Journal of Biblical Literature 1931-2

Front Matter Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931) Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259556 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNAL OF

BIBLICAL

LITERATU VOLUME L

1931 PARTII

CERAMICSAND HISTORY IN PALESTINE ...... W. F. BADR 1 K. BUDDE 20 ZUM EINGANG DES BUCHES EZECHIEL ....... .H. T. ERASTUS OF CORINTH .............. CADBURY 42 THE ANCIENT SIGNIFICANCE OF SISITH ..... .F. J. STEPHENS 59 THE MOTIVATIONOF JOHN 21 15--25 ....... B. W. BACON 71 THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF I. KINGS AND ITS AFFINITIES. ................. H. S. GEHMAN 81 BRIEF NOTE A STUDY IN COMPARISONOF THE TEXTS OF KINGS AND CHRONICLES ....... J. A. MONTGOMERY 115

PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETYOF BIBLICAL LITERATUREAND EXEGESIS Drawer 8, Yale Station, NEw HAVER,CONs.

$ 5.00 A YEAR

SINLE NUMxnias,$1.25

JOURNAL OFBIBLICALLITERATURE PUBLISHED BY THE

SOCIETYOF BIBLICALLITERATUREAND EXEGESIS BOARDOF EDITORSFOR 1931

H. Yale CARL KRAELING, University BENJAxINW. BACON,Yale University GEORGEDA~L, Yale University

Communicationsfor the Editors should be addressedto Journal of Biblical Literature, Drawer 8, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. Articles appearingin the Journal are regularly listed in the International Index to Periodicals. Memberstwo years in arrearsin the payment of dues will be droppedfrom membership in the Society. Changes of address should be brought to the attention of the Secretary. The next meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, will be held at New York City, on December 28 and 29, 1931. OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY FOR 1931 Prof. B. S. EASTON, General Theological Se. President ................ minary Prof. J. M. P. SMITH,University of Chicago Vice-President ........... Prof. H. J. CADBURY, Bryn Mawr College Recording Secretary ..... CorrespondingSecretary .. Prof. C. H. KRAELING,Yale University Prof. H. H. ThYON,Union Theological SeTreasurer ............... minary Prof. J. A. BEWER,Union Theological Se-

minary

Prof. M. S. ENSLN, Crozer Theological Seminary Prof. J. J. OBERMANN, Jewish Institute of Religion Prof. MOSESBAILEY, Wellesley College in Council Associates ..... Prof. GEORGE DAHL,Yale University (term exlpires1932) Prof. H. S. GEHMAN,Princeton University Prof. H. C. ALLEMAN,Gettysburg Theological Seminary Associates in Council Mrs. MARY LYMAN,Union TheologicalSe1933).... (termexpires minary Prof. D. W. RIDDLE, University of Chicago Representativeon the Board 1 Pres. W. J. MOULTON,Bangor Theological SeAssociates in Council ..... (term expires 1931)

of Trustees of theAmerican

m

School of OrientalResearchJ minary rProf. W. F. ALBRIGHT,Johns Hopkins UniverDelegates to the American

sity (term expires 1932)

Councilof Learned Societies Prof. H. J. CADBURY, Bryn Mawr College (term expires 1934) Printed by Offizin Haag-Drugulin AG., Leipzig (Germany), for the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis

Ceramics and History in Palestine Author(s): William F. Badè Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 1-19 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259557 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

AND HISTORYIN PALESTINE' CERAMICS WILLIAMF. BADt PACIFIC SCHOOL OF RELIGION

THE

book of Ecclesiasticus contains a chapter, the 38th, in which the writer considers the relative social importance of several kinds of craftsmen as compared with the scribe. The plowman, the graver of signets, the smith, and the potter are each of them considered in the light of what they set their hearts upon. While in their several crafts they are so important that "no city shall be inhabited without them," they will never, in the judgment of Ben Sira, "be sought for in the council of the people," nor sit in the assembly of the learned, like the scribe. But the lapse of two thousand years has brought about a reversal of Ben Sira's judgment, for the potter now sits above the scribe in the councils of the archaeologists. Needless to say, it is not the modern potter, but the great and varied company of ancient potters, long ago gathered unto their fathers, who have acquired this posthumous distinction through the products of their handiwork. The use of ceramics as an auxiliary means to secure information about early human societies has in our time grown so important that the relevant literature of the subject sometimes refers to "the eloquence of potsherds." 1 Presidential Address delivered before the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis at its Semi-Centennial meeting held at Union Theological Seminary, New York City, December 29, 1930. The following abbreviations have been employed: AAS = Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research; JPOS = Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society; MDOG= Mitteilungender deutschen Orient Gesellschaft; PEF,QS = Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement; RB = Revue Biblique; RS = Revue Syria; ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. 1

2

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

I. The Society of BiblicalLiteratureand Exegesiscelebrateson this occasionthe fiftieth anniversaryof its founding.It so happens that the gradualdevelopmentof ceramicstudy as a tool of Palestinian archaeologyalmost completely parallelsthe life of this Society. Forty-threeyears ago Perrotand Chipiez2presentedsome generalfacts on the subject.But it was Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie who, duringhis excavationof Tell el-Hesy in southernPalestine, determinedfor the first time the generalprincipleson which the dating of Palestinianpotteriesmust rest.3 In 1894 Dr. Frederick J. Bliss publishedthe first edition of his book A Moundof Many Cities and in 1902, jointly with R. A. S. Macalister,Excavations in Palestineduring1898-1900. At the same time appearedMacalister'smagnificentworkon TheExcavationof Gezer,whichmarked an advancein the techniqueof excavatingand recording,as well as in completenessof publication.In the meantimePereH. Vincent, the distinguishedFrencharchaeologistof the tcole Bibliquein Jerusalem,had begunthat carefulseriesof studies4and publications whichhave madehim the foremostauthorityon the ceramicsof the Near East. The fact that all but one of these pioneersin the application of ceramicsto the problemsof Palestinianhistory are still living, strikinglyexemplifiesthe recencyof this type of research. It scarcelyis necessaryto remarkthat Palestineis not the only place where such studies have been undertaken.Indeed there is now no field of historicaland pre-historicalresearchin which the study of ceramicsis not an acceptedtool, a means of holdingin check conclusionswhich are not amenableto the control of any other test. But the primaryinterest of this Society is in the Bible and the land of the Bible, whereforeit is properthat I should restrictmyself mainly to those aspects of my subjectwhichrelate primarilyto Palestine.It may be remarkedin passingthat there, Perrot et Chipiez, Histoirede l'art dans l'antiquit~,Tome IV, Paris, 1887. See also Tome III, ch. X on "La Cgramiquede la Ph nicie". 3 Tell el-Hesy, pp. 40-50, 1891. I H. Vincent, Canaan, (1907), pp. 297ff.; La dramique de la Palestine in 2

Classification des cdramiques Antiques, Paris, 1923; La peinture dramique

Palestinienne, RS, 1924.

3

BAD2: CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

as elsewhere, a discipline so recent in its development still has much to do in perfecting its own methods. That, however, does not alter the fact that it has already become an indispensable tool of the historian and is often the only way by which the prehistorian can learn anything about the peoples who have passed into oblivion without a record of their history. A friend has warned me that even among students of the historical sciences one does not always meet with a full comprehension of the reasons why the handiwork of the ancient potter holds the preeminence among human artifacts. If there are present in this assemblage those who have listened to the still, small, but eloquent, voices of potsherds, perhaps they will bear with me while I digress long enough to show how and why ceramics is able to light up dark corners of human history. The explanation lies in three qualities which inhere in the material with which the potter operates. The qualities of clay are plasticity, durability after firing, and fragility, and each of these qualities is necessary to the total result. "Behold, as clay ('l•h) in the hands of the potter ( 1I)," said Jeremiah (186)in drawinga moral from its plasticity. Othermaterials such as stone, wood, hide, or plant fibre, have a grain or texture of their own which offers varying degrees of resistance to the will of the craftsman. But clay is fictile and yields with ease to the manipulations of the modeler. This fictility of clay, together with its occurrencein exhaustless abundance, encouraged mankind, during the principal clay-using stages of nascent civilization, to make more lavish use of it than of any other material. For neither fear of labor nor of wastage imposed checks on use and experiment. Hence among human artifacts, clay pottery, figurines, bricks, etc., exhibit the greatest variety of shapes in which the will of primitive and civilized man has expressed itself. They are in part petrified survivals of his responses to needs. They also are real figments of his will, taste, and imagination, and as such afford us the only glimpses now obtainable of vast unrecorded ages of human history. It follows from these facts that the quality of clay next in importance to plasticity is its durability and unalterableness after firing. A leaky basket caulked with clay and accidentally exposed to fire 1*

4

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

retains the pattern of the basketwork long after the basket itself has perished. There is much evidence of this kind to show that such accidental exposures of wet clay to fire, among peoples widely separated in time and space, have led to multiple discoveries of the qualities of fired clay - of terra cotta. Thus the readiness with which wet clay takes impressions of fabrics, mats, basketwork, etc., and later renders them imperishable through firing, has served to record whole industries of primitive man whose actual products have perished millenniums ago. At Tell en-Nasbeh, for instance, we recovered fragments of primitive bowls of the Aeneolithic period (3000-2500 B.C.) which had been modeled with the aid of a coarse textile the pattern of whose weave has been perfectly preserved. It will be seen, therefore, that the union of plastic receptivity with enduring fixation of the impression has produced a combination of qualities that has made pottery so important to the student of antiquity. But there is still a third quality of pottery which, in its narrowest definition, might be described as a specific property of fired clay, namely fragility. Such things as pots, bowls, plates, and lamps of earthenware break easily, and among the peoples of antiquity they were irreparable when broken, for they had no powerful glues with which to mend them. Occasionally an effort was made to prolong the usefulness of a highly esteemed vessel by drilling holes along the line of a break and lacing the edges together. But these are exceptions. As a rule nothing was to be done with the pieces but to discard them as waste. The utter worthlessness of broken pottery tempted neither its makers nor its breakers to carry it away from the places where it was dropped, and this fact insured the undisturbed mingling of potsherds with the contemporary waste products of the day. So it has come about that the great amount of breakage, coupled with the imperishability of the pieces, has peppered the layers of occupational deposits in cities and other ancient settlements with potsherds. At Tell en-Nasbeh, during one season in 1929, we recovered from successive levels of a comparatively small area over three thousand half-bushel (bushel = about a third of a hectolitre) baskets full of potsherds. The copiousness of this ceramic

BADE: CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

5

waste, of which each piece is an original product of human craftsmanship, provides exceptionally reliable material for the approximate dating of the levels and for a variety of other historical generalizations. It scarcely is necessary to point out that one trait of ancient societies on which the archaeologist can bank heavily is their tenacious adherence to custom. Both the potter and those who used his pots were creatures of habit to a degree unknown in modern societies. There are two main ceramic aspects or tendencies under which this fact comes to expression. The first is occupational and marks out the range within which the craftsman5 finds his patterns. If the potter is a member of a pastoral society his earthen vessels will imitate the leather bags, jugs, and bowls of the nomad's camp. If, on the other hand, he belongs to an agricultural society gourds and the various products of strawplaiting will come to expression in his clay vessels. The second tendency of ceramic art operates restrictively and limits the craftsman rather narrowly to the technique, shapes, handles, and decorations which the usage of his group has established. This insures a broad uniformity of products that are characteristic of each group. Changes of style come, but so slowly that, as the breakage is thrown out and accumulates layer upon layer, the excavator is furnished with materials for sequencedating which are as reliable in their testimony as index fossils in the sedimentary rocks. When abrupt innovations in the pottery style of a given region are found the excavator knows that they have important historical significance. According to circumstances it may mean the irruption of new racial elements, or the beginning of active trade relations with new neighbors. If there was actual conquest the evidence of it will appear in the form of wholesale destruction of terra cotta objects, often followed by the collateral production of fresh pottery 5 During the earliest times, before the use of the wheel, pot-making was largely, if not wholly, the work of women. This still is true in the peasant districts of Palestine and the writer has collected much graphic and photographic evidence on the technique employed.

6

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

in two styles, one embodying the continuing tradition of the native population, the other expressing the requirements of the new masters who have their own ideas as to what their principal utensils should look like. It would lead me too far afield to attempt to describe the interesting ways in which pottery provides "date-marks" for correlating contemporary cultures. The occurrence of Philistine, Cypriote, or Mycenaean pottery or potsherds in Palestinian city levels affords an opportunity to determine which phase of the one was contemporaneous with a particular phase of the other. When a series of such date-marks, extending across several contemporary cultures has been secured, it frequently becomes possible to correlate these relative antiquities at some point with the fixed chronology of Egypt or Babylonia; or it may be found that one of the adjacent cultures drawn into the net of contemporaneity has on independent evidence already been fitted into a dated series. Then its date may furnish a reckoning-point for new sequences of cultures. It was to be expected that the progress of comparative studies of potteries made on the eastern Mediterranean islands, and in lands bordering on Palestine, would produce repercussions in Palestinian ceramics. Such discussions of Cypriote pottery as those of J. L. Myres," E. Gjerstad,7 and H. Frankfort8 have to be kept within easy reach by everyone who studies Palestinian and Syrian ceramic antiquities, and their interactions with neighboring cultures. In analyzing the Cesnola Collection of the Metropolitan Museum Professor Myres found that the products of the earliest Cypriote pottery industry began with an advanced phase of the art, because of its introduction into the island from the mainland. A number of its earliest types are so clearly descended from Syrian and Palestinian 6 Handbook

of the Cesnola Collectionof Antiquities from Cyprus, 1914. Comparealso, by the same author, ch. II, Vol. I in CambridgeAncientHistory and WhoweretheGreeks? pp. 211ff. (1930). 7 Studies on PrehistoricCyprus, 1926. 8 Studies in Early Pottery of the Near East, I (1924), and II, (1927). The first deals with the earliest interrelations of Mesopotamia,Syria, and Egypt; the second with the earliest interrelations of Asia, Europe and the Aegaean.

BADt:

CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN' PALESTINE

7

prototypesthat we must assumethe introductionof the art of potmakinginto Cyprusfrom Syria. In the Aeneolithictombs9at Tell en-Nasbehwe found some painted amphoriskoiwhich strikingly resemblesimilarones discoveredin Cyprus,at Gezer,Jericho,and Abusirel-Melekin Egypt. At Tellen-Nasbehthey were foundassociatedwith copperawlsanda dagger'0whosemetallurgicalanalysis shows over 97% purecopper.The metal in this weaponhad never beenmeltedor smelted,but was nativecopper,shapedbyhammering. This technique is characteristicof the CopperStone Age when copperwas still regardedas a kind of malleablestone. The progressof excavationsin Crete,especiallyat Onossos,is steadily brushingdetailsinto the picturewe are now able to make of long vanishedstagesof Mediterranean culture.Ceramicevidence indicatesthat Cretewas discoveredand occupiedby a peoplefrom elsewhere.The time when this took place cannot as yet be fixed precisely.But the type of culturewhichthey broughtwith them is basically Anatolian. It may be remarkedhere that Sir Arthur Evans recentlypublished"significantevidenceof very earlyinterrelationsbetween Egypt and Crete.For while excavatingthe latest Neolithicstage of culturebeneaththe CentralCourton the site of Cnossoshe brought to light antiquities and ceramic fabrics exhibiting unmistakablepoints of contact with the pre-dynastic, or proto-Libyan,civilizationof the Nile Valley. It wasto be expectedthat in ancientas in moderntimesthe interrelationof Palestinewith Syriaand Asia Minorwouldbe foundto have been close. This expectationis fully confirmedby the most recent excavationsat Byblus, MishrifehQatnah,and Kara Eyuk. The pottery of the latter site was publishedin excellentdetail by Henri de Genouillac,under the title Ce'ramique Cappadocienne. 9 See my Preliminary Report of Excavations at Tell en-Nasbeh (1928), pp. 41-51. P6re H. Vincent's identification of most of the pottery of these tombs, in 1926, asAeneolithic is confirmedby the associatedobjects of copper. 10 A full report on these finds, togetherwith the details of themetallurgical analysis, and an expert report on calvariafrom the tombs, will soon be ready for publication. 11 The Palace of Minos at Cnossos,Vol. II, Part I, pp. 1-21.

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

8

A greatvariety of Palestinianpottery types, includingSir Flinders Petrie's finds at Tell Jemmeh (Gerar)and Tell Fara (Bethpelet), has just been publishedby J. GarrowDuncanin a Corpusof Palestinian Pottery(1930).This corpusis said to consistof "datedpottery," but in most casesthis is true only in a relativesense.Nevertheless it is to be welcomedas a new effortto createsome chronological orderin a field in which there still is too much confusion and too great a diversity of descriptionand illustration.The time is over-ripefor the appointmentof an internationalceramiccommission chargedwith the task of drawingup for The Near East a standardsystem of rules designedto securea reasonableuniformity of nomenclatureand of picturing. II. An interestingillustrationof an appealto ceramicsin solving debatedhistoricalproblemsis affordedby a recentre-determination of the ages of the variousfortificationwalls and culturelevels of Jericho.The excavationof this city moundwas undertakenby the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft duringthe years from 1907 to 1909. Theworkwas underthe generaldirectionof ProfessorErnst Sellin, assistedby ProfessorCarlWatzingerof Berlin.The latter assumed responsibilityforthe classifyingof the pottery,a task whichtwenty years ago in Palestine was still a pioneerundertaking.When the definitive publication,entitled Jericho,appearedin 1913, it was foundthat the excavatorshad identifiedthe remarkablywell-built outer wall, having a slopingstone revetment,as "Israelite"(Iron Age I), and the doublebrickwall on the crestof the hill as "Canaanite" (BronzeAge).Theymaintainedthat the latterwallhad been destroyednot later than 1500 B. C. and that this destructionwas followedby a periodof six hundredyearsof ruinand desertion;and that thereafter,duringthe ninth centuryB. C., cameHiel (I Kings 16 34), rebuilt the city, and fortifiedit with the great stone wall whichgirdlesthe base of the mound. Thischronologicaldeterminationof the historyand fortifications of the mound almost immediatelybegan to provokedoubts and dissent,especiallyon the part of Pere H. Vincent'2who had often visited the excavationswhilein progress.An outstandingdifficulty 12

Cf. RB, 1913, pp. 456-8.

BADE: CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

9

of the findings, in the minds of many, was the assertion that the Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) was unrepresented on the mound, with the consequent implication that the conquest of Jericho by Joshua must be regarded as an unhistorical tradition, unless the man and the event could be moved back into the period before 1500 B. C. For if there was no walled city of Jericho at the close of the Late Bronze Age (1200 B. C.), how could Joshua have taken it ? An explanation of the difficulty offered by the excavators was that the Elohistic narratives of the conquest in the book of Joshua might originally have been specifically "Hebraic," and that these narratives were later transferred to the traditions of the Israelites after the latter had absorbed the Habiri.13In other words, they assumed that there had been a conflation of two different phases of the occupation. In the course of time the progress of excavation in Palestine began to make it evident that most of the pottery classified by Watzinger as "Israelite" belongs really to the second and third phases of the Bronze Age (2000-1200 B. C.), while his so-called "Canaanite" pottery pictured on Plate 20, is chiefly Early Bronze (2500-2000 B. C.). In other words, Dr. Watzinger had post-dated his pottery by about a thousand years. Recognition of this error necessarily involved the re-dating of the great stone wall encircling the base of the mound. For this wall, as already stated, the excavators had also classified as "Israelite" and described as the work of Hiel during the ninth century B. C. In 1922 Dr. W. F. Albright published an article, entitled ,,Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period"14 in which he had to deal with the culture levels of Tell es-Sultan, the mound of ancient Jericho. With much independence of judgment he re-arrangedthe main periods of occupation in such a way that the double line of brick walls around the summit of the Tell was referredto the Middle Bronze Age, from 2000 to 1700 B. C., and the next succeeding period was made to extend from 1700 to 1230 B. C. In setting the lower limit of this latter period he included part of Bronze II and 13 Jericho, p. 182. 14 JPOS, II, 2.

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

10

practically all of Bronze III among the occupation levels represented on the Tell. Thus he assumed the destruction of the city to have taken place during the time of Joshua, followed by desertion of the site until the restoration under Hiel, the Bethelite, about 870 B. C. But in later discussions15of the subject Dr. Albright receded from the position taken in that article. Moved, it seems, by the scarcity of typical Late Bronze Age fragments of pottery on the Tell, he finally reached the conclusion that Canaanite Jericho was destroyed "between 1600 and 1500 B. C."16This view is substantially a return to the conclusion of Professors Sellin and Watzinger who had fixed the destruction of Canaanite Jericho about 1500 B. C. Only in Dr. Albright's case this shifting backward of the date of destruction seems to have been motivated chiefly by the scarcity of Late Bronze Age types of pottery which convinced him that the third phase of the Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) "is practically missing in Jericho."'7 As we shall see presently this putative absence of the Late Bronze Age at Jericho is now called into question by two independent ceramic studies of the mound, one by Pere H. Vincent based on the Jericho pottery published by Dr. Watzinger, the other by Professor J. Garstang, based upon fresh sections cut through unexcavated parts of the mound. Before taking up this new angle of the discussion it is pertinent to record the fact that in 1923 ProfessorWatzinger18himself abandoned his identification of the outer wall as "Israelite," re-baptizing it as a Canaanite wall constructed about the beginning of the second millennium B. C. But this change of opinion was not accompanied by a systematic re-classification of the pottery associated with the wall. He also re-affirmed his conviction that during the time of Joshua the site of Jericho was not only in ruins, but had lain desert15

Cf. AAS, IV, (1924), pp. 11 and 147.

16 AAS, VI, (1926), VI, p. 53. 17 Op. Cit., p. 53.

l i belysning av de nya fynden och forskningarna i Orienten, Ieriko Ar8bok,(1923), pp. 100-5. svenskaOriental&till8kapets Cf. also Zur Chronologie der Schichten von Jericho in ZDMG, (1926), pp. 131-6. 18

BADE: CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

11

ed for nearly four centuries.In short, his chronologyof the Tell, and to a less degreethat of Dr. Albright,still envisageda practical absenceof BronzeAge III amongits ceramicdeposits. Now comesthe next stage in the study of this complicatedquestion and it is chiefly concernedwith a re-study of the ceramic evidencein the light of the progresswhichPalestinianand related pottery studieshave made to date. For seven years after the war ProfessorJohn Garstangorganizedand administeredthe Department of Antiquitiesin Palestine,and duringthis time developeda keeninterestin the correlationof biblicaltraditionsof the conquest with the materialresults of excavation.Threecities, Jericho,Ai, and Hazor, are mentioned particularlyby biblical tradition as having been capturedand destroyedby Joshua; so Dr. Garstang selectedthese sites for excavationssufficientto determinearchaeologicallythe approximateperiodof their overthrow.Since we are now concernedwith Jerichoonly it will be sufficientto state, regardingAi and Hazor,Dr. Garstang'sconclusionthat "eachplace showedtraces of destructionnear the middle of the Late Bronze Age, or about 1400 B. C."19Under the patronageof Sir Charles Marston,Dr. Garstangrecently undertookalso a thorough reexaminationof the Jerichomound,cutting new trenchesthrough deposits that had been disturbedby previous excavations. The relationshipof the city wallsto each otheras disclosedin the trenches, and the date characteristicsof the potsherdsassociatedwith them, were jointly studied by Pere H. Vincent, Dr. ClarenceS. Fisher, and Dr. Garstang.On March2, 1930, they issued a brief reportembodyingtheirjoint conclusionsfrom which we quote as follows:"Themaindefencesof Jerichoduringthe Late BronzeAge followedthe upperbrink of the city mound, and comprisedtwo parallelwalls, the outer six feet, the inner twelve feet thick ... The date of destructionwas ascertainedto fall beforethe close of the Late BronzeAge, but the precisedate and the solutionof numerousother questionscan only be determinedby more complete "9 Garstang,Proc.of the Royal Institution of GreatBritain (abstract), May, 1930. For a somewhat different view regardingAi, based on surfaceexamination of pottery, see Albright, AAS IV, 146.

12

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

andmethodicalexcavation.""Wereachthen,"writesDr. Garstang, "the conclusionthat uponpresentevidencethe city was destroyed, in roundfigures,aboutthe year 1400B. C.. just beforethe infiltration of Mycenaean wares began. But ... the site may still yield more

definiteevidenceuponthis point."20The unitedtestimonyof three men who have specializedon the pottery of Palestine, therefore, agreesthat the Late BronzeAge is not missingat Jericho,though the time of its cessationthere still remainsto be determinedin the new excavation. Beforethe resumptionof Dr. Garstang'slast season of excavations at Jerichoin 1930,PhreH. Vincenthadundertakena re-determination of the culture levels at Jericho by re-classifyingthe various types of pottery describedand picturedby the German excavatorsin their official report.He also reviewedcriticallythe history of the excavation and the varying interpretationof the results. His paperwas completedin October,1929,and communicated to L'Acadimie des Incriptions et Belles Lettresat a meeting in March,1930, under the title "La Chronologiedes Ruines de Jericho."21

It is a very thoroughpiece of work and indispensableto every student of the subject. For our present purposeinterest centers chieflyin the secondpart entitled "Lelangagedesfaits"22in which he dealswith the pottery23recoveredfromthe so-calledfourthcity and its magnificentsloping stone wall, both of which had been describedas "Israelite"by the excavators. Pere Vincent'spresentationof the facts is very methodical.He goes throughthe entirearrayof potteryvesselsclassifiedoriginally undersix categoriesas follows: A. Vesselscoveredwith a lime wash24(couverte blanche). 2o PEF, QS, (July 1930), p. 132. 21 RB, (July, 1930), pp. 403-33. 2 Op. Cit., p. 415. 23 See Jericho, pp. 122-146. 24 Dr. Watzinger here uses the term "engobe" which is now commonly used to describe an argillaceousbath intended to give the vessel a smooth even color and surface, and known technically as a slip. Cf. L. Franchet, C(ramique primitive, p. 90ff.

BADPE: CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

13

B. Vessels with mate painted decoration over a white slip (engobeblanc). C. Vesselswithout decoration. D. Vesselswith a black polishedsurface(couvertenoirelustree). E. Red or ochrevessels with polish. F. Paintedwarewithoutslip. The resultof the analysisof groupA is that the vesselscannotbe referredin a body to the MiddleBronzeAge (2000-1600 B. C.), but representa prolongedevolutionextendingfromMiddleBronze to at least the middleof the Late BronzeAge or about 1400B. C. GroupB he findseven less homogeneousthan A, for it spreadsover all three phasesof the BronzeAge, fromthe beginningof I to the end of III. In GroupC he finds besidesMiddleBronzejars, seven types of vesselsin use throughoutthe durationof the Late BronzeAge, and six types especiallycommonduringthe secondhalf of BronzeIII. Thelast group,F, consistsof sherdsonly,whichcannotbe classified with assurance.PhreVincentsumsup the generalresultof his study of these groupsof potteriesas indicatingthat the so-calledfourth city of Jericho lasted from the culminatingpoint of the Middle BronzeAge cultureto the close of BronzeIII.25This conclusionis confirmed,he thinks, by the masonryand structureof the great stone wall which encircledthis city, generallydesignatedas the fourthin the Germanreport. Comparisonof the results of these two independentlines of investigation, one by Dr. Garstang,the other by Pere Vincent, showsthat the main difference,if thereis any, relatesto the downward extension of the Late Bronze Age. Dr. Garstangmakes it end about 1400 B. C. on the evidencewhich his new excavations have producedup to date, but leaves the door open for further 25

"I1 devient par cons6quent de toute 6vidence qu'on est all6 beaucoup trop vite en attribuant en bloc cette poterie au Br. II et traitant comme tout Afait n6gligeablesles attestations du Br. III declar6pratiquementinexistant &J6richo. C'est, au contraire, entre l'apogdedu Br. II et le d6clin du Br. III que les donnees positives de la ceramiqued6couvertepar la mission allemande sugg"rent d'encadrerl'6volution de la ville IV. " RB, (1930), 421.

14

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

investigations that may pare this date down still further. Pere Vincent appears to be convinced that the evidence of the pottery already brought to light indicates the destruction of the Late Bronze Age city about 1250 B. C. The long debate over the ruins of Jericho, and the widely differing chronological conclusions drawn from its pottery and its structures of defence, might arouse suspicion in some quarters regarding the soundness of historical conclusions based upon ceramics. As one who has had some practical experience in this field of investigation the writer may, perhaps, be permitted to express his conviction that ceramics as a tool of the anthropologist, archaeologist, and historian has come to stay; and that, to quote Professor J. L. Myres, "The validity of the conclusions to which its reasoning leads is in all respects identical with that of the other stratigraphical sciences."2" Even the case of Jericho may be cited in support of this view. For it must be remembered that our knowledge of Palestinian ceramics was in its infancy twenty years ago, and that for some reason Professor Watzinger in large part disregarded the ceramic classifications of Bliss and Macalister which might have saved him from postdating his principal ceramic finds. In any case, it is a curious and interesting fact that when Professors Sellin and Watzinger published their preliminary conclusions27 at the close of the excavations in 1909, they declared the Canaanite city of Jericho to have been at the height of its splendor during the middle of the second millennium B. C., and to have been destroyed about the thirteenth century B. C. But during the three years intervening between this announcemennt and the final official publication their conclusions underwent a change. The great sloping stone wall, at first correctly identified as Middle Bronze, now was described as "Israelite" together with the associated pottery. And now it is a new appeal to ceramics by which the mistake is corrected. Even for the recent differences of opinion among archaeologists regarding the duration of the Late Bronze Age at Jericho there are extenuating circumstances. For in a personal letter to the writer Dr. Gar26 WhoweretheGreeks?p. 213. 27 MDOG,No. 41, (1909), p. 28.

BADE: CERAMICSAND HISTORYIN PALESTINE

15

stang writes, "the common pottery of Jericho during the Late Bronze Age was of such a general character that in my opinion no particular date could be assigned to it. But it belongs to a class which Rowe was finding at Beisan in his Thutmose III and Amenophis levels." He adds that he has not yet had an opportunity to test its limit of range, but hopes "to open some of the houses on the inside with a view to getting more direct light upon the date of the destruction." In short, to reiterate a sentence from the previously quoted joint statement of Messrs. Vincent, Fisher, and Garstang, the questions at issue "can only be determined by more complete and methodical excavation." This brings me to the third and concluding part of my discussion. III. If, as I have endeavored to show, pottery is the Palestinian archaeologist's main reliance for the dating of his occupational levels, the precision and thoroughness of the excavation technique employed to obtain and register the evidence acquires supreme importance. During the last five years the writer has studied in actual operation not only the somewhat varying techniques employed by excavators in Palestine, but has also participated in the sequence-dating methods used by prehistorians of central Europe, and by students of the American pueblo cultures of the Southwest. It stands to reason, of course, that every system requires some adaptation to the special problems in hand. Of the systems which I have had the opportunity to study, the one most carefully worked out and best adapted to Palestine, in my opinion, is that of Dr. Clarence S. Fisher of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. But it requires a fairly large staff of trained assistants for its efficient operation when from fifty to one hundred baskets of pottery are brought to headquarters every day. In collaboration with Dr. Fisher we began in 1926 the training of a staff designed to meet the needs of our expedition. For four years, now, the writer has given annually, in the curriculum of the Pacific School of Religion, an elective course in archaeologicalmethods and field technique to a group of graduate students from whom our staff has been recruited. This training includes familiarity with the various types of Palestinian pottery, the proper method of making

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

16

index-cardnotes on baskets of miscellaneouspotsherds,the recovery and re-assemblingof brokenvessels, the making of millimetrecarddrawingswith the aid of proportionaldividers,andsome elementarytrainingin the use of the plane-tablewith transit and alidade.28Thus,duringourthird campaignin 1929,we had on our general staff of fourteen personsa special group of five student assistantswho had receivedboth practicaland theoreticaltraining for the expert handlingof the daily ceramicoutput of our excavations. No detailed statement of the variousactivities of headquarters procedureis possiblehere, for it would involve an explanationof our museum book records, our photographicsystem, and our excavationjournalrecords,made daily and independently,one by the directorand the other by the first assistant. But I ventureto describein the briefestpossibleformthat part of ourmethodwhich concernsthe handling and recordingof pottery from excavated city levels. The areaof the Tell is laid out on a generaltopographical map, controlledby bench-marks,and dividedinto fifty-metre quadrangles.This map is then used to lay out a grid of ten-metre squaresfor the areas to be excavated. These squaresare staked with numberedpegs, set at the intersectionsof the ten-metresquares. The stakesare identifiedby lettersfor the East-Westlines and numbersforthoserunningNorthand South.Eachten-metresquare is individuallyidentifiedby the symbols(e. g. AB20) of the peg at its northeast corner.Potsherdsfound within a given square are placed in baskets bearingon a carefullyrubricatedprinted label the written-insymbols of the identifyingnortheastpeg, and the number of the level, proceedingfrom the top downward.If the potsherdswere found in loose debristhe symbol "x" is added on the label. If the roomof a house,or a cistern,or a silo, or any other structureappearswithin the square, it receivesa separateidentifying numberand any pottery found within such a structurereceives also this numberin additionto the symbols of the square. The regular work of surveying and mapping was assigned to a technitrained civil engineer, a mapper, and two assistants with several years cally of practical experience. 28

17

BADE: CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

The labeler of baskets has to be a responsible and experiencedperson attached to the mapping squad, for it is his task, also, to paint numbers, according to a prepared plan, on rooms and other structures the moment they appear above ground. The basket labels contrain rubrics for various special objects which are immediately checked on the label when they are found. When a series of baskets of pottery comes from the same room, or cistern, each is additionally numbered in the order of its emergence, thus aiding the salvage of reconstructable vessels and the recording, reversely, of the order of deposition. As the baskets of pottery are brought from the mound they are received by the head of the "laundry gang" and arranged in proper sequence for washing. Each washer's pan holds the contents of one basket and as the sherds are being washed they are returned to the same basket which still retains its label. When the sherds are dry they are poured out on a table before an assistant for examination and the basket label is now detached and becomes the startingpoint for detailed notes on a five-by-eight inch filing card on which the provenience symbols are also the filing symbols. All objects destined for museum registration, and all fragments important because of special characteristics of form, ware, or decoration are passed on with the analysis-and-description card and the basket label to the drafting-room where all such objects are drawn to scale on five-by-eight inch millimetre cards. Finally the description card, millimetre cards and objects, still accompanied by the basket label, pass on to the photographing and recording room where all objects destined for preservation are marked with the symbols of their provenience, and all the millimetre and description cards are filed in one series and the basket labels in another. The latter also have rubrics for "Drawn" or "Photographed" which are checked as the case may be. The mapping of structures and the recording of objects have to keep pace together, which necessity most of the time kept two mappers and assistants busy on the mound. Thus every object recorded can by means of our files readily be referred to its ceramic context on the one hand, and on the other to its precise place of provenience by level and location on the archi2

18

JOURNALOF BIBLICALLITERATURE

tecturalmap of the mound.Duringthe last seasonalone our files were enrichedto the extent of 2820 millimetrecard objects, carefully drawnandlaterindexedin classifiedgroupsforeasy reference. To this system we have been able to add anotheritem of excavation techniquewhichto the best of my knowledgeis new. Every excavatorin Palestineknowshow difficultit sometimesis to correlate definitely contemporaneouslevels on different parts of the mound,and to integratethem with depositsof pottery in cisterns andtombs,whenthose whobuilt new citiesuponold onesdisturbed the underlyingstratification.A way to accomplishit suggested itself to mein 1927andwe have sincethen followedit upwith interesting results. It is, in short, the finger-printmethod. We found that in a fair proportionof cases the pottershad left their thumband-fingerprints on handle fragmentsat the points where they werejoinedto the vessels.We collectedthese and gave them their marksof provenience.In some casesa simpleacidtreatmentrevealed them on slip under incrustationsof carbonateof lime. It is no reflectionon the characterof membersof the venerablecompanyof ancient potters to say that we are taking their finger-printswith the aid of the criminalidentificationbureauof a Californiacity. I mentionthis featureof our methodonly becauseof its promise, and its obviousutility in determiningthe contemporaneityof occupationlayers,cisterndepositsand tombsin whichthe samepotters have left their ceramicallypreservedfinger-prints.Andtheseprints also becomepart of the scientificdata in our files. Finally, I wish to directattentionto the fact that such a system as I have outlinedhas a utility which far outreachesthe hurried months of excavation.It permitsa comprehensiveand unhurried review of the evidenceafter the recordshave been broughthome, or at any time when the progressof excavation on Palestinian moundsmoves a freshhistoricalprobleminto the field of inquiry. It goeswithoutsaying,however,that the evenprogressand scientific reliabilityof such a system dependson a corpsof trainedassistants and not on a staff pickedup at random.Normallyone wouldlook among graduate students in theological seminariesfor the best staff material.For therethe scientificis heightenedby the vocatio-

BADE:

CERAMICS AND HISTORY IN PALESTINE

19

nal appeal.To providesuchstudentswith the preliminarytechnical trainingand then take them to Palestinehas, also, the advantage of insuringa successionof archaeologically trainedbiblicalscholars of and possiblefuture directors excavationsin the Near East. I ventureto expressthe hope that whenthe centennialanniversary of this Societyis celebratedin 1980,theremay be foundon its roll of membersa distinguishedcompanyof thosewhohave knownhow to evokenewfactsandmeaningsof historyfromthe storiedmounds of Palestine.

2*

Zum Eingang Des Buches Ezechiel Author(s): Karl Budde Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 20-41 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259558 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

20

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

ZUMEINGANGDES BUCHESEZECHIEL KARL BUDDE MARBURG UNIVERSITAT

neuesBuch,,Pseudo-Ezekiel ATUiRLICHbietet mirC.C.Torreys N and the Original Prophecy" den AnlaB, diesen Gegenstand aufzugreifen: wer k*nnte an dem Aufsehen erregenden und glainzend geschriebenen Buche achtlos vorbeigehn! Zwar das in dem Haupttitel enthaltene Urteil ist ja nicht neu, sondern mit Zunz (1832) fast genau hundert Jahre alt. Ed. Kdnig nennt weiter fir die Unechtheit des Buches Geiger, Wetzstein, M. Vernes, Seinecke; Gautier triigt noch E. Havet und H. Winckler nach: der Kundige kinnte, ohne davon zu wissen, diese Reihe ziemlich vollstaindig nach der sonstigen ,,Richtung" der Vertreter dieser Ansicht erraten. Einen schwerwiegenden Namen kann ich nach brieflicher Mitteilung Theodor N*ldekes noch hinzufiigen: Justus Olshausen hat ihm seinerzeit gesagt, daB er das Buch Ezechiel fiir eine Failschung halte. Bescheidenerweise hat Torrey in seinem Buche nicht darauf hingewiesen, wie lange er selbst sich schon eingehend mit dem Buche beschiftigt und Hauptergebnisse seiner heutigen Ver6ffentlichung gewonnen hatte. Ich halte es fiir wertvoll, seine AuBerung an abgelegener Stelle hier der Hauptsache nach mitzuteilen.1 In Judiia verfaltes Pseudepigraph aus der spiteren Zeit 1 ,,Notes on the Aramaic part of Daniel", Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. XV, July 1909, p. 248, Note 1: ,,I have for many years felt certain, that the book of Ezekiel is a pseudepigraph, written in Judea in the latter part of the Greek period.... The only thing that could possibly account for the temporary rejection of Ezekiel is the

BUDDE: ZUMEINGANGDES BUCHESEZECHIEL

21

des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. - wesentlich so hatte auch M. Vernes das Buch angesetzt - das ist noch heute Torreys 11berzeugung. Neu ist die Entdeckung, daB erst durch eine wenig spitere entschlossene, wenn auch selten genug eingreifende Jberarbeitung Ezechiel, der angebliche Empfiinger dieser Offenbarungen und Verfasser des Buches, zu einem mit Jojachin im Jahre 597 nach Babylonien fortgefiihrten, dort lebenden und wirkenden Manne gemacht worden ist, wiihrend sein Schdpferihn im 7. Jahrhundert, in der zweiten Hailfte der Regierung Kjnig Manasses, in Jerusalem hatte leben und weissagen lassen. Diese grundlegende Entdeckung und Feststellung nun, und damit die neue positive Ldsung des Ezechielriitsels, beruht fiiglich einzig und allein auf den vier ersten Versen des Buches (Kap. 11-4); dort gewinnt Torrey den neuen Ort und die neue Zeit, die der Uberarbeiter dem von ihm fertig vorgefundenen Buche fiir seine Abfassung aufzwingt. An diesen Versen also werden die Fundamente seiner Entdeckung nachzupriifen sein, wie denn Torrey selbst (S. 18) von ihnen ausgeht. Genau so, wie er sie dort gibt, in derselben englischen Fassung und mit dem gleichen Wechsel der Schrift, sollen und miissen sie hier ihre Stelle finden:2

Now it cameto pass in the thirtiethyear, in thefourthmonth,in the fifth day of the month,as I was among the captives by the river Chebar,that the heavenswere opened,and I saw visions of

God.In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of King Jehoiachin's captivity,the word of the Lord came unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the persistence of the tradition, that it was written at a very late date. Judging from the manner of its allusions to the prophet Daniel, it cannot have been written much earlier than 200 B. C. It appears to be the work of a single hand. The statement is often made that it gives evidence of having been written in Babylonia; but this is not at all the case." 2Die Stelle wird S. 108, an der Spitze des Verzeichnisses der Eingriffe des tberarbeiters, wiederholt. Von den drei kleinen Abweichungen im Wortlaut, die sich dort finden, ohne an der Sache etwas zu Andern,nehme ich hier nur den Zusatz ,,expressly" auf, wihrend in den beiden anderen Fallen S. 18 nhher bei der hebrlischen Vorlage bleibt.

JOURNAL OFBIBLICAL LITERATURE

22

Chaldeansby the riverChebar;and the hand of the Lordwas there upon him. And I looked,and behold,a stormywindcameout of the north,etc.3 Von diesem Wortlautist nach Torreyalles, was er durchfetten Druck hervorhebt,Zusatz des Uberarbeiters,also Vers 2 und 3 im ganzen Umfang und von V. 1 die Worte 'N1 1Ti"-"1111 Dieser Zusatz bringt die neue 0rtlichkeit fiir den Z "r'I . i•2I V. 2 den Beginn der neuen Zeit, in Empfangder Offenbarungen, die der Uberarbeitersie verlegt. Die berichtigendeEintragung dieserbeiden Data an rund dreil3igStellen des Buches, der Zeitangabennatiirlichim Fortschreitenvon diesem Anfangan, in genauemAnschluBan die Zeitabstiinde,die der urspriinglicheText darbot, erschdpft,wie die Seiten 108-112 zeigen, so ziemlichdie gesamte Tiitigkeitdes Uberarbeitersan dem von ihm vorgefun-

denen Buche; nur an ganz wenigen Stellen (3 14-16, 24 if., 24-27, 33 2if.) fand er Grund, sonst noch einige Sitze einzuschieben,

auch nur, um seine neue Zeit- und Ortsbestimmungfester in dem Buche zu verankern. DaB er es sich zum Gesetzemachte, nichts von dem iiberkommenenWortlaut auszulassen,wird S. 108 ausdriicklichhervorgehoben. Wir beschri5nkenuns auf die Grundstelle,an der ja alles iibrige haingt. Sie soillnach Torreyso und nicht anders, wie sie oben wiedergegebenwurde, aus der Hand zweier Schriftstellerhervorgegangen sein, von denen jeder genau wulfte, was er tat. DaB kein Grundvorliege, eine Umgestaltungdes Textes durch Zufall oder Unfall zu argw6hnen,stellt Torrey S. 18 vorherfest.4 Das anzunehmen,begegnetmeines Einsehensden grSBtenBedenken. Auf S. 108 gibt T. als m6glich frei, daB der letzte Satz von V. 3 zum urspriinglichen Text geh6rt hhitte, lautend ,,and the hand of the Lord was upon me". So liest LXX; aber die Lesart ist falsch, weil, als sich fiir Ezechiel die Himmel auftaten und er g6ttliche Gesichtesah - so am Ende von V. 1die Hand Jahwes schon vorher iiber ihn gekommen sein muB. In der Erz~ihlung von V. 3 dagegen ist der Satz im Wortlaut von MT ganz am Platze, auch nachdem zu dessen Eingang schon gesagt worden ist, daB das Wort Jahwes an Ezechiel gelangte. 4 ,,No ground for suspecting accidental re-shaping of the text." 3

BUDDE: ZUMEINGANGDES BUCUES EZECHIEL

23

Der von Torreyfestgestelltetberarbeiter muB ein recht kluger, in schriftstellerischemVerfahrengeiibter und geschickterMann gewesen sein: das beweisenalle fernerenEingriffein seine Vorlage, die sein Entdeckerihm zuschreibt.Es ist darumvollig ausgeschlossen,daB er ein solchesTohuwabohusollte geschaffenhaben, wie die drei erstenVerse des Buches nach allgemeinemEinverstiindnisder Ausleger- Torreyselbst fiihrt dafiir auf S. 19 Kraetzschmarals Zeugenan - es darstellen. Kein verstiindiger Oberarbeiterkann die Erzaihlungim Ich des Propheten,die im erstenVerseeinsetzt und von V. 4 an das ganzeBuch beherrscht,S so sinnlosdurcheinige Siitzein der 3. Personunterbrochenhaben, durchden Vberwie das in V. 3, nach TorreysQuellenscheidung Ebenso dieselbeHand ist daB arbeiter,geschieht. unmoglich es, eines erfahrenenSchriftstellersdie 6rtlicheVerpflanzungdes Propheten unter die Verbanntenin Babylonienzweimaldicht hintereinandersollte eingefiigthaben, zuerst in V. 1 im Ich des Propheten, 1 112 ~241, dann in V. 3 in dem Er•12.D1If'Lff ~TW Die Bezeichnungdes LanEinschub, r5Y "• 1•) die " V. 3 f r'1I. des, tI~TD r•1M, nachtrligt,hditteer, der diese grundstiirzendeAnderungin demZustandssatz'~1 1XinV. 1 sogeschickt vollzogenhatte, doch ebendorthinter#h61 mit Leichtigkeitnoch einfiigenkdnnen.Der vorliegendeTatbestandsprichtvielmehr,solange derText unveriindertbleibt,mit Entschiedenheitdaffir,daf die beidenFassungender Ortsangabein V. 1 und V. 3 von verschiedenerHand stammen,daB also die beiden Schriftsteller,die an V. 1-3 beteiligt sind, Ezechielselbst, oderder ihn reden iif3t, und der, der ihn in der drittenPerson einfiihrt,sich iiberseinen Wohnsitzunter den Verbanntenin Babylonieneinig waren. Ebensounmdglichist TorreysAnnahme,daBdie zeitlicheUmschaltung,die den Prophetenaus dem ZeitalterKdnig Manasses in das babylonischeExil versetzensoll, in der Gestalt, die sie in V. 2 gewonnenhat, auf seinentiberarbeiterzuriickgehe.Nirgends liegt ja in unsrem Abschnitt der Tatbestanddes mechanischen Einschubsohne jede Riicksichtauf Sinn und Zusammenhangso auf der flachenHand wie hier. Ich verweiseauf den oben nach " p. 21: ,,the wholeprophecyis given in the first person!"

24

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Torrey wiedergegebenen englischen Wortlaut. Auf welches regierende Wort soll denn das Relativum which (hebriiisch1S4) zuriickgreifen, auf day oder month? Beides ist gleich sinnlos; es ist sonnenklar, da8 es hier iiberhaupt kein Beziehungswort hat, daB es vielmehr auf year (MIt~)zu Anfang von V. 1 zuriickgeht, und daB die

ebenvon daWorte ,,In thefifth day of the month(V't17 fD'it3n1)

her entnommen und hier ganz ohne Zusammenhang nur als custos eingehungt sind, um der Erliiuterung 2b ('1M184) ihre richtige Stelle im Zusammenhang anzuweisen. So verfiihrt kein denkender, zielbewuBter und entschlossener Schriftsteller wie Torreys Uberarbeiter gewesen sein mul3: geht diese Bestimmung des Berufungsjahrs unseres Propheten wirklich auf ihn zuriick, so muB hier eine dritte Hand noch neben ibm festgestellt werden. Er selbst mii/lte V.2b allein, von NANan, in V.1 hinter tW'mtin5wrn eingeschoben haben. So oder so wiire sein Zusatz dann aus dem Text verschwunden und etwa an den Rand geraten; ein Spiiterer hitte ihn wahllos, wo er Raum fand, mit jenem Stichwort, das ihm die richtige Stelle anwies, wieder in den Text eingeschoben. Das hatte Torrey uns lehren sollen, wenn er fiir seine Ldsung Glauben finden wollte. Die Kennzeichnung als amazingly audacious interruption, die Torrey selbst (S. 44) fiir 1, 2f. gibt, reicht fiir diesen Tatbestand entfernt nicht aus. Und ebensowenig fiir V. 3. Der Vers bringt ja neben jener Wiederholung der Ortsbestimmung auch Neues, und zwar Unentbehrliches, niimlich den Namen des Propheten und seines Vaters.6 Es ist einfach selbstverstiindlich, daB diese Angaben uns von einem anderen in der dritten Person des Propheten geboten werden, und dann erst Ezechiel selbst, ohne sich zu nennen, bloB mit seinem Ich das Wort ergreift. So finden wir's in Jer. 1 a gegenuiberV. 1-3, so in Jes. 6 1 gegeniiber 1 1, worauf jener Abschnitt 6 Ob die Amtsbezeichnung im Ezechiel selbst oder seinen Vater angeht, dariiber mag man streiten. Anders als Torrey muB ich das letztere fiir wahrscheinlichhalten, schon weil bei der unmittelbaren Folge des Wortes auf 4=I1 dieses Verstandnis oder MiifverstAndnisam n~ichsten liegt. Man darf dafiir auch noch anfiihren, daB das 'iV bDu']n in Jer. 1 1 doch sicherlich nicht auf Jeremia, sondern auf seinen Vater geht.

BUDDE: ZUMETNGANGDES BUCHESEZECHIEL

25

einst unmittelbar folgte. Dagegen diirfen diese grundlegenden Angaben des Propheten Rede durchaus nicht unterbrechen und auseinanderreiBen, sondern miissen ihr wie dort als Uberschrift vorausgehn. DaB hier in der Tat die t*berschrift des Buches ebenso mechanisch und gewalttiitig in den Text eingeschoben worden ist, wie der Nachtrag zu V. 1 in Gestalt von V. 2, diirfte zuerst ich, vor nun dreiBig Jahren, festgestellt haben.7 Ich zeigte ' zugleich, daB in dem 817 1IM1 ;777M, das den Vers eriffnet, der urspriingliche Anfang veriindert sein muf3, und berief mich fiir die Unsicherheit dieser Worte auf das bloBle l, das LXX statt MM '4M wiedergibt. Heute darf ich hinzufiigen, daB gerade die eingeschobene Zeitbestimmung V. 2 b diese Anderung herbeigefiihrt hat. Denn auf sie muBte durchaus ein Tatwort folgen, ,,zu der und der Zeit geschahdas und das", und der urspriingliche Eingang der einst dem Buche Ezechiel mit den 5N TMr1'Vi4N M11•"' I1-, Biichern Hosea, Joel, Micha, Zephanja, nach LXX auch Jeremia, gemein war, wurde deshalb ganz schonend, sogar unter Beibehaltung der Wortzahl, in die gegenwairtige auffallende Gestalt um7 The Expository Times, October1900, p. 39-43, vgl. dort insbesondere p. 41f. Ed. K6nig bestritt dann meinen Aufsatz in der Mai- und Septembernummer 1901, und die Nummern vom August und Oktober 1901 brachten dann noch zwei kleine BeitrAge von meiner Hand zur Widerlegung seiner Einwande. Ich konnte darin sein allmahliches Zuriickweichenfeststellen. Die einzige Erw~hnung dieser meiner BeitrAge zur Ezechiel-Frage.in der Literatur seit jener Zeit finde ich in Joh. HerrmannsKommentar von 1924: dort ist S. XXXVII der erste der drei in der ,,Literatur zu Ezechiel" aufgefiihrt. Im Kommentarwird nirgends daraufBezug genommen.Kein Wunder, daB Er6rterungen in einer so entlegenen, auBerhalbEnglands sicher wenig verbreitetenZeitschriftnicht zur Kenntnis derAuslegergelangten. Immerhin habe ich das Ergebnis, den dort von mir hergestellten Text von Kap. 1 1-3, in meiner ,,Althebraischen Literaturgeschichte" 1906 (S. 150, FuBnote 2) mit kurzer Begrfindung abgedruckt. Auch dessen habe ich nirgends eine Erwahnung gefunden. Man hat dieses Buch wohl nicht zu Rate gezogen, weil man nicht erwartete,in einem fiir einen gr6BerenLeserkreisbestimmten Werkeneue und brauchbareBeobachtungenzu finden. Mirgab diese ernsthafte Beschiftigung mit den hier vorliegenden Fragen vor alten Zeiten einen, wie ich meine, berechtigten AnlaB, heute das unbeachtet Gebliebene zur Geltung zu bringen.

26

OFBIBLICAL LITERATURE JOURNAL

gesetzt.8 Auch diese Umgestaltung des Textes, nur durch den mechanischen ZusammenschluB und die ebenso mechanische und gewaltsame Einschiebung der beiden am Rande stehenden Sitze herbeigefiihrt, kann man durchaus nicht dem denkenden und zielbewulten Uberarbeiter Torreys zuschreiben. Ich glaube vielmehr seine Hypothese wesentlich zu verbessern, wenn ich diesen Uberarbeiter V. 3 mit dem wiedergewonnenen Anfang 'I Af 1'11 als Utberschriftdem Buche vorausschicken, V. 2 b in V. 1 an 14 1_ Stelle hinter WTW1einfiigen lasse, sodal3 dann V. 1 der richtigen ,'717 in dieser neuen Gestalt und V. 4 sich als Rede des Propheten unmittelbar zusammenschlossen. Erst eine dritte, sehr unbefugte Hand hibtte dann durch die Einfiigung vom Rande her die uns iiberlieferte unertrigliche Verwirrung angestiftet. Damit wiire dann doch wohl etwas festgestellt, was man ein accidentalre-shaping nennen kinnte, wie Torrey das S. 18 durchaus in Abrede stellt. Aber auch in dieser verbesserten Gestalt und an seiner richtigen Stelle kann doch V. 3 nicht im ganzen Umfang das Werk des tVberarbeiters sein. Denn, wie oben schon erwihnt, bringt er aul3erder Angabe der Wohnstlitte des Propheten, die nach Torreys Beobachtung dem tberarbeiter gehdren mu13,doch mit dem Namen des Propheten und seines Vaters Dinge, die flir das Buch in jeder Gestalt unentbehrlich waren und die sich nirgendwo sonst wieders Soweit bringt Rothstein (Kautzsch4 1922, S. 873) die Losung der

Schwierigkeit, wenn er schreibt: ,,Vielleicht ist in V. 3a noch die urspriingliche tberschrift des Buches erhalten; sie lautete etwa: ,Das Wort Jahwes, das an Ezechiel, den Sohn B., d. Pr., erging im Lande der Ch. am Fl. K.' " Das war mein Ergebnis im Jahre 1900; ob R. es von mir iibernommen hat, IA3t sich nicht feststellen, da er seine Quelle des knappen Raumes wegen nicht zu nennen brauchte. Hat er die Beobachtung selbstiindig, also zum zweiten Male, gemacht, so ist das eine um so bessere Gewahr fiir ihr Zutreffen. Aber ich kann es nicht fiir richtig halten, daB3Torrey, dem Rothstein vorlag, auf p. 34 (vgl. auch p. 59) aus ihm nur den unmittelbar vorhergehenden Satz anfiihrt: ,,Hier hat eine fremde Hand in den Text eingegriffen; freilich ist nicht einzusehen, was sie dazu bewogen hat." Er hutte seinen Lesern nicht vorenthalten sollen, daB3R. eine klare Losung der Schwierigkeit vortrigt, abweichend von der seinigen. Solch unvollstAndiges und darum irrefiihrendes Zitat wird uns unten noch mehrmals begegnen.

BUDDE: ZUM EINGANGDES BUOGESEZECHIEL

27

finden. So wird die ihrer urspriinglichen Stelle wiedergegebene Uberschrift, ohne die Ortsangabe, wenn Torreys Beobachtung zutrifft, oder doch mit einer anderen Angabe an deren Statt, durchaus der ersten Gestalt des Buches zu belassen sein, sodaB von V. 3 nur die neue Ortsangabe dem Uiberarbeiter gehlren wiirde. Ich glaube damit in der Tat Torreys eigene Meinung zu treffen, wenn er auch S. 58 f. die Frage nur leise beriihrt und ihre Beantwortung eigentiimlich in der Schwebe lIBt, um so schnell wie m6glich zu Wichtigerem iiberzugehn. Denn welchen Grund der Uberarbeiter gehabt haben sollte, die von dem ersten Verfasser gebrachten Namen durch andere zu ersetzen, ist ja in keiner Weise abzusehen. Torreys Uberarbeiter verliert mit dieser Herstellung des urspriinglichenBucheingangs und der genaueren Festlegung seines eigenen Anteils daran nicht das geringste. Er wird nur von dem Vorwurf des rohen und tumultuarischen Verfahrens befreit, der ihm nach dem von Torrey S. 18 und S. 108 gebotenen Texte nicht erspart werden k*nnte. Es bleibt das Wichtigste und fiiglich das Entscheidende zu besprechen, eben das, was Torrey auf S. 59 von der aufgeworfenen Frage so schnell weitereilen lilt, nimlich die Zeitbestimmungen in V. 1 und 2b, und vor allem ihr Verhaltnis zueinander. Ganz klar ist ja die Bestimmung in 2 b, ,,das fiinfte Jahr der Gefangenfiihrung K6nig Jojachins", ein Ratsel dagegen, dessen Ljsung immer aufs neue und auf die verschiedenste Weise versucht worden ist, das ,,dreiBigste Jahr" von V. 1. Nach Torrey freilich (S. 63) ,,ist es gar kein Ratsel; was das Datum meint, ist handgreiflich und sicher. Das Jahr ist, wie gewihnlich, das des regierenden Monarchen, der in diesem Falle nur einer der letzten Kjnige von Juda sein kann." Und nun zeigt sich, daB es sich bloB um ein arithmetisches Exempel handelt. Unter den letzten K6nigen Judas regierte nur K6nig Manasse (692--639) lange genug, um dieses Datum und die sich weiter noch ergebenden Fortsetzungen (S. 61) zuzulassen: also kann es sich nur um das dreipigste Jahr Manasses handeln. ,,Wie gewdhnlich", sagt Torrey: denn der jiidische Studierende der auf die Entstehung des Buches folgenden Zeit sah, so meint er, auf den ersten Blick, daB nur das

28

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

dreiBigste Jahr K6nig Manasses gemeint sein konnte (S. 64, vgl. S. 17). Es mu13aufs entschiedenste bestritten werden, daB ,,das dreiBigste Jahr" ohne Zusatz das auszudriicken geniigt. Eine Zeitbestimmung ist nicht dazu da, ein Rechenexempel aufzugeben oder die Tiefe des Schulsacks des Lesenden zu priifen. Vielmehr miissen Zeitangaben in jedem Falle bestimmt und klar sein. Das Mindeste, was fiir solch liickenhafte Datierung vorausgesetzt werden miiBte, wiire, daB vorher schon von dem Regiment des betreffenden K6nigs erziihlt worden wi~re- auch das, namlich der Verlust eines Textabschnittes, der 1 1 vorausging, ist ja fiir das Buch Ezechiel schon angenommen worden -, aber selbst dann sollte es Torrey schwer fallen, ein Beispiel fiir solchen Gebrauch beizubringen.9 Hier, beim allerersten Anfang, ist ein so unvollstaindiges Datum ganz unm*glich. Hat der Verfasser wirklich die Berufung des Propheten Ezechiel im 30. Jahre K*nig Manasses erfolgen ~t lassen, so hat er ohne jeden Zweifel geschrieben16M PM'Wt1 1 M Niemand anders als Torreys Oberoder M1R7 arbeiter wird die Worte, die jetzt im Texte fehlen, gestrichen hal~_? .. ben; denn in keinem Falle konnte er eine Zeitangabe stehen lassen, die die seinige geradezu Liigen strafte. Damit wire freilich der Grundsatz, den Torrey ihm zuschreibt, ,,nothing, of course, was to be omitted" (S. 108), durchbrochen.10 Er kann es dabei aber nicht haben bewenden lassen. Auch eine unvollstiindige, so, wie sie uns iiberliefert ist, einfach sinnlose Angabe kann ein zielbewuBter tOberarbeiter,wie der, der hier am Werke war, neben der seinigen nicht geduldet, geschweige denn selbst geschaffen haben. Er muB vielmehr, wenn er die ,,dreiliig Jahre" beibehalten wollte, daraus eine sinnvolle Zeitangabe gestaltet haben, die sich mit seiner neuen vertrug, d. h. auf dasselbe Kalenderjahr heraus9 Man vergleiche etwa II. K6n. 18 1 mit 18 s1 oder 22 1 mit 22 s. 10 DaB die nAhereBestimmung verloren gegangen sein miil3te,gilt natiirlich fiir jeden anderen Versuch die Ara zu erkliren: so das 30ste der betreffenden Jobelperiode, das 30ste nach Josias Reform, das 30ste Jahr einer chaldiischen Ara, die mit der Thronbesteigung Nabopalassars ein. setzte (so heute noch Ed. K6nig), das 13te Jahr Nebukadnezars (so Rothstein unter Anderung der Zahl).

BUDDE: ZUJMEINGANG DES BUCHES EZECHIEL

29

kam. DaB er dies getan, beweist ja schon sein kluger Einschub ,,Dies war das fiinfte Jahr der GefangenfiihrungK*nig Jojachins". DaBIer dafiir eine neue Ara sollte aus dem Armel geschiittelt haben, deren dreiBigstes Jahr mit seinem fiinften zusammenfiel - wie man nach einer solchen Ara immer wieder mit der Diogeneslaterne gesucht hat - ist das Unwahrscheinlichste von der Welt. Am wahrscheinlichsten ist und bleibt, daB die dreiBig Jahre irgend einmal das Lebensalter des Propheten zur Zeit seiner Berufung bezeichnet haben, das sich natiirlich mit jedem beliebigen Kalenderjahr vertrug. Diese Annahme geht schon auf Origenes zuriick und ist seitdem sehr haiufig,und in verschiedenen Fassungen des hebraiischenAusdrucks dafiir, vertreten worden. Ich kann es doch nicht fiir richtig halten, daB Torrey dieser L*sung des Raitsels mit keinem Worte Erwiihnung tut, am wenigsten, daB er Kraetzschmar nur mit dem Ausdruck der Ratlosigkeit ihm gegenRibereinfiihrt (S. 19. 63), ohne hinzuzufiigen, daB er sich auf S. 5 zu dieser L-sung bekennt und dafiir verschiedene Herstellungen des Textes zur Verfiigung stellt." An ihn schloB ich mich in meinem Aufsatz von 1900 (vgl. auch Althebr. Literaturgesch. S. 150) an und brachte als leichtere Herstellung des Textes die Einfiigung eines hinter J~dnach Gen. 7 11 in Vorschlag. Heute glaube ich eine 4_4.noch viel leichtere Verbesserung und damit leichtere Erklairungder Verderbnis bieten zu kinnen, naimlichdie bloBe ndeentrung des letzten Buchstaben von •V0 aus M in 4, so daB steht: ,,im dreifligsten meiner Jahre". Fiir diesen Ausdruck .41 zur Bestimmung eines einzelnen Lebensjahres weiB ich freilich kein oder J111Vmit den entalttestamentliches Beispiel; aber da Pronominalsuffixen iiberaus •4•. haiufigfiir ,,Lebensjahre" sprechenden gebraucht werden,1 so liiBt sich die M*glichkeit und Richtigkeit dieses Gebrauchs, vor allem in gehobener Sprache, gar nicht bezweifeln. Je seltener er sein mochte, je niiher die falsche Aussprache lag, um so leichter begreift sich die gedankenlose n4.. Er erwiihnt Eichhorn mit 't't ' Guthe mit 'td '•V11IM und schlagtselbstvor 'td ~.~) 4 1- ...,, 11

31 11;S.j01r 61 7; 78 33;"1. 90 9, 10; 102 25, 28; Spr. 5 9; Vgl. Jes. 38 10, 15; Ps.'~. Hi. 10 5; 36 11, 26; Koh. 6 3; ferner 1t10 Spr. 10 27. yd . 12

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

30

derung in 71 9.13 DaB aber gerade unser Prophet sein Lebensalter bei der Berufungausdriicklichnannte, versteht sich bei keinem besserals bei ihm, der so oft von seinen pers-nlichenErfahrungen, seinen Stimmungen,seinemk6rperlichenBefindenberichtet. meinMit dieser Annahmeund solchen Herstellungsversuchen ten wir anderndenn den urspriinglichenText und damit Ezechiels eigene Aussagewiederzugewinnen.Wenn aber Torreymit Recht annimmt, daB hier von dem ersten Verfasserdes Buches das ,,dreiBigsteJahr KdnigManasses"genanntwar, so dient dieselbe Annahmeund Herstellungebensovortrefflichseinen Zwecken:es iat sich sicherkeineleichtereund sinnvollereUmgestaltungdieses von ihm vorgefundenenTextes, keine, die sich besser der neuen Zeitbestimmungdes t*berarbeitersanschmiegte,ersinnen. Dann ist er es, der das 'IV in den Text einfiihrte,und er ist unschuldig daran, daB ein gedankenloserAbschreiberes spiter in ;Mt verschlimmbesserteund damit das Eingangsratselunseres Buches schuf. Mit allem bisher Gewonnenenmeine ich nun die graphische Darstellungdes von dem UtberarbeitergeschaffenenTextes der ersten Verse des Buches, mit Unterscheidungseines Anteils von dem des ersten Verfassers,die ich oben nach Torrey selbst von S. 18 und 108 seines Buches bot, viel einleuchtenderund mit erheblichemVorteil auch fiir Torreys Hypothese folgendermaBen geben zu kdnnen: Das WortJahwes,das gelangtean Ezechiel,den Sohn Buzis, des

Priesters,im LandederChaldiier,amFlusseKebar,und es kam dort die Hand Jahwes iiber ihn: Nun geschahes in meinem

drei/figstenJahre ( ), im vierten, am fiinften des Monats

es

war das fiinfte JahrderGefangenfiihrung KiinigJojachin'sam den Flusse Kebar als ich unter Verbannten war, da tat der Himmelsich auf, und ich sah g6ttlicheGesichte. Ich sah namlich, wie ein Sturmwindaus Nordenkam,usw. Dies, bis auf die kleine Verbesserung,,in meinem" fiir ,,im 13

.W,

Anstol nimmt, mag bei der Ergginzungvon Wer dennoch an meinem Vorschlag von '.I 1900, bleiben.

DESBUCRES BUDDE: EZECHIEL ZUMK EINGANG

31

dreifigsten Jahre meines Lebens" und natiirlich ohne die erst von TorreyeingefiihrteUnterscheidungeines Uberarbeiters,der Wortlaut, wie ich ihn in meiner Abhandlungvon 1900 gewann und dann 1906 in meiner Literaturgeschichtemitteilte. DaB Torreynicht so weit ging, sonderndie Verwirrungund das chronologischeRiitsel unangetastethie3, darf man ihm nicht zum Vorwurf machen,weil ihm daranliegen mul3te,fiir seine L*sungder Ezechielfragemit den denkbargeringstenAnspriichenauszukommen und aufzutreten. Aberich gebe mich der Hoffnunghin, daB er sich weitererVerfolgungder Aufgabenicht entziehen,die Verderbnisseanerkennenund ebensooderin iihnlicherWeisebeseitigen zu entlasten. wird,um dadurchseinenUtberarbeiter Diese sehr einfache und leichte Herstellungdes Wortlauts, so gut wie im ganzen Umfang aus dem iiberliefertenBestande geschapft, beseitigt jede Schwierigkeitdes Bucheingangs,und sie darf gleiche Geltung beanspruchen,ob man nun den Ezechiel, den das Buch reden ia13t,als seinen Verfasseranerkennt,oder darindasPseudepigraph eineseinzigenSchriftstellersbeliebigspliterer Zeit erblickt, oder mit Torreydiesem noch einen anderen nachfolgenIil3t, der sein Werk von Grundaus iiberarbeitetund ihm derZeitund dem OrtenacheineganzandereStelleangewiesen hitte. Eben deshalb diirfte es doch auch am Platze sein, die Griinde,die Torreyfiir seine beiden Annahmenanfiihrt,in aller Kiirze einer Priifungzu unterwerfen.Das, was er ,,The original prophecy"nennt, erklairter mit grol3erBestimmtheit fiir ein Pseudepigraphaus der Zeit um 230 v. Chr. Das ganze damals entstandeneBuch, insbesonderedie Weissagungenin Kap. 1-39, ist nachihm ,,aufgebautauf den BerichtiiberManassesRegierung und deren Folgen, wie er in II. Kon. 21 2-16 geboten wird" (S. 64). Dort wird V. 10 von Propheten gesprochen, durch die Jahwe zu jener Zeit geredet habe: ,,ein Schriftsteller", sagt Torrey, ,,der" (in jener spaiten Zeit) ,,es darauf absah, sich vorstellig zu machen, was einer von diesen Propheten,der im dreil3igstenJahre Manasses

redete, miil3tegesagt haben, wiirdemit Notwendigkeitder Sache nach geschaffenhaben, was wir hier im Buche Ezechiel finden"

32

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

(S. 65). Ich mu8 das aufs entschiedenstebestreiten. Zwarnicht die MbglichkeitsolcherZielsetzungeines jiidischenSchriftgelehrten. Ich habe selbst vor einigenfiinfzigJahrendas Pseudepigraph sichvornahm,den Jer. 50. 51 darauserklart,daBeinSchriftgelehrter Wortlautder Weissagunggegen Babel, die nachJer. 51 60-64 der ReisemarschallSerajain JeremiasAuftragin denEuphratversenkt hatte, zur Stelle zu schaffen. Aber dort handeltees sich um eine einzelne Rede, deren Wortlautmit der Versenkungverlorengegangenwar, hier um einen Weissagungsinhalteiner MehrzahlungenannterPropheten,der in V. 11-15 wartlich angefiihrtwird, also keineswegsverlorenist. Und dort ergabsolche gelehrteStiliibung einen langweiligenCentoaus Lesefriichtenvon iiberallher; hier aber soll daraus ein ganzes, umfassendesBuch entstanden sein, von grolBerSelbstiindigkeit,maichtigem,eindrucksvollgegliedertemAufbauund Entfaltungungewohnlichreichergestaltender Phantasie. AnlaB3und Ergebnis stehn hier in kaum glaubhaftem Widerspruch.- Vor allem aber fehlt fiir TorreysVoraussetzung die Hauptsache,die GestaltManasses. Geradedarinbeda13das steht ja das eigenartigeGeprigedes Manasse-Abschnitts, Juda und Israel das insbesondere Uiber Gericht, furchtbare ganze gekommenwar,hier auf die Schuldeines einzigenManneszuriickgefiihrtwird; soweit Juda, das Volk, daranbeteiligtist, wird ausdriicklichund wiederholthervorgehoben,daB Manassesie verfiihrthat (V. 9. 16). WohlbringtdervielfachvermehrteAbschnitt auch einen Vers (15), in dem die SchuldIsraels,mit der es Jahwe gereizthabe, auf die ganze Zeit bis auf den Auszugaus Agypten zuriick erstrecktwird - man machte wohl sagen, da13hier ein ezechielischesMotiv einmal Eingang gefunden hiitte. Aber die Prophetenrede,die damit schlieft, setzt doch ebenfallsin V. 11 bei der Person KdnigManassesund der VerfiihrungJudas durch ihn ein und kiindigtnur dafiirdie Strafedes Untergangsan, auch V. 16 kehrt sofort wieder dazu zuriick,wie denn vollends 23 26 und 24 3f., die erstere Stelle im Gegensatzzu aller Gottwohlgefiilligkeit Josias, das Gericht einzig und allein auf Manasses Siindenzuriickfiihren.Es ist vallig klar, daBdas Geschlecht,das den UntergangJudas erlebte,sich mit dieser Abwailzungauf Ma-

BUDDE: DESBUCHES ZUMEINGANG EZECHIEL

33

nasse allein, der zwei Menschenaltervorher gelebt und regiert suchte. Selbst in das hatte, von eigener Schuld weil3zuwaschen Buch Jeremia(15 4) hat sich durcheine spiitereHand diese Entschuldigungeingeschmuggelt.Aber ihre Grundstellebleibt doch II. Kon. 21 2-16, auf die sich der erste ,,Ezechiel"aufbauensoll. In diesem aber findet sich nicht die geringsteSpur solcher Zuspitzung auf eine einzige Person. Es fehlt nicht nur der Name Manasse,nicht nur die Amtsbezeichnung,,Konig", es fehlt das Individuumals solches fir Anklagenund Drohungen. Auf S. 67 liaBtTorrey es sich nicht entgehn, unter Hinweis auf II, 21 16, die Strome unschuldigenBlutes, mit denen ManasseJerusalem anfiillte (vgl. auch II, 24 4), die zahlreichenAnklagenauf Blutvergielfenaufzufiihren,die sich bei Ezechielfinden. Aberwo bleibt da der schuldigeKiinig? liberall,,die blutigeStadt", gelegentlich einmal (36 18) ,,das Haus Israel", seine ,,Fiirsten" V 22 27), ,,Verleumder" 22 6), ,,ihre (der Stadt) Oberen" .t?. (t.. abernirgendseine Spurder (V. 9), ,,manin Jerusalem"(V. 12) - (r.lt' sich erklaren,wenn der fiir alles haftbarenEinzelperson.Das lia*Bt mit Jojachin fortgefiihrte Prophet das Buch geschrieben hat: er

brauchteden augenscheinlichwohlmeinenden,nur ohnmaichtigen letzten KJnig Zedekianicht als Schuldigennamhaft zu machen, sondernkonnte seine GroBenals verantwortlicheinfiihren. Schon bei einemFiilscher,der Jahrhundertespaiterden Prophetenunter ZedekiahMitte redenlassen,wire dies schwerbegreiflich;bei einem solchen aber, der sich die Aufgabe stellte, das Textbuch zu II. Kan.21 loff. zu schreiben,so daBEzechielunterManasseauftritt, ist es einfach unmoglich. -

Genau das gleiche gilt von den

Anklagenauf G*tzendienst- Torreyfiihrt zuniichstunbestimmtere Erwsihnungen an (6 4, 6; 18 6; 33 25), um dann bei 8 5ff. zu verweilen und noch auf 5 11zu verweisen. Auch da keine Spur des schuldigen Kjnigs von II 21 5 und 23 12, der den Tempel

durch 6ffentlichen G*tzendienstentweihte. Da sind's vielmehr Miannerund Weiber, ein vornehmerMann mit Namen genannt unter 70 Xltesten (8 11);aber was sie tun, geschiehtaugenscheinlich im geheimen und soll Geheimnisbleiben. Das ist nicht Manasses frecherG(itzendienst,zu dem er nach II. K6n. sein Volk 3

34

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

verfiihrte. Zweimal (S. 56, 66) fiihrt Torrey mich als Zeugen dafiir an, daB dergleichen nach Josias Reform nicht mehr mdglich war, mit dem Satze: ,,The open profanationof the templewas doubtless no longer tolerated."'4 Aber, genau so wie das oben gegeniiber Kraetzschmar und Rothstein nachgewiesen wurde, vergiBt er auch hier, die Fortsetzung zu erwahnen, daB ich na*mlich unmittelbar auf diesen Satz folgen lasse, wie nach Josias friihem Tode, unter Jojakim und Zedekia, allerlei kultische MiI3briuche wieder werden eingerissen sein, vor allem ausgebreiteter Hohendienst, aber auch schwere Verfehlungen, wie die in Ez. 8 aufgefiihrten. Das ist noch heute meine Vberzeugung, und ich halte dies fiir eine weit organischere und zutreffendere Anschauung von der religiaisen Entwicklung in Juda nach Josias Tode, als das felsenfeste Vertrauen auf den unbedingten Erfolg der Reform Josias, mit dem Torrey in Kap. III seine Manasse-Hypothese zu stiitzen sucht. - Ich brauche alle diese Bedenken nicht weiter zu verfolgen. Will Torrey seine These von der Schilderung der Zeit Manasses im urspriinglichen Buche Ezechiel aufrechterhalten, so mu13er den tberarbeiter nicht nur, wie er tut, allerlei hinzufiigen, sondern noch viel mehr streichen oder wesentlich umgestalten lassen; aber der Versuch, seine Vorlage in diesem Sinne einigermal3en herzustellen, diirfte sich als ein hoffnungsloses Unterfangen erweisen. Man darf im Gegenteil behaupten, da13sich das Buch Ezechiel nicht gegen Manasses Siinde und Schuld als solche richtet, sondern gegen den verhaingnisvollen Irrtum, wie er sich in II. Kan. 21 11, I ; 23 26; 24 4 (Jer. 15 4), vgl. auch Thr. 5 1, kundtut: daB man nicht um der eigenen Siinde willen leide, sondern fiir die eines lingst dahingegangenen Geschlechtes und Hauptsiinders bestraft worden sei. Das beweist vor allem die Verponung des irgerlichen Volkssprichworts ,,Die Vaiter aBen Herlinge, und den Sohnen wurden die Zdhne stumpf" in 18 s - vgl. Jer. 31 29f. - und die ganze, mit hlichstem Nachdruck vorgetragene Vergeltungslehre in Kap. 18 nebst der Wiederholung 33 to-2o; aber das gesamte Buch geht darauf aus, die unmittelbare Gegenwart fir das sicher bevorstehende Gericht 14 K. Budde, The religion of Israel to the exile, New York 1899, p. 183.

BUDDE: ZUMEINGANG DESBUCHES EZECHIEL

35

haftbarzu machen. Das ist EzechielsTheodizee,und sie ist erst Abstand von Mamoglichund notwendig,nachdemein 15ingerer nasse jene Selbstentschuldigungunter Anklage des richtenden Gotteshat aufkommenlassen. darf nicht unNoch eine Erschwerungder Manasse-Hypothese erwiihntgelassenwerden. TorreyliBt seinen Ur-Ezechielum 230 geschriebensein, in eben der Zeit, die von der neuen Geschichtsanschauungdes Chronistenbeherrschtwird. GeradeTorreylegt dieser ein so groBesGewichtbei, nimmt fiir sie groBen,geradezu umwilzendenErfolg in Anspruchund schafft immer neue Hilfskraiftefir sie zur Stelle, so auch den uns iiberlieferten,,PseudoEzechiel". Fiir die Chronikaberist Manassegeradezudas Muster und belohnterBuBe,er gottwohlgefiilliger, gnsidigaufgenommener wird II. Chr.33 23 sogar zum unbefolgtenVorbildseines Sohnes Amon, wie sonst David im Kdnigsbuche.Es ist doch schwerbegreiflich, daB der Verfasserdes ,,Pseudo-Ezekiel" just in dieser Zeit ein Buchsolltegeschaffenhaben,das auf derschroffentgegengesetzten Anschauungberuhte und sich aufbaute, daB er, wie withthe new Torreydas S. 106 feststellt, ,,was eitherunacquainted or else no in the Golah interest it", da er felt Babylonian theoryof in von Verbannten keinerlei Erwiihnung Babylonien bringe ihm abwohlgemerkt,nachdemTorreyalle solche Erwaihnungen und dem verstehe hat. Ich zugeteilt gesprochen Uberarbeiter nicht, wie Torreyam SchluBdieses Abschnittssagen kann, wenn jenerum 230 geschriebenhabe, so sei es nicht verwunderlich,daB er von der neuen Rekonstruktionder jiidischen Geschichteunberiihrtgebliebensei. Allesin allemgenommenfiirchteich, daBTorreysich durchdie scheinbaruntriiglicheL5sungdes Rechenexempelsder Ziffer30 in 1 1 mit der RegierungKdnigManasseshat verleitenlassen, viele die dieserLdsungim Wege stehn, bei weitem zu Schwierigkeiten, geringanzuschlagenoderganz zu iibersehen. Ich glaube, daB er auch anderswoaus vorliegendenAussagen der Uberlieferungviel zu viel und zu sicher geschlossenhat, und damit komme ich auf die Frage der behauptetenAbfassungszeit des Buches. Aus der bekanntenBaraithaBaba Bathra14 b. 15a, 3*

36

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

die die Frage beantwortet, wer die heiligen Biicher geschrieben habe, und Ezechiel von den ,,Minnern der GroBen Synagoge (Versammlung)" geschrieben sein l1fit, leitet Torrey als sicheren Schluf3 ab, da1 die Autoritaten, die die jiidische Uberlieferung zu hiiten

hatten, wupten,dafpdas Buch nicht von dem Propheten,Ezechiel' war" (S. 21), und er der BabylonischenGe/angenscha/t geschrieben schliel3t den Abschnitt mit dem Ausspruch: ,,Die ilteste jiidische Uberlieferung erkennt keinen babylonischen Propheten Ezechiel an" (S. 23). Denn warum hitten sie sich sonst weigern sollen zu sagen, da3 ,,Ezechiel sein Buch schrieb"? (S. 21). Die Aussage, daB ,,Die Mainnerder GroBen Synagoge" es geschrieben haitten, sieht er augenscheinlich als genau iibereinstimmend mit seinem eigenen Ergebnis, um 230 v. Chr. an (S. 21).15 Ich glaube doch, Torrey huitte genauer auf die Bedeutung der ,,Mainnerder GroBen Synagoge" und den Sinn ihres Schreibens an jener Stelle eingehn sollen. Seit Kuenens Aufsatz iiber diesen Gegenstandl6 kann man dariiber doch nicht mehr verschiedener Meinung sein, und Torreys Andeutung in der Fulfnote S. 19f. tut der Sache durchaus nicht Geniige. Wohl hat sich in der jiidischen tberlieferung von dieser Versammlung eine fast mythische Vorstellung ausgebildet, nach der man sie lange Zeit waihrenlie13und fiir jederlei Bedarf in Anspruch nahm und verantwortlich machte.'7 Aber wo es sich um die Abfassung der kanonischen Biicher und den AbschluB des Kanons handelt, bleibt es unweigerlich bei der ersten Bedeutung der ,,Grol3enVersammlung", der Versammlung niimlich, die nach dem Berichte Neh. 8-10 zu Jerusalem unter Esras Vorsitz stattfand, nach unserer Zeitrechnung im Jahre 444 v. Chr. Dessen sind 15

Vgl. auch S. 19 letzte Zeilen ,,somewherenear the middle of the third century B. C.". Is Vgl. die Vtbersetzung des entlegenen hollandischen Originals in K. Budde, GesammelteAbhandlungenzur Biblischen Wissenschaft von Dr. AbrahamKuenen, 1894, S. 125-160. 17 Vgl. daffir K. Budde, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments,1900, S. 21f., wie denn dieses Biichlein fiber alle hier in Betracht kommenden Fragen am leichtesten Auskunft geben diirfte. Es stellt eine etwas weitere Ausfiihrung meines Artikels ,,Canon of the Old Testament"in T. K. Cheynes Encyclopaedia Biblica dar, so daB man alle Hauptsachen auch dort findet.

DES BUCHESEZECUIEL BUDDE:ZUMEINGANG

37

wir darum ganz sicher, weil nach jiidischer Lehre nur 1•N lV, ,,bis dahin", d. h. bis auf Esra, die prophetische Zeit reicht, in der der Geist Gottes zu den Menschen redete und Heilige Schrift offenbarte. Nichts, was ,,vonda an und weiterhin", Ben Sira und ihnliche", konnte deshalb verfal3t war, ,,Biicher wie .JB1) 1N.ID, in den Kanon aufgenommen werden. Von diesen Miinnern der Gro8en Versammlung also, zu dieser Zeit, sind nach Baba Bathra 14 b. 15 a geschrieben die Biicher: ,,Ezechiel und die Zwilf, Daniel und die Estherrolle." Von den Zw6lf Propheten sagt Torrey S. 19, es sei damit ,,natiirlich zum Teil die Redaktion des ,Buches' gemeint, und die habe in der Tat irgendwann in der Niihe der Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. stattgefunden". Das ist eine durchaus irrige Deutung dessen, was jene Aussage meint. Die Frage lautet: ,,Wer hat sie (die Biicher) geschrieben?", und damit ist ihre schriftliche Niedersetzung als Bestandteile des Kanons der Heiligen Schrift gemeint. ,,Die Zwblf" bilden nur ein einziges Buch, miissen deshalb von einer Hand, bzw. gleichen Hinden, also zu gleicher Zeit geschrieben sein. Nun gehSirenvon den ,,Zw6lf" die drei, die zuletzt gelebt und gewirkt haben, Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (samt Serubbabel und Josua), nach der ttberlieferung zu den Miinnernder GroBenVersammlung; also kann das Buch nicht friiher geschrieben sein. So miissen ein Amos und Hosea z. B. es sich gefallen lassen, daB ihre Anteile an dem Buche erst 300 Jahre nach ihren Lebzeiten niedergeschrieben wurden. Das macht far die Anschauung unserer Baraitha gar keine Schwierigkeit. Amos und Hosea haben zu ihrer Zeit Gottes Wort geredet;aber die Heilige Schrift ist von Gottes Geist diktiert, und der kann sein Diktat zu jeder Zeit und einer jeden wiirdigen Hand erteilen. Hat doch nach der volkstiimlichen tUberlieferungin IV. Esra Kap. 14 Esra allein mit fiinf Genossen, nachdem die Heiligen Schriften im Brande Jerusalems mit untergegangen waren, die si5mtlichen 24 auf sein Gebet hin in 40 Tagen und Nichten neu diktiert bekommen. - Aber warum darf Ezechiel sein Buch nicht selber schreiben? Um diese Frage richtig zu beantworten, hitte Torrey das Seitenstiick der Aussage fiber Jesaja, die er S. 19 ebenfalls streift, doch scharfer priifen und richtiger deuten sollen, als er es dort in

38

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

ganz freier Umschreibungtut. DaB dort ,,Jesaja als zusammengesetzt anerkannt,als Ganzes aber der Zeit K6nig Hiskias zugewiesen"sei, davon kann ja gar nicht die Rede sein. Die Stelle hinterder Aussagefiber heiBt einfach - und merkwiirdigerweise Jeremia, trotz des hliherenAlters Jesajas -: ,,Hiskia und sein Kollegiumschrieben'8Jesaja, die Spriiche,das Hoheliedund den Prediger". Hiskias Kollegiumist natfirlicheinfach aus Spr.25 1 geschipft, wo den ,,MainnernHiskias" die Zusammenstellung ) der SpruchsammlungSpr.25-29 zugeschriebenwird. (P.~t~ selbst ist dessenMitgliedernals der, der sie beauftragthat, Hiskia zugesellt. Aus derMehrzahl,die sich so ergibt,folgt entferntnicht, was Torreydarauszu schlielfenscheint, daBdamit ffir eine Mehrzahl von Teilendes als zusammengesetztanerkanntenBuches Jesaja verschiedeneVerfasseroder Schreiberzur Stelle geschafft wiirden: soil Gleichesetwa auch fiir Hohesliedund Predigerbehauptet werden? Und auch eines Raschi Erkliirung,daBdie Propflegten, pheten ihre Biicher erst ganz zuletzt niederzuschreiben Jesaja aber durch seine Hinrichtungauf ManassesBefehl daran verhindertwordensei, ist nur eineVerlegenheitsausrede. Vielmehr war, wer immer jene Baraitha schrieb,so seelenfroh,einmal ein schriftgelehrtesKollegiumbezeugt zu finden, daB er nicht nur, statt bloBeines Abschnittes,das gesamteBuch der Spriiche,dazu auch die iibrigenBiicherdes nicht eben gut angeschriebenenK6nigs Salomovon ihnen schreibenlieB, sondernauch das Buch des ihnen zeitgen6ssischenProphetenJesaja. Handelte es sich doch nur um den auctorsecundarius,um den menschlichenSchreiber, gegeniiberdem primarius,dem Geiste Gottes, der den Propheten hatte redenmachenund ihn nun entlastete,indemer seine Reden den berufenenFachleutendiktierte. Aus diesem unanfechtbaren Seitenstiick will auch die Entscheidungfiir Ezechiel beurteilt und erkliirtsein. Auch fiir ihn darf man dafiir, daB sein Buch den ,,Minnern der Grol3enVersammlung"zugeteilt wird, auf RaschisErkliirung,das geschehe,weilEzechielin der Verbannung, auBerhalbdes Heiligen Landes, lebte und wirkte, ruhigverzich-

18 In

Itlin

Il ysol

sorsim.

DESBUCUES BUDDE: ZUMEINGANG EZECHIEL

39

ten.19 Auch hier entscheideteinfach, daB ausnahmsweise,zum zweiten Male, darumunmittelbarhinter dem des Hiskia aufgefiihrt, ein schriftgelehrtes Kollegium fiir ihn zur Verfiigung stand. Dem scheint zu widersprechen,daB die ,,GroBeVersammlung"444

tagte, Ezechielsletzte Weissagungenaber nach den iiberlieferten Zeitangabennur bis gegen 570 reichenund er, wenn er 593 dreiBig Jahre alt war, im iiberliefertenJahre der Heimkehr538 bereits ein Greisvon fiinfundachtzigJahren miil3tegewesensein. Aber das reicht ja auch vollkommen aus. Man erinnere sich, daB Serubbabelund Josua, die Helden dieser Heimkehr,da3 Haggai und Sacharja,die ProphetendieserZeit, der jiidischenOberlieferung neben Esra und Nehemiazu den ,,Minnernder GroBenVersammlung"gehliren. Hat doch die jiidischeZeitrechnungvon der Zeit der Perserherrschaftvolle anderthalbJahrhundertespurlos vergessen,20so daB nur 52 Jahre dafiir iibrig bleiben, und ihr Cyrus, Esra und Nehemia, Alexanderder Grole ganz nahe zuder GroBenSynsammenriicken.DaB da Ezechielden ,,Mainnern wie agoge"zufiallt, Jesaja ,,Hiskiaund seinemKollegium",ist das Natiirlichstevon der Welt. In jener Baraithaaber, die Samuel ,,sein Buch"schreiben15i8t,obgleichdarinsein Tod berichtetwird und er schonvor dem Ende der erstenHailfte,,seinesBuches"dem K6nig Saul als Totengeisterscheint,treue geschichtlicheErinnerung zu suchen, heilt sicherlichTraubenvon den Dornen lesen wollen.21

Auch die nach G. F. Moore(Judaism I, 300) auf S. 16f. angezogene Bestimmung, nach der Ez. 1 von der Verlesung in der Synagoge ausgeschlossen wird, hat sicherlich mit der Zeitbestimmung in 1 1-3 und einem sicheren Wissen um die wirkliche Abfassungszeit des Buches, worauf Torrey sie bezieht, nicht das ge-

ringstezu schaffen,sondernwirdrichtigvon Moorea. a. 0. durch die merkabaherkliirt,,,verbotenwegendes Gebrauchs,der davon 19 In meinem,,Kanon"(S. 27) lief ich es z6gernddabeibewenden, weil ich die richtigeErklarungnoch nicht gefundenhatte.

20

Vgl. dafiir meinen ,,Kanon" S. 22f., 32, 40f., 51.

21Mansollte doch auch nicht vergessen,daBes sich um eine Mischna extracanonemhandelt,der keinerleiAutoritit beiwohnt.

40

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

in theosophischenSpekulationengemachtwurde". Das wird erst recht bewiesen durch die (ebenfallsS. 16) angefiihrteStelle aus des HieronymusEpistolaad Paulinum, wonach den Anfang und das Ende des Buches Ezechiel zu lesen erst vom vollendeten dreiligsten Jahre an erlaubt war. Denn das Ende des Buches gibt keine verraterischeZeitbestimmung.Auch die leise Anfechtung der kanonischenGeltung des Buches auf der Synode zu Jamnia22hat es doch zweifellosmit sachlichenAnst8l8enzu tun, und Torreyhaittewohl die hiibscheErziihlungvon deren Vberwindung etwas weniger verilchtlichbehandelndiirfen, als er es S. 15 (vgl. auch S. 21) tut. Die von der nachexilischenWirklichkeit so weit abweichendeBeschreibungdes Heiligtumsund seines des h6chDienstesin Kap. 40--48 und die der Erscheinungsweise sten Gottes in den ersten Kapiteln gaben zu ausreichendenBedenkenAnla3; daBman abervon vornhereinentschlossenwar, sie aus dem Wege zu raiumen,ist ebensoklar. Ich kann schnell zum AbschluBeilen; denn es ist nicht meine Absicht, die Frage der Echtheit oder Unechtheit des Buches als solchehier aufzurollen.Immerhinist es doch nur eine Annahme, ftr die eigentlicheBeweisefehlen,daBes sich, wie Torrey(S. 102) es darstellt,bei dem Bruch zwischenJuden und Samaritanernin der Zeit zwischenAlexanderdem GroBenund JohannesHyrkanus um ,,ein Ringen auf Leben und Tod" gehandelthabe. Und daB, wie wenn das richtig waire,ein literarischerFailschungsfeldzug, einer einer die ihn Gola, voraussetzt, umfangSchapfung Torrey reichen GemeinschaftbabylonischerVerbannter,die es nie gegeben, die Erfindungeiner doppeltenHeimkehr,deren es nie bedurft hitte, die Haufungeiner ganzenpseudepigraphenLiteratur nebst geschickter7Uberarbeitung schon vorhandenerBiicher wie Deutero-Jesajaund der Ur-Ezechiel,die InterpolationJeremias 22 Moore (Judaism I, p. 247) will hier den Kunstausdruck ganaz nur von der Zuriickziehungaus dem 6ffentlichen Gebrauch, entsprechend den oben behandelten Stellen, verstehn; aber die Art der tberwindung der Schwierigkeit scheint mir doch fiir eine Anfechtung der Kanonizitait zu sprechen. Vgl. meine eingehende Behandlung ,,Kanon" S. 64ff.

ZUMEINGANG DESBUCIESEZEOHIEL BUDDE:

39

uws. - daB ein solcher literarischer Feldzug hitte gliicken und die ,,t6dliche Waffe" des Gegners hitte iiberwinden sollen, das zu glauben halt doch auch recht schwer. Am stirksten scheint mir Torreys Beweisfiihrung da, wo er mit dem haufigen Ortswechsel des Propheten in unserm iiberlieferten Text, und wo er mit dessen Sprachgestalt arbeitet. Aber, was den ersteren angeht, so scheint mir doch auch bei einer einheitlichen Erfindung, die den Propheten von Anfang an unter der Gola wohnen und wirken liel3e, eine gewisse Ungeschicklichkeit in den Ortsanweisungen sehr begreiflich, weil der Prophet vom fernen Babylonien her es bis zum Fall Jerusalems doch ganz wesentlich mit dessen Einwohnern zu tun hatte. Und offen bleibt mir daneben die Frage, ob das nicht auch fiir einen echten Ezechiel, angesichts vor allem des hohen Fluges seiner Einbildungskraft, in Geltung bleiben wiirde. Und den Schliissen aus der Sprache des Buches wird man immerhin entgegenhalten diirfen, dai3 wir aus der Zeit, der Torrey das Buch zuweist, und noch tiefer hinab, auch schriftstellerische Erzeugnisse genug in weit besserer und reinerer Sprache besitzen, wihrend anderseits das Wohnen in Babylonien fiir vieles aufkommen mag, was bei Ezechiel libel auffijllt. Daneben darf die schlechte Uberlieferung des Textes doch auch nicht vergessen werden, ebensowenig wie die M6glichkeit von allerlei Uberarbeitungen und Vermehrungen. Aber, wie schon gesagt, die Entscheidung zwischen wesentlicher Echtheit und einem hervorragendenMeisterstiick schriftstellerischerErfindung machte ich hier durchaus offen lassen. Nur mit der positiven L*sung des Ratsels, die Torrey darbietet, der wesentlich aus den Zeitangaben in 1 1-3 erschlossenen Doppelgestalt und doppelten Abzielung, hatte ich es hier zu tun. DaB Torrey diese bewiesen habe, muBlich bestreiten und glaube nicht, daB es ihm gelingen wird, sie zur Geltung zu bringen.

Erastus of Corinth Author(s): Henry J. Cadbury Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 42-58 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259559 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

40

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

ERASTUS OF CORINTH HENRY J. CADBURY BRYN MAWR COLLEGE

year at the meetingof the Society of BiblicalLiterature

LAST I called attention to a recently discoveredinscriptionwhich

containeda rare New Testamentword.' The object of this note is to bringto the notice of Biblicalscholarsan inscriptionwhichmay refer to a New Testamentcharacter.Thoughthe inscriptionwas found on April15, 1929,and has beennoticedin somearchaeological reviews,it has not so farI believebeenpresentedto the theological readingpublic.2 The inscriptionwas found by membersof the AmericanSchool expeditionat Corinthnearthe recentlyuncoveredtheatrewherea street to the northeastentersa square.A longpavingblockof limestone was cut for letters presumablyof bronze. In some cases the lead intendedto hold the letters in place can still be seen. The stone is nearly71/ /feet long, originallyperhapsa little longer,but 1 See

Zeitschrift fifr die N. T. Wissenschaft,xxix. (1930) pp. 60ff.

"eEarplCcaNo Longer a N. T. Hapax Legomenon." 2 The fullest discussion is "Erastus, Oikonoom van Korinthe en Vriend

van St. Paulus" (with plate) by Dr. F. J. de Waele in Mededeelingenvan het Historisch Instituut te Bome ix. (1929) pp. 40--88. See also Nederlandsc7h A. M. Woodwardin The Year's Workin ClassicalStudies, 1928--1929, p. 110 and in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xlix. (1929) p. 221. T. L. Shear, The LondonIllustratedNews, clxxv. (Aug. 17, 1929) p. 286 and "Excavations in the Theatre District and Tombs of Corinthin 1929" (with plate) in American Journal of Archaeology,xxxiii. (1919) pp. 525f. S. R[einach] notices de Waele in RevueArcheologique,xxxi. (1930) pp. 194f. The latest discussion to come to my attention is by A. G. Roos in Mnemosyne,Iviii. (1930) pp. 160--165.

CADBURY:ERASTUS OF CORINTH

43

the letters3in two lines are all clearlypreserved.The inscription reads as follows: ERASTVS PRO . AED ? S.- P. STRAVIT

I spoke of this as a possiblereferenceto a NewTestamentcharacter. It was so hailedby its discoverers.I emphasizethe purely conjecturalnature of the identificationsinceit is inevitable that conjecturesare soontaken as certainties,what is first calledpossible is calledprobable,and I do not wish to be responsiblefor such unjustifiedassumption.Merecuriosity and interest in the Bible stories,quite apart from the apologeticdesiresthat so oftengrasp at the vaguest archaeologicalcontact as verificationof scripture, make onlytoo easya translationof merehypothesisinto the assured commonplacesof the popular commentary.One recallshow Justin Martyrthoughtan inscriptionon the Tiberat Rome, since recovered,to the Sabinegod SEMONISANCOwas evidencethat the SamaritanSimon Maguswas worshippedin Rome and how this false identification was repeated by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyrilof Jerusalem,Epiphanius,Theodoretand others.4It is best to set forthwhatat presentseemto be the availablefacts aboutthe Biblical and the epigraphicalErastus and to leave to others to decide how much or how little probabilitythere is that they are the same.Thisinvolvesa comparisonin the fourpoints - of name, date, place, and station. ThenameErastus5appearsthreetimesin the New Testament,- The letters are between six and seven inches high. 4 The references are CIL VI. 567 (found in 1574 A. D.); Justin, Apology xxvi. 2 (quoted with approval in Eusebius, H. E. ii. 13, 3), Ivi 2; Irenaeus, HIaer.i. 23 ? 1; Tertullian, Apologeticu813; Clem. Recogn.ii. 9; Augustine, De haer. 1; Cyril,Catech.vi. 14; Epiphanius, Adv. haeres.21; Theodoret, Fab. haeret. I. 1. The silence of Hippolytus (Philosoph. vi. 15) on this point is striking. 5 The fullest discussion of the Erastus in the New Testament that I know is in Franz X. P1lzl, Die Mitarbeiterdes WeltapostelsPaulus, Regensburg, 1911, chap. xxxii. pp. 263-269. The English books on the like subject by

44

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

in Romans, 2 Timothy and in Acts. The fullest and most secure testimony is that of Romans. It contains the sentence (16 23) ,, "Epaa-ro! 0 oIKovoiuop 7rrdJ'eoW cKalKovapa~abrde'rat o eX/do. The authorship of the passage is unquestioned. rTos It is a genuine writing of Paul. The uncertainty affects rather the addressees (b5cyi),since a widespread and quite plausible theory regards this chapter not as part of a letter to Rome but as a separate letter introducing Phoebe of Cenchreae and addressed to Ephesus. A second passage is in 2 Timothy 4 20"Epaaro E'veve, E, The auTpdo'#LovSe'a'rXeL'Nov dv MLX'ITrwo-Oevoi^r•'a. Kopiv0•p, thorship of the Pastorals is of course an open question. If they are genuine this passage must be assigned to Paul though at a date later than his other extant letters and than the events of his life narrated in Acts. Even if the Pastoral Epistles are not as they stand genuine they may have some genuine parts among which this section of 2 Timothy has an excellent claim to be included. The third passage is Acts 19 21f. In the midst of the historian's account of Paul's stay in Ephesus, apparently after two years of it but before the episode stirred up by the silversmiths, we read that Paul intending himself to go into Macedonia and Achaia, "sending into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus (io -rwv JicKOvoYvTWv a aTWar, TLfO'deovKal"Epao-rov), remained himself for a time in Asia." It is obvious that we have before us not merely the problem of identification between one Erastus in the New Testament and one on an inscription. The identity of the three Erasti in the New Testament references is not certain and must not be finally assumed. Here again Christian tradition has always had its own special tendency. In such instances it identifies all persons of the same name if possible. Certainly it is possible to regard the Erastus as referred to these three times as the same person. He is in each case a friend of Paul, in each case he is an associate of Timothy also. At least he is spoken of to Timothy in the letter that bears the J. S. Howson (1871), A. C. Deane (1907), E. B. Redlich (1913), H. S. Seekings (1914), add nothing on Erastus.

CADBURY: ERASTUS OF CORINTH

45

latter's name, his greeting in Romans follows one from Timothy, while in Acts he and Timothy are sent on a joint mission. This mission follows work at Ephesus and starts from Ephesus. The two references in the Pauline letters also may bring Erastus into connection with Ephesus. That his greeting in Romans was being sent to Ephesian Christians has already been suggested. 2 Timothy traditionally was addressed to Ephesus and if it is to be taken as a whole it is no doubt easiest to regard Ephesus as its destination. If on the other hand it be regarded as including genuine fragments there is perhaps fully as good reason for thinking that its immediate context points to Ephesus. It greets for example as does Romans 16 the Christian couple Prisca and Aquila. But Corinth as well as Ephesus seems to be associated each time with the Biblical Erastus. 2 Timothy, whatever uncertainty we may otherwise feel about it, says explicitly: "Erastus remained in Corinth." Romans 16 when accepted in its present context is best regarded as part of a letter written from Corinth. Paul seems to be about to sail for Palestine with the collection contributed in Macedonia and Achaia. If Romans 16 is a separate letter it also is best understood as written in Achaia. The lady it introduces is Phoebe of Cenchreae,the harbor city of Corinth. And Erastus the olkrov/F0or of the city is usually accepted as an office holder in Corinth itself. Acts alone does not bring Erastus to Corinth, but it says that he was sent to Macedonia, and it is altogether likely that he either went by way of Corinth or else reaching Macedonia first came on later to Corinth. The latter was the intended route of Paul himself. And it would seem likely that at least Timothy was expected to go to Corinth. Such an expectation is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4 17; 16 to and these passages are usually brought into connection with Acts 19 22.6 We are now perhaps ready to bring into comparison with the Erastus or Erasti of the New Testament the Erastus of the inscription. The date of the New Testament references is pretty definitely 6

See K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 1911, pp. 134f.; G. S. Duncan, St. Paul's Ephesian Ministry, 1930, pp. 79f., 192, et al. On the other side T. Zahn, Introductionto N. T. (Eng. trans. 1909) ii. p. 14f.

46

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

fixed. Paul's first visit to Corinthand the foundingof the church there occurred,as the Delphiinscriptionabout Galliomakes plain, in the early fifties of the first century.The book of Acts mentions also a later visit whichmust be still within the same decade.This later visit is the occasionto whichRomansis usuallyreferredand with it the mention of Erastus the of'Kovdo~Aof the city. Between these two visits occurredalso the sendingof Erastusand Timothy from Ephesusinto Europementionedin Acts as well as a visit or visits of Paul to Corinthimpliedin the epistlesbut unmentionedin Acts. It is of coursepossiblethat the referencesto Erastusboth in Romansand in 2 Timothy belong to this interval,-if we regard the referencesin these two letters as fragmentsof epistles now woven into new contexts. All three New Testamentreferencescan thus be put within the sixth decade.Even if the PastoralEpistles be acceptedas wholly genuinethey can be dated at latest in the next decade,and still within the reignof Nero. The date of the inscriptionis less easily fixed. The formsof the letters are the principalclue, but a clue that is quite subjective. Few personsare qualifiedto expressa judgmenton this point. The first publishersof the inscriptioninclinedto date it in the second half of the first century. Otherswho have examinedit think the letters point to a later date. A terminusad quemseems to be fixed by the fact that the stone has been moved and was used in the repairingof the pavementwhichtook place about the middleof the second century. The original inscriptionis thereforeolder than that, but whetherone generationolder or more cannot be determined. There can be little doubt as to the like local connectionof the of the city Biblicaland epigraphicpersons.Erastusthe o'Kcovo'ugo reTestament and the other New almost certainlymeans Corinth have ferencesare compatiblewith Corinthianassociations,as we alreadysaid.Whilethe inscriptionis not nowexactlyin situ, there is no doubt that it also refersto a Corinthian. The rank and station of the Erastus mentionedshould also be compared.TheErastusof Romansis called0 -rT o,'iov'opuo' 7trokew9. Though various other alternativeshave been proposedthis was

CADBURY: ERASTUS OF CORINTH

47

apparently a municipal office.' I am not aware that it is mentioned anywhere else in literature but inscriptions have been found from several cities with the same title. This epigraphic evidence has been all but completely ignored in New Testament commentaries and dictionaries but it was thoroughly collected and studied twenty years ago by Peter Landvogt.8 I shall summarize his evidence. The word usually translated "steward" but probably oK0ov4'•ow, as general as our modern word "manager," is found in inscriptions in many uses. Originally and always it could be used of an employee or slave of an individual private citizen. The Hellenistic kings employed their servants in this capacity, often for positions of supreme importance over large areas of territory. The term is found also under the Roman emperors though apparently it was not a position of so much power and was held by slaves or freedmen. In contrast with the ofKovod/o9 of the sovereign is the o1'Kovc/Lo9 of a group. He is the appointee of a provincial religious communeas of the KOLVdVof Asia, - or of an association of Dionysiac artists, or of a tribe within a city, of a group of villages or of the city senate. It is also used of a city official. It is this last use which concerns us here. The instances of this use are found especially in Asia Minor.

Sometimeswe get as in Paul's epistle the exact phrase OLKOVOIAOf T79J -roXew, sometimes the city name is added (in the genitive

plural), sometimes the citizen's name is used without rgdXec. At other times the context alone makes plain that a city official is meant, rather than a private or imperial steward or an officer of some civic college or association. 7 There is inscriptional evidence, though the dissertation by Landvogt to be mentioned presently intentionally

as the name of omits it, of ol9Kov6EO'j

an ecclesiastical official. The evidence is, however, from later centuries. Pseudo-Dorotheus and the Greek menologies accepting this meaning and applying iro')cor of Romans 16 23 to the early capital of Christianity call Erastus oeconomusecclesiaeHierosolymitanae. 8 Epigraphi8cheUntersuchungen ilberden oLovdyov:ein Beitrag zum helleDiss. Strassburg, 1908. nistischenBeamtenwesen.

48

JOURNALOF BIBLICALLITERATURE

The places involved with the dates so far as they can be given includethe following:" The island of Cos, two sepulchralinscriptionsjudged by the writingto be of late date (i. e. Romanera),10Chalcedonof Bithynia, a sepulchral inscription for AtoveV'rlos, o•KovdtogoKaXXrSov'wv (date unknown),1"Philadelphiain Lydia, an inscriptionrefersto Antonius(probablythen in the time of the empire),the of the city, as having taken chargeof the erectionof a o0KovO•Mo• statue or stele or something of the sort,12 Smyrna, two lists from about 200 A. D. of municipalofficersincludingsimplythe title o'Kov0uo10,13 Magnesia,nineinscriptionsof the secondcenturyB. C.orsomewhat later dealingwith o'KVouvdIoas a college of officialsalways mentioned in the plural,14Priene, ten inscriptionsfrom the fourth to or more often to 0 oL'Kofirst centuryB. C. referringto ot'Kouv0doL he then "whoever 7 be,"16 Stratonicea, may vdoog'-rg roXew~1• an inscription of the laterempiresincethe city directsits o'Kovo'uor to askwhetherthe banefulbarbarianswill attackthe city or country that year,17an inscriptionfrom Hierapolisof unknowndate in are named as having charge of which two otZov•ot'• 70 '7 TdXeTow I A partial list already in W. Liebenam, Stdidteverwaltung im rOmischen Kaiserreiche,1900, p. 295, note 6. 10W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, The Inscriptionsof Cos 1891, 308 (= CIG 2512) Atovvalov rd'XhecKov olbovtotdov;310 4?XTrov olKto'6OAovrt~r Kcrv cydtlr[Tr]or. See Hicks' note on the term, op. ro'~es olKov[o]qgravror tr Ky cit. p. xxxvi: "The oLorvo 'or was (as elsewhere) a public slave, and his duties quite subordinate." The first of these (as published in Dittenberger, Sylloges 1252) is the only epigraphic evidence cited in Preuschen-Bauer, W6rterbuchzum N. T., s. v. 11CIG 3793. 12 Bulletin de corr. hell. i. (1877) p. 84 r-Evdvraiar~oTOr o0i) TrE i•FrtXVt0i•Vrro

roXE(s OKcuVoptov'Avrcolov. 13 CIG 3162.

3151, 14 0. Kern, Inschriften von Magnesia, 1900, 12, 89, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100a, 101, 103. 15 Also 6 3,UAXlColIoroKev, which may mean oeconomus elect. 16 Hiller von Gaertringen,Inschriftenvon Priene, 1906, 6, 18, 83, 99, 107, 108, 109, 115, 117, 119. 17 CIG 2717.

CADBURY: ERASTUS OF CORINTH

49

the erectionof a statue,s18anotherinscriptionfromsomewherein commemorPhrygia in which Amerimnos J'rk 7wdXewg ates a vow to the Motherof theoiKov'd1or Gods,19Olbia(?)of Thrace,an inscriptionof the close of the secondcenturyB. C. mentioningthe and their funds available for erecting a -reXaw'aV or OLKoovdoL sculpturedpillar.20 No apology is needed for giving so fully the above list. The pamphletof Landvogtis rareand not easy of accessand the New Testamenthelps give no clue to the wealthof epigraphicmaterial on the o' o0V4ogo7rdAeo. If Paul's use of the term referredto a free city of Asia Minoror belongedbeforethe Romanperiodwe shouldhave to regardErastus as a manof some position.Forit was indeedan officeof honor. Theincumbent(in somecasestherewasa groupor collegeof them) usuallyheld officefor a year. His duties consistedin havingvotes inscribedon steles or havingsteles or statueserected.Otherduties ascribedto him are to disbursethe funds requiredfor these and similarpublichonoraryawards.He is in generala financialofficer but less than the 21 concernshimselfexclusivelywith the cashierside of the-raptlas publicfunds. But the term o1'KovOdos of Romans16 23 is not from 7'r- 'wrdo'Xew the Hellenisticenvironmentbut is fromCorinthin the reignof Nero or Claudius.Two centuriesearlierthe "eye of Greece"had met unparalleleddestructionat the handsof Mummiusand one century before22a new city was foundedby JuliusCaesar,a Romancolony ColoniaLaus Julia Corinthuscomposedof Roman soldiers and freedmen.We should thereforeexpect to learn the meaning of from its later usage, and if possiblefromRomanmunioLKovdyoS cipalorganization. 18

Judeich, Altertiimervon Hierapolis, No. 35.

19 CIG 6837. This inscription was cited from J. Spon by Wettstein on Rom. 16 23.

d'Inscriptionsgrecques,1900, No. 328, line 41 = Ditten707. berger, SyllogeO 21 Cf. Landvogt, op. cit., p. 19ff. 22 The exact year of founding the colony is not certain. 4 20 Michel,Recueil

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

50

even in many Greek cities it With regard to the term o1Kovod•oA is to be observed that it rapidly lost its suggestion of social standing. At least such general statements are made about the word,23and the evidence so far as available to Landvogt substantiates it. The term is used now of an imperial agent of rather humble financial duties almost always of "Caesar's household." As a city officer, instead of being a freedman and a citizen, he often, if not always, comes from the slave class. Thus an inscription from Nicomedia in Bithynia24 refers to a Gaius son of Trypho who was an oLK'Kovdo0 and evidently formerly a public slave since the inscription speaks of him as manumitted by his masters the citizens.25 In the same way at Sparta, a city much closer to Corinth, mention is made in a list of city officers of (P XOoiroro70 while a second inoK•ovio26U as a mentions same the Philodespotos scription J~qrdacoror public slave.27 If, however, an o0Kovojdo at Corinth is really a city official one would expect him to correspond to some Latin office. What would that be ? The bilingual inscriptions that mention o'K0ov0Ao'seem to use the term of a private employee or servant rather than a public officer. Therefore the Latin equivalents vilicus,28 dispensator,29actor30probably do not suggest the correct Latin title for 23

So for example the papyri of Egypt. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Voca-

bulary,p. 443. 24 CIG 3777. 25 Ibid. line 18 rertpL)lEpOr 8a KCal EA'•6e[pla] irapah rcP Kvplot /Lov 1LXav-

Opwrcov iroX,&r^OT. 26 CIG 1276. CIG 1239. Cf. W. Vischer, Kleine Schri/ten, 1878, p. 28. CIG 963 = CIA III. 1446 = CIL III. 555 (Athens) where an officer in charge of income from the five per cent tax on emancipation of slaves is 27 28

called in

Greek E~Lroor17 IXEVOErplar irovo'po,

in Latin

xx. lib(ertatis)

vi(li)cus. CIL III. 447 (Miletus) where another tax officer is named by the same Greek and Latin. 29 CIG 3738 = CIL III. 333 of a slave of the imperial household at Cius who served as olbov~pos'r 'L Troy ElTrov or dispen(sator) [ad] frumentum.

30 CIG 5875a2 Add = IG XIV. 688 = Cagnat, Inscr. Gr. ad BRe. Rom. 464. Cf. CIL IX. 425 where a private officer in Apollonia of Phrygia is

called oCov por or actor.

CADBURY:ERASTUS OF CORINTH

51

an o and indeed they are all Latin terms used of 7r'Xews N iLovofo or of private persons rather than of muniof the emperors agents cipal appointees. The term used in the Vulgate, however, is arcarius.31This is a well known Latin official term. Often it is given in the form arcarius rei publicae. And it is not impossible that Paul's olKovO/oO translates that fuller Latin term. No objection can be rT 7rXdeowS raised to the translation of res publica by 7rodXL.That Latin term defied Greek rendering.32Nor is it strange if the Vulgate retranslates the Greek into arcarius civitatis. On the whole then Erastus mentioned by Paul may well be regarded as an arcarius or arcarius

rei publicae. Socially the status of such a person corresponded to what we have described as the status of the in the Roman era. oLK'ovo'/o5 The arcarius was invariably a slave or of servile origin, though he may often have been wealthy. The office like that of ozvovo'two was not for a short specified term but continued without reappointment for years. The longer phrase arcarius rei publicae often is used of municipal government.33 The incumbent is listed among the public familia, 3a Thereis no variant (except in spelling) noted by Wordsworthand White ad loc., which is likely to be traced to Old Latin sources. 'Ambrosiaster'used dispensatorand Codex Boernerianus (g) of the ninth century reads arcarius vel dispensator.In Pelagius dispensatorhas become attached to the name of Quartus later in the verse. 32 Seven occurrencesin the MonumentumAncyranumreceive four different Greek renderings besides being twice omitted. No doubt theoretically the Greek equivalent of res publica is rokXTrea(Pauly-Wissowa, 2. Reihe I. 636) but practically it was iro'hX. Unfortunately David Magie's useful book De Romanorumiuris publici sacriquevocabulissollemnibusin Graecumsermonemconversisfails us for both arcariusand res publica. 3 W. Liebenam, op. cit., p. 296 note 3, following Mom sen, e. g. CIL IX. p. 787, X. p. 1155) remarks that in the first centuries of the Empire res publicaindicated not the populus but the patrimoniumpopuli, - hence the addition of rei publicaeto officers of the exchequer, quaestor, curator, scriba, actor, servus, arcarius, etc. According to the list in E. Ruggiero, Dizionario Epigrafico,I. p. 634 such arcarii are with one possible exception (a freedman, CIL XI. 3780) slaves of the familia publica. 4*

52

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

and is sometimes described as servus arcarius. In the longest list of cases available from inscriptions34 many of the towns where the office occurs were colonies. For Corinth itself there appears to be no inscriptional evidence, but that is not decisive against the view that Paul's friend at Corinth was arcarius rei publicae. We have now to consider the standing of the Erastus mentioned in the inscription. Unfortunately it is not quite certain that the name there is complete. It is possible that the lines each extended farther to the left.35 In that case a Roman nomen and cognomen might well have been indicated for Erastus and the question of his Roman citizenship would be settled. The absence of such evidence is far from decisive. But even so, Greek names as cognomina often indicate that the bearer is a freedman, and certain Greek names or the Latin equivalents of similar formation to the verbal Erastus are particularly common of slaves. I may mention as examples Optatus and Epainetus. In a Greek city Erastus would indeed be often a free citizen. But the old Corinthian Greek stock was completely exterminated or reduced to slavery by Mummius. If Erastus appears in later Corinth as a simple Greek name it belongs to a foreigner rather than to a citizen. The absence of patronymic genitive for the father does not in cases like this always exclude free See the full list in Geo. N. Olcott, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Epigraphicae,Vol. I., Rome, 1904,pp.438f. CIL V. 8818 Sagaris, Alcimi Aug(usti) vern(ae)ark(ari) vic(arius) assigned to Altinum probably belongs to Corinth (see CIL III. 7268) but refers to an officer of the imperial revenue in the province as is made plain in the Athenian inscription CIL III. 556 Sagaris, Alcimi Aug(usti) ser(vi) vernae arcari Provinc(iae) Achaiae vicar(ius). On bis imperial arkarii see 0. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichenVerwaltungsbeamten auf Diocletian2, 1905, pp. 461f. note. 35 I had thought from the photograph that the second line was so centered at both ends under the first line as to suggest that the inscription was complete. So also T.L. Shear, loc.cit. Since this article was completed Dr. de Waele has written me (Nijmegen xi. 29, 1930): "There can be no doubt that our inscription is only fragmentary: the left part is missing." He withdraws also his identification of the Erastus on the inscription with the Biblical one and accepts the interpretation of Professor Roos. 4

CADBURY: ERASTUS OF CORINTH

53

birth. And in Greece outside of Roman influence there had been Erasti as king of Sicyon or as archon at Athens.36 For our conjecture about the standing of the Erastus in the inscription we naturally look for some referenceto office. It is possible as we have just stated that something has been lost in both lines and the loss in the second line has carried with it perhaps some reference to such honors as Erastus had held. There remain, however, only the two words PRO - AED. The first discoverers promptly rendered these as procurator,aedilis, as though they were the names of two successive offices held. De Waele plays with some other conjectures but regards this as most probable. But the rendering has from the first seemed to me improbable. Procurator was not an office in the cursus honorumof colonies or municipia. Procurator nearly always has a genitive following it, and this might suggest procuratoraedium or something of the sort. But the strongest objection to any use of procuratorin filling out the inscription is that its usual abbreviation is proc not pro. Another interpretation would take pro with aedile as a preposition meaning 'for,' 'acting for.' Such a use became regular with proconsul and propraetor. I am not aware that it ever occurs with aedile. Much the most satisfactory solution has been recently proposed by Professor Roos of Leiden.37He regardsthe phrase as abbreviated for pro aedilitate and supposes that it was in return for the honor of the office of aedile that Erastus paid for the cost of the paving. Liebenam38had collected a great number of inscriptions in which public works are said to have been carried out, monuments erected, or cash contributions made because of some honor of office. Among the few Latin examples which Roos selects for illustration there is reference to the paving of streets by an aedile at Venusia39and by 36See Pauly-Wissowa, s. v. The Sicyonian king is doubtless mythical and belongs to only one of the chronographers'lists (Georg. Syncell.). 37 See note 2.

W. Liebenam, op. cit., pp. 57-65. 39CIL IX. 442. 38

54

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

undesignated officials at Aeclanum.40 The gift was sometimes promised in advance as the inscription from Timgad shows: statuam quam ob honoremaedilitatis promiseratinlata etiam rei pub. honoraria summa posuit."4 Indeed all the details of the Erastus inscription are adequately illustrated, including PRO for the more usual pro honore or ob honorem,AED as an abbreviation for aedilitas,42and of course the very frequent S. P. meaning at his own expense (sua pecunia). Roos makes no reference to Greek parallels, and remarks further that there is no evidence from inscriptions that Corinthhad aediles. But the Greek inscriptions also record a similar usage for indicating public benefactions in return for offices awarded. In place of the longer ob honoremthe Greek uses a single preposition rep. And I have found one Greek inscription which not only mentions an aedile at Corinth but records the construction of buildings which he made vrw'p ,yopavoluar.43d7opavo'~or,I needly hardly remind the reader, is the regular Greek word for aedile. The date is apparently early in the second century of our era. With this identity of time and place and the similar simplicity of the prepositionalphrase, this Greek inscription is a perfect parallel to the proposed interpretation of the Erastus inscription. If we are right in interpreting the two Erasti of Corinth as aedilis and arcarius respectively what are the possibilities of their identity ? Although both offices are connected with the public finance they are scarcely identical. They might, however, be held successively 40 CIL IX. 1143 41 CIL VIII. 17834. 42

In the exhaustive ThesaurusLinguae Latinae Epigraphicaeby George N. Olcott, Rome, 1904, i. p. 149, nine instances of the abbreviationAED are given to only six for longer abbreviations. Of course if the inscription is incomplete the letters ILIT(ATE) may have begun the second line. 43 IG IV. 203 = CIG 1104. The public benefactoris a Roman citizen P. Licinius Priscus Iuventianus. His structures were all, I think, connected with the equipment for the Isthmian games made at his own expense (iK rTWV islOr) as was the paving by Erastus. The last sentence reads Pr crp T r K(aL K'KaEpapo•OLAEo 06070rb9~ KaL jP oa ot9roKS ara•( 0ro dyopavropardrvE6IKdEr. 7rpoerKorYLAfaoLrtr 'p

GADBURY: ERASTUS OF CORINTH

55

if they may be regardedas likely to belongto the same rank of society. Against such a possibilityit might be urged (1) that an aedile was usually ingenuus,the arctrius a slave. But preciselyin the colonies foundedby Julius Caesaras was Corinthwe know that exceptionwasmadeandthat fromthe classof freedmenthe highest officersof the city wereat firstchosen.That in subsequentgenerations any but freebornheld high office is neitherlikely nor confirmedby evidence.Onthe other hand an arcariuslike any other slave might become freed while or after he held the position of arcarius.An Erastus who was a public slave in the time of Paul might thus at the time of the inscriptionhave been manumitted and have become aedilein Corinth.The opportunityof acquiring propertyand of certainsocialstandingwasnot deniedthe ordinary slaveandwas apparentlygreaterin the caseof slavesof the state or town.44 (2) Another objectionto identifyingthe aedile and the olKovO~or

is that the oL'0ovo~oris evidently a Christian and it is

arguedthat no Christiancouldconsentto the paganisminvolvedin holdingsuchan officeas aedile.If the samepersonheldbothoffices, the aedileshipwouldcertainlybe the lateroneandhencemusthave been acceptedwhenErastuswas alreadya Christian. The force of this argument,however,may be turned partly by pointing out that the office of o'Kov0o'Aoor arcarius doubtless in-

volved contact with idolatry much as did that of aedile, though perhapsit was easierfor a freedmanor freemanto refusean honorary post than for a slave to escapethe dutiesof arcarius. The principalanswerto the argumentis that we have no certainty that Christiansso earlyobjectedto the idolatrousassociations of publicoffice.45It is true we have no evidencein the first century of Christiansacceptingor remainingin officialpositionsof this sort. 44 See R. H. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire, 1928, Chap. V, "In the Service of State and Town." 45 On the whole subject see especially A. Bigelmair, Die Beteiligungder Christenam 6ffentlichenLebenin vorconstantinischer Zeit, Munich, 1902, and C. J. Cadoux, The Eearly Churchand the World:a History of the Christian Attitude to Pagan Society and the State Down to the Time of Constantinus, London, 1925.

56

JOURNALOF BIBLICALLITERATURE

Later Tertullian roundly protests against Christian participation in both civil and military service. In Apologeticus46, criticizing the political ambitions of philosophers in contrast to the modesty of Christians, he says: tyrannidem adlectant, Christianus vero nec aedilitatem ("the philosophers aspire to the place of tyrant, but the Christian not even to that of aedile"). But neither the personal views of Tertullian, nor the objection to political office widely shared by Christians of his time is evidence of a universal Christian conscience on the subject a century and a half before. On the whole we may conclude that the offices are not likely to have been held by the same man, though this is not impossible, so that this consideration does not preclude any more than do the considerations of name and place the identification of the aedile and the oLKovAoAo. At the same time we would warn the reader again that identification is far from established. The name Erastus belongs neither to the commonest nor to the most uncommon of names of the Hellenistic world. It might seem reasonable to identify the three New Testament Erasti, since all are connected with Paul, much as we identify as one and the same person each mention of Timothy in Acts and epistles. But the Erastus who paved a street at his own expense may be a later and quite different Corinthian. More decisive evidence about him is scarcely to be looked for. Turning our attention once more to the New Testament occurrences we may perhaps get some light from the discussion that the new inscription has aroused. If the o&iov4d1oAwas an office such as we have supposed, why is it mentioned by Paul ? and does it have any bearing on the identification of the three men named Erastus in the New Testament ? That it is named as a position of honor has been generally assumed. It would seem that arcarius was so used in the inscriptions even though it was a servile station, for even slaves have their social pride in public office. To a Christian group that included members of the familiae of Caesar (Phil. 4 22), of Narcissus (Rom. 16 11), and of Aristobulus (16 1o)46his rank might well be mentioned. But the 46 Accordingto ancient critical theories all these groups belonged to Rome;

according to modern theories they all belonged at Ephesus (the destination

CADBURY: ERASTUS OF CORINTH

57

do not imply social preeminassociations of arcarius or oLkovoldos ence such as wealth and station bring, and those commentators are probably wrong who cite Erastus as an exception to Paul's description of the first CorinthianChristians as including not many mighty, not many noble (I Cor. 1 26).47 On the other hand the title might be mentioned merely to distinguish him from others namedErastus, -from other Corinthians like the aedile if he is not the same, or from other Christians like the delegate of Paul in Acts if he is not the same. It might even be argued that the very use of the title suggests the existence of another Christian Erastus among the acquaintances of Paul and his readers. Early Christian commentators evidently thought it unlikely that an oLovo'or could serve as a missionary, not from conscientious objections to public office, but because his office would not give him time. How much freedom of personal life or opportunity for travel abroad such positions as arcarius permitted I do not know. But from the assumption that a Christian comrade of Paul would find such an office too confining two views have resulted. Either this was felt to be sufficient ground for differentiating the Erastus of Romans from those in Acts and 2. Timothy, or it was concluded that he had given up the office and still bore the title only retrospectively. The latter was the view of Pelagius: 'arcariumex-arcario dicit.'48 It would seem that inscriptions also use arcarius of men who hold the place no longer. In this case of course there is no objection to supposing all three New Testament persons identical. Indeed it seems to me that Roof Romans 16, the place of writing Philippians). In either case it was to the community containing these groups that Erastus sent greeting. It is even possible as we shall see that Erastus belonged to the same community too. 47 The referencesto wealth in Clement'sepistle to Corinth(xiii. 1, xxxviii. 2) do not really indicate much difference a generation later. 48 Edited by A. Souter, Texts and Studies, ix. 2, 1926, p. 125. Pelagius compares the scripture use of gentesfor Christians formerly gentiles and of 'Abigail, the wife of Nabal,' after she married David. Moderncommentators note how Matthew is still called a publican when, as they suppose, he had given up that calling.

58

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

mans 16 23 quite as much as the other passages implies that Erastus had facility to travel abroad. At least it would be natural to suppose that he was personally known in the city to which he sent his greetings. Finally the use of 7roXewin his title is rather striking. No city is implied in the context. It is not inconceivable that it means the city to which the letter goes, though it is usually understood of Corinth. Very likely if it is a translation of arcarius rei publicaeit is a more integral part of his title, like an adjective. The upshot of our discussion is that the identification of the Erastus of the inscription with a New Testament character is improbable if not imposible. What makes the improbability seem most like an impossibility is the difficulty of supposing that any man's cursus honorum included both arcarius (rei publicae) and aedilis. If however the discovery of the inscription should lead to a more careful and productive inquiry than has been attempted heretofore into the history and status of the Biblical Erastus, it will prove to have done a real service to New Testament research.

The Ancient Significance of Ṣîṣîth Author(s): Ferris J. Stephens Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 59-70 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259560 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

STEPHENS: THE ANCIENTSIGNIFICANCE

59

OF SISITH1 THE ANCIENTSIGNIFICANCE FERRIS J. STEPHENS YALE UNIVERSITY

ONE of the symbolic requirements which is enjoined upon those

who adhere to the Torah is the wearing of s~~ithupon the borders, or corners of the outer garment. This command is contained in Numbers 15 87 ff., "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, speak to the Israelites, and command them that they make for themselves s~iithupon the borders of their garments throughout their generations." A parallel to this command is found in Deuteronomy 2212, "Thou shalt make for thyself twisted cords upon the four corners of thy garment with which thou dost cover thyself." In both cases the thing commanded is to be put in the same place, namely, upon the border, or corner of the garment (Hebrew kdnaph). The commandment to wear the was regarded by many as the most .s.sith of all commands because it signified the whole law. One important 1

In the preparation of this paper I have made use of some notes on this subject gathered by the late Professor Albert T. Clay, which were found after his death, among his papers in the Yale Babylonian Collection. They represent material which he had gathered over a period of years with the evident intention of publishing a more extended discussion of the subject than that found in his volume of Cassite texts (Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 14.). I have found these notes of chief value for the referenceswhich they furnished to the Babylonian literature. As to how he would have interpreted this material I can not be sure. I have sometimes differed from conclusions which seem to be foreshadowedin his notes; but in the main the thesis that the sisith is in some way related to the sisiktu owes its origin to him.

60

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

may well wonder why such an ornament as a tassel or twisted cord on the borderof a garment was selected originally for such a purpose. It has been suggested by others that the sisith had a primitive background,2 with magical or superstitious associations; but just what the background was has not been pointed out. For the answer to this question comparison may be made with certain articles of Babylonian dress. The principal article to be considered is represented by the Sumerian ideogram TtUG.SIG.3This is rendered in Babylonian sometimes by the word sisiktu,4 sometimes by ulinnu.5 In an Assyrian list of synonyms6 we find the word etapatu equated 2

See A.R.S. Kennedy, HDB vol. 2, p. 69, Art. "Fringes," and Wilhelm Nowack, Lehrbuchder hebriischenArchidologie,I, 123. 3 Just how this word was pronouncedin Sumerian remains an undecided question. Langdon proposed to read it 94-s8k (Die neubabylonischenKdnigsinschriften289 note), and thus to regard the Babylonian equivalent sisiktu as a loan word from the Sumerian.A more tempting explanation of the origin of the word sisiktu as a loan word would be found by reading the Sumerian ideogram zl-sik. The Babylonian word when it is spelled out phonetically, in the early period, is often written ziziktu. So far as I have seen, it is never spelled out 8u-sik-tu, as would be expected from Langdon's explanation of its origin. The difficulty with both of these explanations is that the first sign of the group is not known to have the values 9i or zi when it is connected with words for garments. The sign may here be regardedas the well known determinative placed before words for clothing, which probably was not pronounced as part of the word at all. If such is the case the ideogram would be pronouncedsimply sig, and would explain the origin of the word ziqu (ziqqu) treated elsewhere in this paper as an equivalent of sisiktu. Of course this would leave the origin of the word sisiktu unexplained, and since it does not seem to be a Semitic word, may it not be possible that both of the pronunciations of the ideogram, suggested above, were sometimes used, the one giving rise to the word sisiktu and the other to ziqqu? See further footnote No. 7. In English we sometimes say 'oak tree,' sometimes merely 'oak'; or 'gold ring' and 'ring' may mean the same thing. 4 See SAI 8133; 8246; Br. 10783. 5 See Br. 10656. The word ulinnu is sometimes equated with the Sumerian sign group TIG.VI.LI.IN, (SAI 8075) which looks like a word borrowed back in Sumerianfrom Semitic. In this sign group the first sign obviously is a determinative not pronounced. This would indicate rather clearly that the same sign in the group TITG.SIG= ulinnu is also a determinative and not pronounced. See above note No. 3. 6 CT 18, 14 56.

STEPHENS: THE ANCIENT SIGNIFICANCE

61

with sisiktu. They may be regarded as practically interchangeable in meaning. Still another word which can be shown to have the same meaning is ziqqu.' It is found in some old Babylonian contracts, and especially in the so-called Cappadocian tablets. Finally there is the word qannu, 'girdle,' which in some instances, particularly in the tablets from Kirkuk, is used in the same sense in which sisiktu is used elsewhere. As indicated by the passages quoted below the sisiktu was worn in Babylonia by both men and gods. A study of these passages will reveal four rather clearly distinguishable uses of this object. 1. Seizing the sisiktu of a god. The pious worshipper in making a petition to his god is often said to have seized the sisiktu of the god. Apparently the act had some magical power by which the man could be the more certain of receiving the blessing which he sought. The verb used in each of these cases is sabdtu,'to take hold of,' or 'grasp.' We may picture the suppliant as before the statue of the god, placing his hand upon the representation of some portion of the god's garment, or possibly as grasping some part of an actual garment with which the statue may have been clothed.8 The magical power of this act is well illustrated by the incantation texts. The whole purpose of the incantation is to give the worshipper power over the superhuman beings. In one such incantation addressedto Shamash we read,9 "0 king of heaven and earth, I have sought after thee; I have turned to thee; like the sisiktu of my god and my goddess, thy great sisiktu I have seized; because it is in thy province to give judgement, to announce decisions, and to establish well-being." See Paul Kosohaker, Neue keilschriftlicheRecht8urlcunden aus der Eln. 3. Amarna-Zeit,p. 24, 8 See footnote No. 30. 9 Text: IV RB260a s4-37. Translation: A. Schollmeyer, Sumerisch-babylonischeHymnen und Gebetean 8aman, p. 58. Practically identical passages are also to be found addressed to other deities. See L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, 4 29ff.; 6 73ff.; 37 9ff. 7

62

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

In the historical inscriptions of the late Babylonian kings reference is sometimes made to the king's seizing of the sisiktu of the gods, with the result that divine favor and blessing is bestowed upon him. Nebuchadnezzar says,'0 "Because I seized the sisiktu of Mardukmy lord he loved me, and entrusted me with the renewing of shrines and the rebuilding of ruins." Nabonidus, in a list of his laudable qualities with which he begins one of his inscriptions, says of himself that he is one "who for the avoidance of sin seizes the sisiktu of the gods."11From these last two quotations it would seem that the act was not merely a magical rite to secure divine favor, but that it was regarded as an act of special piety. 2. Seizing the sisiktu of a man. In somewhat the same way in which one could secure divine favor by seizing the god's sisiktu, so a man in certain circumstances could seize this particular part of a fellow man's garment, and thus gain a certain coercive power over him. The evidence for this is found in some of the so-called Cappadocian tablets. In one of these a three cornered business transaction is recorded in which a man's debt was paid, not to the man whom he owed, but to a third party, who was a sort of business associate of the creditor. The following is the record in part:12

Zi-qi A-gur-rdbuA-al-tdbuis-ba-at um-maA-al-tdbu1/3 ma-na um-ma-a-ni-aha-bu-ld-ti1/, GIN kaspamsa a-na A-Jur-ld-ma-si ni kaspam di-nam A-gur-rdbu1/3 ma-a 11/2 GIN kaspam a-na A-al-tdbu i -qil um-ma A-sur-rdbu-[ma1/3] ma-na 11/2 G[IN ta[1]-qium-maA-al-tdbukaspamsa] A-gir-ld-ma-sium-me-a-ni-kA ma a[1]-qi. "Al-tAbu seized the ziqu of Ashur-rabu. Thus (spoke) Al-tAbu: 'The 1/3 mina 11/3shekels of silver which you owe to Ashur-lamasi, 10

Text: Abel-Winckler, Keilschrifttextezum Gebrauchbei Vorlesungen, 37 25 to 38, 29; ZA 2, 170 7ff. 11 Text: VR 63a: 7ff. Translation: Langdon, Die neubabylonischenK6nigsinschriften,263. 12 Text: A. T. Clay, Letters and Transactionsfrom Cappadocia, 111. The restorations have been made by means of a re-examination of the traces of the signs on the original tablet.

STEPHENS: THE ANCIENT SIGNIFICANCE

63

my money lender, pay the silver to me.' Ashur-rabupaid to Al-tabu the 1/3mina 11/2shekels of silver. Thus (spoke) Ashur-rabu: 'Have you received the 1/ mina 1/2 shekels of silver belonging to Ashurlamasi thy money lender?' Thus (spoke) Al-tabu: 'I have received (it)'." There follows the usual formula of documents of this class, showing that the transaction was fully validated by the legal authorities. The point to notice in this connection is that apparently Ashur-rabu had no recourse when his ziqu was seized but to comply with the demand of the one who had seized it. We need not object that it would thus be possible for any person fraudulently or malisciously to secure anything he desired from another by merely seizing his garment. It is to be remembered that this transaction was a formal procedure, and that it was carried out before duly constituted authorities and recorded in the archives. In a certain business letter from Cappadocial3 a merchant named Ashur-sululi writes that he expects to be able to clear up certain claims in one or two months time. In the meantime he hopes that no one will seize his ziqu, and thus interfere with his freedom of operation. 3. The sisiktu as a substitute for a seal. In 1906 both Professor Clay'4 and Professor Ungnad15published examples of business documents on which it was stated, in the place where one usually finds the reference to the seals of the contracting parties, that their sisikti had been used. The impressions on the tablet published by Ungnad seem to indicate that something had been used which may well have been the fringe or tassel of a garment. Professor Clay had three tablets on which the sisiktu was used as a substitute for a seal. On one of these he says there is no trace of a mark made by any piece of fabric, but instead, there are small holes as though made by some instrument that had a short projection. He suggests that the sisiktu was something attached to the girdle. This suggestion is interesting in view of the fact that, as Ia Text and translation: Julius Lewy, Die Kiiltepetexteder Sammlung Rudolf Blankertz,p. 25ff. 14 BabylonianExpeditionof theUniversityo/ Pennsylvania,Vol. 14, p. 12ff. 15OLZ 1906, p. 163. See also OLZ 1909, p. 479.

64

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Koschaker points out,16 in the tablets from Kirkuk the word gannu, 'girdle' is used as a synonym for sisiktu. It is important to note in this connection too, that the same individual sometimes impressed his seal, sometimes his gannu (sisiktu), thus indicating that the use of it had some deeper significance than that of a mere substitute for a seal. Otherwise we would not expect a person who is known to have had a seal to resort to this more cumbersome substitute. There are numerous cases in the tablets from Cappadocia in which the ziqu of one person was to be held by another for business purposes.1 In these cases it seems that the zxqu did not remain attached to the person of its owner, but came actually into the possession of the other party. As such it may have served as a substitute for the presence of its owner. This practice may be compared with a passage in a Babylonian ritual text.18 "A great sacrifice you shall offer to Anu; you shall make a lamentation. After that, you shall make their propitiatory lamentations with the sisiktu of the king (ina TUG.SIG arri) in all the cities. If you do this the evil will not come near the king." Thureau-Dangin interprets this as meaning that the cloak or garment of the king is to be used as a substitute for his royal presence. 4. Tearing the sisiktu. For a man to have his sisiktu torn appears to have been considered an almost irreparable calamity. Proper incantations were provided against an unfriendly sorcerer who might practice dire magic against a man by making an image of the man and tearing the sisiktu of the image.19 There are two tablets recording divorce Recht8urkunden 1ePaul Koschaker,Neue keilechriftliche aus derEl-AmarnaZeit, p. 20. 17 See A. T. Clay, Lettersand Transactionsfrom Cappadocia,109; Sidney Smith, Cuneiform Texts from Cappadocian Tablets in the British Museum, Part 2, 40a 15; Julius Lewy, Die Kilitepetexteaus der SammlungFrida Hahn, No. 33. 18F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituel8Accadiens, 7 26ff. 19Knut L. Tallqvist, Die assyrische Beschw6rungsseriemaqzu,1, 122ff.

65

STEPHENS: THE ANCIENT SIGNIFICANCE

procedureswhichinvolve the tearingof the sisiktu.The one,20an old Babyloniandocument,states that the husbandhas divorced his wife, and that "herziquhas been torn." The other,21a tablet fromKirkuk,readsin the samecontext, "I havetornhersisiktu."22 The tearingof the sisiktuwas, then, a procedurepartly religious, partly judicial, which materiallyaltered ones station in society. The questionmay now be raisedas to the exact meaningof the wordsisiktu.Threesomewhatdifferentviews have been held. The older idea was that the word representeda garment.23With this view Thureau-Danginhas agreed24and quotes a passage26which seems to provethat it is right: "With his sisiktu he coveredhis face." A secondview, representedby Jensen,26is that the sisiktu was a thread or cord or somethingsimilar.The third view, lately and Lewy,28is that it meansthe border supportedby Koschaker27 or edge of the garment.The only one of these three views which will fit adequatelyall the passagesthat are knownis the first. A threador the edgeof a garmentcouldbe seized,or torn off, or used as a substitutefor a seal, but it wouldnot fit the passagequoted by Thureau-Danginabove. Direct evidencethat the sisiktuwas a garmentratherthan a cord is foundin the fact that it is equated with the word etapatum.This word is etymologicallyconnected with the Hebrew711 t0. Fromthe cognatelanguagesit is certain that etapatummeant a cloak or mantle. It is possiblethat sisiktu, which originallymeant a garment,was sometimesappliedto the 20 Bruno Meissner, Beitriige zum altbabylonischenPrivatrecht, No. 91. See also footnote No. 7. 21 C. J. Gadd, "Tablets from Kirkuk," RA 23, text No. 33. See also footnote No. 7. 22 In each of the cases cited referringto tearing of the 8isiktu,the Assyrian root is batdqu,'to cut off.' When used of garments it means rather, 'to tear, rend.' See the passages quoted by Del. HWB under batqu,191b.

23 See Del. H WB 506 b.

F. Thureau-Dangin,Rituels Accadiens,p. 57, n. 95. 25KAR 43 27.

24

26

See KB 6, 364f. See footnote No. 7. 8sSee footnote No. 13.

27

5

66

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

significantpart of that garment.In the light of the evidenceof the tablets publishedby Clay showing small holes as marks of the sisiktu,whichhe supposesto have been somethingattachedto the girdle,and consideringthat gannu,'girdle'was used in the tablets fromKirkukin the samecontextin whichsisiktuis used elsewhere, one may supposethat sisiktuwassometimesappliedto the girdleof the sisiktugarment. Somehelp may be obtainedby studyingthe Assyrianand Babylonianreliefsand seal cylinders,andthe Sumerianstatuetteswhich depict the dress. The tasseled or tufted skirt worn by the archaic Sumerianstatuetteshas beendiscussedrecentlyby Mrs.E. Douglas VanBuren,29whoshowsthat it wasa dressof religioussignificance, perhapsworn only in the presenceof the god. This tufted skirt must have been either an actual sheep skin or a garmentmade to imitate such a skin. In early religionsthe skin of the sacrificial animalwas regardedas of greatimportance.Sometimesthe figure of the god was drapedwith it; sometimesthe worshipperhimself wore it when performingholy functions.30From this primitive Sumerianreligious dress may have come the tasseled garment worn by the figures in the Assyrianreliefs and Babylonianseal cylinders.Indeed the SumerianTUG.SIG, literally, 'garmentof hair', or 'garmentof wool' may well have been the name of the tufted skirt on the statuettes. In one passagethe materialof the is given. The ulinnu,the Babyloniantranslationof the TUTG.SIG, it reads:31 "Weave a text is an incantationagainst evil spirits; variegatedulinnufrom the hair of a virgin kid and from the wool of a virgin lamb; let the king the son of his god bind it upon his limbs." A significantpart of this garment was the girdle which held it in place,and to whichwereattachedcordswith tassels. 29 "Some Archaic Statuettes and a Study of Early Sumerian Dress," Annals of Archaeologyand Anthropology,Vol. 17, Nos. 3 -4. 30 For an account of the importance of the skin of the sacrificialanimal in ancient cults as an article of dress for both worshipperand the image of the deity see W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites, 3rd edition, p. 436ff. 81 Text: CT 16, 21 179ff. Translation: L.W.King, Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, Vol. 1, p. 101.

THEANCIENT STEPHENS: SIGNIFICANCE

67

Withthese suggestionsin mindas to the originof the Babylonian sisiktuone can see why it had the placewhichthe literatureshows it had in Babylonianlife. For a man to seize the sisiktuof a god or man in makinghis petitionwas a symbol of the earnestnessof his petition.It may have been equivalentto adjuringone in the name of the god whose worshipwas representedby the wearingof the sisiktu.Whenused as a substitutefor a seal it gave a peculiarreligious sanction to the transactioninvolved. To seal a document with onessisiktumay have beenequivalentto takingoath to abide by it. To tear ones sisiktuwouldbe equivalentto cutting him off fromthe protectingcareof his god. We are now readyto returnto the questionof the relationof the Hebrewpi•ithto the Babyloniansisiktu.Etymologicallythe words are of differentorigins, beinga goodSemiticword,but sisiktu Sumerian.Both Zimmern32 and Meissner33 beinga loan wordfrom.si5th is to be connectedwith the have pointedout that the Hebrew meaning literallys.sith somethingthat projects. This Assyrian si•stu, confirmed word is of the by the originalsignificanceof the meaning Sumerianideogramswith whichthe wordis identified.In one case (SAI 7754)the sign representsan enclosurewith headsor tasselsof grainprojectingfromit. In the other(SAI 2470)the signrepresents the sharppointeddagger.In Syriaca derivativeof the root W4is used to meanthe parapetson a wall, as thingsprojectingfromthe wall. Ourwordis used in a somewhatdifferent,yet closelyrelated sense, in Ezekiel 8 3, wherethe prophetis transportedby a sisthk of his head fromBabylonto Jerusalem.Herethe is4ithmust mean a lock or tuft of hair whichprojectsfrom the head. Such a word appliedto a garmentcould well mean a tassel of wool or thread. This meaningis supportedby the wordgedhilimof the Deuteronomiccommand,whichis apparentlya synonymofsisith,andwhich canlogicallybe assignedto the root5'1Twith the meaning'bind',or 'twist together.' The idea of a knotted cord or tassel fits both and gedhilim.The sisith, then, was the tassel upon the gars.sith the sisiktu was the garmentitself which bore the tassels. ment; 32 ZA 36 (1925), 319.

33ZDPV 48 (1925), 179. 5*

68

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

The may be regarded as deriving its religious significance from .siith the ancient religious import of the sisiktu garment, which has already been shown. The significant part of the sisiktu garment was always the sisith, or tufts or hair or wool. The garment always had a religious value, indicating the close relation of the wearerto his god. Like the rite of circumcision, the commandment of Sisith took on special significance for the Hebrew religion; but again, like circumcision, it had originally a much wider use. It was not only common in the Tigris and Euphrates valley, but the Persians, the inhabitants of Asia Minor, and probably also the Greeks in ancient times knew this same institution in its primitive form.34 If this theory is true we should expect to find some traces of the earlier uses of the sisiktu in the Hebrew and Jewish tradition. That this is actually the case it is the final purpose of this paper to show. There is a passage in I Sam. 15 24 ff., which illustrates the survival of the old custom of seizing the sisiktu as a means of bringing added pressure to bear upon the will of the person from whom a request was made. The passage mentioned contains that dramatic scene in which Samuel announced to Saul that the Lord had rejected him from being king over Israel. Saul confessed his sin and asked Samuel to forgive him, and to turn again with him that he might worship the Lord. Samuel absolutely refused to hearken to this request, and turned to leave. At this moment Saul in desperation seized that part of Samuel's garment where the i~•ithwas attached. Doubtless Samuel was moving rather swiftly and the garment was torn. Samuel took the occasion to tell Saul again that the Lord had torn the kingdom from him. Then Saul repeated his request and this time Samuel complied with it. This change in Samuel's purpose has need of explanation. Several commentaries have noted the sudden change on Samuel's part and have been unable to explain it.35 There are two differences in the circumstances of Saul's second request from those of the first. These two circumstances may contain the reason why Samuel at first refused the request and later granted it. One of them, namely, that Saul See footnote No. 30. 35 See L. W. Batten, The Bible for Home and Schoolon this passage.

34

STEPHENS: THE ANCIENT SIGNIFICANCE

69

the second time inserted the words, "Honor me before the elders of my people," has been offered as the explanation by A. F. Kirkpatrick in the Cambridge Bible on the passage, proposing that Samuel changed "his purpose in order to maintain the honor of the reigning king, for although Saul had forfeited his position as Jehovah's chosen representative, he must still rule the nation." It is doubtful if this would have been sufficient motive to change the purpose of Samuel so positively announced but a moment before. We must remember that there was the added circumstance that now Saul had seized the sisith of Samuel and had thus availed himself of its symbolic power. That the custom of seizing the s~~ithwhen making an earnest request was carried down to Jewish times is illustrated by a passage from the Talmud quoted by the Strack-Billerbeck Commentary on Matthew 9 20. It is as follows: "If the world was in need of rain the Rabbis were accustomed to send school children to Chanan haNechba, the grandson of Chonis the circle drawer, and they seized him by the borders of his mantle and said to him, 'Father, Father, give us rain."' Indeed some of the ancient magical significance may have filtered down to the minds of those sick people mentioned in the New Testament36 who sought to touch the tassels of Jesus' garment. They are not to be thought of, then, as approaching him in deep humility, seeking only to touch an insignificant part of his costume, but as seeking to avail themselves of his power by the surest method they knew. The survival of the ancient significance of the tearing of the sisiktu is illustrated in I Sam.24 1 ff. In order to prove to Saul that he did not wish to kill him, when he had the opportunity to do so, David only cut off the skirt of his robe. That was the part of Saul's garment which contained the s•Sith. In verse five we are told that David's heart smote him because he had done this. Why was David so sorry for this act ? It was not because of the mere damage done to the garment, but he had cut off the ~i•ith of the king of Israel. In ancient times, as we have seen, this would have been a great injury to anyone. The discussion of this passage in the Midrash Tehillim 36 Matthew 9 18sff; 14 36.

JOURNAL OF BIBLICALLITERATURE

70

for Psalms 7 53 is interesting. There the question is raised as to why David was sorry. One Rabbi is quoted as saying that David, in thinking it over, said in his heart, "What is the difference between cutting off the sI•ith and cutting off his head ?" Another Rabbi says that it was because David realized that he had prevented him from observing the commandment of si~ith for one hour. In conclusion may it be stated that if one accepts the thesis of this paper, that the ancient significance of the Hebrew is•gth is connected with the Babylonian sisiktu, Sumerian TIJG.SIG, it does not necessarily follow that the Hebrews borrowed this institution directly from the Babylonians or Sumerians. The peculiar religious significance of the tassels on the garment more probably was handed down from Israel's own racial ancestors. It seems that the institution was common to all the peoples of Western Asia; it only happens that we are best able to trace it in antiquity by means of Babylonian and Sumerian records. In any case the s•sith as a symbol of the Jewish law was not an arbitrary sign adopted at the time of the making of the enactment but had a long past of religious meaning behind it. 37

I am indebted to my friend Dr. Philip Grossmanfor this reference.

The Motivation of John 21:15-25 Author(s): B. W. Bacon Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 71-80 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259561 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

BACON: THE MOTIVATION OF JOHN 2115-25

71

THE MOTIVATIONOF JOHN 21 I5-l5 B. W. BACON YALE UNIVERSITY

of the integrityof theAppendixto the FourthGospel, Defence it maybe hoped,is nolongerneedful.Few remainof criticswho once sought to trace a line of cleavageafter verse 23 or verse 24, insisting on the traditionalauthorshipas applicableto all that preceded,and allowingonly the minimumof the two verseswhich clearlyspeak of the authorin the third person,as appendedby a later hand. It is now generallyconceded,even by extremeconservatives such as Zahn,that the originalGospelclosesat 20 31, and that chapter21 as a wholeconsistsof a supplementsuperaddedfor the purposeof (1) accommodatingJohanninetradition, particularly in its closing paragraphs,to Petrine, (2) commendingthe entire Gospelthus completedto the use of the Churchcatholic.So widely are these facts recognizedthat no furtherwords need be wastedin provingthe Appendixa unit in generalpurpose,whatever be thought of its data and its relationto the Gospel. I shallnot concernmyselfin the presentpaperwith the firsthalf of the chapter.Verses 1-14 are devoted, as above pointedout, to adjustment to catholic tradition of the resurrectionstory of the precedingchapter,for Jn. 20 is limited to the Lukan-Jerusalem accountof the appearances,to the exclusionof the Galileanof Mk. and Mt. Jn. 21 1-14 (Part A of the Appendix)returns, on the contrary,to the point whereas yet no appearanceshave occurred, to relatethe "turningagain"of Peter and his fellows. The affinity of Part A of the Appendix(vs.1-14) with the extant beginningof the resurrectionscene in Ev. Petri is generallyre-

72

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

cognized,and many critics are furtherconvincedthat the underlying narrativeis basedon the originalendingof Mk.Enoughhere to pointout that its portrayalof the relationof Peterto the Beloved disciplefollowsthe lines of the resurrectionscene of the preceding chapter(20 1-10),just as the style of the Appendix in general followsthat of the Gospel,even to the degreeof manifestimitation (cf. v. 25 with 20 o30f.).Whateverdifferencewe discernin purpose between paragraph A (vs. 1-14) and paragraph B (vs. 15-25), a

differencebroadlydefinedabove, there cannot be, therefore,any reasonabledoubt that the Appendixis a unit, devised with the generalpurposealreadydescribed.It harmonizesthe Gospelwith acceptedviews and commendsit to the use of the Churchcatholic. The mysteriousBeloved disciple who figuresso conspicuouslyin its pagesis identified(not openlybut by purposelyveiledsuggestion) with the ApostleJohn, and a definiteanswerofferedto the challenging questionin what relationthis allegedJohanninetype of tradition is to standto the acceptedPetrine. I shall furtherlimit my subjectby excludingthe earlierportion of paragraphB, the secondhalf of the Appendix.Thegeneraltheme of paragraphB has been well designated:The two-foldApostolic Witness; (1) throughMartyrdom("red"witness),and (2) through maintenanceof the true teaching.This "abiding"witnesshas been designated "white" martyrdom.The first half of paragraphB (vs. 15-19) relates a special commission to Peter, supplementing

and supersedingthat whichhad alreadybeen given in 20 19-23 to "the disciples"inclusiveof Peter; and this specialcommissionis of the most solemnand significantcharacter.If not actuallybasedon 1. Pt. 5 1-5 it at least reproducesthe same conceptionof Peter as chiefunder-shepherd of the flockof Christ.TheAppendix,however, carriesPeter'scareerto its close, placingin the mouth of the risen Christa symbolicalpredictionexplicitlyinterpretedto foretellthe mannerof his death.In his old age Peteris to be boundand carried away from his charge,to "follow"his Masterin martyrdom.The paragraphconstitutesa foil, or apodosis,to a sectionof the Gospel where the Synoptic story of Peter's too bold offer to "follow" Jesus to prison and death is interjected. In Jn. 13 36-38

Jesus

BACON: TRE MOTIVATION OF JOHN 21 15-25

73

meets Peter'sofferwith predictionof the failureand denial,while offsetting the rebuke by an assurancethat "hereafter"he shall "follow"indeed. Since protasisand apodosisin these companion scenesare clearlyinseparableit seemsunavoidableto regardboth as from the same later hand; for both are ignoredin the original close of the Gospel(c. 20). This of coursemeans that the editor who affixed the Appendix had previouslymade additions and changesof kindredpurposein the substanceof the Gospel.We may thereforespeakof him as its Redactor(R). Adjustmentto Synoptic traditionappearsas a probablemotive. But the special Commission to Peter of paragraph B (21 15-19),

importantas it is for completionof our knowledgeof Peter's fate and the functionascribedto him in earlysecondcenturytradition, is subordinateto the main purposeof the paragraphand may thereforebe made subordinatein our own enquiry;for what concernsus mostis the final,ultimatemotiveof the entiresupplement. That is surely to be found in the generaltheme of paragraphB (vs.

15-25),

more especially in its closing verses (21 24f.). These

two versesamplifyandrecastthe originalcolophonto the Gospel (20 sof.), by declaringthe "witness"bornein the book to be the witness,oral and written,of the Beloveddisciple.It is addedthat this testimonyis "true",to the knowledgeof R andhis circle. The Appendixculminates,therefore,in this enlargedcolophon. It was for the sake of making a place alongsideof the accepted Commissionof Peter (cf. 20 21-23) for anotherCommission,equally importantif different in scope, that the special Commissionof Peter was related in 21 15-19. There was nothing new in describing

of the Peteras commissionedby the Lordto be chiefunder-shepherd flock, for that was as widely accepted as 1. Pt. 5

1-4

and Mt. 16 1sf.

Neither was there anythingnew to the generationfor which the Appendixwas written in interpretingthe martyr fate of Peter (at Rome?) as expiating the failure and denial which Synoptic traditionrecorded.To us that is news, and very important;but it was a mere statement of acceptedfact for readersof the early second century. The novelty of paragraphB was its division of functionin the ApostolicCommissionas relatedin Synoptictrad-

74

JOURNALOF BIBLICALLITERATURE

ition. R now finds a place for Johannine "witness"alongsideof Petrine, by assigningto Peter the functionsof a faithfulshepherd, activity of a "rulingoverseer" limiting these to the administrative in the classificationof 1. Tim. 3 1-7. The Beloveddisciple,on the other hand, is commissionedto a functionmore like that of the "teaching"elder of 1. Tim. 5 17. The contributionI desire to make at present to the historical interpretationof the Appendixis limited to this Commissionto "white"martyrdom,the testimonyof the "abidingwitness"which plays so largea part in Johannineliterature. For R is not introducinghere any new conception.He is rather giving new and concrete applicationto the theme of authentic apostolicwitness,a theme whichI shallshowto be of vital importto his age, and whichis reallydominantoverall else with the nameless "Elder" who writes the Epistles of John. We may identify this Elder with the fourthevangelistwhoseteaching,oral and written, R is editing.At all events he gloriesin the "truewitness"borneby the groupof whichhe himselfis an organicunit. He championsthis "apostolic"witness committed to the Churchover against the false witness of the "many antichrists"whom he opposes(1. Jn. 1 1-4). Not withoutsignificance,then, is R's substantialtranscript of 3. Jn. 12 in 21 24. Apostolic"witnessto the truth," the historic eye- and ear-testimonyof 1. Jn. 1 1-4, had becomeone of the most vital functionsof the Churchin this post-apostolicgeneration.It is true that "the Elder"of the Epistlestakes this witnessin a more mysticalsensethan R, whenin 1. Jn. 5 6-12 he extendsthe original witness-bearingof the Apostlesto includethe continuous"abiding" witnessof the Spiritin the Church,leavinghis ownindividualpart indeterminate, but if even first-rate modern interpretershave insisted on taking the corporate"we"of 1. Jn. 1 1-4 as a claimto actual membershipin the apostolicbody we need feel no surprise that R has done the same. Churchhistory is so explicit, so unanimous,so emphaticas to the vital issues of the Johannineperiodthat we scarcelyneed the explicitprooffromthe threeEpistlesas to its intensepreoccupation with authenticationof apostolictradition.From PastoralEpistles

BACON: THE MOTIVATION OF JOHN 2115-25

75

with their norm of regulative "wordsof our Lord Jesus Christ" (1. Tim. 6 3) to Papias,with his devotionto the "Interpretationsof the Lord'swords"guaranteedby the "traditionsof the Elders," successorsof the Apostles,this is the chief weaponof the Church over againstthe "vaintalk" attractiveto the many and the "alien commandments"promulgatedby the heretics.But ourbest appreciation of the sense and feeling with which R composeshis Commissionof the Beloveddisciplewill be obtainedby comparisonof the words of Hegesippus,written not more than a few decades afterthe Appendix;for, as Eusebiusexpresslystates, the five books of Hegesippus'churchhistory aimedto record"the true tradition of Apostolicdoctrine,"adducedin the Church'sdefenseagainstthe godlessheresies. Eusebius (HE, IV, xxii, 4-6) gives us the very words of this

secondcenturychampionof orthodoxy: And after James the Just had sufferedmartyrdom, as had the Lord on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposedhim as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.... On this account they called the Church

(in Jerusalem)a virgin,for as yet it had not beencorruptedby vain

utterances. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it.

Hegesippusproceedsat this point to inserta list of five heretical sects (all Samaritanand notconnectedwith Thebuthis)fromwhom he deducesthe Gnosticheresiesof his owntime. But he had previously given a differentand overlappinglist which shows his conception of the Apostolicbody at Jerusalemas "true witness" to the Lord'steachingagainstthe perversionsof heresy.Referringto Hegesippus'characterizationof the (Jerusalem)churchas "a pure and uncorruptedvirgin"Eusebiusgives the purportof Hegesippus' statement in this connectionas follows: For if therewereany that attemptedto corruptthe soundnormof the preachingof salvation,theylayuntilthen(theschismof Thebuthis) concealed in obscure darkness. But when the sacred college of Apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as

76

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who because none of the Apostles was any longer living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preachingof the truth, the "knowledge which is falsely so-called."

Eusebiusis certainlynot misrepresenting Hegesippus'conception of the functionof the "collegeof the Apostles"in preserving"the sound norm of the preachingof salvation" against the "godless heretics."We have alreadyobserveda kindredsenseof the unique value of the "truewitness"of the body of eye- and ear-witnesses in 1. Jn. 1 1-4, and a similarappealto the authentictraditionof "the eldersthe disciplesof the Apostles"in the Prefaceto Papias' Interpretation(s)of the Lord's Oracles.Polycarp had previously (115 A.D.) urged the same remedy against the "vain talk" and "alien commandments"of the heretics (ad Phil. vii). Indeed the riseofheresywouldinevitablythrowbackthe post-apostolicgeneration upon this "traditionhandeddown" (Polycarp),this "living and (locally)abidingword"of the eldersthe disciplesof the Apostles (Papias). It is the periodin which an authenticatedcanon of "apostolic"Gospelsis beginningto be formed to counteractthe perversionsof false teachers such as Marcion.Indeed no other coursewas possible. But we have special reason to take note of the testimony of Hegesippusthus summarizedbecauseof two connections.On the one handit correspondsto that specializedformof ApostolicCommissionwhichthe JohannineRedactorcomposesin commendation of the workwhichhe ascribesto "the disciplewhom Jesusloved," thus providingfor John, son of Zebedee,a place alongsideof Peter as "abidingwitness"for the authenticteaching;on the otherhand it recallsan often quotedstatementof Clementin refutationof the claimof the GnosticBasilidesto standthroughhis informantGlaukias, an alleged"interpreter"of Peter, at no furtherremovefrom apostolicauthoritythan the readersof the Gospelof Mark. The statement of Clementis rightly adducedby R. H. Charles (ICC on Revelation,p. xlvii) and others as evidenceagainst the allegedsurvivalof John "untilthe times of Trajan."Thereis indeed a certaindiscrepancybetweenthis passagefromStrom.vii. 17 and

BACON: THE MOTIVATION OF JOHN 21 15-25

77

the legend of the aged John and the robber cited by Clement himself in his Quis dives salvetur as "a myth which is not a mere myth but a real teaching." In reality the robber story is a legend based on the tradition of the long-lived Apostle in Ephesus, and hence inconsistent with the Stromateispassage. Clement is unconscious of the inconsistency partly because he is only using the legend for its moral application, but also partly because the chronology employed in his argument against Basilides is not his own. For even a surface inspection of its three-fold division of periods (1) that of the Lord's own teaching, brought to a close before the death of Tiberius, (2) that of the Apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, which ,,was brought to a close in the reign of Nero," (3) that of the heresies "in the times of the Emperor Hadrian" reveals the standard and stereotyped argument of Hegesippus and other heresiologues for the late and dependent nature of heresy. In Strom.vii, 17, accordingly, Clement is simply repeating in a form adapted to his particular refutation of the claim of Basilides, who did flourish "under Hadrian," what Hegesippus had maintained against the earlier heretics. It is the common doctrine that the heretics had never ventured to show their heads while any of the sacred college of the Apostles was still alive. This, however, is manifestly in conflict with the later representation that John, last survivor of the Twelve, had himself been the principal malleushaereticorum.The dates given in Strom.vii, 17 are a survival. But it is not to Hegesippus, a writer probably unknown to him, that Clement resorts for his dating of heresy as post-apostolic. The two heresiologues are both dependent on a common source, the Ebionite Ev. Hebr. In the case of Hegesippus the fact of dependence on this post-canonical gospel, in which James the Just figured as head of the apostolic college and refuter of all the heresies of Judaism, is explicitly stated by Eusebius (HE IV, xxii, 7). Clement related the same story according to Eusebius, in Books VI and VII of the Hypotyposes. What, then, was the argument of Ev. Hebr.? In my recent Studies in Matthew (1930), Appended Note VI, I have indicated its probable nature and contents. Ev. Hebr. was an Ebionite post-canonical gospel written in Greek (it would other-

78

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

wise have been inaccessible to Clement). It was probably the same as that designated Gospelof the Twelve Apostles from the fact that it gave to James, as leader of the Twelve, the part taken by Peter in Acts 1--5, after whom the Apostles gave their witness in order, beginning with John. As in the Ascents of James and other Ebionite sources underlying the Clementina (200-210 A. D.) the Twelve thus became "witnesses" for the doctrine against various types of heresy. The underlying motive in this attempt to utilize the authority of the "sacred college of the Apostles" to establish the Ebionite doctrine current in Jerusalem as "the sound norm of the preaching of salvation" is older than the Appendix to Jn., though the various extant fragments of second century literature which reflect it may be largely later. We need not assume that it is in direct opposition to such exaggerated claims as those exemplified by Hegesippus for the church of the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem to sit in Moses' seat regulating faith and practice, that the Appendix writer seeks a place for the Johannine type of teaching. But surely the spirit of the times as exhibited by Hegesippus and Papias throws much needed light on the motivation of R's final words. In 21 24 both the spirit and letter of the nameless Ephesian Elder, writer of 1. Jn. 1 1-4; 5 6-12 and 3. Jn. 12, are reflected. The general theme of paragraph B is Apostolic Witness-bearing. To Peter is conceded a place such as he really occupied, according to the conviction of the times, as chief under-shepherd of the flock of Christ, redeeming by a martyr fate his unfulfilled undertaking on the eve of Calvary. But with the rise of heresy and the passing of the generation which had been privileged to "hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears" another type of Witness-bearing had come to assume a new and vital importance. The editor of Jn. (R) presents a new body of tradition, a Hellenistic tradition which he holds to be derived from John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Possessed of this he cannot be content to leave the Petrine teaching in sole command of the field. The office of "abiding witness to the apostolic faith" belongs rather, in his judgment, to one who both by word and pen had transmitted the record R himself has in hand. For this "Johannine" body of

BACON: THE MOTIVATION OF JOHN 21 15-25

79

teaching R seeks a place alongside of the witness of Peter. He will not commit himself to the extreme form of the claim made on its behalf that Jesus had given to John an assurance like that of the aged Simeon, that he should live on until the coming of the Lord's Christ. He only maintains that Jesus had hinted at an apostolic witness for one who should "abide" as well as for him that should "follow." R is convinced that the mysterious "disciple whom Jesus loved" of the Gospel is the author of its peculiar teaching, but he does not name him. He only ventures to suggest that this disciple was no other than the surviving "son of Zebedee." Why, then, have we, in the Appendix, no more than this veiled suggestion of authorship ? Modesty is not the cause of R's reserve, for the claim made on behalf of the disciple in question is anything but modest. The answer may be found by reflection on the fate that had befallen a similar claim on behalf of the Book of prophecy given out shortly before, here in Ephesus, with positive and emphatic assertion of Johannine authorship. The "I, John, am he that heard and saw these things" of Rev. I 9ff.; 22 8 had elicited from the start a very whirlwind of denial and opposition. R prefers to make his readers responsible for the inference his enumeration in 21 2 will inevitably suggest. This method leaves room for identification of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" with one of the unnamed "two other disciples" of v. 2 in case R's own identification should be rejected. As regards date and occasion for this edition of the "Elder's" literary remains I see no reason for more than a single slight alteration in the position assumed in my Fourth Gospelin Research and Debatetwenty years ago. At that time I was not yet convinced, as I now am, that Tertullian's reproach against Marcion for having "labored to destroy the status of those Gospels which are given out as the personal work of Apostles" (Adv. Marc. IV, iiif.) implied an explicit attack (doubtless in the Antitheses)upon the claims of Mt. and Jn. to apostolic authorship.My change of view implies a slightly earlier date for the present form of Jn., or at least for the belief sponsored in 21 24. It will have preceded the momentous visit of Polycarp to Rome in 154 A. D., much as the belief in apostolic

80

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

authorship for Mt. will have preceded the visit of Ignatius in 115. We cannot safely ascribe the origin of the Matthean tradition to Ignatius, though the renowned martyr's preferential use of this particular Gospel may well have contributed largely to it. At least there was something approaching a canonization of Mt. at Rome about 120 A. D. In like manner Polycarp's defense of Johannine Quartodecimanism may have contributed largely, after Polycarp's no less glorious martyrdom, to the acceptance in Roman circles of the theory of apostolic authorship for Jn. At least all the evidence earlier than the visit of Polycarp is adverse to any such acceptance; whereas afterward, beginning with Tatian, disciple of Justin, we find a disposition to treat Jn. as of equal rank with the earlier Gospels, and, finally, beginning with Theophilus of Antioch, the bold assertion that it had the Apostle John as its author. In any case it is the addition of the Appendix which made for Jn. all the difference between neglect and highest honor. And the composition of the Appendix has precisely this honor in view. Whether composed in Ephesus or at Rome, this redactional supplement bears all the ear-marks of the struggle for apostolic authentication which characterizes the period of rivalry for a place in the growing four-gospel canon. The "status" accorded to Mt. about 120 A. D. is the status sought for Jn. in the form it received at the hands of R some twenty years later. The resistance the claim encountered lasted well into the third century, but the Muratorianum records already the favorable decision secured by Irenaeus and its other friends. R's tentative but mistaken identification of the "disciple whom Jesus loved" with the nameless "Elder" of the Epistles finally carried the day.

The Old Ethiopic Version of 1 Kings and Its Affinities Author(s): Henry S. Gehman Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 81-114 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259562 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

81

THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS AND ITS AFFINITIES HENRY S. GEHMAN PRINCETON NEWJERSEY UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON,

ACCORDINGto traditionChristianitywasbroughtto Ethiopiain Ithe time of Constantinethe Great.Meropius,a Syrianmerchant, on a voyage to India, took with him two of his kinsmen,the two brothersFrumentiusand Aedesius.As they weresailingdownthe Red Sea, they stopped at a certain place, probablyAdulis, the seaportof Axum, wherethe natives killed Meropiusand all of the crewexceptthe twobrotherswhomthey took to the king.Thelatter madeFrumentiushis chancellorandAedesiushis cupbearer.According to traditionthese two brothersintroducedChristianityinto Abyssinia.Lateron Aedesiusreturnedto his native land wherehe becamepresbyterof a churchat Tyre.Frumentiuswas interested in the spiritualwelfareof the Christiansin Abyssiniaandso wentto Athanasius,the patriarchof Alexandria,with a request that he send a bishopto Abyssinia.ThereuponAthanasiusfelt that Frumentiuswas the man for the office and accordinglyordainedhim as bishop of Ethiopia. In that capacityhe is generallyknown as Abba SalAma.It is certainthat he was consecratedbefore370 and probablywas ordainedaround330. At any rate about340'Ezan&, king of Axum,embracedChristianityand madehis kingdomChristian. Christianityspread rapidly in Abyssinia, and consequentlya translationof the Scripturesbecame a necessity. Probably the Gospels,or the wholeNew Testamentand the Psalmsweretrans6

82

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

lated first. In the courseof time the wholeBible was renderedinto Ge'ezor Ethiopic.Frumentiushas beenregardedby sometraditions as the translatorof the Scriptures.It is possiblethat he beganthe work or had it done underhis oversight.Christianitycannot permanentlyacquireroot and growwithoutthe Scripturesin the vernacular.FurthermoreChrysostom(f 407) may have knownabout an Ethiopic version (Chrysostom, Homilia, In Joannem II,2, ad

finem). Accordingto another tradition, however, the Bible was turnedinto Ethiopicby the Nine Saints,who as Monophysitesfled afterthe Councilof Chalcedonin 451fromSyriato Egypt andthence made theirway into Abyssinia.Christianitywas wellestablishedin that countryin the fifth century,whichwould imply a Bible or at least portionsof the Scripturesin the vernacularpreviousto that prosperityof the Church.The whole matter is in obscurity,but I am inclined to agreewith Dillmann for an early date and to believe with Mechineauthat * was commencedin the secondhalf of the fourthcenturybeforethe arrivalof the Nine Saints. It may be that the Nine Saints revisedthe originalEthiopictranslation. At any rate my study showsthat 1. Kings of t is basedon B with a strongLucianicinfluence.It is possiblethat the B text which is the basis of * camefromAlexandriathroughFrumentius'relations with Athanasius,while the Lucianicreadingswere introducedby the Nine Saints, who came from Syria.Onthe otherhandit must be bornein mindthat Frumentiushimselfwas a Syrian. Dillmannrecognizesthree groupsof MSS. in the Ethiopic Versions of Kings. The Versioantiquais representedby two MSS.: S (Codexmembranaceus Riippelianus,Frankfurta. M.)andA (Codex Abbadianus,LVII, Paris, 15th century).The latter is severalcenturiesolderthan S, but is inferiorto S and has Amhariccharacteristics. Both of these MSS. containno chapterdivisions.In the second group he places the vulgar text or KOLV?' which is now used in

the Churchof Abyssinia.This group contains emendationsfrom later Greekversions,modernwords, and chapterdivisions; it is representedby B (CodexBrucianus,Bodleianlibrary),C (Codex Abbadianus,CXXXVII, Paris), D (CodexAbbadianusCXCVII, Paris),M (BritishMuseum),R (Codexmembranaceus Riippelianus,

GERMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

83

Frankfurta. M.). B and M ratherrarely,and D very often, reveal readingsof the first group,but they aremorefrequentlyinfluenced by the third version.The third versionor Hebrew-Ethiopicis old and may have beenmadedirectfromthe Hebrewand agreesmore frequentlywith the first than with the second group. The third version had no public authority and was used more by scholars than by lay people.In this groupDillmannplacesE (CodexAbbadianusXXXV, Paris). ThisMS. containsreadingsof boththe second and the third groups.With the exceptionof A, these codices were copiedin the 17th or 18th centuries. There is, however, another MS. of the Versioantiquawhich contains the two Books of Samueland the two of Kings: Codex Vaticanus-Borgianus(Vatican, No. L, V-16), which had been used for liturgicalpurposesin the churchat Jerusalem.This MS. in 1694and at the latest in 1696wasin the possessionof J. Pastritius. The codex was in Jerusalembefore 1637, having been sent there by 'Amda-SejonGabraMasqal,who ascendedthe throneof Axum in 1314 and died in 1344.The codex may hail from Axum, althoughit is not so stated in the MS. CodexBorgianusprobably is olderthan Cod.P 32 (1270-1285). King 'Amda-Sejondedicated CodexBorgianusto the VirginMary;it was accordinglyregarded as very valuable. In makingmy collationsI used the text of B as publishedin Swete's Old Testamentin Greekand Dillmann'sEthiopictext. I also comparedDillmann'stext word for word with CodexBorgianus of whichthere is a photostaticcopy of 1. and 2. Kingsin the YarnallLibraryat the Divinity Schoolof the ProtestantEpiscopal Churchin Philadelphia.All deviationsfromthe text of B have been comparedwith the variantslistedin Holmes-Parsons.1 1 The following symbols have been used in this essay: A Codex Alexan. drinus . Arm. ArmenianVersion. B CodexVaticanus. Bg. Codex VaticanusBorgianus Aethiopicus. DI. Dillmann's text. fe Versio Antiqua Aethiopica. l Massoretic text. H-P Holmes-Parsons. k Kotvwversio Aethiopica. Lu. Lucian (MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108). N (XI of Holmes-Parsons), Basilianus. Whenever DI. and Bg. agree, X includes both. The numberingof chapters and verses is accordingto Swete. 6*

84

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

It has been known for several centuries that * is derived from the Greek. Walton (1. c.) refers to this fact, and so does Ludolf (Historia Aethiopica, Frankfurt a. M., 1681, lib. III, cap. IV). Eichhorn (1.c.), no doubt echoing these writers, repeats this information. A comparison of * with B makes it very apparent that t is rendered from a Greek source. A comparison of a few transliterations leaves no doubt: 2 46e, KdpoL,q ros; o-eywcaXewv, sinddlj; 2 46k; 10 30; 16 is, aX6 so, apKevOi(V), 'drqutn6n; 7 1 et passim, Xo40Xwv, 'il•/lil; 12 24b, o-cvUrXts'q]9 t#l#m. Tt'pov, T.irs; A careful study shows that i is based on a text similar to that of B. In 4 10-14 we have a place of special difficulty on account of a group of proper names where I makes a number of wrong divisions and combinations. An analysis of e, however, leaves no doubt that * follows B and not Lu. In 2 s, ra p4La-ra, ~ agrees with B in having no plus. In 2 3si, t Balt = BaXXaOof B. In 2 46d, Oeppal, an error in B, is reproduced in *, Tarmj. In 2 46f even though B is wrong, 'Panel, i has Ridf; again we have evidence that a Greek original was used. The Hebrew for this word (I. Kings 5 4) is iAg. In 2 46f, ovK jv apXWV,the negative is a solus in B, but t agrees in also having the negative. Another solus of B is found in : 4 9 ad finem, BatOXau'v, eT:g agrees, bdt ldmdnis. 22 16, 'revrdTaK,is rendered as 'how often' in e, agreeing with B?b 'wo ra&cKS'.

In 4 is, ?oov'aooS: , E~iha's is closer to B than to Lu ('PapaovX, 93,108; Bapo-aovX, 82). ~eand B agree in omitting 20 12. I follows B in passing from 13 34 directly to 14 21. The following classification of MSS. and edd. for 1. Kings is adapted from Rahlfs (op. cit.) : (1) real Lucianic MSS., 19, 82, 93, 108; (2) the Complutensian Polyglot; (3) Lagarde's ed. (op. cit.); (4) Lucianic variations in the margin, 243; (5) MSS. with many Lucianic readings in the text, 158, 56, 246; (6) MSS. with occasional Lucianic readings in the text, 44, 106, 71, 245, 123. While * follows B in the main, there are some passages where we apparently have a conflate of B and Lu.:

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

1

85

Lu. calav reXa/,/vovoro T~nlow p3OUoVV 'ASwveLo": clove and aided him.' While the 'And to Adonias M, they adroG: have it M's odriawmay suggested rendering, looks more like a conflate of B and Lu. 7,

19,

Kal

)roy

apovr; 82, 7ravTa9Vro

ayvSpa:

Ta. roe aSpoovr.

-= •rav

82, 93, 108, 246, DI., Rdmem'it r, 11 14, 'P ae/aaep:it looks like a conflate'Pae/aO: Bg., spelling. 2 8, 15 ',rmimdter; 'A)Wto, M+ 'king of Juda.' This plus may have been suggested by Lu. 20 11; * follows Lu. in verse 11(which is not in B) to 'Ie~dfX, but it omits all from KaOa to the end of the verse, even though tyeyparra' Lu. has the whole verse. Thus it partially agrees with B in the minus. There are some passages where B stands alone. In these cases % corrects B; in these readings t naturally agrees with Lu.: o5 6, JovXelar'ov o-w ooL:*, 'And wages of thy servitude too I shall give thee.' B leaves out liGrOJv. 7 3, 70 aLAafL7ro OLKOL.This is a solus in B; the other MSS. read: -ro7vSo ar;Xovu-7'- aAciaro' oLKov. ~ agrees with this. 8 36, 7~ SodXp o-oV,a solus in B; f, 'to thy people.' 9 26, 'ELaeo-eY,. a solus in B, for which the other MSS. have A, Pao-•wv: Ge'sifn. 10 21, SpvUo okov o70A"Aidvov: B and 119 are the only MSS. reading Spvuo. oKov: % correctly reads: 'of the house of the wilderness of Lebanon.' 12 24b, Zapet-, a solus in B; i, Sdrird. t* has it 1d 'Asi. 15 33, B omits 7ro0 'A•': 16 6, 'HXaav: only so in B; *, 'Eld. 16 2z, 'Iwao-adO: M + 'the king of Juda.' So do all except B. Although M in the main follows B, the agreements with Lu. are very numerous. In case a reading agrees with the four MSS. 19, 82, 93, 108, I shall generally label the Greek counterpart simply as Lu. When the four MSS. do not agree, I shall name the individual codices. The following are the agreements between sI and Lu.: 1 6, erol7o-ag;Lu. adds ohrwq. So does ie. 1 9, zr-ovs eXpou avroG: 19, 93, 108 add Trov vioub 70r So does e. 3ao-Xeqws.

86

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

pactXe6. So does 1 17, K'pte: 82, 42 add Aov u. 1 as, principio, A, Kal'lvafrea-aL Kai eL'OeXerTel-a d(rl0w aivo' : 19, 106, Kai &va/,'Tecroe drT W aarTG OK K'oa l Kai : sic nisi sic Kai 108, nisi KaaO•'reTar euXedo-eXeov"e're KaO're'rat 82, Tre7Ta KaOe-7at": (sic) Ka KaOicrerat: 93, Kcal Vaa'TeaOe or7•rTWKai eaeXevaJtETat Kai M, 'And ascend ye and follow him, and he will enter and sit caOGel^re:

down.' 1 38s, ) (DeXeOel: 82, 93,) 'eXet": Ie, fjltY. 1 43, Kal gdiXa, omitted in 82, 93, 245; also in te. 1 47, 2aXwptuv: A, 44, + ovoXo v-rog: vLG :ov:19, vt'oi ov '-o•DI. son.' V1 T o ou 108, TOG 'Salomon, thy 0~ 1 47, ad finem, e71oXoij'7vro J7V:A, 82, 93, 108, 44, + a'TroU.So It. Tr)V ie 'commanded.' 2 1, Lu. KO•' vereiXa'o: areK•yivaaTO: a 93, 44 insert Kal after iX708eta. 2 4, V dX1O7eiLb I •X Kap8('i: 1t agrees, 'and.' 2 7, 19, 93, 108, OT o0roT 'rapWo•'p lot": o-t o•-T•W 77YL,•dV evw7rLodgov. %also reads o'roo. ^E 'upon his throne.' 2 19, ~r 70T- 8Opo'vo Lu. + ad''oG: A , the king.' 2 26, d 93, 108 + haXwYV: 'Sl':mon, 2 29, Kai/aacALXe': So i. 93 omits ov'J. •OUa KaTe•XEL: 108 transposes these 2 33, ad finem, alwvog7rapa Kvplo•: we. two phrases; so does te. 2 35i, Mayad: Lu. May^d: tE,Magdd. 2 35111,principio, 82, 93, 108, 243, 245, 56, 246, Kal oi~ror. oio•": So e. 2 s46e, 2aXwjAdv:Lu. + 'v i7ue'pqAli. %S So . 2 46h, KUal pajrev.This was read as a proper name, wa 'ldr6nsd, but so also did 82, 93, 44, Kal EJpav; and 56, Kai'EoSpaA. 2 46h, KaXoip: 82, 93, 108, ZaKXovp:56, 106, ZaXoup: DI., Zekfir; Bg. Zaker. 4 6, 'AXel: 19, 108, 'AXL'X:93, 'AIX: ie, 'Akijl. 4 s, 'Ebpd: 93, *, 'Edra. 108,'E~pd": 4 e, Rdkjb. 93, 'P-Xaf: ,'PXa"r:Lu. 2aav: 4 12, e, S&Tian. A•V: 4 is, ad finem, e61:omit 19, 82, 93, 44, 106, 245, 247; so 1•. 4 30, Ka' 7rapa 7 71, X4Lave 'rivKar, /aoiXwv: post ~r rcvrawv

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

87

GJpa: sic nisi Kal, 82, 93, 56, 106, 158, 243, 245. i, wd j"ndis'

ndgditd. 'ambh'9mhdbd

7 4, Xwevra: 19, 93, 108, 44, 56, 71, 106, 123, 158, 243,245,246, 247 + XaXKi'.So it, zabert. , 'which bears this 7 11, rXet: Lu. + avtcrravTiV OcXaorcrav": sea and lifts it up.' 7 25, rag revTreXteXw~•. i1Kais found in 19, 108, 56, 123, 158, 246, 106. ie also has 'ten.' 8

46, ol alXaXWtr•71'orTEg

19, 82, 93, + a'rou'). So it.

8 47 Kal Sej~6iicv ov: Lu. and ft omit. 8 59, o o7rotelivTO StKalcW/a ;oXov ov 'IOapa)'X: after ao "ToiG 19 and 108 insert KaaT StLKal'wa XaoI0 oU: so do 44, 106, 123, Tro o"r but without this s, addition. 243, 245, agrees with o70. 8 59, ad finem, iv~uie'paL vlavrovo: Lu. reads ai'zoi for ivtau'oG. So e, 'letit. 8 63, PoV 40 f Ko al CKTO6Xlnl(ae. All add Kal rpoa3rwv Kaexcept B, 44, 106. D1. agrees with this adTOV IKOT XtLXa'aa but has 'two thousand.' dition, Bg. 8 64, KaL rag Ovacla' KaiL ra oTeaTa T v e1'p'v1rVLv: 82, 93, 108, TWV Ta e Ka 7 7Taa. *t hasa similartransLepVLKwVK KaL7Tag 8wla' position, but with omission of Kal 20: 'and fat, a sacrifice of peace.' 8 64, T)v 0XOKa'T-wiV 20, 19, 93, 108, 106, 123, 24 read cal T0 J&pov.So * que"rbndnii. 9 11, Xelpdu: 19 and 108 KaIXELppdA.So M. 10 17, principio, Ka 7ptaKoorla: Lu. Kaler ol7Oe 300; agrees with Lu. 10 21, o'L OiK 'VjXo7LydYevov: 82, 93, 158, 246, OTL oWV?v TO apy provXoyL~Ydlevov. It, 'so that not was an enumeration of silver.' 10 23, KKalriJv MaStV, unique in B. 82, 93, 108, 246, Mayed~w: mav gdn. Dl., wd m•egqdn; Bg., wd

11 7,

iKaL EO'E: 44, Kal OvPt'a so 82, 243 mg, KalMOvoV:

withouteOvAt1mV Kai10; ~*, 'He sacrificed and made burnt offerings', with transposition of the verbs. 11 to, Kal /vXa'aoOaiL7roroatL:Lu. inserts a second Kalbetween these two infinitives. t agrees with this addition.

88

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

11 14, 'ASppdaap:93, 246, Lagarde, AMpaayap. *• apparently follows Lu.: DI., 'Adrd'dzdr;Bg., 'Adrd'Jzar. 11 as, Kai VrToi et'ELXoLS': Lu., ei•dapX. So f. 11 41, ad finem, EP PIL0Mp aXuOIWv:for 1t~,jarwe In *t the passage 246, pqf'rwv 1•tia•rwv 82, 93, 108, Xdywv

~i'epwv. of the words of his days.' reads: 'in the book t'gep"v: 12 is, Ial eXLto/0dX?)aavav'rov iv XlOotv:Lu. adds 7ra Israel.' 247 after a'ro'v. It, 'and stoned him all'Io-pa,1X after iv XlOoi":& 12 2a-o, Kai pAiKG'ra ra. r•,'IepoPdou": Lu. adds SE'a 'eiL % does not add anything 20, it reads here, but for W8'eKa T/iypTara 'ten fragments.' 12 2 4-o, ad finem, Lu. adds pao-LXero-ei:te, 'thou shalt rule.' 13 2, 7rpS rTbOvor-aoT-rtpov:19, 108, 158, + avOpowrov70o of Lord.' man * 'the the Oeo6: 13 2, KavO-et:19, 82, 93, 123, KaraKav'reL:* has two synonyms: 'will consign to the flames and burn.' It may in this manner render KaTaKawUEL.

13 , 70rOv^'raorrpiovu: 19 and 92 have 6ir' with the geniarowith the accusative. 245 tive; *t renders Et71. el 13 7, elk olov: 82, 108, OkdV O'7y otu' u. So . G 13 20, KaitE7VETOaVTrv 19, 108, aVr'ovoKaG KaOGpwvwv: uVov. is at the table.' when then 'and he I, sitting 13 s2, v Bati0LX:82, 93, 158, 243, 247 place 70io before this phrase; 44, 106 omit br. t, zadbtel seems Lucianic. 14 21, MaaXad: 82, 108, Naava: f, Nih~ndn. 19, 108, 243 mg, T'ai oGa-Xar:82, 93, a(s 1512, 7~r TeXeAE7: of the gods.' te, 'images cr•eXaa: %wv 15 24, 'Aa': Lu. and M add 7raT'pwvav'roV. 15 24, Aavel': Lu. and * addUte-ra vra-rph adroVf. 16 15, afadvY,found only in B, 82, 108, 245. * corrects B in following the reading Paf aOv, Gdbdtin. In verse 17 B also has aapa0Wv. 16

+ e Taao8aXJWo 28c, Kaalk 'Iorpa'X. This --a 108. msld the MSS. except B, 19, is found in allao'vuveOoITwo'/axa rneisgia'asri'erl. Mt, Lu. omits.; so Dl., but Bg. places it after Oem17 1, '7rpo•rir-: 0 elT1sv.

GERMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

89

18 5, ad finem, "rwv Lu., &"' iiv KT'r6V: , 'Our '-Kncv: aranimals.' All MSS. but B, N, 18 11, ad finem, 70 KUpIP ivadTyeXXe• bd oov. 93 add ' 82, ha hdlidw 'Elids. Mlob'HeLo'": Wihii All but 18 12, a7raeL XaL N, 82, 93, 245 have a B, aiT' 'Axad3. he did not find so 'if thee.' e, plus; 18 27, TOTL Oed6eOTiv. Lu. and * omit. T 18 34, e'7 XoKav0rwu a: M, dibA m wSi'. While this may be T This appears merely a translation, m8'wd' suggests Ovj'iao7-apToL. to be Lucianic influence; 19, 82, ~'rl TO • ro T oXoOva'ao-Triptovl 93 omits 7d 20; 108, eXoKavGr4UTaTra. Kav•wj7a: 18 44, * omits. 82 omits aKad~re'rpe+e (B, tIre'rrpEerra"KL: This is probably the source of R's omisxev) TrOW arSpOY i'7rdKL. sion. 18 44, Lu. + aro e, 'from the sea.' -iwp. OaXa'rc"r: avaayovca 19 12, ad finem, Xexrr^: 108, 245, 247 + Kal deKe 71, KptosV: 'and there Lord.' was the :e, dKeiKvptor: 20 1, pr. 19, 93, 108, 243, 158, 246, 106, 71, 245, 123 et alteri, Kai deee7 oE 7AT 7ra r t, 'and then after this word.' Aarg7a: 20 21, principio, 16J'ob d": pr. Lu. rda'e Xe'er Kvpcov: l, 'as says the Lord.' 20 27, ad finem, Ka dTropevq6: Lu. and I omit. T a7ro 'AxaS/ ob apXop'rar, Ta 7raciapLa XOpcv, Kca EVETO Ka~ 7rpILKOMa. 92, 44, 106 omit T4i' laa•oLadoa 247 omit ~wv 19 omits 19, 19, 44, 71, ;Ta7radpLa: 'AXadaP:

21 15,

K•ca eTr6e'JK

Xopw":influence: * appears to reflect Lucianic 106, 243, 245, 247 add •Jo. 'and the number of them, 232 kings who will aid him.' 21 17, KaLeiX'ov aPXOVTES 7rardpla: 92, 106, 123, 3ratdcpia • out the T1w 'and went tv : , boys of the rulers.' 21apXdY"W A% eX#a'carav Kc7- 7roKdXEWW:19, 19, cKaGt 82,108, Ka e'~jXOOV: I 'and forsooth have I, they already gone forth from the city.' 21 19, apxov ra rarapa, apXova a TWYxopv: 19, 108, 7T 245, 247 omit r3v 10; 106 7ratL&piaT W aPXodvWVvV Xwp "v: of • both omits w^v. 'those *, boys the rulers of the regions.' (Xopwv) ia iKOUEV 21 25, TJ79'q avro:To Lu. q)~i aU"'v: e, 'and

he heardthem.'

90

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

22 3, Xafeiv: 19, 82, 93, -70'ro IM, 'that we do not take. Xa3bd"e: 22 12, KaL eoVo•WreLalc aoet Kvptov: 82, 93, KUptoS after e0od a-ete":sote, but Bg. adds a second Kv'pLovafter w-et.. * omits; 19, 108, omit ov'X. 2217,o)X oi;"wr: 22 53, o'(Kov,Lu. and * omit.

Besides these cases where ie agreeswith all or some of the real LucianicMSS. (19, 82, 93, 108) as well as with others,there are a number of passages of agreementwith the MSS. that contain Lucianicreadings: 1 2, ad finem, 0 KPt ! vgwv abmgand 44; so e. tov"A: 2 3, SLKIcatTa'ra: 71, 247, 243mg + aJ'ro^:so IE. 1 247, oviB a-ara : I, 'in his 2 6, ev elplv7: 243, 244, v a :.art: blood.' 2 2o, IKpdaV:245 omits; so ft. 2 22, TiV 'ApeLo-a:44 and add 2ovuavL'rwV. *• 2 3s, 1eXeev: 56, 106, 158, 243, 246, 247 +'Iwd~ : so I. 2 32,I2 6ep: 44, 106,'IaOep: *, 'IVjtjr. 3 2, ad finem, 6w` v6v: 243mg, ew 247, MKevY': '-iepav '7' Tv 'that M, day.' PepPWvKCIVWV: ows ' 3 17, A, 44, 56, 71, 106, 158, 243, 245, 246, 247 + ov. K•ple: So i. 4 5, 'Opveid: r, 'Arji; AyapLav,A, 44, 56, 71,106,158,245, 246,

247. It seemsthat ie is derivedfromthis formwith loss of the first two letters. 4 6, Mda: 243, 245, Zaoav: M, Sdfdn. 4 11, ad finem, el`: omit A, 44, 106, 243, 247; so M. 4 25, Kaa OQoiav: omit 44, 243, 245; so M. 4 27, MdX: 2apgaS56, 243; M, Simaid. 0 Gedo: So I. 5 5, 44, 106, 123, 247 omit GOeod. K•plOr i, ma'dk3t5. 5 11, aXlp: 106, Maxa'rq1: 6 4, NeLa: 56, NtMav:246, Neio-av:M, Nisdn. so 7 13, eis'- oLcoV:246, 14 mangdld 'drdle't. eli•' brvroiXoo: it, 7 26, Ta! M, wd kkeImMti3; the 'three'may be a Oepgdao-rpe•lt: case of dittography, but perhaps rather wrong division, Oep/aar is similarly as in 71, 245, 247. In verse 31, -peit, 6ep•dao-rpet9 treated.

GEHMAN:THE OLD ETHIOPICVERSION OF 1. KINGS

91

EK 44, 56, 71, 106, 7 a5, i7rVe e' apia-rep v Kai 0e?w"V: •oovre 123, 245, 246 transpose these two phrases; so does e. 817, 'tov^ra'rpod ov: 106, 123, 245, 246, 247 add AavelS. So does e. 8 as, rai agaapriaLg Tro Jov'Xovaov Oalro Xao- oov:44, 106, 243, 245, omit r70oJodAov ov Kal:so does ie. 8 46, ot 44, 71, 106, 123, 243, 246 add advo`T . So does M.ailXaXwrrTovTre: so . 9 z6, i OaXaol-rns:44 omits e'a'xa ?: ? 245 omits; so does I. 11 21, ev A''yrT"w,: eoaXaT"?•rar 11 27, 6rT'paalo-ta: 44, 5-r''aXwoicv. So I, but this may be an follows directly in starting a independent reading, since XakXwuWv new sentence. 12 24g, ad finem, ors " Xa'Xoev 243, a~ ' X'oe ' •'po'• Xad': ws 00 0 Tv WrpO Xadv: , 'As speak to Xab0 oi 9XaXkiLQerp? thee the people, so with them thou forsooth to the people.'Although this passage occurs in a plus which is very evidently based on 12 6-7, it should be noted that 12 6-7 does not contain this particular sentence. 13 22, ad finem, rv v ov: a~, 'thy ra'rE'pv o-oV:158,70O 'raTpdo father.' 14 28, 0 8aa-tXevs. This is also omitted in 71 and M. 22 26, 7rpf9 ZeMp: 44, 123, 158, 245, 7rp9 106, 243, 'AM•w"v: 'bdmdn. 247, rp~s'AmEv:M, hdba J e adrwv: 247, e' ad'7r&v 22 34,e)': 245, ~6 elk: eI, 'one from the midst of them.' It will be noticed that MS. 247 in many cases agrees with the group of Lucianic MSS. There are a few cases of unique agreements with 247, which will now follow: 1 51, e4opi,8O rAVpartX8ea 247, aro 7rpoo-wrov X.: aXw,,uv: 'he from the face of feared king Sdlomon.' ft,

rv Kvplpov al ropoXv pKOVKrjv vXfapav ep poses 'rV opKovand 'r6 ~evroX';so does M. 2 o43 s, 0K 2 45,

EvmLOV

Kvplov etlr rov altwa:

247 transposes

247transthese two

phrases. So does i. 3 13, ad finem, A adds ra'a-avrir4p.epav mov.Except for the oov 247 agrees with A; *, 'in all thy days.'

92

JOURNAL OF BIBLIOAL LITERATURE

4 4, oTit 4v apXvy y 7repav70 ro7roraIoo: in a plus 247 contains ev 7ra-L pacreXeGl-t:M, 'since he was ruler over the princes beyond the river.' 5 9, 70o0'rroo: 247, ev 70ro r 7roratou: I, 'until the river.' To0 The translator, however, may have misread r'drov as 7ro0raIou independently of a reading like that of 247. ' 8 64, Tv XOKaIV7'WOlV 10; A, 247 add Kcat ~3pov, which is in represented *t by wdiqugrband. 10 9, 7rTOleV aicVu@v: 247, KaG KaG Ve KpiaptaL Kpl'a V KCatLOoTVV for 6v 10 followed by the accusative; omits Kai. t agrees with 247. 13 26, CKTJ So^: * and 247 both omit. One corruption may be treated by itself, although it seems to a-o u have a Lucianic origin: 25, nV'r 7~ij;v do-~ aidoz. •Yr j Lu. on his loins.' his life w: read 82, 93, 108) (19, as 'upon 'rYv t reads ir 7~ ~w gov: 245, e 7~ w' ad'roO.Arm. also reads, 'in life his.' There are a number of unique readings in I which will now be considered: Kal: t omits all after 1 4, ,a i v OaX7rovcoa'-vr P 10 ial /atr Xa and writes: 'and she remained (sat down).' 1 9, 7iri t This, however, is not an independent error: N, Pwv0X. Arm. 'the land of Rogel': Georgian, according to 7r 2v 'tPwy•^X: H-P, ~Xod'eva }ii~ 'Pw7yiX. This apparently rests on an error of reading 7- '7rTr as '2 35e, '4jv KPrIvYvwas 7'". probably read as ira i"pivea 'the lilies,' 'flowers.' 134 and 242 read Kpl'vqv. since *t has s•g•jidtt, 2 35se,Ka ~KoSgo'F,-ev aJKpavETraXGtV Tr'aw ":*, 'and he r-pv built the wall (citadel) too.' 2 35-1, Xeptv: ie, Batfirim. Cf. 2 8, an error probably due to 2 a9, SIo SouXor:Ie, 'three men.' This isjaaOovpelts. attraction from -rpla in the same verse. 2 46f, v 7ra-VtY , 'in all the kingdoms.' So voi' 8 paaroeao-Lioiw: also in 46k. 4 27, raLeav 'T"v DI., Btd2n zdridwf; Bg. Bitdn zdrZapeL''TV: '

4 s,

et, 'five hundred.' 7revTaKcwXaXt:Xat

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

93

5 6, KQara7ravT'a:* read KaTaas KaL. 6 1, Instead of 7r W Ka'i dETeL. 246 'fourtieth' MSS.'eoocepTKoo•'• read TeTpatKO•O-,cw 19, 93, 56, iev-TwdyJOKOrpco: 108, 'v 7 X is not entirely Lucianic, since it has 'four hundred and dO3T0KOrTW,. eighty-fourth year.' The 'four' is probably added from TeTapT(, of the same verse. : 6 6, 7rVTeKaa t, 'twenty', probably from the previous eOct"I ElICOl.

6 2o, Xpvi~, M, 'with gold, and he adorned it.' Did the translator read some form of ovyKopjl P? WUVKreKAeto,-"peV: 7 9, Kai ,cLeXa0pov: :e, wc mildntrin. 7 17, * misread wilat '7roKacr-w -rv Xouvipwv: 'as a likeness which beneath the Xovurlp (sg.).' But in verse 2z0 (aul is read correctly. 8 37, *, mdnsiit, 'tentatio,' suggests that the transIv7rvpia--"ow: lator read 9 6, a reipaor•jog. wKE M(vws , za wdhabk5woldmiise V tIV: •V•TrWOV 'which I before to Moses bdq'dmekemia, gave you.' It may be of interest to note that the Complutensian Polyglot has a similar 4 /rtoVUVJ. It is obvious, however, that this reading, a'w0Ka 67 has no textual value and may be purely accidental. agreement 11 Is, 1K8 79or r dXew6 Mata'd:e i, 'from the city of Edom.' 12 21, e, remnant, remaining part.' One may oCTrKrTpoV: taricf,' wonder whether our translator read Kaa'rXotWrov or KaTa'dXetlLa of verse 24y. e 12 21, Ca'ToV Ka 6ot XXtaSe: *, 'one hundred and two thousand.' 12 27, a' K as nomiarTwv 7rpov'Po/3oa: t* takes K'pLOV a verb: 'And the Lord turn them to Rehoboam native and supplies aptOV (R(b'am). 13 3,)So1 : I, 'this.'

14 s, Kai aG7rjp6eOVTO abTaES' To 6Ee 7V 'And they await him until he come forth in their?rapaTpeoVTwV: station.' It may be a to make sense out of an obscure passage. merely desperate attempt 15 s18, N, TarepeAMav: DI., Bg., dr mdn. Taf3epe•4a: .Tddermnn; .Td-

94

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

15 20,

93 'Ap3eXlaav:246, 'A3eXuaXa: 'AJeX••0: 19,'ApfEX•aa: Lagarde, 'A3eXMaaXa: DI., 'AbdmldJh; Bg., 'Abilmahah. 15 21, t, Rghma, but in verses 17 and 22 fI has Rami. 'Paa••a: 15 23, Toi 'Iov'a: t, 'kingdom of Juda.' 3pacrtXeu'trv ro / acrXwW: v , 1618s, 7ropeuov'at eds aVpov TOo oIKoV"u Kat 'And they burned the house of the king.' Evidently 7vpeuov'rat was read here. : renders 17 12, 7roprlw by 'for thee.' elavu'~ 4eavr~" t aro' 17 19, ad finem, Kal qt-ev a-o71v E 7r09 e, 'and he K",XIv': 'eo laid him down and lay down (Bg., + with him).' 18 21, 7r' o'zrepatE rair e, 'upon both of them, i. e. qrvat": aI your errors (sins).' The translator probably read 'the prophets of 19 1 ad finem, TroWbpo/rag ev poAoPalia:e, Tyrvolait. shame.' 19 6, Kata 'Tr Xe ev 'HXero'":*, 'and then 'Eljfs arose.' 20 13, Kal IEdaOirav: e, 'and I stood.' 20 22, Kai &o-Wo OKCo'VOU:e, 'the house of Ahab.' This may of translation. be merely a matterT•V 21 to, Kal 7rpo' ?adv: e, 'and sent them a second aTre'•r•'eLXev time.' This, however, may be merely a matter of translation. 21 to, te, by error, Srjda, 'Syria.' i 21 12, lautapela": a'rk TO"XdyOV Trorov: t , 'and eveTro re a7reKpl'O3 K•ia then at that time he heard this voice.' roYro'dXegor;I, 'Who is first injured and who 21 14, Ti o-vUard+et starts the slaughter ?' This may, however, be only a free translation. 21 18, ed7rev av'roi, eig erir V'V, oty7p ruXXa/e3v KT7ropeuovTra, 3vrag auXXafIv at-rou: M, 'And roVXf, aurour YwvSar.KaGds 7d good health (safety) thou shalt say to them in peace, therefore, so that their living ones they may seize, since he goes forth and is not noticed from the city.' t* omits KardXeguov 3Ovra ei vuXXathe negative is omitted; the e3ivadvro'. In ou yap 1cKTropeuov0ra verb is put in the singular and placed after Pivrag 10. 21 2s, ad finem, rt dL Kdptor: e, 'that he is Lord.' , 21 40, Kai aro e 3e, Ka•a 3 ro's o 7reptepLEaX e7e•rO•l, ourog oK )V. , 'And then while I turn this way and that, I lacked him.' 19

GERMAN: TUE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

95

21 40, ad finem, 'I oU Kl #d 7a ar vespa 'irap' eo oveva-'g: , 'Thou hast killed him, and behold thou wilt appear that thou art a robber.' c 'Tv /3aaLXe'a 22 12, Kal Swe-eLKupLo eu p ov Kai XdPe Uvpaa': f, 'And he will return them, i. e. Syria, into thy hand and their king.' 22 19,o)K'yax i*Kove 1pW,,a Kuplov: e, 'Am not I rather he who heard the voice of the Lord ?' 22 34, 7Tw ^vLdXoX ad'roi: e, 'to one from among his army.' 22 36, Kai ~cT 6 acr7pa7rOKIpv: M, 'and came forth the herald.' Arm. agrees with e: 'and came the herald.' Both these renderings, however, may be merely a matter of translation, and the similarity probably was reached independently. 22 38, KaiL revtLav -roaTl a e't rirv Kp1)VnV Za/Aapelas':t, 'And outside the took his of chariot Samaria.' they city 22 38s,Kaia trdpvat ev oaVro aa:a-r i , 'And the harlots r, too bathed in that water.' There are some unique additions, but in many cases it seems that they have no textual value; they probably were added merely for the sake of clearness. The following is a list of the most important ones: 1 2, KCZewrovo 7raiLSeat'rou: +?- 'to David.' 1 to,5robg + aU'Tv. SVaroe"': 1 10oad finem, 06K , 'he did not call them,' 1 24, NaOdv: %*+ eK•XeCaev: 'the prophet.' 1 47, AeyaX'vai:* + 'the Lord.' 2 13 ad finem, Kal etrev Elpiv: I, "And he said to her, 'Peace to thee.' " 2 29, rOv E + 'to Joab.' v10"v 'Iw"ae: Bavalom TWY 2 46h, e'CTJKdrTwv: R + 'with him.' 4 z9, prreerwv: : + 'upon the earth.' This may not be a matter of a different reading. 6 7, o'KOV10: + 'and twenty cubits its width.' ' 70o 6 lo ad finem, 'and made its sides.' This may have been added simply to make a better translation. o : *, 'therein his house.' 6 12, vb 7T IK0

96

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

6 is, 0 vad: i*, 'his temple.' 6 23, 1rTepuytoV avT'ro:M + 'of one cherub.' 7 2o, at Teo'apeg
GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

97

'near him.' 39, rpiz-p v facAe'a: •+ 21 39, cKalebrev:-., 'and spake to the king.' 21 39, ad finem, IM,'thou shalt weigh out to me.' a7'oeL-": 21 42, al elrev: i + 'that prophet.' ~ • 'at Samaria.' 22 1, Ka e~KaOLcev: Now follows a list of unique omissions: 1 13, faarXeG: %* omits. 1 22, ad finem, ~XOev.(23) KalVanom7y X f &aac',Xe'I1ob'Nao;a 0 parablepsy. Kcal.i* omits all this through 'r, 1rpo#q-3" 28, KcaXe'a7-rE lo: * omits. 2 29, 0'1 6#O/i8?rv a&ro rpoawdrovrou: e omits the phrase aro 7pooa7•rov 'ov. 2 ~ , &vr'av'rov:* omits. 2 use, I omits 7rv a X1~ Kal N'6v OaXaaacrav 7v XaXaKv. 2 35k, * omits. KUcKX•: 2 42s, KaLc eaeev: i omits. 2 46e, xXeu'povis omitted, but it may be a matter of translation. 2 46e, 3dpvlOwv iwv vopAdav: vojaawv is omitted, but the EKXe•-~ translator may have wished to evade a difficulty. 2 46i, is omitted, but it may not be serious. 2 46sk,TOKa•d• Ka g* omits Kat. Z•": 3 14, KaL rX)OvVW: omits. I*' 3 15, * omits. ra•wlV: 3 se, b 4 ol: * omits, but in verse 17 I correctly translates the Hebraism, 'hear me, my Lord.' 4 6, Kal'EXLiK 0 oLCKovo yo': i* omits. Ka 4 , AkwveLpda:A omits Kal. 4 20, KO-aOEa leYvoLourrwv:ie omits. 01a 21

4 20,

Ka

7Vrava: * omits KaL.

4 21, 61 rodvror: * omits. e•lfinem, 4 23 ad v 'and fat fowls.' dpviOw:v i'rUrev• eKXEK•rWV 4 32, /LaoaXebv * omits. ALYr'7trov: 6 5, 0 ooK dv: * omits with a change of the noun governed by eA'into the nominative. 6 12, eV T ( OLKSoeo1eic OaL omits. a;'Ov: 6 13, 0;7V * omits. '* cav': V7ro 7

98

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

6 ia,

M omits. eXLKTi": 1 omits. 6 22, ad finem, e-aa0jOfevov": 7 21,)OVee0og: * omits. 7 21, e97r e omits. rTeoapa": 7 49, 7;r omits. Le•,dXtg: 8 1, 0 /ao-LXebV I.: I omits. 10 31, i' 'IepovUaX4r: i omits. o v oov w eX 11 84, ad finem, &taAaveld 'rov BSoo eArwi, at'rov. o,, 1 omits. Y e: a omits. 12 24f, "Ovrwe 7a0drocTe1Xov 12 24k, 2KXpa #yw ow:l omits. 12 82, v BatO'X 20: e7raro-orT omits. 13 6, paogatxe: f* omits, but it is not significant. 13 12, Ka~ XaXlaev 7rp9o ov s~ omits. qpp 7raTp av'rov: I omits.auT"rv: 13 as, brXhpov ruv Xeipaag7"T 1519,J, epo: l omits; so Arm. 15 20, 'Ad-: i omits. Ta XoL0ra 15 28, cKaL "r7A X0v d~ omits. 'Ao": -a 16 2ad,'Aod: omits. 17 1, Spdo-o': l omits. v omits. 17 8, rv're60ev: 1711, o7rio- alh^i 'HXeLov:t* omits 'HXeMod,but the sense is clear without it. Tr 7P1 U 18 , ev T9) eVeavYU lHopevOtL: * omits. p'r, Eie'veTo W9eTPev 1817, Kad agrees with AXaP3 iv A in omitting this. 'H•oVet': 18 19,7ravTa'IopaX: .t* omits 7rav7'a. 18 as. ad finem, ro rG0p:1i omits. 1910o, Xap3ei av'rTv:* omits. omits. 20 25, cg 5.TrpcdO": 21 o0, 'Toig ^ou: t: omits. 7re?o01 21 12, Kai elTev Toig 7rautrh avtro OirodoJora'Te xapaKa Kai ' Xapaa:*"And 60evroXapKa '• 7~VY rTdoX. * Omits Ka~OeVro he said to his boys, 'Build around an enclosure at the city."' 21 15; % omits Kal ue'Ta TraTGrarea'reCarToTOYXaodv,7rav 1 uvua,'ecsy erKOVOTa.

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

99

21 2, KalMe: I~ omits. 21 42, eKXtLP0 * rOU: omits. L : *t omits. 22 25, 7~ r fEpa eIaCK l v 22 39, Kai 7raota' rag 7rodXeL omits. e7roibaev: 22 51, To 7ra'rppaToG;: I~ omits. 22 5s, 'ale'pa-Xevo-ev:t omits Kat. Thereare cases of doubletswhichdo not necessarilyrepresenta differenttext. They are probablydue to a method of translation and wereemployedin some instancesfor the sake of clearness.At any rate they cannot be taken too seriouslyfor textual purposes. The followingare the most importantcases of this phenomenon: i K U 1 2, Kal OepPiavOowraeTt 'and she shall warm pLOP,UOv 0.: "*,

him, andwill be warmourlord,the king.' 1 6, ial e a'r~ c 0paio~r1 eLr d'Spa: 3 , 'Andhandsomehe, Or~~0 and beautifulhis face exceedingly.' 2 28, Ti ;V 'Aoverta': , 'thatJoabwas KeKXI(•o9dorl'w 'rIW•j and followedhim.' associated with '?d6nyfts 5

12, IKai deO'evrTO

raO7c"Ktv:

, 'and swore and formed a treaty

(covenant).' 8 47, Kalk e, 'and they turned and submittedto e7r1Trpe'oT"v: thee.' W O a TEJ K3 a 7XTragn 103, KEVW'90v tWVO LV7a Tag VI e Ke'pOUg I~, 'and like trees of qedrds and treesqjdr1n6ntoo with irXjOo": him as trees sycamorewhichin field from its number.' 11 22,Kal1O'Uo v0, TTELa'areXOeW IO , 'Youwere '' v• oovW: ei•jv from land to to into land.' seeking go my your go 14 23, Kai o-rTXag: * suppliesa secondverb: 'and he erecteda column.' 18 s, Kal e7r6aXo'VTro 0 ev ~#wV ,LeydX,: e, 'And they began to shout and to call with a loud voice.' 21

33,

ad finem,

KaiL aafL

a7Tvp' aOUwtVL

r

aTV iav

rt alpt'r

a:

e , 'andhe went out to him and raisedhim and haddop him ridewith him in his chariot.' 22 34, 'Ero-Irpe+ovrr , 'turnand supportme.' ipa'oau: • There are some instanceswhere the translatorapparentlydid not understandthe Greekor had troublein renderingit fluently 7*

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

100

into Ethiopic. So he made an attempt at translationor interpretation. In none of these cases are we justifiedin assumingthat a differenttext lay at the basis of M. The followingare some striking examples: ev Xopoi: I,'and they beat a drumandaharp.' 1 40,KaCa d•dopevov 2 85d,afpov-rer apa•w:*, sdawir 'drsdn,'bearersof wood'drsn.' '.d trees.' 2 46C, Ta vacrErULaa:ae , 'great 2 46e, CIKcaoTXOt XeKTO': *, 'ten oxen fattened.' : i, 'and fat fowls.' Cf. 4 a8,opvIOw eKXeKTwv X rTEV7raU 19 19-20; in verse 19 VY/i is not translated; 'twelve oxen.' e•, v #' &e8Ka is translated: 'andhe upon all of them.' Kai a7r~ 'VTO In verse 20, however,?eiyt is placedbefore agr •da9': , 'the yoke of oxen.' (Bg., 'the yoke of his oxen'.) In 19 21 ri eyl T OVo8 f v is rendered'theyokeofhis oxen.'Apparentlythe translatoravoided Y(egtwith a numeral. Thetranspositionof wordsand phrasesin 1 is a frequentphenomenon.In many caseswhen*t and the Greekare placedin parallel lines, a chiasticarrangementwith referenceto the originalstrikes our attention. This hardlygoes back to the original;it probablyis an idiosyncrasyof the translator.Sometimesit seemsas thoughhe had forgottena word or phrasewhichhe insertedthe momenthe noticedhis omission.The followingare the cases of transposition: 1 2, IKaLr'raL

,Aw

OaX7rovua

I

,

avro'': K,•coqrDOe0•'ral av'rv him.' embrace with him and .Ka 'and she shall lie 22, ie'V 7rd^a' 7jn 7-: t, 'in every way of the earth.' 2 8, Kal a'ro' KaTa ti e GV7rav-rrvou e , 'land jv: T'VIopaz'vV or me.' then he went down to the Jordan and met a &opeavkeXePva' EIAOi e, 2 81, Kal e'apdg a -IiEpov TO atifa directly after E~apeig. places a'r' ' dloG 2 ~a, V op'KOv *f, 'the command of KvplovKai TjVrdvToXvr": the Lord and his oath.'

: t, 'and Sdl4mon, blessed king.' VXoor7e'voro 246,) 0. X.: *, 'Sd1tman,the king,' but in 46a X follows the

2 a5, ,al 0 3. 1.

Greekorder. 2 46a,

T4)pa

epdvMIor

Kaa o~ods:

le places

-d'Spa after roo'd.

GEHMAN: THEOLDETHIOPIC VERSION OF1. KINGS

101

opKa•JWV: I interchanges these two. b , 'in righteousness thy people.' Xao'vd-ov~v (KaiOO-U"V7: 321, Kai MOb au'ov 7rpwi: ', 'and when it dawned, Ka-revod•-a I looked at him.' 4 24, caiv aJV'61 %f,'and KVKXO'Oev: elp7r7YaK r7cvwv 7T OWepW one of them who were with him.' around, every peace 5 1, Xeipa'I fpaoLXAeT'pov 70ro 'raiag avroi: *, 'Kirdm, his boys, the king of Tyre.' 5 12, ava p'-ov XeLptaM Kaiava e( ' tov X.: e, 'between Salomon and between Kirdm.' * places the numeral first. 5 14, e~1 ThV AI'lavov, JKGa XLXLE"9: 516, apX0oVwv 'Tv K a TraeTvwv: e places apxodTwvlast. 5 17, 'rovgXov a~'1T"a~Xa: e, 'trees and stone (sg.),' 611, '~WoK KJKX E6VWeV TOG , 'to the outside of OKOt:o his house which around it.' 6 is, ^7-9t OKrwoE 5ev 7IrTyvwlav To T fe, 'of T• O'KOV T73rdetv: the right which from under it.' 6 16, ovveXdOuevor ~?'Xor -wOev:It, 'with pieces of wood inside he covered it.' 6 16, EwT&g2V JoScv Kaiw W ro LXwv: 'until its covers (roofs) v• % in this case does not give an exact and until its beams.' translation for TolXWV. 6 as, 7~ EwJOep KaiL : *, 'of the exterior forsooth Ta e?-re'pL and of the interior also.' 7 I6, I~, 'from below and from above.' Kal VTroKdTwOev: 7 16, ••drvwoev ad finem, Xcopa, pyov: t*, giberdka6r. 7 29, EKae7rlTYV /LeX(wVO: *, 'upon ten mek6n6t.' 7 3, rbapyVOV Kai T Xpv-'ov: It, 'of gold and of silver.' 7, 7 46, S~ac7t'LaT •K X : places Ka to o"Wo-werwOV K•%I'TO aovU ot* -&O7~eXI'ov. after Oev a 7 as, ad finem, 'ce'po0l. (49) e, 'and his atrium also -2,j XA,: with wood of cedar.' 8 2z, i wal5 p e6K7rpOYOU ITOV Ko 'IparX: VaO7)Evo••, Opdvoov places ei 7rpoow'rov ov at the end. 9 9, EK 7roXew9Aavel' which follows 'Dapawdis placed in t at the end of the sentence. 2 46e,

3 9, 7

'Xa#wv Kaf

102

LITERATURE JOURNAL OFBIBLICAL

11 1,?o /. .: , 'and Sil6mn the king.' 1117, Ka7ra'rWe o OIsovU/aiotL rTWvratSwfv 'Toyra7p~ aav-rovU eTr av-rov: e, 'and all the boys of his father with him, men of Idumeia.' 12 sak, ed' riv 7rdXLvrp'AXet0 v Z iXwvelvrv: ' transposes these two phrases. i 13 17: a'prov ,Kel e KGL 7~1r cd7(yp • places Kei Swp:" be 247 omits 6eld and It that after M• noted, however, "Swp. may that 71, 106, 123, 158, 245, 247 add 6K9e after 5"wp. 13 29, KaLipev o 70roveoG: sTb ow•ga roo ~vOpd'Trov 7rpo?/,7g c, 'and raised his dead body that prophet for the man of God.' o 4Xo1 Kal e9Ov1U'w: %: places 16 28b, ad finem, OPvove'v'-or the phrase di ~rolr 6+7Xoit after the second verb. X Kal 'eropee'To K 18as, Kal eyhveTo oeT 'AxaPf ei 'Io-paiX: s, 'And descended a great rain and went 'Akdi'dbto Israel while he weeps (weeping).' 2015,TI -r7rve va KaiL reTapay aprov; oU eTLe e6rOwv oovo • •oV c, 'What is thy condition that thou dost not eat food and what grieves thee ?' 7: , 2015s,ad finem,0o O "Kc ctLV NapovOat ??v, 1TevKev ,o'rt is dead and is not alive.' 'since Ndbilt• 20 19, at is69 Kai o0 KveS: t*, 'the dogs and the hyenas.' The Sixtine edition also transposes the two Greek words. 20 27, Kai d7ropeeTO KXalt' Kait &eppYv ToVXTr•Twva a'ro0: i , 'and he rent his clothes and went out weeping.' Ka 21 7, Tb apyptdv I~, 'and my gold Xpvo'tov ouac ib otov: and my silver.' 21 29, ad finem, A , 'one XLhLaa 7rew1vALLt aidp": hVKa'-a hundred thousand in one day foot-soldiers.' * places 7r'ra'or Sd Je 21 a5, ev Xody Kvplov Hld'rarovSd e": first. ' 7) tfaOX6 lIopahX 21 as, Ka e7ropevOn0 70rpO77rJ1 K•7 •.7K one dri 7Trn~oi0": , 'and went prophet to the king of Israel and stood upon the road.' is placed at the very end of the verse. 22 as, e avavT'rag Mvpt'ag 22 44, e7L 6 Xabe edOvclatevKal U9Ov0wvv Toi •4r7XoZ9. The translation of * implies a transposition of these two verbs.

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

103

The influence of 6 is negligible. In this connexion, however, a few passages should be considered: 4 13, 5, h11b'; DI., baremat;Bg., Remait.Apparently 'EpedCW": D1. has 5 influence, but, on the other hand, the preposition may have been supplied ad sensum. 4 a~, 'v Mepsyad: Bg., westaiMgrgdbwith no addition; Dl. west4 Mirgdb tdqitlt. Through some influence, apparently YdI7(*591s) found its way into D1. 9 4, KaTa 7rapvra a evewreXaM7v , 'which ? -1'2IV 5•-•M I commanded thee.' In this caseav'r7,: the second person pronoun may have been introduced from the context independently without any knowledge of 6. In the readings considered up to this point, Dl. and Bg. were essentially in agreement as representatives of the Old Ethiopic Version. From the array of examples of unique readings, unique additions and omissions and transpositions, it is apparent that this version has considerableindividuality. In his methods the translator is generally literal, and the Greekoriginal is apparent. Occasionally, however, he is very free and uses doublets or expands his sentence for the sake of a more fluent translation. Some of his interpretations seem like a forced attempt to make sense out of words which were not clear to him. In conclusion, however, the OldEthiopic Version is based on B or a text very similar to it with a very strong influence of Lucianic readings as are found both in the real Lucianic MSS. and in the less important ones. MS. 247, which often follows the Lucianic group, occasionally stands alone in agreement with *. In my study of Bg. in comparison with Dl. I have come to the conclusion that Bg. is a member of the Old Ethiopic Version and does not stand independently. It has some archaisms pointing to the antiquity of the MS., as has been indicated by Roupp, op. cit., 305-307. In this connexion cf. Reckendorf, op. cit., 72-73. Among these individualism which are especially conspicuous, I may note some in passing: in quotations, Dl., 'd, Bg., 'd; D1. 'srd'el, Bg., esrd'jl; DI., hdliwa, Bg., hdla; Dl., he'jantd, Bg., hi'j'td; 15 s18,et passim, DI., ddqii, Bg., ddqiqiZ;2 17, and similar cases passim, DI., jdhdbdnT,Bg., j5hib"n%.

104

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

The variation in the gutturals and sibilants is a well-known phenomenon. Bg. usually departs from the norm of the orthography of Dillmann's Lexicon. A few examples are given merely as an illustration:

Dillmann

Borgianus I bdhds

1 9, tidbhi 1 51, 2 85e,bdhdd.in nasata 2 s46a,hddi

b~ta"ben

4 21, 7 25,h•c.d,m

naddiri 1111,.dg

nasir

but in verse eo,dlmda. .smda .smdd, of this There is no value in multiplying examples frequent phenomenon. Often Bg. differs from DI. merely in using a synonym. This in no wise implies a different Greek text. I am citing at random some instances as examples: 19 21,

Dillmann

Borgianus

1 37, westa 1 44, diba 1 48, diba 1 52, 'imd 241, 'emnda 27, 'emqedma 2 ase, translates r'p ~Kpav by 11 32, EI K racwv wvX^v,

'Pmnri kl~

'hgiird;

1143s, go4 12 24b, e'r1ra' apTetL, 1d1et gebor

dibd Id 'eld westa

'emnd 'em 'emna transliterates by ld'dqdron;

'mnd bAhdwirtd tdhte'da

15'dle'drs6s; again a transliteration. These examples could be multiplied, but they have no significance in discussing the provenance of the Old Ethiopic Version.

GERMAN: THE OLD ETRIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

105

There is considerable variation in the vowels of proper names in D1. and Bg., but many of these instances merely reflect a difference of pronunciation or perhaps carelessness. At any rate D1. and Bg. are not uniform in excellency within themselves, nor is one consistently better than the other. In spite of various differences in proper names it is quite evident that they both go back to the same Greek source. A few examples may be cited where there is a variation between the sound of j and i: 4 27, raPOa'v: iS JJI : DI., Bgtdn; Bg., Bitin. 6 4, NeLao: DI., Njsan; Bg., Nisan. 17 9, D., Sidnid; Bg., Sd~ond. e•taovIar: Thereare a number of propernames, however, in whichDI. is closer to B than Bg. The following are some of the most important cases: 1 st, Bqipcra73ee:DI., Bg., Bdrsibeh. 2 7, 'Aflpeo-oaXWl : DI.,B&rsabh.; 'Abisilim; Bg., 'Ab':slAfm.does not re2 8, BaaOovpel6: DI., Bdtfirim; Bg., Bdtiirim (It double a.). cognize 2 13, Bpo-a'dee: DI., Bersibhh; Bg., Bdrsdbih. 2 a8, 'A/evvip: DI., 'Abenjr; Bg., 'Abdner. 2 46h, 'OpveLto: DI., 'Ornm;Bg., 'Arni. 2 46h, Zovf#C: DI., Siba. Bg., S6bd. 2 46h, Dl. Baaa: Bds&;Bg., B~ds.

2 46, KaXovp:Lu. ZaKXovp: DI., Zkiir; Bg., Zidkr. a;'K: DI., S&ddq;Bg., S6d6q.

42,

•

4 9,

'EX'"A:

DI., 'Elm; Bg., 'Elnm.

49, BatOXaA/'V, eTk:DI., Bg., Btad:14mens. 4 s, Baao-v: DI., Bdsdn;Btd4:ldmdnns; Bg. Bdsan.

4 1, Baavad:DI., Bdhama; Bg., Bdbhah~im . 6 s, Xetpd": DI., Kiram; Bg., Keram (et passim). 12 24a, 'Ad': DI., 'Anan; Bg., Nb6an. 16 as, DI., 'I-'ram; Bg., 'I~~drm. 'Iwpd•: 1624,

DI., Sameran;Bg., S&mtr(probably due to

e-epdWv: Ze'jup in the same verse). 1916, 'E/paXjaovXa&: DI., 'AblmehAtdla;Bg., '.Ablmjj1. 20 14, 'I~dP/eX: D., 'Ijdzhdbl(But in 18 4, is Dl. has 'Elzdbhl) Bg., 'Elzdbal, et passim (but in 184,19 and 207, 11 Bg. has 'Ij•zdibil).

106

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

2018, NagovOal: DI., Nabwte; Bg., Nbatej.

Dillmann's text, however, does not have all the advantages in the case of the proper names. There are some instances in which Bg. is closer to B. The following are the most important examples: 1 8, NaOGv: Bg., Ndtdn; DI., Jndtadn.

2 851,

Kibrdn; DI., Bitirim. XefpP"v:Bg.,

4 o1, "Ea0w: Bg., 'EIst; DI., 'Esdt. 4 27, XaXKdS: Bg., Kdlgqd: DI., Kolqdcd. 10 a., e6ov^e: Bg., (10) Tjgqhe, (20) Tjh54j; DI., (10) T•qhe,

(20)Tqz . 11 o,

Bg., Ganjbat; DI., Gdnibit.

rav,,84": 17 , Xoppa•: Bg., Krardt;DI., Kirdt.

18 19, KapMrl'Aov:Bg., Qdrmel6s; DI., Qermelds. In spite of these minor differences in the proper names in D1. and Bg., it is certain that the two texts represent the same version. There are some instances in the text where D1. is more faithful to B or the Greek original. The following are the most important cases of the advantages of DI.: 1 a3-34; here Bg. has a dittograph 'and lead him to Gfi)n and anoint him there, and lead him to Gij5n, and anoint him there.' Bg. uses two different verbs for 'to lead.': wdrddd,10; wisddd, 20. 1 47, 1WhICpLOV Dl., 'our Lord.'; Bg., 'their Lord.' 4pov: e~ 22, Dl., 'and thou only be strong ia~, ,caLLO9XUVELV~ ~,v3pa: omits and firm.' firm.' 'and Bg. 5 11, palO: DI., bat; Bg., bate. 8 , ol Xaol: DI., pl.; Bg., sg. 86 , where all MSS. but B, 44, and 106 add Kal 7rpopd8a XLXldaaq:DI., 'one hundred twenty thousand; Bg., eV•Ko1 ea•r•v 'two thousand'. ria 9 4, ov: D1. has this, but Bg. omits. a'rYaA .rpoo-r'd^7 9 ), e,al 7rpoadwrov 'ov: DI., 'in front of my face'; Bg., 'in front of my eyes.' 11 ~, K Xepdr ov: so DI., but Bg., 'from thy son.' It may have been influenced by 11 is, I& XeIp0pvoV oov. 11 .4, Bg. omits. Ka-ev0vve•:

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

107

12 as, ol avayayov-res -e: D1. has the singular pronoun, but Bg., ad sensum, has the second person plural. 13 1, elk BaLOeX:Bg. omits, but D1. does not. 13 21, 7~v Kov7a: Bg. + 'with him.' 14 21, Bg. by parablepsy omits Kai CV0sEV1Teooepa'cKOVTa vi" Kal airbWv Popola JV Tr pa8rteveLv aroTv rE er-a TI7 epacTloEKa thus ev 'IepovoaXkqj. from to e'r Xeucev, passing directly 'IovuS T T a TO 1624, Kal KOdoJgTEV OPO Kal ereKaXeoav 'T opovu: D1. renders this literally, but Bg. has a freer translation: 'And he built that city and he called that city.' 1715, auTi7 Kai aUToS Kai Ta T6KVa avirqT:Dl., [weitfil wa]j]*'ti wdddqiqi; Bg., omits the part which D1. has in brackets. 18 40, rpoW /rTas TOOBcaX: D1. renders this literally; Bg. rob•'the has a plus: prophets of falsehood and the prophets of Baal.' 20 4,

voV TeTapa'.yE Bg. places

iS places

Ka iKOLPo0a7O:

wdhor4

after

TeTa-

'upon his bed' after hord instead of after )` B in the position of rt'l with agrees D1. KXhv1g. 6KOLj0U?6I. 20 16,?ot Trd'V7Kev Na/ovUal 'Ipa-7XeiT1'9:Bg. omits. o 'Aoppalgor: Bg., 'according to 20 26, K1a7a 7ravrTa a eTroL'o'ev all which did his fathers, the Amorites.' 22 30, 8aoetXes 'I-pajX7Xrp D1.has this in brackets, 'IOwaaTdr": but Bg. omits. 22 as, Xagapelag: DI., Samairj~i;Bg., 85rja, 'Syria.' The advantages are not all, however, with D1.; there are cases where Bg. is more faithful to B. The most important cases are the following: 8 K 0 1EpePT" Kepag:D1.adds'andbrought,' 1 a9, KaL ,8aev 3a after "'lepev's.Bg. follows B and has no plus. 2 5, rwoXe'o Bg., 'enemy;' DI., 'his enemy.' 3 11, Kal OOKrrOw 7T XoiTov: D1. omits this, but Bg. has it. 5 1, e~rKOMX1XdLaJo20;D1. 'twenty thousand and twenty thousand;' Bg., 'twenty thousand.' 7 14, eXwvcO6: Bg., mleknmtd;DI., mdkdndt.In 7 17, however, has Bg., mikrmntand DI., mlkaint. 7 22, Kal Xov-e~9Kai qoVIKE6e: Bg. follows the Greek order, but D1. transposes these two nouns. pay'ievov.

108

JOURNALOF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

EavT KOSdKo0eV:Bg. renders o2kovby bitd, 7 as, KalTOV OKO'V

but Dl. omits it. 7 40o, Kal pL$0

'TWiv Ta7oXv: D1. omits, but

it is translated

by Bg. 8 26, -c Aauvel U "- 7 ra-7rpl ov: so Bg., but D1. adds 'thy servant.' 8 so, 70 Jo odXoU 00U Ka 70ro Xaovo'ov: D1. omits Kal,but Bg. has it. V TWa9 10 20, 7eo Ovev 8aaLXelq.This is renderedliterally oa,7/ o•, in Bg.; D1. reads, 'and not was it done so, even not in any kingdom.' Bg. looks like a revision of an awkward, but older rendering. 12 20, 'Popod, : Babmg, A, 'Iepo/PoadU.D1. has a plus, 'from Egypt.' The plus is lacking in Bg. 12 24b, o7or0 9 KO~dLcevT" 7V aKpav•v 7-ra apo-eaWLv o1Kou'E/DI., 'and he built the wall in the work of the house of 'Efram.' pa"t:is moreliteral: 'and he built the 'adqrrn which in the 'drsdsof

Bg.

the houseof 'Efrjm.'

12 24d, Kal KOUVOev 'EpIopo iy ev A7 E rT71rr 7Tt T'OV'KeV aXwuwdv.This is in Bg., but is omitted in D1. Ka etropeuo'devov: Bg., 15 17, w•tmbbwa'a de'Krope•o'dvov is the Greek but order, agreeing with 247. D1. transposes them, thusmd.a'd 16 17, Kal 7repteCeKOLtaav E'r7Oepod: Bg., 'and they sat at Tirsd'; in but is less literal, using two verbs renders the idea more comD1. surrounded 'And Tirsa and sat at it.' they pletely: 162s, dv 7rdac ~S: D1. (with MS. 71), omits 7rda-, but Bg. renders it. 19 15, Hope ov: not in D1.; Bg., 66r. 22 35; D1. with an omission: 'And was broken their army that day, and the king, moreover, they seated him in his chariot from dawn until evening, and was flowing his blood from his weaponwound into the hollow of his chariot, and he died in the evening before (in the presence of) them, i. e., of the Syrians.' Bg. has a change in the order of B, but includes everything: 'And was broken their army that day, and the king, moreover, they seated him in his chariot from dawn until evening, and was flowing his blood from his weapon-wound into the hollow of his chariot, and continued to flow his blood from his wound into the hollow of his char-

GEHMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

109

iot, and he died in the evening before (in the presence of) them, i. e., the Syrians.' A few passages where D1. and Bg. do not agree may be considered at this point: 1 27, ue'r DI., 'after him;' Bg. in agreement with MS. 44 aro"v: has, 'after thee.' Apparently Bg. here contains Lucianic influence. 1 47, DI., 44, 19, 108 agree in adding, 'thy son;' Bg. follows B.aXw,(v": 9 14, Kal #vYeYEv: 19, 82, 93, Kal a'rIT-etXe: D1. 'and brought.' Bg., apparently under Lucianic influence, writes, 'and sent to him.' It may be, however, that 9 27, KaLa7r T-eLXev, influenced Bg. TO 1519, ava /Leov 61o Kal TOo T7raTpod /pOU Kal 7raTpo aovU DI., m'kdaPje'a [wdmi'9khdlekdwdma'~decd 'dbtka] wdma'~ekld Bg. omits what D1. has in brackets; 93 also omits Kattou 'db••fij; 7rarpog aoou. 16 33; D1. and 44 omit 'AXaa/,, 20, but Bg. has it. 22 26, 77 grhXews: D1. + Sdm~arj~i;Bg. takes Zse~p from B and adds, Semer. There are traces of the influence of later Ethiopic versions in Bg. These are two very evident passages: 13 7, 'E oeXi 6 eT 'rOUi e619oTcov YcaiapLTa•l'ov,cKatcaw a•owooLoa: DI., 'Enter with me into my house and dine with me in my house;' Bg., 'Enter with me into my house and dine with me, and I shall give thee, and I shall break bread with thee (assign thee a portion).' According to Dillmann's apparatus criticus, E omits 'in my house,' 20; k adds, 'and I shall give thee a bit (gift);' E adds, 'and I shall give thee, and I shall break bread with thee (assign thee a portion).' 13 16, Kal E0rEV O6 fu 3vVwp/uaa: Bg. adds after Telev, 'I do not eat.' So do k, E, 'I do not eat.' On account of certain difficulties, 16 16 may be considered by itself. Here D1. is decidedly better than Bg.; D1.: "And heard the people in the camp, while they say, 'Rebelled Zenbdrf, and he slew the king, and he has become king over Israel instead of him,' and as they heard, then they made him king, i. e. Zgnbari,the commander of the army on that day in the camp." Bg. reads: "And heard the people while they say, 'Killed Zenborlhim, the king, and

110

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

has become king instead of him Zenbi•r over Israel, the commander of the forces of Israel, as they heard in the camp that day." On account of certain difficulties Chapter 12 in Bg. has to be considered by itself on account of the very confused state of its text. Without making a word for word collation, I shall make some brief remarks to show the chaotic condition of Bg.'s readings. Bg. closes 11 with the end of verse 43; then it omits all of 12 1-24; it passes to 12 24a, starting with 'in Jerusalem', 10. For 12 24b, Kal .v avOpwror e 6'poUV'EPpa'j1, Bg. erroneously has, 'and went out Rehoboam.' Thereafter Bg. continues regularly, and we meet the first serious difficulty at 12 24p, 7rpg 'Pofpoa. Dl. renders this correctly, but Bg., has lc-'i•6rb'd'm.Bg. continues to 2 4 q, Kai eXdXcj-e 'Po3poa,',* omits e~g'a c 'a avi'rv. Bg., however, inserts from 12 6, 'to the elders who stood before his father while alive he.' In 12 24q before Kcaw are~o'TeLXev,Bg. inserts, 'and they spoke to him.' Bg. in 24q has further additions from 12 6 and 12 7. In Bg., 12 24r, there are additions from 12 s, 9, 10, 11. In 24s, Bg. has additions from 12 12, 13a, 4a. Then Bg. continues with12 14-l6to be followed by 12 24t. For 24u, Bg. gives 12 s18and agrees with B in having'Ap4d, while in 12 18 Dl. avoided the propernoun. Bg. then continues with 12 19-20oand follows with 24ub. Bg. 12 24X has an addition from 12 21, but instead of 'one hundred-twenty thousand' it has 'one hundred-two thousand' with which Dl. 12 21 agrees. Thence Bg. proceeds to 24z and continues the rest of the chapter in the same order as D1. It should also be noted that Bg. omits 16 18-20o. On leaf 110a, second column, five lines from the bottom, Bg. makes an abrupt transition from 92 6, DI., me'h1dza to 10 2 0, l~fhi. This (Bg., mh'dz4) n means that two pages were missing in the codex from which Bg. was copied. In conclusion, 1. Kings, Bg., belongs to the family of the Old Ethiopic Version. The fact that it is older as a MS. than Dillmann's S and A, means nothing in regards to the age of its text. Whatever advantages it possesses over Dillmann's S and A in establishing the text of the Old Ethiopic Version are very slight. At its best it merely confirms Dillmann's text of 1. Kings. As my examination has

GEHMAN:THE OLD ETHIOPICVERSION OF 1. KINGS

111

shown, it has some serious defects. Some of its better readings, especially where Bg. is smoother or simpler than DI., may reflect not the original Versio Antiqua, but a later revision by a scribe. It is taken for granted that in all cases in this article when no mention is made of certain passages, M follows B. With few exceptions I have noted only the departures of X from B. The provenance of * in 1. Kings is B or a text similar to B with a strong colouring of Lucianic readings. Index of citations from 1. Kings

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adeney, W. F., Bible, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (one volume ed.), New York, 1916. Bachmann, J., DodekaprophetonAethiopicum,Heft I, Der ProphetObadia,

Hallea. S., 1892,5--10.

Budge, E. A. W., A History of Ethiopia, Nubia, and Abyssinia, London, 1928, 142 sqq., 258 sqq., 565 sq. Burkitt, F. C., Text and Versions,Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. by Cheyne and Black, New York, 1914, N.T. 5011-5012, ? 37; O.T. 5028 ? 64, Other Versions. Charles, R. H., Ethiopic Version,Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, New York, 1903, 791-793. Cornill,C. H., Die aethiopischeUbersetzung.Das Buch des ProphetenEzechiel, Leipzig, 1886, 36-48. ----

Einleitung in die Kanonischen Biicher des Alten Testaments, 5te

Auflage, Tiibingen, 1905, 328. Darlow, T. H. and Moule,H. F., Ethiopic,Historical Catalogueof the Printed Editions of Holy Scripturein the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1903-1911, 351-357. Dillmann, A., Uber den Umfang des Bibelcanonsder Abyssinischen Kirche, Ewald's Jahrbiicher der Biblischen Wissenschaft, Fiinftes Jahrbuch: 1852-1853, G6ttingen, 1853, 144-151. VeterisTestamentiAethiopici Tomus Primus sive OctateuchusAethiopicus, Leipzig, 1853. VeterisTestamentiAethiopicic Tomus Secundussive Libri Regum, Paralipomenon,Esdrae, Esther, Leipzig, 1861. Herzog's Real-Encyclopldie fiir protestanAethiopischeBibeliibersetzung, tische Theologie und Kirche, 2te Auflage, Leipzig, 1877, 203-206.

112

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Eichhorn, J. G., A review of Travels to Discoverthe Source of the Nile in the years 1768-1773; in 5 volumes by James Bruce of Kinnaird, Edinburgh, 1790, Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, Dritter Band, Leipzig, 1790. Aethiopische ber8etzung,Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Vierte Original-Ausgabe. Zweyter Band. GOttingen,1823, 349-354. - - - Etwas iiber'sHohelied.Repertorium fiir Biblische und Morgenlandische Litteratur, Eilfter Theil. Leipzig, 1782, 167. Fell, W., Canones ApostolorumAethiopice ad fidem librorumm8cr. Leipzig, 1871. Gehman, Henry S., The 'Polyglot' Arabic Text of Daniel and its Affinities. J. B. L., XLIV. 327-352. The Arabic Bible in Spain. Speculum, I, 219-221. The Sahidic and the Bohairic Versions of the Book of Daniel. J. B. L., XLVI, 279-330. The Hesychian Influence in the Versions of Daniel. J. B. L., XLVIII, 329-332. Gregory,C. R., De Versionibus,Aethiopica.Prolegomena,Novum Testamentum Graece ad Antiquissimos Testes denuo recensuit Constantinus Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1890, 894-912. Ethiopic Translation.Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York, 1907, 405-406. Athiopische bersetzung.Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig, 1909, 516. De Athiopische bersetzung,Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1900-1909, II, 553-565. (Math. I-X). Zeitschrift Hackspill, L.,Die iithiopischeEvangelieni~bersetzung fiir Assyriologie, XI (1896), 177-196; 367-388. Heider, A, Die dthiopischeBibeliibersetzung,ihre Herkunft, Art, Geschichte und ihr Wert /fir die alt- und neutestamentlicheWissen8chaft.I. Heft. Leipzig, 1902. Holmes, R. and Parsons, J., VetuwTestamentumGraecumcum Variis Lectionibus. Oxford, 1798-1827. Jiilicher, A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament.5 te und 6 te Auflage. Tiibingen 1906, 499; 556. Kammerer,A., Essai sur l'HistoireAntiqued'Abyssinie. Paris, 1926. Kenyon, F. G., The Ethiopic Version.Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd Ed., London, 1912, 194-195. Alte Testament.Bonn, 1893, 113. K6nig, E., Einleitung in da, Kramer, F. O., Die Athiopische lbersetzungdes Zacharias. Erstes Heft. Leipzig, 1898. de Lagarde, P. A., Materialien zur Kritik und Ge8chichtedes Pentateuchs. Leipzig, 1867, page III.

GERMAN: THE OLD ETHIOPIC VERSION OF 1. KINGS

113

de Lagarde, P. A., Librorum Veteris TestamentiCanonicorum,Pars Prior. G6ttingen, 1883. Margoliouth,D. S., The Ethiopic Version.A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament by F. H. A. Scrivener, 4th edition, edited by E. Miller, 2 vols., London, 1894. McMahon,A. L., Ethiopicand Amharic Versions.The CatholicEncyclopedia. New York, 1912, XV, 368. M6chineau,L., Athiopienne( Version)dela Bible. F. Vigouroux'sDictionnaire de la Bible, Paris, 1912, 2020-2033. Montgomery, James A., The Hexaplaric Strata in the GreekTexts of Daniel. J. B. L., XLIV, 289-302. A Criticaland ExegeticalCommentaryon the Book of Daniel (International Critical Commentary),New York, 1927. Nestle, E., The Ethiopic Version. Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, Tr. from the 2nd Ed. by Wm. Edie. London, 1901, 140-141. Pratorius, F., Athiopische Bibeliibersetzungen.Realencyklopidie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Herzog-Hauck. 3. Auflage. Leipzig, 1897, III, 87-90. The Ethiopic Version.The New Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, New York, 1908, 133. Rahlfs, A., Lucians RezensionderK6nig8biicher.Septuaginta-Studien. 3. Heft G6ttingen, 1911. Reckendorf, 8, (ber den Werthder althiopischen Pentateuchiibersetzung fiir die Reconstructionder Septuaginta. Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Siebenter Jahrgang(1887), 61-90. Reynolds, H. R., Frumentius, A Dictionary of Christian Biography by Smith, Wm. and Wace, H., London, 1880, II, 575. Edesius (3) (Aedesius), ibid. 40. Ethiopian Church,ibid. 233-241. Rossini, C. C., Sulla versionee sulla revisionedelle sacre scritturein etiopico. Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, X (1895) 236-241. Rossini, C. C., Storia D'Etiopia, parte prima, Bergamo, 1928. Roupp, N., Die ailtestedthiopischeHandschriftder vier Biicher der Kbinige, Zeitschrift ffir Assyriologie, XVI (1902), 296--343. Schaff, P., Aethiopic Version.A Companionto the GreekTestament and the English Version, 2nd Ed. New York, 1885, 159-160. Souter, A., The Text and Canon of the New Testament.New York, 1913, 73; 109-110. Swete, H. B., The Ethiopic Version.An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,Revised by R. R. Ottley, Cambridge,1914, 109-110. The Old Testamentin Greekaccordingto the Septuagint.Cambridge, 1909.

114

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Tychsen, O. G., Uber das Alter der hebrdiischenPunkte. Eichhorn's Repertorium fiir Biblische und Morgenlandische Litteratur. Dritter Theil. Leipzig, 1778, 163. Walton, B., De Bibliorum Versionibus.Proleg. V, ? 5; De Lingua Aethiopica et Scripturae VersioneAethiopica. Proleg. XV, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta. London, 1657. Weir, T. H., Ethiopic Versions.The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Chicago, 1930, 1036. Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testamentin theOriginalGreek, Introduction.Cambridgeand London, 1881, 86. Zotenbcrg, H., Cataloguedes Manuscrites 1thiopien8 (Gheezet Amharique)de la BibliothbqueNationale. Paris, 1877, 3--4. Additional bibliographymay be found in the works cited above, especially in the Bible Dictionaries of Hastings and Vigouroux and in Hackspill's article.

A Study in Comparison of the Texts of Kings and Chronicles Author(s): James A. Montgomery Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1931), pp. 115-116 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3259563 . Accessed: 16/08/2011 00:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

BRIEFNOTE

115

BRIEF NOTE A STUDY IN COMPARISONOF THE TEXTS OF KINGS AND CHRONICLES JAMESA. MONTGOMERY OFPENNSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY

1 Ki. 10 and 2 Ch. 9 have at length parallel texts. The following is a study of their relation, and would demonstrate the influence of the text of Ch. upon Ki. 1 Ki. 10 26 is substantially 5 6; the latter has the more difficult

but correcttext, with MtV1,whichis misunderstoodin the former, where it is read t11$0 and with manipulation of the numerals. But 2 Ch. 9 25 has the text of Ki 5 6, while Ch. 1 14 (in a duplicate passage) reads with Ki. 10 26. That is, the texts of Ki. and Ch. agree in vice versa order. In view of the close relation of Ki. 10 and Ch. 9 we may suppose that the latter preserves the original reading, and also that Ki. 5 6, now in a detached position, originally stood at and was taken from 10 26. Now 1 Ki. 5 6 = Ch. 9 25 is found in the Greek supplement in c. 2 at v. 46 i. following the same Hebrew text but from a different translator (n. b. 'ToKaSev against OXetLat).It is followed by k, which = Ki. 5 1a. But the verse is found in the same position at 2 Ch. 9 26. It looks as if it was once read after Ki. 10 26. Thus our present Ki. vs. 1a and 6 have been dislodged from their associated position in c. 10. To an early reviser of the text of Ki. the lacuna would have been evident upon comparison with Ch. 1 14-17, which parallels present Ki. 9 25-28: horses, cheapness of money in Jerusalem, the horse-trade. In this passage v. 14 has

116

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

the secondary text bearing upon the horses. This the reviser transposed to its present position at 10 2 6, and followed it with the midrashic v. 15, which became 10 27. Then Ki. with the two verses from Ch. continues with the horse-trade. In sum then: the text of Ki. 5 6 was once read at 10 26; it was followed originally by 5 ia, as Gr. and Ch. show; while 10 27 is secondary, intruded from Ch. 1 15. With this reconstruction of 1 Ki. 10 26 we obtain a more consistent passage than exists at present.