches Apokryphon,” Theol.

Quartalschrift 106 (1925) 3–22 113 n.12 righteous(ness) 22, 26, 32, 126, 136, 166–169, 212, 214–216 Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” 202 n.9 ritual 86, 88, 245 Robbins, Frank Egleston 218, 226 n.32, 227 n.33, 228 n.44, 229 n.55 • “Posidonius and the sources of Pythagorean Arithmology.” Classical Philology 15 (1920) 309ff. 218 n.4 • “The Tradition of Greek Arithmology,” Classical Philology 16 (1921) 97–123 218 n.4 Robertson, Robert G. 173 n.1 • The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University ThD Diss., 1986), i–cxxix 174, 175 n.2, 178–182 Robinson, S.E., “4 Baruch” in OTP 2.413–14 31 n.74, 104 Roddy, Nicolae, The Roumanian Version of the Testament of Abraham: Text, Translation, and Cultural Context (SBLEJL 19; Atlanta: SBL, 2001) 109 n.4 Rom = Romans, Paul’s letter to (see under Paul) Roman passim • definition 242 • empire (see also specific rulers) 16, 65 n.16, 135 • world(s) (including Greco-Roman) 8 n.12, 15, 50 n.29, 61, 81, 206, 242 Roman Catholic scholarly views 9, 149 n.4 root(s) 57 n.41, 84 n.4, 86, 90, 146 Roscher, Wilhelm Heinrich 221 (&n.13) • “Die enneadischen und hebdomadischen Fristen und Wochen der ältesten Griechen,” Abhandlungen der philologischhistorischen Klasse der Kgl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 21.4 (1903) 196 [online at Google books] 221 n.13 • “Die Hebdomadenlehre der griechischen Philosophen und

index Arzte,” ibid. 24.2/6 (1906) 221 n.13 • “Die Sieben- und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen,” ibid. 24.1 (1904) 221 n.13 Roumanian TAbr 109 (&n.4), 110 (&n.5) Rowley, H.H. • The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952) 22–29 25 n.53 • Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel: a Historical Study of Contemporary Theories (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1935) 132 n.5 RSR = Religious Studies Review ruler(s) 73, 131, 132, 135, 199 n.2, 239, 240–242, 247, 249, 252, 252, 257 (&n.8), 258 Runia, David T., Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1993) 27 n.55, 28–29 n.64, 46, 47 nn.23–24 RSV = Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1946, 1952) 151, 155, 156 Rufinus 16 RV = Revised Version of the Bible (1885, 1901) 151, 155 sacrifice(s) (see also offerings, passover) 63, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 146, 177, 180, 193 Sadducees 85, 192 Sahidic Coptic (see also Coptic) 65 n.15, 72 n.35, 73, 109, 120, 121 salvation (see also savior) 12, 27, 63, 65, 68, 70, 136, 137 Samaria, Samaritan • the location 138 n.13, 200 (&n.4), 207 • as a religious and/or political tradition 32 n.78, 57 n.41, 85, 138 (&n.12), 141, 146, 192, 251 Sam(uel), books of [= 1–2 Kingdoms in OG] 67 n.24, 187 • 1 Sam 24.7 69 • 2 Sam 12.25 190 • 2 Sam 23.3 68 Sandberg, Ruth 129 n.1 Sanders, Ed Parish 85 n.8, 86 n.9, 104

303

• “Testament of Abraham,” OTP 1.871–904 30 n.71, 110 n.5 Sandmel, Samuel • “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962) 1–13 12 (&n.17) • “Foreword for Jews” in OTP 101–102 Satran, David • Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995); 46 n.21 • “Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy Man,” Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 33–48 5 n.4 • Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Daniel (PhD dissertation at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, 1985) 5 n.4 savior (see also salvation) 50, 65, 151, 156, 184 SBL = Society of Biblical Literature 173 n.1 • Philo Group 217 n.1 • Pseudepigrapha Group 10, 94, 163 n.1 • Seminar Papers 23 n.45, 194 n.39, 212 n.1, 217 n.3 SBLEJL (= Early Jewish Literature series) vii n.1, 3 n.1, 109 n.4 SBLSCS (= Septuagint and Cognate Studies series) 6–7 n.8, 28 n.62, 30 n.70, 109 n.1, 129 n.2 SBLTT (= Texts and Translations series) 20 n.37, 179 SC = Sources Chrétiennes Skarsten, Roald, with Peder Borgen, Philo Index [1999] 6 n.7 Schaller, Bernd • Paralipomena Jeremiou (JSHRZ 1/8; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1998) 659–777 40 n.10 • article and bibliography in JSP 22 (2000) [entirely devoted to Par. Jer.] 40 n.10 Schermann, T. • Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo,

304

index

Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicate (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907) 31 n.73 • Propheten-und Apostellegenden nebst Jungerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte (TU 31.3; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1907) 31 n.73 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 85 n.8 Schmidt, Carl (or Karl), with H.J. Polotsky, “Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten,” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1933) 41 (text p.85) 20 n.37 Schmidt, Francis 109–110, 116, 119 • “Le Testament d’Abraham: Introduction, édition de la recension courte, traduction et notes” (Thèse [dissertation] Strasbourg, 1971) 109 n.2, 112 n.8, 114–115 (&n.17) • Le Testament grec d’Abraham: Introduction, edition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction (TSAJ 11; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/ Siebeck, 1986) 109 n.2, 110 n.5 • “The Two Recensions of the Testament of Abraham: In Which Direction Did the Transformation Take Place?” in Studies on the Testament of Abraham (ed. Nickelsburg 1976), 76–80 115 (&n.18) Schmidt, Hans, ed. Eucharisterion (Gunkel Festschrift; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923) 113 n.15 Schneemelcher, W. 152 n.6 • “Esra. II. Christl. Esraliteratur,” RAC 6 (1966) 604–605 152 • Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson 156 Schneider, H., “Esdras: 5. Buch E.,” LThK 3 (1959) 152 n.6, 154 n.11 Schoedel, William R., Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 3–7 30 n.66 Schoeps, Hans-Joachim • Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1949) 33–37 65 n.18, 66 (&n.21)

• “Symmachusstudien I: Die Spuren ebionitischer Theologie in der Bibelübersetzung des Symmachus,” ConNt 6 (1942) 65 n.19 Schürer, Emil 47, 110 n.6 • the “new Schürer” = ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, Schürer’s The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (4 vols. in 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87) 8 n.12, 16 n.27, 28 n.63, 103 n.11 • review of James in TLZ 18 (1893) 279–281 113 n.15 • Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 19094) 338f 113 n.15 Schwarz, Sarah, Building a Book of Spells: Textual Development and Social History in the Testament of Solomon (University of Pennsylvania PhD dissertation 2005) 111 n.7, 193 n.38 Schwartz, Daniel R., “Philonic Anonyms of the Roman and Nazi Periods: Two Suggestions,” SPhilo Annual 1 (1989) 63–73 237 n.1, 241 n.6, 248, 249 (&n.2), 257 n.8 Schwartz, Seth, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001) 85 (&nn.3–4&8), 86 nn.8–9, 87 n.11, 88 n.12 Schwartz, Vici 129 n.1 Schwemer, Anna Maria, Vitae Prophetarum (JSHRZ 1/7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997) [based on her Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum I–II (TSAJ 49–50; Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 1995–1996)] 46 n.21 science and scientific 22 n.43, 220, 221, 223, 230, 231, 235 Scipio 219 n.7 SCM (publisher) = Society for Christian Mission (London) scribes, scribal activity 13 n.20, 42, 65 n.14, 67, 122, 130, 131, 134, 135, 138, 140, 141, 145 scriptural viii, 17 n.30, 28, 38, 41, 59, 61, 64 n.13, 71, 77, 82, 96, 160, 181, 183, 186, 194, 215

index • Christian (see also canon, NT) 15, 27, 28, 41, 47, 63, 66 • Jewish (see also “OT,” Jewish scriptures) 10, 18, 28, 40, 43, 62, 63, 74, 75, 120, 129, 173, 179, 180, 184 • non-scriptural 17 (&n.30) • testimonies and quotations 62 n.7, 75, 76 n.42, 80, 152, 177, 179, 182 n.6, 184 scripuresque vii, 11 n.15 scroll(s) (see also Dead Sea Scrolls) 13 n.20, 72, 181, 195, 199 (&n.2), 261 Scythopolis 252 sect(s), sectarian 20 n.35, 21, 26, 86 n.8, 89 n.13, 102, 192 Sedrach 5 n.4, 54, 96, 98, 100, 123 (&n.25), 126, 164 n.7 Sefer ha-Razim 48 n.28 Segal, Alan • Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) 50 n.29 • Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 89 n.15, 184 n.9 selection (see also excerpt) 31, 38, 44, 82, 98, 106 self-control 245 self-identification 43 (&n.14), 81, 87 n.11, 88 self-understanding 50 n.29, 80, 88, 89 Semit(ic) (see also Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew) 62, 111, 113, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122 (&n.23), 124 (&n.26), 125 n.27, 129, 132, 152 n.6, 153, 154 (&n.11), 157, 161, 162, 176, 183, 190, 205 sense world ch.13 Septima 82 Septuagint(al) (see LXX/OG, B-M, Cambridge Larger, Gottingen, CATSS, Rahlfs, and the individual books; for the best critical editions, see http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions .html) [in general also Britannica 1911] • definitions, terminology 61, 120, 129, 161 • lexicon 6 • origins 194 • text 64, 80, 181–182

305

sermon 32, 54, 59, 102 Seth(ians) 21 (&n.38), 32 n.77, 33, 54, ch.12a, 213, 214, 216 seven (see also hebdomad) 70, 130, 135, 206 n.18, 210, ch.13 seventy 70, 132, 136, 167, 247–248 Severus of Minorca, Letter on the Conversion of the Jews 54 n.36 Sexta 82; (on Hab 3.13) 27, 68 (&n.27), 69 (&n.28) Shammai (Jewish sage) 88 Sharpe, J.L., Prolegomena to the Establishment of the Critical Text of the Greek Apocalypse of Moses (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1969) 30 n.72 Shem 21 n.38, 210 Shem, Treatise of 55 n.37, 105 Shenoute (Shenouti) 23 Sibinga, J. Smit 109 n.2 Sibyl 16 17 Sibylline Oracles 11, 39 n.7, 40, 41, 51, 59, 60, 100 Simon, son of Judah the Galilean 250 Simon, son of Saul 252 Simon and Theophilus, Dialogue of [= S-T] 173 n.2, 175 Simon, Marcel • Verus Israel: Étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425) (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1948; 2d ed. 1964 with a “postscriptum”); English translation, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425) (trans. H. McKeating; New York: OUP, 1986) 7 n.9, 174 n.2 • Paganisme, judaisme, christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique: Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon (ed. Benoit et al.; Ouvrage publie avec le concours de l’Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg; Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard, 1978) 16 n.29, 61 n.1 sin 76, 171–172 Sirach (see also Ben Sira) 30 n.70, 161, 177, 179, 180, 187, 190, ch.12b • 24 180 • 44.16 (49.14) 212, 215

306

index

• 46.1 68 • 47.11 68 • 49.11–13 130 SJLA = Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Skehan, P.W., with A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 51–62 30 n.70 Slav(ic), Slav(onic) 5, 23, 26 • Slavonic Enoch [= 2 Enoch] 14, 52 • Slavonic Josephus 28 (&n.63), 52 • Slav Testament of Abraham 109–112 • Slav Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs 163 n.2, 191 Smallwood, E.M., Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 237 n.1 Smith, Jonathan Z., in OTP 104 SNTS = Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas sociological 9, 39 Sofonia (see also Zephaniah) 16, 17 Sogdian 24 Solinus, Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium by Solinus (Stern 2.#448), 35.9–12 200–207 Solomon 190 193 Solomon, works associated with 16, 180 • Odes of Solomon 20 n.36, 23, 55 n.38, 94 (&n.4) • Proverbs of Solomon 187 • Psalms of Solomon 10, 39 n.7, 55 n.38, 96 • Song of Solomon (see Canticles) • Testament of Solomon 111 (&n.7), 114, 177, 179, 193 • Wisdom of Solomon 39 n.7, 177, 179, 180, 187, 212, 216 Song of Songs (see also Canticles) 47 (&n.25) Song of the Three Young Men (see also Daniel) 39 n.7 Sparks, H.F.D. (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) viii, 10 (&n.14), 11 n.15, 31 n.76, ch.5, 129 n.2 SPhilo = Studia Philonica spiral (methodological) 37, 49, 90, 152 Spittler, Russell, in OTP 104

Staehle, Karl, Die Zahlenmystik bei Philon von Alexandreia (Wiesbaden: Teubner, 1931) ch.13 Staerk, W., “Die alttestamentlichen Citate bei den Sehriftstellern des Neuen Testament,” ZWT 36 [1893] 97f 75 n.40 Stählin, O., ed. of Clement of Alexandria (Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 12, 15, 17, 39) begun by O. Stählin in 1905 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), and partly revised by Ludwig Früchtel (1960) and Ursula Treu (1970–1985) the 4th ed. of volume 2 appeared in 1985 17 n.30 Stanton, G.N., “5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century,” JTS 28 (1977) 67–83 (especially 68, n. 4 and 69, nn. 1–2) 147 n.21, 149 n.3, 152, 155 (&n.13), 160 Stather Hunt, B.P.W. • Primitive Gospel Sources (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951) 174 n.2 • “Dialogue between Timothy and Aquila, a late survival of an early form of Christian apologetic,” in TU 93 (1966) 70–75 174 n.2 De Stefani, E.L., Etymologicum Gudianum, fasc. 1 & 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1909; 2:1920 (repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965): 1:1–293; 2:294–580 190 n.37 Stegemann, Hartmut, ed. 5–6 Ezra had been announced for the series JSHRZ 3 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973–), but it does not seem to be available yet [Stegemann died in the interim] 149 n.3 Stendahl, K. 150 • The School of St. Matthew and its use of the OT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 19682 = reprint of 1954 original with a new introduction by the author) 169 (esp. n.5)–174 75 n.40, 78 n.44, 80 n.45 • Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. George W.E. Nickelsburg with George W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 28 n.61, 149 n.1 Stern, Menahem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1

index (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 1974) 200 n.3, 201 n.5, 204 (&n.14), 205 (&n.16) Stichometry of Nicephorus 16 Stoic(ism) 201 n.6, 202 n.9 Stone, Michael E. Michael E. Stone 149 n.1 • Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M.E. Stone; CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1984) 10 n.14, 103 n.11 • review with R.A. Kraft, RSR 14/2 (1988) 111–117 11 n.15, 93 n.2 • Studies in the Pseudepigrapha, with Special Reference to the Armenian (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 23 n.46 • Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers 1–2 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006) 23 n.46 • A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 30 n.72 • “The Study of Armenian Apocrypha,” in B.G. Wright (ed.), A Multiform Heritage (1999), 139–148 42 n.13, 57 n.41 • Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (ed. G. Anderson, M.E. Stone and J. Tromp; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 46 n.21 • “A New Edition and Translation of the Questions of Ezra,” Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 293–94 48 n.27 • Biblical and Armenian Studies (ed. M.E. Stone; Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1976) 65 n.15 • contributor to OTP 104 storage jars 69 n.28 Strasbourg Project, Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature patristique (7 vols. thus far; ed. J. Allenbach; Paris: Editions du Centre national de

307

la recherche scientifique, 1975–) 17 n.30 Strecker, George [see also Bauer, Walter], Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1934); 2nd ed., reprinted and supplemented by Georg Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1964); English translation, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity (ed. R.A. Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; also available online at http://ccat.sas .upenn.edu/rs/rak/publics/new/ BAUER00.htm) 13 n.19, 84 n.5 Strohmaier, G., “Hunayn b. Ishak al-ʿIbadi,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 3.578–81 25 n.51 Stroumsa, Gedaliahu A.G., Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Nag Hammadi Studies 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984) 211 n.2 Strugnell, John 97, 249 n.1 subscriptions (and superscriptions, in texts) 27 succession, successor 51, 84 n.4, 88, 136, 164, 242, 250, 251, 253 suffer(ing) 23, 33, 66, 71, 73, 89 n.13, 97, 171 Suidas, ed. A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon (Leipzig, Teubner, 1931) 137, 141 Sundberg, Albert, “ ‘The Old Testament of the Early Church’ Revisited” (Festschrift in Honor of Charles Speel, edited by Thomas J. Sienkewicz and James E. Betts, published by Monmouth College Illinois, 1996: also available online at http://department .monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/) 39 n.7 Sukkot 133, 134, 142, 143 Sundermann, Werner, “Cologne Mani Codex” in the online Encyclopedia Iranica (c. 1990; http://www.iranica .com/newsite/) 20 n.37 superscriptions (and subscriptions, in texts) 27 Suter, David W., Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 11–33 33 n.79 SVTP = Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha

308

index

Swete, H.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: CUP, 1902; supplemented by R.R. Ottley, 1914; reprinted, New York: KTAV, 1968; online at http:// www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.html) 16 n.27, 27 n.56, 64 nn.11&13, 67 n.23, 68 n.27, 69 n.28, 75 n.40, 76 n.42, 173 n.2 Symphonia, Small and Great 21 Symmachos (Symmachus) 65–67, 69 n.28, 79, 82, 111, 187 synagogue(s) 63, 89 nn.13&16, 156, 185, 240 Syncellus, George the 22 n.43 • Chronographia (ed. W. Dindorf, CSHB 6.1, 1828, 421–480) 136 nn.7–8, 137 (&n.11), 141 syncretism 85 Synesius (see also Dio) 201 n.6 Synoptic Gospels (see also Matthew, Mark, Luke) 59 synoptic problem 29, 111 syntax 5, 6 (&n.8), 112, 120, 121, 122 (&n.23), 124, 185 Syria(n) 20, 200 n.4, 218, 246, 258 Syriac • Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) 12 n.16, 39 n.7, 52 • Apocalypse of Ezra 145 • Aseneth 42 n.12 • Christianity 23 • language 5, 23, 24–26, 176, 190 • Odes of Solomon 94 (&n.4) • Sixth Maccabees 55 n.38 • texts 23 n.45, 25, 76 • Treatise of Shem 55 n.37 • variants 72 n.35, 215 T (see Testament literature) T-A = Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Coneybeare, 1898) a full translation can be found at http://ccat .sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/courses/ rels/735/dialogues/Dial-Tim-Aquila viii, 57 n.41, 69 n.28 (T-A 3.10), ch.10, 261 TAbr = Testament of Abraham Talmud(ic) 64, 113 n.11 tamper(ing) viii, 27, 44, 52, 56, 59, 63, 70, 81, 82 (&n.86) Tanak(h) = Old Testament, Jewish scriptures Taylor, Stephen 149 n.1

temple 84 n.4, 85 n.8, 86 n.9, 87 n.11, 130, 132–135, 141, 145, 146, 166, 167, 193, 249 n.3 (Dendera), 252, 255 tendentious 27–29, 63, 64 n.13, 65, 67, 68, 70, 75, 81 Terien, Abraham 237 n.1 Tertullian 7 n.9, 56, 59, 71 n.32 (on Ps 95) • (De) Hab(itu) Mul(iebri) in De Cult Fem (ed. J. Marra, Turin, 1951\2) 1.3 18, 137 • De cultu fem. 2–3 19, 56 (&n.40) • De idol. 4 and 15 56 (&n.40) • Against the Jews 10 71 n.33 • Against the Jews 11.9, cf. 13.11 72 n.34 • Scorpiace 10 89 (&n.16) Testament literature • Testament of Abraham (TAbr, see also Abraham) 7 n.8, 8 n.10, 12 n.16, 21 n.38, 30, 42 n.13, 96, 98, ch.6, 153 n.7, 261 • Testament of Adam 30 n.72 • Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs 4 n.3, 12 n.16, 26 n.53, 45, 46 n.21, 52, 96, 104 n.12, 111, 114, ch.9, 261 • TAsher 1–6 165 n.8 • 2.10 165 • 7.3 49 n.26 • 7.5 165, 171 • 10 165 • TBenjamin 9 166 n.12, 169, 171, 172 • TDan 5.6 168, 170, 171 • TGad 5.6 172 • TIss(achar) 1.15, 7.1, 7.2 172 • TJos(eph) 3.9, 6.6, 7.7, 10.5, 15.2, 17.4 172 • TJudah 10.3, 10.4, 11.4, 12.10 172 • 18.1 170, 171 • 20.3 165 • 23.5 166 n.12 • TLevi 4.1 171 • 5.4 164 • 10.5 166 • 13 164, 167 • 13.2 164, 171 • 14.1 166, 171 • 14.3f 167 n.13 • 15.1 166 n.12 • 16.1f 167, 171 • TNaph(thali) 2.5, 3.4 172

index • 4.1 168, 171 • 5.8 168 • TReuben 4.1 164 n.5 • 5 168 • 6.8 171 • TSimeon 2.13 171 • 5.4 166 169 • TZeb(ulon) 1.4 172 • 3.4 170, 171 • 9.5 165, 171 • Testament of Job (see also Job) 12 n.16, 109 n.3, 111, 121 testimonia, testimonies 15, 43, 53, 62 n.7, 76 n.42, 137–138, 175, 179 Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–64), see also Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII–XIX (LCL; ed. L.H. Feldman; reprinted, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) 419–421 28 (&n.63), 29, 44 n.17, 45 (&n.19) testimony 31, 130 textual 48, 61 n.2, 74, 95, 96, 161, 163 n.2 • affinities 180 • analysis 104 • archetype 77, 120 • base, basis 116, 152, 245 • changes 62 • contents 179 • criticism 30 n.69, 44 n.16, 81, 116 • detail 42 • development 77, 111 n.7, 181 n.5 • evidence 103, 168 • feature(s) 169 • form(s) 48, 66, 74, 182 • history 29 n.64, 30 n.69 • material 150 n.5, 152 • pattern 181 • problem 147, 150 • recensions 55 n.38 • relations 169 • situation 75, 162 • stream 29, 118, 121, 162, 170 • tampering viii, 44, 59 • tradition 28 n.63, 29, 47, 78 • transmission 29, 56, 58, 80, 96, 105 • units 116 • variant(s), variation 49, 62, 75, 78, 110, 165 • witnesses 96, 100, 152 • work 57, 152, 176 Teyler Foundation (Haarlem, Netherlands) 4 n.3

309

Thackeray, H. St J. • The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: H. Milford, 1921, 2nd ed. 1923) 5 n.4 • with R. Marcus, A Lexicon to Josephus (4 fascicules; Kohut Memorial Foundation; Paris, Guenther 1930–1955) 6 n.7 • (see B-M) “Larger Cambridge Septuagint,” ed. A.E. Brooke, N. McLean, and H. St. J. Thackeray [1906–1940] 62 n.5 • The Letter of Aristeas (London: SPCK, 1918) 89–95 64 n.12 Theissen, Gerd • The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 9 n.13 • The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 9 n.13 Theodotion (see also kaige translation) 63, 65 n.18, 66 (&n.22), 69 n.28, 70 (&n.31), 82, 111, 181, 187 Theologoumena Arithmetica 219 n.7, 229 n.55 Therapeutae 46, 47, 49, 52, 115, 206 n.18 third race 89 (&n.16), 158, 159 n.16 Thomas (apostle) and associated writings • Infancy Gospel of (ed. C. Tischendorf. Evangelia Apocrypha [Leipzig, 18762]) 11 139 Thomas, J., Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (ed. C. Burchard, J. Jervell, and J. Thomas; Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 36; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969) 4 n.3 Tiberius Julius Alexander [TJA] 86, 238, 248 (&n.11), ch.15 (passim) Tigay, Jeffrey H., ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 30 n.69 Timbie, Janet, Dualism and the Concept of Orthodoxy in the Thought of the Monks of Upper Egypt (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1979) 23 n.44 Timotheos 25 (&n.52), 72 Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue of [see T-A]

310

index

Titus (Roman Ruler) 194, 199 n.2, 246, 255–256 TJA = Tiberius Julius Alexander TLG = Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (updated CD-ROM “D” appeared in 1993; available online for subscribers after CD-ROM “E” appeared around 1997) 6 (&n.7) 124, 177, 182 et passim TLZ = Theologische Literaturzeitung Tobit, book of 39, 111, 177, 187 • chs 6 & 8, and 11.7–13 205 n.17 Toledot Yeshu/Jeshu 50 (&n.30) torah 64, 85–86 n.8, 86 n.9, 87 n.11, 88 n.12, 102, 131, 141 Torrey, Charles C., The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (JBL Monograph Series 1; Philadelphia: SBL, 1946) 31 n.73 Tov, Emanuel 6 n.7, 199 n.1 • Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 13 n.20 • “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual History,” Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J.H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 211–37 30 n.69 • Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992, 20012) 319–327 30 n.69 • The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (2nd ed.; Jerusalem: Simor, 1997) 61 n.2 • “Septuagint” and “Greek Versions, Minor” by R.A. Kraft, E. Tov and K. O’Connell in the Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplement (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 61 n.3 TQ = Theologische Quartalschrift tradition(s) (see also textual) vii, 8, 9, 22 n.43, 24, 42 n.13, 46, 85, 91, 117, ch.7, 155, 161, 261 • apocalyptic 51 n.31, 170 • Christian 17, 22, 24, 25, 37, 43, 45, 47, 53, 57, 60, 66, 69 (&n.28), 71, 72 (&n.38), 73, 78, 80, 104, 126, 132, 137, 138, 175, 176

• heretical 18, 19, 20 n.35, 21 n.38 • Jewish 4 (&n.3), 10–13, 18, 25, 26, 31, 32, 38, 41 (&n.11), 43, 45, 52, 54, 60, 80, 89, 102, 103, 117, 119, 120, 126, ch.7, 168, 171 n.14, 175, 179, 193, ch.12a-b, 215, 219, 239, 240, 241 • linguistic and literary 116, 125 n.27, 126, 180, 187, 193, 194, 195, 200, 201, 207, 211 n.2, 215, 217, 222, 226, 229 n.51, 233, 235, 236 • manuscript 23, 27 n.57, 28 (&n.63), 48, 67, 70, 80, ch.7, ch.8 • pseudepigraphical 24 • Two Ways 13 n.21, 41 Trans (= Translation, in ch.6) transmission, transmitters vii and passim translation of ancient texts (see also Aquila, LXX/OG, Quinta, Septima, Sexta, Symmachos, Theodotion, Vg) 8 n.11, 39, 42 n.12, 52, 58, 64, ch.5, 109 n.4, 112 n.10, 114, 117, 120, 124, 125 n.27, 137 n.11, 149 n.2, 150, 153, 158, 175, 183, 200 n.3, 217, 220 n.7, 237 n.1, 238 n.3, 261 Traube, Ludwig, Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 2; Munich: Beck, 1907) 27 n.57, 65 n.16 Treat, Jay C. 238 n.3 • Lost Keys: Text and Interpretation in Old Greek Song of Songs and its Earliest Manuscript Witnesses (PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania 1996) 47 n.25, 65 n.15 tree(s) 63, 71, 72 (&nn.34&38), 73, 161, 191, 200, 202 n.7, 206 Treu, Kurt, “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich,” Kairos 15 (1973) 140f. (and n. 68) [translated by William Adler and R. Kraft as “The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire” and also added to the listserver of the IOUDAIOS Electronic Seminar, 14 August 1991] 65 n.16 Treu, Ursula, edition of Clement of Alexandria (Griechische Christliche

index Schriftsteller 12, 15, 17, 39) begun by O. Stählin in 1905 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), and partly revised by Ludwig Früchtel (1960) and Ursula Treu (1970–1985) the 4th ed. of volume 2 appeared in 1985 17 n.30 trinity, trinitarian, triune 13, 45, 50, 65 Tripolitis, Antonia, with R.A. Kraft, “Some Uncatalogued Papyri of Theological and other Interest . . .,” BJRL 51 (1968) 144 n. 1 [also online] 72 n.37 Trypho (see also Justin) 7 n.9, 89 (&n.14), 176, 192 TS = Theological Studies TSAJ = Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TU = Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Turdeanu, Émile • “Le Testament d’Abraham en slave et en roumain,” in Oxford Slavonic Papers 10 (n.s.) (ed. Robert Auty, J.L.I. Fennell, and I.P. Foote; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) 1–38 110 n.5 • “Le Testament d’Abraham,” in Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains (SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 201–18 110 n.5 Turner, Eric G., “Tiberius Iulius Alexander,” JRS 44 (1954) 54–64 238 n.2, 239 (&n.4), 246 (&n.9), 249 n.3, 256 n.7 Turner, John D. [homepage] • “Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (ed. C.W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986) 55–86 211 n.2 • Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Études, 6; Leuven and Paris: Peeters/Québec Les Presses de L’Université Laval, 2001) 211 n.2 Turner, Nigel • “Testament of Abraham” in AOT 96, 104 • The Testament of Abraham: a Study of the Original Language, Place of

311

Origin, Authorship, and Relevance (unpublished Univ. London Thesis, 1953) 114 (&n.16), 116, 119, 121, 122, 124 n.26 • “The Testament of Abraham”: Problems in Biblical Greek, NTS 1 (1954/55) 219–223 • “Esdras, Books of,” IDB 2 (1962) 142 152 n.6 Two Ways tradition 13 n.21, 40, 45, 59 [unsigned], TAbr article in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1939) 40 113 n.11 Urbach, E.E., “Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation,” Scripta hierosolymitana 22 (1971) 247–275 18 n.32 Valentinus 88 VanderKam, James C. • with William Adler (eds.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress, 1998) 27 n.55 • Introduction to Early Judaism (Eerdmans, 2001) 104 n.11 van der Horst, in OTP 104 van der Sandt, H.W., with D. Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place. in Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen: van Gorcum, 2002) 40 n.10 van der Woude, A.S., “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI,” OtSt 14 (1965) 354–73 20 n.35 van Henten, Jan Willem [homepage] 35 n.2, 55 n.38 • “Zum Einfluss jüdischer Martyrien auf die Literatur des frühen Christentums (2: Die Apostolischen Väter),” in W. Haase & H. Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II:27/1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 700–23 41 n.11 • “The Martyrs as Heroes of the Christian People: Some Remarks on the Continuity between Jewish

312

index

and Christian Martyrology, with Pagan Analogies,” in M. Lamberigts & P. van Deun (eds.), Martyrium in Multidisciplinary Perspective (BETL 117; Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 303–322 41 n.11 • with Friedrich Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 2002) 41 n.11 • with A.J. Bij de Vaate, “Jewish or Non-Jewish? Some Remarks on the Identification of Jewish Inscriptions from Asia Minor,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 (1996) 16–28 52 n.32 van Tongerloo (see Giversen) 21 n.38 varieties • of Christianity 9 n.12, 40, 50, 81, 84 (&n.5), 88 • of Judaism 40, 43 n.14, 49, 81, 84 (&n.4), 85 n.8, 88, 171 n.14 Varner, William 173 n.1 • Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila: Introductions, Texts and Translations (Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005) 175, 183 n.8 Varro 219 n.7, 229 n.55 Vermes, G. • G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (eds.), Schürer’s The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (4 vols. in 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87) 8 n.12 • with M. Goodman, The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989) 201 n.6 versions, ancient (see also translations) 27, 28, 29 (&n.65), 30, 33 n.79, 45, 53, 56, 61–65, 68–75, 80, 109 (&n.4), 110–114, 121, 122 n.23, 129, 138 n.13, 140, 150 n.5, 162 and passim Vespasian (Roman ruler) 69 n.28, 187, 194, 199 n.2, 204, 255, 256 (&n.6) Vesuvius 199 n.2

Vg = Latin Vulgate [see Biblia Sacra Vulgata and Latin: translations] 76, 149 n.2, 150, 155, 156 Violet, Bruno 156 • two editions of 4 Ezra proper (GCS 18 [1910]; GCS 32 [1924]) 150 n.5 vision(s) 18, 32, 135, 140, 145 Vitrasius Pollio 241 vocabulary 5, 84, 112, 119, 120, 121, 202 n.9, 203 Volkmar, G., Esdra Propheta (Tübingen: Ludovici Friderici Fues., 1863) 152 n.6 Von Arnim, H., Stoicum veterum fragmenta, III:80–81 201 n.6 vowels 223, 229, 232, 233 Vulgate, Latin [see Biblia Sacra Vulgata, Vg] Wacholder, Ben Zion • Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. J.C. Reeves and J. Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 42 n.12 • Nicholas of Damascus (University of California Studies in History 75; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962) 203 n.9 warrior 68 Wasserstein, Abraham and David, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: CUP, 2006) 64 n.12 Weber, M. 109 n.3 Weber, Robert [see Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem] Wein. = Weinel, H. • “Die spätere christliche Apokalyptik” in Eucharisterion 2 (Festschrift Gunkel, ed. H. Schmidt; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923) 170–172 113 (&n.15) • “Das fünfte Buch Esra,” in E. Hennecke (ed.), Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 1904), (Űbersetzungsband) 305–11, (Handbuch) 331–336 (2nd ed.; 1924), 390–394 151, 152 n.6, 155

index Wells, L.S.A., in APOT 2 14 (&n.24), 15 Weyman, Carl, review of James in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893) 642f 110 n.6, 113 (&n.15) Whiston, William, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (1736) also available in updated forms (e.g. the Hendrickson edition, Peabody MA, 1987) and various places online 45 (&n.19) Whitaker, G.H., LCL volumes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press) on Philo, edited and translated by G.H. Whitaker and F.H. Colson (vols. 1–5, 1929–1934) and by Colson alone (vols. 6–10, 1935–1962), with indices by J.W. Earp (in vol. 10) and two supplementary volumes by Ralph Marcus (1953) 237 n.1 Wilde, Robert, The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries. Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 81. Washington D.C., 1949 174 n.2 Wilken, Robert L. • Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria’s Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971) 7 n.9 • John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 7 n.9 Williams, A. Lukyn • Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho (London: SPCK, 1930) 7 n.9, 64 n.11 • Adversus Judaeos: a Bird’s-eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: CUP, 1935) 173 n.2 Wilson, Robin McL. (see Hennecke) Winston, David 237 n.1 Wong, C.K., “Philo’s Use of Chaldaioi,” SPhilo Annual (1992) 1–14 238 n.3 wood(en) (see also tree) 16, 63, 71, 72 (&nn.34&38)

313

wooden (i.e. relatively inflexible) 80, 250, 252 worship 22 n.43, 87 n.11, 134, 146, 185, 193 Wright, Benjamin G. 149 n.1, 238 n.3 • (ed.) A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Atlanta, Georg.: Scholars Press, 1999) 32 n.78, 42 n.13, 57 n.41 • No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), esp. 1.1 30 n.70 • “A Note on the Statistical Analysis of Septuagintal Syntax,” JBL 104 (1985) 111–114 7 n.8 Wright, Robert B., “Psalms of Solomon” in OTP 2 104 Xerxes

240–241

yigdol 54 Yonge, C.D., The Works of Philo (London: H.G. Bohn, 1854) 237 n.1 Zachariah, book of 16, 135, 181 Zadokite Fragment (see Damascus Document) 10, 25 n.53 Zahn, Theodor, Einleitung in das neue Testament 2 (Leipzig: Deichert/ Bohme, 1899, 1907) 314ff 75 n.40 Zephaniah, book of 1.12 (see also Sofonia) 74 n.39 Zerubbabel 130, 132, 133, 134 n.6, 135, 136, 138, 141 Zeiller, Jacques, with Jules Lebreton, The History of the Early Church (trans Ernest C. Messenger; New York: Collier, 1962 [1944–47 original]) 4.90 24 n.50 Zeller, Franz 47 Zeus 222, 226 (&n.29) ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik ZWT = Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie