[james h. charlesworth, lee martin mcdonald, blake(bokos-z1)

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TEXTS IN CONTEXTS AND RELATED STUDIES

Series

Executive Editor James H. Charlesworth

Editorial Board of Advisors Motti Aviam, Michael Davis, Casey Elledge, Loren Johns, Amy-Jill Levine,

Lee McDonald, Lidia Novakovic, Gerbern Oegema, Henry Rietz,

Brent Strawn

SACRA SCRIPTURA

How “Non-Canonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity

Edited by

James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald with Blake A. Jurgens

LON DON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018

UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2014

© James H. Charlesworth, Lee Martin McDonald, Blake A. Jurgens and Contributors, 2014

James H. Charlesworth, Lee Martin McDonald and Blake A. Jurgens have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi ed as Authors of this

work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any

information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury

Academic or the authors.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: HB: 978-0-56714-887-2 ePDF: 978-0-56729-668-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Sacra Scriptura / James H. Charlesworth, Lee Martin McDonald and Blake A. Jurgens p.cm Includes bibliographic references and index.

ISBN 978-0-5671-4887-2 (hardcover)

Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

CONTENTS Abbreviations vii Contributors xi

PREFACE THE FLUID BORDERS OF THE CANON AND “APOCRYPHA” James Hamilton Charlesworth xiii

FOREWORD WITH THE ANCIENTS: HEARING VOICES THAT WERE SILENCED xxvii

1 WRITINGS LABELED “APOCRYPHA” IN LATIN PATRISTIC SOURCES

Edmon L. Gallagher 1

2 DID THE MIDRASH OF SHEMIHAZAI AND AZAEL USE THE BOOK OF GIANTS?

Ken M. Penner 15

3 NEGOTIATING THE BOUNDARIES OF TRADITION: THE REHABILITATION OF THE BOOK OF BEN SIRA (SIRACH) IN B. SANHEDRIN 100B

Teresa Ann Ellis 46

4 PROLOGUE OF SIRACH (BEN SIRA) AND THE QUESTION OF CANON

Francis Borchardt 64

5 THE FUNCTION OF ETHICS IN THE NON-CANONICAL JEWISH WRITINGS

Gerbern S. Oegema 72

6 THE ODES OF SOLOMON: THEIR RELATION TO SCRIPTURE AND THE CANON IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

James Hamilton Charlesworth 89

vi Contents

7 THE ODES OF SOLOMON IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY: REFLECTIONS ON SCRIPTURE AND CANON

Lee Martin McDonald 108

8 ORIGEN’S USE OF THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS Stephen C. Carlson 137

9 THE ACTS OF THOMAS AS SACRED TEXT Jonathan K. Henry 152

10 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN THE PROTEVANGELIUM OF JAMES AND THE GOSPEL OF PETER

Daniel Lynwood Smith 171 Index of References 186 Index of Authors 195

ABBREVIATIONS

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Gen Genesis Exod Exodus Lev Leviticus Num Numbers Deut Deuteronomy Josh Joshua Judg Judges Ruth Ruth 1 Sam 1 Samuel 2 Sam 2 Samuel 1 Kgs 1 Kings 2 Kgs 2 Kings 1 Chr 1 Chronicles 2 Chr 2 Chronicles Ezra Ezra Neh Nehemiah Esth Esther Job Job Ps/Pss Psalm(s) Prov Proverbs Eccl Ecclesiastes Song Song of Songs Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah Lam Lamentations Ezek Ezekiel Dan Daniel Hos Hosea Joel Joel Amos Amos Obad Obadiah Jonah Jonah Mic Micah Nah Nahum Hab Habakkuk Zeph Zephaniah Hag Haggai Zech Zechariah Mal Malachi

New Testament Mt Matthew Mk Mark Lk Luke Jn John Acts Acts Rom Romans 1–2 Cor 1–2 Corinthians Gal Galatians Eph Ephesians Phil Philippians Col Colossians 1–2 Thess 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Tim 1–2 Timothy Titus Titus Phlm Philemon Heb Hebrews Jas James 1–2 Pet 1–2 Peter 1–2–3 Jn 1–2–3 John Jude Jude Rev Revelation Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha AscenIs Ascension of Isaiah 3Bar 3 Baruch 1En 1 Enoch 2En 2 Enoch 3En 3 Enoch Jub Jubilees 1–2–3–4 Macc 1–2–3–4 Maccabees OdesSol Odes of Solomon PssSol Psalms of Solomon SibOr Sibylline Oracles Sir Sirach Tob Tobit Wis Wisdom of Solomon

viii Abbreviations

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts Paul Acts of Paul Acts John Acts of John Acts Thom. Acts of Thomas Acts Andr. Acts of Andrew Gos. Pet. Gospel of Peter

Gos. Phil. Gospel of Philip Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Prot. Jas. Protevangelium of

James Manuscripts BodPap Papyrus Bodmer

Greek and Latin Works Adv. Helv Jerome, Adversus Helvidium de Mariae virginitate perpetua Adv. Haer. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses An. Tertullian, De anima c. Cels. Origen, contra Celsum Civ. Augustine, De civitae Dei Comm. Cant. Origen, Commentarius in Canticum Comm. Eph. Jerome, Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Ephesios libri III Comm. Ezech. Jerome, Commentariorum in Ezechielem libri XVI Comm. Isa. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII Comm. Jo. Origen, Selecta in Job Comm. Luc. Jerome, Commentarrii in Lucam Comm. Matt. Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei Comm. Rom. Origen, Commentarii in Romanos Comm. Ser. Matt. Origen, Commentarium series in evangelium Matthaei Comm. Tit. Jerome, Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Titum liber Div. quaest. Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII Doc. Chr. Augustine, De doctrina christiana Ep. Afr. Origen, Epistula ad Africanum Ep. Fest. Athanasius, Epistula Festales Epist. Jerome, Epistulae Etymolog. Isidore, Etymologiae Exp. Ps. Athanasius, Expositio in Psalmos Faust. Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum Haer. Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium Hebr. Nom. Jerome, De nominibus hebraicis (Liber nominum) Hist. eccl. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica Hom. Luc. Origen, Homiliae in Lucam Ign Eph. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians Ign Magn. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians Ign Smyrn. Ignatius, Epistle to the Smytnaeans Ign Trall. Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians Inst. Lactantius, Divinarum institutionum libri VII Or. Tertullian, De oratione Pan. Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus haereses) Praef. Ezram Jerome, Praefatio Eusebii Ieronimi in Ezram Praef. Pent. Jerome, Praefatio in Pentateuchum Princ. Origen, De principiis

Abbreviations ix

Pud. Tertullian, De pudicitia Res. Tertullian, De resurrectione carnis Sel. Gen. Origen, Selecta in Genesim Strom. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Symb. Ru nus, Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum Tract. III Priscillian, Tractatus III Tract. Ps. II Jerome, Tractatus in Psalmos Vir. ill. Jerome, De viris illustribus

Modern Publications AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 6 vols. New

York, 1992 ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library ACW Ancient Christian Writers. 1946– ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur

Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972–

BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BN Biblische Notizen BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies CaE Cahiers évangile CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I. B.

Chabot et al. Paris, 1903– CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert FARG Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte FC Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C., 1947– FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen

Testaments GCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei]

Jahrhunderte HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HUCM Monographs of the Hebrew Union College ITS Innsbrucker Theologische Studien JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and

Roman Periods

x Abbreviations

JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library MKZU Menschen der Kirche in Zeugnis und Urkunde NASB New American Standard Bible NIDB New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible NIV New International Version NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NRSV New Revised Standard Version OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OrChr Oriens christianus OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth.

2 vols. New York, 1983 PG Patrologia graeca [ = Patrologiae cursus completes: Series graeca].

Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–86 PL Patrologia latina [ = Patrologiae cursus completes: Series Latina].

Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–64 PTS Patristische Texte und Studien RevQ Revue de Qumrân SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SC Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1943– ST Studia theological STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StPatr. Studia patristica StPB Studia post-biblica TANZ Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter TENT Texts and Editions for New Testament Study TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum VC Vigiliae christianae VCSup Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae VT Vetus Testamentum WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der

älteren Kirche

CONTRIBUTORS Francis Borchardt is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Lutheran

Theological Seminary in Hong Kong. Stephen C. Carlson (Ph.D., Duke, 2012) is a post-doctoral researcher in

the Faculty of Theology at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. James H. Charlesworth is George L. Collord Professor of New Testa-

ment Language and Literature and Director and Editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.

Teresa Ann Ellis (Ph.D., Brite Divinity School, 2010) is preparing a

revised version of her dissertation (“Gender in the Book of Ben Sira”) for publication.

Edmon L. Gallagher is Assistant Professor of Biblical Literature at

Heritage Christian University in Florence, Alabama. Jonathan K. Henry is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and

a research assistant at Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. Blake A. Jurgens is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and a

Fulbright Fellow at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Lee Martin McDonald is President Emeritus and Professor of New

Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. He is also President of the Institute for Biblical Research.

Gerbern S. Oegema is Professor of Biblical Studies and Coordinator for

the Centre for Research on Religion at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec.

xii Contributors

1

Ken M. Penner is Assistant Professor of Old Testament Studies at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia.

Daniel Lynwood Smith is Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies

at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri.

PREFACE

THE FLUID BORDERS OF THE CANON AND “APOCRYPHA”

James Hamilton Charlesworth This preface is couched so the interested reader will be better prepared to comprehend the challenging chapters that follow. Indeed, if not fully understood, certain concepts, perceptions, and terms will hinder one’s appreciation of the explorations and insights that follow; for example, in perceiving the world before the third (or even sixth) century CE, it is misleading to use such terms as “canonical,” “extra-canonical,” “orthodoxy,” “heresy,” and the universal Church. What is meant by the word “canon” and when was it acknowledged that additional composi-tions were excluded from it? The English word “canon,” through the Greek term kan n, derives from the Hebrew noun q neh. It denotes a “reed’s length” and it thus becomes a unit of measurement. Eventually, “canon” came to mean the measuring rule or the regula dea, “the rule of faith.” The noun, “canon,” to denote authoritative Scripture does not appear until the fourth century. Then Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.25.3) cites Origen who in the early third century defends the canon of the Church (ton ekkl siastikon phyllat n kanona). Origen, however, was defending the four Gospels, under the in uence of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.11.8); he was not making a list of what belongs within Scripture. Later, in 360 CE, kanonikos in the Council of Laodicea (canon 59) meant “within the canon of Scripture.” But no list was given until 367, when Athanasius used the term kanoniz to signify “inclusion within the canon” (Ep. fest. 39.2 [PG 26.1177]).1 At the outset, I must emphasize that some works deemed genuine by far too many are simply medieval forgeries. Two examples must suf ce. The Letter to Lentulus purports to describe Jesus’ physical appearance. It

1. I am indebted to David de Silva for his succinct summary of the evolution of canon in James and Jude (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 8–9.

xiv Preface

1

is a medieval forgery.2 A work that claims to preserve the of cial documents of Jesus’ trial is a creation by a plagiarist in 1913; he did not

nd a manuscript in the Vatican.3 Christians often assume that the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) de nes the canon. Modern translations differ in numerous ways with this Elizabethan masterpiece. Only some main points must now suf ce for the purposes that de ne this volume of essays on the function of so-called apocryphal texts within early Jewish and Christian com-munities.4 First, the KJV introduces the book of Hebrews with the claim that it was composed by Paul (see my later comments). Today, transla-tions do not imply or claim that Paul wrote Hebrews. Second, the pericope of the woman caught in adultery is internation-ally famous; it appears in the KJV in Jn 7:53–8:11. Today, this passage is placed in a footnote, within double square brackets (to signify it is not original), or at the end of the Gospel of John. In ancient manuscripts, the pericope appears in many places in the Gospels (after Jn 7:52 or 7:44 or even after Lk 21:38). The passage disrupts the ow of the narrative, contains non-Johannine vocabulary and style, and is signi cantly absent in many early, and diverse, manuscripts.5 In the past few decades, scholars in many parts of the world have emphasized that the canon was not closed in antiquity and that modern collections of works claiming to belong to the New Testament should not be hidden from readers’ view. Two publications placard this new sensi-tivity and perspective. First, Robert W. Funk edited a book, New Gospel Parallels,6 that puts in parallel columns not only of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but also allows the serious student to see parallel pas-sages in other works, including the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate,

2. See James H. Charlesworth, Authentic Apocrypha: False and Genuine Christian Apocrypha (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins Library 2; North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL, 1998). 3. See the discussion of The Archko Volume in James H. Charlesworth, The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excur-suses on Apocalypses (ALTA Bibliography Series 17; Metuchen, NJ: The American Theological Library Association; London: Scarecrow, 1987), 9–10. 4. See James H. Charlesworth, “Research on the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (ed. Wolfgang Haase; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 2.25.5, 3919–68. 5. See Bruce M. Metzger, “Pericope of the Adulteress,” in A Textual Com-mentary on the Greek New Testament (2d ed.; Stuttgart: German Bible Society; New York: American Bible Society, 1994), 187–89. 6. Robert W. Funk, ed., New Gospel Parallels (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

Preface xv

the Apocryphon of James, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, the Gospel of Peter, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Protevangelium of James. Second, this year (2013) Hal Taussig edited a book that bears a stun-ning title: A New New Testament.7 It includes not only all the canonical New Testament but also such attractive works as the Odes of Solomon, the Gospel of Thomas, the Thunder: Perfect Mind, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Truth, and the Secret Revelation of John.

The In uential Uncials Those who publish discussions about books left out of the canon, on the fringes of the canon, or canonical in some areas of the world, readily admit that some of the Greek Biblical Uncials (large, and often volu-minous, manuscripts in which the script is in all capitals) contain docu-ments that are now judged to be “non-canonical,” at least in the West where the uncials were deemed de nitive. It is well known that the mid-fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus contains not only the New Testament canon but also Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The fth-century Codex Alexandrinus, even more surprisingly, includes 1 and 2 Clement. The sixth-century Codex Claromontanus (Paris Gr. 107) includes among the canonical documents the Apocalypse of Paul, as well as the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd of Hermas. In the fth century, Sozomen (Hist. eccl. 7.19) noted that the Apocalypse of Paul was read in church services on Good Friday. These observations warn us that we dare not assume the canon was de ned (and closed) by Athanasius’s Festal Letter. Very important is the full judgment of Bruce Manning Metzger:

[T]he limits of the New Testament canon as we know it were set forth for the rst time in a Festal Letter written A.D. 367 by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. But, as evidence from subsequent writers reveals, not all in the Church were ready to accept precisely the canon as identi ed by Athanasius, and throughout the following centuries there were minor

uctuations in the East as well as in the West.8

7. Hal Taussig, ed., A New New Testament (New York: Houghton Mif in Harcourt, 2013). 8 Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, 7.

xvi Preface

1

Paul’s Letters

Modern scholars are trained to disagree; and international meetings often indicate that learned skill. One area in which they tend to agree is that not all the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were composed by Paul. Some are, in fact, spurious, and one, 2 Corinthians, is a collec-tion of Pauline epistles. A succinct review of the letters attributed to Paul helps to clarify how uid are the borders of the canon; and this perspec-tive is imperative for comprehending the following chapters. Paul, those in the Pauline School, and latter authors composed epistles that bear the name “Paul.” Here is a list of those epistles, accompanied by the most-likely date of composition.

The Seven Undoubted Letters of Paul First Thessalonians c. 51 CE Galatians c. 54 CE First Corinthians c. 56 CE Second Corinthians c. 56 CE Romans c. 57 CE Philippians c. 56 or 62 CE Philemon c. 56 or 62 CE

The Compositions of the Pauline School

Second Thessalonians c. 51 CE? Colossians c. 62 CE Ephesians (date is unclear) The Pastoral Letters First Timothy 135 CE Second Timothy 141 CE Titus 146 CE

In The Writings of St. Paul (1972), Wayne A. Meeks explained the above outline had emerged as a consensus among many Pauline experts.9 To this perspective, we need to add other evidence regarding Paul’s life and thought. The above is focused only on the letters attributed to Paul in our New Testament. The full story is very complex. Obviously, all comments must be focused and succinct.

A More Complicated View The author of Luke and Acts may have been a companion of Paul, though most scholars argue against this hypothesis. Acts clearly describes Paul’s

9. See now, Wayne A. Meeks and John T. Fitzgerald, The Writings of St. Paul (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007).

Preface xvii

life, from his attacks against Jesus’ followers to his journey to Rome (for his martyrdom, one must read the Acts of Paul). To reject any link between Paul and Luke is unscholarly, since Luke has an account of Jesus’ Last Supper that often diverges from Matthew and Mark, and aligns with 1 Corinthians. Only in Lk 22:19–20 and 1 Cor 11:23–25 are preserved two traditions. First, only in these two accounts does Jesus say “Do this in remembrance of me.” Only Luke and Paul report that Jesus mentions “the new covenant in my blood.” One should entertain the possibility that Luke reveals some dependence on Paul or at least on Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. First Corinthians may not be the rst letter Paul writes to that “church.” In 1 Cor 5:9 we read about an earlier letter: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral ones.” Following the lead of Heinrich Ewald (1803–1875), most scholars today assume there is a lost letter.10 Could this be the strong passage in 2 Cor 6:14–7:1? These verses seem interpolated. The exhortation “not to associate with immoral ones” is strikingly similar to “Do not be mismated with unbelievers” (2 Cor 6:14). Many of the words in the alleged interpolation, moreover, are not typical of Paul; it is possible this section was not composed by Paul. Would that make it an interpolation by a Paulinist? Would that make it pseudepigraphical? Scholars have come to the conclusion that 2 Corinthians is a com-posite of Paul’s letters; as many as ve authentic epistles may have been collected into this miscellany. Was the compilation collected by those who revered Paul? Should we imagine a Pauline School? Finally, 2 Cor 10–13 contains some harsh words, while chs. 1–9 are characteristically irenic. Are these sections of 2 Corinthians from two different letters of Paul? In many manuscripts at the beginning of Hebrews, we read the attribution: Pavli Apostoli Epistola ad Hebraeos,11 and in the KJV of the Bible we read at the beginning of Hebrews these words: “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews.” The masterpiece is thus attributed to Paul. Though some leading biblical scholars who are Roman Catholic 10. Heinrich Ewald, Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen: Dietrich, 1857). H. A. W. Meyer rejected Ewald’s insight and David R. Hall has recently argued for the unity of the letters, following Meyre; see Meyer, Critical and Exe-getical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877, 1879) and David R. Hall, The Unity of the Corinthian Correspondence (JSNTSup 251; London: T&T Clark International, 2003). 11. The title, for example, is found in the interesting and challenging manuscript called Codex Bezae.

xviii Preface

1

tend to agree with this attribution, most Protestants have been forced to give up that suggestion, since the work is so different from Romans, Paul’s major epistle. If this situation seems rather obtuse, the issue becomes even more interesting when we move outside the canon in search of writings attributed to Paul.

Apocryphal Epistles Collected into editions of the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseude-pigrapha are numerous letters claiming to be from Paul. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is a pre-fourth-century forgery; it is not the letter to the Laodiceans mentioned in Col 4:16. A letter to the Laodiceans is men-tioned in the Muratorian Fragment (line 64); it is probably not the extant epistle. We know of numerous instances where more than one work has the same title; for example, the “Apocalypse of Enoch” could refer to any of the books subsumed under the general title The Books of Enoch or other quite distinct apocalypses, such as 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, or the apocalypse of Enoch excerpted in the fth-century Cologne Mani Codex (Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis). The Apocalypse of Isaiah has been a title used to refer to Isa 24–27, Isa 56–66, and such a title is often confused with the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, which is extant in Greek, Coptic, Latin, and Slavonic, but fully preserved only in Ethiopic (and considered genuine in Ethiopia). Likewise, the Book of Noah found in fragments among the Qumran Scrolls may not be the work called the “the Book of Noah” in Jub 10.13 and the TLev 18.2. The content of the aforementioned fragments are not similar to the Genesis Apocryphon, which claims to be “A [c]o[p]y of the book of the words of Noah” (5.29). The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca consists of 14 letters (eight by Seneca and six by Paul). It is a fourth-century apocrypha that is inter-esting, mainly because the author seeks to prove that Christianity is superior to any Greek philosophy. It is clearly late, referring to “the Apocrypha” and “Christians and Jews.” The Epistle to the Alexandrians is lost. We know about it because it is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment (line 64).

Third Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans Two compositions bearing Paul’s name in the Apocrypha are unique. They clarify the fact that in some Christian communities before the six-teenth-century Reformation, works nally considered “extra-canonical” were actually considered Scripture, or canonical. Each of these epistles appears with introductions and translations in the well-known English

Preface xix

collections of the New Testament Apocrypha, notably, Wilhelm Schnee-melcher’s New Testament Apocrypha and James Keith Elliott’s The Apocryphal New Testament. Third Corinthians The epistle known as 3 Corinthians usually appears within the composite work called the Acts of Paul under his visit to Philippi (ch. 8 [the beginning of this chapter is lost]). The earliest copy is a third-century manuscript, Papyrus Bodmer X, and it probably is evidence that the epistle originally circulated alone and not within the Acts of Paul. This Greek manuscript is a miscellany of diverse texts. Here is my translation of a key verse from 3 Corinthians: “For by his own body Christ Jesus saved all esh, presenting in his own body a temple of righteousness ( ) through which we were made free” (PapBod X.16–19).12 The author wishes to combat Docetism (Jesus did not have a human body but was of celestial substance) and Gnosticism (a complex metaphysical system in which salvation is only via knowledge).13 Vahan Hovhanessian devotes a monograph to this pseudepigraphon. He presents the evidence for 3 Corinthians, arguing correctly that the epistle is a second-century composition that was not originally a part of the Acts of Paul, that the Greek of Papyrus Bodmer is the closest to the original, and that the main concern is the “resurrection of the esh.” He is rightly suggests that 3 Corinthians is “an effort on behalf of the second-century Church fathers to rescue the apostle Paul from the Gnostics and reclaim him into second-century Christian orthodoxy.”14 In the eastern empire, many of the Syrian and Armenian Churches accepted as canonical 3 Corinthians.15 In fourth-century Syria, Ephraem (d. 373) and Aphraat (c. 340) accepted 3 Corinthians as Scripture.16

12. Michel Testuz, ed., Papyrus Bodmer X–XII (Cologny-Genèva: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1959), 38. 13. Docetism appeared in the late rst century CE, in the Johannine epistles. Gnosticism probably appeared as a philosophical system in the middle of the second century CE. It was preceded by gnosis (a philosophy and a religion that put an emphasis on “knowledge” [gnosis in Greek] as the only means to salvation). 14. See Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (Studies in Biblical Literature 18; New York: Peter Lang, 2000). 15. See Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Claren-don, 1988 [repr. 1992]) 7; on 3 Corinthians also see pp. 176, 182, 219, 223. Metzger rightly reports (on p. 14) that William Whiston (1667–1752), the successor to Sir Isaac Newton in the Cambridge Lucasian Chair (Cambridge), judged 3 Corinthians to be genuine; see his Whiston, A Collection of Authentick Records Belonging to the

xx Preface

1

Focusing on the emerging canon, the study of 3 Corinthians should not be divorced from other works that made canonicity. The compilers of the “Syrian Vulgate,” the Peshi ta, however, rejected not only 3 Cor-inthians, but also 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The situation in Armenian is challenging. In the fth-century History of the Armenians, and in “Teachings of St. Gregory,” this Pope quotes from 3 Cor 2.11 and refers to 3 Cor 2.13-16. It is obvious that the Pope assumes 3 Corinthians was composed by Paul.17 Third Corinthians was once included in the Armenian Bible. It is in the Oskan Armenian Bible of 1666 and within an appendix in Hovhannes Zohrapian’s edition of 1805. The epistle is no longer judged to be canonical and part of the Armenian Orthodox New Testament. Even after 3 Corinthians was no longer considered canonical, it was used as if it were, since it continued to be central in the work of the “Christ-bearing orthodox bishops,” using the words of the seventh-century T’eodoros K’rt’enawor. Epistle to the Laodiceans We now turn to another apocryphal epistle that has slipped into the canon in many places in pre-Reformation Europe. Eldon Jay Epp wisely judges the reception of the Epistle to the Laodiceans to be “the greatest puzzle” when we access the evolution of the biblical canon.18 In the sixth-century western Church, Gregory the Great (ca. 540 to 604) grew to prominence politically and religiously; he was from a wealthy Roman family. From his early youth, Gregory meditated on the full range of Scriptures. He was eventually consecrated Pope in 590, despite his own protestations. This “Doctor of the Church” exerted enor-mous in uence in his own and subsequent centuries. For our purposes, it is important to observe that, in his in uential and insightful Morals on

Old and New Testament (London, 1728) part 2, 585–638. One should distinguish between 3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans; the latter is a poor forgery that plagiarizes some of Paul’s authentic letters. On 3 Corinthians, see Eldon Jay Epp, “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 483–515; see esp. pp. 491, 492, and 495. 16. Tatian used apocryphal gospels when he compiled the extremely in uential harmony called the “Diaterssaron.” See Charlesworth, “Tatian’s Dependence upon Apocryphal Traditions,” The Heythrop Journal 15 (1974): 5–17. 17. The full evidence for this paragraph and the next is presented attractively by Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians, 12–116. 18. Epp in The Canon Debate, 495.

Preface xxi

the Book of Job,19 Gregory I presupposed that this epistle was composed by Paul.20 Though he apparently claimed the Epistle to the Laodiceans was genuine,21 Paul’s letters were to be numbered 14. Note Pope Gregory’s report in the last chapter of the Moralia:

Whence also, though the Apostle Paul wrote fteen Epistles, yet Holy Church does not retain more than fourteen, in order that the illustrious teacher might shew by the very number of his Epistles, that he had searched out the secrets of the Law and of the Gospel. (Gregory, Moralia 35.20.48; PL 76, 778C)22

To obtain the perfect number (seven twice), he most likely included the Epistle to the Laodiceans.23 Today, sometimes 14 Pauline letters are claimed to be canonical, as in the Peshi ta, but that is because Hebrews is included as Pauline.24 Gregory’s judgment was representative of many in the West.25 The Epistle to the Laodiceans appears in the Vulgate Fuldensis and is extant in over 100 Latin manuscripts which date from the sixth to the fteenth centuries. These manuscripts represent Christian communities in Spain,

19. Katharina Greschat explains how Pope Gregory focused on the book of Job to explain for his time how the Church often mirrors the suffering and faithfulness of Job. The Christian life is one of conversion and meditation. See Greschat, Die Moralia in Job: Gregors des Grossen: Ein christologisch-ekklesiologischer Kom-mentar (STAC 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 20. See Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (translation edited by R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Cambridge: James Clarke; Louisville: West-minster John Knox, 1992 [rev. ed.]), 42–43, and Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 544. 21. The concept of “genuine” may not be identical to “canonical.” Pope Gregory assumes 3 Corinthians was composed by Paul; he does not mention the canon. Contrast the claim that “Gregory the Great favoured its canonicity” in Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 544. Schneemelcher and Wilson rightly report: “Gregory the Great must also be reckoned among the positive witnesses for this epistle handed down in Latin…” (New Testament Apocrypha, 2:42). 22. S. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job (translated “by members of the English Church”; Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1850) 3:698. 23. In Morals on the Book of Job, the translators added (1:698): “He refers to the Epistle to the Laodicaeans, Col 4, 16, which however is thought to be that to the Ephesians, including Laodicaea, as all Achaia is associated with Corinth.” In this section of Moralia, Pope Gregory cites or alludes to Jn 14:2, 1 Cor 15:41, Gen 40:10, 12, and Jn 6:27; he does not cite the Letter to the Laodiceans. 24. Excluded would be Pseudo-Titus (see n. 26), the lost Epistle to the Alexandrians, and the 14 letters between Paul and Seneca. 25. As far as I know, no manuscript of this pseudepigraphon has been found in Greek or Slavonic.

xxii Preface

1

Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, England, and Ireland. Thus, the Epistle to the Laodiceans continued in many areas of the West as part of the canon until the sixteenth-century Reformation. The reception into the canon of this pastiche is inexplicable, given its inelegance. Metzger assesses the work with verve: “Comprising some twenty verses, the epistle is a pedestrian patchwork of phrases and sentences plagiarized from the genuine Pauline Epistles, particularly from Philippians.”26 Why would such a work be included within the canon when 3 Corinthians and other so-called apocryphal compositions are much more in harmony with the biblical texts? In summary, one needs to be circumspect when imagining the growth of the canon. Historically and theologically, Western scholars have focused on the Roman Catholic canon and after Luther, for Protestants, on a more restricted canon. Today, we should be more cognizant of the world that produced the various and attractive forms of “Orthodox Christianity,” in Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, Greece, Russia, Rome, and further East and West.27

The Enduring “Canonicity” of the Spurious Compositions Even if the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are recog-nized as pseudepigraphical that does not mean they are all forgeries. Our judgment of apocryphal texts should be informed of the fact that the Psalms of David, the Song of Solomon, and the Proverbs of Solomon are equally pseudepigraphical, yet they are in the Jewish and Christian Bible.28 On the one hand, the Apocrypha ironically indicate the power of the canonical texts (often the Gospel of John de nes later apocryphal compositions).29 On the other hand, they are an invaluable source for

26. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, p. 183. Metzger follows the judgment of others, including R. Knopf and G. Krüger, “Laodicenerbrief,” in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1924), 2:150–51. Schneemelcher (2:43) was convinced that the one who forged 3 Corinthians was attempting to provide Paul’s lost letter to the Corinthians mentioned in 1 Cor 4:16. 27. Also, the serious student might also wish to explore the Epistle of Pseudo-Titus, excerpts of which may be found in Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 346–47, with the full text appearing in D. de Bruyne in RevBen 37 (1925): 47–72. 28. Contrast the view of the present symposium with the judgment of Bart D. Ehrman who judges the pseudepigraphical works to be deliberate forgeries. See Ehrman’s Forged: Writing in the Name of God (New York: HarperOne, 2011). 29. D. Moody Smith, in a work that could be entitled “Is John the First Apocry-phal Gospel?,” examines the relation of John to the Synoptics in light of its relation to the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. He

Preface xxiii

comprehending the development of Christian life, thought, liturgy, and dogma. Some documents are simply too fantastic (e.g. the numerous stories of Jesus’ infancy and youth). Other works are invaluable, such as the Gospel of Thomas, for understanding the transmission of Jesus’ sayings, and the Odes of Solomon, for understanding the evolution of gnosis and Judaism into early Christology and Christian liturgy and worship. Today, many Jews, Christians, and those who are interested in the Bible wish to know the source of such rich stories as Quo Vadis. The legend of how Christ, entering Rome, met Peter, who was eeing persecution, and asked “Where are you going?” is found in the Acts of Peter 35 and in a secondary form also in the Acts of Paul 10. Here is the section from the Acts of Peter (35 [6]):

And as he [Peter] went out of the gate [of Rome] he saw the Lord entering Rome; and when he saw him he said, “Lord, whither (goest thou) here?” And the Lord said to him, “I am coming to Rome to be cruci ed.” And Peter said to him, “Lord, art thou being cruci ed again?” He said to him, “Yes, Peter, I am being cruci ed again.” And Peter came to himself; and he saw the Lord ascending into heaven; then he returned to Rome rejoicing and giving praise to the Lord, because he said, “I am being cruci ed”; (since) this was to happen to Peter.

Acts of Peter 35 (6) [my insertions for clari cation]30 Is it not helpful to perceive how the canon expanded and how Christian imaginations and fortitudes were enhanced by history, truth, myths, and legends? And who wants to abrogate to others both the de nition of these concepts and the choice of allowing such passages as the Acts of Peter 35 (6) to be present for re ection and even edi cation? Some of the earliest New Testament papyri preserve the Gospel of John, the Egerton Gospel, Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary. Thus, we should note the insight of John Dominic Crossan: “Gospels, both inside and outside the present canon, show equally early dates for extant manuscripts, equally clear preferences for papyrus codices, and equally set usages for sacred abbreviations.”31 rightly points out that John, in contrast to these “apocryphal gospels” has a coherent and deeply theology. See Smith, “The Problem of John and the Synoptics in Light of the Relation Between Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” in John and the Synoptics (ed. Adelbert Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: University Press, 1992), 147–62. 30. The translation is from Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, 2:314. This famous edition of the NTAP was initiated by Edgar Hennecke. 31. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 1999), 121.

xxiv Preface

1

Exegesis of Scripture is beginning to demand more facts and imagi-nation. Help in both areas is provided by the full form of and collection of documents that claimed to be portions of sacra scriptura.

Conclusion In light of the Global perspective and the full scope of sacra scriptura now before us, it is clear that Athanasius’ list represented his own “Church” and those close to it. The canon was not closed in the late fourth century. The Greek Church debated Revelation until at least the tenth century, and the Syriac Church, in the Peshi ta, had not canonized 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. When we include the Ethiopic Church, we recognize a different canon with the inclusion of Jubilees and the books of Enoch (all those collected under 1 Enoch); all are considered authentic compositions by the Orthodox in Ethiopia today. Finally, textual critics today know over 30,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Each of them is unique with features or words not found in the others. Jews and Christians explore what is meant by the inerrancy of Scripture, a debate that causes much friction within Israel, almost destroyed Princeton Seminary in 1929,32 and more recently has had catastrophic effects within the Southern Baptist Church. As we enter-tain this debate, we should include within the concept of the inerrancy of writing Scripture the errors committed when copying biblical texts. The judgment of Lee Martin McDonald will seem axiomatic to most:

Discussions of inspiration and inerrancy are almost exclusively carried on in terms of the production of Scripture, but not in its preservation, transmission, and interpretation. If inerrancy does not extend to the full phase of the history of the transmission and preservation of the Scriptures as well, then the infallibility of the former, the inerrant original manu-scripts, seems irrelevant.33

Everything we scholars write is an opus imperfectum. We do publish our best work, hopefully; but it is a contribution to the search for a better understanding of the past. All our comments may seem de nitive, but one may be permitted to put at the end of our de nitive sentences a big question mark. Scholarship is not an end but a process to an end. One

32. See the insightful and well-documented study by James H. Morehead, “The Fundamentalist Controversy and Reorganization,” in Princeton Seminary in Ameri-can Religion and Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 340–69. 33. Lee M. McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 221.

Preface xxv

may recall Sir Isaac Newton’s comment, near the end of his life; he felt like a little boy running, in and out, among the waves picking up ocean shells. We scholars form an international team that, running in and out of ancient manuscripts, seeks to improve the understanding of valued texts and the contexts that produced them. Most of us admit our frailties and conclude: Soli Deo Honor et Gloria.

FOREWORD

WITH THE ANCIENTS: HEARING VOICES THAT WERE SILENCED

Many of the writings deemed “apocryphal” and “pseudepigraphical” were in circulation in the early centuries of Judaism and Christianity. Their in uences and impacts on the development of early communities, and the development of Jewish and Christian thoughts, have not yet been suf ciently examined. While this judgment is especially true for the so-called Christian Apocrypha, it applies also for other writings that were not included in the Jewish and Christian Bibles and also not in other sacred collections of Scripture, like Rabbinics and Patristics. The following chapters focus on how some of these forgotten voices were heard within numerous early religious communities. Some of the “apocryphal” imaginations, ideas, re ections, and hopes need to be included as we scholars re-create the past. They help remove the distress-ing silence in many areas of the ancient world. They also may provide echoes of eternity that bene t us today. Most of these ancient writings functioned, to some degree, as sacred texts or scripture—sacra scriptura—in the communities in which they were produced and in others to which they circulated. Our focus in what follows is on how they functioned in the communities that heard and welcomed their voices. Almost all the following collection of essays were initially presented during the 2009 Society of Biblical Literature meetings and subsequently revised. We have listed rst those studies that focus on various aspects of ancient Jewish texts and secondly on the function of Christian texts. Edmon L. Gallagher’s chapter focuses on two questions: Did the apostles quote apocryphal texts? And would Christians today pro t from reading these documents? Gallagher answers these by tracing the appear-ances of the word “apocrypha” in the writings of early Christians (notably, Athanasius, Origen, and Augustine) and addresses the termino-logical signi cance of the word “apocrypha” itself. By analyzing how

xxviii Foreword

1

early Christians used the word “apocrypha,” Gallagher is able to discuss which books and writings were collected under this terminological category, as well as how ancient luminaries understood the relevance and value of these texts. In doing so, Gallagher tracks the evolving consensus of early Christians and the beginnings of hostility towards these non-canonical texts. Ken M. Penner analyzes the Book of Giants fragments from Qumran and asks whether the rabbinic Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael can inform scholars concerning how these disordered fragments should be organized. Penner points out, as other have before him, the considerable overlaps of vocabulary, symbols, and plots shared by the Manichaean Book of Giants, the Qumran Aramaic Book of Giants, and the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael. Penner’s major question is whether this overlap, especially that between the Midrash and the Qumran fragments, suggests a shared narrative and framework. While Penner’s research reveals that nothing contained in the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael provides adequate insight concerning the ordering of the Qumran fragments, he concludes that the Midrash may still offer new possibilities for under-standing the evolution of the narrative of the Book of Giants, both within and outside the Qumran Community. Teresa Ann Ellis investigates the “trajectory of interpretation” of the book of Ben Sira from rabbinic literature and the Jerusalem Talmud to the Babylonian Talmud several hundred years later. The focal point of her study consists in analyzing how Rabbis cited, spoke about, and assessed Ben Sira in the span of over 600 years of literary tradition, as well as how these interpretations changed over time and their boundaries renegotiated. In particular, Ellis is concerned with how the Rabbis viewed Ben Sira as compared to other scriptural texts. In doing so, Ellis not only charts how earlier Rabbis prohibited the book of Ben Sira and later Rabbis revived and rehabilitated its usage, but also provides a number of possible reasons why this may be the case. She concludes by offering a diagram presenting positively or negatively different Rabbis including Ben Sira in their writings. Francis Borchardt also addresses the conception of Ben Sira in the world of Early Judaism and Early Christianity, focusing particularly on the prologue of the text and the purpose underlining its composition. Borchardt argues that the prologue, composed by the grandson of Ben Sira and the translator of Ben Sira’s work, is in fact an argument by the translator concerning the perception of his grandfather’s work. Borchardt shows how the argument reveals the book itself is special and on par with other sacred literature (i.e. the Law, Prophets, and Writings). In this

Foreword xxix

way, the prologue functions as an epideictic speech which establishes the criterion for assessing how the translation of the book, as well as the book itself, is an important contribution to the understanding of law and shares the same qualities as other texts viewed as sacred by Jews. Gerbern S. Oegema provides a summary of the conception of ethics through a spectrum of literature in Judaism, including Pseudepigrapha (esp. 1 Enoch and Jubilees, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch), the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. the Hodayot, Rule of the Community), as well as in Philo and Josephus. In doing so, Oegema also analyzes the multiple forms of litera-ture found in early Jewish writings and each provide us with a window into the multiplicity of ethical thought during the Second Temple Period. Oegema concludes by addressing some of the prominent theological themes in all of these aforementioned texts, concluding that all of those non-canonical documents offer critical witness to the complex under-standing of the function of ethics in the world of Early Judaism. Lee Martin McDonald’s chapter on the function of the Odes of Solomon in the early church as scripture seeks to place this somewhat ignored text into proper place within modern canon research. Starting with the history of the discovery of the Odes, McDonald proceeds to analyze the manuscripts of the Odes, their connections with the Psalms of Solomon, and their attribution to Solomon. From there, McDonald explores the theological emphases found in the Odes of Solomon and notes their sacred status within early Christian communities as hymns and spiritual songs in their liturgy of worship. He concludes by charting the number of possible references to the Odes by early Christian writings and “apocryphal texts,” noting how the Odes, though outside of the Christian canon, functioned liturgically and likely scripturally through much of the history of Christian Church. James Hamilton Charlesworth addresses the role of the Odes of Solomon in the early church, focusing especially on their relation to Scripture. Re ecting on over 50 years of work focused on the Odes, Charlesworth’s main concentration lies in what extant the Odes of Solomon serves as a witness to the evolution of the Christian canon and their function as Scripture within the early church. After evaluating the manuscript tradition of the text, Charlesworth proceeds to explore the various places in which possible quotations from the Odes appear in Christian writings, including Lactantius, Pseudo-Athanasius, and most notably, the Epistle of Barnabas. Charlesworth also contemplates the linguistic construction of ex ore Christi found in the Odes of Solomon and notes the prophetic aspect of the Odes. In conclusion, Charlesworth notes that there are a number of

xxx Foreword

1

parallels in early Christian writings to the Odes of Solomon. Moreover, the study of the Odes is critical in understanding the evolution of liturgy and canon in the Christian Church. Stephen C. Carlson explores the reception of the Gospel of Thomas in antiquity, concentrating on its usage by Origen. Surveying six cases in which Origen mentions the Gospel of Thomas, including a previously unrecognized passage, Carlson assesses how Origen used the Gospel of Thomas in his writings. In doing so, Carlson attempts to discern whether Origen’s attitude towards the text is as explicitly negative as Origen’s statements might suggest, or whether Origen’s understanding of the Gospel of Thomas is more nuanced than his own statements would seemingly indicate. In this case, Carlson suggests that Origen’s attitude towards the Gospel of Thomas is consistent with his attitude towards other apocryphal texts. That is, the so-called apocryphal texts are used positively only when they are useful to Origen’s theology. Jonathan K. Henry investigates whether the Acts of Thomas has a place within serious biblical scholarship, and if so, how the document ts within the discipline. To do so, Henry rst addresses the function of this apocryphal text within early Christian circles and whether it was legiti-mately considered sacra scriptura by these communities. Following, Henry exposits the doctrinal clarity of the Acts of Thomas and explains how the text was utilized by early Christian bishops, scribes, and schol-ars alike. Henry concludes by noting how non-canonical scriptures are critical towards understanding the semi- uid written traditions of Christian texts and their formation. Finally, Daniel Lynwood Smith’s work concerns the second-century compositions of the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of Peter. Smith’s goal is to demonstrate that these two apocryphal works can pro-vide windows into how those in the early church addressed and answered questions concerning both the birth and resurrection of Jesus. Smith structures his argument by placing these gospels into a larger exegetical and interpretive context. Though Smith admits that it is exceedingly dif cult to glean reliable history from these gospels, he states that their worth to scholars is maintained by how these early writings address the extrinsic and intrinsic concerns left unanswered by the earliest accounts concerning the life of Jesus. We, the editors, extend out thanks to Ken Penner from St. Francis Xavier University, Nova Scotia, who helped in the early stages of editing this volume. This is our third volume in the T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Text Series. We wish to express our appreciation to all the scholars who

Foreword xxxi

have contributed papers in our sections in the Society of Biblical Litera-ture. Their contributions advance our understanding of how ancient writ-ings not included in the Bible shared by Jews and Christians functioned in religious communities in antiquity. This is an advancement in our understanding of Early Judaism and Early Christianity. In culmination, voices once silenced may echo in our continuous explorations of the past and search for meaning in the present.

James H. Charlesworth Lee Martin McDonald

Blake A. Jurgens Pesach and Easter 2013

1 WRITINGS LABELED “APOCRYPHA” IN LATIN PATRISTIC

SOURCES

Edmon L. Gallagher Did the apostles quote the apocrypha? Would Christians pro t from reading the apocrypha? What are the apocrypha? We should start with that last question. According to a common de nition: “ ‘Apocrypha’ designates those books included in the Latin Bible of the Middle Ages and excluded from the Protestant Canon of Scripture.”1 Thus, the category essentially embraces the deutero-canonical literature. Of course, this has not always been the case. This de nition goes back at least to Andreas Carlstadt in 1520, who in turn based his use of the term on the interpretation of a statement made by Jerome in his Prologus galeatus.2 The general acceptance of this de nition for apocrypha necessitated the creation of a new term that could designate the many ancient works relating to Old Testament characters, works outside the canon and the deuterocanon. And so, in 1713, Johann Albert Fabricius gave us the term pseudepigrapha for such literature.3 But from the beginning it was not so, as Fabricius well knew. Ancient Christian authors usually did not use the word pseudepigrapha to designate a category of literature, and almost never did they designate the deutero-canonical books as

1. M. E. Stone, “Categorization and Classi cation of the Apocrypha and Pseude-pigrapha,” in Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Armenian Studies: Collected Papers (2 vols.; Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 144–45; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 1:3–13, esp. 3. That Stone is thinking primarily of the deuterocanonicals is clear when he immediately follows the above-quoted statement with: “Almost all of them are still found in the Canon of the Old Testament of the Roman Catholic Church.” However, many Roman Catholics have used the term apocrypha to designate what commonly now goes under the name pseudepigrapha; see Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Modern Invention of ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’,” JTS 60 (2009): 403–36, esp. 405 n. 5. 2. See Edmon L. Gallagher, “The Old Testament ‘Apocrypha’ in Jerome’s Canonical Theory,” JECS 20 (2012): 213–33, esp. 224 n. 40. 3. See Reed, “Modern Invention,” 425.

2 Sacra Scriptura

1

apocrypha.4 Rather, they used the term apocrypha for our two categories Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and New Testament Apocrypha, whereas what we call Old Testament apocrypha went under a variety of names such as “ecclesiastical books” (Ru nus, Symb. 36) or “books to be read” (Athanasius, Ep. fest. 39.20), or, eventually, “canonical” (Augustine, Doc. chr. 2.13).5 But beyond these basic de nitions, what connotations did the word apocrypha carry in Late Antiquity? Does the label apocrypha ascribe to the writing a positive force, such that it is commended for edifying read-ing, or does it rather mean that the writing presents dangerous teachings and should be avoided, or is it perhaps something in between, simply non-canonical? It will be apparent that my interest here is in the term itself, and not, at this point, in the literature designated by the term. I am concerned here with the categories, the way ancient authors classi ed their religious literature. What sorts of literature received the label apocrypha and what did it mean to classify a work as an apocryphon? It would seem that a useful way of pursuing such a question, and one that arises from the sources themselves, is to ask the rst two questions posed at the beginning of the present study: did the apostles quote the apoc-rypha, and would Christians pro t from reading apocrypha? We will nd different answers in different authors, but by the late fourth century, the dominant answer for Latin writers seems to have been a tentative “no” to both questions. How did this come about? The rst thing we should note about the use of the term apocrypha in Christian antiquity is that it appears far less frequently than we might have guessed. Athanasius of Alexandria famously compiled a list of the biblical canon in his 39th Festal Letter, and here he mentions a number of times apocryphal writings, which, for Athanasius, are dangerous writings in use among heretics.6 However, Athanasius uses the word apocrypha in 4. On the term “pseudepigrapha” in patristic literature, see Reed, “Modern Invention,” pp. 407–8 n. 15. On the term “apocrypha,” see Gallagher, “Old Testa-ment Apocrypha,” 223–33. 5. On the reception of the deuterocanonical literature and their various ancient classi cations, see Edmon L. Gallagher, “Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon of North Africa,” in Studia Patristica (ed. Markus Vinzent; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). The section numbers for Athanasius’ Ep. fest. 39 are those originated by Alberto Camplani, Atanasio di Alessandria. Lettere festali; Anonimo. Indice delle lettere festali (Milan: Paoline, 2003), 498–518, and followed in the recent English translation by David Brakke, “A New Fragment of Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon,” HTR 103 (2010): 47–66, esp. 57–66. 6. I count ten appearances of the word apocrypha in this letter, including portions preserved in both Greek and Coptic. For a full translation of the letter into English, see Brakke, “New Fragment,” 57–66.

1. GALLAGHER Writings Labeled “Apocrypha” 3

reference to a written document in none of his other preserved writings. Much earlier, Origen used the term somewhat differently from Athanas-ius, with a less negative connotation, but he did not use it a great many more times than Athanasius. By my generous count, and including his Latin translations, his extant corpus contains only thirteen instances of the word apocrypha in reference to a written document.7 Coming now to Latin writers of the fourth and fth centuries, we nd for the most part a similar dearth of appearances of our term. Ambrose of Milan never uses it in his extant works. Neither does Hilary of Poitiers. Ambrosiaster uses it once. Ru nus of Aquileia uses it once in his original writings (excluding his translations, on which see below). Even Priscillian of Avila uses it only once in his Tractates, or twice if we include the title of Tractate III (“Liber de de et de apocryphis”). The writers of this period who use the term most frequently are Jerome (39×) and Augustine (21×). The term appears in Latin before the Medieval Period maybe a couple hundred times.8 Given the low frequency of the occurrence of the term apocrypha among ancient Christians, what did they mean by it when they used it? What sorts of documents received the label and what signi cance did the label carry? The two Greek writers I mentioned earlier—Origen and Athanasius—basically agree on which writings deserve the designation. Athanasius speaks of apocryphal writings that bear the same names as genuine books (Ep. fest. 39.15), and he mentions speci cally an apocry-phon of Isaiah and another of Moses (Ep. fest. 39.21). Origen also gives the label to what we would call pseudepigrapha.9 But regarding the value of the writings so designated, these two Greek writers stand far apart. Athanasius uses the term in a pejorative way to cast doubt on the writings 7. Sel. Gen. 4.8 (PG 12.101; Cain and Abel apocryphon); 41.47 (PG 12.136; Joseph and Aseneth apocryphon); Comm. Jo. 2.188 (Prayer of Joseph); 19.97 (general reference); Comm. Matt. 10.18 (twice; apocrypha of Isaiah and Zechariah); 17.2 (general reference); Ep. Afr. 9 (Isaiah apocryphon); 19 (Tobit and Judith); perhaps Comm. Rom., Gk. frg. to Rom 4:16–17, but see the cautions on the reliabil-ity of the Greek fragments expressed by Thomas P. Scheck, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5 (FC 103; Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 2001), 17–19. In Latin: Comm. Cant. prol. (three times, at the end). This count does not include those Latin translations that do not actually use the word apocrypha but possibly re ect a Vorlage with the word apocrypha in Greek. Cf. Comm. ser. Matt. 25, 117, where we nd the term scriptura non manifesta. However, Origen’s use of the expression (Ep. Afr. 13) suggests that in these passages of the Comm. ser. Matt. he may have used or something similar. 8. A search in the Library of Latin Texts database (Brepols) results in 146 hits for antiquity and the Age of the Fathers (until 750 CE). 9. See n. 7 above.

4 Sacra Scriptura

1

so branded; indeed, they are “an invention of heretics, who write these books whenever they want and then generously add time to them, so that by publishing them as if they were ancient, they might have a pretext for deceiving the simple folk” (Ep. fest. 39.21).10 On the other hand, Origen has a more positive attitude toward writings he calls apocrypha. He never seems to use the term in a negative way, but instead deems writ-ings so labeled as possibly authentic testimony to the biblical period. And yet, these writings must be reserved for private study, not read liturgically, because Origen, like Athanasius, recognizes danger in accepting everything in them. He speculates that some of the Old Testa-ment apocrypha bear heretical interpolations originating among Jews who sought to discredit the entire writing (Ep. Afr. 13–15). As to whether the apostles quoted the apocrypha, and whether Christians now may read them pro tably, Origen answered with a tentative “yes” on both counts, whereas Athanasius replied with a de nite “no.”11 Alongside Athanasius’ negative use of the term apocrypha, and Origen’s use which seems rather neutral, some groups also employed the term in a positive sense to designate “revelatory literature…previously hidden but now available.”12 For example, Athanasius accuses the Melitians of “boasting about the books that they call ‘apocryphal’ ” (Ep. fest. 39.32). David Brakke has recently pointed to these data and other similar instances, such as the use of the word apocryphon in titles among the Nag Hammadi codices, as indicating that the “term apocryphal and its cognates function in diverse ways, which are not always negative.”13 We must keep in mind this positive use of the term, though even Brakke’s phrasing suggests its rarity and that we will instead nd the word bearing negative connotations usually, even if “not always.”

10. Translation by Brakke, “New Fragment,” 61. 11. Athanasius strongly advises against reading apocrypha at Ep. fest. 39.22–23, 28. He rejects Pauline use of apocrypha at Ep. fest. 39.26–27. Origen counsels cautious use of apocrypha at Comm. ser. Matt. 28 (though here the Latin has the term scriptura non manifesta rather than apocrypha) and at Comm. Cant. prol., on which see below, on Ru nus (the translator of this commentary). In the latter passage, Origen also says that the apostles quoted apocrypha; cf. also Comm. Matt. 10.18; Ep. Afr. 13–15; see Jean Ruwet, “Les apocryphes dans les œuvres d’Origène,” Bib 25 (1944): 143–66, 311–34. 12. David Brakke, “Scriptural Practices in Early Christianity: Towards a New History of the New Testament Canon,” in Invention, Rewriting, Usurpation: Discursive Fights over Religious Traditions in Antiquity (ed. Jörg Ulrich, Anders-Christian Jacobsen, and David Brakke; Early Christianity in the Context of Late Antiquity 11; New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 263–80, esp. 275. 13. Brakke, “Scriptural Practices,” 278.


When we look at how these questions were received by Latin Fathers, we nd largely the same opinions we have already encountered. And yet, the views of Athanasius certainly became the dominant position: the apocrypha pose a danger to Christians and nd their proper home among heretics, who probably wrote them, anyway. On the other hand, some writers do advocate the idea that helpful information in non-canonical writings justi es cautious Christian reading of this literature, thus in continuity with Origen and against Athanasius’ explicit statements (cf. Ep. fest. 39.23). However, we will see that even the proponents of this opinion seem to shy away from using the term apocrypha in regard to this literature. Perhaps the term had taken on such negative connotations by the late fourth century in Latin Christianity that one could most effec-tively make the case for reading non-canonical literature by minimizing use of the term apocrypha. The writings that receive the label apocrypha largely correspond to those so designated by the Greek writers. At the turn of the third century, Tertullian used the term four times, which we can quickly survey. Twice he refers to the Shepherd of Hermas as apocryphal and condemns it as an adulterous work.14 Once he talks about condemning (damnatur) unnamed writings as apocrypha (An. 2). And the nal time he refers to “apocryphal mysteries and blasphemous fables” (Res. 63). For Tertullian, the word apocrypha clearly carried negative connotations. The term then rarely appears in Latin patristic literature until the fourth and fth centuries, when several writers employ it infrequently but pejoratively.15 Some of these speci cally mention the Priscillianists or the Manichaeans as those who attribute authority to such writings.16 Examples of apocrypha named by these writers include the Mysteries of Moses, the Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Paul.17 Apparently nothing useful can be found in these writings. On the other hand, the one time Ambrosiaster uses the word he gives it a neutral signi cance, as he admits that Paul took his statement about Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8) from an apocryphon (Comm. Tim. 3.9).

14. Pud. 10; 20. He mentions the Shepherd also in Or. 16 in a neutral way. 15. Arnobius the Younger, Praedestinatus 1.46.121; 1.70.15; Claudianus Mam-ertus, De statu animae 1.2; Euodius Uzaliensis, apud Aug. Epist. 158; Philastrius of Brescia, Diversarum hereseon liber 88; 114. 16. Arnobius the Younger (Praedestinatus 1.70.15) mentions the Priscillianists; Philastrius of Brescia (Diversarum hereseon liber 88) mentions the Manichaeans. 17. Euodius Uzaliensis names the Mysteries of Moses (apud Aug. Epist. 158); the rest are named by Philastrius of Brescia (Diversarum hereseon liber 88).

6 Sacra Scriptura

1

Several authors require somewhat more attention. Ru nus of Aquileia uses the term apocrypha only once in his original writings. In the midst of a catalogue of scripture in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed (§36), he advocates a threefold division of religious literature, viz., canonical books, ecclesiastical books, and apocryphal books. The middle category features those works that are not canonical—that is, they cannot establish dogma—and yet they are to be read in church, and here Ru nus names Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Two Ways or the Judgment according to Peter, these last two titles apparently referring to the same work.18 About the apochrypha (as Ru nus spells it), he says only that they are not to be read in church.19 But Ru nus also translated a couple of works relevant to our investi-gation in which he uses the word apocrypha, at least once where the term did not originally stand in the Greek. Eusebius himself uses the term apocrypha in Greek in reference to a document only once in his surviving works. He says that Hegissipus, the second-century Christian chronicler, considered some apocrypha to have been fabricated in his own time by heretics (Hist. eccl. 4.22.9). Ru nus offers a rather straightforward translation of this phrase. But later in the History, Eusebius says that in the Hypotyposeis Clement of Alexandria discussed all the divine scrip-tures ( ) and some antilegomena, including the Epistle of Jude, the other Catholic Epistles, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter (Hist. eccl. 6.14.1). Ru nus changes Eusebius’ word antilegomena to apocrypha and omits all of Eusebius’ examples except for the Apocalypse of Peter. He thus declines to include among the apocrypha not only the Catholic Epistles but the Epistle of Barnabas, as well.20

18. See Robert E. Aldridge, “Peter and the ‘Two Ways’,” VC 53 (1999): 233–64, esp. 242–45. 19. He thus leaves open the possibility that a Christian may read these works privately. Cf. Andrew S. Jacobs, “The Disorder of Books: Priscillian’s Canonical Defense of Apocrypha,” HTR 93 (2000): 135–59: “This taxonomy leaves open the possibility that apocryphal texts are useful and permissible to the Christian reader, although not in speci c doctrinal or liturgical contexts” (140). This is a slightly more nuanced statement of Ru nus’ position than I presented in Gallagher, “Old Testa-ment Apocrypha,” 231. 20. Why does Ru nus omit here even the Epistle of Barnabas, which, according to his catalogue of books (Symb. 36), is neither in the biblical canon nor among the ecclesiastical books (and thus should apparently be in the apocrypha)? Ru nus nowhere mentions the Epistle of Barnabas in his original writings, but it does appear twice more in his translation of Eusebius’ Hist. eccl. 3.25.4; 6.13.6. In both places


The second translation by Ru nus that concerns us is that of Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs. Unfortunately, Origen’s Greek text no longer survives, so we cannot know to what extent Ru nus updated and/or sanitized the ideas in his Vorlage.21 Near the end of the prologue to this work, Ru nus represents Origen as saying:

[…] in the case of those scriptures that are called “apocrypha” […] many things were found in them that were corrupt and contrary to the true faith, our predecessors did not see t for them to be given a place [in the divine scriptures], or admitted among those reckoned as authoritative. It is beyond us to pass judgment on such matters. But it is common know-ledge that the apostles and evangelists borrowed and put into the New Testament many things that we read nowhere in the Scriptures that we account canonical, but that are found none the less in the apocryphal writ-ings, and are quite obviously taken from them. Not that the apocryphal writings are to be given a place in this way: we must not overpass the everlasting limits which our fathers have set [cf. Prov 22:28]. But it may be that the apostles and evangelists, being lled with the Holy Spirit, knew what was to be taken out of those writings and what must be rejected; whereas we, who have not such abundance of the Spirit, cannot without danger presume so to select.22

Some of this sounds a great deal like Origen, especially the quotation from Prov 22:28, a favorite verse of his (cf., e.g., Ep. Afr. 8). The last bit about not reading the apocrypha, however, might give one pause, since Origen elsewhere advocated a cautious use of these writings and did not seem to think that one must possess the same abundance of the Spirit as the apostles to pro t from reading apocrypha. Perhaps Ru nus tweaked the passage to agree with his more wary stance toward apocrypha, a stance characteristic of his time. In any case, whether this caution toward the apocrypha derived from Origen or was inserted or enhanced by Ru nus can be seen to reduce Eusebius’ negativity toward the group of writings which includes Barnabas, and in the rst reference he does not translate the word

by which Eusebius sought to label them as “rejected.” Ru nus also mentions Barnabas in his translation of Origen’s Princ. 3.2.4, where Origen (and Ru nus) seems to link Barnabas to the “Two Ways” document. See Aldridge, “Peter,” 240–41. For more on the reception of the Epistle of Barnabas among the Latin Fathers, see below. 21. On the translation technique of Ru nus, see Mark Humphries, “Ru nus’ Eusebius: Translation, Continuation, and Edition in the Latin Ecclesiastical History,” JECS 16 (2008): 143–64. 22. Translation by R. P. Lawson, Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1957), 56. Lawson cites Merk’s article (p. 201) for this passage (p. 322 n. 122).

8 Sacra Scriptura

1

Ru nus, the translator surely agreed with the sentiment. But we notice, even so, that Ru nus’ translation acknowledges that the apostles pulled “many” testimonia from the apocrypha, though, the passage continues, this provides no warrant for the same practice among later Christians. For Ru nus, then, the apocrypha could not be read in church, they were possibly fabricated by heretics, they often contradict orthodoxy, and though the apostles clearly made use of them, they could only pick out the true bits because of their saturation with the Spirit of God, whereas regular Christians would run into danger by attempting to follow their example. The only writing I nd labeled apocryphal by Ru nus is the Apocalypse of Peter, and he makes a point of not so labeling the Epistle of Barnabas. Augustine uses the term apocrypha 21 times in ten different works.23 The word often carries negative connotations. He names several exam-ples of writings that receive the label apocrypha: the books of Enoch, the Acts of Thomas, Acts of Peter, an apocryphon—probably the Acts—of Andrew and John, the Acts of Leucius, the Protevangelium of James, and other apocryphal gospel material. He speci es the Manicheans and the Priscillianists a number of times as heretical groups that make use of this literature.24 And yet, at least one passage shows that Augustine read some of what he calls apocrypha, and seems to be open to learning from it. He says that he found “in a certain scripture from the sort of those which are called apocrypha” (in quadam scriptura ex earum genere quae apoc-ryphae nominantur) an interpretation for the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Mt 25:1–13. Augustine nds this interpretation unpersuasive but worthy of further consideration (Div. quaest. LXXXIII 59). Nevertheless, Augustine’s most extended statement on the value of the apocrypha appears in the City of God (15.23), and it presents a decidedly negative assessment:

We may, however, leave aside the stories contained in those Scriptures which are called ‘Apocrypha’ because their origin is hidden and was not clear to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has come down to us by a most certain and known succession. There is, indeed some truth to be found in these apocryphal Scriptures; but they have no canonical authority because of the many untruths which they contain. We cannot, of course, deny that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, wrote a number of things by divine inspiration, since the

23. On the subject, see Finian D. Taylor, ‘Augustine of Hippo’s Notion and Use of the Apocrypha’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1978). 24. Manichaeans: C. Adimantum 17; Faust. 22.79; De haer. 46. Priscillianists: De haer. 70; Epist. 237.24.


apostle Jude says so in a canonical epistle [Jude 14]. But it was not for nothing that even these were excluded from the canon of the Scriptures which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of the priestly succession. For the accuracy of these books was judged to be suspect by reason of their antiquity; and it was not possible to discover whether they were indeed what Enoch had written, for those who put them forward were not thought to have preserved them with due rigour through a clear succession. Hence, prudent men have rightly decided that we should not believe Enoch to be the author of the works attributed to him, containing tales of giants who did not have human fathers. In the same way, many other works have been put forward by heretics under the names of other prophets, and, more recently, under the names of apostles. But all these have been excluded from canonical authority after diligent examination, and are called Apocrypha.25

I do not nd in Augustine any sense that the apostles quoted from the apocrypha. Even when he mentions Jude’s citation of 1 Enoch, he seems to think that Jude may have quoted an authentic document by Enoch no longer extant. As for the works now circulating under Enoch’s name, “prudent men have rightly decided that we should not believe Enoch to be [their] author” (cf. also Civ. 18.38). Augustine does say that some use-ful things occasionally appear in apocrypha, and he gives some thought to an apocryphal interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Virgins. But he also says about some non-canonical documents purporting to come from patriarchs and prophets that “they cannot serve even as an aid to know-ledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them” (Civ. 18.38).26 Augustine frequently targeted for criticism Priscillian of Avila, well-known for his reading of apocryphal literature for which he was already famous—or notorious—in his own lifetime. Indeed, he published an entire tractate that bears the title in the manuscript, “Book on faith and on apocrypha.”27 In this text, Priscillian bases his entire case for the use

25. Translation by R. W. Dyson, Augustine: The City of God against the Pagans (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 684. 26. Translation by Dyson. Augustine does not use the word apocrypha in this context. 27. Georg Shepss, ed., Priscilliani quae supersunt (CSEL 18; Vienna: Tempsky, 1889), 44–56. All page and line numbers for Priscillian’s works refer to this edition. See also Marco Conti, Priscillian of Avila: Complete Works (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 82–115, and the notes on pp. 273–78.

10 Sacra Scriptura

1

of this extra-canonical literature precisely on the common Christian acceptance of a closed canon of unparalleled authority and on the use of non-canonical literature by the authors of the biblical canon.28 Canonical quotation of extra-canonical works proves the usefulness of this litera-ture. But this tractate actually does not seem all that radical. Priscillian warns that readers of this literature must take care because it features interpolations by the impious (46.23–25).29 This sounds a great deal like Origen. Also like Origen, Priscillian notices that the Old Testament rarely speaks about the murder of the prophets, while this is a common theme in the New Testament (e.g. Mt 23:34–35; Lk 11:49–51; 13:34). But whereas Origen had accused the Jewish leadership of removing these accounts (cf. Ep. Afr. 13–15), Priscillian asserts that the apostles who speak about the murder of the prophets were drawing from apocryphal literature (47.3–26). According to Marco Conti, Priscillian’s most recent editor, the controversial bishop especially relied on 4 Ezra, Laodiceans (both mentioned in Tract. III), and various apocryphal Acts, and it seems to have been the emphasis in these works on sexual abstinence that especially endeared them to Priscillian.30 More than anyone in our literature, Priscillian would seem to be the best candidate to give a positive spin to the term apocrypha as the Melitians and others seem to have done in Greek. However, Priscillian hardly uses the word at all. It does appear in the title of Tractate III, but we cannot be sure, as far as I know, whether Priscillian himself or a later editor inserted the title.31 In the rest of Tractate III the word nowhere

28. On Priscillian’s canon, see Gallagher, “Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon of North Africa.” 29. Cf. Conti, Priscillian of Avila, 275, 278; Jacobs, “Disorder of Books,” 149, 152–53. 30. See Conti, Priscillian of Avila, 275–76. It does not seem clear whether Priscillian is advocating liturgical use of apocrypha or just private reading, or whether he considered anything in them to be inspired. It is interesting that while Priscillian’s argument from the New Testament use of apocrypha would seem most easily to justify continued Christian reading of Old Testament apocrypha, he seems mostly concerned with establishing the suitability of reading New Testament apocry-pha, judging from Conti’s list of non-canonical works frequently employed by him. 31. Jacobs, “Disorder of Books,” 143 n. 41. The view that a later editor added the title might receive support from the fact that the rst lines of the tractate have been lost and the lacuna existed already in the Vorlage of the only manuscript which we possess (see Conti, Priscillian of Avila, 273). If the Vorlage omitted the rst lines, it presumably would also have omitted a title, and so the present title would have been invented by a later scribe/editor. However, if the scribe intentionally omitted the rst lines because of its controversial nature (for this suggestion, see Conti, p. 273, citing


appears. He mentions the canon 26 times in the tractate, often in phrases such as extra canonem when he refers to writings “beyond the canon” that can serve as bene cial Christian reading material. This would appear to be a way of avoiding the term apocrypha. In fact, Priscillian uses the word only once in all his preserved works, in Tractate I, the Liber apologeticus, where he talks about heretics who have assembled their doctrines from the canonical scriptures and apocrypha (23.11). This does not really tell us whether Priscillian thought of the term apocrypha in a positive or negative way, since even though heretics used those books, they also used the canonical scriptures, which obviously are viewed positively. The term’s connotation in wider Latin patristic literature of his time may have caused him to refrain from using it, especially in the one tractate devoted to justifying his use of extra-canonical literature. Jerome used the word apocrypha more than any other writer we have surveyed, a total of 39 times. The vast majority of these are pejorative in connotation. He speaks regularly of the “ravings” (deliramenta) of the apocrypha.32 Among the writings he calls apocrypha Jerome includes a variety of literature, especially what we now classify as pseudepigrapha.33 Did Jerome think the apostles quoted apocrypha? This is a complex question. Shortly after his move to Bethlehem in 386, Jerome composed a few commentaries on portions of the Pauline corpus. In these he acknowledges apostolic use of apocrypha, though he seems a little uncomfortable with the idea. In his Commentary on Titus 1:12, he admits that Paul takes “many” quotations from apocrypha. While commenting on Eph 5:14, “therefore it says: Awake, Sleeper, Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you,” Jerome wonders where in scripture this quota-tion is found (Comm. Eph. 5:14). He admits the possibility that Paul has

Chadwick), it is possible that he would have included the received title before excising the offensive material. 32. Adv. Helv. 8; Comm. Matt. 2; Comm. Ezech. 13; Comm. Isa. 17; Comm. Ephes. 3; Epist. 57.9; Praef. Pent. 18. 33. These include: the books of Enoch (Comm. Tit. 1:12; Vir. ill. 4), an apoc-ryphon of Lamech (Epist. 36.5), the book of Jubilees (Epist. 78.20, 26), the Apocalypse of Elijah (Comm. Isa. 64:4; Epist. 57.9), the Ascension of Isaiah (Comm. Isa. 64:4), an apocryphon of Jeremiah (Comm. Matt. 27:9–10), the Additions to Daniel (Praef. Dan. 43–44), an apocryphon of Peter (Vir. ill. 1), the Acts of Paul and Thecla (Vir. ill. 7), the Epistle of Barnabas (Comm. Ezech. 43:18–22; Vir. ill. 6), several unnamed apocryphal gospels (Comm. Matt. prol.; 12:49–50; 23:35–36; Comm. Ezech. 44:29–30; Adv. Helv. 8; Epist. 129.3), and what he calls 3 and 4 Ezra, or what we usually refer to as 1 Esdras and 4 Ezra (Praef. Ezram 18; cf. Vigil. 6). On the deuterocanonicals, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas, see below.

12 Sacra Scriptura

1

taken it from an apocryphal source, “just as it is obvious that he has done in other places [sicut in aliis quoque locis illum fecisse manifestum est].” However, this explanation is just one of several possibilities mentioned by Jerome, and he says that it is, in fact, the “simple” answer. Moreover, Jerome stresses that even if Paul did take this testimony from an apocryphon, that has no bearing on the sanctity of that entire document. After all, Paul also quotes pagan writers but does not thereby validate everything those pagans had said. Later in the Commentary on Ephesians, Jerome comments on Paul’s quotation of Gen 2:24 at Eph 5:31: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one esh.” This wording differs in some ways from the Old Testament passage, and Jerome highlights these differences to show that the apostle often alters his quotations but retains the sense. Jerome admits that he intends through this discussion to discourage people from running off to “the ravings of the apocrypha” every time a New Testament quotation does not exactly correspond to anything in the Old Testament. At this time he admits the possibility that the apostles quoted the apocrypha but seeks to limit appeal to this explanation. A few years later, in his discussion of Jude in On Illustrious Men, written in about 393, Jerome mentions Jude’s famous quotation of the “apocryphal” book of Enoch, and he says this has caused many to reject Jude (Vir. ill. 4; cf. Comm. Tit. 1:12). But, Jerome says, Jude “has earned authority by its age and use, and it is reckoned among the divine scrip-tures” (tamen auctoritatem vetustate iam et usu meruit, et inter sanctas scripturas conputatur; Vir. ill. 4). By the time he writes his Commentary on Matthew in 398, Jerome seems more hesitant. While commenting on Mt 27:9, which combines a quotation from Zechariah with a citation of Jeremiah, Jerome says that he has found the quotation in a Jeremiah apocryphon in use among the Nazarene sect. However, he rejects this explanation and rather says that the evangelist pulled the quotation from Zechariah but was more concerned about the sense than the precise wording.34 Thus, Jerome seems to have grown increasingly uncom-fortable with the notion that the apostles quoted apocryphal works. Indeed, in works beginning in the 390s, Jerome often speaks about apocrypha when criticizing those who turn to this extra-canonical literature to locate Old Testament passages quoted in the New Testament but without precise parallel in the Septuagint. Jerome stresses that these quotations can often be found in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, thus validating his Vulgate translation project and invalidating the use of

34. Cf. Epist. 57.7.


apocrypha.35 For instance, in his Preface to Paralipomena (lines 30–31), Jerome asks where a particular quotation by Christ (Jn 7:38) is found in the Old Testament:36

Where is it written? The Septuagint does not have it, the Church does not know the apocrypha; there is need to revert to the Hebrew text, from which both the Lord speaks and his disciples take examples.

In his Commentary on Isaiah 64:4, he explains that this Old Testament verse is the source of one of Paul’s peculiar quotations of scripture (1 Cor 2:9). He alleges that though the Old Testament verse does not correspond exactly to Paul’s wording, the apostle often altered the wording but preserved the sense.37 In this and other cases, there was no need to entertain “the ravings of the apocrypha.”38 And so Jerome, like Athanasius, came to reject the attempt to justify use of apocryphal books based on precedent established by the apostles. We see that Jerome came to promote a rather negative view of the apocrypha. Nevertheless, he does give a few indications of a more positive view. First, like Augustine, Jerome can sometimes consider an apocryphal tradition to be possibly correct.39 But much more impor-tantly, a total of eight books that seem to nd a great deal of favor in Jerome’s eyes all receive the label apocrypha from him. He famously declares seven books to be apocrypha in his Prologus Galeatus, includ-ing Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Given Jerome’s usual view of books labeled apocrypha, one should interpret this statement as an emphatic rejection of the canonicity of these documents in the face of some who would ascribe to them full canonicity.40 He also applies the label apocrypha to the Epistle of Barnabas (Vir. ill. 6; Comm. Ezech. 43:18–22), though he considers it useful (Vir. ill. 6; Tract. Ps. II 15; Hebr. nom. 81.8) and an

35. On this argument from Jerome, see Edmon L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text (VCSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 201. 36. The line numbers are according to the edition of Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (5th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007). 37. The same explanation is found in Athanasius, Ep. fest. 39.26, except that Athanasius relates 1 Cor 2:9 to Isa 29:18–19. See Brakke, “New Fragment,” 50, 64. 38. Cf. also Comm. Matt. 23:35–36. 39. Epist. 36.5 (Lamech); Tract. Ps. II 15 (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; cf. TNaph 2.8); Epist. 78.20, 26 (Jubilees). 40. Gallagher, “Old Testament Apocrypha”; cf. Gallagher, “Jerome’s Prologus Galeatus and the OT Canon of North Africa.”

14 Sacra Scriptura

1

authentic work by the New Testament character Barnabas (Vir. ill. 6). Yet, Jerome’s classi cation of the document as apocryphal diminishes any authority it might have enjoyed in some circles. The views of the Fathers we have surveyed established to a great extent how later Latin writers used the term apocrypha and to which books it applied.41 Bede, for instance, and Isidore always use it in a negative manner. Isidore adopts Augustine’s wording according to which apocrypha must be rejected even if they contain some truth (Etymolog. 6.2.52; cf. Aug., Civ. 15.23), and Bede, like Jerome, speaks of the nenia or “ditties” of the apocrypha.42 Nevertheless, Isidore for one does not know what to make of Jerome’s assertion that the deutero-canonical books should be considered apocrypha, so he modi es the wording. After naming all six, Isidore says: “although the Jews separate them among the apocrypha, nevertheless the church of Christ honors and preaches them as divine books” (Etymolog. 6.1.9). At the end of Antiquity, these were not the sort of books that should be considered apocrypha.

41. It continues to be somewhat rare: Cassiodorus and Gregory the Great never use it. 42. Comm. Luc. 17. Cf. Jerome, Comm. Matt. prologue.

2

DID THE MIDRASH OF SHEMIHAZAI AND AZAEL USE THE BOOK OF GIANTS?

Ken M. Penner

1. Introduction Scholarly attention given to the fragmentary Book of Giants from Qumran1 has recently centred on arranging the fragments into a sensible

1. See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Sequencing of Fragments Belonging to the Qumran Book of Giants: an Inquiry Into the Structure and Purpose of an Early Jewish Composition,” JSP 8, no. 16 (1997): 3–22; Michael Sokoloff, “Notes on the Aramaic Fragments of Enoch from Qumrân Cave 4,” Maarav 1 (1979–78): 197–224; John C. Reeves, “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?,” JBL 112 (1993): 110–15; idem, “An Enochic Motif in Manichaean Tradition,” in Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. Alois van Tongerloo and Søren Giversen; Louvain: International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1991), 295–98; J. T. Milik, “Turfan et Qumran—Livre des Géants juif et manichéen’,” in Tradition und Glaube: Das Fruhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt-Festgabefur Karl Georg Kuhn (ed. Gert Jeremias, Heinz W. Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971); Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten: aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Ubersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, deutsch-aramäische Wortliste, Register Ergänzungsband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); idem, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer: samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten Bd. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); Michael Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978); L. L. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 18 (1987): 152–67; Florentino García Martínez, “The Book of Giants,” in Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 91–115; idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Joseph Augustine Fitzmyer and Daniel Joseph Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts: 2nd Century B.C.–2nd Century A.D.

16 Sacra Scriptura

1

narrative, and justi ably so. Questions of purpose, provenance, and date, not to mention the signi cance the book held for its readers, are heavily dependent on an accurate understanding of its plot and the message it conveys. It is the object of the present study to offer a small contribution to the efforts to put the Qumran fragments into proper sequence by test-ing J. T. Milik’s hypothesis that the rabbinic Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael encapsulates the plot of the Book of Giants. But rst, something in the way of introduction to this little-known book is in order. Only in the last century has the Book of Giants become the subject of more than speculation in scholarly circles. Before the manuscript nds of the twentieth century, we knew only of the work as one of the seven canonical Manichaean books. Besides the appearance of the title in both Manichaean and hostile Christian sources,2 we knew a tiny bit about the contents from two sources: Syncellus and the Gelasian Decree. Syncellus claimed “Kainan found the manuscript of the giants and put it away,”3 and mentioned a few things supposedly from the Enochic Book of Watchers but not present in our Ethiopic sources.4 The Gelasian Decree included the following description: “the book about Ogias the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon.”5

(Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978); Odo Camponovo, Königtum, Königsherrschaft und Reich Gottes in den frühjüdischen Schriften (Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984); Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch (Leiden: Brill, 1985); Johann Maier, Die Qumran-Essener: die Texte vom Toten Meer, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Ernst Reinhardt, 1995). 2. For a discussion of the Book of Giants in Manichaean canonical lists, see John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (HUCM 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1992), 13–19. 3. ’

. Albert-Marie Denis, “Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca,” in Apocalypsis Henochi graece. Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca : una cum historicorum et auctorum Judaeorum Hellenistarum fragmentis (ed. Albert-Marie Denis and Matthew Black; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 85. 4. E.g. a 120-year life span. 5. In the list of apocryphal books, between “Liber qui appellatur Paenitentia Adae” and “Liber qui appellatur Testamentum Iob” comes “Liber de Ogia nomine gigante qui post diluvium cum dracone ab hereticis pugnasse perhibetur.” Ernst von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1912). Cf. Edgar Hennecke, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, and R. McL. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 1:38–40.

2. PENNER The Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael 17

In 1943 W. B. Henning published certain fragments of Manichaean archives found in Turfan, in the Tarim Basin of Central Asia.6 On the basis of the vocabulary,7 he identi ed these as fragments of the Book of Giants written by Mani using as sources an Aramaic version of 1 Enoch and the book of Ogias referred to in the Gelasian Decree. Finally, Henning’s work made it possible to say something de nite about this Manichaean book. Still, there was not yet any way to get behind the Manichaean book to the sources (besides 1 Enoch) on which it was based. So, when in 1971 J. T. Milik published Aramaic fragments from Qumran which appeared to correspond to Henning’s Book of Giants, the possibilities for research on its origins increased immensely.8 Not only could scholars of Manichaeism have source material for studying Mani and his fol-lowers’ redactional tendencies, but this new Aramaic Book of Giants (henceforth Giants) could be studied in its own right as a window onto its original authors (whoever they might be), and onto those who had used this work: the Jewish sectarians at Qumran. John Reeves9 and Loren Stuckenbruck,10 are representatives of these two approaches. As the contents of Giants began to emerge, the following elements of the narrative became apparent to Stuckenbruck: The Watchers fall and beget giants, who do violence. This is reported to Enoch, who petitions God, praising him. Certain giants, including Hobabis and Mahaway, discuss killing. Two giants have dreams, and one of two tablets Mahaway gets from Enoch is read. ‘Ohyah marvels at it. Someone admits powerlessness against angels. ‘Ohyah and Gilgamesh try to interpret their dreams. Azazel is punished, and the giants resign themselves to judgment. The giants are punished. The second tablet from Enoch warning Shemihazah is read. Gilgamesh and Hobabis encourage the giants via ‘Ohyah. ‘Ohyah and Hahyah have dreams and cannot interpret them, so Mahaway consults Enoch to interpret the dreams. Enoch blesses the postdiluvian earth.11

6. W. B. Henning, “The Book of the Giants,” BSOAS 11 (1943): 52–74. 7. E.g. “Watchers”, “Giants”, “Enoch”, and Aramaisms. 8. J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). 9. Reeves, Jewish Lore. 10. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Transla-tion, and Commentary (TSAJ 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). 11. Ibid., 21–24.

18 Sacra Scriptura

1

2. Manuscripts

2.1. Identi cation There is some debate as to the exact list of Qumran manuscripts belong-ing to Giants. The criteria vary from scholar to scholar, but the following are the most secure:

1. Appearance of Enoch, giants ( ), or Watchers ( , Azazel, Shemihazah) in narrative contexts unknown from other texts such as 1 Enoch (e.g. 4Q203, 4Q206, 4Q530, 4Q531).

2. A pre-diluvian setting. 3. Similarities to two later works based on Giants: The Manichaean

Book of Giants12 and the Midrash of Šem azai and ‘Aza’el.13 By these criteria, the number of manuscripts belonging to Giants is between nine and eleven: 1Q23, 2Q26, 6Q8, 4Q530–533, 4Q203, 4Q206 2–3, and possibly also 1Q24 and 6Q14.14 2.2. Description The of cial publication of the Qumran manuscripts of Giants has had a relatively complex history. The rst manuscripts published, 1Q23 (and possibly 1Q24), 2Q26, 6Q8 (and possibly 6Q14) were not recognized as parts of Giants. They were given generic labels such as “Aramaic Apocryphon” (1Q23, 1Q24, in DJD 1; 6Q14 in DJD 3), “Fragment of Ritual (?)” (2Q26, in DJD 3), and “An Apocryphon of Genesis” (6Q8, in DJD 3). The Cave 4 fragments had been assigned to J. Starcky for editing. Therefore, it was only because 4Q203 (4QGiantsa) appeared to be from the same manuscript as 4Q204 (4QEnochc)15 and the fragments designated 4Q206 2 and 3 were included with 4QEnoche16 that J. T. Milik 12. As identi ed by Henning (“The Book of the Giants”) and supplemented by Werner Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch,” in Hommages et opera minora 9: Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica 23/2d Series 9; Leiden: Brill, 1984), 491–505. 13. Text and translation printed by Milik in The Books of Enoch, 322–28. 14. Emanuel Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 15. 4Q203 and 4Q204 have the same hand, orthography, and state of preserva-tion. However, they utilize different ways of marking sections using blank lines. Puech’s opinion is that the two are not necessarily from the same physical manu-script (“Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch [1 Hén 100, 103 et 105] dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân,” Revue de Qumrân 18, no. 2 [1997]: 313–23 [316]). 16. The hand in fragments 2 and 3 is the same type as in the rest of 4Q206 (a semi-cursive late Hasmonean), but the shape of some letters differs. Fragment 3 has a seam between columns, indicating that it did not come from the beginning of a scroll.


had the opportunity of including these fragments of Giants in his publication of The Books of Enoch. On his death, Starcky bequeathed his Giants fragments (4Q530–533) to Émile Puech, for publication in DJD 31. But when it was decided not to supplant Milik’s work by republish-ing the Qumran Enoch fragments in the DJD series, the fate of the partially published Cave 4 fragments of Giants (4Q203 and 4Q206 2–3) was indeterminate. Eventually, it was decided that Loren Stuckenbruck should supplement Milik’s work by publishing 4Q203 and 4Q206 frg. 2–3 in DJD 36, along with appendices re-publishing 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, and 6Q8 now that they had been identi ed as copies of Giants. It is due to this circumstance that we now nd the of cial publication of the Giants fragments scattered over ve volumes: DJD 1 (1Q23, 1Q24), DJD 3 (2Q26, 6Q8, 6Q14?), Milik’s The Books of Enoch = DJD 31 (4Q530–533), and DJD 36 (4Q203, 4Q206 frg. 2–3, 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, and 6Q8). At this point a short description of each manuscript likely from Giants is in order, starting with those identi able with most certainty. 2.2.1. 4QGiantsb. The twenty fragments of 4Q530 meet all the criteria for being considered part of Giants, as the following excerpt shows:

[Then] all the Giants [and the Nephilim] became alarmed, and they called to Mahawai and he came to them. They implored him and sent him to Enoch, [the celebrated scribe] and they said to him: Go […] and death for you, who […] hears his voice and tell him to [explain to you] and interpret the dream […] (2.20–23).17

2.2.2. 4QGiantsa. The 12 or 13 fragments of 4Q203 meet all the criteria for being considered from Giants, as the following excerpts indicate: “Then ‘Ohyah [said] to Hahyah, [his brother ] Then he punished not us but Azazel and made him [ the sons] of the Watchers, the Giants” (frg. 7 1.5–7); “Copy of the second tablet of the l[etter ] written by the hand of Enoch, the celebrated scribe […] and holy, to Shemihazah and to all his [companions ]” (frg. 8 lines 3–5). 2.2.3. 4QGiantsc. The 47 fragments of 4Q531 mention (fragment 1) and name (fragment 2) the giants, indicating one of them has a dream. Fragment 2 line 9 reads, “ ‘Ohyah spoke as follows to him: ‘My dream has depressed me…’”).

17. Unless otherwise indicated, translations of Qumran texts are from Florentino García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. Wilfred G. E Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1994).

20 Sacra Scriptura

1

2.2.4. 6QGiantsa. The 33 papyrus fragments of 6Q8 contain the same names as Giants. For example, fragment 1, lines 2–4 reads, “[] ‘Ohyah, and said to Mahawai […] and do not quake. Who has shown you every-thing? […] Baraq’el, my father, was with me.” 2.2.5. 1QGiantsa. The 31 fragments of 1Q23 mention the mysteries and giants (9+14+15) as well as 200 of all sorts of livestock, and copious quantities of wine (1+6+22).18 2.2.6. 4QGiantsd. Stuckenbruck assumed six fragments of 4Q532 sur-vived,19 but Puech says paleographic analysis shows that only fragments 1 and 2 are from a manuscript showing features of Giants.20 Fragment 2 mentions Watchers, Nephilim, and in iction of great injustice on earth. 2.2.7. 2QGiants. The single fragment of 2Q26 mentions washing a tablet21 and the water rising in lines 1–2: “[…and] they washed the tablet to er[ase…] and the water rose above the [tab]let […]”. 2.2.8. 4QEnoche (4Q206a). Two fragments which were called 4Q206 2 and 3 (by Milik, Stuckenbruck and others) mention Enoch the scribe and spilling of blood (fragment 2, similar to 4QGiantse below), but otherwise do not correspond to anything in 1 Enoch. 2.2.9. 4QGiantse. Since 4Q556 and 4Q533 were confused in S. Reed’s Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue,22 one must take care to be sure which manuscript is being referenced. Stuckenbruck, following the Catalogue, of course considered it highly improbable that what he called 4Q533 was from Giants, because he was actually looking at 4QVisiona.23 Stucken-bruck did count what he called 4Q556 (4QGiantse) as part of Giants.24 4QGiantse is preserved in eight fragments, which likely are part of Giants because they mention spilled blood and a ood on the earth (fragment 4), in phrasing similar to that of 4Q206a. 18. This symbolic number 200 is also used in 4Q203 col. iii line 11. 19. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, 178. 20. Émile Puech, Qumrân grotte 4. XXII, 1ère partie, 4Q529–549 Textes Araméens (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 95. 21. Compare the tablet in 4Q203 8. 22. Stephen A. Reed, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and Michael B. Phelps, The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents, Photographs, and Museum Inventory Numbers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). 23. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, 221. 24. Ibid., 185–91.


2.2.10. 1Q24. The features of the eight fragments of 1Q24 which indicate they may be part of Giants are the mention of donkeys and lightning in fragment 1, the phrase “the rain and [the] dew” in fragment 5 (cf. 4Q203 frg. 11 2.2) and the phrase “you will not have peace” in fragment 8 (cf. Kawan frag. l and 4Q203 frg. 13 line 2). Puech says the identi cation is only possible, not likely.25 2.2.11. 6Q14. The two fragments of 6Q14 mention double height, destruction, all the animals of the eld (1), and mourning and weeping (2). Puech and Stuckenbruck both say it is possible that 6Q14 was part of Giants, but there is no positive support.26

3. Derivative Texts As mentioned above, we know of two works which bear suf cient similarity of content to the Aramaic fragments as to suggest their dependence on Giants: the Manichaean Book of Giants, and the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael. 3.1. Manichaean Kawan The fragments of the Manichaean Book of Giants (“Kawan” in Middle Persian) were discovered in fragmentary manuscript nds in central Asia and in Egypt. As with the Qumran fragments, the sequence of the Kawan fragments is open to debate. Certainly the order originally proposed by Henning in 1943 can no longer be credited. Because no copies of 1 Enoch or of Giants had yet been discovered at Qumran, Henning could only assume his fragments were based on the story of the giants found in the Book of Watchers of 1 Enoch. He therefore arranged the Kawan frag-ments so as to parallel the narrative ow of chs. 6–16 of 1 Enoch, not realizing that Mani’s source was a different work altogether: the Aramaic Book of Giants. 3.1.2. Identi cation with Giants. At rst glance, the unfamiliar names of characters in the Manichaean Book of Giants obscure its relationship to Giants. However, a Sogdian excerpt published by Henning illustrates the tendency of the Manichaean translators to translate even proper names at times:

25. Puech, Qumran grotte 4, XXII, 11. 26. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, 41.

22 Sacra Scriptura

1

To Sahmizad two(?) sons were borne by… One of them he named “Ohya”; in Sogdian he is called “Sahm, the giant”. And again a second son [was born] to him. He named him “Ahya”; its Sogdian (equivalent) is “pat-Sahm”. As for the remaining giants, they were born to the other demons and Yaksas.27

The Manichaean work also evidences other parallels to what we know of Giants, directly in narrating about the character “Enoch” (Henning’s texts A l, i; B; D), naming of giants (A j, k, g; B; C),28 in using the symbolic number 200 (G; cf. 1Q23 and 4Q203 iii 11), and in including the ght between Ogia and the monster (N; cf. the Gelasian Decree), but also indirectly in the overall plot: the descent of the Watchers, their mating women, the begetting of the giants, their insatiable appetites, the destruction they wreak on earth, the dreams they experience, and their destruction from the earth. 3.1.2. Redaction. The similarity of vocabulary, symbols, and plot con-

rm Mani’s use of Giants in composing his Book of Giants, but his work was evidently much more than a direct translation. The question is to what extent Mani reworked his source material. A comparison of those passages which survive in both the Manichaean and Qumran fragments could reveal some of the redactional tendencies of Mani or his translators. Some cursory observations indicate both shortening and expansion, as well as con ation. The story of Ohya (Sam) and Mahawai in Henning’s text A c, C, and Sundermann’s L Recto is shorter than that of 6Q8 1 and 4Q531 frg. 2229. The battle described in A i; Sundermann 22 (M5900); G; N; T developed in much greater detail than the bare allusions in 4Q531 frgs. 4 and 17. It is unclear whether this difference is an accident of preservation or a Manichaean expansion. The Manichaean text A j has two dreams (corre-sponding to those in 2Q26 and 6Q8 frg. 2), not the three or four implied in Giants (to the above, add those in 4Q530 2.7–12, 17–20). So we see that the redaction is more complex than a simple condensation or expansion. Presumably the Manichaean purposes were met better by battles than by conversations and dreams.

27. Henning, “The Book of the Giants,” text H. Unless otherwise stated, labels for Manichaean Book of Giants texts are those of Henning in “Book of Giants.” 28. E.g. Mahawai in A c = in 6Q8; Virogdad “gift of lightning” = “lightning of God”; Sam = . 29. = Stuckenbruck’s 4Q531 17.


3.2. Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael Milik published a transcription of the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael, an excerpt apparently from the Midrash Abkir, extant in four medieval manuscripts.30 3.2.1. Redaction. Milik is con dent that this Midrash is based on the Manichaean version: “Now, it seems beyond question to me that these narratives are derived directly from the Book of Giants in its Manichaean form.”31 The names of the two giants, spelled in six different ways in the manuscripts available to Milik,32 are in his opinion, corrupted from and . “It seems to me extremely likely, in fact, that it is directly dependent on the Manichaean work on the Giants, and more exactly on its original wording, in the Aramaic dialect used by the Manichaean writers.”33 Milik’s view is corroborated by similar redactional patterns: like the Manichaean Book of Giants, the Midrash has two dreams (those corresponding to 2Q26 and 6Q8 frg. 2), rather than three or four (as implied by 4Q530 frg. 2 col. 2 + frg. 6 + frg. 7 col. 1 + frgs. 8-11 + frg. 12 lines 7–12 and 17–20). The Midrash’s paragraph 10 parallels the Kawan fragment j, in which the garden full of trees appears in the vision of Nariman (=‘Ahyâ), and also parallels that of 6Q8 frg. 2, which also mentions three roots and a garden.

4. Sequencing the Fragments The largest amount of scholarly writing on Giants deals with the sequence of the book: how were the various fragments ordered relative to each other? How does the narrative ow? The signi cance of this question should not be underestimated. Without establishing the narra-tive ow, we cannot determine the message and purpose of the book, much less its date and provenance. But because the physical remains of Giants are so fragmentary, the physical evidence of the fragments, while 30. The manuscript on which Milik’s translation is based (Oxford Bodleian MS. Heb. D. 11, fol. 21v) is described as “a collection of various treatises, compiled by Eleazar son of Asher hal-Levi, about 1325 A.D.” Other witnesses include Yalqût Šim‘ônî, and Midraš Berešit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddaršan collectus e codice Pragensi, described as a “summary of the great commentary on Genesis composed by R. Moses of Narbonne in the rst half of the twelfth century” (Milik, The Books of Enoch, 322.). See also Reeves, Jewish Lore, 86. 31. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 333. 32. in B, or in S, or in M, and

or in R. 33. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 335.

24 Sacra Scriptura

1

indispensable, can only take us so far. Likewise, the Manichaean version of the Book of Giants is preserved only in fragments, and is limited in its usefulness for establishing the sequence of Giants. It is only in the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael that we have a continuous text with a certain order, and even in this case its utility for sequencing is not entirely certain due to its redactional history. 4.1. Physical Evidence Of course, the primary determinant of the sequence of Giants should be the physical evidence, although some authors have overlooked it at times.34 For this task, we could proceed following at least four possibili-ties. First, we have a few instances of more than one column preserved on a single fragment. Second, at times physical joins between fragments are evident. Third, on some occasions, the content of the Manichaean fragments correspond to more than one Qumran fragment, establishing their proximity and relative order. Finally, where patterns of damage are apparent on a set of fragments, we may be able to determine their proximity and possibly even their position on the scroll when it was stored for centuries. 4.1.1. Multiple Columns in Qumran Fragments. 4.1.1.1. 4Q203 frg. 7b cols. 1-2 and frg. 8. In Milik’s edition of 4Q203, he joined three fragments together to form two columns, calling the result “fragment 7.” Stuckenbruck accepted the collocation of the two fragments with bottom margins of two columns (calling these 7b), but he separated the fragment with seven lines of the left side of a column (calling this 7a). In either case, the contents of the second column must of course follow that of the rst. A “second tablet” is introduced in frag-ment 7b 2.3, and is quoted in fragment 8. By content, but not necessarily physically, these belong together. 4.1.1.2. 4Q530 cols. 2-3. Fragment 7 (= Stuckenbruck’s 2) of 4Q530 covers parts of two columns (2 and 3). Fragment 1 (= Stuckenbruck’s 6) also preserves a column division, but only a few letters from its second column. These few letters preserved are not enough to make sense of, but do preclude the possibility of Beyer’s arrangement of fragment 1 (= Beyer’s G8) immediately before Hahyah and ‘Ohyah’s dreams in 4Q530 column 2; the placement would con ict with the placement of fragments 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14 in the reconstructed column i.

34. For example, Beyer’s treatment of the two columns of 4Q203 fragment 7 (G7 and G3, respectively) and of the two columns of 4Q530 fragment 6 (S) and 4Q530 ii.


4.1.2. Possible Joins Between Qumran Fragments. 4.1.2.1. 4Q203 frgs. 2–3. Milik joined these fragments (with 2 immedi-ately above 3) which contained the bottom of a whose top was in 2. The shapes are compatible, but not obviously to be joined. The transla-tion would read, “[2] concerning them … vacat … Mahaway answered … [3] … his companions … Hobabish and … and what will you give me for k[illing.”35 4.1.2.2. 1Q23 frgs. 16–17. These two fragments preserve a right margin, and possibly have a in common. The translation would read, “[16] tablet … and … [17] and they entered … through their hands … and they began to.”36 4.1.3. Turfan Fragments. In at least three places, Stuckenbruck argues that the Kawan fragments indicate the sequence between two Qumran fragments. The dreams of fragment j show that 2Q26 precedes 6Q8 frg. 2; fragment l shows the pronouncement in 1Q24 precedes the eschato-logical blessing of 1Q23 frgs. 2+6+22; and fragment c indicates the con ict between ‘Ohyah and Mahaway in 6Q8 frg. 1 precedes the Watcher’s con rmation of Mahaway’s message in 4Q531 frg. 22 (= Stuckenbruck’s 17).37 This latter case, at least, is problematic in its assumption that Gilgamesh also has a dream, one of hope for the giants. In light of Puech’s convincing reading of 4Q531 frg. 22, in which the dream of 4Q531 frg. 22 line 12 is not Gilgamesh’s but ‘Ohyah’s, Stuckenbruck’s argument no longer holds. 4.1.4. Patterns of Repetitive Damage. The one remaining tool at our disposal for reconstructing a scroll’s sequence is the material reconstruc-tion of a manuscript on the basis of similarity of fragment shapes and corresponding points of damage.38 A more thorough investigation of the potential for this method to contribute to sequencing the Book of Giants is needed. For example, it might be used to con rm or counter Beyer’s 35. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “206 2–3. 4QEnochf ar,” in Qumran Cave 4: Miscellaneous Texts from Qumran Volume XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000) (hereafter, simply, DJD 36), 26:12, 14. 36. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “23. 1QEnochGiantsa ar (Re-edition),” DJD 36, 26:59. 37. Stuckenbruck, The Book of giants from Qumran, 19. 38. The “Stegemann-method” of material reconstruction is outlined in Annette Steudel’s “Assembling and Reconstructing Manuscripts,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. J. VanderKam and P. Flint; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1:516–34.

26 Sacra Scriptura

1

proposed wide separation of the only major 1Q23 fragments 1+6+22 (at the end of Giants) and 9+14+15 (at the beginning of Giants). 4.2. Narrative Progression Whereas the physical evidence can help us order the fragments on the most detailed level, it is limited in its ability to provide an overall struc-ture for the plot. Granted, establishing this logical narrative progression of Giants requires an act of imagination, but we are not totally at the mercy of subjectivity. We have, for instance, García Martínez and Stuckenbruck’s two guidelines for placing the bits of narrative into an overall scheme. First, because the Giants’ imprisonment (4Q203 frg. 7b 2.4) constitutes an essential turn in the plot, one must separate those parts of the narrative which lead up to the imprisonment from those which assume it has already taken place. Second, the explicit mention of a “second” event means a previous such event must have happened, even though we have no direct evidence of it. Such is the case with the “second” tablet in 4Q203 frg. 7b col.2 – frg. 8 and the “second” journey to Enoch in 4Q530 col. 3. But even more potentially helpful in guiding our efforts to establish the narrative progression of Giants is the Midrash mentioned above. In Milik’s words, “the midrash of Šemi azai and ‘Aza’el provides us, in a very shortened form, with the longest sequence of the Book of Giants which has been preserved up to modern times: from the sin of the angels, the mission of Enoch to the chief of the fallen angels, the lamentations of the latter [4Q531 frg. 22 = S17], up to the announcement of the salvation which will be accomplished by Noah and his three sons.”39 If Milik is right in his view that the Midrash is based on the Manichaean Book of Giants, we have a basis on which to order the Manichaean fragments, which we can then use to sequence the Qumran fragments. If he is wrong, and the two stories only share a common tradition, as J. Reeves argues,40 we should see more similarities to the Qumran fragments than to the Manichaean texts. To show the relation-ships between three forms of the text, I have arranged them synoptically. With a translation of the Midrash as the starting point (in the left col-umn), I have placed the various Manichaean texts in the second column next to the corresponding section of the Midrash. Those Manichaean texts without direct correspondence (either because the Manichaean text

39. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 339. 40. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 88.


is an excerpt rather than a full translation of the Book of Giants or because only one phrase of the Manichaean text alludes to the Midrash), I have marked in italics. Finally, in the third column, I have placed the main Qumran fragments, again positioning them parallel to the texts with which they correspond in content. 4.3. Synopsis of Midrash, Manichaean Sources, and Qumran Fragments

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments (1)…When the generation of Enosh arose and practised idolatry and when the generation of the

ood arose and corrupted their actions, the Holy One—Blessed be He—was grieved that He had created man, as it is said, “And God repented that he created man, and He was grieved at heart.”

Allusion M: “when malice and wrath arose in his camp,”

(2) Forthwith arose two angels, whose names were Šemhazai and ‘Aza’el, and said before Him: “O Lord of the universe, did we not say unto Thee when Thou didst create Thy world, ‘Do not create man’?”, as it is said, “What is man that Thou shouldst remember him?” The Holy One—Blessed be He—said to them: “Then what shall become of the world?” They said before Him: “We will suf-

ce (Thee) instead of it.”

Allusion M: “when malice and wrath arose in his camp, namely the Egregoroi of Heaven who in his watch-district (rebelled and) descended to the earth. …”

4Q203 frg. 9 “… and all … before the splendour of your glory … [ your glo]ry, for you know all the mysteries … and nothing is stronger than you … before you. BLANK Now, then, the Ho[ly One of the heavens ] … your glorious rule for the [everlasting centuries ] …” 10 “…And now, my Lord … you have multiplied and … your wishes and …” 4Q531 frg. 17(=S12): “[those who ]sin. You have made holy … eternity. Y[ou] have made me … to mourn. All the times … you have sent … the esh and” (Stucken-bruck) (also 4Q532 frg. 5; 4Q531 frg. 4 = S21).

28 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments (3) He said: “It is revealed and (well) known to me that if peradventure you had lived in that (earthly) world, the evil inclination would have ruled you just as much as it rules over the sons of man, but you would be more stubborn than they.” They said before Him: “Give usThy sanction and let us descend (and dwell) among the creatures and then Thou shalt see how we shall sanctify Thy name.” He said to them: “Descend and dwell ye among them.”

Excerpt H: “…and what they had seen in the heavens among the gods, and also what they had seen in hell, their native land, and furthermore what they had seen on earth, —all that they began to teach (hendiadys) to the men.”41

(4) Forthwith the Holy One allowed the evil inclination to rule over them, as soon as they descended. When they beheld the daughters of man that they were beautiful, they began to corrupt themselves with them, as it is said, “When the sons of God saw the daughters of man”, they could not restrain their inclination.

Sundermann 20: “They [descended?] to earth because of the beauty of the female beings [li]ke assailants among … they came down (?) from …

esh … blood … hairstyle (?) … great distress (?) …Text Ai: “…and ravished them. They chose beautiful [women], and demanded …them in marriage. Sordid…(103)…all …carried off…” Text Aj: “Hobabis robbed Ahr … of -naxtag, his wife. Thereupon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives].”

4Q531 frg. 1 (= S5): “they were de led … the Giants and the Nephilim and … they shall sire …. And if all … in his blood. And according to the power … [ the Giants] which was not enough for them and for [their sons ] … and they demanded much to eat … the Giants destroyed it” 4Q532 frg. 2: “with [the]

e[sh…]… Nephil[in ]… [they were standing … the earth … they /were/ plan-ning to … from Watchers. … ended. And he perished and died arid … they in icted a great [in]justice on [the] ea[rth …was not] enough for him to e[at…] of the earth and until … on the earth in all… And now, do not … a stro[ng] bound”

41. This excerpt must come early; it precedes the Watchers begetting Giants and occurs in chapter called “The Coming of the two hundred Demons.”


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments 4Q206 frg. 3: “…the[ earth] all …devising … in it blood was being poured … they were … in it[ a]ll” = 4Q533 frg. 6: “… [on] the earth all…blood] was being shed, and lies were being s[poken …deluge on [the] earth…”

(5) Forthwith Šemhazai beheld a girl whose name was ‘Estêrah; xing his eyes at her he said: “Listen to my (request).” But she said to him: “I will not listen to thee until thou teachest me the Name by which thou art enabled to ascend to the

rmament, as soon as thou dost mention it.” He taught her the Ineffable Name.

Allusion M: “They revealed the arts in the world, and the mysteries of heaven to the men.”

1Q23 frgs. 9 + 14 + 15 “…and they knew the mysteries … great in the earth … in the earth … the giants … of …”

(6) What did she do? She mentioned It and thereby ascended to the rma-ment. The Holy One said: “Since she has departed from sin, go and set her among the stars.” It is she who shines brightly in the midst of the seven stars of the Pleiades; so that she may always be remem-bered, forthwith the Holy One xed her among the Pleiades.

Possible Manichaean addition. Topos. See Milik.

(7) When Šemhazai and ‘Aza’el saw this, they took to them wives, and begat children. Šem azai begat two children, whose names were Heyyâ and ‘Aheyyâ. And ‘Aza’el was appointed chief over all kinds of dyes and over all

Allusion M: “They revealed the arts in the world, and the mysteries of heaven to the men.” Excerpt H: “… To Sahmizad two(?) sons were borne by… One of them he named “Ohya”; in Sogdian he is called

30 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments kinds of women’s ornaments by which they entice men to unclean thoughts of sin.

“Sahm, the giant”. And again a second son [was born] to him. He named him “Ahya”; its Sogdian (equivalent) is “pat-Sahm”.42 Text Ac: “…Then Shahm z d said to S m, his [son] …” Text G: “And those men are (or: were) in the rst arts and crafts. They made…the angels … and to the demons … they went to ght.”

(8) Forthwith Mê a rôn sent a messenger to Šem azai, and said to him: “The Holy One is about to destroy His world, and bring upon it a

ood.” Šem azai stood up and raised his voice and wept aloud, for he was sorely troubled about his sons and (his own) iniquity. And he said: “How shall my children live and what shall become of my children, for each one of them eats daily a thousand camels, a thousand horses, a thousand oxen, and all kinds (of animals)?”

Text Al: “…Enoch, the apostle, … [gave] a message to [the demons and their] children: To you … not peace. [The judgment on you is] that you shall be bound for the sins you have committed. You shall see the destruction of your children. … ruling for a hundred and twenty [years] … (50) … wild ass, ibex … ram, goat (?), gazelle, … oryx, of each two hundred, a pair … the other wild beasts, birds, and animals and their wine [shall be] six thousand jugs … irritation(?) of water(?)… and their oil [shall be …” Text Ai: “(Frg. i) 4 … many … were killed, four hundred thousand Righteous … with re, naphtha, and brimstone …And the angels veiled

4Q206 frg. 2: “and every…it was repo]rted to Enoch the sc[ribe of interpretation… Behold, the Great One” 1Q24 frg. 8 “…you will not have peace …” 1Q24 frg. 7 “… day of the end … all of it, the consummation of [… up]on those who …” 1Q23 frgs. 1 + 6 + 22: “[two hundred] donkeys, two hundred wild asses, two hun[dred ] rams, two hundred he-goats, two hundred [] of each animal, of each [] of dilute wine [six] thousand, of [] Then []” 1Q24 frg. 1 “… and wind … and hot ashes and … for the…and for … the … and for the donkeys and [for…] And for all … the … BLANK And for … and for the lightnings” 4Q206 frg. 3: “…the[ earth] all …devising … in

42. This text is preceded by teaching secrets and followed by other giants born to the other Yaksas.


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments (or: covered; or: protected, or: moved out of sight) Enoch. Electae et auditrices…and ravished them. They chose beautiful [women], and demanded …them in marriage. Sordid…all …carried off …severally they were subjected to tasks and services. And they … from each city … and were ordered to serve the … The Mesenians [were directed] to prepare, the Khuzians to sweep [and] water, the Persians to … Text F: (Col. A)“… poverty … [those who] harassed the happi-ness of the Righteous, on that account they shall fall into eternal ruin and distress, into that Fire, the mother of all con agra-tions and the foundation of all ruined tyrants. And when these sinful mis-begotten sons a of ruin in those crevices and … ” (Col. B) “… you have not been better. In error you thought you would enjoy this false power eternally. You …all this iniquity …” (Col. C) “…you that call to us with the voice of falsehood. Neither did we reveal ourselves on your account, so that you could see us, nor thus … our-selves through the praise and greatness that to us —given to you …, but …” (Col. D) “… sinners. is visible, where out of this

it blood was being poured … they were … in it[ a]ll” = 4Q533 frg. 6: “…[on] the earth all … blood] was being shed, and lies were being s[poken … deluge on [the] earth …” 4Q532 frg. 2: “… they in icted a great [in]justice on [the] ea[rth … was not] enough for him to e[at…] of the earth and until” 4Q531 frg. 1(= S5): “they were de led … the Giants and the Nephilim and … they shall sire …. And if all … in his blood. And according to the power … [ the Giants] which was not enough for them and for [their sons ] … and they demanded much to eat … the Giants destroyed it” 4Q203 frg. 7b col. 2 “… to you, Maha[wai ] … the two tablets … and the second has not been read up till now …” 8 “The book … Copy of the second tablet of the l[etter ] …written by the hand of Enoch, the celebrated scribe … and holy, to Shemihazah and to all his [companions ] … Know that … not your deeds and those of your wives … they and their sons and the wives of [their sons ] for your prostitution in the land. It will happen to you … and accuse you regarding the deeds of your sons … the corruption with which you have corrupted … until

32 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments re your soul will be

prepared (for the transfer) to eternal ruin (?). And as for you, sinful misbegot-ten sons of the Wrathful Self; confounders of the true words of that Holy One, disturbers of the actions of Good Deed, aggressors upon Piety, …-ers of the Living …, who their …” (Col. E) “…and on brilliant wings they shall y and soar further outside and above that Fire, and shall gaze into its depth and height. And those Righteous that will stand around it, outside and above, they them-selves shall have power over that Great Fire, and over everything in it. … blaze … souls that …” (Col. F) “…they are purer and stronger [than the] Great Fire of Ruin that sets the worlds ablaze. They shall stand around it, outside and above, and splendour shall shine over them. Further outside and above it they shall y (?) after those souls that may try to escape from the Fire. And that …”

the coming of Raphael. Behold, there will be destruction … those who are in the deserts and those who are in the seas. The explanation of your task … upon you for evil. Now, then, unfasten your chains … and pray. …” 2Q26 frg. 1 […and] they washed the tablet to er[ase …] and the water rose above the [tab]let … and they lifted the tablet from the water, the tablet which … to them all …”

4Q203 frg. 1: “When I arise … Baraq‘el … my face still … I arise …” 2 “over them … Mahaw[ai] replied …” 3 “his friends Hobabes and adk … What will he give me to ki[ll ?]” 5 “violence done to men … they were killed”

(9) One night the sons of Šemhazai, Heyyâ and

Text Aj: “… Virogdad … Hobabis robbed Ahr … of

2Q26 frg. 1 […and] they washed the tablet to er[ase


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments ‘Aheyyâ, saw (visions) in dream, and both of them saw dreams. One saw a great stone spread over the earth like a table, the whole of which was written over with lines (of writing). And an angel (was seen by him) descending from the

rmament with a knife in his hand and he was erasing and obliterating all the lines, save one line with four words upon it.

-Taxtag, his wife. There-upon the giants began to kill each other and [to abduct their wives]. The creatures, too, began to kill each other. Sam … before the sun, one hand in the air, the other… whatever he obtained, to his brother … imprisoned … over Taxtag. To the angels … from heaven. Taxtag to … Taxtag threw (or: was thrown) into the water. Finally (?) …in his sleep Taxtag saw three signs, [one portending…], one woe and ight, and one … annihilation.” Text D: “…outside … and … left … read the dream we have seen….”

…] and the water rose above the [tab]let … and they lifted the tablet from the water, the tablet which … to them all …” 6Q8 frg. 2: “its three roots [ and he was watching] until … ca[me…] this whole garden and not”

(10) The other (son) saw a garden, planted whole with (many) kinds of trees and (many) kinds of precious stones. And an angel (was seen by him) descending from the

rmament with an axe in his hand, and he was cutting down all the trees, so that there remained only one tree containing three branches.

Text Aj: “Nariman saw a gar[den full of] (40) trees in rows. Two hundred … came out. the trees…” Text D: “…outside … and … left … read the dream we have seen….”

6Q8 frg. 2: “its three roots [ and he was watching] until … ca[me…] this whole garden and not”

(11) When they awoke from their sleep they arose in confusion, and, going to their father, they related to him the dreams. He said to them: “The Holy One is about to bring a ood upon the world, and to destroy it, so that there will remain but one man and his three sons.” They

Text Ak+Ag: “…father… nuptials (?) …until the completion of his…in

ghting … and in the nest(?) Ohya and Ahya …he said to his brother: “get up and … we will take what our father has ordered us to. The pledge we have given … battle.” And the giants … together

4Q530 col. 2: “Then two of them had nightmares, and the dream ed from their eyes. They [arose ] and went [to Shemihazah their father and told him] their dreams … In my dream which I saw tonight … gardeners; they were watering … numerous roots issued from its trunk

34 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments (thereupon) cried in anguish and wept, saying: “What shall become of us and how shall our names be perpetuated?” He said to them: “Do not trouble yourselves, for your names, Heyyâ and ‘Aheyyâ, will never cease from the mouths of creatures, because every time that men will be raising (heavy) stones or boats, or anything similar, they will shout and call your names.” With this their tempers cooled down.

… “[Not the] …of the lion, but the … on his … [Not the] …of the rainbow, but the bow …

rm. Not the sharpness of the blade, [but] the strength of the ox (?). Not the … eagle, but his wings. Not the … gold, but the brass that hammers it. Not the proud [ruler], but the diadem on his [head. Not] the splendid cypress, but the … of the mountain …” “…Not he that engages in quarrels, but he that is true in his speech. Not the evil fruit(?), but the poison in it. [Not they that] are placed (?) in the skies, but the God [of all] worlds. Not the servant is proud, but [the lord] that is above him. Not one that is sent …, but the man that sent him “ Thereupon Nariman …said…And (in) another place I saw those that were weeping for the ruin that had befallen them, and whose cries and laments rose up to heaven. And also I saw another place [where there were] tyrants and rulers … in great number, who had lived in sin and evil deeds, when …” Text B: (First page) “… re was going to come out. And [I saw] that the sun was at the point of

… I watched until the springs closed up … all the water and the re burned in everything … Here the dream ended. … the Giants were searching for someone who would explain [the dream] to them [ to Enoch,] the celebrated scribe and interpret the dream for us. BLANK Then ‘Ohyah, his brother, acknowledged and said in front of the Giants: I also saw something amazing in my dream last night: The Power of the heavens came down to earth … here the dream ended. [Then] all the Giants [and the Nephilim] became alarmed, and they called to Mahawai and he came to them. They implored him and sent him to Enoch, [the celebrated scribe] and they said to him: Go …and death for you, who … hears his voice and tell him to [explain to you] and interpret the dream” 4Q530 col. 3: “on one (tablet) the evidence of the Giants [and on the other (tablet) ] like the hurricane, and ew with his hands like an eagle [provided with wings ] the earth and crossed Desolation, the great desert … and saw Enoch,

43. Sundermann, “Ein weiteres Fragment aus Manis Gigantenbuch,” 495–96. Translation from Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, 73. 44. Translation from Reeves, Jewish Lore, 121.


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments rising, and that [his ?] centre (ordu) without increasing (? asilmatin ?) above was going to start rolling. Then came a voice from the air above. Calling me, it spoke thus: “Oh son of Virogdad, your affairs are lamentable (?). More than this you shall [not] see. Do not die now prematurely, but turn quickly back from here.” And again, besides this (voice), I heard the voice of Enoch, the apostle, from the south, without, however, seeing him at all. Speaking my name very lovingly, he called. And downwards from … then…” (Second page) “… for the closed door of the sun will open, the sun’s light and heat will descend and set your wings alight. You will burn and die,” said he. Having heard these words, I beat my wings and quickly ew down from the air. I looked back: Dawn had …, with the light of the sun it had come to rise over the Kogmiin mountains. And again a voice came from above. Bringing the com-mand of Enoch, the apostle, it said: “I call you, son of Virogdad, …I know … his direction … you … you … Now quickly … people… also …” Text D: “…outside … and … left … read the dream

he called him and said to him: An oracle … here. For a second time I beg you for an oracle … your words, together with all the Nephilim of the earth. If he removes … from the days of their … and may they be punished … [so] we know its explanation from you. [ Then Enoch said:] … [The two] hundred trees which have come from heaven” 4Q531 frg. 22 (= S17): “powerful. And with the strength of my powerful arm and with the might of my power … all esh, and waged war on them. But not … I found support to strengthen me, for my accusers … (they) reside in the heavens and live with the holy ones and not [for they] are more powerful than me. … the roar of the wild beasts has come and they bellowed a feral roar … ‘Ohyah spoke as follows to him: “My dream has depressed me … the dream [has ed] from my eyes at seeing the vision. Surely I know that” 2Q26 frg. 1: “[and] they washed the tablet to er[ase …] and the water rose above the [tab]let … and they lifted the tablet from the water, the tablet which … to them all …” 6Q8 frg. 1: “ ‘Ohyah, and said to Mahawai … and do not quake. Who has shown you everything? …

36 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments we have seen. There- upon Enoch thus … and the trees that came out, those are the Egregoroi ( yr), and the giants that came out of the women. And over … pulled out… over…” Text Ac: “… hard … arrow … bow, he that … S m said: “Blessed be …had [he ?] seen this, he would not have died.” Then Shahm z d said to S m, his [son]: “ All that Mahawai …, is spoilt (?).” Thereupon he said to … “We are … until… and … that are in (?) the ery hell (?) … As my father, Virogdad, was … “Shahmizad said: ‘It is true what he says. He says one of thousands. For one of thousands ….’ Sam thereupon began … Mahawai, too, in many places… until to that place … he might escape (?) and …” Sundermann L Recto: “(Superscription) concerning the demons. … not remain. Again he said, ‘Bring these two stone tablets which are inscribed. First, bring Nariman <=Hahyah> the message. “Why are you running in such fright? I have now come, and I have brought these two tablets in order that I might read the one to the demons before the giants.” Shahmizad said, “Read the writing of Enoch the

Baraq’el, my father, was with me. … hardly had Mahawai nished telling what he … [ said to him:] ‘I have heard wonders. If a barren person can give birth’ ” 4Q531 frg. 7 (= S4): “And Ahiram, and … Anael, and … Naemel, and … and Ammiel … these giants. What has he t[ol]d you, that [you] killed … Have not all these gone by the sword? … as large rivers against … against you”


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments scribe before … which [has to do] with the message [concerned with the demons …”43 Sundermann L Verso: “Sam, one of the Giants (superscription). Then Sam said to the Giants: ‘Come here that we might eat and be happy!’ Because of sorrow no bread was consumed. They slept. Mahawai went to Atambiš (and) related everything. Again Mahawai came. Sam saw a dream. He came up to heaven. Upon the earth fever broke out. All of the water was swallowed up. From the water wrath went out. (The tutelary sprits?) were invisible. He (Sam) beheld before him the rulers of heaven …”44 Text C: (First page) “…I shall see. Thereupon now S[ahm, the giant] was [very] angry, and laid hands on M[ahawai, the giant], with the intention: I shall …and kill [you]. Then … the other g[iants …” (Second page) “…do not be afraid, for … [Sa]hm, the giant, will want to [kill] you, but I shall not let him …I myself shall damage … Thereupon Mahawai, the g[iant], … was satis ed …”

(12) What did Šemhazai do? He repented and suspended himself between heaven and earth

Text G: “…they took and imprisoned all the helpers that were in the heavens. And the angels themselves

4Q203 frg. 7b col. 1: “Then they answered, ‘They gave birth … [from] Watchers … he has

38 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments head downwards and feet upwards, because he was not allowed to open his mouth before the Holy One—Blessed be He— and he still hangs between heaven and earth.

descended from the heaven to the earth. And (when) the two hundred demons saw those angels, they were much afraid and worried. They assumed the shape of men and hid themselves. Thereupon the angels forcibly removed the men from the demons, (10) laid them aside, and put watchers over them … the giants were sons … with each other in bodily union … with each other self— and the … that had been born to them, they forcibly removed them from the demons. And they led one half of them (20) eastwards, and the other half westwards, on the skirts of four huge moun-tains, towards the foot of the Sumeru mountain, into thirty-two towns which the Living Spirit had prepared for them in the beginning. And one calls (that place) Aryan-waizan. And those men are (or: were) in the rst arts and crafts. (30) they made … the angels … and to the demons … they went to

ght. And those two hundred demons fought a hard battle with the [four angels], until [the angels used] re, naphtha, and brimstone….”

imprisoned us and overpowered yo[u” (Stuckenbruck) 4Q531 frg. 22 (= S17): “the right … every house of … not … their … became strong, and by the power of the might of my arms and by the force of my strength … all esh, and I waged war with them, but (did) not … I [and not] able to prevail together with ourselves because my adversaries … a[nd in t]he[ heavens] are seated, and among the holy places they dwell. And not … [the]y are more powerful than I.’ … of the beasts of the eld is coming and the hinds of the eld are calling … and according to this ‘Ohyah said to him: “My dream oppressed m[e … the slee]p of my eyes [ ed] to see a [vis]ion. Behold I know that against … [I will not ]sleep, not will I eat[ …] Gil]gamesh, ‘tell your dream’ ” (Stuckenbruck) 4Q530 frg. 1 (= S6): “a curse and an af iction. I, whose hands … and every house of escape to which I shall go … killed are complaining against their murderers and crying out for help. … and we shall die together and give …

45. This excerpt is preceded by, “On account of the malice and rebellion that had arisen in the watch-post of the Great King of Honour, namely the Egregoroi who from the heavens had descended to the earth.”


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments Sundermann 22: (recto): “Then Atambiš two hundred … he seized … he cut off (?) before (?) … he smashed and he tossed [to] the four end[s] of the ea[rth]. And he … (?) … he took. And those three Giants who were with Atambiš were slain. And he came (?) before those Wa[tch]ers and Giants who were with him. And when thos[e … Atambiš …” (verso) “… and (?) … which by height … helmet … he arrived … moun-tains … and those who (?) … (?) he made. Slain, slain was that angel who was great, their watcher (?). Dead were those who were joined with esh, and defeated were those who were … (?) with … (?) were slain, those who … with one step (?) …” Text E: (First page) “…[when] they saw the apostle, …before the apostle … those demons that were [timid], were very, very glad at seeing the apostle. All of them assembled before him. Also, of those that were tyrants and criminals, they were [worried] and much afraid. Then …” (Second page) “… not to … Thereupon those powerful demons spoke thus to the pious apostle: If … by us any (further) sin [will] not [be committed ?], my lord, why ? you have … and weighty injunction …

He has destroyed … great [an]ger. And I shall sleep and bread … … The vision has [ma]de my eyelids heavy. And also … he entered the assembly of the giants …” (Stuckenbruck)

40 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments Text B: (First page) “… re was going to come out. And [I saw] that the sun was at the point of rising, and that [his ?] centre (ordu) without increasing (? asilmatin ?) above was going to start rolling. Then came a voice from the air above. Calling me, it spoke thus: “Oh son of Virogdad, your affairs are lamentable (?). More than this you shall [not] see. Do not die now prematurely, but turn quickly back from here.” And again, besides this (voice), I heard the voice of Enoch, the apostle, from the south, without, however, seeing him at all. Speaking my name very lovingly, he called. And downwards from … then …” (Second page) “… for the closed door of the sun will open, the sun’s light and heat will descend and set your wings alight. You will burn and die,” said he. Having heard these words, I beat my wings and quickly ew down from the air. I looked back: Dawn had … with the light of the sun it had come to rise over the Kogmiin mountains. And again a voice came from above. Bringing the commandof Enoch, the apostle, it said: “I call you, son of Virogdad, … I know … his direction … you … you … Now quickly


Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments …people…also…” (Enoch’s interpretation sought) Allusion P: “… on their account the four angels received their orders: they bound the Egregoroi with eternal fetters in the prison of the Dark(?), their sons were destroyed upon the earth.”45 Allusion N: “Ohya, Lewyatin (= Leviathan), and Raphael lacerated each other, and they vanished;”

(13) ‘Aza’el (however) did not repent. And he is appointed chief over all kinds of dyes which entice man to commit sin and he still continues to corrupt them.

Excerpt H: “…and what they had seen in the heavens among the gods, and also what they had seen in hell, their native land, and furthermore what they had seen on earth, —all that they began to teach (hendiadys) to the men.”46 Allusion P: “On account of the malice and rebellion that had arisen in the watch-post of the Great King of Honour, namely the Egregoroi who from the heavens had descended to the earth,”47 Allusion L: “Earthquake and malice happened in the watchpost of the Great King of Honour, namely the Egregoroi”48

4Q203 frg. 13: “[They pros]trated themselves in front of [Enoch ] … [Th]en he said to them: … [may there not] be peace for you … to be …” 4Q203 frg. 7a: “and [yo]ur strength … Th[en] ‘Ohyah [said] to Hahya[h …] us [and ] Aza[z]el and he made h[im…] the giants and the W[atchers]. All [their] com[panions] will lift themselves up” (Stuckenbruck) 4Q530 frg. 1 (= S6): “a curse and an af iction. I, whose hands … and every house of escape to which I shall go … killed are complaining against their murderers and crying out for help. … and we shall

46. This text is followed by the giants being born. 47. This text is followed by, “on their account the four angels received their orders: they bound the Egregoroi with eternal fetters in the prison of the Dark(?), their sons were destroyed upon the earth.” 48. This text is followed by, “who arose at the time when they were…and there descended those who were sent to confound them.”

42 Sacra Scriptura

1

Midrash Manichaean Sources Qumran Fragments die together and give … He has destroyed … great [an]ger. And I shall sleep and bread … … The vision has [ma]de my eye-lids heavy. And also … he entered the assembly of the giants …” 4Q531 frgs. 18–19 (= S13–14): 18 “holy (is) height of position … ruin, destruction … we who sin … and I am destroying and …” 19 “they(?) … much violence in … we … bonds nor esh …[ ]esh, and we will be blotted out from our form … and your holy ones to us” (Stuckenbruck) (also 4Q531 frg. 23 = S18).

(14) Therefore, when the Israelites used to bring sacri ces on the day of atonement, they cast one lot for the Lord that it might atone for the iniqui-ties of the Israelites, and one lot for ‘Azâz’el that he might bear the burden of Israel’s iniquity. This is the ‘Azâzel that is men-tioned in the Scripture.

4.4. Parallels between the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael and the Book of Giants The above synopsis provides two kinds of evidence against Milik’s hypothesis that the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael provides a continuous narrative framework for establishing the order of the Qumran fragments. First, the parallels are too often absent or weak. Many sections of the Midrash (sections 1, 3, 6, 7, 14) have no parallel in either the Manichaean texts or in the Aramaic fragments, and in several others the parallel is weak (sections 2, 5, 12, 13). Second, the interests of


Midrash are do not match those of the other texts. There is no hint of the Midrash’s astrological interests in the Aramaic Giants or the Manichean Book of Giants, nor is there any hint of the battles so prominent in the Manichaean fragments or of the punishment so frequently alluded to in the Aramaic texts. This leaves only sections 4 and 8–11 (those dealing with the watchers’ descent and procreation, the warning from Enoch, and the dream interpretations) with signi cant counterparts in the Manichaean and Qumran texts. Therefore the Midrash is not reliable for reconstructing the plot of Giants. However, even if the Midrash does not encapsulate the plot of Giants, it does offer a few new possibilities to consider. First, in the Midrash, the only characters to address God are Shemihazai and Azael, raising the possibility that the texts addressing God (e.g. 4Q203 frg. 9; 4Q531 frg. 17) are not the words of Enoch but of these two Watchers. Second, the new sequence of Qumran fragments resulting from the synoptic com-parison brings the 1Q24 fragments much closer together, a more likely scenario in terms of material preservation. Third, the synopsis reveals that the pairing of dreams is perhaps not as signi cant for sequencing as Stuckenbruck has suggested; the narrative ows acceptably with only one section of dreams and interpretations. Therefore, although it cannot be denied that the Midrash presents such signi cant parallels to Giants that it cannot be an independent tradition, the literary dependence is either not direct, or is too much supplemented and redacted to be of much help in sequencing the Qumran (or even the Manichaean) fragments.

5. Function of the Book of Giants in Early Christianity and Early Judaism

If the identi cation of Qumran fragments belonging to Giants is correct, the work was very popular at Qumran: about ten copies were found, in four caves. The signi cance of these numbers becomes apparent when compared to those of the Aramaic Books of Enoch itself: only seven copies found, all in a single cave.49 The only books more popular at Qumran are Psalms (36 copies), the books of the Pentateuch (23–24, 16, 12–13, 9, 35 copies respectively), Isaiah (21),50 Jubilees (17), and the

49. Greek fragments of the Epistle of Enoch were also found in cave 7. See Puech, “Sept fragments.” 50. The biblical book counts are from Ken M. Penner, “Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Dictionary of the Books of the Bible (ed. Michael D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 176; Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.

44 Sacra Scriptura

1

Rule of the Community (13); the Damascus Document51 and Rule of the Congregation each have ten.52 The popularity of the Giants faded quickly, however, except in certain circles: those around Mani, and those responsible for the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael. The Book of Giants was one of the seven canonical Manichaean books in both Manichaean and hostile Christian sources.53 The nal book in Timothy of Constantinople’s catalogue of Manichean works from about the sixth century is . Early Christian authors opposed the use of the Book of Giants because it was thought to be written by Mani.54 Syncellus and the Gelasian Decree are the two ancient sources that describe the contents of a book named after the giants. Syncellus records a tradition that “Kainan found the manuscript of the giants and put it away.”55 This appears to relate to the incident of Jub 8.3: “And he found a writing which the ancestors engraved on stone. And he read what was in it. And he transcribed it. And he sinned because of what was in it, since there was in it the teaching of the Watchers by which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and stars within all the signs of heaven.”56 The Gelasian Decree included the following description: “the book about Ogias the giant of whom the heretics assert that after the deluge he fought with the dragon.”57 The possibility that Giants has in uenced later Jewish and Christian writings has surfaced from time to time. Although Cumont and Kugener suggested the 123rd homily of Severus of Antioch might preserve fragments from the Book of Giants,58 Reeves has refuted this hypothesis. 51. The counts for Jubilees, the Community Rule and the Damascus Document are from the list in Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1325–59. 52. The Rule of the Congregation count is from DJD 36, 534. 53. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 13–19. 54. Ibid., 15. 55. ’

(Jub 8.2) apud Denis, “Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca,” 85. 56. OTP, 2:71. 57. In the list of apocryphal books, between “Liber qui appellatur Paenitentia Adae” and “Liber qui appellatur Testamentum Iob” comes “Liber de Ogia nomine gigante qui post diluvium cum dracone ab hereticis pugnasse perhibetur.” Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. Cf. Hennecke, Schneemelcher, and Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1:38–40. 58. F. Cumont and M.-A. Kugener, Recherches sur le Manichéisme. Vol. 1, La cosmogonie Manichéenne d’après Théodore bar Khôni (Brussels: H. Lamertin, 1908), 83–172.


Cumont and Kugener had made two observations about the fragments in Severus that were reminiscent of the Book of Giants: (1) the description of God’s enemies as “limitless in size” and (2) Severus’ knowledge of Manichean gigantometry. However, Reeves pointed to the absence in Severus of Enoch or other named characters from the Book of Giants, and to the philosophical rather than narrative nature of these fragments.59 It has more recently been suggested that the Book of Giants may have in uenced the later Enochic literature. Andrei Orlov noted peculiar similarities with ch. 4 of 3 Baruch. Three similar events appear in the same order as in the Book of Giants as reconstructed by Reeves:60 “the planting of the garden, the destruction of the garden, and the escape of one tree from destruction.”61 The destruction of the giants and the garden occur in parallel: “When God made the Flood upon the earth, he drowned every rstling, and he destroyed 104 thousand giants, and the water rose above the highest mountains 20 cubits above the mountains, and the water entered into the garden, bringing out one shoot from the vine as God withdrew the waters” (3 Bar. 4.10).62 But Orlov notes that it is not to Giants itself or even to the Manichean Book of Giants, but to the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael that 3 Baruch 4 bears the closest resemblance.63 Since we have shown that the Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael is not derived directly from Giants, the reception of Giants after the destruction of the Qumran community was also not direct. Never-theless, it seems clear that some of its imagery and its themes are to be found in later literature of three religions: in the Manichean Book of Giants, the Jewish Midrash of Shemihazai and Azael, and 3 Baruch, preserved by Christian scribes.

59. Reeves, Jewish Lore, 165–74. 60. Ibid., 95–96. 61. Andrei A. Orlov, “The Flooded Arboretums: The Garden Traditions in the Slavonic Version of 3 Baruch and the Book of Giants,” CBQ 65 (2003): 184–201 (191). 62. H. E. Gaylord, “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (ed. James Charlesworth; London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1985), 666. 63. Orlov, “The Flooded Arboretums,” 200 n. 72.

3

NEGOTIATING THE BOUNDARIES OF TRADITION: THE REHABILITATION OF THE BOOK OF BEN SIRA

(SIRACH) IN B. SANHEDRIN 100B

Teresa Ann Ellis The Jerusalem Talmud prohibits the reading of a Second Temple text—the book of Ben Sira (or Sirach). Yet, several hundred years later the Babylonian Talmud adjusts the ruling to permit limited use of the text. In the present study, I investigate the discursive processes by which the prohibition and the rehabilitation occur, and consider the import of these textual emendations as responses to changing conditions in the Rabbis’ communities. An underlying goal for this study is to direct attention to the magnitude and duration of rabbinic interest in the book of Ben Sira and thereby prepare a foundation for speaking, in future studies of the book of Ben Sira, in terms of a “trajectory of interpretation” from rabbinic literature to the Hebrew version of Ben Sira. An analysis of the relationship of rabbinic texts to the book of Ben Sira begins with a description of the modes through which the Rabbis interact with the book of Ben Sira. In addition to talking about the book of Ben Sira—especially with regard to its location on their spectrum of sacred-to-secular texts—the Rabbis cite Ben Sira by name, cite him by mentioning his book, and quote from his book without attribution. The “unattributed” passages can be a matter of conjecture because the book of Ben Sira was such a popular work. The book of Ben Sira, as Tal Ilan comments, “enjoyed in its day and in the centuries that followed an unprecedented distribution among Jews, compared to other Jewish books that were not canonized.” In addition to having its contents transmitted orally among the general population, the book of Ben Sira was cited often in rabbinic literature. The Rabbis mention the book of Ben Sira in at least 25 passages in texts written or redacted in the 600 years between the middle of the second century of the Common Era and the end of the eighth century, the latest date for the nal redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. Their assessments of the book of Ben Sira range from “biblical” to “prohibited,” and they cite it in ways that they use for Scripture and in ways that they use for their own statements.

3. ELLIS Negotiating the Boundaries of Tradition 47

1. Rabbinic Citations of Ben Sira

In his study of b. Sanh. 100b, Benjamin G. Wright observes that “any explanation of rabbinic knowledge of Ben Sira must take into account the variety of introductory formulae.”1 Such phrases are, semantically, consistent enough to constitute a basic set of categories. The standard rabbinic introduction for a biblical quotation is , “and it is said,” without naming the text. Alternatives are named citations with variations of the verb root , “to write”: or (Aramaic), “it is written,” and or (Aramaic), “as it is written.” The book of Ben Sira is cited 13 times by such a formula. Quotations from a rabbinic gure are introduced by or , “says/said,” or sometimes by the formula “Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y.” There are nine instances in which these forms introduce Ben Sira “as if Ben Sira were himself a rabbinic sage.” The table below shows all 22 instances in which a (biblical) or (fellow-rabbi) formula introduces a verse that is said to be by Ben Sira. The list does not include unattributed quotations, nor those from b. Sanh. 100b. The chart is useful as background material for assessing b. Sanh. 100b, the major discussion of the book of Ben Sira.

Book of Ben Sira/ Sirach quoted in:

or or 2

Gen. Rab. 8:2 Gen. Rab. 10:6 Gen. Rab. 73:12 Gen. Rab. 91:3 "

Lev. Rab. 33:1 ' y. Ber. 11b

Tanh. 1 Tanh. 8 Tanh. 10

Eccl. Rab. 7:11

b. Hag. 13a

1. B. G. Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira,” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (ed. B. G. Wright; JSJSup 131; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 183–93 (188).

48 Sacra Scriptura

1

b. Yev. 63b

b. Ket. 110b

b. B. Qam. 92b

b. B. Bat. 98b

b. B. Bat. 146a

b. Sanh. 100b b. Nid. 16b

Kallah Rab. 3:1

Kallah Rab. 3:4

Thirteen “biblical” citations plus nine as a “fellow-rabbi” demonstrate that Ben Sira’s work was known and admired by the Rabbis. However, there is no unanimous rabbinic opinion on the value of the book of Ben Sira. The Jerusalem Talmud bans reading from the book of Ben Sira (y. Sanh. 28a) and yet, in another tractate, cites Ben Sira with a biblical formula (y. Ber. 11b). Ecclesiastes Rabbah states that the book of Ben Sira is not to be “brought into the house” because it is not one of the “twenty-four books” (Eccl. Rab. 12:10), though it cites Ben Sira with a biblical formula elsewhere (Eccl. Rab. 7:11). The absolute prohibition against the book of Ben Sira in the Jerusalem Talmud is counter-balanced by Rashi’s attribution to Ben Sira of a quotation that is said to be from the , “writings,” that are the third section of the Tanakh (b. B. Qam. 92b). Other rabbinic texts in the group used in this study mention “outside books” but do not name Ben Sira (y. Pe’ah 16b; Tanh. 15; 25; Pesiq. Rab. 3). These texts are concerned with canonical matters but express no interest in the book of Ben Sira in that regard.

2. Possible Categories for the Book of Ben Sira Three categories in rabbinic texts that discuss the book of Ben Sira might include the book of Ben Sira: , “inspired” (literally, “making the hands ritually impure”); , “books of the sectari-ans”; and , “outside books” (heretical or non-canonical books). A statement in the Tosefta eliminates the rst two possibilities. T. Yadayim 2:13 is the earliest rabbinic work that mentions the book of


Ben Sira, and it declares that the book of Ben Sira is neither an inspired text nor the product of sectarians. In addition, the passage also uses the date of composition of the book of Ben Sira to de ne a category of uninspired texts. T. Yadayim 2:13 reads:

:

The Gospels and the books of the sectarians are not inspired. The books of Ben Sira and all books that were written after that are not inspired.

The passage lists two sets of texts that are not inspired. The rst group is texts of certain types, of whatever date, instanced by “the Gospels and the books of the sectarians.” The second group is texts of a certain date, of whatever type, instanced by “the books of Ben Sira” and all books written thereafter. Thus, though declared uninspired, the book of Ben Sira is not labeled sectarian. The fact that the wording of this passage separates the book of Ben Sira from the category that includes sectarians is important, because this passage is the tool that is used in the Jerusalem Talmud to create the ban against reading from the book of Ben Sira—and used again in the Babylonian Talmud, to mitigate the decree. The “books of the sectarians” are the second rabbinic category for texts. The label applies to groups that have split apart from the Rabbis’ tradition; thus it designates an inner-group controversy. How-ever, “sectarians” does not designate a particular group; rather it is a placeholder for the unspoken names of the current opponents. The third category, “outside books,” is introduced in the Babylonian Talmud. The term comes to include two meanings, one pejorative and the other neutral. The noun , which is related to the root-word for “out-side,” points toward both meanings. The pejorative meaning as “an unnatural deed” is comparable to translating “outside books” as “hereti-cal books,” and the neutral meaning as “a partition” is comparable to translating “outside books” as “separated books,” namely, those parti-tioned off from the category of inspired texts.

3. Controversy: The Book of Ben Sira in the Talmuds The most important rabbinic discussions of the book of Ben Sira occur in passages related to m. Sanh. 10:1, “All Israel has a portion in the World-to-Come.” Excerpts from these passages are shown in the table below, with this mishnah in the leftmost column and a related tosefta next to it. The two Talmuds are on the right side of the table, with b. Sanhedrin in the rightmost column. Of the texts in this group, the tosefta (shown with a grey background) is the only one that does not mention “outside books.”

50 Sacra Scriptura

1

The Talmuds follow their mishnah exactly, but diverge in the Gemara sections that explicate the mishnah’s phrase about “outside books.” The two talmud-columns continue in the gure, below the mishnah sections, with the Gemaras’ commentaries on the “outside books,” the mishnaic phrase that introduces Ben Sira as a topic. Names of speakers are under-lined and in bold to emphasize equivalent material in horizontal units.

Era of the Mishnah

Era of the Talmuds

m. Sanh. 10:1

t. Sanh. 12:9–10 (like m. Sanh. 10:1)

y. Sanh. 27b (on m. Sanh. 10:1)

b. Sanh. 90a (on m. Sanh. 10:1)

10.1

…

12.9

:

27

90

:

—

—

,

.

12.10 ' '

:

— ' '

— —

)

" ...(

:

')

" ...( :

) " ...(

) " ...(

:

.

10.2 ...

12.11 ...

... ...


Gemara Gemara

28 100 :

'.

— : .

— :

.

—

:

? … :

:

As shown in the preceding table, m. Sanh. 10:1 introduces the category of , “the outside books.” The following is the relevant portion:

All Israel has a portion in the World-to-Come, as it is said, “And your people, all of them are righteous-ones—they shall inherit the land forever, a branch of My planting, the work of My hands to be glori ed” (Isa 60:21). And these do not have a portion in the World-to-Come: one who says “There is no resurrection of the dead from the Torah,” and “the Torah is not from Heaven,” and an apikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: Also one who reads from the outside books, and one who whispers over a wound and says [incantations]…

The Gemara, after dealing with the rst three groups of those who will not have a portion in the World-to-Come, abruptly begins the next mishnah. In all the tables that follow, translations from talmudic texts are formatted in a combination of all-caps, for quotations from the section’s mishnah, and upper- and lower-case, for the Gemara itself.

52 Sacra Scriptura

1

Rabbi Akiva says: Also one who reads from the outside books. For example, the books of Ben Sira and the books of Ben La’anah—but the books of Homer, and all books that were written after that, one who reads from them is like one who reads from a letter.

The following tables each show a passage from one document incor-porating a phrase from another document as a prooftext. The prooftexts are all from the Mishnah or Tosefta because the rabbis of the era of the Mishnah have greater authority than those of the era of the Talmuds. In the hierarchical system of rabbinic argumentation, the opinion of a Tanna—a mishnaic rabbi—cannot be challenged by that of a rabbi from the era of the Talmuds. Thus the Jerusalem Talmud establishes its author-ity by means of several tannaitic texts that are not part of its mishnah. In the table below, the Gemara from the Jerusalem Talmud is on the right, and on the left is the tosefta about the books of Ben Sira, t. Yad. 2:13. A mishnah related to the tosefta is below it. The passages from t. Yadayim and m. Yadayim list books that are not divinely inspired. The tosefta names “the books of Ben Sira” and the mishnah names “the books of Homer.” Both the tosefta and the mishnah are shown in all-caps. On the right is the Gemara from the Jerusalem Talmud, y. Sanh. 28a:

t. Yadayim 2:13 y. Sanhedrin 28a

THE GOSPELS AND THE BOOKS OF THE SECTARIANS ARE NOT INSPIRED.

Rabbi Akiva. says: Also one who reads from the outside books.

THE BOOKS OF BEN SIRA For example, the books of Ben Sira — and the books of Ben La’anah — —but the books of Homer

AND ALL BOOKS THAT WERE WRITTEN AFTER THAT

and all books that were written after that

ARE NOT INSPIRED. one who reads from them is like one who reads from a letter.

m. Yadayim 4:6 THE BOOKS OF HOMER ARE NOT INSPIRED.

In the passage from the Jerusalem Talmud, Rabbi Akiva is the only

gure. An anonymous opinion—appended to R. Akiva’s statement from the mishnah—inserts the name of Ben Sira as an example of the “outside


books” that can cause a reader to forfeit a portion in the World-to-Come. There are actually two names, each associated with “books”: Ben Sira and Ben La’anah. No works by Ben La’anah are extant, nor is his name mentioned anywhere else in rabbinic literature. Given these facts, it is possible that the writer of the Jerusalem Talmud’s passage added “Ben La’anah” as a second candidate to blur the particularity of inserting one author’s books as a target. The only tannaitic source that mentions Ben Sira is the passage on the left, t. Yad. 2:13. The gure shows how the tosefta’s statement about Ben Sira and “all books written after that” is padded in y. Sanhedrin by the addition of the unknown Ben La’anah and then split by the insertion of “the books of Homer,” which replaces the tosefta’s phrase “the books of Ben Sira” as a temporal marker. The semantic outcome of this admixture is that the books of Ben Sira are explicitly identi ed in the Jerusalem Gemara as members of the mishnah’s pejorative category of “outside books.” In the gure below, the passage from the Jerusalem Talmud appears with the equivalent passage from the Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanh. 100b, which states:

: ' . : . : . :

Rabbi Akiva says: “Also one who reads from THE outside books, etc.” [A Tanna] taught, “…from books of sectarians.” Rav Yosef said, “The Book of Ben Sira, also, one is forbidden to read.” Abaye said to him, “What is the reason?”

In the table below, the Gemara section of the Jerusalem Talmud is condensed because it is no longer the focus of this discussion.

y. Sanhedrin 28a b. Sanhedrin 100b

Rabbi Akiva. says: Rabbi Akiva. says: Also one who reads from the outside books.

“Also one who reads from the outside books, etc.”

— A Tanna. taught, “…From books of sectarians.”

— Rav Yosef. said, For example, the books of Ben Sira “The book of Ben Sira, likewise, and the books of Ben La’anah—but the books of Homer…one who reads from a letter.

— one is forbidden to read.” What is the reason? Abaye. said to him, “What is the

reason?”

54 Sacra Scriptura

1

Because Rabbi Akiva is the only gure in the passage from the Jeru- salem Talmud, the Gemara’s appended pronouncement against the book of Ben Sira appears to be R. Akiva’s opinion. The Babylonian Talmud introduces two more rabbinic gures into the schema of R. Akiva’s “pronouncement,” so that a different Rabbi mentions Ben Sira. The remainder of the appended pronouncement from y. Sanh. 28a may be represented by the abbreviation ', “etc.,” effectively eliminating “the books of Ben La’anah and the books of Homer” from consideration. The presence of two new gures in the promulgation of an opinion given previously through one very authoritative gure, R. Akiva, opens the sequence to adjudication on the basis of the relative authority of the Rabbis. In the case of the anonymous Tanna who says “The books of

(sectarians),” this could prove decisive. The verb , “he taught,” which introduces the phrase about sectarians, identi es the opinion as that of one of the Tannaim, the group to which R. Akiva belongs. This anonymous Tanna is, therefore, of greater “seniority” than the writer of the Gemara’s interpolation, and, in a sense, the Tanna’s restriction of the category from the mishnah is a continuation of the mishnah, rather than an opinion from the Gemara. The term introduces units of the Tosefta and other tannaitic sayings that are authoritative but are not part of the major collection, the Mishnah of R. Yehudah HaNasi. The function of is to introduce brief expressions that “clarify, supplement or limit statements in the Mishnah.” In the case of b. Sanh. 100b, the Tanna’s statement both clari es and limits the mishnah’s category of “outside books” that cause readers to forfeit the World-to-Come, so that the category now includes only those “outside books” that are by , “sectarians.” In the gure below, the upper text is the source of the Tanna’s statement about “the books of sectarians”—once again, t. Yad. 2:13. This passage is the only vehicle available for bringing Ben Sira into a discussion at the level of tannaitic commentary, and a Tanna’s statement is necessary to refute that of the anonymous authors of the Gemara in the Jerusalem Talmud. As can be seen in the following chart, Ben Sira’s books are within the boundary of being an “outside book” (i.e. heretical, sectarian) in the Jerusalem Talmud, while they have escaped this classi cation in the Babylonian Talmud.


t. Yadayim 2:13

The gospels and The books of sectarians are not inspired.

Statement by a Tanna

The books of Ben Sira and all books that were written from here onwards are not inspired.

y. Sanh. 28a b. Sanh. 100b Rabbi Akiva. says:

Rabbi Akiva. says:

Also one who reads from the outside books.

“Also one who reads from the outside books, etc.”

— A Tanna. taught, “…From books of sectarians.”

— Rav Yosef. said, For example, the books of Ben Sira

“The book of Ben Sira, likewise,

and the books of Ben La’anah—but the books of Homer…one who reads from a letter.

—

— one is forbidden to read.” What is the reason?

Abaye. said to him, “What is the reason?”

Rav Yosef brings Ben Sira into the discussion with the statement that “the book of Ben Sira, likewise, one is forbidden to read.” The word , “likewise,” indicates that the book of Ben Sira is not considered as one of the “books of sectarians” but that it has a feature in common with them, namely the prohibition against “reading.” At the next point, the two Talmuds match, each asking “What is the reason?” In the Baby-lonian Talmud it is clear that the question refers to the book of Ben Sira—what is the reason for the prohibition against reading it? However, the Jerusalem Talmud becomes ambiguous at this point. The referent could be either the book of Ben Sira or the phrase about “the books of Homer,” which is the immediate precedent for the question. The response to the question is also ambiguous, and the book of Ben Sira disappears from the discussion in the Jerusalem Talmud.

56 Sacra Scriptura

1

In the Babylonian Talmud, Rav Yosef’s statement removes the book of Ben Sira from among the books causing loss of the World-to-Come. However, there still remains the prohibition against reading from it. Abaye investigates this question: since the book of Ben Sira is “like” one of the “books of sectarians” in its being “forbidden to read,” which statements in the book of Ben Sira caused the ban on reading? Four times, Abaye suggests a passage from the book of Ben Sira as the reason for prohibiting it, and each time he refutes the suggestion with a similar say-ing from Torah, from Proverbs, or from the Rabbis. The list of favorable parallels with the book of Ben Sira reinforces the point that it cannot be a “book of sectarians,” since the Rabbis would not liken their statements, and those of Scripture, to statements by sectarians. Finally, Abaye offers a passage from Ben Sira about how a man’s beard reveals his personality:

A thin-bearded man is sharp-minded; a thick-bearded man is stupid. He who blows on his cup is not thirsty. He who says, “With what shall I eat bread?”—take the bread from him. Someone who has a gap in his beard—the entire world cannot overcome him.

This quote is allowed to stand without argument as the reason one is prohibited to read from the book of Ben Sira. Now that Abaye has found a reason for the prohibition, Rav Yosef gives judgment, to declare that

The valid things that [the book of Ben Sira] has, we expound for them. Rav Yosef’s speech continues with a series of some “valid things” from the book of Ben Sira. The series includes at least nine verses supposedly from the book of Ben Sira, of which the last four match biblical verses. Rav Yosef links the nal “quote” with Prov 15:15, “All the days of the poor are evil—but [to have] a good heart [is] a continual feast.” Extensive rabbinic permutations of that verse conclude the discussion of the current mishnah, with no further mention of Ben Sira. Rav Yosef’s statement in response to Abaye is the Babylonian Talmud’s verdict on the book of Ben Sira, but what are we to make of it? From Rav Yosef’s rst statement, that the book is “forbidden to read,” we have advanced through a set of approving comments and reached Rav Yosef’s second statement, which quali es his rst both in scope of subject matter, by distinguishing “valid subjects,” and in scope of action, by permitting one to “expound.” The primary distinction in Rav Yosef’s verdict hinges on “valid” subjects, and “valid” is a conveniently vague label that allows much room for expansion and/or revision. The Rabbis also have shifted the scope of action from “read,” which was prohibited, to “expound,” which is allowed. According to Marcus


Jastrow, in Rabbinic Hebrew the root usually refers to reading from biblical texts, especially reading from the Torah at public services. The verb , “to expound, interpret,” generally indicates teaching or lectur-ing. Adin Steinsaltz de nes “expound” as public behavior, in which “a scholar stated his views in the presence of the public at large.” “Expound” implies a mediating role for the sage, between the listeners and the text. The semantic scope of includes “interpret” as well as “expound.” Thus, does not entail exact accuracy in quotations, and could include interpretations such as translating Ben Sira’s Hebrew into another language, most likely into Aramaic, or paraphrasing his words. A substantial number of the citations of the book of Ben Sira in b. Sanh. 100b have no relation to any extant version of his book, in any language. The point is signi cant, because the two sets of verses— ve in Abaye’s speech and nine, or more, in Rav Yosef’s—are integral com-ponents of the discourse that rehabilitates the book of Ben Sira. There-fore, every aspect of the 14 citations can be queried for its possible discursive functions. Of the ve passages cited in Abaye’s speech, the

rst, third, and fth are in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew—and of these, the rst and fth are not extant in the book of Ben Sira or in Sirach. The

rst passage is about the correct way to eat a sh: “Do not strip the [ sh] from its gill, so that the skin will not go to waste. Rather, roast it on a

re, and eat it with two loaves of bread.” The fth passage is the verses about beards that “prove” why the book of Ben Sira was banned. Not only do these passages not have equivalents in any extant version of the Hebrew or Greek texts of Ben Sira, but neither “ sh” nor “beards” are mentioned there at all. Though the two passages are equally out of place among the sayings in the book of Ben Sira, the one about eating the sh is defended as acceptable, while the one about beards is the reason for prohibiting reading from the book of Ben Sira. Perhaps the disparate judgments are based on a perception that the beard-pericope tends toward superstition, speci cally physiognomy, while the sh-verses are per-ceived as foolish, but harmless. There are several scenarios in which the Rabbis might cite passages not in any manuscript known to us. It is possible that the Rabbis worked from an aberrant manuscript of the book of Ben Sira that included the passages about sh and about beards, or that the sayings circulated orally in Ben Sira’s name. These passages might be examples of the kinds of nonsense that could become attached to a text like Ben Sira’s that had no xed form. In that case, the genuine verses would be indistinguishable to someone not familiar with more accurate manuscripts, and the reputa-tion of the author would justify any form of nonsense. However, the Rabbis could also have chosen the “quotations” for their very absurdity.

58 Sacra Scriptura

1

By using extremes to de ne what is acceptable in the book of Ben Sira—and unacceptable—they expand the range of what is considered “valid” in the book of Ben Sira and, thus, the amount of text that is available for them to “expound.”

4. Why Was the Book of Ben Sira Prohibited, then Rehabilitated?

Rav Yosef’s decree about the book of Ben Sira—“the valid things that it has, we may expound for them”—is the ruling for the time of the Babylonian Talmud, but it does not address the questions of why earlier rabbis prohibited the book of Ben Sira and why the rabbis of Babylonia rehabilitated it. Rabbi Akiva’s statement about “outside books” in m. Sanh. 10:1 is expanded in the Jerusalem Talmud to identify Ben Sira, in particular, as a writer of “outside books” and, perhaps, even as a heretic. The designation must re ect some tension or point of con ict that was still operative at the time of the composition of y. Sanh. 28a. Leiman concludes that, though “the book of Ben Sira…was numbered among the uninspired canonical books,” R. Akiva banned the book “when sectarian groups included Ben Sira in their biblical canon.” Another explanation for the ban could be that Ben Sira’s views on the afterlife made the book of Ben Sira incompatible with the outlook of the Rabbis. Since a major element of this mishnah’s topic is, precisely, the Resurrection of the Dead, some statements by Ben Sira would be an embarrassment, for example, “Much, much, He has humbled pride—for the ‘hope’ of humankind is worms” (Sir 7.17, MSS A, C). However, by the time of the Babylonian Talmud, the Sadducees—or whichever group(s) disputed the topic of resurrection with the Palestinian Rabbis—were no longer the opponents. Thus the logic of the Babylonian Talmud’s distinction that the valid parts of the book of Ben Sira could be expounded: whatever was the cause for the prohibition, presumably the problematic verses were now outweighed by other aspects of the book of Ben Sira that made it a useful tool for the current con icts. What aspects of the book of Ben Sira were so useful to the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud that they chose to rehabilitate the book? Rehabilitation was necessary because the option of annulling a tannaitic prohibition was not available within the frame-work of rabbinic logic. The only possible strategy was to recalibrate the discourse of the prohibition. But—why was the goal worthwhile? The context of the Babylonian Talmud’s discussion of Ben Sira provides a possible explanation.


The book of Ben Sira can be introduced into the Gemara’s discussion of m. Sanh. 10:1—despite the fact that Ben Sira’s views do not include resurrection—because the concern behind the discussion of resurrection is the expectation of the Messiah and the efforts of the Rabbis’ con-temporaries to predict or hasten that event. Ben Sira’s writings provide a counterbalance to speculation on the Messiah (especially why his arrival has been delayed so long), and also to all forms of sectarian wisdom that claim “secret revelations” about the universe and creation. The table below shows an outline of the section of the Babylonian Gemara for m. Sanh. 10.1. The bolded words summarize the Gemara for the mish-nah’s statement about “one who says ‘there is no resurrection from the Torah.’ ” In this section, the Rabbis intersperse recurrent questions about delays in the coming of the Messiah among elaborate passages about biblical and historical gures.

Page Element of m. Sanh. 10:1 (ALL CAPS)

90a Begin b. Sanh’s exposition of m. Sanh. 10:1

90a (1) “No resurrection of the dead from the Torah”

– Measure-for-measure – Romans, Cleopatra, Roman emperor, etc. 93b – “Messiah” begins (who will be the Messiah?) 94a – Attribute of Justice argues against Hezekiah. Bat kol says, , “My secret is mine! My secret is mine!,” about when the Messiah is due. – Begins Hezekiah/Sennacherib stories. 95a – “Messiah” ends the story of David’s role in the massacre at Nob. – Measure-for-measure 96a – Ends Hezekiah/Sennacherib stories. 96b – “Messiah” (when will Messiah appear?) 99a – “Messiah” closes.

99a (2) “The Torah is not from Heaven”

99b (3) An apikoros – Measure-for-measure

60 Sacra Scriptura

1

100b (4) One who reads from

“the outside books”

– the book of Ben Sira 101a (5) One who mutters an

incantation over a wound

101b (6) One who pronounces the Name

The discussion about the Messiah is disproportionately long, an indi-cation of the urgent signi cance of the topic for the Rabbis. The topic of the Messiah orchestrates the discourse across twelve pages of the tractate, from 93b to 99a. One message of this section is that the secret of the time of the coming of the Messiah is not for humans to know. The issue of apocalyptic speculation had been a concern for the Rabbis of the Jerusalem Talmud for ideological reasons, but also because apocalyptic predictions had contributed to the volatility of the political scene. For the Babylonian Rabbis, the issue of metaphysical speculation was still alive, and the book of Ben Sira was a useful antidote to such preoccupations. Here are Ben Sira’s verses, Sir 3.21 and 22, from MS A:

Things too wondrous for you, do not investigate—and something too concealed for you, do not search out. With what is permitted, examine—but you have no business with hidden things.

Two rabbinic texts cite those verses from the book of Ben Sira – and cite them accurately. Furthermore, one citation is Tannaitic (Genesis Rabbah) and the other is from the Babylonian Talmud, showing that the approval of Ben Sira’s statement spanned the two eras, as did the concerns about metaphysical speculation. The table below shows the Ben Sira verses, together with their use in Genesis Rabbah and b. Hagigah.

BBS 3.21–22 (MS A) Gen. Rab. 8:2 b. Hag. 13a "

, - ,

R. Eleazar in the name

of Ben Sira said: Thus far you have permission to speak. From now on you do not have permission to speak, for so it is written in the book of Ben Sira:


Things too wondrous for you, do not investigate

“About what is too great for you, do not investigate

“About what is too wonderful for you, do not investigate

—and something too concealed for you, do not search out.

—about what is too hard for you, do not (?) search out;

—and about something too concealed for you, do not search out.

—about what is too wonderful for you, do not know, about some-thing too concealed, do not ask.

With what is permitted, examine



—but you have no business with hidden things.

—but you have no business with hidden things.”

—you have no business with hidden things.”

The multiple, accurate citations of Ben Sira’s “classic” expression of a warning against metaphysical speculation demonstrate his usefulness to the Rabbis. The Gemara’s long discussion of the mishnah for b. Hag. 11b is a central text for expression of rabbinic attitudes toward such speculation. For example, the famous rabbinic story of the “four who entered Paradise” (b. Hag. 14b) occurs here in the section for “the [work of] the chariot,” and also the stories of Elisha ben Abuyah and R. Meir. The use of the book of Ben Sira as the proof-text for such an important topic in both Genesis Rabbah and b. Hagigah indicates its value as a resource for the Rabbis, and re ects the high regard for Ben Sira’s writings and persona. Among the kinds of metaphysical speculation that the Rabbis opposed were forms of wisdom that claimed “secret revelations” about the uni-verse and creation. Thus, the book of Ben Sira would be useful through-out the rabbinic era in the unspoken rivalry with various Gnostic groups. Steinsaltz identi es as “heretics, especially Gnostics,” in speaking about the era after the destruction of the Temple. The rabbinic counter-attack against Gnosticism occurs without naming it—a common strategy in Jewish polemics, which frame the discourse in terms of the opponent’s attributes without naming the opponent. Hence the usefulness of the

62 Sacra Scriptura

1

catch-all term . Gnostic claims for a “higher” form of knowledge lured people away from the groups that formed their identity through the tropes of the Hebrew Bible, namely, the groups that became “Jews” and “Christians.” In Ben Sira’s gure of Wisdom, the Rabbis may have seen a counter-balance to the attractions of Gnostic Sophia.

5. Concluding Summary The table below shows the range of rabbinic opinion of the book of Ben Sira. The key explains the formatting of the markers that indicate favorable, neutral, and negative opinions of Ben Sira. The numbered rows in the grid show the markers for rabbinic citations and each row’s markers are identi ed in the numbered list below the grid.

KEY: (+x) = “most positive” toward BBS, explicitly cited, or recognized, as biblical;

(+x) = “positive,” cited with / , “as written in the book of Ben Sira”;

( ) = “neutral,” cited like an individual Rabbi, “Ben Sira said/says”; (–) = “neutral negative,” explicitly described as non-biblical, to limit its

use; (–x) = “negative,” banned or cited derisively. Vertical = time, oldest topmost; Horizontal = geographical location.

Approx. dates Palestine Babylonia

1. Tosefta (200 CE) 2. Genesis Rab. (400 CE) (A) (B) (C) (+D) 3. Leviticus Rab. (400 CE) 4. Jerusalem Talmud (400 CE) (+A) (–B) 5. Tanhuma (~500 CE or 800 CE) (A) (B) (+C) 6. Ecclesiastes Rab. (650 CE) (+A) (–B) 7. Babylonian Talmud (700 CE) (+A) (+B) (+C) (C)

(+D) (+E) (+F) (F) (G) (+H)

8. Kallah Rabbati (750 CE) (+A) (+B) 1. (A) t. Yad. 2:13 (this tractate is

not part of either Talmud). 2. (A) Gen. Rab. 8:2; (B) Gen.

Rab. 10:6; (C) Gen. Rab. 73:12; (D) Gen. Rab. 91:3.

3. (A) Lev. Rab. 33:1. 4. (A) y. Ber. 11b; (B) y. Sanh. 28a. 5. (A) Tanh. 1; (B) Tanh. 8; (C)

Tanh. 10.


6. (A) Eccl. Rab. 7:11; (B) Eccl. Rab. 12:12.

7. (A) b. Hag. 13a; (B) b. Yeva. 63b; (C) b. Ket. 110b; (D) b. B. Qam. 92b; (E) b. B. Bat. 98b; (F) b. B. Bat. 146a; (G) b. Sanh. 100b; (H) b. Nid. 16b.

8. (A) Kallah Rab. 3:1; (B) Kallah Rab. 3:4.

In this group of rabbinic texts—except for the single negative instance in the Jerusalem Talmud—the only limitation on the use of the book of Ben Sira is against treating it as Scripture. This range of permitted use makes sense in terms of the rabbinic classi cation of the book of Ben Sira as an “uninspired canonical book.” And since the earlier texts from Palestine cite Ben Sira as freely as those from Babylonia, I doubt that the rabbis ever ceased to expound the book of Ben Sira. If that is so, then the only radical repositioning in the sequence of texts is the prohibition in the Jerusalem Talmud. The semantic activity in b. Sanh. 100b would thus signal an acknowledgment of an existing situation—or a return to an earlier condition—rather than a new phase in attitudes toward the book of Ben Sira. Furthermore, the status of the book of Ben Sira is unique in rabbinic literature. The 600 textual history of rabbinic affection for the book of Ben Sira provides an example of how communities are able to change the interpretations of their traditions over time. Through Ben Sira, the Rabbis negotiate the boundary around Jewish textual tradition. The Jerusalem Talmud creates a bound that excludes Ben Sira, and the Babylonian Talmud undoes the exclusion, thus moving the boundary so that it encloses the book of Ben Sira and reclaims it within the tradition.

4

PROLOGUE OF SIRACH (BEN SIRA) AND THE QUESTION OF CANON

Francis Borchardt

The translator’s prologue of Sirach (or Ben Sira) has been well-studied for a long time already. It is dated to 117 or 116 BCE, based on reason-able deductions from the prologue itself. Also from the prologue we nd the identity of its author. He claims to be the grandson, or at least descendant, of Jesus Ben Sira, who, it is claimed, wrote the book. If both of these assumptions can be accepted as reasonably reliable, a fact which is not beyond dispute, then it represents the earliest evidence of the reception of the book of Sirach in antiquity. In the past, many scholars have claimed that the wealth of information in the prologue proves a variety of different, sometimes contrasting, hypotheses. Some say the prologue makes an argument that Sirach is nothing more or less than the culmination of past wisdom. Others put forth the bolder suggestion that the prologue marks an important step in the canon process by noting the existence of a group of books divided into three categories, though those categories may remain open. Still others make the more shocking claim that a large portion of the LXX was in existence prior to the time of Ben Sira’s grandson, based on the prologue. There are also those scholars who claim that an entire closed canon is discernable through the words of Ben Sira’s descendant. There are further studies, which suggest that no exclusive canon, but all of Jewish literature, is referenced by the prologue. Among most of these claims the common theme is the state of the canon at the presumed date of the writing of the prologue. This is no surprise because three groups of apparently special books are mentioned three times in the course of the very short prologue. The present study, however, departs slightly from this line of thought. We aim to prove that Ben Sira’s descendant is actually trying to make the argument that his ancestor’s book is special, like the other literature he mentions. This is not to say anything of the canon, as the require-ments of a true canon—an exclusive list of books judged re ectively to

4. BORCHARDT Prologue of Sirach 65

be inspired and authoritative—cannot be spoken of until the rst century CE at the earliest. However, it may be that he was making arguments for authority or inspiration on behalf of his forefather’s work. Though similar arguments have been made before, notably by McDonald, Wright, and to a lesser extent Veltri, this presentation differs in that it relies only on the evidence provided from within the prologue, and makes no conjectures based on later reception. It focuses solely on the way the text was received by the translator and his implied audience. The way in which we will accomplish this analysis is through rhetori-cal criticism. Though normally we would exercise extreme caution at the suggestion that a text be subjected to such a method, a rhetorical approach appears to have special value with the prologue. The text of the prologue is clearly a rhetorically structured unit with a speci c aim. It has all the markings of what Aristotle calls an epideictic speech, which praises or blames its subject by concentrating on the present but refer-encing the past and future. Thus, becoming aware of the methods and forms of persuasion used by Ben Sira’s descendant will show, all the more clearly, that he viewed his ancestor’s book as especially worthy, in the same way as the other collections of books that he mentions. It will also show that he believes his forefather’s book should be included among them. Anssi Voitila has done a rhetorical examination on the prologue using Ciceronian models, and has come up with the result that the translator wanted to promote his translation of the book of Sirach among Greek-speaking Judaism and to have his own version be the preferred rendering of his ancestor’s book of wisdom. He sees the types of persuasion used by the author as indicative of his outsider status in the Alexandrian community and his divergence in understanding from their religious practice of Judaism. While these suggestions are certainly possible, we feel that he misses the main thrust of the argument: the high value of his grandfather’s work, and only derivatively, his translation, which will be revealed in our arguments below. Let us now turn to the analysis. The prologue is most often broken down into three parts, which in the Greek comprise three rather long, though well constructed sentences. Because this is the convention, and because we take no issue with this structure based on content, we shall maintain it here. Moreover, due to the brevity of the text and each section our references will be no more speci c than to which section any state-ment belongs. This will make for a clear and easy-to-follow presentation of the material.

66 Sacra Scriptura

1

In rhetoric, any communication involves a speaker, who delivers an argument concerning a speci c topic, and an audience, whom the speaker is attempting to persuade concerning a speci c topic for a certain pur-pose. The combination of all these elements of the speech is known as the rhetorical situation. In the case of the translator’s prologue to Sirach most of these elements are immediately clear. The speaker, or in this case, more properly the writer, identi es himself as the descendant of Jesus [Ben Sira] (SP 1), the original author of the work he is translating (SP 2, 3). For our purposes it is less important to question if this is actually the case than to recognize that the speaker presents himself as such. The audience implied by the prologue appears to be a group that knows and holds some of the writings of Israel in some regard (SP 1). Whether they hold only these texts in such reverence is debatable, but it would be dif cult to argue that the audience is not expected to accept the translator’s claim that opens the prologue. They, or a segment of them, are further described as lovers of learning ( ) (SP 1) and seem to be among those who attempt to live a life according to the law ( ) (SP 1). It can also be reasonably deduced that at least some of those addressed are included among the intended readers of the translation, namely those living abroad ( ). From this information it seems reasonable to agree with the majority of scholars who deduce that the audience is comprised, at least in part, of Judean ex-pats living in the Diaspora. The topic of the speech should be clear at the outset, but our arguments should make it obvious that it is the book of the ancestor, Ben Sira, and by extension, its translation into Greek by Ben Sira’s descendant. It is only the fourth element of the rhetorical situation, the purpose, which is up for debate. This, as we previously hinted, is the theme of our discussion. We wish to show that Ben Sira’s descendant attempts to argue for the value and authority, not only of his translation, but also of his ancestor’s original book, so that it can be counted among the works of revered literature to the Judean community. Let us now turn to the forms of argumentation Ben Sira’s descendant uses to make his case. Classical Aristotelian rhetoric has three major proofs, which amount to approaches of argumentation: ethos, pathos, and logos. With the ethos the argument is based on the character and credibility of the speaker, usually with autobiographical references. The pathos appeals to the feelings of the audience and tries to force the audience’s sympathy or empathy through familiar or jarring imagery. The logos has to do with the rational development of the speech, basing each point rmly on the previously proven one, thus constructing a rm thesis. The translator employs two of the three forms in his appeal to the audience, being very successful with the ethical and logical approaches.


The ethical details woven into the prologue are frequent, and rather obvious. In the rst section, the translator notes that his ancestor wrote the book that he is introducing. This not only speaks volumes for the quality of his translation, but also for the provenance of the teachings Sirach contains. For Ben Sira’s descendent, the teachings of Sirach must be orthodox, because he knows that the author was devoted to the wisdom. He could also, through his relationship to the author, be more familiar with the exact sense in which certain phrases were intended, as well as the author’s style. In the third section, the translator introduces the circumstances that led him to make the translation. He notes when he came to Egypt (in the 38th year of Euergetes/132 BCE), that he studied much himself, and that he worked tirelessly and diligently on the translation of the book. These points, with the possible exception of the chronological remark, also offer special status to the original work and his own translation. The rationale is that a man who had studied much in Egypt would recognize books that make important contributions to wisdom and those that do not. The fact that he even saw it necessary to translate the book, and work diligently at it, means that he sees the book to be of great import. At the same time, his education, time in Egypt, and diligence, all guarantee that the quality of his translation is also of a high caliber. So, by making these claims about himself and his ancestor, the translator is actually arguing for the importance of the text and the viabil-ity of his translation. The powerful force these ethical arguments have on the overall aim of the prologue is typical of an epideictic discourse. In the prologue, Ben Sira’s descendant formulates a very impressive and logically structured epideictic argument. He begins his work by basically putting forth three general axioms, which he seems to assume his audience will accept. These assertions establish the basis of virtue the translator believes to be contained in his ancestor’s work. The rst statement he offers is that great teachings come from the law and the prophets and the other (books) that follow them. Because Ben Sira’s descendant makes no proof for this statement, and never expounds upon it, we can safely assume that he expects his audience to accept the point immediately. Here he is merely taking a set of objects esteemed among his audience and putting them forth as noble, due to their teachings. This is a basic step in making an epideictic argument. The second pronouncement put forth by the translator is that Israel ought to be praised as the source of this collection of books particularly because of the “instruction and wisdom” ( ) imparted by them. Unpacking this statement we see that Israel is the source of these books, that they contain instruction and wisdom, and that it is necessary to praise Israel for these qualities. This puts forth to the

68 Sacra Scriptura

1

audience that not only are the books in consideration the source of many and great teachings which contain instruction and wisdom, but also that for this reason they merit a special status for their source and perhaps for themselves. The “instruction and wisdom” contained by these books is thus pointed out by the translator as the important component of virtue for which his subject is being praised. As signi cant as this second statement is, the translator appears to present it as an accepted truth. He neither proves nor explains any of the claims. The audience is supposed to accept it as fact that this is the case. The third step Ben Sira’s descendant makes in his argument is to claim that those who read these works must not only understand them but also be able, as lovers of learning, to introduce them through speeches and writing to outsiders. This assertion makes the obvious point that under-standing is necessary for those who read these books, but then adds a less obvious yoke of responsibility to bring this knowledge to outsiders. It is neither apparent from where this responsibility comes, nor who the out-siders are. Though some have argued that the outsiders are the illiterate laity, and thus the insiders, or lovers of learning, are learned scribes, the support for this is weak. The prologue argues completely on literary grounds; both Ben Sira and his descendant produce written works for the outsiders. If the outsiders were illiterate, these works would be of no use. Despite the vagueness of the identity of the outsiders and rather alarming responsibility that one is required to teach what one has gained from the books of Israel, the translator sets this statement down as his nal axiom. He either is writing within a community wherein this is a commonly accepted belief, or his implied audience is one that takes on this respon-sibility as truth without question. Whatever the case, this is the last premise Ben Sira’s descendant makes in his prologue. From these three general premises (Law, Prophets, and other books containing great teachings; Israel should be praised for the wisdom and instruction in them; it is not enough to understand them, but one must be able to teach them to outsiders) the translator begins to set forth a speci c case. Ben Sira’s descendant abruptly turns to the tale of his ancestor, who devoted himself to the study of the Law, Prophets, and other ancestral books. From this it follows that he acquired a reasonable pro ciency in their contents, and thus reaped their many and great teachings. In this way the descendant shows that his ancestor has ful lled the rst two parts of his responsibility: he recognizes the wealth of teachings in the three corpora, and he devotes himself to those books. The translator then explains that his ancestor too wrote something concerning wisdom and instruction ( ).


The implications are two-fold: Ben Sira ful lled his duty introduced by the third axiom, but he also produced a work that belongs to the same tradition, and thus deserves the same reverence as the Law, the Prophets, and the other books. This can particularly be recognized in the second axiom. The very reason for which the three corpora of literature are praiseworthy is their instruction and wisdom. Because Ben Sira’s own book pertains to these as well, it follows that it must also be praise-worthy. The translator strengthens his argument by closing the rst sec-tion with the claim that Sirach (presumably like the other books) can be read to make progress in living a life according to the law. This is a qual-ity that is unlikely to be attributed to all books, but reserved for those that share in the traditions of the Law, the Prophets, and the other writings. In this rst section the translator has introduced three axioms, argued that in writing Sirach, his ancestor has ful lled the three axioms, and put forth the idea that his ancestor’s work belongs among the praiseworthy books. This is not to say that there is a set number of books that are counted as inspired and of divine origin for the translator. Rather, there is/are (a) collection(s) of books, very likely open-ended, that he sees as having a special value because of the nature of the wisdom they contain. Whether this value was limited to the ancestral books of Israel, and whether it was shared by other Judeans is unclear. What is clear is that Ben Sira’s descendant is making a strong argument for this value to be recognized in his ancestor’s work. Following his thesis statement, Ben Sira’s descendant then, like any astute student of rhetoric, anticipates what some detractors might come up with as counter-arguments. In the second section of the prologue, the translator’s main concern is, understandably, the way his translation might affect people’s opinions of the book. To counter any backlash to Sirach on his own account, he invites the audience to read attentively and with goodwill, but to recognize that any de ciencies in the translation are one of the pitfalls of the translation process. He notes that what is rendered in Hebrew cannot always be reproduced in the exact idiom in another language. This generalizes the problem, removing his skill from culpability. Further along these lines he argues that if the translation is a problem for the reader, then the same problems also affect the Law, the prophecies, and the rest of the books. This is meant as less of a criticism of these translations and promotion of his own, as some would suggest, than an argument that the value of the books cannot be judged on the language of a translation, because the whole process is dif cult and inherently leads to aws. It also subtly compares the three corpora to his ancestor’s book, once again equating their value.

70 Sacra Scriptura

1

The third section turns to the story of Ben Sira’s descendant and the process by which he came to translate his ancestor’s book. Initially the translator states that he came to Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes. This establishes that he had been someplace else (presumably Judea) and then dates the point at which he entered Egypt, thus setting the date from which all the subsequent events occurred. After this introduction the third section essentially follows the same pattern as the second half of the rst section. The descendant merely takes the place of Ben Sira. The translator states that once he came to Egypt, he too received instruction. Like his ancestor, the translator received an education, perhaps, though not explicitly in the same books in which Ben Sira gained pro ciency. Therefore, per his third axiom, Ben Sira’s descendant must pass on the education to others, just as his ancestor did. The translator’s primary contribution to the instruction of outsiders consists in his translation of Ben Sira’s book, presumably because he sees value in it akin to the other books he has previously mentioned, but notices no translation available. This is different from Ben Sira’s effort because it is not an original work, but it follows the same axiom. The translator continues that he worked tirelessly and diligently to publish the book for the bene t of those living abroad that they may gain learning and live the life according to the law. Here he equates his work with his ancestor’s by noting that his work will aid in learning and living according to the law. The great effort exerted, and the intended results with which he closes suggest that the translator values his ancestor’s work in the same way as he does the Law, the Prophets, and the other books. From this analysis of the translator’s mode of argumentation it becomes clear that the main point of the speech is not to argue for a tripartite canon; it is not his intention either to criticize the process of translation, or to privilege Judean wisdom—though there are pieces of all these arguments in the speech. Instead, it has become clear that Ben Sira’s descendant is conducting an epideictic discourse, which rst sets up the element of virtue (instruction and wisdom), then shows the dif-ferent ways in which the object of praise participates in that component of virtue. According to the translator, his ancestor has ful lled his duty of explicating the wisdom and instruction found in the teachings of the ancestral books. In doing so, he created a work which approaches the other ancestral works in wisdom, instruction, and thus value. Because of the intrinsic praiseworthiness of his ancestor’s work, Ben Sira’s descen-dant also ful ls his duty, as a lover of learning, to make that work avail-able to a wider audience by translating it into Greek. Thus, the ultimate goal of the prologue, perhaps obviously, is to show the importance of the


translation as a contribution to the life of the law. But, an essential step along the way is to ensure that the work the descendant is translating is also worthwhile. In this context, that means that it must contain the same qualities as the Law, the Prophets, and the other books. It seems, there-fore, that however these writings were valued at this time, whether merely as collections of wisdom or as sacred scripture, Sirach shared it. Though it does appear that the beginnings of a tripartite division of valued books exists in the mind of the translator, it is plain that these corpora are not closed, and their contents, just as with the book of Sirach, may be debated. This very fact opens up an entirely new avenue toward understanding the canon process, and it is hoped that this avenue will be pursued vigorously.

5

THE FUNCTION OF ETHICS IN THE NON-CANONICAL JEWISH WRITINGS

Gerbern S. Oegema

1. Introduction: Ethics in the Non-Canonical Jewish Writings The topic “Ethics in the Pseudepigrapha” cannot be dealt with in the same way as ethics in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament or in the New Testament, as the Pseudepigrapha as well as the Apocrypha, the Qumran Scrolls, Philo and Josephus do not represent a speci c religious group or sociological movement; nor do they originate from the same geographi-cal area and period in history. Instead, they come to us from different life settings and represent many different, often unknown, groups and socio-religious traditions in Second Temple Judaism (538 BCE to 70/135 CE). Furthermore, equally unlike the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the New Testament, the Pseudepigrapha and the other non-canonical writ-ings have no present-day faith community to represent them. For these reasons, we will focus on the function of ethics in the individual writings and look at them one-by-one, from the Apocrypha to the Pseudepigrapha and then brie y continuing with the Qumran Scrolls, Philo and Josephus in order to get a more complete picture of the function of ethics in Early Judaism, to which the non-canonical Jewish writings are the main witness. Only at the end of this overview and analysis may we be able also to pose the question, as to whether there are any main themes common to all of the non-canonical Jewish writings or groups of writings within them. The search for these possible main themes will be led by the following theological and ethical categories: (1) Torah and wisdom; (2) divine revelation and intervention; (3) the origin of, and ways to deal with, evil; (4) human responsibility and one’s role in society; and (5) the love command and the “Golden Rule.”

2. The Literature 2.1. Apocrypha First and Second Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach are sub-stantial writings with clearly distinguishable ethics representing religious and philosophical views held in Judaism during the early Hellenistic periods (third to rst century BCE).

5. OEGEMA The Function of Ethics 73

The books of First and Second Maccabees were commissioned by the Hasmonean rulers in the century after the Maccabean Revolt (164 BCE) and represent an inner-Jewish ethic focused on national unity and a ght against Hellenistic-Syrian culture and religion. Their ethics highlight the values that are connected with Judaism as a way of life and are most visible in their identity markers, such as dietary laws, circumcision, and temple worship. The example of martyrdom for the Jewish cause is employed to stress the importance of keeping God’s commandments, as preserved and handed down by ancestral traditions. Moral and, above all, military resistance against the Syrian occupancy is glori ed using vivid descriptions of the God-given success of the Maccabean brothers in the war with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The ethics of First and Second Maccabees are therefore national, social, and inner-Jewish at the same time, all subordinated to the concept of Jewish identity and the struggle for the survival of the Jewish nation. Even the Mosaic laws are subject to this, as the example of the temporary abolition of the Sabbath laws during the war in order to save Jewish life shows (1 Macc 2.41). The Wisdom of Solomon, from rst-century CE Egypt, represents a synthesis between biblical teaching and Greek philosophy in its treat-ment of the concept of wisdom. The rst six of its 19 chapters are addressed to the ungodly rulers of the earth, urging them to love justice and avoid perverse words and deeds, as God sees everything and no one escapes nal judgment. It describes two opposing ways of life: the just life and the ungodly life. Solomon is the perfect example of the wise person or sage, and personi es wisdom, which existed since the creation of the world and is its ruling principle (chs. 7–9). Although there are few examples of practical wisdom or ethics, it is obvious that all ethical principals are to be derived from the leading principle of God’s wisdom and righteousness, which rules this world. In Sirach, the Greek translation of an originally Hebrew work ascribed to Ben Sira around 200 BCE and written down by his grandson in the year 132 BCE, we nd the commandment to love oneself connected with the command to love (and free) one’s slave (7.21). It has also been linked to the Golden Rule with the anthropological argument that the neighbor, including the slave, is a human being too (31.15). As in Tobit, but more explicitly employing Greek philosophical concepts as in the Wisdom of Solomon, the author of Sirach equates the divine teaching found in the “books of Moses” with the Greek concept of wisdom. In both cases, divine teaching and wisdom include the practical call to act righteously. Believing and acting are here seen as two sides of the same coin. If you believe that a human being is like you, that is to say, that others have

74 Sacra Scriptura

1

been created in the image of God in just the same way as you, you will love them like yourself, whether they are slave or free. This is simul-taneously found in Torah and in the Hellenistic principle of the Golden Rule. 2.2. Pseudepigrapha Whereas the Pseudepigrapha are usually considered to belong to the conceptual world of the latter parts of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and of Early Judaism, some see them as presenting more of the Early Christian and Patristic traditions. Christianity, indeed, has preserved most of these writings, as the emerging church had an interest in them, whereas rabbinic Judaism rejected the Pseudepigrapha or was even unfamiliar with them. Despite their large number (over 70) and diverse character, for which reason they cannot be summarized under one title or theology, the Pseudepigrapha can be arranged, though imperfectly, by genre, as is done here, namely, in: (1) historiography and legend; (2) ethical writings in narrative form; (3) ethical writings in pedagogical form; (4) poetic writings; and (5) apocalyptic writings. In the following we will select a few examples from these ve categories. 2.2.a. Historiography and Legend. The 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena of Jeremiah) and Lives of the Prophets, in particular, give examples of the lives of the prophets, who because of their martyrdom are worthy to be held in memory, and because of their exemplary lives, are worthy to be followed. Although they do not elaborate on ethical themes in a sys-tematic or even practical way, these texts call, for example, for the graves of the prophets to be kept in honour. 4 Baruch underlines the importance of remembering the horror of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. 2.2.b. Ethical Writings in Narrative Form. In the legendary book of Tobit from the third century BCE dealing with Tobit, Sara, and their son Tobias, Tobit teaches his son to live a righteous life after his father’s death. In the course of the story Tobit gives a number of examples from practical wisdom, one of which is the Golden Rule: “And what you hate, do not do to anyone” (4.15). Although the short book gives no expla-nation of it, it is the oldest example of the use of the Golden Rule in Judaism (see also Letter of Aristeas § 207) and also a popular ethical maxim taken over from the Greek world. The context of the book of Tobit is that of Diaspora Judaism and the need to nd a middle way between the adoption of foreign customs and philosophical/ethical


principles, while at the same time, keeping of the Torah. It is easier to nd this middle way in the realm of ethics than in the observance of

more speci cally Jewish customs. Jewish identity—or, more generally speaking, the question of what constitutes Jewish practices and beliefs—remains the ruling principle behind this cultural mediation, but as the example of the Golden Rule shows, non-Jewish ethical principles do not have to question this identity, as they are of a more universal nature and can therefore also be found in the books of Moses, books which, according to Hellenistic Judaism, both communicate universal values and are the origin of them. Understood in this way, Tobit reveals its deeper meaning, as it points to the Torah as source of all moral guidelines. The book of Tobit, theo-logically and anthropologically speaking, then emphasizes three main concepts and employs them as keywords throughout the book: truth, righteousness, and mercy—the classical virtues in Judaism. These concepts are rst of all attributed to God, but are also expected from humans as a response to God. Righteousness is understood in a very practical way as being merciful and doing good deeds (4.7), and in the end, it is Tobit himself who gives the best example of how to act righteously in a foreign land (1.17–20; 2.1–8). Finally, the didactic parts of the book underline the importance of righteousness, especially towards the needy, one’s brothers, and one’s parents (4.3, 7–13, 16–17 etc.). In the Letter of Aristeas, written between 127 and 118 BCE and narrating the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament produced in commission for the Ptolemaic king Ptolemaeus II Phila-delphus, the king asks, “What does wisdom teach?” The thirteenth of the 72 Jewish translators answers with the Golden Rule: “Insofar as you do not wish evils to come upon you, but to partake of every blessing, (it would be wisdom) if you put this into practice with your subjects, including the wrongdoers, and if you admonished the good and upright also mercifully. For God guides all men in mercy” (§ 207). This is one of the earliest examples of the Jewish use of the Golden Rule in its negative and positive form, here understood against the background of the com-mand to love one’s neighbor and argued for with the theological concept of Imitatio Dei: loving one’s neighbor as a way of following, obeying, and imitating God. At the same time, the author shows that, as far as ethics are concerned, he considers Greek philosophy and biblical teach-ing to say basically the same thing. In the book of Jubilees, an example of the “Rewritten Bible” genre from between the Maccabean Revolt in 164 BCE and 150 BCE that divides Israel’s history into periods of 50-year jubilees, we nd the

76 Sacra Scriptura

1

Golden Rule in its most popular context, namely, as practical wisdom teaching from parents to children: love your brothers like someone loves his own soul and do good (36.4). The command to love one’s neighbor is listed here among other commandments, equated with the Golden Rule, and de ned as doing good. At the same time, it is presented as biblical teaching and as the wisdom taught by life itself; in other words, neighbor-love is part of human and natural law. In this context, Pseudo-Philo or Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, written after 70 CE, is of interest too, because it employs a style and expresses a point of view that is found in other writings, though much less con-sistently used, namely, that of ideal or exemplary biblical gures, who, because of their exemplary lives or righteous deeds or moral behavior, are worthy of imitation. Finally, the romance of Joseph and Aseneth gives an impressive and entertaining example of how Judaism seems to have attracted non-Jews, as it tells the story of chaste Joseph and the Egyptian princess Aseneth, who falls in love with him and, after a mysterious transformative experi-ence, takes over all the practices and beliefs taught by Moses. 2.2.c. Ethical Writings in Pedagogical Form. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a collection of twelve smaller works, some of which go back to a Jewish source from the second and rst centuries BCE, but which as a whole have been edited in nal Christian form in the rst and second centuries CE, we nd the commandment to love one’s neighbor combined with the commandment to love God (TIss 7.6), a combination otherwise found only in the New Testament (Mk 12:28-34 and parallels), but as such, going back to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, where the commandment to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18) is argued for with the call of Imitatio Dei (Lev 19). In other passages, the Love Command is connected with the promise of blessing (TSim 4.6), with a call to show mercy to those who are poor and ill (TIss 5.2), with the call to include the animals in one’s neighbor love (TZeb 5.1), and with the call to do good (TBenj 4.3). Whereas there is no systematic treatment of ethics or a connection with philosophical reasoning or Greek philosophy in the Testaments of the Twelve Patri-archs, ethics is very much understood in its practical form as moral teaching with an emphasis on doing good and being merciful, much in line with the teachings of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. All twelve testaments, but especially the Testament of Joseph, con-sider the patriarchs to be exemplars due to their behavior and high moral standards. For this reason the patriarchs are narrated here giving farewell


speeches while lying on their death beds. Within this framework a life according to the Torah is depicted, and lists of practical ethics form the main content of these moral teachings from parents to children. Other testaments than the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, such as the Testament of Job, employ more or less the same technique and share a similar theology and ethic. 2.2.d. Poetic Writings. Among the Poetic Writings most relevant for a study of ethics is, besides the Psalms of Solomon, Pseudo-Phocylides. The Psalms of Solomon are a compendium of (wisdom-)theological and anthropological beliefs of Pharisaic origin in the form of psalms dating from the second third of the rst century BCE. The ethics in these 18 psalms are shaped by the eschatological expectations of the author, who expected that, at the end of days soon to come, sinners would be punished and the righteous would be rewarded. Until then, education about righteousness plays an important role and at the end of days a Davidic messiah is expected to play a leading part. In the description of the importance of righteousness, education, and the punishment of sinners and the rewarding of the righteous at the end of days (in order to do justice to their present suffering), the author re ects what Pharisaic circles had considered to be important since the second century BCE, and much ethical teaching would be derived from this basic way of thinking: God’s teachings are not only mediated through the Law of Moses, but also revealed directly. God is judge and king, is merciful and loves His people, helps the needy, and is thus the perfect exemplar. However, in all of this, humanity has a free will to choose to follow or not, and the righteous one has the ability to ask for forgiveness, as well as to repent, to fast, etc. The fact that humankind is divided at all into righteous and sinners, is partly due to God’s provi-dentia. In the background stands a concept of God as ruling king, who allows the righteous to suffer only in order to try them, and an under-standing of punishment as a means for God to express his love (see PssSol 3.3–10; 10.1–3; 13.8–10; 16.14; and 18.4). Pseudo-Phocylides is a Jewish writing dating from the rst century BCE or very early rst century CE that is wholly dedicated to ethical teaching. It consists of sententia or gnomai in the form of a moral poem in 219 hexameters later divided into 230 verses. The work epitomizes the teaching of the Torah for Hellenized Jews by incorporating non-biblical material, both post-biblical wisdom literature and Greco-Roman popular ethical and philosophical concepts. However, it also has parallels with the rabbinic writing of Derekh Eretz Zuta, as it employs the seven

78 Sacra Scriptura

1

Noachidic laws. Its main ethical teachings can be divided into: (1) sexual ethics; (2) mercy towards the weak; and (3) sincerity towards the neigh-bor. The ethics of Pseudo-Phocylides are, furthermore, universalistic in outlook and consists of practical rules for everyday life, both personal and social. The teachings of this writing can be divided as follows: Prologue (1–2); Summary of the Decalogue (3–8); Exhortations to Justice (9–21); Admonitions to Justice (22–41); Love of Money and its Consequences (42–47); Honesty, Modesty, and Self-Control (48–58); Moderation in All Things (59–69); The Danger of Envy and Other Vices (70–96); Death and Afterlife (97–115); The Instability of Life (115–21); Speech and Wisdom, Man’s Distinction, Avoidance of Wickedness, and Virtuous Life (122–52); The Usefulness of Labour (153–74); Marriage, Chastity, and Family Life (175–227); and Epilogue (228–30). Behind the book stands a concept of God as someone who is creator and king of the universe, who is mighty and wise, whose universe exists in harmony, who judges humankind after death, and who is the ruler of everyone’s soul. As far as moral behavior is concerned, one is expected to honor God in everything and above everything; share everything God has given with those in need; use the ability to reason with wisdom and to acquire wisdom; and to avoid evil, especially sexual sins (177–94). Furthermore, one is expected to labor in honesty (153–74), limit one-self and be modest, execute justice and mercy, and have stable social relationships, that is, between husband and wife, parents and children, masters and slaves, and even between friends and enemies (see respec-tively 195–97, 207–9, 223–27, 142, 218, 140–42). 2.2.e. Apocalypses. The most important apocalyptic writings in Early Judaism also mark the beginning and end of apocalyptic thinking in Judaism: the books of 1 Enoch, partly going back to the fourth/third centuries BCE, but mostly from the rst centuries BCE and CE; the canonical book of Daniel, dating from the second century BCE; and 4 Ezra as well as 2 Baruch, coming from the beginning of the second century CE. Most of the apocalypses have developed a detailed explanation of how evil came into the world, how evil has in uenced the course of history, and how evil will do so until the end of this world. Evil is mostly repre-sented in the oppression of Israel by cosmic and/or foreign powers as well as in a variety of sins that come with this. In this respect the apoca-lypticists differ from the Prophets, who blame humanity and the evil heart for bringing sin and destruction upon the world and not the heavenly or


other powers. The teaching of the authors of the apocalypses basically consists of giving to humankind the knowledge of its origin, how to follow the path of righteousness, and how to develop patience in times of distress. The ethics found in these writings are principally interim ethics, that is, ethics for the period between the presence of the authors and the expected end of days, and is meant for a minority group, not developed for the members of society at large, but for a group of persecuted martyrs and saints. This “holy remnant” sees itself as still living according to the Laws of Moses in an otherwise basically vicious and violent environ-ment with no hope for survival. The goal of this kind of interim ethics is to help the group endure the nal days of humanity, which will be a time of wars, famine, and global destruction. It also seems to prepare for the days of the Messiah, who is about to come soon and bring a new law and a time of righteousness to the world. Understood within the context of early Jewish society, the followers of these apocalyptic thinkers did not consider themselves obliged to uphold the moral standards and ethical rules of the society in which they lived, as they were basically opposed to this society and everything that it represented, including its ethics and morals. The apocalypticists consid-ered society’s mores and ethics to be expressions of wickedness, and offered many examples of this. The holy remnant they thought them-selves to be would endure until the time of distress was over, when they could give up their “interim ethics” and begin to live according to the new or newly explained Torah of the Messiah. First Enoch has a long history, and the origin of some of its oldest parts may date back to the fourth and third centuries BCE. Like no other apocalypse before or after, the Ethiopic book of 1 Enoch sees only one reason for the origin of evil in the world, in that it blames the fallen angels and the Great Adversary for having brought destruction in all of its forms to the world and humankind. Between God and God’s angels, and the Adversary and the fallen angels, there is an ongoing cosmic battle, in which the nations of the world are mere marionettes. Here, there is more distance between God and humankind, with hardly any room left for human free will, as everything depends on the outcome of this cosmic battle. What awaits human beings, who possess an eternal soul, is the nal judgment and, with it, either reward or punishment depending on which side of the battle they stood. As everything had been determined and evil existed before creation, it is predestination that de nes one’s fate and hardly anything can be done on the basis of moral reasoning.

80 Sacra Scriptura

1

Also for the author of 2 Baruch, one of the main reasons to employ a strict eschatological interpretation of Israel’s origin, history, and future is to nd an answer to the question of the origin of evil. He nds it in the

rst sin committed by Adam, which since then has inhabited human hearts, and has led to death and destruction. With this worldview there is little space left for human action; only a holy remnant has remained to live according to the Law and it is only at the end of time that God will intervene by sending a Messiah, not only to save Israel, but also to pun-ish the nations of the world. In this sense the author considers it crucial to teach his audience about the origin of evil, to call for repentance like the biblical prophets, and to comfort the people in times of distress. Even stronger, and with more impact than 2 Baruch, is the theology of 4 Ezra, who also uses the genre of apocalyptic visions to draw a picture of Israel’s history as de ned by the evil heart of humankind. This evil heart since Adam is the source of all destruction and, because of it, the course of history cannot be changed until the very end of days, when God will intervene by sending a Messiah. Until then, the ethical impera-tive is to return and repent from doing evil. 2.3. The Dead Sea Scrolls In order to get a more complete picture of ethics in this period, it is worth looking beyond the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha to examine other writings from the Greco-Roman Period. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls we

nd Essene and non-Essene writings, the latter being, for example, biblical manuscripts and writings that the Qumran Community collected and copied but did not write itself. The former writings were the result of a longer tradition and redaction process during the existence of the Community at the shore of the Dead Sea from 150 BCE to 68 CE, for which reason it is dif cult to get a clear and compete picture of the ethics of the Essenes. Philo and Josephus praised and admired the high moral standards of the Essenes, and the Essene writings, such as the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, and the Rule of the Congregation, as well as the Hodayot, seem to con rm this. They describe an abstemious, mod-erate, and simple life of a community shunning pleasure and passions and nourishing themselves only to beat hunger. Their members did not amass any riches, but shared everything among themselves, and thus wore their clothes until they were completely unusable. Apart from their practical way of life, they also had an ethical theory which they taught their pupils and each other: no slavery, no swearing, no anointing, bathing in cold water before every meal as well as after contact with non-members, wearing white clothes, being especially


modest regarding their natural functions, no marriage, no animal offer-ings for the Temple, and sharing common meals. It is not clear whether they were also abstemious of wine and meat. In all, the members were called to live a righteous life, be meticulous in their daily practice, sepa-rate themselves from the surrounding world, and search the Scriptures. Behind their ethics lies a theology, dualistic in nature and with a clear idea of predestination. God has created man and has appointed two spirits to rule over him: the good spirit of light, truth, and righteousness; and the evil spirit of darkness, error and perversity. Both spirits have limited in power until the end of this age (Rule of the Community 3–4). It is only through discipline and cooperation with the good spirit, that an individual could improve their self. A fuller impression of this Essene theology—without which any knowledge of Essene ethics would unthink-able—is to be found in the Hodayot, which were composed in poetic form, rather than direct/literal language. Furthermore, there are speci c rules for becoming a member of the Community or entering the Covenant. These rules are both ritualistic and moral in nature (Damascus Docu-ment). And nally, many of the rules were stricter than generally accepted in the world of the Hebrew Bible, Early Judaism, or the New Testament, such as those connected with keeping the Sabbath or those relating to wars. This set them apart in the eyes of everyone else. 2.4. Philo and Josephus For the ethics of Philo of Alexandria (c. 10 BCE to 45 CE) we are dependent on his anthropology, which in turn is largely dependent on Platonic views. In this sense, humanity lives in a dual world. On the one hand, his divine soul belongs to the spiritual world and the realm of angels and daemons, whereas his mortal and more animal-like body is part of the earth and the world of the senses. Individual human beings can live closer to the one or to the other world, the latter being the case with the majority of humanity, and the former more rarely taking place in the lives of the truly wise and righteous people, such as Abraham. From this it follows for Philo that a person’s spirit is close to reason and righteousness, whereas their body is the source of all evil and, for the soul, a mere prison. Consequently, the ethics derived from this emphasis on the shunning of every desire, passion, and sensuality in an effort to achieve complete liberation from emotions and the world of the vices while, at the same time, being taught how to live a life de ned by the cardinal virtues. In all, Philo’s ethics are quite similar to what the Stoics taught. For Philo, however, there was one important difference with Stoic ethics, namely, that for him this liberation comes from God and not from humanity itself.

82 Sacra Scriptura

1

The latter gives his ethics a distinctly mystical twist, as it is contem-plation, openness towards the Word of God, and the nal surrender to Him, which enables the person to see their true nature and to have faith in their destiny, that of a divine soul, whose realm belongs to God. The goal of Philo’s ethics, therefore, seems to be the return of the soul to its original bodiless and transcendent condition. It is not clear where to situate the ethics of Flavius Josephus (c. 37/38–100 CE). According to his own account, he had the background of a Sadducee, but by choice had become a member of the party of the Pharisees. In his youth he had stayed with the Essenes, whereas before and during the First Jewish War against Rome (66–70 CE) he was the leader of a resistance movement in Galilee and closely related to the Zealots and Sicarii; at the end of that war, however, he would turn to the Romans, among whom he would stay until his death. With such a Vita the right label for his ethics seems to be that of an opportunist. And still, his Jewish War contains many theological re ections and questions about responsibility and Jewish suffering, whereas the Antiquities con-tain elements of morality and Jewish rights. From the perspective of the conclusions he reaches at the end of his life, Josephus argues that it is best to accept the fate bestowed by God, even if this means the victory of Rome, the loss of a Jewish state and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Those who have not only resisted this fate, but have also actively fought against Rome, are the revolutionaries, the Zealots and the Sicarii, whom Josephus blames for almost everything, not the least for their violation of the Law of Moses and the desecration of the Temple. In this sense, the good resides with the Romans, as God is on their side, and evil and suffering is caused by the revolutionaries, who act against God’s will and against fate and destiny, as Josephus often puts it. Behind Josephus’ re ections lies the concept of Divine guidance, Divine providence, as well as the language of Destiny, in which Hellenistic historiographers often expressed how God controls everything in history. At other times he uses the language of prophecy applied by the historical authors and prophets of the Bible. It is in his Antiquities that Josephus is more explicit about the practical side of the belief in Divine providence. In writing his history of the Jewish people, he emphasizes the importance of piety, courage, wisdom, humanity, and other virtues, and shows this in great detail in the exem-plary life of individual leaders and other central gures in biblical history, such as that of Moses. At the same time, he can use selected biblical stories to moralize against vices, such as pride, greed, corruption, etc. By using these literary techniques Josephus follows a didactic purpose, for


which he clearly had a Jewish audience in mind; whereas, for the pur-pose of an apology for Jewish rights in the context of the Roman Empire audience (see for his Against Apion), he may also have written for non-Jewish readers.

3. Theological Themes 3.1. Torah and Wisdom In a number of non-canonical Jewish writings, especially the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, we nd evidence that the Torah is philosophically equated with the Greek concept of Wisdom, and that divine teaching is identi ed with the law of nature or of the cosmos. In both cases, Torah/ Wisdom functions as the foundation of all of the laws of society, and consists of many moral teachings for humanity. Furthermore, in con-nection with the philosophical concept of Wisdom, we nd a frequent employment of practical wisdom, speci cally in the form of wisdom sayings, and most notably formulated as the pedagogical teachings of parents to their children or in general of an older generation to a newer one. It is repeatedly stated that it is never enough simply to know what is wise, but one should also act wisely, that is to say, with mercy and right-eousness. A popular example of this is the employment of the Golden Rule, since it best exempli es the philosophical equation of Torah and Wisdom. At the same time, it is the epitome of practical wisdom. Ethics is thus embedded in a philosophical and theological system 3.2. Divine Revelation and Intervention For most Jews in antiquity it was unquestionably true that all knowledge comes from God and that revelation is therefore divine. However, that God still intervened in history was a view held mostly by the Prophets. For the apocalyptic thinkers and also for the Essene community, how-ever, there was a second power in heaven capable of in uencing human-kind, but in a negative way: God’s Adversary and his helpers or the fallen angels. Although few doubted that God would prevail in the end, it was indeed only at the end that God would intervene through a Messiah. Until then, humanity would be the victim of a cosmic battle, a war between good and evil (either personi ed, or as abstract powers): a clash between God’s angels and the fallen angels. Although there was some room for human action and responsibility, the course of history was, in principle, pre-determined as a sequence of good and bad periods and as a constant in uencing of one or the other side of the cosmic battle, a battle that was heading towards a catastrophic

84 Sacra Scriptura

1

climax. Even in the end, God would not intervene directly, but would send an Anointed One or Messiah, together with a host of angels to speak and execute the nal judgment. With this concept in mind, human responsibility is by nature limited and ethical teaching consists mainly of a call to follow the laws of the course of history and of the cosmos. Within the micro-cosmos of the individual’s place in the family, clan, or smaller society, various wisdom sayings and collections of teaching that had been growing throughout history and that had come from the whole of the ancient Near Eastern environment, entering Judaism during its post-exilic period as Wisdom theology, would give meaning and direction in life. The authors of the apocalyptic writings would see human ethics as limited in time and subject: they developed an interim ethics for a minority. 3.3. The Origin of Evil and How to Deal with It Human responsibility, the need to act with moral wisdom, and the necessity of developing moral teaching, begins with accepting that there is at least some space for human action. This space depends on the answers given to questions on the origin of evil and whether and how to deal with it. The Prophets of Israel considered the wicked human heart to be the origin of evil, and without interruption, called people to return to the moral teaching of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However, in the Persian period, the apocalyptic authors of especially the early parts of 1 Enoch blamed the fallen angels for having brought about evil on earth and divided humankind into two groups: those under in uence of these fallen angels, who were accordingly acting wickedly, and those under the in uence of the angels of God, who were thus acting right-eously. Wise was the one who had the knowledge of where humanity came from and belonged to. And still, as a whole, human action was seen to be limited due to a lack of human responsibility. In the Hellenistic period, under the in uence of both Stoic philosophy and apocalyptic thinking, the various Jewish groups in society (espe-cially after the Maccabean revolt of 164 BCE) were divided on questions of the interaction of fate and human responsibility. As Flavius Josephus later reports, the Sadducees thought everything to be dependent on fate and left no room for human action. As they did not believe in a life after death, their maxim was to enjoy life as long as it was possible, but that there was nothing one could do to change one’s fate. Contrary to the Sadducees, the Essenes and Pharisees believed in the possibility of interaction between fate and one’s own action and respon-sibility, with the Pharisees giving somewhat more room to human action than the Essenes. For the latter, it was clear that one could know one’s


fate by studying Scripture and reading it through the lens of their apoca-lyptic worldview: a cosmic battle was going on between the good and evil angels, who in uenced humanity in both directions. For the former, it was more important to develop a strategy for making the best of one’s place in society, and acting politically wise by choosing and supporting the right party. For both Essenes and Pharisees it was clear that one could decide which direction to take by acting either wickedly or righteously. Know-ledge of one’s fate and destiny, and teaching right action were therefore of the utmost importance. Again, for the Pharisees there was more room for human action than for the Essenes, who believed that, through predestination, every person had contained a measure of both good and evil, and that it was dif cult, though not impossible, to change one’s course in life. Therefore, the Pharisees were best prepared to develop a more advanced ethics and moral teaching for society at large, which they were also able to adjust to the needs of society by constantly updating their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. It was the Pharisees, then, who laid the foundations of the Oral Torah and later Rabbinic Judaism, whereas the Essenes developed a group ethic with an emphasis only on inner-social values, and the Sadducees an ethic that served only themselves, and that was meant to allow them to survive as best as possible. 3.4. Human Responsibility and Society The idea of human responsibility goes back to the authors of the books of Moses and the Prophets and especially their Deuteronomistic editors during and after the Babylonian exile. Ezra and Nehemiah would renew and implement this concept in post-exilic Jewish society and base every moral teaching on the Laws of Moses. The authors of 1 Enoch would question this idea of human responsibility and point to the fallen angels as the cause of all evil, until, much later, the Maccabees, prepared by the authors of the Book of Daniel, would take a reverse turn, and again stress the need for human action in order to defend divine teachings and especially the freedom to live according to one’s own religion. Thus, between the fth and fourth centuries BCE and the Maccabean revolt in 164 BCE, as well as during the following period of the inde-pendent Jewish state ruled by the Hasmoneans until the coming of the Romans and the Herodian rule at the end of the rst century BCE, the ethical values of Judaism in the Persian and Hellenistic period developed from a post-prophetic apocalyptic denial of human responsibility to a more balanced approach between the need for human action, a call for religious freedom, and the ght for what, by then, would be called

86 Sacra Scriptura

1

“Judaismos,” a set of Jewish values simply called the traditions of the ancestors and, as such, consisting of the essence of Mosaic teachings. Humanity’s principal obligation in society was therefore to defend these traditions against anyone endangering them, whether from the outside or the inside. In sum, ethics often functioned to de ne and defend Jewish identity with or against the de nitions of other groups within Jewish society. 3.5. The Love Command and the Golden Rule The concept of love in the Old Testament ( ; God’s love, love for God, love for others, erotic love) is distinct from that of Greek thought ( , , ; passionate love, love of people/friends, honor, etc.). However, in Hellenistic Judaism, efforts were made to combine the two, in that it stresses both the love of, or for, God and the love for others, both as the faithful ful llment of the biblical command-ments, even if this requires suffering, and unconditional martyrdom, as human love is the ultimate response to God’s love. Furthermore, the importance of the commandment to love one’s neighbor, often linked with philanthropy, is stressed again and again and often combined with or understood as an example of the originally Greek Golden Rule. Finally, authors like Philo underline the importance of both commandments for the well-being of humanity, and it should also be noted that wisdom or God’s teaching can be the object of love. However,

is typically downplayed as being important only to the “unchaste” Greeks. Theologically, the ethical maxim of either the Love Command or the Golden Rule (or both) can be founded on three arguments: (1) equality (because everyone, as God’s creature, is equal, everyone, even the slave, deserves the same treatment and respect); (2) the importance of doing good and being merciful (this is especially expected from those in a higher position); and (3) the call for Imitatio Dei (as God is good and does good, one should follow this). In the later rabbinic literature, the rst and third aspect are also found to be based on the biblical teaching that humanity is created in the image of God (and for that reason everyone is equal) and that one should be holy, because God is holy (Lev 17–26; t. Sanh. 9:11; Sifra, Qed. 4:12; Gen. R. 24:7), whereas the second aspect becomes a cornerstone of rabbinic ethics (see especially t. Sot. 14a). Both Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity would employ all three reasons to stress the impor-tance of the commandments to love God and the neighbor at the same time.


In conclusion, the function of ethics in the non-canonical Jewish writings is as diverse as the non-canonical Jewish writings themselves. They all witness to an Early Judaism where many groups with sometimes very differing opinion existed next to each other. The function of ethics in their writings expresses the vividness of their dialogue between themselves and with society at large.

Bibliography Bauckham, R. “The Con ict of Justice and Mercy: Attitudes to the Damned in

Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 181-96 in La Fable apocryphe I. Apocrypha le Champ des Apocryphes. Turnhout: Brepols, 1990.

Bloch, A. P. A Book of Jewish Ethical Concepts: Biblical and Postbiblical. New York: KTAV, 1984.

Burkes, S. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch,” JSJ 30 (1999): 253-76.

Collins, J. J. “Ben Sira’s Ethics.” Pages 62-79 in Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Collins, J. J. “Jewish Ethics in Hellenistic Dress: The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides.” Pages 158–77 in Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Cronbach, A. “The Social Ideals of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” HUCA 18 (1944): 119-56.

Gammie, J. G. “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature,” JBL 93 (1974): 356-85.

Gray, P. “Points and Lines: Thematic Parallelism in the Letter of James and the Testament of Job,” NTS 50, no. 3 (2004): 406-24.

Harrelson, W. “The Signi cance of ‘Last Words’ for Intertestamental Ethics.” Pages 205-13 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt, in Memoriam. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis. New York: KTAV, 1974.

Jonge, M. de. “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” NovT 44 (2002): 371-92.

Kee, H. C. “Models of Community in the Literature of Postexilic Judaism.” Pages 17-54 in Who Are the People of God? Early Christian Models of Community. New Haven: Yale University, 1995.

Klauck, H.-J. “Brotherly Love In Plutarch and in 4 Maccabees.” Pages 144-56 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians. Edited by E. Ferguson and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Malamat, A. “You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself: A Case of Misinterpretation?” Pages 111–17 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte (Fest-schrift R. Rendtorff). Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990.

Maston, T. B. Biblical Ethics. A Guide to the Ethical Message of the Scriptures from Genesis through Revelation. Cleveland: World Publishing, 1967.

Oegema, G. S. “Love Your Neighbour as Yourself: Jesuanic or Mosaic?” BN 116 (2003): 77-86.

88 Sacra Scriptura

1

Oegema, G. S. “Ethics in the Noncanonical Jewish Writings.” Pages 321–28 in vol. 2 of NIDB.

Schnabel, E. J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT 2/16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985.

Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited by M. Black, G. Vermes, F. Miller, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87.

Slingerland, H. D. “The Nature of Nomos (Law) within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” JBL 105 (1986): 39-48.

Zerbe, G. M. Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts. JSPSup 13. Shef eld: Shef eld Academic, 1993.

6

THE ODES OF SOLOMON: THEIR RELATION TO SCRIPTURE AND THE CANON

IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY*

James Hamilton Charlesworth

1 The Odes of Solomon have elicited some of the most diverse conclusions of any ancient composition. After their publication by J. R. Harris in 1909, the leadings scholars in the Academy issued publications on the Odes. The list is a veritable Who’s Who at the beginning of the twentieth century; note the names of leading savants: E. A. Abbott, B. W. Bacon, P. Batiffol, J. H. Bernard, C. Bruston, R. Bultmann, R. H. Charles, G. Diettrich, W. Frankenberg, H. Gressmann, H. Grimme, H. Gunkel, A. Harnack,2 A. Mingana, G. Kittel, J. Labourt, J. Lindblom, A. Loisy, G. R. S. Mead, E. Nestle, E. Schürer, J. Wellhausen, T. Zahn, and J. de Zwaan. After a long period of silence, due to a misperception that the Odes are to be branded Gnostic, many scholars are once again af rming the importance of the Odes for our understanding of the world out of which * I dedicate what follows to Michael Lattke. We have met in many countries, have authored many publications on the Odes of Solomon, and have learned from each other. Our lives have been shaped by a study of the Odes. They are mystical gems from the ancient world. 1. Athanasius, Exp. Ps. See PG 27, 324A, as well as the conclusion to the present study. 2. In 1910 A. Harnack argued that the Odes were composed by a Jew and then redacted by a Christian. They were thus composite; some were Jewish and others were added or interpolated by a Christian. In 1921, Harnack was convinced by Harris’s arguments and “capitulated.” He then concluded: “Ich stimme ihm bei, dass die Oden eine Einheit sind und christlichen Ursprungs;…” (p. 7). See Harnack, Ein Jüdisch-Christliches Psalmbuch aus dem ersten Jahrhundert (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1910), and Harnack’s review of Harris and Mingana in TLZ 46 (1921): 6–7. Harnack was obviously in uenced by Kittle’s demonstration of the unity in the Odes; see G. Kittle, Die Oden Salomos: Überarbeitet oder Ein-heitlich? (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament 16; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchandlung, 1914).

90 Sacra Scriptura

1

Early “Christianity” emerged. It is therefore appropriate,3 on the 100th anniversary of Harris’s discovery of a Syriac manuscript of the Odes and their rst edition, to celebrate the use of the Odes during the formative years of the Church and similar innuendoes mirrored in the extant manu-scripts. It is also a pleasure to dedicate my research to a good friend and a leading light on the Odes, Michael Lattke. In the 1960s, when I began my focus on the Odes of Solomon, the consensus, if there was any, was that this collection of poetry was Gnostic and late second century. Now, almost all scholars agree that the Odes should not be branded as Gnostic (and thus discarded as heretical),4 took their nal shape between 100 and 125,5 re ect the same compo-sitional hand,6 and represent a time when Early Judaism, “Christianity,”7 and an early form of gnosis (as in the Gospel of Truth and the Hymn of the Pearl)8 shaped compositions.9 Continuing into the present from the 3. The lecture was given in 2009, one hundred years after Professor Harris recognized that the Odes were preserved in a Syriac manuscript in his own of ce. 4. J. H. Charlesworth, Critical Re ections on the Odes of Solomon. Vol. 1, Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John (JSPSup 22; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic, 1998), 176-91. H. Koester now states: “The Odes of Solomon may indeed not deserve the title of a “Gnostic Hymn-book,” but the Gnostic origin and character of a considerable portion of its imagery and metaphorical language cannot be doubted…” (Introduction to the New Testa-ment [2d ed.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000], 223–24). See also M. Lattke, Oden Salomos (Fontes Christiani 19; Basel: Herder, 1995), 34, and The Odes of Solomon: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 13. 5. See Charlesworth, Critical Re ections on the Odes of Solomon, 15; M. Lattke, “Dating the Odes of Solomon,” Antichthon 27 (1993): 45–59, and The Odes of Solomon: A Commentary, 7–10, 14; B. McNeal, ‘The Provenance of the Odes of Solomon’ (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1977), and “The Odes of Solomon and the Scriptures,” OrChr 67 (1983): 104–22. McNeal concludes that the Odes are contemporaneous with Hermas, Polycarp, Valentinus, the Acts of John, and 4 Ezra. 6. M. Lattke, “Zur Bildersprache der Oden Salomos,” Symbolon NS 6 (1982): 95–110. J. Quasten rightly summarizes the view of scholars that the Odes seem to be the work of one person. Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht: Spectrum: Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1962), 1:160–68. 7. Murray judged that Aphrahat (Dem. 524.3–7) knew the Odes from oral traditions but Ephrem was in uenced by imagery in Ode 11 (Hymns on Paradise); see R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). 8. See H. M. Schenke, Die Herkunft des sogenannten Evangelium Veritatis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959) see esp. 26–29, where he warns that it is only speculation that the Odes and the Gospel of Truth come from the same circles. R. Schnackenburg pointed out “striking parallels” between the Odes and the Gospel of Truth. See his The Gospel According to St John (trans. J. Smyth; New York: Crossroad, 1987), 1:144–45.

6. CHARLESWORTH The Odes of Solomon 91

earliest published research on the Odes can lead to an appreciation of the genius of the Odist who, as E. A. Abbott stated in 1912, was imbued with Hebraic thought, exhibited “highly poetic originality,” and thought with “personi cations,” not “abstractions.”10

The Odes of Solomon and Scripture In the following essay I will focus on one question: To what extent, and why, are the Odes of Solomon a likely witness to the evolution of the Christian canon of Scriptures and how were they used or appreciated in early Christian communities? The perception and use of the Odes as Scripture—God’s divine Word to the righteous ones—will be explored chronologically, beginning with the earliest witness to the document. 1. Papyrus Bodmer XI is a Greek copy of the Odes of Solomon that dates from the third century. P72 is a miscellany that contains Bodmer Papyrus V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and XX. The papyrus is a collection of apparently diverse documents. E. J. Epp judges P72 to be “the most ancient example” of a collection of Unexpected Books in “New Testa-ment” Manuscripts.11 The collection contains the only Greek copy of the Odes of Solomon. This pseudepigraphon has elicited wide-ranging assessments, ranging from an Essene composition to a Patristic creation. Who and for what reason would one bring together the following texts (and most likely in this order)?

Nativity of Mary or Apocalypse of James (BodPap V), The Corinthian correspondence with Paul and 3 Corinthians (BodPap X) Ode of Solomon 11 (BodPap XI)12 Jude 1–25 (BodPap VII)

9. See the chart of Jewish and “Christian” elements in the Odes discerned by J. M. Charlesworth in The Earliest Christian Hymnbook: The Odes of Solomon (Eugene, Ore.: Cascade, 2009), xviii–xix. 10. E. A. Abbott, Light on the Gospel from an Ancient Poet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), 518. 11. E. J. Epp, “Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 491. 12. For images, see J. M. Charlesworth, ed., The Odes of Solomon: Papyri and Leather Manuscripts of the Odes of Solomon (Dickerson Series of Facsimiles 1; Winston-Salem, N.C.: Hunter, 1981), 8–12. The book appeared under the same title in 2012 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012). Also, see Bibliotheca Bodmeriana: La collection des papyrus Bodmer (Munich: Saur, 2000).

92 Sacra Scriptura

1

Melito of Sardis’ Peri Pascha (BodPap XIII) A hymn that celebrates Christ the bridegroom (BodPap XII) The Apology of Phileas (BodPap XX) Psalms 33–34 (BodPap IX) 1–2 Peter (BodPap VIII)

Most likely, some Christian collected these diverse texts which were copied by many scribes.13 He placed the Odes between 3 Corinthians and Jude. This person may not have been thinking about Scripture or even the canon, but he most likely was gathering together some texts for study and meditation. The small size of the manuscript (6 × 5¾ inches) may indicate that the collection was designed for private use. The collection appears to have belonged to a member of the so-called orthodox catholic Church. If Jude and 1–2 Peter are correctly judged to have been written against an early form of Gnosticism, as some scholars contend,14 then this collection may have been intended to help someone protect himself from Gnosticism, which was considered a heresy by many Christians in the third century. Collections of documents like P72 help us understand not only the long formation of the canon but also the works appreciated by early Christians. The collector found inspiration by re ecting on the Nativity of Mary, 3 Corinthians, Jude, Pss 33–34, 1–2 Peter, along with the Odes. Why did he not include Romans? Is it because he had another collection? Should we assume this is the only collection he possessed? More ques-tions arise, but we do not know what was also in the collector’s room or nearby. The eleventh Ode of Solomon was clearly copied from an earlier Greek manuscript of the Odes. On p. 59 of the manuscript, he omits a sentence and then supplies it in the bottom margin.15 The Vorlage of the extant Greek manuscript was probably copied in the late second century.16 The original composition then must antedate that time. Sometime between

13. E. G. Turner discerned six hands; see his The Typology of the Codex (Phila-delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), esp. 79–80. 14. See esp. C. H. Talbert, “II Peter and the Delay of the Parousia,” VC 20 (1966): 137–45, and E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (Studies in Biblical Theology 41; London: SCM, 1964), 169. 15. For an image, see Charlesworth, Papyri and Leather Manuscripts of the Odes of Solomon, 10 [OdesSol 11.13–17]. With the support and permission of the Trustees of the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, I examined the papyrus on 1 September 1975. The word at the end of line 6, which is just before the omission, the scribe has used a blunt stylus and the Greek is dif cult to read. 16. Lattke judges the Greek Vorlage dated to the second-third century CE. See Lattke, The Odes of Solomon, 3.


100 and 125 is the most obvious period for the complex imagery in the Odes, which is a mixture of Jewish thought, early Christian images, and the earliest vestiges of Gnosticism. Since Ode 11 in Bodmer Papyrus XI begins with , it appears that the Ode was copied from “a collection bearing the title Odes of Solomon.”17 2. Pistis Sophia18 is a Coptic manuscript that dates from the fourth century and derives from a composition that may be dated to the third century. In 1812, F. Münter, a Danish bishop, published the Pistis Sophia (British Museum MS. Add. 5114) as Odae gnosticae Salomoni tributae.19 Münter began a long process in which Gnosticism was misunderstood and poorly de ned and then used to categorize the Odes, but he rightly perceived that the author of the Pistis Sophia attributed them to Solomon. Four of the ve excerpts of the Odes in the Pistis Sophia begin with words such as “prophesied concerning it formerly in the Ode of Solomon.” The other excerpt was introduced as “prophesied formerly through Solomon.” Note how Ode 1 is introduced:

My Lord ( ), Your Light-Power prophesied ( ) concerning these words formerly through Solomon ).

Also, note that the composition is categorized as an “Ode” ( ). This is the noun used to refer to the compositions chanted in the earliest Christian services; recall Col 3:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and chant psalms, hymns, (and) spiritual odes ( ) with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (3:16)

Thus, in the third century some Christians broadly de ned and categorized the Odes as prophecy, and attributed them to Solomon as “Odes.” These individuals believed that “the Lord” had spoken to them through these Odes. While no terms such as “Scripture” or “canon” appear in the Pistis Sophia, it would be foolish to claim that the Odes were not judged to be equal in divine inspiration to the other compositions attributed to Solomon, such as Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Pss 72 and 127. We scholars today categorize the Odes of Solomon as a pseudepigraphon that was composed in the early centuries of Christianity; however, the 17. These words represent the judgment of Lattke and I am in concurrence. See ibid. 18. For a discussion of all the manuscripts and publications to be listed, see Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, and Lattke, The Odes of Solomon. 19. F. Münter, Odae gnosticae Salomoni tributae (Copenhagen: Schultz, 1812).

94 Sacra Scriptura

1

attribution to Solomon was not questioned by those who passed on the work. The Odes were deemed the work of the wisest man in the world. The third-century date of Papyrus Bodmer XI and the same date for the composition of the Pistis Sophia represents a time when the Christian collection of scriptural texts, the canon, was developing, and taking de -nite shape. The canon was far from complete and the collection was not closed. As is evident when we study the way the Odes are excerpted in Papyrus Bodmer XI and the Pistis Sophia, we become more aware of a fact that has not been adequately appreciated. That is, in observing the use of the Odes by early Christians, we can see much better how our canon was taking shape. It is the use of texts that were considered “Scrip-ture” and full of God’s word that fundamentally helped shape the canon. 3. In the early fourth century and in his Divine Institutes, Lactantius (c. 240 to c. 320) discussed how the Virgin Mary became pregnant “without any intercourse with a man.”20 He comments that she “was made fruitful by the Spirit of God.” Lactantius argues that such an occurrence should not seem incredulous because God may do whatever God wishes. Lactantius’ major source for his conclusion is not theologi-cal re ection; it is the evidence from ancient prophecy. Note his sources:

And this might have appeared incredible, had not the prophets many ages previously foretold its occurrence. Thus Solomon speaks: “The womb of a virgin was strengthened, and conceived; and a virgin was made fruitful, and became a mother in great pity.” Likewise the prophet Isaiah, whose words are these: “Therefore God Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and ye shall call His name Emmanuel.” What can be more manifest than this? (Div. Inst. 4.12.3)

The translator of Lactantius for The Ante-Nicene Fathers, from which the quotation was taken, could locate the second source in Isa 7:14 but could not discern the origin of the rst reference. He could neither

nd the quotation in the Old Testament nor in any of “the writings of Solomon.”21 Can we nd the source of Lactantius’ quotation: “Solomon in ode undeuicesima ita dicit: ‘In rmatus est uterus uirginis et accepit fetum, et grauata est et facta est in multa miseratione mater uirgo’ ”? Lactantius, as is well known today, was quoting from the Odes of Solomon:

20. All English quotations from Lactantius are from the convenient collection: Lactantius, “The Divine Institutes,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (trans. W. Fletcher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970 [the introductory note is dated 1886]), 7:110. 21. W. Fletcher in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:110 n. 13.


The womb of the Virgin took (it), And she received conception and gave birth.

So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. [OdesSol 19.6–7]22

It is certain that Lactantius is citing Ode 19 when he wrote:

The virgin’s womb was opened And received a fetus,

And the virgin became pregnant And was made a mother amid great pity.23 [my poetic arrangement]

It is understandable why a translator of a Latin text might miss the source of Lactantius’ quotation: he worked prior to the discovery of a manu-script of the Odes, such as we have today, and the text of Lactantius has many variants at this place.24 In some manuscripts of the Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Lactan-tius wrote apud Solomonem (sic) ita scriptum est, “it was written by Solomon thus:…” There is thus no reference to the Odes. Apparently the best manuscripts of the Divine Institutes has Lactantius attribute the excerpt to Ode 19: Solomon in ode undeuicesima ita dicit (Div. Inst. 4.12.3): “In Ode 19, Solomon said as follows.”25 There are numerous variants for ode undeuicesima; note the following: odeum XX, psalmo undeuicensimo.26 In 1912, E. A. Abbott, misled by the variants in the manuscripts of Lactantius, offered the misleading opinion that it is likely the speci ca-tion of the number of the Ode may not derive from Lactantius.27 Most scholars correctly assume that the numeration is original to Lactantius. In the same year as Abbot published his major study on the Odes, J. H. Bernard correctly argued that the speci cation of the number of the 22. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, 82. 23. A. Bowen and P. Garnsey, trans., Lactantius, Divine Institutes (Translated Texts for Historians 40; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003), 241. 24. Moreover, Harris’s discussions of Lactantius’ text seem confused or contra-dictory. See the discussion of this issue by Abbott, Light on the Gospel from an Ancient Poet, 2–3. 25. A. Bowen and P. Garnsey: “Solomon in song 19 says as follows: ‘The virgin’s womb was opened and received a fetus, and the virgin became pregnant and was made a mother amid great pity.’ They also refer to the discovery of a Syriac manuscript of the Odes in 1905 [an error for 1909]” (Bowen and Garnsey, trans, Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 241). 26. See the apparatus criticus by E. Heck and A. Wlosok, eds., L. Caelivs Firmianvs Lactantivs, Divinarvm Institvtionvm (Bibliotheca Tevbneriana; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 347. 27. Abbott, Light on the Gospel from an Ancient Poet, 3.

96 Sacra Scriptura

1

Ode indicates that “Lactantius knew the Odes as a collection.”28 More recently, Lattke astutely states: “The only conclusion that can be drawn from Lactantius’s Latin quotation…is that he used a collection of the Odes of Solomon in numerical order.”29 As we seek to discern the in uence of the Odes on early Christians, it is imperative to observe the luminous stature of Lactantius. He was a distinguished Christian apologist and a scholar. The Emperor Constan-tine chose him to tutor his son, Crispus. The sixth-century author of the “Prologue” to a selection of the Sibylline Oracles saluted Lactantius’ use of the Sibylline Oracles30 and called him “a not inconsiderable philoso-pher.”31 Lactantius wrote the Divine Institutes as a treatise to commend the truth of Christianity and to provide for the rst time a systematic explanation of Christianity. He chose the Odes as a proof text. To discern the use of the Odes in early Christian communities, it is also imperative to grasp that Lactantius thought Solomon composed the Odes of Solomon. Moreover, he used the Odes to prove that Mary was a Virgin when she conceived Jesus. Lactantius seems to place the authority of the Odes on the same level as the book of Isaiah, one of the most in uential books of prophecy in Christendom. Lattke rightly surmises that the Odes of Solomon were considered by Lactantius as part of the Old Testament canon.32 In fact, since Lactantius cites Solomon before Isaiah, he may have judged Solomon’s prophecy even more precise and astute. Ode 19 is clearly more apropos of Mary’s virginity than Isa 11. One can imagine how Lactantius, thinking that Solomon composed the Odes of Solo- mon, was convinced that he had proven his point. Solomon prophesied about Jesus’ virginal conception; thus, it was a fact. Quite stunning are Lactantius’ words: “What can be put more plainly than that?”33 As almost all of us know today, Lactantius cannot make his point because Solomon did not write Ode 19. It is clearly posterior to Mary’s conception. Yet, such asides should not lead us away from the honor and prestige this great teacher gave to Solomon and the Odes of Solomon. Lactantius’ quotation and use of the Odes provides us an enlightening

28. J. H. Bernard, The Odes of Solomon (Texts and Studies 8.2; London: Cambridge University Press, 1912), 5. 29. Lattke, The Odes of Solomon, 2. 30. Lactantius, Divine Institutes 1.6. Lactantius used the Sibylline Oracles to prove that they were inspired and proved the existence of only one God. 31. See J. J. Collins in OTP 1:327–28. The citation is from SibOr Prologue 75. 32. Lattke, The Odes of Solomon, 2. 33. Bowen and Garnsey, trans., Lactantius, Divine Institute, 241.


glimpse of how important this collection of poems was to many early Christians, not only Lactantius but all those who deemed him the great teacher and revered his teaching, apologies, and rhetoric. 4. In the sixth or seventh century an anonymous person, named Pseudo-Athanasius, compiled a list of books.34 It lists among “the antilegomena of the Old Testament” all of “the Psalms and Odes of Solomon,” in that order. Prior to this notation are listed some books attributed to the Maccabees, after them is listed Susanna. For our purposes, what is of great importance is that Pseudo-Athanasius mentions “the Psalms and Odes of Solomon”; they are among the Old Testament antilegomena. At the very least, Pseudo-Athanasius is one of the very few who seems to know enough about the content and interpretation of the Odes to make a judgment about their place within the Christian faith. Often, in the early Church, those who discussed the canon of Scripture apparently either did not know about the existence of the Odes or did not mention them when contemplating the canonical collection. 5. In the ninth century, Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, was honored with a stichometric list of sacred books.35 The stichometry preserves categories such as “divine writings accepted by the church and canonized” and the writings of the Old Testament “not accepted by the church.” Among the latter writings are noted the Psalms and Odes of Solomon, in that order; and they are placed after Sirach and before Esther. The Psalms and Odes of Solomon were judged to be like the Revelation of John, which was categorized among the writings of the New Testament “that are spoken against,” a category which included the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Peter. A book in our canon, Revelation, is being challenged as “spoken against.” That means the contours of canon are not yet clari ed. One may imagine that some Christians in the ninth century knew about the Odes and judged them to be close to and not just on the fringes of the canon. Most likely, at least a few Christians would have agreed with Lactantius and the compiler of Papyrus Bodmer XI and included the Odes among “divine writings.”

34. For the Greek and English and a good discussion, see Lattke, The Odes of Solomon, 1–2. 35. For the Greek and English and a good discussion, see ibid., 1.

98 Sacra Scriptura

1

6. In about the tenth century, a Syriac scribe copied the Odes of Solomon. The extant Manuscript, Codex Nitriensis, is in the British Museum (BM MS. Add. 14538). The beginning is lost; only OdesSol 17.7b–42.20 [the end] is preserved. It is conceivable that Codex Nitriensis is one of the 250 manuscripts that Abbot Moses the Nisibene obtained in Meso-potamia for St. Maria Deipara in the Wâdi el Natrûn, approximately 60 miles west of Cairo.36 Thence, we know that the Odes were deemed important, perhaps scriptural, not only in Mesopotamia but also in Egypt. There should be no reason to doubt that the monks in the Monastery of St. Maria Deipara loved the Odes. I shall never forget hearing the singing of over 50 monks in that monastery. Had the Odes been chanted earlier in that monastery? The manuscript was identi ed in the British Museum by F. C. Burkitt in 1912.37 It had been in the British Museum for 70 years, unexamined, although it was catalogued in the 1870s by W. Wright.38 Since the Odes of Solomon precede the Psalms of Solomon, it is clear that the two collections were related and both were attributed to Solomon, saluted as the wisest man in Israel. The two collections are numbered sequentially, with the rst of the Psalms of Solomon, which proceed after the last of the Odes, numbered “43.” Most likely, the copying scribe and the one who copied his exemplar imagined that the attribution to Solomon was accurate. 7. In approximately the fteenth century, a Syriac scribe copied the Odes of Solomon. This manuscript has also lost its opening pages. It preserves OdesSol 3.1b to 42.20 [the end]. One hundred years ago, J. R. Harris identi ed this manuscript among “a heap of torn and stained paper leaves written in the Syriac language, which had been lying” on his shelves “for a long time, waiting for attention and not nding it. Amongst them was a bunch of leaves which I took to be a late copy of the conventional Syriac Psalter.” Harris was the rst one to nd a manuscript that contained the Odes of Solomon. Note his excitement: “We have shown that we have undoubtedly recovered the lost book of the Psalms and Odes of Solomon.”39 While manuscripts of the Odes and Psalms of Solomon have 36. See W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum (3 vols.; London: British Museum, 1870–1972), 1:iv. 37. F. C. Burkitt, “A New MS of the Odes of Solomon,” JTS 13 (1912): 372–85. Also see G. Kittel, “Eine zweite Handschrift der Oden Salomos,” ZNW 14 (1913): 79–93. 38. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, 2:1003–8. 39. J. R. Harris, “An Early Christian Hymn–Book,” Contemporary Review 95 (1909): 420–21.


been recovered, not one portion of the Book of the Acts of Solomon has been recovered (cf. 1 Kgs 11:41 [bis]; cf. 2 Chr 9:29). The manuscript Harris identi ed is named after him. As in Codex Nitriensis, Codex Harris preserves both the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon. The Odes are followed by the Psalms of Solomon; and again they are numbered sequentially. Each composition is labeled a “Psalm” ( ). Thus, the Odes of Solomon were transmit-ted with (and, in each case with the Syriac manuscripts, sequentially before) the Psalms of Solomon. Only one difference distinguishes the two collections; the Odes, in contrast to the so-called Psalms of Solomon, almost always conclude with : “Hallelujah.” Both collections were ostensibly assumed to be creations by Solomon. Most likely many learned Christians assumed they were the psalms composed by Solomon, since according to 1 Kgs 5:12, “his songs ( ) numbered 1005.” Hence, the Odes and Psalms of Solomon were accorded honor and considered part of sacra scriptura. Today, they are shelved in the Vatican under that category. Any study of ancient Scripture and any deep examination of the de nition and development of the canon should include these two psalm books, especially when one considers the evidence supporting the fact that they were considered sacred and often studied in order to gain a better understanding of God as well as used in worship by many Christians for over 1500 years. The nal re ection mirrors one of the earliest published scholarly re ections in the twentieth century.40 It is likely, even probable, that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, which Nicephorus categorized with the Odes, knew the Odes of Solomon and most likely called the author “another prophet ( ).” The author of Barnabas, who like the Odist most likely lived between 90 and 125, often refers to his various sources, canonical and so-called extra-canonical, as “the Scripture says” (5.4), “the prophet says” (4.4), or “another prophet says” (11.9). For the author of Barnabas, a prophet is one who spoke God’s Word to God’s people. As is certainly clear, and as was stated succinctly by Kirsopp Lake in 1912:

Barnabas, like I. Clement and Hermas, became canonical in some circles: it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as Scripture, and is referred to by Origen as a Catholic Epistle, while it is included in the Codex Sinaiticus among the books of the New Testament, not, as is sometimes said, as an appendix, but following immediately after the Apocalypse, without any suggestion that it belonged to a different category of books.41

40. See Harris and Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 2:49–53. 41. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (LCL 24; London: Heinemann; Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1912 [reprinted many times]), 1:339.

100 Sacra Scriptura

1

Many of these texts are lost; they are not in the canon, including the Apocalypse of Adam.42 With this re ections, we may now examine the citation of the Odes by the author of Barnabas:

Consider this, my brothers: if the Lord allowed himself to suffer for our sake, even though he was the Lord of the entire world, the one to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make a human according to our image and likeness,” how then did he allow himself to suffer by the hand of humans: Learn this! Because the prophets received his gracious gift, they prophesied looking ahead to him. He allowed himself to suffer in order to destroy death and to show that there is a resurrection of the dead. For he had to be manifest in the esh. And he allowed himself to suffer in order to redeem the promise given to the fathers and to show, while he was on earth preparing a new people for himself, that he is to execute judgment after raising the dead. (Barn. 5:5–7)43

Some of these traditions in this excerpt appear in Rom 15:8 and should be acknowledged as a possible source. However, a much better source for the author of Barnabas is Ode 31:

And they condemned me when I stood up, Me who had not been condemned.

Then they divided my spoil, Though nothing was owed them.

But I endured and held my peace and was silent, That I might not be disturbed by them.

But I stood undisturbed like a solid rock. Which is continuously pounded by columns of waves and endures.

And I bore their bitterness because of humility; That I might redeem my nation and instruct it.

42. According to Codex Constantinopolitanus, the quotation in Barn. 2.10 is from “the Apocalypse of Adam.” The quotation is as follows “[A] smell of sweet savor to the Lord is a heart that glori es him that made it.” This sounds very much like the Odes, esp. Ode 11. The pseudepigraphon in question, called “the Apoca-lypse of Adam,” does not seem to be the one in OTP 1. Could it be lost portions of “the Apocalypse of Adam” excerpted in the Mani Codex 48,16-50,7? Is it one of the “apocalypses of Adam” mentioned by Epiphanius in Panarion 26.8.1? We presently cannot answer such questions, since we do not have these early compositions. 43. B. D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers (LCL 25; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 2:27.


And that I might not nullify the promises to the patriarchs, To whom I was promised for the salvation of their offspring.44 Hallelujah. (OdesSol 31.8–13)45

The narrative source of the Ode 31 and Barn. 5 is Jesus’ cruci xion and suffering. Thus, the Odist’s reference to “redeem my nation,” or literally “redeem my people,” may have in uenced “preparing a new people” in Barnabas. The translation of “the promises to the patriarchs” is literally “the promises to the heads of the fathers” in the Odes and that seems echoed in Barnabas’ “the promise given to the fathers” (

). Later, in 11.9–10, the author of Barnabas refers “to another prophet” and this may well be the Odist, as previously intimated. Note that the passage refers to “beautiful trees” rising above “a river.” This may be an echo of OdesSol 11.16a–e: “I saw blooming (or beautiful) and fruit-bearing trees… And a river of gladness was irrigating them.” It is, moreover, conceivable that the author of Barnabas would refer to the Odist as “another prophet” ( ). This topos in Barnabas (cf. 11.9; 12.1 [a quotation from 4 Ezra 4.33 and 5.5]) often con ates with “Scripture says” ( , e.g. 4.7; cf. 5.4). If the author of Barnabas was conceivably in uenced by the Odes, then we have literary evidence of the Odes. If I am correct, then we have found the earliest reference to the Odes, since Barnabas antedates 130.46 Finally, as we contemplate how early Christians perceived the Odes in relation to Scripture, it is important to highlight a special rhetorical dimension of the Odes. Intermittently, the Odist continues composing as if Christ is speaking with no rhetorical clue provided to indicate the shift from the Odist to Christ. The closest parallels in early Jewish and Chris-tian writings to this linguistic shift are in the Gospel of John, when the Evangelist moves from his own thoughts to a speech by Jesus without

44. See Lattke for the translation of this dif cult line; see M. Lattke, Oden Salomos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (NTOA 41/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 3:53–57. 45. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, 117. 46. Many scholars date Barnabas between 70 and 100 and locate him in or near Alexandria. See F. L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983 [2d. ed. revised by Cross and E. A. Living-stone]), 134. Barnabas dates after 70, because it refers to the destruction of the Temple built by Herod, and before 135, since the author believes another Temple “will be built in the name of the Lord” (16.7) and that most likely antedates Hadrian’s building a Temple to Aphrodite [or Jupiter] soon after 135 [whose remains are now visible in Old Jerusalem]. See the similar conclusion of Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, 2:7.

102 Sacra Scriptura

1

making the shift explicit (see esp. John 15–17 in which Jesus’ words are those of the Evangelist to his community [as is almost universally recognized]). Early Christians would most likely have assumed that these passages in the Odes are ex ore Christi; if so, then those who heard the Odes read aloud in worship services would imagine that Christ was speaking directly to them. Here is an example of this device; as is usual I add the incipit, ex ore Christi (Christ Speaks):

I rested on the Spirit of the Lord,47 And She lifted me up to heaven;

And caused me to stand on my feet in the Lord’s high place, Before His perfection and His glory, Where I continued glorifying (Him) by the composition of His Odes.

(Christ Speaks) (The Spirit) brought me forth before the Lord’s face. And because I was the Son of Man,48 I was named the Light, the Son of God. [OdesSol 36.1–3]49

Those who believed that Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God would have known that the Odist wrote that he was composing the Lord’s Odes and that Christ had directly spoken to them, as he was being exalted before “the Lord’s face” and indeed “in the Lord’s high place.” In seeking to discern the scriptural value of the Odes in many early Christian communities, it is pertinent to note that in the rst and second centuries CE, within Judaism and within Christianity, scriptures evolved in relation with liturgies. Among the sociological phenomena, liturgical compositions were taking shape, spontaneous prayer was being replaced with statutory prayers, and the canon of scripture was evolving along with a so-called canon of liturgy. The Odes help us comprehend such interrelated developments. They were often considered “Scripture”; thus they help us understand the uid state of “the canon.” They are also liturgical works, like the Psalter (the Psalms of David); thus they provide windows through which we may imagine early worship. The Odes were thus formative for Christian faith and belief through the practice of hearing Scripture and reciting liturgy. 47. See Lattke’s rendering of this line in his Oden Salomos: Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar, 3:125–31. 48. See Charlesworth, “The Naming of the Son of Man, the Light, the Son of God: How the Parables of Enoch May Have In uenced the Odes of Solomon,” “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke (ed. P. Allen, M. Franzmann and R. Strelan; Early Christian Studies 12; Strath eld, NSW: St. Paul’s Publications, 2007), 31–43. 49. Charlesworth, The Odes of Solomon, 126–27.


In summary, there is now signi cant and diverse evidence that the Odes were considered prophetic. In some Christian communities, the Odes functioned similar to, or identical with, Scripture, God’s Word to God’s people. As these observations become clear, it is pertinent to remember that the Epistle of Barnabas shares with the Odes the same historical period when the canon was in its initial phases. Barnabas was read as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria and other Early Scholars of the Church. It was also collected with the “New Testament Canon” in Codex Sinaiticus.

Conclusion While is it informative to perceive how the Odes were appreciated in the early centuries of the Church, it is still quite remarkable that many of the early scholars of the church never mentioned them; the list would include Irenaeus (c. 130–200), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), Origen (c. 185–c. 254), Athanasius (c. 296–373), Jerome (c. 342–420), and Augustine (354–430), and conceivably also Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340). How do we evaluate this silence regarding the Odes by many early luminaries of the church? On the one hand, these savants may not have known the Odes, and perhaps there never was a Latin translation of them that could have been used in the West.50 On the other hand, the scholars of the church may have considered the Odes not worthy of mention for several reasons, such as their apparent naïve Doceticism and deeply Jewish nature. Perhaps the most importance reason is because the Odes are poetry51 and unless they are explicitly cited, poems like the Odes leave ambiguous echoes in subsequent literature. If the connection is primarily via symbols and metaphors, any connection becomes dif cult to ascertain when one includes for possible in uence the hundreds of writings that are prior to, or contemporaneous with, the Odes, thus sharing the symbolic and linguistic world of the Bible with the Odist. Only one example must suf ce. It is the only alleged passage in the Greek Fathers that may indicate “direct dependence” from the Odes. The passage is found in the opening words of Cyril of Jerusalem’s (c. 315–386) catechetical lectures to candidates for baptism: 50. J. R. Harris argued that a Latin collection of the Odes existed because of the quotation by Lactantius. This is a rather “precarious” inference, as Bernard stated in The Odes of Solomon, 4. Harris and Mingana (The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 2:300) nally argued that Lactantius’ reference should be explained by “a mis-understood Syriac text.” 51. See Lattke, Hymnus: Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnolo-gie (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 282.

104 Sacra Scriptura

1

Already is there on you the savour of blessedness, O ye who are soon to be enlightened; already are you gathering spiritual owers, to weave heavenly crowns withal; already hath the fragrance of the Holy Spirit refreshed you; already are you at the entrance hall of the King’s house: may you be brought into it by the King! For now the blossoms of the trees have budded; may but the fruit likewise be perfected.52

No one should deny the parallels—even “striking similarity”53—between Cyril’s images and words and many passages in the Odes, especially the numerous references to the “crown” of salvation in OdesSol 1.1–5; 5.12; 9.8–11; 17.1, and 20.7, and the description of those planted in Paradise in Ode 11. But most scholars would also admit that it is virtually impossible to prove any in uence of the Odes on Cyril. And yet, the possibility should not be ignored. In the end, close parallels, such as the example above, cannot be used to prove that an early Christian scholar knew and was in uenced by the Odes; yet, the vast parallels between the luminaries of the church and the Odes that were mentioned by Harris and Mingana may suggest that the Odes were more widely in uential than modern critical scholars, who are afraid of parallelomania, can possibly prove or perhaps imagine. In searching for possible echoes of the Odes in extant literature,54 it is help-ful to keep in mind the arguments that Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–c. 107),55 the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (prior to 130), 2 Clement (prior to 150),56 Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340),57 Aphrahat (c. early fourth century),58

52. From the discussion by Harris and Mingana in The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 2:17. 53. Bernard’s words in The Odes of Solomon, 46. 54. Harris and Mingana claimed numerous passages in the Acts of Thomas agreed “closely” with the Odes. Harris and Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 2:36–40. In my judgment, none of these parallels indicates direct borrow-ing; the images are generic and shared with many biblical texts. 55. See ibid., 2:40–49. V. Corwin is convinced that Ignatius knew and was in uenced by the Odes. See Corwin, Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), 69. 56. See K. Wengst, Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemens-brief, Schrift an Diognet (Schriften des Urchristentums 2: Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984), esp. 214 and 227. I am grateful to M. Lattke for this citation. Lattke wisely suggests that 2 Clem. 3:1 and 20:5 “may derive from Ode 41:9” (The Odes of Solomon, 9). 57. Harris and Mingana were asserted that “Eusebius of Caesarea was acquainted with the Odes.” The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 2:29; also see pp. 29–37. 58. R. Murray has argued Aphrahat (Dem. 524.3–7) knew the Odes from oral traditions but Ephrem (Hymns on Paradise) was in uenced by imagery in Ode 11. See Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom.


and Ephraem Syrus (c. 306–73)59 conceivably knew and were in uenced by the Odes, and that the full collection took de nitive shape before 125 CE within the Johannine Community.60 It is not improbable that Harris and Mingana were correct to imagine that Theophilus of Antioch (late second century) knew the Odes as “his Church Hymnal.”61 The full list of those who were in uenced by the Odes would include those Christians who knew the Odes but mentioned them in a work that is lost. It is not improbable that those who were moved by the Odes may never have felt the need to mention them in works that have survived. Always, we need to be cognizant of the limits of critical historical scholarship. Quite striking is the discovery of how often luminaries have seen the Odes as ancient prophecy. Note the list:

In the third century, and earlier, as is obvious in Barnabas, Papyrus Bodmer XI, and the Pistis Sophia, some Christians categorized the Odes as prophecy or belonging with Scripture.

In the early fourth century, Lactantius judged the Odes to represent early Israelite prophecy.

The Greek manuscript and the Syriac manuscripts were copied by scribes who most likely believed they were copying one of the cherished compositions of Solomon, who “excelled all the kings of the earth in wealth and wisdom” (2 Chr 9:22). The scribes may also have imagined the composition was thus shaped by prophecy.

The author of the Epistle of Barnabas most likely referred to the Odist as “another prophet.”

Our study has been fascinating and enlightening. The Odes were mentioned and passed on as prophetic Scripture or, at least, as a witness to ancient prophecy and God’s Divine Word. It is also clear that the Odes were important to leaders of the so-called Great Church (the author of Barnabas, Lactantius, and most likely the compiler of BodPap XI). They were also deemed inspired and full of prophecy by some on the fringes of the Church (the compiler of the Pistis Sophia and his community). Early Christians, like those who revered the Greek Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, when they thought about demons and Solomon tended to revere the Testament of Solomon 59. See R. Harris and A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (2 vols.; Manchester: Manchester University, 1920), 2:18–29. 60. J. M. Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 65–97. 61. Harris and Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, 2:55; see pp. 53–55.

106 Sacra Scriptura

1

over the “canonical” book of Kings.62 After all, the Christian in this Dialogue stood “with con dence” because he obtained insight “out of the mouth of Solomon himself.” For those who believed that the Odes of Solomon and the Testament of Solomon were authentic compositions by Solomon, another conclusion may seem self-evident. These books for such believers were clearly more important than many of the “canonical” books; they are from the Son of David, the wisest man to whom God gave special esoteric knowledge. Finally, perhaps Christians today would nd it attractive to have the Odes of Solomon in an appendix to their Bible.63 That decision would not doubt have pleased R. Bultmann, who opined that the Odes of Solomon preserves the type of Semitic poetry (“Dichtung”) represented by the source of Jesus’ sayings and speech (“die Quelle der Worte und Reden Jesu”) or “Revelation-Discourses” (“Offenbarungsreden”) in the Gospel of John.64 It is conceivable that the Odes are from the same community that produced the various editions of the Gospel of John.65 That possi-bility increases in probability when one perceives that both John and the Odes have been judged to be naively docetic (perhaps an anachronistic term),66 and that the sessionionists that left the Johannine Community, clearly exposed by the Johannine Epistles, were tainted with Docetisim (as evident in the Acts of John, the Trimorphic Protenoia, and the Apocalypse of Peter).67 The Odes of Solomon antedate some writings in the New Testament, since some New Testament canonical works may postdate 125 CE. The 62. So also, D. C. Duling in OTP 1:940. 63. Years after this lecture was presented, I received a copy of a book that intersperses the Odes among the documents in the canonical New Testament. See A New New Testament (ed. Hal Taussig; Boston: Houghton Mif in Harcourt, 2013). Also, see my review in The Inquirer [Philadelphia] on 3 December 2013; reissued in www.FJCO-DSS-Events.org. 64. R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (ed. O. Merk; 9th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1984 [original 1948]), 362. 65. See Charlesworth, Exploring the Gospel of John, 65–97. 66. P. Batiffol concluded that the Odes are docetic; see his comments in Les Odes de Salomon (Paris: Lecoffre, 1911), 94–98. Also, Corwin (Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch, 102) judged the Odes to be “naively docetic.” E. Käsemann (The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 [trans. G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968]) concluded that John is naively docetic. J. Brownson (“The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,” JSP 2 [1988]: 46–69) argued that the Odes may have been composed by members of the group that left the Johannine Community. 67. See R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979), 110–16.


Odes are invaluable for understanding the origins and composition his-tory of John. The author of Barnabas might have deemed them prophetic and revelatory of Jesus’ life. Writings never canonized were often read along with the Scriptures in many early churches; for example, 1 Clement was read as scripture in Corinth about 170. To focus is to make only one aspect before us clear; in so doing all else becomes blurred. To focus only on the canon and works nally collected into it miscasts and shrouds all the other documents in which many Jews and Christians found God’s Word speaking to them. Hearing the Word of God is a better paradigm for understanding canon than regula dei (the rule of faith [which may be a judgment by those who are powerful]) or a list of books judged to be worthy. When one adds to these conclusions that the Odes had been chanted in some early Christian worship services,68 as indicated by the concluding “Hallelujah” in almost all Odes, then the Odes of Solomon should be recognized in two phenomena: in the development of the Christian canon and in the evolution and creation of liturgy.69 We have learned that, along with the Psalms of David, the Odes of Solomon provided “scriptural” inspiration, comfort, and a means of praising God for many early Chris-tians and their communities, in the West, Babylonia, and especially in the Levant. In his Expositio in Psalmos, Athanasius wrote: “For this One is truly Solomon, the One who frees” (Exp. Ps. 27, 324A). He clearly referred to Christ Jesus. We do not know if Athanasius knew the Odes of Solomon when he made that claim.70 We also do not know how old is the allegory that proclaims that Christ is Solomon.71 It is becoming clear that a study of the Bible includes sacra scriptura and such works are too voluminous for any closed canon. The reception of the Bible includes the study of works left out.

68. It is conceivable that the Jewish Odes were used in a few early synagogues. 69. Note the dream of Chuck Fromm and his Odes Project. Online: http:// www.theodesproject.com. 70. See Lattke, Oden Salomos, 19. 71. See Charlesworth, “Solomon and Jesus: The Son of David in the Ante-Markan Traditions (Mk 10:47),” in Biblical and Humane: A Festschrift for John H. Priest (ed. L. B. Elder, D. L. Barr, and E. S. Malbon; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 125–51. I argue that prior to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus was associated with the great miracle worker and wisest of all men, Solomon.

7

THE ODES OF SOLOMON IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY: REFLECTIONS ON SCRIPTURE AND CANON

Lee Martin McDonald

1. Introduction In recent years a considerable amount of scholarly attention has been focused on the Odes of Solomon, an early collection of Jewish Chris- tian hymns dating from the early second century CE. Following their modern discovery by J. Rendell Harris in 1909, many well-known scholars made signi cant contributions to our understanding of this early and intriguing collection of Christian songs. Although the Odes of Solomon were largely ignored for more than a generation between 1920 to approximately 1960, a new phase of research began in 1959–60 that has signi cantly advanced our understanding of this important collection. One can see many of the results of this inquiry in the works of James Charlesworth1 and Michael Lattke,2 but also in others as well (David

1. J. H. Charlesworth, Critical Re ections on the Odes of Solomon. Vol. 1, Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John (JSPSup 22; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic, 1998); but also his “Odes of Solomon (Late First to Early-Second Century A.D.): A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:725–71; (with Craig A. Evans) Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPSup 14; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 2; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic, 1993); and more recently, his The Earliest Christian Hymnbook (The Odes Project; Eugene, Oregon: Cascade, 2009). More recent articles include: “Odes of Solomon,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig A Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 749–52; “Odes of Solomon,” ABD 6:114–15; “Solomon, Odes of,” NIDB 5:326–27. Other sources are listed in the footnotes below. 2. See especially Michael Lattke, Odes of Solomon (trans. Marianne Ehrhardt; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). See also his monumental work, Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis (4 vols.; OBO 25/1; Freiburg: Éditions Universitaires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979–86); and “The Apocryphal Odes of Solomon and New Testament Writings,” ZNW 73 (1982): 194–301. A more extensive list of Lattke’s publications on the Odes of Solomon is to be found in his Hermeneia commentary, on pp. 640–41.

7. MCDONALD The Odes of Solomon in Ancient Christianity 109

Aune,3 Alan Culpepper4). The Odes of Solomon is demonstrably the oldest and largest surviving collection of ancient sacred Christian hymns. Scholars of the Odes of Solomon have long noticed the many parallels between the Odes, Gospel of John, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) but also the Rule of the Com-munity, as well as with other Jewish sacred writings, both canonical and non-canonical.5 These parallels suggest that the author may have been a disciple of John, and/or at least lived in the community where the author of John lived, but also the parallels with the Hodayot and the Rule of the Community, especially in the areas of dualism (light and dark or good and evil), suggest that the Odes of Solomon may have been written by an Essene following his conversion to the Christian faith.6 It is interesting, as Charlesworth has observed, that there is a common characteristic of anonymity in the Qumran writings, the Gospel of John and the Odes of Solomon. For example, the Righteous Teacher (often called “the Teacher of Righteousness”) at Qumran and the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of

3. See David Aune, “The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy,” NTS 28 (1982): 435–60. Aune’s article was pivotal in that it ignited signi cant scholarly discussion on several important aspects of the Odes. Aune concluded that the Odes were written in Syriac somewhere between the last quarter of the rst cen-tury and the rst quarter of the second. He also claimed that the Odes are thoroughly Christian with a Jewish ideological perspective that is often represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John. Though there are no direct ties between the Odes and the Gospel of John, Aune acknowledged the similar perspectives in both the Gospel of John and the letters of Ignatius. Finally, he concluded the obvious, namely, that the author of the Odes designed them to be used in a liturgical setting in Christian worship. 4. J. H. Charlesworth and R. A. Culpepper, “The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,” CBQ 35 (1973): 298–322. Charlesworth and Culpepper conclude that the thoughts and images in the Odes are remarkably similar to those in the Gospel of John. They conclude that the Odes were composed in the Syriac language somewhere in western Syria and some time in the early part of the second century CE; that they are clearly Christian; and that they have conceptual links with the Gospel of John (perhaps coming from the same community where the Johannine corpus was prepared) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting the author of the Odes was likely a member of the Essene community before his conversion to Christianity. They also concluded that the Odes are clearly not Gnostic. See also Culpepper’s in uential The Johannine School (SBLDS 26; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975). 5. These are spelled out carefully in Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 192–231, especially 214–28. 6. Charlesworth (ibid., 192–231) offers a useful comparison of a number of passages that show the parallels between John, the Odes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

110 Sacra Scriptura

1

John both wrote in anonymity and this also characterizes the author of the Odes of Solomon.7 We will return to these parallels and their implications below. My primary emphasis in what follows has to do with the function of the Odes of Solomon in the early churches and their place in various scripture collections circulating in the ancient churches. I will say ini-tially that (1) the Odes of Solomon clearly functioned liturgically in the life and worship of a number of widespread churches (from Egypt to Constantinople); but also (2) they were viewed as scripture by some Christians (see the example of Lactantius below); and (3) because one of the Odes (OdesSol 11), along with Pss 33 and 34 and an unknown hymn were included in an early Christian collection of sacred writings in the Bodmer manuscripts (OdesSol 11 in P72), it was likely viewed in a scrip-tural manner; (4) that the several important parallels in content and genre with the Psalms of Solomon, the Gospel of John, the Hodayot (Thanks-giving Hymns) and the Rule of the Community at Qumran, at the least show the popularity of this genre (hymns and spiritual songs) displayed in the Odes of Solomon; and nally, (5) that odes and psalms were included in a later twelfth-century minuscule manuscript, namely MS Gregory 1505, discovered at the Laura or Lavra Monastery on Mt. Athos, illustrates the popularity of this genre in sacred scriptural collections in ancient Christianity. The odes and psalms in Gregory 1505 are not the same as the Odes of Solomon or the Psalms of Solomon, but they are similar in terms of genre. Finally, (6) because the Odes of Solomon were welcomed in a number of early churches, and because that they had a “translocal” in uence reaching widespread Christian communities from Constantinople to Egypt, it is clear that several churches treated the Odes as sacred literature, namely as scripture. The function of the Odes as scripture is largely ignored in most modern canon research, including in mine, and the present study aims in part at correcting my own oversight in this matter. Eventually the majority of churches did not include the Odes of Solo-mon in their scripture collections, possibly because they were perceived as pseudepigraphal texts attributed to Solomon. Michael Lattke suggested that, had the name of Solomon not been attached to this collection, the Odes of Solomon might well have been placed in a Christian biblical canon.8 This, of course, is conjecture, though Lattke may be correct in suggesting why the Odes were eventually rejected. Along with this, the Odes re ect many of the most important theological issues promoted by

7. Ibid., 229 n. 56. 8. Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 5–6, 13.


orthodox Christianity (e.g. the incarnation, passion and resurrection of Jesus, and God’s participation in creation), but their eventual rejection by the majority of Christians may have had something to do with their simi-larities with language that was popular among later Gnostic Christianity. Interestingly, the Odes of Solomon never mention the name of Jesus, but they, like the Jewish Psalms of Solomon ( rst century BCE), use the term “Messiah” in several places (OdesSol 17.17; 29.6; 39.11; 41.15), but also the most commonly used titles that were attributed to Jesus as we see in the use of “Lord” (e.g. OdesSol 1.1; 3.3; 5.9–10, 15; 7.3; 27.1; passim), “Son” (OdesSol 3.7; 7.15; 23.22; 24.1; passim), “Son of Man” and “Son of God” (OdesSol 36.3; 42.15), as well as “Savior” (OdesSol 42.18) and something akin to a Trinitarian statement (OdesSol 19.2; 23.22). What makes the collection in its current form a Christian docu-ment is that the Odist re ects considerable awareness of Jesus’ baptism (OdesSol 24.1), his death, and resurrection (OdesSol 21.2; 31.9; 41.12; 42.1, 6, 10–13), as well as the commonly used titles for Jesus in early Christianity. Sometimes these re ections are in imprecise language— a feature common in spiritual songs, and lled with metaphorical lan-guage. Some speci c Christian aspects of the Odes are re ected in OdesSol 15 (“Lord,” “light” vs. “dark”), OdesSol 29 (“The Christ of the Lord, He is the Lord, He has led me in His light”), and OdesSol 30 (“Drink of the living spring of the Lord, Come, all you who are thirsty”). The Odes of Solomon occasionally re ect language common to later Gnostic teaching (see 1.2; 2.2; 4.2; 17.6)9—see especially the frequent focus on knowledge, ignorance, and wisdom, or docetic tendencies, especially in the case of Christ’s appearance (28.10; 41.8). They also have some parallels with Nag Hammadi tractates as in the case of Gospel of Truth (some of these will be noted below). Nevertheless, the Odes of Solomon are unlike the later, more fully developed Gnostic heresies, even though they are present in the Nag Hammadi collection and show some Gnostic use, and they do not deny God’s activity in creation or the physicality of Jesus’ incarnation.10 According to Helmut Koester, the 9. For arguments that the Odes are Gnostic, see the arguments of Hans H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christi-anity (Boston: Beacon, 1958), 119–21; and Kurt Rudolf, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (trans. R. McL. Wilson; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984; repr. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). For further discussion of this position, see Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 176–91. 10. Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 176–91, has signi cant arguments against these notions in the Odes of Solomon. For example, the belief that an evil demiurge created the world and the special focus of self-knowledge as a means of salvation are both foreign to the Odes. As noted above, the author of Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic text

112 Sacra Scriptura

1

dualism that is common in later Gnosticism is minimal in the Odes as we see in OdesSol 7.7, 11–13, 20–21, and even contradicted in OdesSol 7.25 (and in 16.10–14, 16) in regard to creation and to Jesus’ human form (OdesSol 7 and 24). There are, however, several early Gnostic per-spectives re ected in the Odes of Solomon, but they are not equal to the later developed Gnostic positions (OdesSol 6, 11, 13). In a perceptive comment, Koester has sharpened the differences between the Odes of Solomon and later Gnostic ideas claiming that the similarities in lan-guage do not imply a Gnostic meaning. He writes:

The Odes of Solomon may indeed not deserve the title of “Gnostic Hymn-book,” but the Gnostic origin and character of a considerable portion of its imagery and metaphorical language cannot be doubted. Yet, this probably means nothing more than that Gnostic images and terms were welcome in order to express the individual’s religious aspirations and hopes for resur-rection and anticipation of a future life in communities that were by no means committed to a Gnostic theology. This early Christian hymnal may simply be a witness for the way in which Gnosticism very deeply affected the piety and spirituality of Christianity in general.11

Although there are some proto-Gnostic tendencies in the Odes of Solomon (OdesSol 11, 24, 30, 34, and 39), there is nothing in them that denies the role of God in creation or the humanity or incarnation of Jesus. There is clear af rmation of the incarnation of the Messiah com-ing in the esh (birth, OdesSol 33.5–11), that he was cruci ed (hands outstretched as a sign of the cross, OdesSol 27.1–3 and 42.1), and that he was raised from the dead (OdesSol 8.5–6).12

from the third or early fourth century, cited the Odes, making considerable use and supplying interpretation or commentary of ve of the Odes in a scriptural manner (OdesSol 1, 5, 6, 22, and 25). This suggests, of course, recognition of the Odes of Solomon as scripture in the community of Pistis Sophia. Their use in Pistis Sophia and the presence of several expressions in the Odes that were common in later Gnostic thought (knowledge, wisdom, ignorance) have led some scholars to con-clude that the Odes of Solomon are Gnostic hymns, ones which also display ideas opposite those of later Gnostic ideology, such as the incarnation, death and resur-rection of Christ. Some of the Odes re ect an early Gnostic perspective (OdesSol 19 and 35), and four of them resemble proto-Gnostic perspectives (OdesSol 11, 30, 34, 38), but again the Odes of Solomon cannot be characterized as a Gnostic hymnbook re ecting perspectives of the later developed Gnostic teachings. 11. Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity (2 vols.; 2d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 2:222–24. 12. Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, cites several similar examples that show that the Odes are not Gnostic.


Scholars who examine the Odes of Solomon routinely recognize their peculiar Christian focus (see especially OdesSol 4, 10, 17, 19, 22–24, 27–37, 42) and most agree that a Jewish-Christian produced them, or at least in some instances a Jewish-Christian modi ed some Jewish hymns earlier known to him in order to re ect a Christian perspective. Because of their similarities and the circulation of the Odes of Solomon occasion-ally with the Jewish (not-Christian) Psalms of Solomon ( rst century BCE) in several of the surviving manuscripts or witnesses, there is little doubt about the in uence of early Jewish Christianity on the Odes. Because of the considerable parallels with the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hodayot and The Community Rule, see below), it is also possible that the author may have converted to Christianity from the Essenes who lived before the Bar Kochba rebellion in 132–135 CE, after which Jewish in uence on the movement of early Christianity subsided considerably.13 Follow-ing these challenging times the Jewish in uence on early Christianity was considerably less and that suggests also an earlier dating of the Odes. The Odes of Solomon were most likely written when Jewish-Christianity still made up a large number of participants in the church in the east, but also prior to the emerging popular Gnostic views that were not yet widely rejected in the churches, namely in the last decade of the

rst century and the rst decade of the second. As noted earlier, the Odes of Solomon are clearly Christian and re ect a particularly Jewish-Christian perspective that has several parallels with both the Gospel of John as well as Qumran literature, including famili-arity with Jewish sacred literature and also early Christian writings besides the Gospel of John.14 This likely re ects a shared Jewish and Jewish-Christian tradition and a similar social context in which John and the Odes were produced. These parallels with some of the scrolls found at Qumran (Thanksgiving Hymns and others) are listed and their signi -cance argued convincingly by Charlesworth and to some extent also by Lattke.15

13. After the early Christians failed to support the Jewish rebellion against Rome, since it was in reality a messianic movement, they were excluded from the synagogues. Had the Christians supported the rebellion against Rome in this new messianic movement, they would have in principle denied their faith in Jesus as their Messiah. 14. These are listed and discussed at length in Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 192–231. 15. Ibid., and Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 9, 11–13.

114 Sacra Scriptura

1

The dualism re ected in the Odes of Solomon is not like that of later more developed Gnostic thought, but rather is closer to the light and dark (good and evil) dualism that we nd in the Gospel of John and at Qumran, especially in terms of its perspective on the material and non-material world. The parallels with early Gnostic ideas and Jewish Christianity suggest that the Odes were written at a time when Judaism, Jewish-Christianity, and early Gnostic thought had some overlap in perspective before they went their separate ways, namely 90–110 CE. The primary images and perspectives presented in the Odes are often taken from the Jewish Scriptures and also show an awareness of several teachings that are clearly presented in the New Testament, especially those in the Gospel of John, but elsewhere as well as we see in the focus on the virgin birth (OdesSol 19). There are no clear citations or quota-tions from either the Old or New Testament writings, though the parallels with the language and thought of the Old and New Testaments demonstrates the author’s familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures and popular early Christian teaching. The Odes of Solomon have many parallels with teachings and perspectives in both the Jewish and Chris-tian scriptures, though neither collection of Scriptures is cited in the Odes (compare OdesSol 4.5 with Ps 84:10; OdesSol 41.6 with Ps 1:2). Like much of the OT Psalter, the Odes of Solomon re ect joy and rejoic-ing but especially now in the appearance and triumphal life of the “long awaited Messiah.”16 Similarly, the most signi cant features of the early Christian faith are included in the Odes, namely the incarnation (as in Jn 1:1–18), the humility of Christ (compare OdesSol 41.11–16; 27.1–3; 42.1–2 with Phil 2:6–11), and his resurrection (cf. OdesSol 41.12; 42.11–13), as well as several other af rmations. In a few instances, the language is close enough to suggest dependence on biblical literature, but awareness of these teachings was widespread in the oral traditions of the churches in antiquity. Charlesworth discusses several other parallels in thought and expression between the Odes and Jewish sacred texts, especially the Psalms of Solomon.17 The close parallels with the Qumran Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) are seen especially in its exalted mysticism. The author may also have been a student of the Apostle John or familiar with his writings since there are a number of parallels between the Gospel of John, 1 John and

16. Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” ABD 6:114–15. 17. Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 192–257. This volume is a collection of some of Charlesworth’s best previously published articles on the Odes. Anyone seeking a clear understanding of the Odes cannot ignore this volume.


the Odes,18 especially in terms of the dualism of light and darkness. As already noted, it is also possible that the author was an Essene Jew who converted to Christianity since there are a number of parallels in thought, genre, and expression with the Dead Sea Scrolls, namely in the Thanks-giving Hymns (Hodayot) and also the Rule of the Community at Qumran. We are not dealing with an exact science here, however, and some ambiguity remains. The circulation of the Odes, along with the 18 hymns of the Jewish Psalms of Solomon, in a Christian manuscript along with the many parallels to the Gospel of John (the focus on love, anonymity, knowledge, light and darkness dualism) adds to the likelihood that the author of the Odes of Solomon came from the same or a similar com-munity of Christians as did the author of the Gospel of John.19

2. Early History and Circulation When J. Rendell Harris discovered the Odes of Solomon in a Syriac manuscript that somehow had found its way into the shelves of his own library, his manuscript of 56 leaves in fascicles of six leaves contained not only 40 of the 42 odes, but also the 18 psalms from the Psalms of Solomon. Before Harris, not much besides the name was known about the Odes, although Lactantius cited them as scripture in his The Divine Institutes (OdesSol 19.6; see Inst. 4.12.3) and subsequently in his Epitome of the Divine Institutes as we will see below. Five of the Odes were translated into Coptic from Greek in the third century (OdesSol 1, 5, 6, 22, and 25) and included in the Gnostic text Pistis Sophia. Despite their early and continuing circulation in churches, as we will see below, knowledge of the Odes in modern times was quite limited before Harris’s discovery. One of the 42 hymns in this collection, the second ode, has been lost along with part of the third ode. The rest of the Odes of Solomon have been recovered and pieced together from several ancient manuscripts, especially making use of the two important Syriac manuscripts that also include the pseudepigraphal Psalms of Solomon, a collection of 18 Jew-ish hymns from the rst century BCE. The circulation of both of these collections in one manuscript likely had something to do with their supposed authorship (by Solomon), but also the similar hymnic style of both collections. These two collections of 18 and 42 hymns (or in the reverse order of 42 and 18) apparently were regularly circulated together in early Christianity, as we see in the manuscripts listed below. The 18. See ibid., 232–60. 19. Ibid.

116 Sacra Scriptura

1

whole collection of 60 hymns was sometimes identi ed as the “Odes of Solomon” (possibly in Codex Askew, ca. fourth– fth centuries, in which “Ode 19” is cited, but it is not Ode 19 version of the Psalms of Solomon, but rather Ode 1 from the Odes of Solomon). This shows that both the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon circulated together with the Psalms of Solomon coming rst or sometimes vice versa. They are listed together as the “Psalms and Odes of Solomon” in the Synopsis of Pseudo-Athanasius (ca. sixth–seventh centuries), but in the Syriac manuscripts N (Codex Nitriensis, ninth–tenth centuries) and H (Codex Harris, thirteenth– fteenth centuries), the Psalms of Solomon follow the Odes of Solomon, namely the fragmentary Psalms of Solomon 1 is actually identi ed as number 43 in the collection. Lattke adds to this that whether there ever was a complete manuscript of the Odes of Solomon without the Psalms of Solomon is unknown, but the limited evidence that survives suggests that the Odes were frequently circulated together with the Psalms of Solomon in the early Christian churches.20 Long ago Bruce Metzger outlined the range of suggested views on the authorship of the Odes, namely: that the Odes were written by (1) a Jew-ish Christian; (2) an orthodox Christian who emphasized sacramental mysticism; (3) a “paganized” Christian; (4) a full- edged Gnostic; (5) a Montanist; (6) a disciple of John because of the parallels in thought; or (7) Bardesanes (ca. 154–222).21 The title “Odes of Solomon” was almost certainly attached to the collection years after the completion of the collection, but it is not clear why the pseudonym “Solomon” was added to it by no later than the early fourth century, and more likely around 200 CE. In the early fourth century, Lactantius (ca. 304–307 CE) cited OdesSol 19.6–7 in his The Divine Institutes as follows:

And this [the virgin birth] might have appeared incredible, had not the prophets many ages previously foretold its occurrence. Thus Solomon speaks: “The womb of a virgin was strengthened and conceived; and a virgin was made fruitful, and became a mother in great pity.” Likewise the prophet Isaiah, whose words are these: [he then cites Isa. 7:14].

20. Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 5 n. 32. 21. Bruce M. Metzger, “Odes of Solomon,” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (ed. L. A. Loetscher; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955), 2:811–12. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Bardesanes (literally “Bar-Daisan”), a native of Edessa, was converted to Christianity in 179 CE but later was excommunicated, eeing to Armenia ca. 216. He was not a Gnostic dualist, as some have supposed.


Clearly Lactantius saw the Odes as an Old Testament text and cited it as scripture along with Isaiah and other ancient Jewish prophets. Subse-quently (ca. 313 CE), in his Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Lactantius cites the same passage in Ode 19 introducing it with one of the usual scriptural formulae as follows: “In the writings of Solomon it is thus written [Latin: apud Solomon ita scriptum est]: ‘The womb of a virgin was strengthened, and conceived: and a virgin was impregned [sic], and became a mother in great pity’” (Epit. Div. Inst. XLIV, ANF trans., 7.239 [emphasis added]). Lactantius does not use the term “Old Testa-ment” for these writings, but clearly includes the Odes among the Old Testament Prophets (“the prophets many ages previously foretold”). He cites the Odes along with other Old Testament prophets to support his teaching and that, along with his own words, suggests that he saw the Odes of Solomon as scripture. Since he places the Odes among those “prophets” it is instructive that Lactantius, while speaking about Jesus as the Son of God, earlier said of Solomon and other earlier prophets: “Him [Jesus] the prophet, lled with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, proclaimed; of whom especially Solomon in the book of Wisdom, and also his father, the writer of divine hymns…” (Epit. Div. Inst. XLII, ANF 7.238). Lactantius equated the author of the Odes of Solomon with the Solomon of Old Testament times and the supposed author of the deutero-canonical (or apocryphal) Wisdom of Solomon. It is not altogether clear why the Odes were attributed to Solomon, but as early as the early fourth century the collection was known as the Odes of Solomon, with one exception where it appears to have been identi ed with the Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge University Library, Add. 2012, fols. 104b—105a).22 The name of Solomon stayed with the collection and that, of course, allowed it to be placed in what we now call an Old Testament pseudepigraphal collection. It may be that Jesus was seen as the “new Solomon,” that is, as the source of divine wisdom, and so the writings were attributed to him as a synonym, but this is uncertain. In the fourth century in Athanasius’ Expositiones in Psalmos, there is a refer-ence to Jesus as follows: “For he is the true Solomon, the man of peace” ( ). Lattke acknowledges, however, that this comparison of Jesus with the “true Solomon” cannot be traced back with certainty to the second century or to the origin of the name of the Odes.23

22. Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 4–5 and n. 29. 23. Ibid., 6.

118 Sacra Scriptura

1

Lattke may be more correct when he claims that had the name Solomon not been attached to this collection, it would likely have been placed in a New Testament collection. It may also be that Solomon’s name was attached to the collection because he was believed to be the father of many hymns as well as well-known wisdom. According to 1 Kgs 4:32, Solomon composed some 3000 proverbs and 1005 hymns. It may be that because such writings were often attributed to Solomon, that subsequent works in wisdom, psalmic or hymnic genres were also attributed to him as in the cases of Wisdom of Solomon, Psalms of Solomon and Odes of Solomon. Whatever the case, the Christian per-spective in many of the Odes argues strongly for a Christian origin and for their placement in a Christian collection of writings rather than in a Jewish pseudepigraphal collection. The attribution of authorship to Solomon is not explained anywhere in antiquity and the contents of the Odes of Solomon do not re ect the Solomonic tradition, but there are clear re ections of Christian beliefs in the Odes, as we see in the references to the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as well as to many other aspects of Christian faith, including the Jewish perspective on praise of God. The more recent discussions on authorship (all of the odes are most likely by the same hand, though that is not certain), provenance (North-ern Palestine, Syria, and perhaps Edessa or Antioch), and original language (Greek or Syriac)24 have all been debated at length and no rm conclusions can be established, though there appears to be substantial agreement on the date of the Odes (100–125 CE) and that they were written at a time when late Jewish, Christian, and early Gnostic per-spectives were overlapping and sometimes in uencing one another.25

24. Scholars are divided over whether there was a Greek or Syriac original for the Odes of Solomon. Since Ode 11 is in one of the oldest preserved copies of a portion of the Odes dating likely from the third century in the Bodmer collection of Greek papyri (see BodPap XI = P72), and since the collection of ve odes (OdesSol 1, 5, 6, 22, 25) is translated from the Greek into the Coptic Pistis Sophia, a Greek original is suggested. Some scholars (e.g. M. Lattke and H. Koester) contend that the Odes were originally written in Greek and later translated into Syriac. 25. For example, the “Lord as the mirror” (OdesSol 13), gnosis or “knowledge as a mighty stream” (OdesSol 6; cf. 11.6–7; 30), gnosis paralleled with rest (OdesSol 26.12), putting off the earthly garment and putting on the heavenly garment of light (OdesSol 11.10–11 and 15.8), the heavenly journey of the soul (OdesSol 35), the lower world as an illusion (OdesSol 34), the praise of truth as the path nder in the ascension (OdesSol 38), and Christ as the guide over the abyss of hostile waters (OdesSol 39). These examples are listed in Koester, Introduction to the New


Charlesworth argues cogently that the Odes of Solomon were originally written in a Semitic language (Syriac-Aramaic) and were likely produced in Northern Israel or Syria, but more likely in western Syria and more particularly in Antioch. If the parallels between the Odes, the Gospel of John, and later the letters of Ignatius26 suggest a similar provenance, then the Odes of Solomon may well have been produced in Antioch of Syria. There is no text in the Odes that allows scholars to be absolutely sure about the provenance of the Odes, but the parallels with some of the arguments of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who rejected the Docetic views on the physical nature of Jesus, suggest a similar provenance. The arguments against the “supposed” physical body of Jesus in Ignatius (Ignatius, Eph. 7:1–2; Magn. 1:2; Trall. 10:1; Smyrn. 2:1; 4:1–2; 8:1–2), are similar to those in Johannine writings that stress the importance of Christ coming “in the esh” (1 Jn 4:1–2 and 2 Jn 7). The physicality of the incarnation is also important in the Odes (e.g. 7.4–6, 25; 19.6–10) and creation (16.9–19). It is possible that Ignatius knew and made use of the Odes in his letters (or vice versa).27 Also, the fact that the most complete collections of the Odes come to us in Syriac may suggest a Syrian origin (perhaps Edessa or Antioch on the Orontes). The considerable attention given to the Odes of Solomon following Charlesworth’s widely used translation of them in OTP attests to the growing recognition of their value in understanding the emergence of early Christianity at the beginning of the second century CE, but also later. Happily, the Odes of Solomon have now been put into beautiful contemporary music by Charles Fromm and his associates based on Charlesworth’s more popular translation, and they are now being sung once again in churches or church-related events in North America.28

Testament, 2:222–24. Koester, as noted above, concludes that while the Odes are not Gnostic in the full sense of what that came to mean, the odist clearly made use of terms with Gnostic images and re ects a time when such images affected a wider Christian community than the later Gnostic Christians (ibid). 26. These are noted in Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 230, and in V. Corwin (see next note). 27. This has been argued cogently by V. Corwin, who shows a number of the parallels between John, the Odes of Solomon and the letters of Ignatius. See his St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (Yale Publications in Religion; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 71–80. 28. Charles Fromm, The Odes Project (San Clemente, Calif.: Odes Project, 2008), see also www.theodesproject.com; and Charlesworth, The Earliest Christian Hymnbook.

120 Sacra Scriptura

1

3. Theological Emphasis

According to Louis Bouyer, the Odes of Solomon, in terms of their con-tent, appear at times to be a collection of commentaries on Johannine themes such as light, love, and life,29 a feature that suggests to some scholars that the writer was either a disciple of John, or at least a strong admirer of him, but also possibly one who lived in or near the same community Christians where the author of the Fourth Gospel lived. There are many aspects of the teaching in the Odes that t well with the theological perspective of John.30 If the Odes of Solomon were written at the end of the rst century or the beginning of the second, given the parallels, it is quite possible that the author of the Odes was a disciple of the author the fourth Gospel and 1 John. The clear reference to the Incarnation including the virgin birth is also present (OdesSol 19.6–9). Interestingly, the author of the later Ascension of Isaiah (ca. 150–200 CE) also speaks of the virgin birth (Mary giving birth to Jesus) claiming that the birth was painless to Mary! In an apparent dependence on the Odes, he writes:

And the report was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, “The virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months,” and many said, “She has not given birth: the midwife has not gone up [to her] and they all knew of him, but no one knew whence he was.” (AscenIs 11.12–14)31

The twelfth ode sings in praise of the Logos similar to Jn 1:1–14. Ode 28 offers a poetical description of the Passion of Jesus and Ode 42 has as its

nal theme the resurrection of Christ and his victory in Limbo, that is, the intermediate state of those waiting for the resurrection.32 There are also signi cant soteriological terms throughout the Odes of Solomon, namely: faith, fruit, grace, holiness, imperishability, joy, life, light, love, redemption, rest, salvation, strength, truth, understanding (gnosis), and word. These are accompanied by the usual christo-logical terms that we nd in early Christianity, namely Father, God,

29. Louis Bouyer, A History of Christian Spirituality. Vol. 1, The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers (New York: Seabury, 1963), 182. 30. For a listing of some 26 of these parallels, see Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 232–45. 31. This translation comes from C. D. G. Müller in Wilhelm Schneemelcher’s New Testament Apocrypha. 32. I am indebted here to Johannes Quasten, Patrology (The Beginnings of Patristic Literature 1; Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum Publishers, 1950), 162–65, for these re ections.


Lord, Messiah, Most High, Redeemer, Savior, Son, and Spirit.33 The Odes of Solomon re ect the theology of early Christianity not only in their several parallels with Johannine literature (especially John and 1 John), but, as Lattke observes, there also are parallels with Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and 1 Peter, all seven acknowledged authentic letters of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels (especially Matthew), and possibly Revelation, but possibly other Christian texts as well.34 Again, this does not mean that speci c texts are cited, but rather that there are parallel thoughts in them that may be due to a shared oral tradition in several cases, but in others the parallels may re ect knowledge of some of the early New Testament literature.

4. Spiritual Songs and Hymns in Early Christianity According to the well-known text in Ephesians, evidence of the fullness of the Spirit among the followers of the risen Christ is demonstrated by “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Greek = ), singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God even the father, submitting to one another in the fear of Christ” (5:19–21). It is clear from the New Testament and other early Christian writings that Christians, like their Jewish siblings, wrote many songs that re ected the essence of their faith and their adoration of God and they sang these compositions in their worship. Without question, the early Christians inherited from their Jewish siblings many hymns and prayers that circulated in the synagogues and temple worship. As we have observed, the Psalms of Solomon were often coupled with the Odes of Solomon and circulated in Christian collections of sacred writings. Inter-estingly, the Psalms of Solomon without the Odes was also included in the Old Testament portion of Codex Alexandrinus ( fth century). Manu-scripts of the complete collection of Christian scriptures (Old and New Testaments) regularly include the canonical Psalter, other hymns in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, and sometimes Jewish pseudepi-grapha (as in the case of Psalms of Solomon), along with early Christian hymns that were well known and used in early Christian churches.35 In

33. These are listed by Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 14, but see also his lists of literary forms and devices for articulating these various theological emphases on 14–18. 34. Ibid., 13–14. 35. Charlesworth, Critical Re ections, 27–77.

122 Sacra Scriptura

1

the New Testament, for example, we also see a number of early Christian hymns such as Lk 1:46–55, 66–79; Jn 1:1–18; Phil 2:6–11; 1 Tim 3:16, but in some cases other Christian hymns were also included such as the collection that eventually became known as the Odes of Solomon. It is possible that some of the Odes originated as Jewish songs and were simply modi ed or overlaid with Christian perspectives, but Chris-tians, like their Jewish siblings, produced many of their own spiritual songs that were sung in their worship. This is true not only in the Christian hymns preserved in the New Testament (e.g. in 1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2:6–11; Lk 1:46–56), including the largest collection of Christian hymns in the book of Revelation (1:5–6; 4:8, 11; 5:9–10, 12, 13, 14; 7:10, 12; 11:15, 17–18; 12:10–12; 14:3; 15:3–4; 16:5–6, 7; 19:1–2, 3, 4, 5, 6–8),36 but also in the collections of hymns that we nd in the Odes of Solomon and Psalms of Solomon. Many, if not all, of the ancient psalms in the Psalter were sung in the congregation of Israel (see, e.g., Pss 27, 62, 75, 76, 128, 130, passim), and no doubt also in the early churches even as they are sung in churches today. The practice of singing hymns of praise and thanksgiving has deep roots in Judaism and was well represented in the early church as well. Some early churches included sacred songs within their scripture collections, as in the case of P72

(BodPap XI) that includes along with 1–2 Peter and Jude, also Ode 11, Pss 33 and 34, an unknown hymn, a homily by Melito, the Nativity of Mary, and 3 Corinthians. Here it appears not to be strange to include spiritual songs in a collection of authoritative Christian literature. In what follows I will list the known references to and citations of the Odes and then focus on the function of these songs in the churches. For example, they were sometimes included in collections of Christian sacred scriptures. The Christians inherited from their Jewish siblings the pattern of including sacred songs in their sacred collections of scriptures, as we see not only in the Old Testament Psalter, but also in the Dead Sea Scrolls that included not only a collection of psalms—similar but not equal to the canonical psalms familiar to us today, but also the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns) exhibiting praise and thanksgiving to God. In antiquity, both Jews and Christians recognized the need for hymns and spiritual songs in their liturgy of worship.

36. A useful listing and description of these hymns is in Mark Wilson, Charts on the Book of Revelation: Literary, Historical, and Theological Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 74–75.


5. The Odes of Solomon in Ancient Christianity

There are a number of references to the Odes of Solomon from early second-century Christianity to later medieval Christianity and this suggests a greater popularity in churches than has often been considered by those who study the in uences of the Odes in early Christianity. The fact that multiple references survive despite the rejection of the Odes of Solomon by the majority of churches in antiquity suggests both their widespread circulation and considerable in uence. Because it has been estimated that no more than one percent of some 500,000 manuscripts produced in the early centuries of the church have survived,37 it is likely that the in uence of the Odes was even larger than our current evidence shows. The Odes of Solomon were circulating in multiple languages (see below) and were taken at the least to Egypt, Syria, Greece, and Constan-tinople. If this represents only one percent of their actual presence in antiquity, they were likely used considerably more than the current sur-viving evidence suggests. This, of course, is an argument from silence, but not an unreasonable one given their known widespread circulation from the second to the fteenth century. The following listing of paral-lels, references or citations and existing manuscripts will demonstrate this translocal in uence as well as the value of that this collection has for understanding the formation and function of Christian sacred literature. a. Early Parallels to the Odes of Solomon There are a number of parallels to the language of the Odes of Solomon in second- and third-century Christianity and while in some cases it is possible that the Odes depend on these other sources, the signi cant number of these parallels and their early date suggest that these ancient parallels more likely depend on the Odes of Solomon rather than the other way around.38 These include:

1. Barnabas 5.5–7 (ca. 130 CE): “the Lord of the entire world allowed himself to suffer for our sake by the hand of humans.” While there are parallels with the earlier Rom 15:8, the wording is closer to OdesSol 31.8–13. See also Barn. 11.9–10, with parallels to Gen 3:22–24 and Ezek 47:1–12, but the wording is

37. Larry Hurtado makes this claim in his The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 25. 38. This collection of ancient texts depends in part on Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 6–10.

124 Sacra Scriptura

1

closer to OdesSol 11.16c: “I saw fruit bearing trees” and “another prophet.” The latter is highly signi cant since a prophet wrote inspired literature and the author of these words, according to the Epistle of Barnabas, was a prophet.

2. 2 Clement 3.1 (ca. 130–140 CE) speaks of the “Father of Truth” (cf. 20.3–5), which has a clear parallel with OdesSol 41:9.

3. Valentinus (ca. 140–150 CE), according to Clement of Alexan-dria (ca. 180 CE, cf. Strom. 6.52.3–4 in his “on Friends”) cites: “This is the Beloved One’s people that is loved and loves him.” There are also parallels here with Ode 3.

4. Epiphanius, in his Refutation of all Heresies (Panarion) 33.7.10 (ca. 390–400 CE) cites words from Ptolemy to Flora (ca. 150 CE), saying: “a beautiful and good land” revealing “the fruit” of “the seeds.” This compares will with OdesSol 11.12b.

5. In his Commentary on John 4:21, Heracleon ( . 145–180 CE) speaks of the “Father of truth” (cf. 2 Clem 3.1; 20.5) which parallels OdesSol 41.9.

6. According to Epiphanius (Pan. 1.15.2), Marcus, a disciple of Valentinus, speaks of “the knowledge of the Father was removal of ignorance” and possibly depends on OdesSol 7.21.

7. Montanus, the founder of the Montanist movement in the last half of the second century (ca. 150–160 CE), possibly makes use of OdesSol 4.3 and 6.1–2 when he speaks of “heart” and “lyre” and God’s holy place. This is cited in Epiphanius (Pan. 48.4); see also Doctrina partum de incarnatione verbi 41.4 which says: “from the odes” in reference to “nature” and “action” of Christ before the incarnation which parallels OdesSol 41.15a.

8. The African Minucius Felix (late second century CE) in Octavius 29:8 writes: “and it is the sign of a cross when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched.” This signi cantly parallels OdesSol 27.1–3 and 42.1–2.

9. Tertullian, Prayer (De oratione) 14 (ca. 200 CE) writes: “We not only raise, but even expand them [hands]; and taking our model from the Lord’s passion, even in prayer we confess to Christ.” The parallels here again to OdesSol 27.1–3 and 42.1–2 are close and we have no other earlier parallels that speak of the hands outstretched as a symbol or sign of Christ. While it is possible that Tertullian received this sign from Minicius Felix, it is unlikely since there are no other similar citations from him.


10. Finally, in what is commonly called the “Untitled Text,” a manu-script that was discovered in the Coptic-Gnostic Codex Bruce, there is the mention of the outstretched hands symbolizing the cruci xion of Jesus. The text reads: “And the stretching out of his hands is the manifestation of the cross” (emphasis added). This again is similar to OdesSol 27.1–3.

b. Early Citations of the Odes While there are not many references to the Odes in antiquity, those that have survived form a collective witness that suggests a genre of literature that was highly prized by many Christians over a large geographical area and over a longer span of time. I will list the citations or references here and draw some conclusions at the end of the section. One of the clearest references to the Odes of Solomon comes from Lactantius, the Christian writer and teacher of the son of Constantine (early fourth century), who cited OdesSol 19.6–7 in Latin and, as we showed above, he considered the text sacred scripture. Codex Askewianus (or Askew), dated ca. 350–400 CE, is a Coptic–Gnostic text named after Dr. A. Askew, who bought it from a London bookshop. The manuscript is now in the British Museum (= Ms. Dd. 5114). In this codex a passage from Ode 19 is cited. Yet it is not Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon that is cited, but rather the rst hymn in the Odes of Solomon. This shows indirectly that the Odes of Solomon followed the 18 hymns in the Psalms of Solomon. In addition, this manuscript gives early evidence that the Odes and Psalms of Solomon were circulated together in the mid- to late fourth century and possibly under the name “Odes of Solomon” as Lattke suggests and that the combined 60 Odes comprised the full text of the work.39 This parchment codex contains the third-century Gnostic Pistis Sophia, which also includes quotations from the Odes and the rst known commentary on ve of the Odes of Solomon (1.1–5; 5.1–11; 6.8–18; 22.1–12; 25.12). This Coptic text was translated from a Greek original and includes an almost complete copy of the ve odes.40 In what is commonly known as the Synopsis of Pseudo-Athanasius (sixth to seventh century CE), which, of course, was not written by Athanasius, the Odes of Solomon are mentioned but as part of a collec-tion of books that were not accepted into the Christian Old Testament canons. It states in part: “There are also other books of the Old

39. Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 2. 40. Ibid., 3.

126 Sacra Scriptura

1

Testament not regarded as canonical but read to the catechumens… Maccabees…Psalms and Odes of Solomon, and Susanna.”41 This synop-sis rejected or denied the canonical status of both the “Psalms and Odes of Solomon” (they are called antilegomena), but apparently the author of that document acknowledges that they were permissible for private reading. This is not unlike apocryphal texts that were regularly read in private, as we see in the approval for reading of the “seventy others” in 4 Ezra 14.26. The rejection of the canonical status of these books suggests that churches were making use of them in a scriptural fashion at that time and so a decision was made to exclude them. Had they not been welcomed by some Christians, there would have been no need to refer to them or their non-canonical status. Consequently, as late as the mid-to-late sixth century, the Odes of Solomon was a part of some Christian sacred collections and in use in some churches. This spurious list is the rst time that the canonical status of the Odes is speci cally rejected. We should also observe that the list of rejected books in this canonical list or synopsis includes Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1–4 Maccabees, Susanna, as well as the Psalms and Odes of Solomon. Several of these books were included in the Old Testaments of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons and carried a scriptural status in ancient as well as in many contemporary churches. Why the Psalms and Odes of Solomon in particular were rejected is not clear from the list, but perhaps it was because of the pseudonym “Solomon” attached to the Odes proved to those who made decisions about the status of these writings that they were pseudony-mous. Similarly, their Christian character demonstrated that the Odes were clearly Christian and not Jewish. The Stichometria42 attributed to Nicephorus, who lived 759 to 829 and who served as patriarch of the churches in Constantinople from 806 to 815, was not produced by him. However, this listing of lines in sacred texts was produced around 850 CE and later attributed to him. In this stichometry we nd both the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon are identi ed in the category of writings “spoken against” (

). As in the previous case (Pseudo-Athanasius), the listing of the Odes, even in a “spoken against” section of the list, clearly evidences the uidity of canon formation in early Christianity as late as the mid-ninth century. It also provides evidence of an earlier “temporary

41. This is translated by Quasten, Patrology, 162. 42. Stichos refers to lines in a manuscript and stichometry has to do with cal-culating the numbering of the lines and arranging the text in a manuscript, often for the purpose of making payment to the scribe to produce the manuscript.


canonization,” that is, a temporary sacred authority attributed to ancient religious texts by some Christians at least. Some Christians, no doubt a minority, were still using the Psalms and Odes of Solomon and church authorities seeking to limit their use and in uence placed them in the category of “spoken against” books that were rejected for reading in the churches. Again, if there were no use of the Odes in various churches in the ninth century, why would church authorities reject or even mention it at all? The rejected or “spoken against” writings in this collection, besides the Psalms and Odes of Solomon, also include 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther (probably additions to Esther), Judith, Susanna, and Tobit.43 These books were welcomed by some Christians in that era, and while not accepted by the majority of churches in the Constantinople region, most of these books were later included in Catholic and Orthodox canons of Scripture. Books that ceased being cited as scripture by large (or all) segments of the church were ignored in Christian scripture collections.44 Again, the presence of “rejected” books in lists from the sixth (Pseudo-Athanasius) and ninth centuries (Stichometria of Nicephorus) suggests that some churches still af rmed their sacred status long after the moves toward a xed biblical canon in the fourth and fth centuries.45 While the above ancient citations of or references to the Odes of Solomon are important, it is also important to note that the Odist had some familiarity with several Jewish non-canonical writings and the Odes of Solomon were also used in some early Christian apocryphal writings. As in the case of canonical writings, the Odist never cites or quotes speci cally any apocryphal or pseudepigraphal literature by name; several parallels, however, suggest that the Odist was in uenced

43. This collection is distinguished in that collection from the “apocrypha” ( ) which included , , , ,

, , , , , , , ,

(notice the last listing as pseudepigrapha!). 44. See L. . McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission and Authority (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 23, 198, 404. See also L. M. McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 95–96. 45. It is interesting that the books in this same list that were rejected as part of the New Testament include the Apocalypse of John (Revelation), the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Again, the late rejection of these texts likewise demonstrates their continuing use in some churches in late antiquity.

128 Sacra Scriptura

1

by or familiar with the canonical Psalms and several other Old Testament books, but also the Odes of Solomon (cf. PssSol 14 and OdesSol 11.12, 16, 18 and 38.17; see also PssSol 15 and OdesSol 37.2 and 41:16; PssSol 18.12–14, cf. OdesSol 16.13). The Odist also seems to have been aware of 1 Enoch, since it is quite possible that 1 En 48.1–10 in uenced the Odist in Ode 30 (a reference to a living spring and exhortation for all who are thirsty to come and drink. Compare also 1 En 48.2–10 with OdesSol 36.1–3).46 On the other hand, it is also probable that the Odes of Solomon in uenced the subsequent author of the Ascension of Isaiah.47 The surviving evidence does not show how representative the above list of references to the Odes of Solomon and other non-canonical writ-ings were among other church communities around the Mediterranean world in antiquity, but clearly some of the rejected writings remained in the Christian scriptural collections as well as in use in churches for centuries after church councils had deliberated such matters. When a list of sacred books was drawn up with some of them speci cally identi ed as rejected books ( = “hidden” or “secretive,” and -

= “spoken against”), as we see in the Synopsis of Pseudo-Athanasius and in the Stichometria of Nicephorus, we must ask why anyone would list them if no one in the rst place was reading them in their churches. As noted above, we know of a collection of odes and psalms that were included in a twelfth century New Testament list of books in MS Gregory 1505 from Mt. Athos in Greece. This lets us know that a New Testament collection of the church’s scriptures was circulating in the twelfth century and it included both odes and psalms. The presence of these songs and hymns in a list of sacred books shows the in uence of this genre in Christian sacred texts as late as the Middle Ages. c. The Manuscript Evidence The following manuscripts also re ect the translocal nature of the Odes of Solomon, as we see in the wide-spread topographic distribution of the Odes within the eastern portion of the Roman Empire. Many such 46. See Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” OTP 2:732–33, for a description of these parallels. 47. Ibid. Charlesworth draws attention to four comparisons: compare AscenIs 4.6 with OdesSol 38.10, namely the Deceiver imitating the Beloved; compare AscenIs 7.10 with OdesSol 34.4 in its cosmological perspective; compare AscenIs 9.12–18 with OdesSol 22.1 on the identi cation of the “Beloved” and references to crowns and garments; and nally compare AscenIs 11.2–5 to OdesSol 19.8–9 on not needing a midwife in the virgin birth of the Son and the author of the Ascension of Isaiah claiming that in the birth of Jesus, Mary had no pain.


translocal texts—that is, books that were taken to places far from their place of origin—existed in antiquity, notable cases being Homer and many epic and lyric poets. That the Odes of Solomon continued to be copied in the thirteenth to the fteenth centuries, as we will see pres-ently, suggests that they continued to have a life in churches for many centuries. The manuscript evidence, though small, is nonetheless con-siderable and re ects the widespread use of the Odes in churches from the second to the fteenth century. The surviving manuscript evidence is as follows: The rst known text of the Odes of Solomon is found in Papyrus Bodmer XI (third–fourth centuries) and contains only Ode 11 in Greek. The Coptic-Gnostic work, Pistis Sophia (Codex Askew, a translation from Greek dates from around 250–300 CE), as noted above, includes an almost complete text of Odes 1, 5, 6, 22, and 25. The author of Pistis Sophia took the quotations from the Odes of Solomon as sacred literature and provides commentaries on them. Commentary on ancient texts is an indicator of their recognition as scripture. The brief text from OdesSol 19.6–7 cited in Lactantius (see the previous section above) as scripture dates from the early fourth century. This limited text was translated into Latin, but that does not necessarily mean that a complete text of the Odes of Solomon existed in Latin. This could well be Lactantius’ own brief translation. There are two incomplete Syriac manuscripts on the Odes of Solomon that include the Psalms of Solomon. The rst of these is the ninth- or tenth-century Codex Nitriensis (London: British Museum, MS. Add. 14538) that begins at OdesSol 17.7 and goes to the end of 42; it also contains fragments of the Psalms of Solomon. The second, Codex Harris (H) dates from the thirteenth to the fteenth century, written on paper from Mesopotamia extending from 3.1b to 42.20 (see John Rylands Library, Cod. Syr. 9). It is followed without interruption by Psalms of Solomon, beginning at Ode 43.48 Besides these two manuscripts (N and H), another Syriac manuscript seems to have made use of both N and H and may be a revision of H. Again, this speaks to a recognition of the value of the Odes of Solomon among Syriac Christians in the thirteenth to the fteenth centuries! Finally, there are two Syriac manuscripts following the order of N and H (the Odes of Solomon following the Odes of Solomon), and both collections are called “Psalms of Solomon,” even though the Odes 48. See Michael Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 4, and Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis (5 vols.; OBO 25.1/1a–4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979–98), 1:53–77.

130 Sacra Scriptura

1

precedes the Psalms of Solomon. Evidence for this is that PssSol 16.6–13 is listed as number 58,49 which, of course, would be the case if the Psalms of Solomon followed Ode 42. These two manuscripts are in the Serto script and are dated in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries CE. Christians today do not include a separate collection of Christian hymns in their Bibles—though that was not the case for some churches initially and for centuries. The New Testament does contain a number of hymns scattered throughout the New Testament writings and Christians regularly sang songs and hymns featured in the Old Testament especially the Psalms. Much of the theology of the early churches was put to music (hymns, odes, and psalms) and had great value for the liturgy of the early churches. This practice continues in churches to this day and hymns regularly convey important Christian theology, for example, Martin Luther’s A Mighty Fortress is Our God. In these ancient spiritual songs we see that the early Christians did not believe that the Spirit of God had departed from their churches shortly after the death of the last writer of the New Testament—an inferred assumption of some Protestant Christians today! The ancient Christians believed that God continued to speak and minister to the people of God long after the close of the New Testament era, and the ancient hymns, especially the Odes of Solomon, often display this conviction. The early citations or references to the Odes of Solomon, both posi-tively and negatively, presuppose that the Odes continued to have a long and enduring role in Christian communities. It is cited as scripture by Lactantius in the early fourth century and several of its passages are paralleled in second- and third-century Christian writers, as we have seen. The Odes of Solomon is the earliest known hymnbook of early Christianity. Although the Odes of Solomon are clearly Christian, and more speci cally Jewish-Christian, the placing of the Psalms of Solomon either before or after the Odes in Christian manuscripts suggests that some Christians also saw that Psalms of Solomon, unquestionably Jewish, were also valuable for use in Christian worship. Several Christian communities added collections of sacred songs to their scripture collections and it has not been shown clearly that they distinguished them from their Christian sacred scriptures. In the various lists of Old Testament Scriptures of early Christianity, it is not unusual to see collections of psalms. For example, the Psalms of Solomon was included in Codex Alexandrinus ( fth century).50 Christians in antiquity

49. See Cambridge University Library, Add. 2012, fols. 104b and 105a. 50. For a list of several Old Testament catalogues, see McDonald, The Biblical Canon, 439–44.


often cited sacred songs in their theological teachings and this practice was followed in the New Testament writings as well as in the writings discovered at Qumran. Not much attention has been given to this prac-tice, nor to how hymns relate to Christian collections of sacred writings, but the various collections of hymns and odes in early Christianity do suggest that it was not unusual to nd such texts in these sacred collec-tions. Along with the Codex Alexandrinus ( fth century), Psalms of Solomon is included in Codices Askew (fourth– fth centuries), N (ninth century), and H (thirteenth to fteenth centuries). This practice is also illustrated, of course, in P72 were we see hymns being circulated in the same codex as Christian sacred texts in the third century. The presence of spiritual songs among ancient sacred texts has many precedents both in Judaism and Christianity, and in the Odes of Solomon we see simply another example of the production of Christian sacred songs that were incorporated not only in the worship of many Christian communities, but also in their sacred scriptures.

6. The Odes in Translations and Commentary The multiple translations of the Odes of Solomon, especially in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, and possibly Latin (if Lactantius’ citation of Ode 19 in Latin preceded him), as well as the commentary on several of the Odes, are important signs of their esteem in the Christian communities. The dif culty of translating texts in our generation was even more complex in antiquity, especially when most translations were often inaccurate and poorly translated by persons who were often literate amateurs. St. Augustine recognized this problem and he bemoaned the presence of poor translations circulating in his churches. He commented:

…because of the aforementioned diversity of translators [some were good, but many were poorly skilled] that a knowledge of languages is necessary. Translators from Hebrew into Greek can easily be counted [= there are few of them], but not so translators into Latin, for in the early days of the faith any person who got hold of a Greek manuscript and fancied that he had some ability in the two languages went ahead and translated it. (De doctrina christiana 2.37)51

Augustine, of course, re ects several ancient sentiments about the often inferior quality of early Christian translations, but especially because such translations were of sacred texts. It is a given that in antiquity when texts were translated into another language, their value as sacred writings 51. Translated by R. P. H. Green in Saint Augustine, On Christian Teaching (Oxford World’s Classics; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 39.

132 Sacra Scriptura

1

was highly signi cant. The Prologue of Sirach shows that religious texts that were translated in antiquity were regularly viewed as inspired by God and the author of that prologue placed his grandfather’s work on par with the Law and Prophets that had already been translated into Greek. When commentaries were written on ancient religious texts, it is also clear that such exposition points to the sacredness of the texts. As in the case of the Septuagint, translations and commentaries show early signs of the sacredness attributed to ancient writings. The rst known commentary on the Odes of Solomon is in the Coptic-Gnostic work Pistis Sophia (ca. 250–300 CE) on OdesSol 1.1–5; 5.1–11; 6.8–18; 22.1–12; 25.1–12. Since this commentary on a non-Gnostic Christian document originated in a Gnostic community, we cannot con-clude that later Gnostic perspectives represented by the Pistis Sophia rejected all Christian non-Gnostic literature when it did not share a Gnostic perspective. The Odes of Solomon evidence the uidity typical of canon formation in early Christianity including a “temporary canonization,” that is, a status as a temporary sacred authority that was removed from that status in subsequent Christian communities. The scriptural status attributed to the Odes by Lactantius and the placement of Ode 11 among other sacred Christian and Jewish writings in P72 and in later Syriac texts suggests that some Christians viewed the Odes of Solomon as scripture. The presence of these writings, their citations, and various translations and com-mentary at this time and later indicates that some churches still af rmed their scriptural status long after the moves toward a xed biblical canon in the fourth and fth centuries. It is not clear how representative later rejections of the Odes of Solomon in the sixth and ninth centuries were of the whole Christian community, but long after the rejection of the Odes at church councils they continued to have some in uence in various Christian churches. As we have seen, the roughly twelfth-century Greek minuscule manu-script identi ed as Gregory 1505 contains a collection of New Testament books that concludes with a collection of psalms and odes. This shows that a Greek-speaking church as late as the twelfth century included in its sacred collection of Christian scriptures both psalms and spiritual songs.52 Interestingly, this list of New Testament writings does not

52. This manuscript was brought to my attention in the appendix of Reuben Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: 2 Corinthians (Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2005), 341–47, here 345. The full collection in MS 505 includes: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and


include the book of Revelation! The order of books in this manuscript is also odd by today’s standards, namely after listing the Gospels, Acts, and the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, the manuscript concludes with Hebrews, “psalms” and “odes.” This again shows the relevance of psalms and spiritual songs in the sacred literature in some churches not only at the beginning of the second century when these odes were rst penned, but also well into the Middle Ages in churches and far away from their place of origin. Just as the Old Testament included a number of hymns and spiritual songs, obviously some Christians believed that their New Testament should have the same! Long ago, H. B. Swete listed the psalms and hymns that have histori-cally been sung at Lauds53 and ancient churches sometimes included these canticles in sacred collections, as we see in Codices A, R & T.54 Hymns and other sacred songs have long been a part of the Christian community. The question is whether they were also recognized as scripture and/or placed in a biblical canon.

7. Scripture or Just Some Songs? Canons in antiquity were quite uid for centuries, as the history of canon formation shows.55 The number of translations of the Odes of Solomon, whether into Syriac, Greek, possibly Latin, Coptic, and possibly other languages, shows the value of the Odes of Solomon in early Christianity. As a result, it is strange that the Odes are largely ignored in most current studies of the formation of the Christian biblical canon—including my own! However, the presence of this kind of literature (hymns) in early collections of Jewish and Hellenistic Christianity (whether Gnostic, Coptic or Syrian) in various sacred collections suggests that the Odes of Solomon deserve closer scrutiny. The Odes of Solomon are currently included in collections of Old Testament pseudepigraphal writings (James H. Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha), in Christian manuscripts (Codices N and

2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, Psalms, and odes. It is not presently clear which psalms or odes are included in this New Testament manuscript. 53. “Lauds” refer to the traditional morning prayers, scripture readings and hymns or psalms sung in the Western churches for centuries. The word “Lauds” comes from the Latin laudate = “praise ye.” 54. H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 253–54. 55. See McDonald, The Biblical Canon, 139–59, 439–51.

134 Sacra Scriptura

1

H), and in Christian Gnostic collections (James M. Robinsons’ Nag Hammadi Library and in Willis Barnstone’s The Other Bible). The dif culty of knowing where to place the collection is not just a modern issue, but dates back to its earliest known citation by Lactantius, who clearly placed them in an Old Testament collection (the “prophets”). Because it was attributed to Solomon this may be the reason they are now placed in the Old Testament pseudepigraphal collections and also why the collection was nally rejected from inclusion in the New Testa-ment. Charlesworth’s earlier translation based on the Greek, Coptic, and Syriac Versions (1973 and revised in 1977), as well as his subsequent translation published in the OTP (1985),56 has become the standard translation not only in English, but also beyond. He has also recently published a more popular edition that also contains many helpful notes explaining several awkward texts.57 Like the organizers of the Old Testament scriptures who included psalms and hymns in their sacred collections, the collectors of sacred texts at Qumran did the same by including psalms (a number of which are noncanonical) as well as the Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot) in their collections. This model or pattern is also seen in the Bodmer papyrus document known as P72 that includes not only New Testament books (Jude, 1–2 Peter), but also several other noncanonical texts, namely, the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence to Paul from Corinth, the apocryphal response known as 3 Corinthians, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, the Apology of Phileas, but also the Ode 11, a fragment of a hymn, Pss 33 and 34. This shows that inspirational songs in early Christianity was not limited to the New Testament literature alone or to the genres that characterize the books of the New Testament. This is highly signi cant since P72 (dating probably from the late third to early fourth century) is one of the few (only 14) collections of Christian sacred texts.58 P72 presents us with an early example of a Christian collection of

56. See James H. Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon (Late First to Early–Second Century A.D.): A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:725–71. See also his earlier translation in The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973). 57. See Charlesworth, The Earliest Christian Hymnbook. This is yet again another commendable revision of his earlier work that has allowed the Odes of Solomon to be more accessible to the non-specialist. 58. For example, P45 contains fragments of the four canonical Gospels and Acts and P46 contains the earliest collection of Paul’s letters. Only 14 of the known 117 surviving papyrus manuscripts contain more than one book, so this collection is unusual for its time and it is remarkable that P72 contains not only written texts in the New Testament, but also sacred hymns (Ode 11, a fragment of a hymn, and Pss 33 and 34).


sacred texts and, like the Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible and the known collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it also includes sacred songs sung in the early Christian communities.59 It is evident that the Odes of Solomon had considerable in uence in some churches long after the time when canonical lists in the fourth century and later excluded them.

8. Conclusion In many Protestant churches, Christians are reminded that their faith and sacred doctrines are not rooted in, nor do they come from, a hymnbook, but rather from the Bible. In antiquity, that distinction was never as sharp as it is today. As we saw above, the Ephesian letter re ects early Chris-tian activity in producing sacred songs. The writer admonished the readers to be lled with the Spirit and to speak to one another “in psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs [Greek = ], singing [ ] and making melody [ ] in your hearts to the Lord, giving thanks [ ] to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, being subject [ -

] to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:19–21).60 The recognition of the Odes of Solomon as a sacred collection of scriptural hymns came before the later development of a xed scriptural canon with its narrower parameters of Christian scriptures. Whether it is appropriate to revisit the practices of early Christianity before and after its decisions were made about the scope of its sacred scriptures is not the focus of this present study, but it is important nonetheless to see how the Odes of Solomon collection functioned in early Christianity. There is

59. Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds., The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts: A Corrected, Enlarged Edition of The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001), 479. According to Philip Comfort, the text of P72 is, as a whole, superior to the text of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude in the later Codex Vaticanus (B), and re ects the “Western” uncontrolled-type text with several independent readings. 60. A number of modern translations and both Greek texts (NA27 and UBS4) separate v. 21 from vv. 19–20 and connect it to v. 22 to moderate the command of women to be subject to their husbands which cannot be justi ed from the ancient manuscripts that have survived. There are ve present active participles that depend on the Greek verb (“be lled”) in v. 18. When we compare this to the similar passage in Col 3:16–19, which does not have the break in the same place, nor does it include a mutual submission of men and women before listing the social duties of families. While this may make good sense in today’s modernity, it is clear that v. 21 belongs with vv. 18–20, as in the earliest Greek manuscripts and in all earlier Greek texts used in seminaries and graduate schools.

136 Sacra Scriptura

1

little danger in Christians being informed by the same literature that informed early Christianity, including its collection of sacred hymns. Biblical scholars today recognize that this literature often has consider-able value in helping us to understand the context, growth, and perspec-tives of early Christianity. Some books that were later rejected by the majority of churches were initially welcomed as scripture by some if not many early Christians. Some of the writings that informed the faith of early Christianity, and continue to have considerable value for under-standing the birth and development of Christian faith in antiquity but were not included in the Hebrew Bible or in the Protestant Old Testa-ment are: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), 1 Enoch, Didache, 1 Clement, the letters of Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of the Hebrews. Yet there were others as well, including the Odes of Solomon and the Psalms of Solomon. It is a welcome development today that we see considerable focus in the SBL on ancient literature that was left behind at various junctures and for various reasons by the ancient churches. This literature often lls many of the gaps in our understanding of early Christianity, whether in the notions of life after death, burial practices, or the meaning of biblical terms such as Son of Man. This literature often presents re ections of early Jewish Christian worship in the formative stages of both Judaism and early Christianity. In recent years, biblical scholarship has advanced considerably by being informed by the literature that is closest in time and theological substance to the biblical writings. The Odes of Solomon constitute a remarkable collection of early Christian hymns, and the church today can once again be enriched by careful re ection on the faith of these early Jewish-Christians who con-stituted many of the earliest Christian churches and re ect the theology of the earliest Christians. Had they been given another name, they might well have been included in the later New Testament canon of Scripture. While the Odes of Solomon was not included in any known canonical catalogue as an approved sacred text in the fourth to the sixth centuries, these hymns nevertheless functioned liturgically and likely scripturally as well in various churches as late as the fteenth or sixteenth century.

8

ORIGEN’S USE OF THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

Stephen C. Carlson

Out of the four dozen Coptic texts discovered in the Egyptian desert at Nag Hammadi in 1945, perhaps the most sensational has been the Gospel of Thomas. This gospel contains some 114 sayings of Jesus, about half of which parallel what Jesus says in the Synoptic Gospels. Excitement about the nd increased when Henri-Charles Puech realized that three Greek fragments, totaling about a third of the Coptic text, had already been discovered at Oxyrhynchus a half-century earlier.1 Much of the attention paid to the Gospel of Thomas has been devoted to the question of its sources, with scholars arguing that some of the unparalleled say-ings may even go back to the historical Jesus. Yet less attention has been given to its reception in antiquity. Of course, commentaries of the Gospel of Thomas typically include patristic parallels to the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas,2 but studies of its reception have tended to focus on Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235), who mentioned it in connection with a “Gnostic” sect known as the Naassenes.3 Origen, a younger contemporary of Hippolytus, is especially well-suited for a study on the reception of the Gospel of Thomas in antiquity.4 1. See, generally, Beate Blatz, “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas,” in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1 (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson; 2d ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 110–16; and Helmut Koester, “The Gospel of Thomas (II,2),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (ed. James M. Robinson; 3rd rev. ed.; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 124–26. 2. E.g. Uwe-Karsten Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Com-mentary (trans. Gesine Schenke Robinson; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008); and April D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (London: T&T Clark International, 2006). 3. E.g. Robert M. Grant, “Notes on the Gospel of Thomas,” VC 13 (1959): 150–60, and William R. Schoedel, “Naassenes Themes in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,” VC 14 (1960): 225–34. A recent monograph on this connection is Maria Grazia Lancellotti, The Naassenes: A Gnostic Identity among Judaism, Christianity, Classi-cal and Ancient Near Eastern Traditions (FARG 35; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000). 4. A very recent study of Origen and Thomas is Matteo Grosso, “Osservazioni sui testimonia origeniani del Vangelo second Tommaso (in Luc. hom. 1,1; contra

138 Sacra Scriptura

1

He was perhaps the most well-read Christian intellectual of the third century and amassed a huge library which he employed to further his proli c output of exegetical writings, many of which have survived.5 Moreover, Origen was more open-minded about citing “apocryphal” works than many other ancient Christian writers,6 so his vast body of work promises to contain several examples of his use of the Gospel of Thomas. The present study surveys a half-dozen cases where Origen used the Gospel of Thomas, both by name and anonymously—including one previously unrecognized instance—and, based upon these examples, assesses his attitude toward this text. In short, this survey shows that, despite Origen’s recognition that the Gospel of Thomas did not rank with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and despite the presence of some con-tent he must have found objectionable, Origen nonetheless thought that the Gospel of Thomas contained historically useful and homiletically edifying material. The only place where Origen mentions the Gospel of Thomas by name occurs in his rst homily on Luke. In this homily, Origen was expound-ing on the preface to Luke’s gospel, paying particular attention to the words in the very rst verse: “Inasmuch as many have set their hand ( ) to compiling an account of the matters that have been ful lled among us.”7 Although modern scholars usually translate neutrally as “many have under-taken”8 perhaps because of the widespread acceptance that the canonical Mark was a source for Luke, Origen saw a negative implication in those words:

You should know that not only four Gospels, but very many, were com-posed. The Gospels we have were chosen from among these gospels and passed on to the churches. We can know this from Luke’s own prologue, which begins this way: “Because many have tried to compose an account.” The words “have tried” imply an accusation against those who rushed into

Celsum VIII.15; in Ier. hom. lat. I.3; in Jesu Nave hom. IV,3),” Adamantius 15 (2009): 177–94. 5. See, generally, Pierre Nautin, Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre (CaE 1; Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), esp. 409–12 for a chronology of his works. 6. See, generally, Concetta Aloe Spada, “Origene e gli apocri del Nuovo Testa-mento,” in Origenianan Quarta (ed. Lothar Lies; ITS 19; Innsbruck-Vienna: Tyrolia, 1987), 44–53. 7. Translation mine, rendering the verb as broadly as possible. Frederick Danker, “ ,” in BDAG 386, provides the following glosses for this verb: “set one’s hand to,” “endeavor,” “try,” and “attempt to.” 8. So NRSV, NIV, and NASB.

8. CARLSON Origen’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas 139

writing gospels without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke did not “try” to write; they wrote their Gospels when they were

lled with the Holy Spirit.9 Thus, Origen made a distinction in Luke’s choice of wording between those gospels which were written with the Holy Spirit and those which were not, but merely attempted. Origen went on to give speci c exam-ples of which gospels fall in the latter categories, and it is here that he names the Gospel of Thomas:

The Church has four Gospels. Heretics have very many. One of them is entitled According to the Egyptians, another According to the Twelve Apostles. Basilides, too, dared to write a gospel and give it his own name. “Many have tried” to write, but only four Gospels have been approved. Our doctrines about the Person of our Lord and Savior should be drawn from these approved Gospels. I know one gospel called According to Thomas, and another According to Matthias. We have read many others, too, lest we appear ignorant of anything, because of those people who think they know something if they have examined these gospels.10

Of the ve “unapproved” gospels that Origen had in mind, only the Gospel of Thomas has survived in a form that is substantially complete. The Gospel of the Egyptians probably referred not to the Sethian trac-tates in the Nag Hammadi library also entitled “The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit,”11 but rather to the “Gospel of the Egyptians” that Clement of Alexandria quoted about a dozen times.12 The Gospel of 9. Hom. Luc. 1.1, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, Origen: Homilies on Luke, Frag-ments on Luke (FC 94; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 5 (translator’s footnotes omitted). Lienhard’s translation is based on Jerome’s Latin version. Portions of this homily, however, have been preserved in Greek among the catenae and they read somewhat differently: › ‹

. › ‹, ’ , ,

(“But ‘they undertook’ perhaps also has a latent charge against those coming from outside of grace upon the composition of the gospels. For Matthew did not ‘undertake’ but wrote with the holy spirit, likewise Mark and John, and similarly Luke too” [translation mine]). 10. Hom. Luc. 1.2, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, 5–6 (translator’s footnotes omitted). 11. Alexander Böhlig and Frederick Wisse, “The Gospel of the Egyptians (III,2 and IV,2),” in Nag Hammadi Library, 208: “It is not related to the apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians which is cited in Patristic literature.” 12. See, generally, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, “The Gospel of the Egyptians,” in New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1 (trans. R. McL. Wilson; 2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 209–15. Some of the quotations overlap with the Gospel of Thomas.

140 Sacra Scriptura

1

Basilides, an immense 24-volume commentary by an early second-century teacher in Alexandria, only survives in a few quotations.13 If the Gospel of Matthias can be identi ed with the work that Clement of Alexandria called the “Traditions” then there would be just three fragments of it left.14 As for the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles, almost nothing about it is known.15 Despite our ignorance about the nature of these works, except for the Gospel of Thomas, Origen’s own opinion of these texts in this passage seems fairly clear. He distinguished them from the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; only these four are “approved” by the church. He also told us about their reception in the third century: they were popular among “those people who think they know something” (eos, qui se putant aliquid scire), a sarcastic description of those called “Gnostics.” Due to the completeness of the surviving text of the Gospel of Thomas, Origen’s use of it can be studied more intently, but there are some dif culties. For example, because Origen did not quote any text from the Gospel of Thomas in connection with his enumeration of “unapproved” gospels, it is admittedly conceivable that he could have been thinking of some other gospel with the same name. In fact, another “Gospel of Thomas” has managed to survive into the present: the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It is highly unlikely, however, that Origen would have known it under that name. Though the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was probably composed in the second or third century, it originally circulated as an anonymous account of Jesus’ childhood and did not acquire its attribution to “Thomas the Israelite” probably until some time between the sixth and eleventh centuries.16 On the other hand, the Gospel of Thomas had already been known and quoted under that name by Origen’s older contemporary, Hippolytus (Haer. 5.7.20). As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that Origen is indeed referring to the Gospel of Thomas, known today from the Nag Hammadi library.

13. Henri-Charles Puech in New Testament Apocrypha, 397–98. 14. Ibid., 382–83. 15. Ibid., 374. Puech describes abortive attempts to equate it with the Gospel of the Hebrews. 16. Tony Chartrand-Burke, “The Greek Manuscript Tradition of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Apocrypha 14 (2004): 129–51, at 144. The attribution to Thomas is present only in the medieval Greek transmission of the text; the versional witnesses to the text, however, lack the attribution. See also Grosso, “Osservazioni,” 180.


Another dif culty is that Origen might only know of the Gospel of Thomas through hear-say. In other words, he may have known of the text, without knowing its text. This possibility, however, is unlikely in view of his subsequent statement that “We have read many others, too, lest we appear ignorant of anything, because of those people who think they know something if they have examined these gospels.”17 Though this declaration does not appear among the Greek catenae extracted from the homily,18 it is probably original because a similar statement in Ambrose’s commentary on Luke, which borrows heavily from Origen, is present in the same context.19 According to this statement, then, the Gospel of Thomas was one of the gospels Origen had read, so that he would be properly informed about it should someone appeal to it. Indeed, Origen’s behavior in reading the works of his opponents was not particularly unusual for him or for his era. After all, he must have read Celsus, True Word, which he quotes extensively in his refutation, Contra Celsum; moreover, the contemporaneous Plotinus had been attacking Roman Christians based on careful study of their writings.20 Thus it can be concluded that Origen had not only heard of the Gospel of Thomas, but that he had also studied its contents. The next dif culty for studying Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas is that the rst homily on Luke is the only place in his surviving body of work where he explicitly mentioned the Gospel of Thomas by name. All his other uses of the text are anonymous. The fact that Origen did not elsewhere quote anything as explicitly coming from the Gospel of Thomas makes it necessary to establish some criteria in determining whether Origen is using the Gospel of Thomas. In general, the apparent

17. Jerome’s Latin rendering reads: “et alia plura legimus, ne quid ignorare videmur propter eos, qui se putant aliquid scire, si ista cognoverint” (Max Bauer, ed., Origenes Werke IX: Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronzmus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars [GCS 49; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959], 5). 18. Ibid. 19. Ambrose has: “We read some, that they be not read; we read some, lest we be ignorant of them; we read some, not so as to accept them, but that we may repudiate them, and that we may know what manner of things they are in which these brag-garts exalt their heart” (Theodosia Tomkinson, trans., Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Luke with Fragments on the Prophecy of Esaias: Saint Ambrose of Milan [2nd ed.; Etna, Calif.: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2003], 17). 20. See Megan Williams, “Origen at Caesarea: A Christian Philosopher among His Books,” in Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (ed. Anthony Grafter and Megan Williams; Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2006), 22–85 at 35–36, quoting Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 16.

142 Sacra Scriptura

1

use of the Gospel of Thomas must be suf ciently close to Thomas so as to exclude other possible sources. Because about half of the Gospel of Thomas parallels the Synoptic Gospels, this criterion makes it nearly impossible to identify Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas from those of its synoptic parallels.21 Rather, the best hunting grounds for the clear-est cases of Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas lie in its non-canonical material. Perhaps the clearest example of Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas occurs in one of his homilies on Jeremiah. This homily, which has survived only in Jerome’s Latin translation, covers Jer 50 [LXX 27]:23–29, which begins with the exclamation, “How was the hammer of the whole earth broken and crushed?”22 About half-way through the homily, Origen got to v. 25: “The Lord opened up his treasure and brought forth the vessels of his wrath.”23 Origen’s mind naturally went to Rom 9:22, which includes the phrase “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.”24 After a digression on the meaning of the Lord’s treasury25 and an exploration of the existence of vessels even less than the “vessels of wrath,”26 Origen’s mind eventually returned to Rom 9:22, and it is in this connection that Origen used the Gospel of Thomas:

I have read somewhere as if the Savior was speaking—and I question whether it was someone who was a gure for the person of the Savior or if it appended in his memory or if this may be truly what he said—the Savior there says, “Whoever is near me is near re; whoever is far from me, is far from the kingdom.” For just as “whoever is near me is near” salvation, thus he “is near re.” And whoever hears me and once having me has done a transgression, is a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction, when “he is near me, he is near re.” Since “he who is near me, is near

21. Indeed, virtually no possibilities are evident in the text-type of the synoptic quotations according to Gilles Quispel, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Western Text: A Reappraisal,” in Gnostic Studies II (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institute te stanbul, 1975), 56–69. 22. This homily is given different numbers in different editions. In the English translation by John Clark Smith, Origen: Homilies on Jeremiah, Homily on 1 Kings 28 (FC 97; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 245–59, it is number 27. In J. P. Migne, PG 13: 525C–534C, it is number 27. In Migne, PL 25:606D–615B, it is number 3. 23. Smith, Origen: Jeremiah, § 3.1, 251. Smith’s translation apparently uses the word “treasure” in an obsolete sense of “treasury”; other quotations from Jer 50:25 all have “treasury.” 24. Ibid., § 3.2, 252. 25. Ibid., § 3.3, 252–3. 26. Ibid., § 3.4–5, 253–4.


re,” if anyone being on his guard becomes “far from me” and fears he is “near re,” let him know that that such a person will be “far from the kingdom.”27

The saying, “Whoever is near me is near re; whoever is far from me, is far from the kingdom” (qui juxta me est, juxta ignem est; qui longe est a me, longe est a regno), is not found anywhere in the New Testament.28 It is found, however, in the Gospel of Thomas as saying 82:

Jesus says, “Whoever is near me is near the re. And whoever is far from me is far from the kingdom.”29

In fact, this saying is found in various forms, but the form that Origen exhibited is closest to that which is found in the Gospel of Thomas.30 Didymus the Blind’s attestation of the saying in Greek31 is probably dependent on Origen.32 Two later texts, the Gospel of the Savior 69–7233 and Pseudo-Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel 83,34 feature the say-ing, though in both the word “kingdom” is replaced by “life.” There is even a version found in Aesop: “Whoever is near Zeus is near the light-ening.”35 Despite the popularity of this saying and the various forms it took, Origen’s formulation is closest to that of the Gospel of Thomas, raising the presumption that it is indeed the source of the saying for Origen. 27. Ibid., § 3.7, 254–5. 28. Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (trans. Reginald H. Fuller; New York: Macmillan, 1957), 55, states that the saying “echoes Mk 9.49 [scil. ‘everyone will be salted with re’] and 12.24 [scil. ‘you are not far from the kingdom of God’],” but these parallels are very vague. 29. Plisch, Thomas, 189. 30. Except for the recently published Gospel of the Savior, these are conven-iently collected by William D. Stoker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (SBLRBS 18; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1989), § I57, 194. 31. , ’

· (“It is said somewhere by the Savoir, Whoever is near me [is] near the re, but whoever is far from me [is] far from the kingdom”—Didymus, In Ps 88.8, Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung [ed. E. Mühlenburg; 2 vols.; PTS 15, 16; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975, 1977]; cf. PG 39, 1488D). 32. So Robert M. Grant, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960), 180. 33. Stephen Emmel, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior (‘Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium’): Righting the Order of Pages and Events,” HTR 95 (2002): 45–72 at 57. 34. George A. Egan, Saint Ephrem: An Exposition of the Gospel (CSCO 292, SA 6; Louvain: Peeters, 1968), 62. 35. Stoker, Sayings, 194, citing Paroimiai of Aesop, Perry, Aesopica 1:290.

144 Sacra Scriptura

1

The information gleaned from Origen’s disclaimer in quoting this saying of the Savior ts the Gospel of Thomas. For instance, Origen’s “I have read somewhere” (legi alicubi) indicates that his source is written, not oral.36 Origen’s rst scenario for the written source that someone could have impersonated the Savior (sive quis personam guravit Salvatoris) re ects the general feeling among Origen’s co-religionists that texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are not genuine. His second scenario, that the saying could have been misremembered (sive in memoriam adduxit) implies that the author would have been an eye-witness to Jesus, as, for example, in the incipit to the Gospel of Thomas: “These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke. And Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down.”37 According to Jn 20:24, Thomas called Didymus was a member of the Twelve, who conversed with Jesus. Origen’s nal scenario (an verum sit hoc quid dictum est) seems to be the one he favored, that the saying really was said by Jesus. After all, Origen not only continued to quote it as if Jesus said it (ait autem ipsi Salvator), but he went on to construe its components, for example, “near the re,” as if he felt it had a similar authoritativeness. This conclusion, that Origen regarded the saying found in Gos. Thom. 82 as a genuine saying of Jesu, is con rmed by his use of an abbreviated form, albeit paraphrased, of the saying without any apparent qualms as to its authenticity. In his fourth homily on Joshua, Origen was expounding the provision of Josh 4:3, regulating proper behavior to the ark of the covenant:

Finally, see what is said: “Let the people be at a distance from the ark of the covenant,” it says, “by two thousand cubits.” The priests and the Levites, however, are very near, and near enough so that the ark of the Lord and the divine Law are carried on their own shoulders. Blessed are those who deserve to be very close to God. But remember that it is written, “Those who draw near to me, draw near to re.” If you are gold and silver and have drawn near to the re, you will shine forth more splendid and glowing because of the re.38

In contrast with his cautious introduction of the saying in his homily on Jeremiah, Origen here merely said, “but remember that is written” (sed memento quod scriptum est),39 an introduction common to scriptural quotations.

36. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 55. 37. Plisch, Thomas, 37 38. Barbara J. Bruce, Origen: Homilies on Joshua (FC 105; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 55–56, § 4.3. 39. Annie Jaubert, Origène: Homélies sur Josué (SC 71; Paris: Cerf, 1960), 154.


Another example of Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas is so close that his quotation was used to correct a scribal error in the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas. The text of Gos. Thom. 74 as presented in Codex II of the Nag Hammadi library reads:

He said, “Lord, there are many around the drinking trough (j te), but nothing is in the illness (š ne).”40

The last clause does not make good sense, so the original editors of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas considered this text to be corrupt. Taking inspiration from a saying recorded in Origen, Contra Celsum 8.15 and 16, the editors concluded that there is a scribal error in the last word, in which the word š ne, “illness,” had been written instead of š te, “well.”41 The form of the saying recorded by Origen rst occurs in a passage in Contra Celsum, a refutation written toward the end of his life of a polemical work against Christianity by a pagan philosopher, Celsus. In 8.15, Origen set forth an argument by Celsus that Christians worship the father of Jesus rather than the Creator:

After this Celsus says: To show that I am not wide of the mark in forming this opinion, I will quote their own words. For in one place in the heavenly dialogue they speak there in these words: “If the Son of God is mightier, and the Son of man is his Lord (and who else will overcome the God who is mighty?), how is it that many are round the well and no one goes into it? [ , ;] Why, when you have come to the end of such a hard journey, are you lacking in daring?”—“You are wrong, for I have courage and a sword.” Thus is not their object to worship the super-celestial God, but him whom they suppose to be the Father of Jesus who is the central object of their society. They want to worship only this Son of man, whom they put forward as leader under the pretence that he is a great God….42

One obstacle for recognizing Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas for the “in the well” saying in this case is that Celsus did not identify the saying as coming from that gospel at all. Rather, Celsus quoted it as coming from some other document called the “Heavenly Dialogue.” This document is not the Gospel of Thomas because it is quoted as containing material foreign to that gospel. Moreover, it is evident from the follow-ing discussion that Origen had never heard of it before:

40. Plisch, Thomas, 189. 41. Ibid., 176. They also supposed that the dialect form j te, “drinking trough,” was a misspelling of š te, “well.” 42. Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 462–63, § 8.15.

146 Sacra Scriptura

1

Here again he takes these notions from some unknown and very undistin-guished sect, and bases on them an objection to all Christians. I say “very undistinguished” since it is not clear even to us who have often taken part in controversy with heretics which is the opinion from which Celsus has taken these ideas—if, at least, he did take them from some source, and did not invent them or add anything as an inference of his own…43

Accordingly, Origen argued that this source for Celsus must have come from a sect so “undistinguished” that Origen had not ever come across them before in his disputes with other Christian sects. Yet, according to his rst homily on Luke, Origen had already known and studied the Gospel of Thomas. In fact, Origen’s knowledge of the saying in the Gospel of Thomas enabled him to make another counter-argument to Celsus’s attack (c. Cels. 8.16):

Then I think he muddles things again from another sect the following: How is it that many are round the well and no one goes into it?… We who belong to the church named after Christ alone say that none of these things is true. He seems to be attributing sayings which are nothing to do with us in order to be consistent with what he said earlier.44

Origen’s counter-attack thus accuses Celsus of “muddling things…from another sect.” This charge indicates that Origen was able to recognize some of the content of the Heavenly Dialogue, though not the actual document itself as belonging to another sect. Given Origen’s study of the Gospel of the Thomas, the basis for Origen’s recognition would have to have been his knowledge of a very similar saying found at Gos. Thom. 74. Unlike the “near the re” saying, which Origen found useful in his homilies on Jeremiah and Joshua, Origen rejected the saying, which he knew from the Gospel of Thomas, as not true and as having “nothing to do with us.” Accordingly, the saying’s inclusion in a source that Origen had relied upon in another context for an authentic saying of Jesus meant little to Origen when he wanted to marginalize the argumentation of one of his pagan opponents. More problematic than the previous examples is Origen’s possible use of Gos. Thom. 23 in his treatise on the Passover. The possible use occurs in a discussion of Exod 12:10, which reads: “You shall let none of it remain until the morning, and you shall break no bone of it. What remains of it until the morning shall be burnt with re.” In this discus-sion, Origen identi ed the night with the present world and the morning for the world to come, citing Rom 12:13, and went on to explain that

43. Ibid., 463, § 8.15. 44. Ibid., 463–64, § 8.16.


“only a very few…will be capable of leaving any esh until the morn-ing.”45 Then Origen added, “as he says, perhaps one from a thousand, and two from ten thousand ( , ), among whom the blessed apostles also were.”46 The source for Origen’s quotation is unlikely to be the Old or New Testaments. The closest passage is Deut 32:30, “How could one pursue a thousand, and two put ten thousand to ight?” (

), but unlike Origen’s quotation, the “one” and the “two” are not identi ed as coming from the “thousand” and the “ten thousand,” respec-tively. Also unlike the quoted material, the context is about routing the enemy, not about identifying the very few, such as the apostles. Indeed, the Old Testament is a rather poor candidate for Origen’s source, because his mention of the “blessed apostles” suggests that the speaker of the saying is Jesus, not the Old Testament. On the other hand, Gos. Thom. 23, ts Origen’s context for the quoted saying much better:

Jesus says, “I will choose you, one from a thousand and two from then thousand. And they will stand as a single one.”47

Unlike the Deuteronomy passage, the saying in the Gospel of Thomas

ts Origen’s context very well. Origen went on to state that the “blessed apostles” are included among the “very few,” while Gos. Thom. 23 explicitly identi es the “one” and “two” as being those whom Jesus chose. Before concluding that Origen has used the Gospel of Thomas here, however, it is necessary to exclude another plausible source for the saying: the Gospel of Basilides.48 Both Irenaeus and Epiphanius attest to Basilides’s use of this saying. In an exposition of Basilides’s views, Irenaeus quoted Basilides to the effect that his secret teachings were not for everyone: “However, the many cannot know these things, but one from a thousand, and two from ten thousand” (Adv. Haer. 1.24.6).49 The presence of this saying in Basilides is con rmed by Epiphanius, who reports Basilides as teaching that his mysteries are to be revealed “to one

45. Robert J. Daly, Origen: Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and his Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul (ACW 54; New York: Paulist, 1992), 45–46, fol. 34, ll. 10–34. 46. Ibid., 46, inexplicably renders as “as the Scripture says.” 47. Plisch, Thomas, 82. 48. The saying was also popular in Manichean literature (ibid., 83), but this post-dates Origen and may well have come from the Gospel of Thomas. 49. My translation of non autem multos scire posse haec, sed unum a mille, et duo a myriadibus.

148 Sacra Scriptura

1

in a thousand and to two in ten thousand” (Adv. Haer. 25.4.4).50 The dif culty is that, according to his rst homily on Luke, Origen too was familiar with the Gospel of Basilides. Nevertheless, there are two reasons why the Gospel of Thomas should be preferred as the source for Origen’s saying. First, the context of Origen and the Gospel of Thomas of the saying are both about identifying the elect, while the context of Basilides is about the revelation of mysteries. Second, both Origen and the Gospel of Thomas attribute (indirectly and directly, respectively) the saying to Jesus, while in the Gospel of Basilides, as least as witnessed by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, the saying is one of Basilides’s. Accordingly, Origen’s quotation of the saying in his treatise of the Passover ought to be con-sidered as coming from the Gospel of Thomas. Indeed, his use of the Gospel of Thomas here resembles his use of another saying in the homily on Joshua: he cited the saying anonymously but without any indication that it came from a source that was written “outside the grace” (Hom. Luc. 1) of the Holy Spirit. A previously unrecognized use of the Gospel of Thomas by Origen occurs in a catena fragment to Jn 20:25.51 This extensive fragment about the disciple Thomas is numbered 106 in Brooke’s and Preuschen’s collection and has never been translated into English.52 As a matter of fact, Ronald E. Heine, the author of the most complete English transla-tion of Origen, did not translate any of the catena fragments of Origen’s Commentary on John on the grounds that their wording and in some cases their authenticity are dubious.53 Many of the problems that Heine has pointed out with the catena fragments are common to catenae

50. Karl Holl, Epiphanius, 1:262:

. 51. A. E. Brooke, ed., The Commentary of Origen on S. John’s Gospel (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), 2:308–9, fr. 106. 52. According to Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel accord-ing to John, Books 13–32 (FC 89; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993), vii. A fairly loose German-language translation of this frag-ment does exist, however: Rolf Gögler, Origenes: Das Evangelium nach Johannes (MKZU 4; Zurich: Benziger, 1959), 405–6. On the other hand, the French translation of Origen’s Commentary on John in Sources Chrétiennes does not include the fragments. 53. Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10 (FC 80; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 10: “[W]here we have no corroborating evidence from other texts of Origen that we can never be certain that we have his thoughts, much less his words, in a fragment from the catenae. It is for this reason that the fragments from the catenae contained in Preuschen’s text are not included in this translation.”


generally.54 For example, some of them are misattributed, and many of them have been severely abridged to the point of giving misleading contexts for the statements. Although Heine did not speci cally treat fragment 106 in his study of the value of the catenae for Origen’s Commentary on John, it would seem that the greatest objection to its authenticity would be that it relates to a passage that Origen did not cover in his commentary. Origen’s Commentary on John was perhaps one of his most ambitious projects, and it apparently was never completed. The rst six books, totaling some 300 pages, covered just Jn 1:1–29. Although Origen began to pick up the pace, covering more ground with fewer words, the last book he apparently wrote, Book 32, only managed to get to Jn 13:33.55 Accordingly, a catena fragment on Jn 20:25 would seem to pose an immediate problem, because it relates to a passage that Origen had not yet reached in his commentary—in fact, it is the only catena fragment for a passage beyond Jn 13:33.56 Yet the connection between this fragment and Jn 20:25 may be due to the catenist instead of Origen. The bulk of the fragment is concerned with the fact that Thomas was also called “Twin,” an appellation that also occurs earlier in Jn 11:16 (“Thomas, who was called the Twin”). Thus, Origen’s discussion of Thomas’s name is also appropriate for his exegesis of Jn 11:16. Unfortunately, the book of Origen’s commentary relating to this passage has not survived (it would have come between the extant Book 20, which ends with Jn 8:53, and Book 28, which begins with Jn 11:39), so the wording of fragment 106 cannot be corroborated as belonging to Origen. Nevertheless, an objection that Origen would not have covered the subject matter of fragment 106 in his commentary cannot be sustained. The main point of commentary fragment 106 concerns the detail that Thomas is given another name, the “Twin.” In this regard, Origen compares and contrasts Thomas with other disciples with double names, Simon Peter and the “Boanerges” brothers, James and John, all of whom were present at the Trans guration:

But concerning how it is said to him “Do not become unbelieving but believing” (Jn 20:27) and if in the name of Thomas such things were but said, that he altered the names of those deemed worthy by the savior of greater spectacles concerning his trans guration on the mountain and

54. Ronald E. Heine, “Can the Catena Fragments of Origen’s Commentary on John Be Trusted?,” VC 40 (1986): 118–34. 55. Heine, Origen: John 1–10, 7–8. Jerome only knows of 32 books. 56. Noticed by ibid., 8. Fragment 105, on Jn 14:3, actually belongs to Theodore of Mopsuestia.

150 Sacra Scriptura

1

seeing of Moses and Elijah in glory. But he did not alter the names of the rest, since they in themselves were able to show the character of each one. Then concerning the rest of the apostles he did not now propose to say, but concerning Thomas, which is interpreted twin (didymus), on account of this, since he was a twin in respect to the word, copying down the divine things twice and being an imitator of Christ speaking in parables to those on the outside (Mk 4:11) but privately explaining all things to his own disciples (Mk 4:36).57

In this passage, Origen explained the bestowal of the name “Twin” (Greek Didymus) upon Thomas with details that are evident from the incipit of Thomas:

These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke. And Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down. And he said, “Whoever nds the mean-ing of these words will not taste death.”58

The similarities between Origen in fragment 106 and Gos. Thom. 1 are striking. Both of them present Thomas’s nickname, the “Twin” or Didymus. Both of them present Thomas as writing something down, which Origen speci cally characterized as “copying down the divine things” ( ). And both of them present a gure of Thomas who was presenting obscure sayings (or parables) that are to be interpreted privately. The density of these shared details about Thomas, coupled with Origen’s admitted knowledge and study of the Gospel of Thomas, leads to the conclusion that this is another case in which Origen has used the Gospel of Thomas. What makes this case different than the others—and perhaps the reason it had not yet been recognized—is that the use did not occur in the sayings material of the Gospel of Thomas but in its very brief narrative prologue. In conclusion, Origen’s attitude toward the Gospel of Thomas was more nuanced than his explicit statements about it would seem to permit. As he stated in his rst homily on Luke, he considered the Gospel of Thomas to be written “outside the grace” of the Holy Spirit and not

57. My translation of: «

» ,

. , ’

. , , , ,

, ’ .

58. Plisch, Thomas, 37.


“approved” by the church. Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas contains material to which Origen would have objected. For example, Gos. Thom. 52 denigrates the testimony of the Old Testament for Jesus, a position that Origen disagreed with in his Commentary on John 2:34. As another example, Origen would have found offensive the saying in Gos. Thom. 105 that Jesus would be called the son of a harlot (compare with c. Cels. 1:28 and 32). When a saying similar to Gos. Thom. 74 was used polemically by Celsus, Origen marginalized it as sectarian. Nevertheless, Origen used the Gospel of Thomas as a source for authentic sayings of Jesus (Gos. Thom. 82 and 23). In one case, he even used it for details about the disciple Thomas. In this manner, Origen’s use of the Gospel of Thomas is consistent with his attitude to other texts designated as apocryphal. He selectively used them when he thought their material would be bene cial to his point. The Gospel of Thomas was no different.

9

THE ACTS OF THOMAS AS SACRED TEXT

Jonathan K. Henry The so-called “apocryphal acts of apostles” constitute some of our most under-exploited resources for understanding early Christianity in its fullest and most diverse sense. From these texts, a careful reader may acquire a signi cant body of information about the values, mythologies, and philosophical underpinnings of early Christians across the Roman and Parthian empires and beyond. Nonetheless, the road that leads to the study of these acts is only sporadically travelled.1 The texts in this loose assemblage are often misunderstood and are frequently portrayed with the broad lines of caricature. Thus, despite generally growing to admit non-canonical materials into the critical analysis of formative Christian-ity, it is still dif cult to identify what place the apocryphal acts should occupy within the disciplines of biblical literature.2 It would seem that they are neither historical enough to be sources of history, coherent enough to have been credible sources of theology, nor authoritative enough to have affected the values and thinking of early Christians. I believe this situation is due, in large part, to misunderstandings about the authority and function of the acts in their original setting. When approaching the Acts of Thomas (or Judas Thomas, as he is known in the Syriac tradition), the question arises: How was this book used, and with what religious import? Such questions about the function of the text usually occupy only a short paragraph in a larger discussion.3 In the end, 1. Willy Rordorf, “Terra Incognita: Recent Research on Christian Apocryphal Literature, Especially on Some Acts of Apostles,” in Papers Presented at the Eleventh International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1991 (ed. E. A. Livingstone; StPatr 25; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 142–58 (143): “Christian apocryphal literature remains to this day an insuf ciently explored territory, which, once it has been fully investigated, could compel us to alter the traditional map of Christian origins.” 2. The issue at hand is bound up in a larger set of problems addressed in Robert Kraft, “Para-Mania: Beside, Before, and Beyond Bible Studies,” JBL 126 (2007): 5–27. 3. E.g. the brief survey of possibilities in Jan Bremmer, “The Apocryphal Acts: Authors, Place, Time and Readership,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (ed. Jan

9. HENRY The Acts of Thomas as Sacred Text 153

it might seem that these acts were an inferior body of pious literature for the masses—a weighty camel swallowed by an otherwise gnat-straining Nicæan church.4 On this basis, one might be tempted to give this corpus only cursory consideration in the ongoing task of reconstructing early Christian thought—why bring a cavalier text to a serious discussion?5 In the end, we tend to take texts as seriously now as we imagine they were taken once upon a time. The general lack of discussion about function is notable when one considers that there has been ample re ection on the book’s genre.6 Scholarship has brought us to a point where we can reasonably discuss genre. One might hope that genre would tell us about a work’s function and pragmatic orientation, yet this is not the case. This is because the book’s importance (or better, its self-importance) and its intended func-tion transcend the realm of what genre analysis can typically tell us.7 This should hardly be surprising. Imagine that the four Gospels of the New Testament were lost to us in late antiquity, only to be recovered in the past 150 years. Would genre-analysis tell us what people did with these books? Perhaps not as well as one might hope. We can presume that we know what people did with the Gospels, mainly because we know what people have historically done with them. People rely on the Gospels for the story of Jesus, for the teachings of Jesus by which to live, and for the overall point of what it means to be a Christian. But we

Bremmer; Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 6; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 168. It is not uncommon to see proposed such characterizations as a sort of apostolic “gossip column” (Tomas Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983], 161) or early Christian “fan ction” (Kasper Bro Larsen, “ ‘Character Bending’ in Fan Fiction and New Testament Apocrypha,” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Boston, Mass., November 22, 2008]). Overall, function is typically ill-de ned or trivialized. 4. This is the picturesque description employed by Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (trans. Neil Buchanan; 7 vols.; Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1896–1905), 3:160. 5. Thus the terminological discussion in Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 108. 6. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (trans. and ed. Robert McL. Wilson; 2nd ed.; 2 vols.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991–92), 2:78–83; Christine Thomas, Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 5–13. 7. Cf. the insightful considerations of Thomas, Acts of Peter, 12–13. It is not a little ironic that, even while struggling to understand how they could have been important, we may actually reinforce the marginality of the apocryphal acts.

154 Sacra Scriptura

1

would struggle to understand this essential importance if we did not have that concept at our disposal a priori (as anachronistic as the concept might be). This is the case in our situation. I believe our reluctance to press beyond the genre-question and into the function-question at least partially explains why the acts still struggle to nd a rmly established place in our historical work. It is one thing to say that the apocryphal acts were important in some way, but another to become more speci c about the nature of that importance. Viewing a work in terms of its functional role allows us to frame more accurately a text in a way that re ects its authentic signi cance in its ancient context. This attention to function will, in turn, lead to a more accurate exegesis of the text and a clearer historical portrait of the people who used it. In this case, I hope to demonstrate the signi cance of the Acts of Thomas for Christians who viewed it positively and used it for religious purposes. To lay the groundwork for a discussion of the function of this text, I will brie y offer three foundational concepts upon which the remainder of the essay must rest. First, despite reporting on implausible events, true believers had no problem believing such writings to be factual.8 Scholars of religion sometimes speak of “a blessed excess” to describe how believers apprehend the unbelievable.9 Hyperbole in serious religious literature is not synonymous with untruth, and there is always something more elemental than ction at play.10 Indeed, truth dwelt in a more prag-matic sphere than mere reporting.11 Though we have on our hands

8. For a valuable discussion of methodological issues and precedents in describ-ing the ctionality or historicity of the apocryphal acts, see Cameron, Christianity and Rhetoric, 92–93, 118; Thomas, Acts of Peter, 5–7, 87–103. 9. For the problem of confronting modern readers with ancient and “unbeliev-able” texts, see Ralph Flores, Buddhist Scripture as Literature: Sacred Rhetoric and the Uses of Theory (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2008). Flores cites numerous studies dealing with hyperbole and other concerns. 10. Cameron, Christianity and Rhetoric, 118. 11. Note that even Augustine did not dispute that the accuracy of a portion of the Acts of Thomas he discusses, but rather informs Faustus that he does not care if the account is true or not (Utrum illa vera sit aut con cta narratio, nihil mea nunc interest [Faust. 22.80]). He defers the grander decisions regarding the book’s value to “holy and learned men.” He is concerned to make a more practical point regarding conduct. Learned churchmen were hardly a skeptical lot for the most part, and some reached great heights of hyperbole in parænetic contexts. While reading the act of “the young man that murdered the woman,” which contains a scene of a man’s hand withering while attempting to take the eucharist (Acts Thom. 51), I am reminded of the litany of miraculous punishments Cyprian hangs over the heads of his parishion-ers (Cyprian, De lapsis 3.23-26 [ANF 5:443–44]). Indeed, Cyprian’s account may be more threatening, since he calls himself an eyewitness to some of these events!


something of a theological novel, it is a text that could be regarded as true (and, indeed, was regarded as true). Second, a writing like the Acts of Thomas was able to wield a degree of in uence on the catholic church, regardless of sporadic condemna- tions of it, its authors, or its readers.12 Such opposition is an indirect indication of its in uence, which was widespread. For more direct indi-cations of the in uence of the Acts of Thomas, I have only to point to clear evidences of religious art and literature that radiated from the text.13 From the perspective of comparative religions, such a powerful in uence would be suf cient for a work to be considered “scripture.” Third, and as an extension to the above, the ground between the canonical and apocryphal texts must be level as we seek to shed light on the development of early Christianity.14 This is a point that scholarship has been slow to apprehend, or perhaps quick to dismiss or ignore. It somehow seems safe to call the Acts of Thomas a novel, or really any-thing at all, so long as one does not transgress into the realm of sacred

12. Such repudiations of the apocryphal acts are found in Innocent I, Epistola VI.7 (PL 20, cols. 501a-502a), Leo I, Epistola XV.15 (PL 54, cols. 688a-b) and the stern Decretum attributed to Gelasius I (PL 59, cols. 162a-164b). 13. Select instances will be the focus of a later section of this study, but several more general examples may be cited in support of the present statement. The Passio was a Latin reworking, probably from about 360 CE, which re ects the culture and problems of the Western context (Klaus Zelzer, Die alten Lateinischen Thomasakten [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur 122; Berlin: Akademie, 1977], xxvi). This, along with other recensions, provided the basis for a large body of songs, poems, art, illuminated texts, and other media of expression. For instance, several medieval bronze bowls depict the Thomas cycle, with injunc-tions such as, “If the faithful wish to learn of his virtuous acts, let them study what is engraved here,” for which see Josepha Weitzmann-Fiedler, Romanische gravierte Bronzeschalen (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1981), 39–48, 78–79, and Tafelen 27–40B. The stained glass panes at the Bourges Cathedral and the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Chartres detail similarly important scenes from the Acts of Thomas. In the British Isles, a number of in uential church gures put portions or reworkings of the text to public use, including Aldhelm of Malmesbury, Cynewulf, Airbertach mac Cosse, and Ælfric of Eynsham (although he was reluctant). In Syria, Egeria reports hearing readings from a St. Thomas text (aliquanta ipsius sancti Thomae ibi legimus) while at his shrine. Indeed, all manner of liturgical, hagio-graphical, and instructional adaptations of the Acts of Thomas abounded in the late antique and early medieval periods; an adequate discussion of the breadth of in u-ence (including the geographical diversity of the manuscripts) would, in the end, require a discrete essay or chapter. 14. François Bovon, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), xvi. See also Cameron, Christianity and Rhetoric, especially 89–119.

156 Sacra Scriptura

1

text—a Christian scripture of one sort or another. By classifying it as a truly holy book among certain Christians, one is acknowledging both the diversity of Christianity and the role of so-called apocrypha in the early centuries of Christian development. In this essay I will indeed say that some Christians viewed Acts of Thomas as suf ciently sacred for employment in liturgical, sermonic, and scholastic activities, and that this practice made them no less identi able as “Christian.” The argument of the present study is organized under three simple assertions about the Acts of Thomas. First, the text’s presentation of itself suggests that it was written and redacted to be read as a Christian holy book, and that it should be understood in this way.15 Second, it can be read and used as Christian scripture, a potential for use that is reinforced by its thematic and doctrinal clarity. Third, the text was used as a sacred text by actual Christian bishops, scribes, and scholars. These three points will allow for a number of succinct theological observations, exegetical points, and evidences of use, all in the spirit of discussing the book’s function. To the extent that it is possible, the third act of the Acts of Thomas will serve as a test case for the discussion. I will refer primarily to Syriac texts, not because of any special properties they possess, but because up to this point in my study, the Syriac transmission history has provided a clearer window into the religious function of the text than have the transmission-histories in other languages.16

1. Self-Presentation as Sacred Text First, we will discuss how Acts of Thomas was intended to be a work of Christian scripture (the should). The word “Christian” is added with a purpose in mind, because the Acts of Thomas has often been character-ized as a gnostic concoction, an in ltration into the Christian faith from

15. It is hoped that the reader will discern an absence of practical application in the argument that the Acts of Thomas was meant to be authoritative text. This essay and its arguments are oriented on the history of religion and literature, and there is no suggestion of any direct implications for confessional theology. 16. The Syriac text used for the purposes of the present study is that of William Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: Edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum and Other Libraries (2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1871), with reference to the incomplete manuscript presented in Agnes Smith Lewis, ed., Acta mythologica apostolorum (Horae Semiticae 4; London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1904). The Greek text is that of Richard A. Lipsius and Maxmillian Bonnet, eds., Acta apostolorum apocrypha, post Constantinium Tischendorf (3 vols.; Leipzig, 1903; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1959), ii.2:99–291.


beyond the frontiers of Christianity proper.17 The work was introduced to Western scholarship in a critical edition by Johann Karl Thilo in 1823 as something to be studied alongside the rest of “Gnosticorum et Manichaeorum.”18 The situation did not improve much when the text was brought into English-speaking scholarship. Bernhard Pick opined that “it is mainly for the light they throw on Gnostic ideas that the Acts of Thomas deserve to be studied.”19 Indeed, a frequent appellation for the Acts of Thomas was “The Gnostic Acts of Thomas.” Speci cally relating to the third act under consideration in the present study, Günther Bornkamm proposed that the narrative of this act was a thin veil covering the Gnostic mythology that, in his view, permeated the whole book.20 Though methods evolved over time, many followed this pattern of adducing a seemingly endless stream of Gnostic and pagan parallels.21

17. The term “gnostic” is used in this essay to encode the typological sense with which it was employed by the authors to whom I refer. In that sense, it was some-times spelled with an initial capital to denote a distinct religion: “Gnosticism.” The term is more successful as a means for describing the history of scholarship regard-ing para-orthodox religious thought than it is in describing any sort of religious thought in and of itself. While we may speak of various gradations of gnosticism or gnostic-like thought, I have chosen to isolate my usage of the term to the sense in which the authors I survey used the term. The starting point for discussions of gnosticism(s) in the sense of an ancient type of belief may be found in Michael Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); Christoph Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000); and Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003). 18. Johann Karl Thilo, Acta Sancta Thomae apostoli ex codd. Pariss. (Leipzig: Vogel, 1823), v. 19. Bernhard Pick, The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas (Chicago: Open Court, 1909), 224. 20. Günther Bornkamm, Mythos und Legende in den apokryphen Thomas-Akten: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Gnosis und zur Vorgeschichte des Manichäismus (FRLANT 49 [n.s. 31]; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933), 32–33: “Der 3.

zu Grunde liegt der Mythos vom Kampf des himmlischen mit dem Ungeheuer der Finsternis, letztlich des Ormuzd [Ahura Mazda] gegen Ahriman,” ultimately recounting “des Mythischen Erlösungsgeschehens.” Bornkamm’s observations regarding the intertwining of narrative and discourse were indeed perceptive, and the book still contains much that is valuable. 21. E.g. Hans Conzelmann, “Zu Mythos, Mythologie und Formgeschichte,” ZNW 67 (1976): 111–22 (118): “Wir nden die Schlange, die das All umringt und sich in den Schwanz beißt. Das Symbol ist deutlich: .”

158 Sacra Scriptura

1

There were a few dissenting voices who argued that, in spite of schol-arly consensus, Acts of Thomas was a Christian book with thoroughly Christian aims and impulses.22 A. F. J. Klijn’s 1962 commentary on the Syriac text was a remarkable break with scholarly tradition.23 The com-mentary received enough attention to warrant a special addendum to Bornkamm’s introduction to Acts of Thomas in New Testament Apocry-pha, in which Dieter Georgi criticized Klijn for having a narrow scope and methodological peculiarities (criticisms that were, in some ways, warranted).24 Then, in the fth edition of Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, Han Drijvers wrote a fresh introduction to the Acts of Thomas that altogether replaced Bornkamm’s introduction.25 Drijvers compellingly and succinctly argued that the Acts of Thomas was Syriac Christian through and through, its esoteric contents notwithstanding. The timing and prominence of the essay were fortuitous enough to bring many in the scholarly community to realize a crucial fact—the Acts of Thomas was a Christian book written to embody Christian truths. The current study con rms and builds upon this idea. We have begun with the idea that the Acts of Thomas should be under-stood as a sacred Christian text. And what about the other part of that statement? In what way does the book seem to represent itself as a sacred text? The concept of scripture as a category of textual (or oral) expres-sion is a complex one; and the more nuanced the de nition, the lengthier the explanation will need to be.26 I will, by necessity, compress the essential arguments into a few cumulative sub-points. First, the Acts of Thomas reports on events in a historical fashion. If the book were less authoritative in its presentation, events would be 22. For instance, the lectures in Adam F. Findlay, Byways in Early Christian Literature: Studies in Uncanonical Gospels and Acts (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1923). 23. Albertus F. J. Klijn, Acts of Thomas: Introduction–Text–Commentary (NovTSup 5; Leiden: Brill, 1962). The second edition was published by Brill in 2003. 24. Dieter Georgi’s postscript to Günther Bornkamm, “The Acts of Thomas,” in New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 2, Writings Relating to the Apostles: Apocalypses and Related Subjects (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson; 1st ed.; London: Lutterworth, 1965), 441–42. 25. Han J. W. Drijvers, “Thomasakten,” in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung mit Einleitung. Vol. 2, Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; 5th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr–Siebeck, 1989), 289–367. 26. One may go to such discussions as Wilfred C. Smith, What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); and John F. A. Sawyer, Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (London: Routledge, 1999).


prefaced with statements like, “Some say that such-and-such occurred.” There is a positivist style to the Acts of Thomas, from beginning to end. There is no speculation, but rather full con dence that what is being reported is indeed a true retelling of something the apostle Judas Thomas had done (if not totally accurate, it was “as good as one could ever expect to get,” which often seems to have been as suf cient as accuracy).27 Second, the text delivers authoritative statements directly from the mouth of Judas Thomas. These apostolic pronouncements are made without equivocation, in contrast with authoritative but “non-scripture” books like Liber Graduum. Judas Thomas has no need to base his kerygma on something said by Peter or any other apostle.28 The Apostle will sometimes pronounce that the Lord has said something, but his own recollections and revelations are all that are ever needed to divulge this divine truth.29 Third, this sort of narrative carried an inherent weight with its con-stituent audience. I am not referring here to a comparison with the canonical Acts of the Apostles, but rather the canonical Gospels, of which this book is an extension.30 The book stakes its authority on the type of apostolic traditions so revered at that time, but utilizes a format unmistakably close to the format of the canonical Gospels, a format that had rather recently emerged and given the widespread Christian move-ment its founding story and ethical shape. If one were to set out to write a binding, sacred narrative, one would build upon the gospel format, inasmuch as one understood it. Fourth, and by extension, the Acts of Thomas is consumed with the idea of preaching the gospel of Jesus as understood by Thomas. Thus there are many references throughout the book, including four occasions

27. Though there would be little point in arguing that the Acts of Thomas is “history” in a sense that is acceptable to modern sensibilities, there is no reason to default to the opinion that all personal and geographical details are entirely fabri-cated. See James F. McGrath, “History and Fiction in the Acts of Thomas: The State of the Question,” JSP 17 (2008): 297–311, and note especially the helpful discussion on the ancient boundaries of India and Parthia, which controverts commonly held assumptions. 28. Contrast with Acts Thomae minora, in which the characters of Peter, Mary, and others are required to lend credibility to the ministry of Thomas. 29. Even the dominical sayings are apparently muted in a way that makes the certainty of reliance on gospel texts unclear. See Harold Attridge, “Intertextuality in the Acts of Thomas,” Semeia 80 (1997): 87–124 (91). 30. I owe the initial observation about the similarities between the apocryphal acts and the canonical Gospels to François Bovon, “Canonical and Apocryphal Acts,” JECS 11 (2003): 165–94 (177).

160 Sacra Scriptura

1

in the third act alone, to “announcing the gospel,” and “announcing the Lord Jesus, the Christ,” or, from the perspective of the crowds, “announc-ing the new God.”31 The content of this announcement includes not only the inherent authority of Jesus the Messiah, but also his demand that people submit to this authority by turning from their “former deeds.”32 The importance of the above points can be subsumed under the concept of an apostle as an eyewitness who vouches for the truth and bears the truth out in his own mission.33 By virtue of this apostolic mes-sage, we are drawn to the conclusion that the Acts of Thomas is a salvation-historical narrative intended to be used as a vehicle to affect salvation-historical change. Put another way, it chronicles the expansion of Christ’s authority to the broader world, and itself intends to solidify and further this expansion whenever it is read and believed.34 In short, it is a sacred presentation of the gospel. While we must stop short of naming this text the Gospel of Thomas, this is the net effect of the third act (and of the book as a whole). To conclude this segment, I restate that the Acts of Thomas asks us to read it as authentically Christian, and also asks us to read it as an authori-tative witness to the apostolic mission and message. The text offers no obstacle to this identi cation, and indeed offers every encouragement.

31. This interest in proclamation is unique among the apocryphal acts. I nd the appearance of the word group 34 times in Bonnet’s text of Acts Thom. (compared with ten occurrences in the Acts of John, seven in the Acts of Andrew, and

ve in the Acts of Paul); and the word group appears ten times in the Acts of Thomas (compared with two occurrences each in the Acts of John and the Acts of Paul). In most cases, the object of the preaching is “the new God,” or an analogous term. The Syriac texts do not always agree with the Greek in these cases, a fact that adds color to the translation and transmission of the text. For instance, see the rst chapter, where the Greek Thomas asks how he can “preach” ( ...

) the truth in India, while the Syriac Judas Thomas asks how he can “teach” ( ) the Indians; cf. Acts Thom. 21, 66, 76, 79, 128, 137, 157. 32. The phrase (and closely related ones) occurs seven times in Acts Thom. 34, 35, 37, and 38. 33. See Wolfgang Bienert, “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradi-tion,” in Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, 2:5–27. To emphasize how acute the apostolic focus is in our text, note that Judas Thomas is referred to merely as the “Apostle” ( ) twelve times in this little act alone. 34. To a degree, a compatible argument underlies Patrick J. Hartin, “The Character of Thomas in the Acts of Thomas,” in Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas (ed. Jon Ma. Asgeirsson, April D. Deconick, and Risto Uro; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 59; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 239–53.


2. Potential for Use as Sacred Text

Moving on now to the second major point, I would like to consider how the text can be read as Christian scripture. This is important to consider, for what value is there in a writing that asks to be taken as authoritative if it is unintelligible to such a degree that one can never actually understand or apply it? I argue that it can be successfully queried for both theo-logical and ethical clarity. In this instance, the third act of the Acts of Thomas will suf ce as a test case. This act can be summarized brie y: At the direction of the Lord, the apostle comes across the scene of a dead youth, and encounters the wicked serpent that had murdered the boy. The serpent discloses that he killed the boy for sleeping with a girl with whom the serpent was enamored. Judas Thomas causes the death of the snake and raises the boy, who comes to faith. Crowds of pagans become Christians; speeches, which occupy so much of the act, furnish the practical application of the more exciting narrative action. A denial of the book’s clarity can be found in studies by Michael LaFargue and the late Dieter Georgi, both of whom insisted that the Acts of Thomas presented the reader with a complex and self-obscuring body of gnostic (or “Gnostic”) truth. To the extent that this depiction is stressed in their comments on the text, one could presumably be excused for abandoning all attempts to understand the book. LaFargue argued in no uncertain terms that none of the asceticism or encraticism espoused by the Apostle can be taken as literal. Rather, the teachings are metaphors for “the resistance of Mind to World.”35 Georgi also argued that the work was never meant to be a believable narrative, that it was never meant to convey its meaning as information, and that Drijvers was to be criticized for naïvely believing that a coherent infor-mational structure can be found in the book. Rather, for both LaFargue and Georgi, the Acts of Thomas was an intentionally obscure book, intended to bring initiates into a “cosmically connected existential” encounter.36

35. Michael LaFargue, Language and Gnosis: The Opening Scenes of the Acts of Thomas (HDR 18; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 214. Much of LaFargue’s evidence comes from an analysis of mixed metaphors and “obscure” ideas, traditionally taken to be tell-tale signs of gnosticism. 36. See Dieter Georgi, “The Gnosis Issue in Contemporary European Scholar-ship: A Problem of Psychopathy, Politics, or Human Rights?,” in Walk in the Ways of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (ed. Shelly Matthews, Cynthia B. Kittredge, and Melanie Johnson-Debaufre; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press

162 Sacra Scriptura

1

While it is true that this text seeks to muster an existential reaction, the same can be said for most scriptural writings. This should not be admitted at the expense of the informational structure that is undeniably present. Rather, information and exhortation combine in such a way as to evoke a serious response. In the third act, we nd that a coherent and understandable informa-tional structure undergirds both narrative and teaching. The proof of this statement is to be found in the coherent main point of the third act, which can be identi ed and summarized. The essential point of the third act is that humans, though created free agents by God, have been tricked into slavery to evil; humans need to hear the gospel to have their eyes opened, which will hopefully lead to conversion and a life pleasing to God. This rests primarily on the twin themes of free will (expressed in the terms

or ) and nature ( ), which are components in the ulti-mate issue of conversion. a. Freedom of the Will First, the discussion of the will. The present act lays great emphasis on the sovereign will of God, and the human capacity to submit either to God’s will or to Satan’s wiles. Free will is the de ning human trait, and the key to understanding the fall and human evil. This point has been missed, especially wherever studies have given exclusive attention to the mythological backgrounds of the serpent and the serpent’s speech about itself in particular.37 The theme holding the serpent’s speech together is that the devil causes all of his human slaves to behave wickedly.38 The serpent’s boast can be summarized thus: he is “like a god to those who

International, 2003), 289–90. This was a fairly common perspective on mythological elements in Christian writings in the mid-twentieth century (after the in uence of Hans Jonas and Rudolph Bultmann especially), and such an approach should probably be seen as an attempt to value the putative meaning underlying the text. 37. The fullest treatments are to be found in Bornkamm, Mythos und Legende, 24–33; Conzelmann, “Mythos, Mythologie und Formgeschichte,” 111–22; Tamás Adamik, “The Serpent in the Acts of Thomas,” in Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, 115–24; Klijn, The Acts of Thomas (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 90–108; and Janet E. Spittler, Animals in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: The Wild Kingdom of Early Christian Literature (WUNT 247; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 193–99, which offers the most reliable treatment. 38. Thus the serpent boasts that he incited Cain, corrupted the sons of God ( , in reference to Gen 6:2) and worked his will ( ) in the resultant race of giants, hardened the heart of Pharaoh, incited the children of Israel to idolatry in the wilderness, and contrived the death of Jesus by manipulating Caiaphas, Herod, and Judas Iscariot.


obey him ( ), that they might do his will ( ).”39 The dead youth and the crowds are held under the sway of the serpent and Satan until the apostle arrives to free them with the gospel. The narrative of the serpent’s conspiracy with Satan to enslave humanity’s will is an established convention in Syriac Christianity.40 The serpent’s speech is but one component in the act’s larger presentation of this theme. Free will is also the key to conversion. Christ achieved the emancipa-tion of humanity’s will when he “struggled against the nature” of the serpent (Acts Thom. 33), and seized its power. This is why the will of the Lord is pitted so emphatically against the nature of the serpent in this act—God’s will is the force that advances God’s gospel, which is the key to humanity’s freedom.41 b. The Nature of the Serpent Second, and in contrast to the concept of free will, stands the concept of a “nature” ( ). The idea of a “nature,” speci cally within the context of Syriac Christianity, has only fairly recently begun to be explained.42 Put simply, a nature is a necessary and particular characteristic of created things. For instance, the enemy’s form may change, but his nature is

39. The idea of obedience is closely related to the idea of being under the “will” of the Enemy. Cf. Judas’ reproach (Acts Thom. 33), “You ought not…tell those things that are done by those who obey you ( ),” and the youth’s prayer (Acts Thom. 34), “And I have destroyed him, who was darkening and obscuring to everyone who adheres to and obeys him ( ).” 40. E.g. the serpent’s conspiracy with Satan to master humanity’s freedom in Edward G. Matthews, The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO 573, Scriptores Armeniaci 24; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 24–26, 35. A similar idea is found in the addition in the Syriac text at Acts Thom. 34, where the evil one was very eager to enslave humanity’s will. 41. Judas’ encounter with the serpent is the will of the Lord. Cf. Acts Thom. 29–30: “The Lord will do something of his will ( )”; “Just as at all time when he wills ( ) to show his power…let his will be done ( )”; and, “Let it be according to your will ( ).” The con ict is against “one who is subject to [the enemy’s] will ( ).” 42. Klijn discussed this in his Acts of Thomas, 49–50. The most detailed treatments (excluding christological discussions) are to be found in studies on Ephrem. See especially Kees den Biesen, Simple and Bold: Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought (Gorgias Dissertations 26, Early Christian Studies 6; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006), 260–68; and Ute Possekel, Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO 580, subsidia 102; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 59–65.

164 Sacra Scriptura

1

black; and so he will never appear in any color other than black.43 And whereas God and humanity have free will, the serpent is primarily de ned by his nature, which is evil.44 Ephrem’s point about the dif-ference between snakes and people is informative: “If serpents are schemers, all of them are crafty. But mankind, on account of his freedom ( ) is able to be like [all the animals], while they cannot become like him. So in this way they have xed natures ( ), while we have freedom ( ).”45 The serpent itself presents an easily established variable in the equation of free will versus evil, which explains why the image of the serpent is chosen to be the antagonist in an act primarily dealing with humanity’s will, and the need for humanity to repent.46 There is one other note on confronting a serpent. The apostle’s actions here turn a commonplace religious ritual on its head. Serpents were mysterious and signi cant creatures, and rituals of snake charming had religious meaning in the culture surrounding Christians in the East. Jacob of Serugh’s contrast between snake charming and the apostle’s preaching of the gospel appears to indicate the spiritual import of both activities.47 More signi cantly, in Ephrem’s Refutations one may nd a description of a snake-charming ritual ( ) as performed by the Mani-chaeans, a ritual that likely predates both Ephrem and the Manichaeans.48 It was reported that Manichaeans took special glory in charming and subjecting the serpent by means of enchantments. This subjection of the serpent served as a demonstration to observers that they had controlled

43. Cf. Acts Thom. 44, and Werner Strothmann, Jakob von Sarug, Drei Gedichte Über den Apostel Thomas in Indien (Göttinger Orientforschungen 12; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976), 83 (1:334–41). 44. “You will reprove the power and the nature ( ) of the Enemy” (Acts Thom. 29); “I know that the abyss of the Messiah will consume our nature ( )” (Acts Thom. 31); and, nally, Acts Thom. 33: “It has revealed its nature ( )… Your nature is exposed ( )… In the name of our Lord Jesus, who struggled against your nature ( )… Show the nature ( ) of your father.” Matthews, Armenian Commentary, 24, indicates that the serpent’s “bound nature” is a by-product of its conspiracy with Satan to overtake the wills of Adam and Eve. 45. Cf. Acts Thom. 46, and Julian J. Overbeck, S. Ephraem Syri, Rabulae episcopi Edesseni, Balaei aliorumque opera selecta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1865), 13–16. 46. The essential outline of this kind of serpent narrative can also be found in some of the infancy gospels (Arabic Infancy Gospel 42; Infancy Gospel of Thomas 16 [Greek text A]; and an allusion in History of Joseph the Carpenter 17). 47. Jacob of Serugh, Drei Gedichte 1:346–57 (Strothmann, Jakob von Sarug, 85). 48. Charles W. Mitchell, ed., S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Vol. 1, Discourses Addressed to Hypatius (London: Williams & Norgate, 1912), 88–89 and 118–21.


this nature of evil. This seems to have been a way of convincing people that they were capable of managing the evil in creation as a whole, including the evil in people’s souls. Ephrem denies this power, and says that those who think they have charmed serpents by incantations are actually being duped by these silent beasts into bondage to Satan. In light of this sort of practice, the confrontation between Judas Thomas and the serpent would have rede ned a known form of religious experience. Judas Thomas does not engage the wily snake by secretive means, but rather forces it to speak aloud its evil lineage, deeds, and intentions. The crowd in the story is shocked, since the average magician would have resulted in a hypnotized snake at most, and certainly not a talking, bursting snake! By participating in a mundane ritual and ulti-mately inverting it, the apostle demonstrates vividly the power of God over Satan, and more importantly, the freeing power of this God’s gospel. c. The Process of Conversion This leaves the overriding concern found in the act, the process of conversion. There are three major components to conversion. First, since free people have been blinded by Satan, a confrontation and defeat of the evil one is necessary. This is the function of the miracle (Acts Thom. 30–33). Second, the people are given time to decide what they will do, now that they can perceive their predicament. This is the point at which the “preaching” terminology commences in the act, to guide the people to the right decision (Acts Thom. 34–37). Third, the nal component of conversion is submission to the service of the new God, a decision that must be followed by a lifetime of ethical improvements. The crowd at the end of the third act embodies the desired response: “We will become servants of his and accomplish his will ( )” (Acts Thom. 38). To conclude the second major point, the third act of the Acts of Thomas contains coherent themes, based on intellectually attainable concepts. That is to say, it “can be” read as it was intended, for apostolic teaching and moral guidance.

3. Evidences for Use as Sacred Text So far, the discussion has lingered on potentials and possibilities. Given the conviction of some ancient writers that the apocryphal acts were not suitable for public reading and worship, and the frequent repetition of these statements in introductory literature, it would be easy to harbor the

166 Sacra Scriptura

1

impression that a work like the Acts of Thomas was never employed in services of Christian worship. That is, despite all that has been said thus far, one might still expect the search for examples of practical use to return without any results. While it is true that much of the evidence we would like to see has been lost, destroyed, or assimilated into a sea of hagiographical excerpts, enough remains to give us clues as to its use in Christian worship. The following examples should be a suf cient bridge between possibilities and actualities. First, there is a lengthy addition in Wright’s Syriac edition (Ms. B.M. add. 14, 645) of ch. 34.49 This prayer is a theological treatise put into the mouth of the resurrected youth. The prayer unfolds the story about how humanity neglected free will, and became enslaved to the devil.50 Just when the enemy was rejoicing in humanity’s subjection, Christ exercised his free will, and came to rescue humanity. The theology of bondage and deliverance is well-developed and eloquently expressed in this addition. We can say two things about this material. First, it is clear that the editor responsible for the placement of this addition carefully considered the third act prior to including this prayer, and that this editor perceived the same coherent theme in the third act as I have described in my analysis: conversion comes when humanity is freed from deception, and freedom allows one to choose God and good. Second, the addition is far removed from the teachings of Manichaean doctrine, and even seems to present a bold front against their ideas. At the very least, this indicates that non-Manichaean Christians somewhere were using this act in one function or another. Not only was there thoughtful re ection on it, but it is reasonable to suggest that the additions arise from scholastic traditions in Eastern Syria, and that these additions are the re ections of scholars who used the text for either worship, instruction, or for both of these activities.51

49. Wright, Apocryphal Acts, 1: - , 2:173–74. 50. There are three orders of created things in this retelling—the creations ( ) of various natures ( ), humanity ( ), and “another creation” (

)—that struggled against the free human will ( , a term frequently used by Ephrem and other sources to emphasize human freedom; cf. Peshi ta translation of 1 Cor 10:29; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 2:4; 5:1, 13; Jas 1:25; 2:12; 1 Pet 2:16, 19; OdesSol 10.3). Conceptual linkage, rather than lexical correlation, exists between this prayer and OdesSol 17 and 21. 51. The addition is of a theological sophistication that re ects neither common-place authorship nor haste of composition. This opinion is strengthened by the realization that the addition to ch. 34 has a companion addition in the Syriac of ch. 70. For a depiction of liturgical-scholarly atmosphere in Eastern Syria, see Chapter 4 of Adam H. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of


In a second case, another portion of the Acts of Thomas is to be found in one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the text, dating to about 650 C.E. The old Irish palimpsest, München CLM 14429, contains 80 folios of sacramentary text.52 This rare attestation of use in a service would have been altogether unknown without the diligent work of Alban Dold over a span of three decades to decipher the Latin text in the under-writing. In it, a complete invocation from Acts Thom. 50 appears in the Ordo missae circumcisionis, which is set off as a distinct “book” in itself.53 This epiclesis serves to invite the divine presence into the time of worship, and demonstrates a clear link between the Acts of Thomas and the liturgy of a church community.54 Furthermore, as with the prior example, the manuscript was circulated among learned people.55

Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006). Another striking example is found in Louis Leloir, “Le baptême du Roi Gundaphor,” Le Museon 100 (1987): 225–33, where intimate knowledge of Gregory of Nazianzus appears to be presup-posed by the scribes or scholars who reedited an Armenian recension of the Acts of Thomas. 52. In Alban Dold and Leo Eizenhöfer, Das irische Palimpsestsakramentar in Clm 14429 der Staatsbibliothek Munchen (TANZ 53/54; Beuron: Beuroner Kunstverlag, 1964). 53. The title is fragmentary: Liber […] om […] constitute de […] con […] celebramus […] ul […]. While this may sound like a rather obscure-sounding celebration, in Visigothic practice, the Circumcision of the Lord occupied a very important place on the calendar. See Eva Castro Caridad, “The Hispanic Texts In Diem Circumcisionis Domoni,” in Hispania Vetus: Musical-Liturgical Manuscripts from Visigothic Origins to the Franco-Roman Transition (9th–12th Centuries) (ed. Susana Zapke; Bilbao: Fundación BBVA, 2007), 127–39 (128). Caridad locates a number of attestations of this feast’s supreme importance, including citations from the Council of Tours (Canon 18); Isodore of Seville, De regula monachorum, chs. 10, 11; and Ervigio, Leges visigothorum II, 1, 12 and XII, 3, 6. The text of CLM 14429 is much more primitive than the order and content reviewed in Caridad, so it would be imprudent to compare contents. However, in a note, Caridad indicates that the same prayers continued to be copied “in the Liber missarum de Toledo and in the mystical books of Silos many centuries later” (135 n. 9, citing work by José Janini). 54. The section in question (Acts Thom. 50), like the other epicleses, is doubtless original to the early form of the Acts of Thomas (to the extent that one may use any of these terms [e.g. original] with any certainty regarding any composite work). The prayer is to be found across the breadth of the manuscript tradition in Syriac and Greek, which seems to indicate a place in the tradition that we might term early and stable. 55. This is seen in the careful organization and ornate nature of the original writing, as well as in the use to which it was put approximately two centuries later. As the manuscript became worn, and as liturgical styles began to change, the

168 Sacra Scriptura

1

Along these lines, one nds evidences regarding special monastic use by paying attention to full codices and their formal liturgical headings (among other clues). These notations abound in most manuscript tradi-tions, be it Ethiopic, Armenian, Greek, or Latin, especially where selec-tions from the Acts of Thomas became assimilated into synaxaries, menologia, and similar collections.56 For our purposes, I believe the most interesting manuscript is Romanus Vallicellanus B 35, which is notable for containing the longest, most complete copy of the Acts of Thomas in Greek. This elaborately produced text of the Acts of Thomas appears to have been written in place of older musical notation that has been scrapped off.57 As decades passed, the codex continued to be corrected, marked upon, and added to—in short, it was a living, growing codex that remained in the active use of this monastic community’s public worship over a period of centuries. It is worth pointing out that when we discuss “the Acts of Thomas in Greek,” this is to a large extent the manuscript under discussion. When such a manuscript is discussed as an abstract text base in an apparatus, modern readers might fall under the impression that the text of the Acts of Thomas lay buried and undisturbed, as if in a Geniza. In reality, the manuscripts were in constant use, and were part of a living and expanding tradition. Because this point is not often men-tioned, questions about how the text could have functioned, and how it might have been altered, or even been maintained unaltered, in monastic Orthodox circles is hardly ever addressed.58 And, most unfortunately, our standard introductions speak of critics like Photius, when we could be speaking about the hands that turned the pages and the pious mouths that read these texts.

sacramentary fell into disuse; thus it became a palimpsest. The upper writing of the manuscript is miscellaneous text of glossaries, Greek grammar notes, and other truly learned materials. Furthermore, it was transported to the Irish monastery of Reichenau on the Gnadensee, which was a node in an elite network of books and readers through which this manuscript moved. 56. Sometimes the Acts of Thomas (or portions thereof) can be found in a codex alongside writings by the likes of John Chrysostom (e.g. Paris Gr. 881; Escorial y.ii.6 [314]) and even Epiphanius (e.g. Paris Gr. 1551; Mignana Arabic 91). 57. Descriptions are drawn from Emidio Martini, Catalogo di manoscritti greci esistenti nelle biblioteche italiane, vol. 2 (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1902), 17–21. 58. A fruitful point of departure that would require a protracted investigation would be to link the particular order of books within codices to the liturgical calendars of various locales and monasteries, and to trace trajectories in this way. Trends of transmission might come to light (e.g. from my preliminary study, I note synchronicity between Nikon’s order of feasts on the Black Mountain, a Greek manuscript, and a Garshuni manuscript).


Finally, Jacob of Serugh preached sermons from the text of the Acts of Thomas.59 A century ago, there was one homily known to scholars. Now we have three, and there are perhaps more awaiting discovery. These sermons are like his other homilies on biblical narratives, and suggest that Jacob himself saw the Acts of Thomas as either proximate to scrip-ture, or at least something not far removed from it. The sermons show detailed re ection on the book, and have a clear interest in making the book accessible and meaningful to his church audience. The rst modern editor of the newly discovered homily by Jacob wrestled with the question of how an established member of the mainstream clergy could preach a sermon from such a book.60 The general conclusion was that he had a pure heart but a simple mind. Of course, we have seen that delivering such a sermon is not so outrageous after all, since the book represents itself as a sacred, authoritative text for Christians to use.

4. Concluding Remarks I believe I have within the limited scope of the study shown that Acts of Thomas asks to be read as a holy book, that it can be done, and that some did indeed use it as a sacred text. Of course, this is just our experience with a single act from the Acts of Thomas serving as a test-case and a few examples. The task of doing exegesis and becoming cognizant of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the text must be carried out for the book as a whole. My research has thus far led me to believe that the enterprise of reading the Acts of Thomas as a serious religious work is indeed a sustainable one, and (in keeping with the crucial problems outlined in the introduction to the present study) is a necessary enterprise. There are two immediate implications of note. First, and most inter-esting to New Testament scholars, non-canonical scriptures give us an experimental environment for seeing how ancient Christian texts (semi-

uid written traditions) behave when their sociological situation allows them to undergo development. This is especially apparent in the rela-tionship between the various Greek and Syriac versions of Acts of Thomas. Principles can be learned from the study of these versions, many of which could re ect on the earliest stages of formation for the canonical Gospels.61 The idea that the Acts of Thomas is non-canonical 59. Strothmann identi es Sacchau 222, or something very close to that, as the text Jacob used (Strothmann, Jakob von Sarug, 15). 60. R. Schröter, “Gedicht des Jakob von Sarug über den Palast, den der Apostel Thomas in Indien baute,” ZDMG 25 (1871): 321–77. See especially 325–28. 61. See François Bovon, “The Synoptic Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 81 (1988): 19–36.

170 Sacra Scriptura

1

scripture exhibits the validity of such a study, and perhaps helps provide the impetus to actually do so. Secondly, these arguments should help to frame the study of Christian scriptures, both canonical and non-canonical, more securely within the

eld of comparative religions.62 While students of Christian history have often de ned scripture exclusively as “the canon,” historians of religion cannot afford to do so.63 The worldwide phenomenon of Christianity has always been diverse, and this diversity is re ected in the various texts that Christians in many places and various times have considered to be authoritative for faith and practice. The Acts of Thomas re ects a Christianity that was driven by a sense of mission and expansion, and yet is distinct from the Eusebian narrative of mission and expansion. The ultimate aim of seeing the authority and function of the text is to shed further light on the true, natural diversity of early Christianity as it truly was. I hope I have contributed at least a little to that enterprise.

62. As with many issues touched upon in this essay, the idea of canonical and noncanonical scriptures is a large topic. The Acts of Thomas does not, to my know-ledge, appear in any extant canon list of any group that is explicitly identi able as Christian (as an exclusive self-identi cation). If this were not the case, the task of this essay would have been much simpler, since the evidence for use as scripture would be as easy as saying, “It was canonical at some point.” Thus is the case for, e.g., Shepherd of Hermas, but not for the Acts of Thomas. One can only say for the sake of brevity that not all scriptures were used by communities of people who were intent on de ning an exclusive, closed canon. Beyond this, I defer to the de nitive discussion on this topic, Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), especially Chapters 1, 6, 12, 14, 17, 21, 25, 29, and 30–32. 63. The picture of “baskets” that encompass both “canon” and “non-canon” might help scholarship to re-visualize relationships within the immense body of sacred Christian texts (and admitting diachronic considerations across a wide geographical area). For an introduction to the idea as found within Buddhist classi cations systems, see Ulrich Pagel, “The Sacred Writings of Buddhism,” in Buddhism (ed. Peter Harvey; New York: Continuum International, 2001), 29–31.

10

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN THE PROTEVANGELIUM OF

JAMES AND THE GOSPEL OF PETER*

Daniel Lynwood Smith

1. Introduction We biblical scholars interrogate ancient texts. We sit the text down under the searchlight of critical inquiry, and we begin: Who wrote this work? Who read it? When was it written? Why was it written? This is standard practice, useful and necessary for determining authorship, dating, purpose, and related matters. Yet, we often nd the texts to be a bit reticent, even recalcitrant, perhaps because we are demanding that they respond to questions that they were not designed to answer. This is not always the case. The Gospel of John, for example, is rather accommodating with regard to certain inquiries. For instance, one might ask, “Why were you written?” John 20:31 responds, “…these are written so that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life in his name.”1 This reply in turn suggests that the Gospel of John was composed, in part, as an answer to the question: “Who is Jesus?” Each of the Gospels could be described as an extended answer to this same question. Of course, none of the Gospels betrays any intent to give an exhaustive answer. Again, the Fourth Gospel openly acknowledges that “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (20:30). Thus, each of the various accounts of “who Jesus is” gives only a partial answer, and these accounts invite further questions. For example, the Gospel of Matthew describes Jesus’ death with vivid, apocalyptic imagery (27:51–54), yet other signi cant events receive rather spare treatment in comparison. * An earlier form of this paper was delivered at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans, in the Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and Early Christianity consultation. I would like to thank those in attendance for their helpful engagement with my paper, and I am also grateful to Zachary Kostopoulos for his useful comments on a later draft. 1. All translations of ancient texts are my own, unless otherwise noted.

172 Sacra Scriptura

1

Two verses record the bare fact of Jesus’ birth, with no further details: “When Joseph woke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and he took her as his wife. He did not know her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus” (Mt 1:24–25). Similarly, although the account of Jesus’ resurrection in Mt 28 features a lightning-white angel and an earthquake, the central gure—Jesus—is noticeably absent from the scene. He appears to the women only after they run away from the tomb. What was Jesus’ birth like? How exactly was he resurrected? Twenty-

rst century historical-critical scholars and rst-century evangelists alike manifest little interest in these speci c questions, but we will demon-strate that second-century inquiring minds wanted to know the answers to these and similar queries. We will begin with the Protevangelium of James and its expanded account of the birth of Jesus. Then, we will show how the Gospel of Peter, especially in its account of the resurrection of Jesus, functions similarly as yet another second-century text that seeks to provide answers to questions arising from the earlier rst-century gospel accounts. After looking at some speci c lines of questioning related to the beginning and end of the earthly life of Jesus, we will situate these second-century gospels within a larger exegetical context, with special attention to the interpretive activity of lling “gaps” in earlier texts.

2. The Birth of Jesus in the Protevangelium of James How was Jesus born? Again, Matthew narrates that Jesus was indeed born, but there is a more substantive concern with framing this event as a ful llment of Isa 7:14 than with describing the actual birth itself. Luke gives a few more details that have become ensconced in the traditional Christmas pageant: “She bore her rstborn son, and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn” (Lk 2:7). Aside from the Matthean intimation of a “virgin” birth and the Lukan description of postnatal care, we have little else.2 Both Gospels spare the readers from the details of labor and delivery. In contrast, the Protevangelium of James—widely acknowledged to be a (non-Jewish) Christian work of the second or third century—demonstrates a keen interest in the details of Jesus’ birth.3 We see this

2. The infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke also refers to Mary’s prepartum virginal status quite clearly in 1:34. 3. Oscar Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson;

10. SMITH Questions and Answers 173

interest take two different forms. On the one hand, the Protevangelium seeks to fortify the earlier gospel references to a virgin birth. First, as in Mt 1:20–21, an angel con rms Mary’s virginity to Joseph, attributing the child in her womb to the work of the Holy Spirit (Prot. Jas. 14.2). Then, in 16.2, we nd further evidence of Mary’s virginity, as a priest administers the “water of the conviction of the Lord” both to Joseph and to Mary. When they each drink without harm, the priest declares the pair innocent of sexual misconduct.4 Finally, when Jesus is born, “doubting” Salome appears on the scene, demanding physical proof of Mary’s virginal condition (19.3). Just as Jesus granted Thomas’ tactile request in Jn 20:27, so Salome’s request is granted. Unfortunately, her impertinent hand falls away ( ), as if burned by re, but this disabling condition is quickly remedied by touching the newborn Messiah (20.1–4). Going beyond the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Protevangelium dramatically underscores Mary’s continuing virginal state, before and after delivery. The angelic claim is supported by the priest’s declaration, and Salome’s experiment adds physical proof of Mary’s continuing postpartum status as a virgin. On the other hand, the purview of the Protevangelium extends well beyond speci c dogmatic concerns. J. K. Elliott indicates that the Protevangelium is not content to play merely a supporting role: “In accord with the demands of popular piety responsible for the growth of much apocryphal material, [the Protevangelium] sets out to satisfy curiosity about Jesus’ antecedents by lling in the gaps left in the canonical material.”5 Thus, in addition to the buttressing of arguments in favor of the virgin birth, the Protevangelium goes on to explore what might happen when the Messiah, the Son of the Most High God, is born on earth.6 Surely this cosmic event merits more than Matthew’s star or Luke’s angelophany and subsequent pastoral visit! The author of the Protevangelium depicts the birth of Christ as a glorious and momentous occasion, offering a vision of what Elliott characterizes as “the catalepsy of all creation” in 18.2: rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 423; J. K. Elliott, The Apocry-phal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 49; Paul Foster, “The Protevangel-ium of James,” in The Non-Canonical Gospels (ed. Paul Foster; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 110–25. This dating is supported by the testimony of both Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Cf., e.g., Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.17. 4. This appears to refer to the trial of the Sotah, detailed in Num 5:11–31. In Numbers, only the woman has to drink the “water of bitterness that brings the curse” (5:18), whereas in Prot. Jas. 16.1, Joseph must also undergo the ordeal. 5. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 50. 6. For Jesus as the “Son of the Most High,” see Prot. Jas. 11.3.

174 Sacra Scriptura

1

Now I, Joseph, was walking, but I was not walking. I looked up to the vault of heaven and saw it standing still. [I looked up] to the air, and I saw it, astounded. And the birds of the sky were motionless!… And I looked at the

ow of the river, and I saw kids. Their mouths were over the water, but they did not drink. And, in a moment, everything was driven off of its course.7

What does the birth of Jesus look like? The heavens and earth and everything therein come to a halt. Motion ceases. Time stops—and then resumes once more. The Protevangelium continues:

And [Joseph and the midwife] stopped at the site of the cave, and a dark cloud overshadowed the cave… And immediately the cloud drew back from the cave, and a great light appeared, so that eyes could not bear it. After a little while, that light drew back, until the baby appeared. Then, [the baby] came and took the breast of its mother Mary. (Prot. Jas. 19.2)

Motion and time halt for the glorious, radiant birth of the Messiah. Even though the Protevangelium’s retelling of the birth of Jesus continues to allude to the virginity of Mary, the author allows Jesus to share the spotlight. For a few verses, the focus lies upon the spectacular effects of the cosmic event of Jesus’ birth, effects that were apparently unknown to earlier gospel accounts. The author soon returns to more explicit proofs of Mary’s continued virginal status after giving birth.8 Following these embellishments of and additions to earlier narratives, the Protevangelium swiftly reaches its conclusion. Presumably, its mission is accomplished: Mary’s honor is defended, her virginity is af rmed, and Jesus’ birth is described with appropriate pomp and fanfare.9

3. The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter What about the resurrection of Jesus? In the Gospel of Peter, we nd a similarly spectacular description of a mysterious, supernatural event. We will soon analyze this expanded resurrection account, and in doing so, 7. All translations of the Protevangelium are based on the Greek text in Émile de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques: recherches sur le papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une traduction annotée (Subsidia Hagiographica 33; Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1961). 8. There are, of course, numerous references to Mary’s purity and her virginity prior to her giving birth to the child (see 10.1; 11.2–3; 13.1–3; 14.2; 15.2; 16.1–2). After the birth, further evidence of her virginity is offered in 19.3 and 20.1–4, as discussed above. 9. Cullmann may not be giving suf cient weight either to the cosmic pause at Jesus’ birth or to the visit of the “wise men” in 21.1–3, yet he is clearly on the right track when he af rms, “The whole was written for the glori cation of Mary” (“Infancy Gospels,” 425).


we will demonstrate the propriety of locating the Petrine Gospel within the same second-century exegetical context as the Protevangelium of James. First, however, we must understand why the Gospel of Peter should be treated as another second-century, (non-Jewish) Christian work that, like the Protevangelium, “contains no material of independent historical value.”10 The Gospel of Peter is of greatest value to scholars not as a source for historical Jesus studies, but rather as an example of second-century Christian exegetical practices. Unlike the Protevangelium, the Gospel of Peter has found many defenders of its historical value. As early as the nineteenth century, Adolf von Harnack suggested that the Gospel of Peter might contain independent traditions.11 Although Harnack’s thesis found little acceptance at the time, several champions of that thesis arose in the late twentieth century, most notably Helmut Koester and John Dominic Crossan.12 In light of the current scholarly consensus opposing them, we will not delve into the vagaries of Koester’s and Crossan’s theories of dependence, independence, and interdependence, nor is our intention simply to refute the view that the Gospel of Peter, or parts thereof (such as a hypothetical Cross Gospel), pre-date the gospels now accepted as canonical. For, even if we were to consider a very early date, such as Paul Mirecki’s “mid-1st century” dating of the entire Gospel of Peter, any resulting attempt to press this document into the service of historical Jesus studies proves to be severely problematic.13 The very scholars who promote the Gospel of Peter as an independent source have also endorsed a view of passion narratives as entirely detached from history, and, of course, most of what remains of the Gospel of Peter is a passion narrative. According to Koester, “The very rst narratives about Jesus’ suffering and death would not have made the attempt to remember what actually happened.”14 Crossan makes the same point: “The detailed hour-by-hour, blow-by-blow, and word-by-word passion narrative is not

10. Foster, “Protevangelium,” 124. Here, Foster is describing the Protevan-gelium as devoid of historical value. 11. Adolf von Harnack, Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893). For a brief summary of Harnack’s views, cf. John Dominic Crossan, The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 13–14. 12. See Crossan, Cross That Spoke; Helmut Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” HTR 73 (1980): 105–30. 13. Paul Allan Mirecki, “Peter, Gospel of,” ABD 5:278. 14. Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” 127.

176 Sacra Scriptura

1

history remembered but prophecy historicized.”15 Koester and Crossan both argue that the Gospel of Peter is an early, independent passion narrative, and yet they both argue that early passion narratives are not reliable historical sources. As a result, if one accepts this view of passion narratives, one might logically reject the value of the Gospel of Peter as a source of historical information about Jesus. Consequently, both adher-ents of this view and supporters of a second-century date for the Gospel of Peter can together af rm John Meier’s judgment that the Gospel of Peter “provides no special access to early independent tradition about the historical Jesus.”16 Instead, following the work of Raymond Brown, Joel Green, Alan Kirk, and others, we accept the majority view that the Gospel of Peter is indeed a second-century work, literarily dependent on earlier gospel accounts.17 As Paul Foster has recently concluded, “The majority of critical scholarship, despite the challenges raised by Crossan and [others], still prefers to locate the text in the second century.”18 Instead of transplanting the Gospel of Peter into the early rst century, we may proceed to read the Gospel of Peter in its appropriate, native second-century context. In addition to the similarities between the birth narrative of the Protevangelium of James and the resurrection narrative of the Gospel of Peter, other features support the characterization of the Gospel of Peter as a second-century, non-Jewish Christian text. Clearly, the author is oblivious to most Jewish customs.19 Nowhere is this more evident than 15. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 25. 16. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 118. 17. Raymond E. Brown, “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority,” NTS 33 (1987): 321–43; Joel B. Green, “The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrative?,” ZNW 78 (1987): 293–301; Frans Neirynck, “The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in The New Testament in Early Christianity: La réception des écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitif (ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin; BETL 86; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 123–75; Alan Kirk, “Examining Priorities: Another Look at the Gospel of Peter’s Relationship to the New Testament Gospels,” NTS 40 (1994): 572–95; Paul Foster, “The Gospel of Peter,” in The Non-Canonical Gospels (ed. Paul Foster; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 30–42; Timothy P. Henderson, The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics: Rewriting the Story of Jesus’ Death, Burial, and Resurrection (WUNT 2.301; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 42. 18. Paul Foster, The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary (TENT 4; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 170. 19. See Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” 423–24, for evidence of unfamiliarity with Jewish customs in the Protevangelium of James. In his commentary on 8.33, Foster describes the “obviously folkloric quality of these elements” (385).


in Gos. Pet. 8.33. Jesus had died around 3:00 on Friday afternoon, the “ninth hour” (6.22), and Joseph (presumably of Arimathea) has prepared Jesus’ body and then buried him (6.24). While the narrator (or pseudo-Peter) and his companions are fasting and mourning (7.27), the following chapter opens with the Pharisees, scribes, and elders becoming con-vinced of Jesus’ righteousness, or innocence (8.28). Upon their request, Pilate grants the use of soldiers to ensure that Jesus’ body is not stolen, just as in the parallel account in Mt 27:62–66. These Roman soldiers, headed by Petronius the centurion, accompany the elders and scribes to the tomb (8.31). And then, as the sun sets and Shabbat presumably begins, we nd a multi-ethnic slumber party: “…and pitching their tents there, they kept watch” (8.33).20 At 10.38, the Gospel of Peter con rms that both the Roman centurion and the Jewish elders were indeed there during Shabbat, “keeping watch.” This vigil is then followed by the resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter, an account which manifests certain tendencies similar to those found in the birth account of the Protevangelium of James. As the Protevangelium provides a new, detailed birth narrative with apocalyptic imagery (e.g. the cessation of all motion in 18.2 and the overshadowing cloud in 19.2), so the Gospel of Peter offers a new, detailed resurrection account with spectacular additions (e.g. most famously, the talking cross of 10.42). Again, we see a second-century author expanding an earlier,

rst-century text. In Mt 28, for example, when the women arrive on the scene, only the guards are present (28:2–4). The arrival of the angel and the earthquake in Mt 28:2 evidently signal the resurrection of Jesus, but neither the baf ed women nor the unconscious guards witness Jesus’ physical departure from the tomb. Apparently, the author of the Gospel of Peter did not nd this account to be satisfactory.21 Not only has he stationed a centurion, Roman soldiers, Jewish elders, and scribes at the tomb, but a crowd from Jerusa-lem arrives on the scene in 9.34. As opposed to Matthew’s single heav-enly envoy, the Gospel of Peter shows two radiant beings descending and approaching the tomb. The stone does not need an angelic shove as in Mt 28:2; instead, “it was rolled by itself” (9.37). At this point, the

20. All translations of the Gospel of Peter are based on the Greek texts found in Andrew E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 49–83. 21. As Henderson suggests, the author of the Gospel of Peter was not alone. Codex Bobbiensis, a fourth or fth manuscript of Mark’s Gospel, also presents an expanded description of the resurrection of Jesus. For the relevant text, see Henderson, Gospel of Peter, 176–77.

178 Sacra Scriptura

1

Roman sentinels awake their centurion and the Jewish elders, just in time to witness Jesus and the cross exiting the tomb:

…they saw three men coming out of the tomb. The two supported the one, and a cross followed them. And the heads of the two reached up to heaven, but that of the one being led by their hand went beyond the heavens. And they heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Did you proclaim to those who have fallen asleep?” And an answer was heard from the cross: “Yes.” Therefore, they determined with each other to go and explain these things to Pilate. And while they were still considering, again the heavens appeared to be opened, and a man came down and entered the tomb. (Gos. Pet. 10.39–11.44)

This last man is presumably the angel mentioned in Mt 28:2. The Gospel of Peter inserts this dramatic scene into the midst of the borrowed Matthean elements, showing what exactly happened when Jesus rose from the dead. Both the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of Peter ask questions about events of the life of Jesus that earlier gospels left unanswered. The motivation for the Protevangelium’s dramatic birth narrative or the Gospel of Peter’s expanded and expansive version of the resurrection can be explained by mere human curiosity. Just as the curious modern scholar asks of the author of Gospel of Matthew, “Who wrote you?,” similarly, the second-century Christian author asks, “How exactly did the resurrection work?” Both concerns are extrinsic to the Matthean text. They are only perceived “gaps.”22 However, there are other real “gaps left in the canonical material,” to use Elliott’s phrase.23 While inquiring minds may be simply curious about the birth or resurrection of Jesus, desiring more information and further details, there are other problems intrinsic to the text, questions that the text itself raises. Taking the nal chapter of Mark’s Gospel, for example, earlier in Mk 15:46, Joseph of Arimathea takes Jesus’ body, wraps it in a linen cloth, and places it in a tomb. He then rolls a stone against the door of the tomb. The following verse describes how Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus “saw where [Jesus’ body] was

22. An interesting example of an early Christian writer turning to these later writings to help address perceived gaps in the earlier gospel texts is when Origen of Alexandria reads Mt 13:55–56 and wonders who the “brothers” of Jesus were. In Comm. Matt. 10.17, as he tries to reconcile the virginity of Mary with the appar-ent existence of her other sons, he mentions both “the Gospel according to Peter” and “The Book of James” (ANF 9:424). The latter almost certainly refers to the Protevangelium. 23. Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, 50.


laid” (15:47). The reader could assume that they saw both tomb and the stone that lay across the entrance. With this in mind, we might read Mk 16:1–3 with some surprise:

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the rst day of the week, they came to the tomb at sunrise. And they were saying to each other, “Who will roll away for us the stone from the entrance of the tomb?”

What is wrong with this picture? If the women knew that there was a stone over the entrance of the tomb, and if they felt incapable of moving it, why were they going to the tomb at all? They could anoint a body without access to the tomb! Furthermore, why would they even consider re-opening a tomb to anoint a two-day old corpse? As Carolyn Osiek asks in an article of the same name, “What are they doing there?”24 Mark does not allow this tension to increase: when the women arrive, the stone has already been rolled away. The women’s discovery swiftly dispels any thoughts of the narrative’s incongruity, and the mystery of the empty tomb soon demands the reader’s full attention. Matthew and Luke smooth matters over by omitting the women’s question; in fact, Matthew even removes the spices from his narrative, suggesting that the women simply “went to see the tomb” in 28:1. The author of the Gospel of Peter, however, is not satis ed. In Gos. Pet. 12.51, Mary Magdalene and friends still visit the tomb. Not only are the spices absent, but the confusing question is expanded into a soliloquy of sorts, with an attempt to resolve any and all narrative tension:

And they were afraid lest the Jews see them, and they said, “Even if we were not able to weep and mourn on that day on which he was cruci ed, even now let us do these things at his tomb. But who will roll away for us the stone that is placed at the entrance of the tomb, so that we might enter and sit beside him and do the necessary things? For the stone was big, and we are afraid lest someone see us. Even if we are not able, then let us put the things that we brought at the entrance as a memorial for him, and let us weep and mourn until we go to our homes.” (Gos. Pet. 12.52–54)

24. Carolyn Osiek, “The Women at the Tomb: What are They Doing There?,” Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 97–107. Osiek sees the women’s question in 16:3 as “literary embellishment to heighten the sense of amazement in v. 4 when they nd the stone already rolled back” (98). Neirynck also describes Mk 16 as raising questions; for Neirynck, “Apocryphal Gospels,” 146, “These questions are answered in GP 50b.”

180 Sacra Scriptura

1

In the Markan account, the women had seen Joseph roll the stone over the entrance to the tomb, but in the Gospel of Peter, the women do not witness the entombment of Jesus’ body. They are completely absent from that scene. Instead of Joseph rolling the stone, the Roman soldiers and Jewish leaders cooperate in rolling the “big stone” over the entrance of the tomb (8.32). The Gospel of Peter does not reveal how the women knew which tomb held Jesus’ body, but their arrival at the tomb is free of tension—they were simply coming to “do the necessary things” (12.53). The question about rolling the stone away only arises when the women arrive at the tomb, see the stone, and realize the dif culty. Our author lls in yet another gap by preserving the problematic Markan question—“Who will roll away for us the stone?”—and then supplying a (somewhat unconvincing) explanation for their behavior, suggesting that they can at least leave the unidenti ed “things that they brought ( )” there at the tomb, as modern mourners might leave owers at a grave. Commentators on the Gospel of Peter do not appear to appreciate this resolution of a problem already present in Mark’s narrative. Almost eighty years ago, Léon Vaganay accused “pseudo-Peter” of revealing his “literary inexperience” in this innovative soliloquy.25 In her Sources Chrétiennes commentary, Maria Grazia Mara remarks upon the “banalité” of the women’s discourse, before picking up Vaganay’s discussion of the possible signi cance of Gos. Pet. 12.54 for textual criticism of Mk 16:3–4.26 With this raising of text-critical questions, we have returned to a line of questioning extrinsic to the text, ignoring the connection between the narrative tension in Mk 16 and the creative (if implausible) solution of Gos. Pet. 12.52–54.

25. “Cette nale de la conversation des Galiléennes est inconnue de Marc. Le pseudo-Pierre y révèle à nouveau son inexpérience littéraire, lorsqu’il est livré à sa seule inspiration.” Léon Vaganay, L’Évangile de Pierre (Paris: Gabalda, 1930), 325. 26. Maria Grazia Mara, Évangile de Pierre (SC 201; Paris: CERF, 2006), 202. For a discussion of how some textual witnesses to Mk 16:3–4 (such as D and ) move the mention of the largeness of the stone to before the arrival of the women, see Vaganay, L’Évangile, 324. Mara cites the text of Codex Bezae (D):

; (“Who will roll away for us the stone

from the entrance of the tomb? For it was very big; and they came and found the stone rolled away”). In contrast, the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland text reads as follows: 3… ; 4

(“Who will roll away for us the stone from the entrance of the tomb? And they looked up and saw that the stone was rolled away; it was very big”).


4. The Exegetical Context of the Protevangelium of James

and the Gospel of Peter Our object is not to proscribe or even to discourage the asking of ques-tions that texts are not designed to answer, nor to prescribe only those queries that a text explicitly answers. Instead, we seek to draw attention to some of the ways in which second-century narratives sought to answer questions raised by earlier gospel texts. Whether catering to questions of curiosity about things passed over in the rst-century accounts (What did Jesus’ birth, or resurrection, actually look like?) or responding to prob-lems raised in the narratives (Why did the women of Mk 16:1–3 set out to perform an impossible task?), these second-century gospels reveal to us some of the questions that second-century Christians asked of the earlier gospel accounts.27 Thus, the Gospel of Peter and Protevangelium of James offer little help to historical Jesus scholars, but they serve as rich resources for illuminating second-century exegetical concerns, such as the endeavor to ll “gaps” (real or perceived) in earlier texts. One question remains: If we are not going to align these second-century gospels with the Gospel of Thomas or reconstructed versions of Q, into what larger context might they t? If we turn our attention to the Gospel of Peter, we nd a long history of categorizing this work as heretical, and this history dates back to the late second or early third century.28 Jerry McCant and Peter Head, however, have opposed efforts to label it as Gnostic or docetic.29 Head identi es the Gospel of Peter as “[sharing] the thought world and vocabulary of a Christianity that has links with Jewish apocalypticism,”30 and this possible connection to Jewish writings bears further consideration. 27. The suggestion that curiosity motivated the expanded resurrection account should not be taken to imply that the resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter is devoid of apologetic value. Henderson argues that the expanded resurrection account is “meant to function apologetically” (Gospel of Peter, 181). 28. In Hist. eccl. 6.12.4–6, Eusebius records the accusation of a certain Bishop Serapion, who associated a “gospel put forth under the name of Peter” with the “Docetae.” If this gospel was the Gospel of Peter, and if the “Docetae” were docetists, then this charge would be the rst classi cation of the Gospel of Peter as “heretical.” For further analysis of this text, see H. B. Swete, EUAGGELION KATA PETRON: The Akhmîm Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St Peter (London: Macmillan, 1893), x–xi. Over a hundred years later, Foster responds to Swete in Gospel, 157–65. 29. Jerry W. McCant, “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered,” NTS 30 (1984): 258–73; P. M. Head, “On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter,” VC 46 (1992): 209–24. Foster is more cautious, but he agrees in rejecting “the categori-zation of the text as docetic” (Gospel of Peter, 165). 30. Head, “On the Christology,” 218.

182 Sacra Scriptura

1

On the one hand, the Gospel of Peter is clearly not a Jewish writing; if anything, it might be considered an anti-Jewish writing. On the other hand, we can fruitfully examine parallels between the interpretive methods of the Gospel of Peter and those of two Jewish genres: “Rewritten Bible” (or “Rewritten Scripture”) and midrash. We will begin with a brief treatment of similarities between the Gospel of Peter and the genre or category of Rewritten Scripture.31 We will then point out some of the exegetical similarities between the Gospel of Peter and a passage in Song of Songs Rabbah. Geza Vermes is credited with the rst use of the term “Rewritten Bible,” and he de nes it as follows: “In order to anticipate questions, and to solve problems in advance, the midrashist inserts haggadic develop-ment into the biblical narrative—an exegetical process which is probably as ancient as scriptural interpretation itself.”32 Interestingly, Vermes explicitly links the function of Rewritten Scripture to anticipating ques-tions and solving problems by expanding an earlier narrative. A more recent de nition of Rewritten Scripture is that of Brant Pitre, who de nes it against midrashim and targumim.33 He characterizes the basic techniques of Rewritten Scripture as follows: maintenance of the order of the sacred text, paraphrasing, adding material, deleting material, and—unlike the explicit interpretation of the midrashim—implicit exegesis. Furthermore, Rewritten Scripture also creates “entirely new literary products,” as opposed to targumim.34 This sort of de nition may require further development for use with writings relating to the New Testament; according to Pitre’s characteristics, not only is the Gospel of Peter a rewritten Gospel, but Matthew is also rewritten Mark.35

31. Molly M. Zahn offers a de nition of Rewritten Scripture as a genre in “Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment,” JBL 131 (2012): 271–88. The Gospel of Peter would appear to t her description of this “genre that functions interpretively to renew (update, correct) speci c earlier traditions by recasting a substantial portion of those traditions in the context of a new work that locates itself in the same discourse as the scriptural work it rewrites” (286). For a recent defense of the Gospel of Peter as “Rewritten Gospel,” see Henderson, Gospel of Peter, 32–43. 32. Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (JSJSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 95. 33. Brant Pitre, “Rewritten Bible,” in The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (ed. David E. Aune; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 410–14. 34. Ibid., 411 (original italics). 35. This same caveat, mutatis mutandis, applies to the reasoning offered by Henderson in Gospel of Peter, 35–41


While Rewritten Scripture is often associated with Second Temple Jewish works like Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, we are following the growing trend of investigating its applicability to non-Jewish sources.36 Regardless of the speci c de nition of Rewritten Scrip-ture, the concept of implicit exegesis—that is, of interpretation that does not identify itself overtly—appears to apply well to the Gospel of Peter.37 Much of our argument suggests the presence of this very sort of exegesis in the Gospel of Peter. Moreover, if we can explore the Gospel of Peter in its second-century Christian exegetical context, further comparison of speci c techniques with other Jewish and Christian writings could open new avenues of research. For example, which other Jewish Rewritten Scripture texts manifest the frequent shifting of details from one character to another that is so common in the Gospel of Peter? As just one example, note the Lukan account of the “friendship” between Pilate and Herod (in 23:6–12), which morphs into a friendship between Pilate and Joseph of Arimathea in Gos. Pet. 2.3–4. Henderson offers a detailed study of similarities between the apologetic tendencies of the Gospel of Peter and those of other early Christian authors. A similarly detailed study of the interpre-tive moves of the Gospel of Peter in comparison with Jubilees, the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus, or other Rewritten Scripture texts would be welcome. Second, parallels between the midrashim and the Gospel of Peter invite our attention. We have shown how the Gospel of Peter reworked the Markan narrative of the women’s visit to the empty tomb in order to resolve a problem in the text of Mk 16:3. For a similar degree of close attention to the details of a biblical text, we can look at Song of Songs Rabbah, which includes a careful reading of Exod 19:7–9. The biblical text reads as follows:

Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the Lord commanded. All the people answered together, saying, “We will do all that the Lord has spoken.” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord. And the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people will listen when I speak with you and also trust you forever.” Then Moses reported the words of the people to God.

36. Perhaps the most outstanding example would be found in Bogdan Bucur’s treatment of Byzantine hymnography as Rewritten Scripture in “Exegesis of Biblical Theophanies in Byzantine Hymnography: Rewritten Bible?,” Theological Studies 68 (2007): 92–112. 37. For a detailed application of the characteristics of Rewritten Scripture to the Gospel of Peter, see Henderson, Gospel, 40.

184 Sacra Scriptura

1

The rabbis pounced on this nal phrase. The narrative makes sense up to this point. Moses brings God’s words to the people in 19:7. The people answer in 19:8. Moses brings the people’s words to God. God speaks to Moses in 19:9. But then Moses reports the people’s words to God, raising questions: Is he repeating himself? Did the people say something that was not recorded? Rabbi Jo anan sees the problem: “What then is the point of the words, And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord ([19:9])?”38 He opts for the latter resolution (that the people said something left unrecorded), and consequently, he looks for a reaction to the people’s conjectural utterance in God’s response in 19:10–11. Instead of going into further detail about how Rabbi Jo anan resolved this problem, let us make this one point: Song of Songs Rabbah was written centuries after the Gospel of Peter, and the midrashim are struc-turally and generically very different from the fragmentary passion narrative that has been the subject of this essay.39 Yet, in spite of these differences, they share an inquisitive spirit that is closely attuned to the questions raised by earlier texts. If certain elements of the plot and char-acterization of the Gospel of Peter may rightly be deemed as hostile to Judaism, its approach to scriptural interpretation is strikingly congenial.

5. Conclusions By looking at the questions that the Gospel of Peter appears to be answering, we have seen that this second-century text attempts to respond to perceived “gaps” in the earlier gospel narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Like the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Peter sometimes responds to questions of curiosity: In the former, what did the birth of Jesus look like? In the latter, what did the resurrection of Jesus look like? Where details are lacking in the earlier accounts, these later authors attempt to supply them.40

38. Translation by Maurice Simon in Midrash Rabbah (10 vols.; London: Soncino, 1939), 9:25. 39. Song of Songs Rabbah dates to the sixth century, yet Strack and Stemberger note that it “contains much older material,” perhaps from several centuries earlier. H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 342. 40. Of course, the content that these later authors attempt to supply is frequently polemical or apologetic. Henderson demonstrates the apologetic nature of the Gospel of Peter repeatedly in his monograph. For a summary of his conclusions, see Henderson, Gospel of Peter, 221–24.


In addition to addressing such extrinsic concerns, we also highlighted how the Petrine author addresses intrinsic concerns in the text. For example, the Gospel of Peter seeks to explain why the women of Mk 16 are going to a tomb to anoint a body, when they know that they cannot remove the large stone at the entrance. Similar concerns are also present in the later midrashim, as well as in other ancient exegetical texts.41 What we nd in the Gospel of Peter are the same sorts of questions and answers found in the midrashim, but the manner in which the “implicit exegesis” unfolds is far more similar to the genre of Rewritten Scripture than to the form of midrash. It is perhaps ironic that a fuller understand-ing of this frequently anti-Jewish gospel will require a closer conversa-tion with the array of mostly Jewish texts that constitute the corpus of Rewritten Scripture.

41. For examples of concerns with narrative gaps or omissions in the scholia on Homer and other ancient Greek texts, see René Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), esp. 157–73. The questions and answers in the midrashim and in other ancient Jewish contexts treat a variety of “problems” in the scriptures; for a helpful introduction, see Maren R. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah,” JSJ 39 (2008): 337–66.

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 2:24 12 3:22–24 123 6:2 162 40:10 xxi 40:12 xxi Exodus 12:10 146 19:7–9 183 19:7 184 19:8 184 19:9 184 19:10–11 184 Leviticus 17–26 86 19 76 19:18 76 Numbers 5:11–31 173 5:18 173 Deuteronomy 32:30 147 Joshua 4:3 144 1 Kings 4:32 118 5:12 99 11:41 99

2 Chronicles 9:22 105 9:29 99 Psalms 1:2 114 27 122 33–34 92 33 110, 122,

134 34 110, 122,

134 62 122 72 93 75 122 76 122 84:10 114 127 93 128 122 130 122 Proverbs 15:15 56 22:28 7 Isaiah 7:14 94, 116,

172 11 96 24–27 xviii 26–66 xviii 29:18–19 13 60:21 51 Jeremiah 27:23–29 LXX 142 50:23–29 142 50:25 142

Ezekiel 47:1–12 123 NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:20–21 173 1:24–25 172 13:55–56 178 23:34–35 10 25:1–13 8 27:9 12 27:62–66 177 28 172, 177 28:1 179 28:2–4 177 28:2 177, 178 Mark 4:11 150 4:36 150 7:49 143 12:24 143 12:28–34 76 15:46 178 15:47 179 16 179, 180,

185 16:1–3 179, 181 16:3–4 180 16:3 179, 183 16:4 179 Luke 1:34 172 1:46–56 122 1:46–55 122 1:66–79 122 2:7 172

Index of References 187

11:49–51 10 13:34 10 21:38 xiv 22:19–20 xvii 23:6–12 183 John 1:1–29 149 1:1–18 114, 122 1:1–14 120 6:27 xxi 7:38 13 7:44 xiv 7:52 xiv 7:53–8:11 xiv 8:53 149 11:16 149 11:39 149 13:33 149 14:2 xxi 14:3 149 15–17 102 20:24 144 20:25 148 20:27 149, 173 20:30 171 20:31 171 27:51–54 171 Romans 9:22 142 12:13 146 15:8 100 1 Corinthians 2:9 13 4:16 xxii 5:9 xvii 10:29 166 11:23–25 xvii 15:41 xxi 2 Corinthians 1–9 xvii 3:17 166 6:14–7:1 xvii

6:14 xvii 10–13 xvii Galatians 2:4 166 5:1 166 5:13 166 Ephesians 5:14 11 5:18–20 135 5:18 135 5:19–21 121, 135 5:19–20 135 5:21 135 5:22 135 5:31 12 Philippians 2:6–11 114, 122 Colossians 3 93 3:16–19 135 3:16 93 4:16 xviii 1 Timothy 3:16 122 2 Timothy 3:8 5 James 1:25 166 2:12 166 1 Peter 2:16 166 2:19 166 1 John 4:1–2 119 2 John 7 119

Jude 1–25 91 Revelation 1:5–6 122 4:8 122 4:11 122 5:9–10 122 5:12 122 5:13 122 5:14 122 7:10 122 7:12 122 11:15 122 11:17–18 122 12:10–12 122 14:3 122 15:3–4 122 16:5–6 122 16:7 122 19:1–2 122 19:3 122 19:4 122 19:5 122 19:6–8 122 OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA Tobit 1:17–20 75 2:1–8 75 4:3 75 4:7–13 75 4:7 75 4:15 74 4:16–17 75 Ecclesiasticus 3:21–22 60 3:21 60 3:22 60 7:17 58 7:21 73 31:15 73 1 Maccabees 2:41 73

188 Index of References

OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 6–16 21 48.1–10 128 48.2–10 128 3 Baruch 4 45 4.10 45 4 Ezra 4.33 101 5.5 101 14.26 126 Aristeas the Exegete §207 74 Ascension of Isaiah 4.6 128 7.10 128 9.12–18 128 11.2–5 128 11.12–14 120 Jubilees 8.2 44 8.3 44 10.13 xviii 36.4 76 Odes of Solomon 1 93, 112,

115, 116, 118, 129

1.1–5 104, 125, 132

1.1 111 1.2 111 2.2 111 3 124 3.1 b 98 3.1b 129 3.3 111 3.7 111 4 113

4.2 111 4.3 124 4.5 114 5 112, 115,

118, 129 5.1–11 125, 132 5.9–10 111 5.12 104 5.15 111 6 112, 115,

118, 129 6.1–2 124 6.8–18 125, 132 7 112 7.3 111 7.4–6 119 7.7 112 7.11–13 112 7.15 111 7.20–21 112 7.21 124 7.25 112, 119 8.5–6 112 9.8–11 104 10 113 10.3 166 11 90, 91, 93,

100, 104, 110, 112, 118, 122, 129, 132, 134

11.6–7 118 11.10–11 118 11.12 128 11.12b 124 11.13–17 92 11.16 128 11.16a–e 101 11.16c 124 11.18 128 13 112, 118 15 111 15.8 118 16.9–19 119 16.10–14 112 16.13 128

16.16 112 17 113 17.1 104 17.6 111 17.7 129 17.17 111 17.7b–42.20 98 19 95, 96,

112–14, 116, 117, 125, 131

19.2 111 19.6–10 119 19.6–9 120 19.6–7 95, 116,

125, 129 19.6 115 19.8–9 128 20.7 104 21.2 111 22–24 113 22 112, 115,

118, 129 22.1–12 125, 132 22.1 128 23.22 111 24 112 24.1 111 25 112, 115,

118, 129 25.1–12 132 25.12 125 26.12 118 27–37 113 27.1–3 112, 114,

124, 125 27.1 111 28 120 28.10 111 29 111 29.6 111 30 111, 112,

118, 128 31 100, 101 31.8–13 101, 123 31.9 111 33.5–11 112


34 112, 118 34.4 128 35 112, 118 36.1–3 102, 128 36.3 111 37.2 128 38 112, 118 38.10 128 38.17 128 39 112, 118 39.11 111 41.6 114 41.8 111 41.9 104, 124 41.11–16 114 41.12 111, 114 41.15 111 41.15a 124 41.16 128 42 113, 120,

129, 130 42.1–2 114, 124 42.1 111, 112 42.6 111 42.10–13 111 42.11–13 114 42.15 111 42.18 111 42.20 98, 129 43 129 Pseudo-Phocylides 1–2 78 3–8 78 9–21 78 42–47 78 48–58 78 59–69 78 70–96 78 97–115 78 115–121 78 122–152 78 140–42 78 142 78 153–174 78 175–227 78

177–194 78 195–197 78 207–9 78 218 78 223–27 78 228–230 78 Psalms of Solomon 1 116 3.3–10 77 10.1–3 77 13.8–10 77 14 128 15 128 16.6–13 130 16.14 77 18.4 77 18.12–14 128 Sibylline Oracles Prologue 75 96 Testament of Benjamin 4.3 76 Testament of Issachar 5.2 76 7.6 76 Testament of Levi 18.2 xviii Testament of Naphtali 2.8 13 Testament of Simeon 4.6 76 Testament of Zebulun 5.1 76 APOSTOLIC FATHERS 2 Clement 3.1 104, 124 20.3–5 124 20.5 104, 124

Barnabas 2.10 100 4.4 99 4.7 101 5 101 5.4 99, 101 5.5–7 100, 123 11.9–10 101, 123 11.9 99, 101 12.1 101 16.7 101 Ignatius To the Ephesians 7.1–2 119 To the Magnesians 1.2 119 To the Smyrnaeans 2.1 119 4.1–2 119 8.1–2 119 To the Trallians 10.1 119 NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Acts of Paul 10 xxiii Acts of Peter 35 (6) xxiii Epistle to the Laodiceans 4.16 xxi Gospel of Peter 2.3–4 183 6.22 177 6.24 177 7.27 177 8.28 177 8.31 177


Gospel of Peter (cont.) 8.32 180 8.33 176, 177 9.34 177 9.37 177 10.38 177 10.39–11.44 178 10.42 177 12.51 179 12.52–54 179, 180 12.53 180 12.54 180 50b 179 Acts of Thomas 21 160 29–30 163 29 164 30–33 165 33 163, 164 34–37 165 34 160, 163,

166 35 160 37 160 38 160, 165 46 164 50 167 51 154 66 160 70 166 76 160 79 160 128 160 137 160 157 160 Arabic Infancy Gospel 42 164 3 Corinthians 2.11 xx 2.13–16 xx Gospel of the Saviour 69–72 143

Gospel of Thomas 1 150 23 146, 147,

151 52 151 74 145, 146,

151 82 143, 144,

151 History of Joseph the Carpenter 17 164 Infancy Gospel of Thomas 16 164 Protevangelium of James 10.1 174 11.2–3 174 11.3 173 13.1–3 174 14.2 173, 174 15.2 174 16.1–2 174 16.1 173 16.2 173 18.2 173, 177 19.2 174, 177 19.3 173, 174 20.1–4 173, 174 21.1–3 174 QUMRAN Genesis Apocryphon xviii Rule of the Community 81 1Q23 18–20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 1Q24 18, 19, 21, 25, 30, 43

2Q26 18–20, 22, 23, 25, 32, 35 4Q203 18–22, 24–27, 31, 32, 37,

41, 43 4Q204 18 4Q206 18–20, 29, 30 4Q530 18, 19, 22–24, 26, 33, 34,

38, 41 4Q530–533 18, 19 4Q531 18, 19, 22, 25–28, 31, 35,

36, 38, 42, 43

4Q532 20, 27, 28, 31 4Q533 20, 29, 31 4Q556 20 6Q8 18–20, 22, 23, 25, 33, 35 6Q14 18, 19, 21 MISHNAH Sanhedrin 10:1 49–51, 58,

59 10:2 50


Yadayim 4:6 52 BABYLONIAN TALMUD Baba Batra 98b 48, 63 146a 48, 63 Baba Qamma 92b 48, 63 Hagigah 11b 61 13a 47, 60, 63 14b 61 Ketubbot 110b 48, 63 Niddah 16b 48, 63 Sanhedrin 90a 50, 59 93b 59, 60 94a 59 95a 59 96a 59 96b 59 99a 59, 60 99b 59 100b 46–48,

53–55, 57, 60, 63

101a 60 101b 60 Yebamot 63b 48, 63 JERUSALEM TALMUD Berakot 11b 47, 48, 62 Pe’ah 16b 48

Sanhedrin 27b 50 28a 48, 52–55,

58, 62 TOSEFTA TALMUD Sanhedrin 9:11 86 12:9–10 50 12:9 50 12:10 50 12:11 50 Sotah 14a 86 Yadayim 2:13 48, 49,

52–55, 62 MIDRASH Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:11 47, 48, 63 12:10 48 12:12 63 Genesis Rabbah 8:2 47, 60, 62 10:6 47, 62 24:7 86 73:12 47, 62 91:3 47, 62 Kalla Rabbah 3:1 48, 63 3:4 48, 63 Leviticus Rabbah 33:1 47, 62 Pesiqta Rabbati 3 48 Sifra Qedoshim 4:12 86

Tanhuma 1 47, 62 8 47, 62 10 47, 62 15 48 25 48 WORKS OF LATE ANTIQUITY Ambroaster Commentary on Timothy 3.9 5 Aphrahat Demonstrationes 524.3–7 90, 104 Arnobius the Younger Praedestinatus 1.46.121 5 1.70.15 5 Athanasius Epistula festales 39 2 39.2 xiii 39.15 3 39.20 2 39.21 3, 4 39.22–23 4 39.23 5 39.26–27 4 39.26 13 39.32 4 Expositio in Psalmos 27, 324A 107 Augustine Contra Adimantum 17 8 Contra Faustum Manichaeum 22.79 8 22.80 154


De civitate Dei 15.23 8, 14 18.38 9 De haeresibus 46 8 70 8 De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII 59 8 De doctrina christiana 2.13 2 2.37 131 Epistulae 158 5 237.24 8 Claudius Mamertus De statu animae 1.2 5 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 6.52.3–4 124 Cyprian De lapsis 3.23–26 154 Doctrina partum de incarnatione verbi 41.4 124 Epiphanius Panarion (Adversus haereses) 1.15.2 124 26.8.1 100 33.7.10 124 48.4 124

Ervigio Leges visigothorum II, 1, 12 167 XII, 3, 6 167 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.25.4 6 4.22.9 6 6.12.4–6 181 6.13.6 6 6.14.1 6 6.25.3 xiii Gregory Moralia 35.20.48 xxi Heracleon Commentary on John 4.21 124 Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.7.20 140 Innocent I Epistola VI.7 155 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.24.6 147 3.11.8 xiii 25.4.4 148 Isidore Etymologiae 6.1.9 14 6.2.52 14 Isodore of Seville De regula monachorum 10 167 11 167

Jerome Adversus Helvidium de Mariae virginitate perpetua 8 11 Adversus Vigilantium 6 11 Commentarrii in Lucam 17 14 Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Ephesios libri III 3 11 5.14 11 Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Titum liber 1.12 11, 12 Commentariorum in Ezechielem libri XVI 13 11 43.18–22 11, 13 44.29–30 11 Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII 17 11 64.4 11 Commentariorum in Matthaeum libri IV 2 11 12.49–50 11 23.35–36 11, 13 27.9–10 11 Epistulae 129.3 11 36.5 11 57.7 12 57.9 11 78.20 11, 13 78.26 11, 13


De nominibus hebraicis (Liber nominum) 81.8 13 Contra prophetam Danielem 43–44 11 Praefatio Eusebii Ieronimi in Ezram 18 11 Praefatio in Pentateuchum 18 11 Preface to Paralipomena 30–31 Lines 13 Tractatus in Psalmos 15 13 De viris illustribus 1 11 4 11, 12 6 11, 13, 14 7 11 Lactantius Divinarum institutionum libri VII 1.6 96 4.12.3 94, 95,

115 Epitome of the Divine Institutes XLII 117 XLIV 117 Leo I Epistola XV.15 155 Minucius Felix Octavius 29.5 124

Origen Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 10.17 173, 178 10.18 3, 4 17.2 3 Commentarii in Romanos Gk. frg. to Rom 4:16–17

3 Origen Commentarium series in evangelium Matthaei 25 3 28 4 117 3 contra Celsum 1.28 151 1.32 151 8.15 145 8.16 145, 146 Epistula ad Africanum 8 7 9 3 13–15 4, 10 13 3 19 3 Homiliae in Lucam 1 148 1.1 139 1.2 139 De principiis 3.2.4 7 Selecta in Genesim 4.8 3 41.47 3 Selecta in Job 2.34 151 2.188 3 19.97 3

20 149 28 149 32 149 Philstratus of Brescia Diversarum hereseon liber 88 5 114 5 Porphyry Life of Plotinus 16 141 Priscillian Tractatus I 23.11 11 Tractatus III 46.23–25 10 47.3–26 10 Pseudo-Ephrem An Exposition of the Gospel 83 143 Ru nus Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum 36 2, 6 Sozomen Historia ecclesiastica 7.19 xv Tertullian De anima 2 5 De oratione 14 124 16 5 De pudicitia 10 5 20 5


De resurrectione carnis 63 5 PAPYRI Papyrus Bodmer V 91 VII 91 VIII 91, 92 IX 91, 92 X 91 X.16–19 xix XI 91, 93, 94,

105, 118, 122

XII 91, 92 XIII 91, 92 XX 91, 92

INSCRIPTIONS Cambridge University Library, Add. 2012 fol. 104b 130 fols. 104b– 105a 117 fol. 105b 130 Codex Nitriensis (BM MS. Add. 14538) 98, 129 Codex Askew (BM Ms. Dd. 5114) 125 Codex Harris (John Rylands Library, Cod. Syr.) 9 129

Irish palimpsest (München CLM) 14429 167 Mani Codex 48,16–50,7 100 Muratorium Fragment line 64 xviii Pistis Sophia (BM MS. Add. 5114) 93

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abbott, E. A. 91, 95 Adamik, T. 162 Aldridge, R. E. 6, 7 Attridge, H. 159 Aune, D. 109 Barrett, D. P. 135 Batiffol, P. 106 Bauckham, R. 87 Bauer, M. 141 Becker, A. H. 166, 167 Bernard, J. H. 96, 104 Bernhard, A. E. 177 Beyer, K. 15 Bienert, W. 160 Biesen, K. den 163 Black, M. 16 Blatz, B. 137 Bloch, A. P. 87 Böhling, A. 139 Bonnet, M. 156 Bornkamm, G. 157, 158, 162 Bouyer, L. 120 Bovon, F. 155, 159, 169 Bowen, A. 95, 96 Brakke, D. 2, 4, 13 Bremmer, J. 152, 153 Brooke, A. E. 148 Brown, R. E. 106, 176 Brownson, J. 106 Bruce, B. J. 144 Bruyne, D. de xxii Bucur, B. 183 Bultmann, R. 106 Burkes, S. 87 Burkitt, F. C. 98 Cameron, A. 153–55 Camplani, A. 2 Camponovo, O. 16 Caridad, E. C. 167 Chadwick, H. 145, 146

Charlesworth, J. H. xiv, xx, 90–93, 95, 101, 102, 105–15, 119–21, 128, 134

Chartrand-Burke, T. 140 Collins, J. J. 87, 96 Comfort, P. W. 135 Conti, M. 9, 10 Conzelamnn, H. 157, 162 Corwin, V. 104, 106, 119 Cronbach, A. 87 Cross, F. L. 101 Crossan, J. D. xxiii, 175, 176 Cullmann, O. 172–74, 176 Culpepper, R. A. 109 Cumont, F. 44 Daly, R. J. 147 Danker, F. 138 DeConick, A. D. 137 Denis, A.-M. 16, 44 de Silva, D. xiii Dobschütz, E. von 16, 44 Dold, A. 167 Drijvers, H. J. W. 158 Duling, D. C. 106 Dyson, R. W. 9 Egan, G. A. 143 Ehrman, B. D. xxii, 100, 101 Eizenhöfer, L. 167 Elliott, J. K. xxii, 173, 178 Emmel, S. 143 Epp, E. J. xx, 91 Ewald, H. xvii Findlay, A. F. 158 Fitzgerald, J. T. xvi Fitzmyer, J. A. 15 Fletcher, W. 94 Flores, R. 154 Foster, P. 173, 175, 176, 181 Fromm, C. 107, 119 Funk, R. W. xiv

196 Index of Authors

Gallagher, E. L. 1, 2, 6, 10, 13 Gammie, J. G. 87 Garnsey, P. 95, 96 Gaylord, H. E. 45 Georgi, D. 161, 162 Gögler, R. 148 Grabbe, L. L. 15 Grant, R. M. 137, 143 Gray, P. 87 Green, J. B. 176 Green, R. P. H. 131 Greschat, K. xxi Grosso, M. 137, 140 Gryson, R. 13 Hägg, T. 153 Hall, D. R. xvii Harnack, A. 89, 153, 175 Harrelson, W. 87 Harrington, D. J. 15, 16 Harris, J. R. 98, 99, 103–105 Hartin, P. J. 160 Head, P. M. 181 Heck, E. 95 Heine, R. E. 148, 149 Henderson, T. P. 176, 177, 181–84 Hennecke, E. 16, 44 Henning, W. B. 17, 18, 22 Holl, K. 148 Hovhanessian, V. xix, xx Humphries, M. 7 Hurtado, L. 123 Jacobs, A. S. 6, 10 Jaubert, A. 144 Jeremias, J. 143, 144 Jonas, H. H. 111 Jonge, M. de 87 Käsemann, E. 92, 106 Kee, H. C. 87 King, K. L. 157 Kirk, A. 176 Kittel, G. 98 Kittle, G. 89 Klauck, H.-J. 87 Klijn, A. F. J. 158, 162, 163 Knibb, M. 15 Knopf, R. xxii Koester, H. 90, 112, 118, 119, 137, 175

Kraft, R. 152 Krüger, G. xxii Kugener, M.-A. 44 LaFargue, M. 161 Lake, K. 99 Lancellotti, M. G. 137 Larsen, K. B. 153 Lattke, M. 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 101–104, 107,

108, 110, 113, 116, 117, 121, 123, 125, 129

Lawson, R. P. 7 Lelior, L. 167 Lewis, A. S. 156 Lienhard, J. T. 139 Lipsius, R. A. 156 Lundberg, M. J. 20 Malamat, A. 87 Mara, M. G. 180 Markschies, C. 157 Martínez, F. G. 15, 19, 44 Martini, E. 168 Maston, T. B. 87 Matthews, E. G. 163 McCant, J. W. 181 McDonald, L. M. xxiv, 127, 130, 133, 170 McGrath, J. F. 159 McNeal, B. 90 Meeks, W. A. xvi Meier, J. P. 176 Metzger, B. M. xiv, xv, xix, xxii, 116 Meyer, H. A. W. xvii Milik, J. T. 15, 17, 18, 23, 26 Mingana, A. 99, 103–105 Mirecki, P. A. 175 Mitchell, C. W. 164 Morehead, J. H. xxiv Münter, F. 93 Murray, R. 90, 104 Nautin, P. 138 Neirynck, F. 176, 179 Niehoff, M. R. 185 Nünlist, R. 185 Oegema, G. S. 87, 88 Orlov, A. A. 45 Osiek, C. 179 Overbeck, J. J. 164

Index of Authors 197

Pagel, U. 170 Penner, K. M. 43 Phelps, M. B. 20 Pick, B. 157 Pitre, B. 182 Plisch, U.-K. 137, 143–45, 147, 150 Possekel, U. 163 Puech, E. 20 Puech, J. 18, 21, 43, 140 Quasten, J. 90, 120, 126 Quispel, G. 142 Reed, A. Y. 1 Reed, S. A. 20 Reeves, J. C. 15–17, 26, 44, 45 Rordorf, W. 152 Rudolf, K. 111 Ruwet, J. 4 Sanders, J. A. 170 Sawyer, J. F. A. 158 Scheck, T. 3 Schenke, H. M. 90 Schnabel, E. J. 88 Schnackenburg, R. 90 Schneemelcher, W. xxi–xxiii, 16, 44, 120,

139, 153 Schoedel, W. R. 137 Schröter, R. 169 Schürer, E. 88 Shepps, G. 9 Simon, M. 184 Slingerland, H. D. 88 Smith, D. M. xxii, xxiii Smith, J. C. 142, 143 Smith, W. C. 158 Sokoloff, M. 15 Spada, C. A. 138 Spittler, J. E. 162 Stemberger, G. 184

Steudel, A. 25 Stoker, W. D. 143 Stone, M. E. 1 Strack, H. L. 184 Strothmann, W. 164, 169 Strycker, É. de 174 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 15, 17, 20–22, 25 Sundermann, W. 18 Swanson, R. 132 Swete, H. B. 133, 181 Talbert, C. H. 92 Taussig, H. xv, 106 Taylor, F. D. 8 Testuz, M. xix Thilo, J. K. 157 Thomas, C. 153, 154 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 44 Tomkinson, T. 141 Tov, E. 18, 43 Turner, E. G. 92 Vaganay, L. 180 Vermes, G. 182 Weber, R. 13 Weitzmann-Fiedler, J. 155 Wengst, K. 104 Whiston, W. xix, xx Williams, M. 141, 157 Wilson, M. 122 Wilson, R. McL. 16, 44 Wisse, F. 139 Wlosok, A. 95 Wright, B. G. 47 Wright, W. 98, 156, 166 Zahn, M. M. 182 Zelzer, K. 155 Zerbe, G. M. 88

[james h. charlesworth, lee martin mcdonald, blake(bokos-z1)

Documents

lee mcdonald

canon lee martin mcdonald

protevangelium of james

index of authors

jurgens p

bloomsbury academic

index of references

book of ben sira sirach