SNTS Presentation, TelAviv, August 2000 Christianization of Jewish Sources Revisited: Issues of Method [respondent, David Satran; tried to send drafts to him, but I have no evidence that it was successful!] Do a grid on the board? motives, method/defs/assumptions, controls/analogy types of Xn treatment: faithful | composite | revised | composed types of relevant sources [see below], recent studies As those who know me will understand, I am not in favor of reading papers to groups of informed scholars as a way of advancing study of the topics at hand. I think it is often ineffective, and in any event may be an irresponsible use of available time and resources. Thus I propose to follow up on the excellent general opening remarks made by Dan Harlow on Monday, to present some additional ideas about the topic, and to encourage input from the rest of you as we proceed. Perhaps then we can make better progress towards identifying issues that call for closer attention. As usual, my focus is on method -- on selfconscious and consistent approach to the subject, exercising as much "control" as possible, by which I mean operating from the more securely known aspects to the more problematic. With most of the materials of interest for this study -- "Jewish sources" -- our main avenue of discovery starts in Christian contexts. That is, with rare exceptions provided mainly by discovery of ancient manuscripts (most notably the DSS) and by continuous Jewish transmission, our knowledge of "Jewish sources" relating to the period of Christian origins comes through Christian interests and transmission. While this fact is widely recognized, it is not always taken seriously in the study of those materials. For example, we are often warned -- quite rightly -- that the rabbinic Jewish sources are relatively "late" in their preserved forms and therefore can only be used with great care and caution in the study of Christian origins, the same sort of methodological circumspection seldom is voiced with regard to the use of the "pseudepigrapha" and related materials, which are often also relatively "late" as we know them, and have come to us through clearly Christian hands and interests. This does not mean that it is impossible to use such materials to "get back" to the earlier period that may be the focus of our interest, any more than the rabbinic sources should be considered irrelevant or impervious for such purposes. What it does mean is that similar care is necessary in determining how to use these materials responsibly. They are, first of all, "Christian" materials, and recognition of that fact is a necessary step in using them responsibly in the quest to throw light on early Judaism. I call this the "default" position -- sources transmitted by way of Christian communities are "Christian," whatever else they may also prove to be. This is not a new insight, as is clear from reading many of the pioneers of the study of these materials (e.g. Battifol, M.R.James, Harnack). But it is an insight that tends to get lost as scholarly confidence grows in our ability to recognize what is "Jewish" (or otherwise non-Christian) in the sources. Yet that ability, as with all historical research, is not something static. New discoveries and new insights change the playing field in various ways, sometimes almost imperceptibly, sometimes quite radically, so that what were once considered to be clear and firm results require reevaluation in the light of more recent information and approaches. This is what I sometimes refer to as the "methodological spiral" with which we operate -- it is not a circular argumentation (e.g. Christians would not be greatly concerned about the fate of Jerusalem, but it is a Jewish concern, thus texts that have this feature must be "Jewish" as is clear from the fact that they contain passages that show characteristic Jewish concern for the fate of Jerusalem!) insofar as each new piece of evidence can modify our understanding so that we can ask the same questions from a slightly (or sometimes radically) different vantage point (e.g. the text at hand shows interest in the fate of Jerusalem and comes to us by way of Christian transmission, thus suggesting that some Christians may indeed have had an interest in that subject and that the text may even have originated in such a milieu). For our present study, for example, the meanings of "early Jewish" and of "Christian" are significantly different from what they may have been the last time around on the spiral of responsible and informed research. The bottom line is, this time around, that the "default" position with reference to sources preserved and used by the Christian traditions is that they need to be understood within the Christian contexts as the starting point for attempting to use them responsibly for purposes of determining their possible contributions to our knowledge of earlier Jewish contexts. The burden of proof lies with claims of Jewishness, and the route to establishing the probability of early Jewish connections is complex and fraught with problems both of definitions/assumptions (method) and of reliable information (data). Definitions/Assumptions: "Christian"; "Jewish"; original; etc. Problems of overlapping categories (see Boyarin) Relevance of "scriptural" category, of "canon" distinctions? If we really believe that Christians appropriated their selection of Jewish scriptures and saw themselves as owners -- as standing in that tradition -- why should it be difficult to believe that Christians could produce apparently "Jewish" supporting materials? Data/Information: heterodoxy, appropriation, adaptation, etc. -What do we know about the "Jewish" interests of Christians and others? --see Stone on Armenian efforts; Kraemer on Samaritans, Reeves on Mani and his sources and compositions, Adler on Africanus, what about Islamic sources (Quranic stories, etc.)?; -Should we apply different criteria to different sorts of interests? apocalyptic continuities (3 Baruch, Revelation, 6 Ezra), prophecy (5 Ezra) & oracles (SibOr), hymnody & prayers (ApConst), heresiology (Tertullian's Mani, "Jewish Xty", Epiphanius' claims), dialogues (Justin's Trypho), hagiography/martyrology (4 Macc, Lives of Prophets), homilization (Joseph's asceticism), chronography/antiquity (Slav Josephus). -How deal with issues of composite sources (lessons from 1 Enoch, 2 Esdras; AscIsa, ParalJer, SibOrs)? -How deal with textcritical problems, esp relating to versions and their preservation (orig lang, transformations)? -How deal with multiple recensions? Argument by Analogy: how far can we take what seems to be firm knowledge into the less clear areas? (see my appendices, Reeves on Mani) Recent Studies/Subject Areas of Note: Martyrology -- Bowersock, van Henten, Boyarin Tales -- JosAsen (Philonenko, Burchard, Kraemer) ParJer (Schaller), Apocalyptic -- Harlow, Marshall, Bergren, Paul as Jewish source -- general Versions & Schools -- Stone, Reeves --- This presentation is of two minds, and I apologize. It starts out with a survey of the types of sources that seem to me relevant for the chosen topic. Then, it turns to some observations on methodological problems that arise in using such sources. There are some repetitions, which I hope will not be too troublesome. Perhaps in a future form I can iron them out, but for now all I can do is apologize, and perhaps summarize some points. Introduction and Rapid Overview of the Situation Christians made various uses of pre-Christian Jewish materials. By "Christians" I mean people who considered Jesus to be "Messiah" and, in the context of religion, the most significant being to have entered the human realm. By "Jewish" I refer to people who saw themselves in continuity with the traditions and communities known as "Jewish" in their world. It is not incompatible for a person to be both Jewish and Christian, in this definitional situation, but as persons in Christian communities saw themselves as more and more distinct from other connections, Jewish or non-Jewish, that aspect of the definitional problem simplifies. Christians who self-identified as "Jewish" produced literature of various sorts, from the letters of Paul to collections of Jesus traditions (G.Hebs, G.Nazarenes, etc.) to adaptations of apocalyptic materials (e.g. Apocalypse of John, probably), and doubtless various other productions. To the extent that it is possible to identify these Christian Jewish contributions, I will not include them in the following discussion but will try to focus on the afterlife of probably "pre-Christian" materials. Many of these pre-Christian Jewish sources were copied and transmitted for centuries in Christian contexts without significant modification. This can be easily verified with regard to Jewish scriptural writings and to many other works such as most of the "apocrypha" and some of the "pseudepigrapha," notably those attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The practice of copying such things faithfully is not only demonstrable from these surviving whole texts for which we have virtually identical pre- or non-Christian copies, but also from the quotations and long excerpts that appear in various contexts, from occasional, almost incidental usage to organized anthologies such as "testimony books" and more substantive efforts like Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel. Christians also copied and transmitted "pagan" writings of various sorts, which needs to be taken into account when arguments are made attempting to connect the impetus to accuracy in copying with Christian concepts of scriptual authority.\n/ /--- \n/ [detail from earlier version] There are some easy cases. For what I prefer to call "Jewish scriptures," we have non-Christian MSS and fragments in Hebrew and Aramaic, and sometimes even in Greek. We can judge how faithful the Christian copyists have been by comparing those copies with the others -- our problem becomes a matter of textual criticism. And on the whole, there is virtually no evidence of overt Christianization in these control cases. Does that fact make it easier to treat similarly other possibly or even apparently pre-Christian Jewish texts for which similar non- Christian evidence is not present? Sometimes, but not always. And how do I determine the most responsible approach? Certain texts seem to have sufficiently strong secondary attestation to be treated as carefully copied pre- or non- Christian Jewish writings. The early and sometimes extensive references to Josephus as a source for Jewish history create a presumption in favor of accepting the relatively late and clearly Christian copies of his works as reliable --with allowances, of course, for one or two suspicious passages. Similarly Philo. And the correspondences between Josephus and 1 Maccabees increase the probability that the latter is equally Jewish in origin, if early Christian claims to that effect failed to convince. The remaining "apocrypha" also find secondary attestation in early Christian sources, even if the extant MSS appear to be from Christian hands, and often very late. Again, clear evidence of Christian textual tampering is difficult to find in these texts, thus underlining the possibility that responsible transmission has occurred in similar, but less well documented, instances. \=== Some pre-Christian Jewish sources, such as those found in the Greek "Odes," were rather mechanically placed alongside materials that were revered as characteristically Christian, much as the Jewish "OT" writings came to be juxtaposed with "NT" writings when the large codex technology made it possible. The Greek Odes often circulated along with the biblical collection of Psalms; the Odes include poetic passages from the Gospels along with poetic selections from Jewish scriptures. Of course, from the relevant Christian perspective there is probably nothing unusual about this. All such scriptures are considered Christian. Probably similar attitudes underlie the development of hagiographical sources, where holy people from the amalgamated Jewish-Christian traditions are revered side by side; and similarly with the development of ethical handbooks such as the Two Ways and its relatives and descendants. Pre-Christian Jewish materials also were reworked in Christian hands in ways that rather clearly betrayed the Christian contribution, through explicit reverence for Jesus, or the mention of characteristic Christian themes such as the trinity. Sometimes this phenomenon occured in the copying of texts and can be witnessed through textcritical comparisons, where one manuscript or family contains the Christian adaptation while other witnesses do not. A notorious example is the passage about Jesus in extant Greek MSS of Josephus, which is lacking in an Arabic witness and is inconsistent with what else we know about Josephus -- although in the 18th century, Whiston could argue that it was authentic and helped prove that Josephus was a Christian. On a smaller scale, something similar can be seen in 4 Ezra 7. , where most versions refer to Messiah, but the Latin has "Jesus." Examples could be multiplied. This shows that while Christians copied many texts without significant alteration, this was not true of all. Pre-Christian Jewish materials also were reworked in Christian hands so that the lines between source and appropriation have become blurred, making it difficult to determine what was old and what newer material. It is clear that the extant recensions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs contain much pre- Christian Jewish material, and even preserve a literary form that is equally ancient. It is equally clear that in the preserved texts, Christian interests sometimes have left traces, at least in one or another recension. Similar observations can be made with the material now bundled under the title Ascension of Isaiah, or with Paraleipomena Jeremiou, or with the collected Lives of the Prophets, or the Adam/Eve compositions, among other texts. It is this last category of materials that has especially captured the attention of scholars who attempt to distil as much information as possible from the extant sources about the Jewish settings that produced and/or strongly influenced the early developments in Christianity. One of the issues worth discussing is whether any clearer guidelines have emerged in recent decades for determining what can or cannot be considered as pre- or non- Christian in these situations, or for that matter, what can be considered clearly Christian? Some Selected Details -- and a new beginning Exhibit #1 [text and meaning]: Slightly more than a century ago, the description of the "Therapeutae" found in the Philonic tractate On the Contemplative Life was dismissed by Licius (1879) as a late 3rd century Christian forgery in Philo's name in support of the emergence of Christian monasticism. As David Runia reports in his masterful study of Philo in Early Christian Literature (Van Gorcum & Fortress 1993, 32), "his thesis received the seal of approval from the eminent triad of German scholars, Zeller, Harnack and Schu%rer. Even Coneybeare's 1895 refutation "did not persuade all scholars (most notably not Schu%rer)," yet today this blip on the screen of scholarly repartee goes largely unnoticed. Why? Was there not good reason to question the existence of such a body of monastics in the isolated areas to the west of Alexandria at such an early date? Eusebius had treated this account as proof of early Christian monastic/ascetic presence in Egypt, and even reported that Philo had met with Peter in a trip to Rome. Eusebius concludes: "It is plain to everyone that when Philo wrote this, he had in view the first heralds of the Gospel teaching and the customs handed down by the apostles from the beginning" (HE 2.17.24). Eusebius explains at some length just what Christian practices are being mentioned, even what scriptural texts are being read by the Therapeutae. Yet when Eusebius actually gives excerpts from Philo's tractate, they are quite accurate and lacking in Christianized insertions or manupilations. Can we learn anything useful from this situation?\n/ /--- \n/ Issues worth exploring include: explicit copying in relation to perceived meaning (commentary) in antiquity; the role of perceived historical contexts (what is or is not possible) as a basis for modern scholarly argumentation; the influence of modern interests (e.g. in marginalizing monasticism) on scholarly conclusions. \=== Exhibit #2 [from margins to text, reshaping in retelling]: Some relatively early manuscripts of the Song of Songs include headings, rubrics describing the perceived thrust of the following section of text. The interpretation is clearly Christian -- "Christ" is seen as a participation in the drama, and is explicitly named as such. Whether this format reflects an older tradition is discussable [see Jay Treat dissertation, 1995?]. This is similar to the situation with Eusebius and the Therapeutae, except that it provides a much easier step from the textual "incidentals" to later copies of the text itself. Examples could be multiplied.\n/ /--- \n/ More strictly textcritical in nature are examples from the Testament of Asher 7.2, which probably shows a move from margin to text; or 4 Ezra 7. (mentioned above) my son Messiah becomes Jesus in the Latin; or Lives of Prophets: 2 Jeremiah, predicting a virgin birth, perhaps from a marginal comment. \=== Exhibit #3 [creating and recreating] In the "Greek Apocalypse of Ezra," which is preserved in a relatively late Christian textual form full of parallel ideas and phraseology to a wide range of archaic Jewish sounding texts, we find both simple textual issues (e.g. "race of men" GENOS ANWN [abbrev] sometimes becomes "race of Christians" GENOS XNWN [cj]) and we find passages such as at the start of ch 7: "Hear, Ezra my beloved -- I who am immortal took up a cross, tasted vinegar and gall, and was put into a grave. And I raised up my elect and called up Adam from Hades so that the race of men [would not languish there (?? lacuna)]." This material cries out for careful textcritical attention, but for the moment let it serve as an example of apparently "Jewish" material expanded in clearly "Christian" directions. As has been noted, it is not alone. The Larger Problem in General: Apart from the DSS and some early Rabbinic materials, very few actual MSS of Jewish writings have survived from the first millennium CE that were not transmitted by Christian copyists and users. /--- \n/Some Cairo Geniza fragments qualify (e.g. Ben Sira, Damascus Dcument, Sefer ha Razim); possibly also 3 Enoch. \=== Sometimes the surviving literature contains passages that clearly reveal Christian interests or expressions that are not likely to have been possible prior to the advent of Christianity in its various forms and permutations. Sometimes there are problematic passages that some interpreters see as "Christian" while others consider them to be "Jewish." Why care? What is at stake? The answers to such a basic question vary widely, even when posed in an academic scholarly setting such as this. For those interested in recovering as much as possible about the earliest manifestations of "Judaism(s)," especially in "pre- Christian" or "non-Christian" settings, the payload is obvious. Sometimes the desire to know clouds the process, and materials that for some reason seem essentially "Jewish" are assumed to be so until proved otherwise. On another curve in the methodological spiral, are scholars whose primary interest is in knowing as much as possible about the "Christian" circles that preserved and presumably found some value in such materials, and for such people -- if I may oversimplify for the moment -- the materials are "Christian" until proven otherwise. There are, of course, as we have already noted, various inbetween positions in which one talks about original Jewish sources that are reshaped in Christian contexts (recensions), or about old texts that are "interpolated" somewhat mechanically (textual variation), or the like. Some investigators are interested in continuities, others more in discontinuities or divergences. As is true in such human endeavors, our answers are usually shaped by our motivating interests and by our prior perceptions about how things must have worked. Philo's Therapeutae could not have existed, at least not the way Eusebius understood the materials. But we now understand them differently. It should come as no surprise that whatever one's motivating interest may be, the path to convincing conclusions is strewn with nearly insurmountable obstacles. Clear communication even among the most responsible scholars is difficult since such basic terms as "Jewish" and "Christian" are slippery at best and can vary widely over time and in differing cultural and geographical locations. A provocative assessment of the situation can be found in the introduction to Daniel Boyarin's recent studies "Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism" (Stanford 1999). Although he seems to me clearly to overstate the case, Boyarin's emphasis on "the permeability of the borders between so-called Judaism and so-called Christianity in late antiquity" (21) reminds us of the dangers of making simplistic judgments regarding origins, influences and adaptations in the literature that concerns us. Our labels are often inadequate and can be seriously misleading. We don't know what relevant varieties of "Judaism" existed in antiquity, nor do we know the range of early "Christianities"; with rare exceptions, we don't know whether or how such communities drew their "borders" or related to each other. And we know even less about all but a few of the various specific individuals whose activities made it possible for us to speak of "communities." The simple older approach that easily drew distinct lines back from the developed, authoritative "orthodoxies" of the 4th century and later, whether "Rabbinic" Jewish or Classical Christian, has long been known to be inadequate, even if its ghost still haunts us more often than we might like. A Search for Controls: What does this mean in practical terms, for our scholarly interests? Surely there are indicators that by definition must be called "Christian" (even if a Boyarin might sometimes modify the classification to "Christian Jewish") such as clear references to Jesus as Lord and/or savior, or to the miraculous/mysterious birth of Jesus, or to the blessed trinity, or to the categorical perfidy of the "Jews," and the like. But what would constitute clearly "Jewish" indicators, apart from what seem to be polemical anti-Christian materials such as in the Toledot Yeshu? Appropriation of pre-Christian Jewish sources and ideas is clear and demonstrable in later, selfconsciously non-Jewish "Christian" contexts, such as Eusebius and his successors. Part of the question before us is the extent to which selfconscious "Christians" who do not see themselves as also "Jewish" may have produced/originated such apparently "Jewish" materials. Nor is it beyond the pale of possibility that in some instances, originally non-Jewish "Christian" materials may have been modified by (Christian) Jewish hands, just as probably happened to some "pagan" materials (e.g. in the "Jewish" Sibyllines). Amid such complexities, the "safe" approach, if one wishes to be methodologically responsible, would be to start with the extant MSS and work from there. Thus the "default" position would be that MSS transmitted by selfconscious Christians are "Christian" until proved otherwise. And in some instances, it is not at all difficult to prove otherwise. Some Christians were clearly capable of copying pre- or non-Christian texts accurately, just as some Christians were able to reproduce excerpts from earlier materials without interjecting their Christian interests -- even when they did not really understand the material! There are situations in which respect for the text as something to be reproduced is clearly at work, whether that is expressed in quotation formulae, or simply by making a complete copy. Concern for accurate transmission is by no means foreign to the early Jewish/Christian world(s).\n/ /--- \n/ Perhaps Rev 22.18f is relevant here, especially as an example of awareness of modification in materials not noted for being quotation conscious. \=== Among the "pseudepigrapha," things get much more murky. The Dead Sea Scroll fragments remove any major questions about the pre- Christian status of Jubilees and most of the collection we call "1 Enoch," although the problem of the origins of the Parables/Similitudes section continues to be debated. If I permit myself to argue from analogy, there is no good reason not to consider that section as also Jewish in origin, but the evidence is not as decisive. And the danger of circularity in argumentation begins to become a factor: I can create a believable non-Christian Jewish context that could have produced this material, but must I do so? Should I do so? It is very tempting to do so. On the other hand, I don't need to create a context of Christian usage -- that is a given. It is the safe default position. The same sorts of things could also be said of Philo's Therapeutae! But there, at least, a fairly consistent linguistic corpus exists for close examination and comparison. On the Contemplative Life does not stand in isolation. As we move into more of the collected traditions about Jewish revered figures, things become even more difficult. What shall I do with the "Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs"? I can try to divide and conquer, exercising my source-critical as well as text-critical arguments on this complex body of materials, but I'm still left with relatively late and quite popular texts of Christian provenance, with little guarantee that significant adjustment and enhancement has not taken place in Christian hands. Yes, there may be clearly pre-Christian Jewish examples of the genre, but that is hardly a convincing solution to the complex problem. Similarly with Lives of the Prophets, in which the layers of evolution sometimes seem to be visible and extend to what seems to be clearly Christian activity. With the collections now associated with Isaiah (Testament-Ascension) and Jeremiah (Paralipomena), the argument could be made that the clearly Christian passages have been tacked onto the end of probably Jewish materials in an almost mechanical fashion, although unfortunately, few other similar writings exhibit that precise pattern. The case can be made that even some writings preserved only in secondary or tertiary translations have survived without significant Christian tampering. Jubilees and the library of 1 Enoch have already been mentioned, but why not also Slavonic Enoch (2 Enoch)? Systematic study of the activities of the Old Church Slavic translators might be rewarding here -- the material on John Baptist in the "Slavonic Josephus" jumps to mind, whether it is viewed as a contribution of the translator or of the manuscript materials being translated or of the subsequent Slavic transmission. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) and the Latin of Ezra (4 Ezra) also seem relevant here, with the added problem of the prefixed and affixed 5 and 6 Ezra in the Latin tradition (but not in other versions of the Ezra Apoclypse!). If I treat 4 Ezra as a Jewish apocalypse, does that predispose me to do similarly with 5 and 6 Ezra? Why or why not? Would not the very slight signs of Christian interest in the Latin of 4 Ezra ("my son Jesus" in 7.28) also explain possible "Christian" phraseology in 5 Ezra ("son of God" in 2.47)? Again, it is not difficult to imagine non-Christian Jewish contexts for all of these texts, but does that mean that they should "default" to Jewish in origin? Perhaps. Two years ago, in his Princeton dissertation, John Marshall argued that the Apocalypse of John that concludes the traditional collection of Christian "New Testament" scriptures should be treated as Jewish. Boyarin would doubtless applaud (see p, 141, n. 40). The payload here would be that the author of the Apocalypse would not have considered himself to be non-Jewish, and thus his work should be used in our reconstructions of what was possible in first century Judaism. Will this make it easier in the future to restructure our collections of ancient sources so that the Apocalypse takes its place alongside of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, long acknowledged to be close relations? And will this nudge 6 Ezra, with its close affinities to the Apocalypse, into the "Jewish" camp? One of the arugments that led Ted Bergren to consider 6 Ezra as "Christian" was its parallels with the presumably "Christian" Apocalypse (6th Ezra, Oxford 1998, 15f). Did non-Jewish Christians Compose "Jewish" Works? An important factor in this entire discussion concerns the intentions and talents of copyists, collectors, revisers, and authors. Unfortunately, we have little first hand evidence. Seldom do individuals emerge from our sources whom we can interrogate, or even scrutinize as they work. We know that there were collectors of various sorts -- Clement of Alexandria has left us some school notes, Cyprian has collected "testimonies," Eusebius was an avid excerpter, similarly John of Damascus, etc. Each had his reasons, his sources, his techniques. Numerous sermons have survived from various authors and/or recorders. Some of them deal with "Jewish" topics and folkloristic themes -- the asceticism of Joseph, the leadership of Moses, the artistry of David. To what extent did the homilists rely on identifiable sources, and how much did they contribute, de novo, to the resultant discourse? Somewhere in my filing cabinets are notes on some 4th and 5th century Christian sermons, examined with an eye to distinctively "Christian" traits that might betray their origins. Some were obviously Christian, but not all. Why shouldn't a Christian narrator, for whom Jewish scriptures and traditions were also home territory, be expected to produce compositions that bear consistently "Jewish" features? Similarly, as reverence for saintly persons grew ("hagiography") and liturgical handbooks were constructed to convey relevant information, how can we tell what may be old or new in the presentations? When Christian poets composed their hymns, often echoing prayers and psalms familiar to them from their scriptures, should we be surprised to find very "Jewish" sounding products? Have you ever pondered the words of Luther's "Mighty Fortress"? Or similar psalm-influenced Christian hymns whose origins we know? Some Christians became interested in chronography and world history, which drew them to other sources considered relevant. Materials were selected, summarized, recombined, harmonized, supplemented, and presented without footnotes or overt Christian indicators on every page. When we discover such materials in late medieval manuscripts, how shall we treat them? Christians worried about the weather, about their crops and vicissitudes of life. Handbooks on interpreting the times or the thunder or whatever circulated in the names of respected savants such as Ezra or Seth or the mysterious Sedrach. Does the mere attachment of such names produce the presumption of Jewish origins? Reasons other than the will to believe ("wishful thinking") are often difficult to find. The more we learn about the various interests, techniques and products of the various Christian worlds, the more difficult it becomes to assume that late, idiosyncratic sources must derive from early Jewish origins.\n/ /--- \n/ An interesting example is Charlesworth's claims about the "Treatise of Shem" -- from a Syriac 15th c MS; why call it Jewish? why date it to the 1st c BCE? \=== An example of such frustrations is well illustrated in the recent study of the Aseneth materials by my colleague Ross Kraemer. What sort of evidence can suffice to establish the widely accepted "Jewish" origin of this fascinating text? She concludes that "the arguments for its Jewishness are largely without foundation. Although it could be Jewish, the totality of the evidence is not definitive, and several other identifications ... are plausible. In particular, a strong case can be made for Christian composition and redaction" (When Joseph Met Aseneth, Oxford 1998, ix). Although I might like it to be Jewish, and as Ross says, it could be Jewish, methodological rigor requires me to acknowledge even more strongly the default position, that without much stronger evidence than appears to be available in the current discussion, its identifiable context is Christian. And until we know in more detail who constructed whatever we will consider the "original" composition, and how and why, it is difficult to say more on that issue.\n/ /--- \n/ Other interesting problems are raised by such texts as the Barlaam and Josaphat materials (compare Ahiqar, Aesop), Odes of Solomon, History of the Rechabites. Less problematic are, for example, Testament of Moses, LAB, 3 Macc, 2/4 Macc, Pss Sol. \=== It is tempting to decide that all of these materials ought to "default" to Judaism at one level or another (source criticism often smooths out any problems), and that has been the tendency of 20th century scholarship. As should be obvious, I would urge a more cautious approach to the situation, and where clear indications are lacking, start with the historically clearest context, which in most instances will be Christian. Prospects and Conclusions: 1. More is needed by way of collating and editing texts -- Although I have made some bold generalizations about lack of overt Christian influences in the textual transmission of certain books, biblical and non-biblical, I suspect that there is a great deal more evidence of significance to digest. Of course, there is a great difference between the situation in which a book is represented by dozens or even hundreds of MSS and when very few or only one MS has survived. Versional evidence, which is especially important for many of the "pseudepigraphical" writings, also deserves more thorough and more systematic study. I suspect that much more can be learned from this mass of challenging material, especially about the attitudes and outlooks of the Christian copyists at work. 2. More studies of control cases are desirable -- Control cases are those in which we can be relatively "sure" about the evidence, and thus can argue with greater confidence from analogy and probablity in similar situations (see Appendix). Unfortunately, with regard to "Jewish" materials, there are too few ancient descriptive accounts of what went on in the transmission process. Accusations are found of tampering with texts (e.g. already in Justin), on both sides of the process, and we sometimes can witness an attempt to preserve or even restore old forms that had become corrupt, as with Origen's work on the Hexapla. Quotations and excerpts are sometimes given from extra- biblical allegedly Jewish sources (e.g. Tertullian on the first section of "1 Enoch," many others on assorted points of interest), marginal comments sometimes exhibit how certain new things could become incorporated into subesquent copies, but on the whole we are guessing about the dynamics of the processes. 3. Recognition of Christian interests and attitudes in transmitting the materials may help us determine what is more or less likely to be older traditional material. Are there identifiable uses to which Christians put the traditions; e.g. in hagiography and martyrology, with a focus on "faith," or in ascetic and moral examples, emphasizing celibacy? Are there situations in which it is possible that Christians produced Jewish-sounding sources, or edited existing sources to sound more Jewish (e.g. to "prove" the antiquity of certain ideas, or to "correct" perceived corruptions)? One of the dangers here is the circularity of argument if it is thought that something would have been "impossible" in pre-Christian Judaism, or for that matter, as a Christian claim! 4. Despite such obstacles, I would argue that it is potentially productive to try to imagine what sort of pre- or non-Christian perspectives might have produced the problematic materials -- as long as this is the result of the sort of prior investigation that begins with the evidence where it is preserved, and is not simply assumed as the default position. Although I am a firm advocate of careful, close textual work, fixation on the texts alone will get us only so far. Seldom do the texts provide their own labels, their own maps of how they relate to other materials under examination. Our conclusions depend on a variety of judgments, based on what we think we know about historical, conceptual, cultural, literary contexts, on how good our historical imaginations may be, on what we consider useful or relevant analogies, and the like. Appendix: Searching for Analogies: Agendas for Future Research Is it possible to shed light on the intentions and/or procedures of the copyist-editors by examining various analogous situations? Test Scenario #1 -- explicit reproduction: Christian quotations/excerpts from Jewish works (e.g. Eusebius) Possible controls/analogies: Christian excerpts from "heretical" works (e.g. Iren, Tertullian, Origen); Christian excerpts from "pagan" works (e.g. Eusebius); Jewish excerpts from "pagan" works (e.g. Philo, Josephus); "Pagan" excerpts from "barbarian" works (e.g. Herodotus). --establishing a level of trust --recognizing varieties of perspective, understanding --adjusting for selectivity >>on the whole, where excerpting is intentional and uncomplicated by other factors (textual transmission, etc.), it seems relatively reliable -- the intention to reproduce is a key element Test Scenario #2 -- transmission of whole works: Christian copying and/or translating of Jewish works (e.g. Jewish scriptures, Philo, Josephus, etc.) Possible controls/analogies: Christian transmission of objectionable Christian works (e.g. Tertullian the Montanist, ps-Clementines); Heterodox transmission of Christian works (e.g. Marcion's Paul); Christian transmission of "pagan" works (e.g. Plato, Cicero); Christian transmission of Jewish transmission of "pagan" works?? (e.g. SibOr, ps-Hecataeus, etc.); "Pagan" transmission of "foreign" works? (e.g. Hermetic, Magic); --are there distinctions of types of literature (e.g. "scripture")? --what do the copyists intend to do? --evidence of textual tampering, warnings against it, etc. --the rise and proliferation of variant "recensions" >>some test cases are encouraging (e.g. "scriptural" texts), but in general, the situation is confused and frustrating; what makes a transmitter feel justified in introducing changes? Test Scenario #3 -- construction of unacknowledged new works from older material, mainly by collecting and juxtaposing, but also by reshaping editorially: Christian appropriation and reuse of Jewish materials as "Jewish" Possible controls/analogies: Christian collecting and mixing of congenial materials (e.g. Odes, Synoptics); Christian adapatation of "pagan" material (e.g. Physiologus, SibOr); Jewish collecting and mixing of older traditions (e.g. Pentateuch, Josephus); Jewish adaptation of "pagan" material (e.g. Ahikar at Elephantine); "Pagan" adaptation of "foreign" material (e.g. Isis/Osiris myths) --where are clues to editorial efforts likely to be found? --looking for "seams" in the materials, or unjoined pieces elsewhere --imagining concepts of "ownership" and legitimate continuities >>little hope for clarity here, with each item requiring individual attention as a whole and in its parts; the more skillful the editing, the more difficult to move behind it. [include under #3?] Test Scenario #4 -- conscious and undisguised embedding of older materials in new compositions apart from explict quotations: Christian construction of selfconsciously Christian texts using Jewish (and other) materials (e,g, Didache's Two Ways, Revelation, sermons) controls/analogies: [to be continued] /end/