REASSESSING THE "RECENSIONAL PROBLEM" IN TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM
Study of the Testament of Abraham (TAbr) has proved especially
difficult because of the complicated problems involved in assessing the
relationship between the two radically different Greek
forms("recensions") in which it has been preserved. Briefly, the
relevant data currently available may be outlined as follows:\1/
\1/ A new edition of the material is in preparation, by J. Smit
Sibinga and F. Schmidt. Most of the following information comes from
Schmidt's 1971 dissertation. For precise bibliographical information,
see above, p. 12.
(1) Shorter Form ("Recension B"). -- Schmidt identifies three sub-
groupings of Greek MSS, two of which (E-Slav and ADC) go back
at least to the 11th century (the date of their oldest extant
representative) and the third to the 14th century (MSS BFG).
Another sub-group is not known from Greek MSS but is preserved
in the closely interrelated Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic versions,
and seems to be represented already by a fragmentary fifth
century Sahidic MS.\2/ There is also a Roumanian version containing
an "abridged" short form, the oldest MS of which is
from the 16th century.
(2) Longer Form ("Recention A"). -- Schmidt lists 18 Greek MSS of the
longer form, the oldest of which is from the 13th century
(MS E). There is, in addition, a Roumanian version of the
longer form (its oldest MS is 18th century) which agrees closely
with Greek MSS DLM (14th to 16th centuries). Some of the
"longer form" MSS have relatively shorter texts (although there
does not seem to be a family relationship among them) than
others -- e.g. K (16th century), N (17th century), O (18th century).
Schmidt also notes the existence of 12 other Greek MSS
(mostly 15th through 18th centuries) which had not yet been
classified with precision in 1971.
Thus the oldest preserved attestation is for the
Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic shorter form, which seems to have been in
circulation already in fifth century Egypt. Extant evidence for other
shorter form [[122]]
sub-groupings and for the longer form dates from much more recent
times. Analysis of possible references to TAbr in ancient and
medieval/byzantine lists and writings have not proved particularly
helpful in establishing clear evidence for the earlier existence of
TAbr in any of its known forms.\3/ The writing was relatively popular
in byzantine Christian circles as material used in commemoration of the
lives and/or deaths of the "holy fathers" (particularly Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob) on the liturgical calendar.
"Recension" Problems in Other Literature. -- There is nothing particularly unique about the existence of differing "recensions" of the same material in the literature preserved by Christians throughout the byzantine/medieval period. A wide range of phenomena, from relatively simple textual variation within a rather closely related group of MSS (similar to that within NT MSS, including the "western text" problem in Luke-Acts!) to extremely divergent and complex situations (like the "synoptic problem" in NT), is well attested. With particular reference to writings with a strongly "Jewish" flavor, including Greek Jewish scriptures, the following examples may help to illustrate the extent of the problem:
(1) largely "quantitative" differences, with longer or shorter
versions of what seems to be virtually the same base text. --
e.g. Job or Jeremiah in the Old Greek forms compared with
Hexaplaric forms "corrected" towards the known Hebrew text; the
two Greek forms of Tobit; the form of TJob in MS V compared
with that in S or P; the longer and shorter forms of Para-
leipomena Jeremiou, and probably of Joseph and Asenath; various
forms of the Lives of the Prophets. On the whole, the difficult
situation regarding Greek forms of TSolomon also seems to
fit here, at least according to its editor, McCown,\4/ and perhaps
"Apocalypse of Moses"/Life of Adam and Eve as well.
On the strictly Christian side of things, the longer and shorter
versions of the Ignatian Corpus provide an excellent example of
this phenomenon worked out in a relatively mechanical manner. [[123]]
(2) largely "qualitative" differences, with alternative ways of
stating the same things and no clear reflection of a single
Greek vorlage behind the differing forms. -- E.g. in material
that is translated from Semitic such as the Old Greek vs.
Theodotion-Aquila-Symmachus (etc.) in general (and especially
in Daniel) or the Old Greek vs. the Barberini version of
Habakkuk 3 in Greek Jewish scriptures. Perhaps the relation-
ship of Old Greek Ezra-Nehemiah to "1 Esdras" also fits best
under this heading.
(3) a combination of (1) and (2) with large scale quantitative
differences in versions of the same material which do not seem
to share a common Greek base. -- Perhaps the two Greek forms of
Esther illustrate this phenomenon (if indeed they represent
different Greek base texts); at least in some passages, the
Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs also seem to fit into this
category.
Theories about the Relation of the Recensions in TAbr. -- TAbr is an excellent example of the third category. Although they tell basically the same story, the longer and shorter versions of TAbr have very little in common with regard to their vocabulary and syntax. And while the "longer" form frequently supplies materials not present in the "shorter," the opposite sometimes occurs. This complex situation received much attention from M.R.James in his early edition of the text, and has been reexamined from various perspectives thereafter.\5/
\5/ For other surveys of the literature, see Schmidt's dissertation, I.115-124, and Delcor, 24-28 and 77f.
James was ambivalent about the relationship of the different forms.
"[Recension] A presents us with what is on the whole the fullest,
clearest and most consistent narrative. Its language, however, has been
to some extent medievalized. B is an abridgement whose language is on
the whole more simple and original than that of A..., [but] it is not
an abridgement made from A. [The Arabic (James did not have access to
the Coptic and Ethiopic) represents] an independent abridgement, not
made from either A or B, though as a rule more nearly related to B than
to A. ...It inserts matter not found in A or B, and is shorter than
either" (p.49). "B preserves the greatest proportion of the original
language, A the greatest [[124]]
proportion of the original story" (p.51). James concludes that TAbr, as
he tries to reconstruct it from the preserved witnesses, is "a very
much mangled rechauffe/" of an earlier, now lost (in 1892) Apocalypse
of Abraham,\6/ preserving "all the main features of the old book" --
TAbr is a "popular" Christian work composed in second century Egypt
(incorporating some earlier legends) by a "Jewish Christian" (at least
for the apocalyptic portion; p. 23) and received its present preserved
form(s) "perhaps in the 9th or 10th century" (p.29).\7/
\6/ The publication by N.Bonwetsch of an old Church Slavic version of an Apocalypse of Abraham in 1897 doubtless caused James to have second thoughts; see his relatively vague statements in The Lost Apocrypha of the OT (London: SPCK, 1920), 17.
\7/ The position of James is followed, on the whole, by W.A.Cragie in his introduction to the first English translation of TAbr in the supplementary volume to the "Ante-Nicene Library" series (American ed. = "Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. 10) in 1897, and also by J.-B.Frey in his article for the Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. I (1928)33-38.
There were immediate reactions and disagreements. Kohler and
Ginzberg (see also Ehrhard)\8/ argued that TAbr was of Jewish Origin,
and Ginzberg implied that the differing Greek recensions were separate
(and not very faithful) translations of a Hebrew original. Riessler
also posited a Semitic-original and preferred the shorter\9/ form (B)
to the "christlich u"berarbeitet" longer form. Box continued the same
general line of argument, speaking of a first century Palestinian
Hebrew original that was freely adapted into Greek in Egypt
(Alexandria?) and must be reconstructed from both the longer and the
shorter Greek forms (following James).\10/ A modification of [[125]] this approach is implied
by Kohler's 1923 description of TAbr as a Jewish "Alexandrian product
of the first Christian century" -- see most recently D. Flusser"s claim
that TAbr was "composed by a Jew,
writing in Greek, and was possibly based on a Hebrew (or
Aramaic) original."\11/
\8/ K.Koh1er, "The pre-Talmudic Haggada II.C. -- The Apocalypse of Abraham and its Kindred," JQR 7 (1895) 581-606; L.Ginzberg, art. in Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1901) 93-96; A.Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung von 1884-1900: vol. I, Erste Abteilung, Die vornicanische Litteratur (Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1900) 184-185. See also J.Kaufmann (ed. M.Soloweitschick) in Encyc. Judaica 1 (1928) 564, and the unsigned article in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1939) 40.
\9/ Altju%disches Schrifttum (1928), 1333. See also his longer article on "Das Testament Abrahams, ein ju%disches Apokphon," Theol. Quartalschrift 106 (1925) 3-22.
\10/ G.H.Box, The Testament of Abraham (London:
SPCK, 1927) vii-xv and xxviiif.
\11/ Kohler, Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1923) 77 and 80 (he does not specify what he thinks the original language was); Flusser in Encyclopaedia Judaica 1 (1971), 129 -- Flusser considers the longer "version" more original than the shorter, but declines to propose a specific date of composition for the work.
On the other side of the coin, some critics viewed TAbr as
clearly a Christian composition (not "Jewish Christian" with James),
and even dated it later than did James. Schu/rer pointed out that such
legends and apocalyptic materials were composed by Christians for a
long time, Weyman compared TAbr to post-Constantinian "Christian"
writings from Asia Minor, and Weinel thought TAbr was "probably a very
late Christian book."\12/ These critics also agree that TAbr cannot be
identified with the story told by Origen about the death of Abraham, as
James attempted to do.
\12/ E. Schu%rer, review of James in TLZ 18 (1893) 279-281, (see also his Geschichte des ju%dischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909\4) 338f); C.Weyman, review of James in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893) 642f; H. Weinel, "Die spa%tere christliche Apokyptik" in Eucharisterion 2 (Festschrift Gunkel, ed. H.Schmidt; Go%ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923) 170-172.
In more recent discussions, Turner has subjected the language and content of the two Greek
forms of TAbr to close scrutiny and presents a suitably complex
picture of the origins and relations of the two.\13/ He finds
that B contains Greek material of very ealy date -- perhaps as early as
parts of Jewish Greek scriptures and the Testaments of the twelve
Patriarchs (p.203) -- but that the preserved form of B dates from the late
second or the third century, "from the same period, if not the same
hand or school, as the original edition of the Testament of Solomon"
(p.190). Since the A form does not seem to be derived directly from B,
and yet seems secondary to B, Turner suggests that [[126]]
\13/ N. Turner, The Testament of Abraham: a Study of the
Original Language, Place of Origin, Authorship, and Relevance (unpublished
Univ. London Thesis, 1953). Some of his conclusions were summarized in his article
"The Testament of Abraham": Problems in Biblical Greek," NTS 1
(1954/55) 219-223. The following discussion and quotations are drawn
from a revised, shortened form of his dissertation which he kindly
supplied to the author in 1973.
Recension B...is a shortened form of an older text [of Egyptian,
Jewish origin -- see his ch. 5], and Recension A is dependent on
this rather than on our present text [of B]. This is supported by
the fact that occasionally the one recension is found to supplement
the other, and that they make better sense when taken
together. (p.207)
...Recension B is earlier and closer in form to any original Hebrew
work [that may underlie the preserved materials]. Recension A was
a later translation made either directly from the Hebrew, or else
it is a recension of such a translation [i.e. of the older form of
B? see above and p. 203]; it is not based on Recension B, as the
language in parallel passages does not overlap. (p. 211)
Turner would date the A version "in its present form...after the fifth or sixth centuries. I do not think it is a Christian redaction" (p.217f). Indeed, it may rest on a third century edition of the longer form; any "Christian influence came after the separation of the recensions" (p.213).
In his 1971 dissertation, Schmidt speaks with less hesitation about the relationship of the "recensions." For him, TAbr is a product of "popular Essenism" (see Kohler in 1895), written ("probably") in Hebrew in Palestine during the first half of the first century CE, then translated into the short Greek form before the beginning of the second century. The long form is a revision of the (Palestinian) short form, made in the Jewish diaspora of lower Egypt in the opening years of the second century (pp.118-121). Schmidt has modified his conclusions slightly with regard to relative dating in the article included in this volume: The shorter form of TAbr is now dated to the second half of the first century (with the question of its original language left more open), and the longer form to the second or perhaps the beginning of the third century, with possibly an "intermediate form" (represented by the preserved Coptic) developing sometime inbetween (see above, pp. 76-80).
Nickelsburg's 1972 study of one aspect of the TAbr material led him to radically different conclusions regarding the relation of the longer and shorter forms. He concluded that "Recension A is prior to Recension B" with respect to the judgment scene and the "one soul" material, and thus called for a reassessment of the relation of the two forms (above, p. 58). In his new contribution to the problem, prepared for this revised volume, Nickelsbug reaffirms his earlier position in words reflecting M.R.James" conclusions cited above:
The structure of Recension A is more primitive than that of
Recension B, although the latter may contain some primitive elements
and wording which were revised in Recension A. (above,
p. 97) [[127]]
Delcor also discusses the "recensional" problem but comes to no firm conclusions. He sees both A and B as developments from a common "Greek original" (p.6, see also p.34) of Jewish Therapeutic origin (p.73) composed around the turn of the era (pp.76f), and traces both to an Egyptian setting (p.78), although the respective forms differ widely from each other in outlook (p.14).
The Main Issues and Tyges of Argument. -- This is not the place to enter into a detailed evaluation of the various detailed arguments advanced over the years. It is helpful, however, to attempt to identify the sorts of arguments and issues on which the discussions have been based:
(1) Language. On the whole, the commentato seem to agree that
the Greek of the shorter form often has a more "primitive"
flavor than that of the longer form, in relation to other
preserved examples of Jewish and early Christian Greek. The
language of form B also has more of a "Semitic" cast, although
A is not lacking in Semiticistic passages or constructions. On
the other hand, a relative preponderance of "later" words and
constructions appear in A by comparison with B (see esp. Turner).
(2) Coherence in Form and in Content. According to some commenta-
tors (e.g. James and Nickelsburg), the preserved form(s) of A
sometimes present a relatively coherent sequence and structure
in sections that are more problematic in B. Occasionally a
detail in B can best be explained in terms of what is found in
A, which is taken as an indication that B is an abridgment of
A.
(3) Thought World. Schmidt attempts to argue that only the longer
form contains characteristically "Egyptian" expressions and
ideas, while both forms reflect "Palestinian-Essenic (-Iranian),
themes. Thus B i thought to represent an earlier development
which came to be "Egyptianized" in the A form.
"Recensions" and the "Original": What Model to Use?. -- Unfortunately, much of the discussion about the "recensional" problem in TAbr has not been sufficiently selfconscious about what is thought to constitute the "original" of TAbr and how the preserved materials are thought to relate to such an "original." The possibilities are manifold, and any attempt to describe them in detail would be extremely complex. Questions about the interrelation of MSS exhibiting virtually the same narrow textual base (textual criticism proper) [[128]] often overlap and blend with questions about the relation between two or more larger textual units which have similar content but fairly divergent basic texts (often called different "recensions," or versions or forms of a writing). Questions about originally independent smaller units of written or oral materials which may be added to a "recension" by its editor are closely related to problems regarding the use of such materials in the "original" composition of a writing that contains traditions of various sorts (e.g. legend, apocalypse, paraenesis). Supportive evidence from the literatures of hellenistic-Roman and byzantine/medieval times is available for a great number of possible models. An attempt is made below to outline some of the more obvious possibilities as they relate to previous discussions of TAbr. As will become apparent, individual aspects of some of the models are interchangeable.
(1) Preserved Greek |
Preserved Greek |
||
(2) (Lost Gk Orig) |
|
Preserved Gk Rec #1 |
Preserved Gk Rec #2 |
(3) (Lost Gk Orig) |
|
Preserved Gk Rec #1 |
|
(4) (Lost Semitic Orig) |
Preserved Gk Translation |
|
Preserved Gk Rec |
(5) (Lost Semit Orig) |
(Lost Gk Trans) |
(then patterns ##2 or 3 above) |
|
(6) (Lost Semit Orig) |
|
Preserved Gk Trans #1 |
|
(7) (Lost Semit Orig) |
(Lost Gk Trans #1) |
Preserved Gk Rec #1 |
|
(8) (Lost Semit Orig) |
(Lost Semit Rec #1) |
Preserved Gk Trans #1 |
|
(9) (Lost Semit Orig) |
(Lost Semit Rec #1) |
(Lost Gk Trans #1) |
Preserved Gk Rec #1 |
(10) (Various Individual |
Preserved Gk Orig #1 |
||
(11) (Various Individual |
(Lost Semit Orig #1) |
Preserved Gk Trans #1 |
|
(12) (Various Individual |
(Lost Semit Orig #1) |
(Lost Gk Trans #1) |
Preserved Gk Rec #1 |
Variations on these models, or other similar models are not difficult to construct. Additional complicating factors that deserve at least passing mention include the possible existence and interpenetration of more than two "recensions" in Semitic forms, or in Greek forms; possible complications arising from material being translated from one language/dialect to another, then later being retranslated to the former (e.g. Hebrew - Aramaic Hebrew #2, or Greek : Coptic - Greek #2); possible periods of primarily oral transmission based on [[129]] an earlier written text and resulting in a later written text (e.g. Greek text #1 - oral transmission - Greek text #2). And when the demonstrable realities of cross-fertilization between textual/recensional streams during centuries of transmission are recognized, the possible developments and relationships become almost infinitely complex! Without any recognition of the many possibilities, not to mention serious discussion of which possibilities are more or less likely with reference to TAbr, confident solutions to the "recensional problem" in T. Abr seem quite unwarranted.
The relevance of such considerations for discussions of the relationship between the shorter (B) and longer (A) forms of TAbr should be obvious. The argument that one of the extant forms essentially derives (by expansion or abridgment or adaption) from the other assumes a model like #1 (= #4) or #2 (= #5a). It is really more concerned with reconstructing the "original" of TAbr than with exploring strictly "recensional" problems, and would be largely irrelevant in models ##10-12, where no single "original" is envisioned.
General Critique of Earlier Arguments. -- Indeed, a host of relatively unexplored assumptions undergird the aforementioned arguments from language, coherence and thought world concerning the relationship of the preserved "recensions" and their respective origins. Can we assume, for example, that the sought for "original" of TAbr was composed (compiled?) by an author/editor who was selfconscious about consistency or coherence? (i.e. "recension" in its strictest sense). It is neither impossible nor improbable that the author/editor of the "original" simply gathered materials at hand and juxtaposed them in whatever way proved most convenient at the time. We cannot simply take for granted that such a person would be concerned with (or even aware of) the fact that some of the materials might be structurally or actually incompatible or incomplete (e.g. an episode or two derived from what was once a more coherent apocalypse, a vignette about Sarah or Isaac no longer moored to similar materials for determining relative chronological priority and/or "originality" of a writing is to predetermine arbitrarily how the "original" must have been. Supporting evidence for such an assumption is not easy to find, especially in the sort of materials represented in TAbr.
The argument that both forms of TAbr preserve evidence of a common outlook (Iranian-Palestinian-Jewish according to Schmidt), but [[130]] that a characteristically different perspective ("Egyptian/Alexandrian") has been superimposed upon it in only one of the two preserved forms has similar weaknesses. Is there any reason to believe that characteristically "Palestinian" (if such terminology is appropriate !) Jewish traditions were unknown among Jews in Egypt (or anywhere else, for that matter !), or that characteristically "Egyptian" (?) Jewish traditions were unknown in Palestine (etc.) at any time during the hellenistic-Roman period (or even later)? Schmidt appeals to Turner"s linguistic arguments for positing a Hebrew original of TAbr and argues that it is "natural" for such a Hebrew writing to be of Palestinian provenance. Interestingly, however, Turner himself argued strongly for an Egyptian/Alexandrian origin of even the proposed Hebrew original! More data is needed in this discussion! The cultural-geographical labels are perhaps convenient, but are also potentially misleading. Nevertheless, Schmidt's argument that one form of TAbr superimposes a different perspective on an outlook common to both forms is significant for the recensional question if we can assume that there is some sort of direct literary relationship between the two preserved Greek forms. But that assumption also remains to be demonstrated, or even argued with precision. And if we appeal to models like ## 10-12 above, the problem of relative priority and "originality" of the preserved forms loses much of its significance. The "Egyptianized" form could be just as "original" as the other, if they both used traditional, non-Egyptianized Jewish materials. At the present stage of developments in the study of TAbr, however, this seems to be a relatively unrewarding line of discussion. Until the "recensional problem" is examined with greater care, firm conclusions regarding the "original" or TAbr are premature.
Unexamined assumptions also plague the use of potentially more controllable evidence such as vocabulary and style in the preserved Greek forms of TAbr. The presence or absence of "Semitic"' Greek in a particular section of TAbr may not tell us anything directly about the composition or recension of TAbr, but only about the background of one of the sources used by the compiler -- or added by a redactor! The presence of "late" words/constructions is perhaps potentially more telling, if it can be assumed that some direct and significant relationship obtains between the date of the preserved MSS and the date of the textual archetype they represent (whether that archetype is the "original" composition, or a recension thereof). Presence or absence of "Septuagintal" terminology is also potentially relevant, if only we could trace with some precision the history of Jewish Greek scriptural [[131]] texts in Jewish and Christian hands in the relevant times and places. But hard data in these matters is difficult to obtain, and we often remain happily unaware of the precariousness of the foundations/assumptions on which our discussions rest.
In short, the view one takes of the "recensional problem" is closely intertwined with one's view of the origin of TAbr and of the Jewish and/or early Christian world(s) in which it is thought to have originated. If one assumes that an actual Hebrew or Aramaic original text of TAbr once existed (not simply Semitic "sources" and traditions, whether written or oral), one can appeal to translation differences to account for some of the fundamental diversity in vocabulary and syntax between the preserved longer and shorter forms. If one thinks that there once was a single Greek original of TAbr (whether that was a translation or not) from which all other extant forms derive, one's options for discussing the "recensional problem" are more limited. It is doubtful that any satisfactory solution to either the "recensional problem" or to the problem of the origins of TAbr will emerge until such possibilities are discussed in detail and assessed carefully in the light of available evidence (including analogies from how other similar writings developed). There is a great deal of available relevant evidence that can be drawn from various sources. Unfortunately, in our impatience and enthusiasm to discover and interpret new data of possible significance for our field(s) of primary interest (e.g. Jewish pre-Rabbinic literature and thought), we are too often prone to neglect the basic task foundational to all controlled historical investigation of working carefully and consistently from what is securely known or relatively sure to what is unknown or only suspected.
Working Backwards towards the Origin of TAbr. -- This much is clear: A short form of TAbr was available in Sahidic in fifth century Egypt, and from at least the eleventh century onward, TAbr in various forms and languages had become very popular among eastern Christian copyists and compilers who transmitted hagiographical material for use in connection with the liturgical calendar for remembering the lives and/or deaths of revered persons. The same can be said of a large body of writings, including several for which Jewish origin has sometimes been claimed -- e.g. Lives of Adam and Eve, Lives of the Prophets, Paraleipomena Jeremiou, Testament of Job.\14/ Whatever the ultimate origins and [[132]] literary history of these materials, their place in Christian usage (and piety) is well attested simply on the basis of the preserved MSS. And it is here that our quest for solutions about earlier phases of development must begin if we are to pursue a systematic and rigorously controlled approach to the problem.
\14/ For a convenient and indispensible handbook to such materials, consult F.Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (3 vols.; Brussels: Socie/te/ des Bollandistes, 1957\3), and the Analecta Bollandiana series in general.
When we start with the preserved Greek materials, two obvious lines of investigation are open once the basic, textcritical relationships within the families of MSS are established: (1) Analysis of primarily linguistic features (vocabulary and syntax) found in each identifiable textual stream, and (2) careful attention to determining for what reasons the texts were transmitted and the uses to which they were put by the preservers. Ideally, the data from such investigations would converge to produce at least a rough picture of the circumstances (date, place, occasion) that gave rise to the available textual streams. If, as would often be the case, there remained questions as to whether the text had an earlier history, used older sources, etc., such questions could then be discussed with more precision by using similar approaches. Since we already know (from the Sahidic version) that the shorter form (B) was in circulation half a millennium earlier than its oldest available Greek attestation, studies on that material could move more quickly and surely towards the earlier periods, in comparison to studies of the longer form (A).
There is, of course, nothing new to this type of analysis. Unfortunately, we often lose sight of the intermediate steps in our impatience to move from the known MSS to the "original." Studies of TAbr and its "recensional problem" have tended to be deficient in these regards. For example, although M. R. James had already noted,almost in passing, certain "late" or "medieval" syntactical features found especially in TAbr's longer form (A), this matter has not been examined in any detail by subsequent commentators. Turner does focus attention on what he considers to be "Christianization" of some words and passages in TAbr (based on James, pp. 50f), but fails to offer a systematic study of all the data -- Turner treats syntax only in connection with his claim that TAbr often contains Semiticized Greek. It is entirely possible, however, that close attention to syntactical features in this and related materials could provide clues to identifying with more precision the most recent recognizable stages of development, perhaps even kinds of "school activity" that took place among Christians in editing and circulating primarily "Jewish" texts.
Unfortunately, appropriate information about pertinent aspects [[133]] of "scribal" practice in the byzantine period including the conditions under which new copies and editions of older materials were produced\15/ is not conveniently accessible. Some information can be distilled from detailed acquaintance with codicological, textcritical and philological data from the period, but that is a demanding and time consuming path. Nor is there much information conveniently available regarding Christian (and Jewish ?) motivation for preserving and consulting the various writings of "Jewish" cast that have survived through the byzantine period. Consequently, few students of Judaism and Christianity in the hellenistic-Roman period are in a position even to begin the sorts of investigations suggested above. And insufficient awareness of or focus upon these aspects of the investigation of TAbr have contributed heavily to the methodological inadequacy of some of the arguments offered in discussions of the "recensions," and ultimately of the "original text" of TAbr.
\15/ Some helpful material is available
in works such as R. Devreesse, Introduction
a l'etude des manuscrits grec (Paris: Klincksieck, 1954).
Towards a more Satisfactory Linguistic Analysis. -- The brief comments of James and Turner regarding syntactical features in TAbr have been alluded to above, and Martin's detailed syntactical analysis appears elsewhere in this volume. While this is not the place to attempt a new and systematic examination cf the data, it is perhaps fitting to provide a few guidelines regarding what needs to be done if the methodology outlined above is to be pursued with rigor. It would be extremely helpful if we could identify with some precision the characteristic linguistic features that might be expected in materials that are produced, reworked or updated by Christian editors for byzantine Christian usage. Awareness of certain obvious changes that appear as hellenistic Greek develops towards modernity is indispensible at this point. To the extent that the origin and popularity of some changes could be pinpointed with reference to time and place, precision in analysis would proceed apace. A detailed handbook of updated data from the byzantine period would be extremely valuable to the student of these materials \16/ [[134]]
\16/ For an introductory survey of the developments in post-classical Greek (with extensive bibliography) see R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1969). More extensive, but also somewhat outdated material is available in A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar...from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time (London: MacMillan, 1897).
James gives two examples of "late forms and constructions" in the longer ,recension" of TAbr -- εἰπεῖν τινά (rather than τινί or πρὸς τινά), and ἀπό plus accusative (rather than genitive). He adds that "the neo-Greek particle ἄς" (contraction of ἄφες -- "permit that," "in order that") appears in the l4th century MS B of the shorter form at 5.4. Lampe's Patristic Lexicon lists only one example of ἄς, from the seventh century; it also occurs in chs. 26-27 of the Apocalype of the Holy God-Bearer (Mary) which M. R. James edited from an eleventh century MS (Apocrypha Anecdota 1, 1893). Liddell-Scott\9 includes ἀπό + accusative as a construction found "in later Greek" and refers to a fourth/fifth century papyrus; Lampe also lists two sixth century church fathers as examples of this phenomenon (assuming that the extant MSS accurately preserve sixth century usage). The εἶπεν τινά ("he told him") construction is not normal in TAbr (πρὸς τινά is most frequent) but does appear in chs. 1, 4, 15. It is frequent in the "Apocalypse of Sedrach" (ed. James in Apocrypha Anecdota 1, from a l5th century MS) and occurs at least once (2.24) in the closely related Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (ed. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae [1866], p. 26 n. 30, from a 15th century MS).\17/ Careful attention to these and other similar phenomena would perhaps provide desired clues to the more recent history of some of the writings under consideration.
\17/ Turner also mentions "εἶπε with accusative of indirect object" in "Recension A" as possible but relatively "more doubtful" evidence of Semitic/Hebraic influence on TAbr; he notes that in Greek, "verbs of saying...often govern a direct object" (p.68), but that is not particularly relevant for the question of what construction is used to designate the addressee. On the broader issue of the declining use of the dative, see J. Humbert, La disparition du datif en grec (du Ier au Xer sie/cle (Paris: Champion, 1930), esp. 37f, l62ff, 185-89; also Browning, Greek, pp. 17, 43, 64.
It is in this connection that R. Martin's attempt to isolate syntactical criteria for identifying translation Greek suggests new possibilities of analysis while at the same time failing to be sufficiently controlled for immediate application to material such as TAbr. Martin's primary focus in developing his technique was New Testament literature -- could it be demonstrated that portions of Acts, the gospels, etc., were translated from Semitic sources? His control data was drawn from non-translated literature of relatively known date (hellenistic and early Roman periods) and from known translation literature of approximately the same period. But it is clear that the Greek language (and its various dialects) underwent various changes in the centuries [[135]] from New Testament times to the present. Insofar as the influence of Christianity came to be very strong in Greek speaking areas (primarily the eastern Roman, or byzantine world), it is not impossible that in some respects Christian Greek came to assimilate some syntactic features that originated in or corresponded to the world of earlier "translation-Greek" In order to apply "syntax criticism" convincingly to materials of unknown date and origin, a wider spectrum of control data would be needed, including examples from various sorts of Christian writings from the second or third century onward. Such a spectrum of characteristic syntactical features needs to be constructed, with close attention to date, location and even (if possible) education/training of the author, not to mention type of literature (e.g. poetry vs narrative or discourse; homiletic vs polemic or theological/philosophical treatise). It might then become possible to measure texts like the longer or shorter forms of TAbr against that spectrum and arrive at more convincing results. For the moment, however, unless we assume that both forms of TAbr are datable to around the turn of the era, or assume that Greek syntax did not change significantly during the first millenium of the common era, at least for the criteria used by Martin, his attempt at applying his analytic techniques to TAbr must remain unconvincing -- along with being potentially promising:\18/
\18/ In another connection, I hastily applied Martin's criteria 1-9 to some fourth century Christian homiletic material (preserved in MSS of later date) that almost certainly did not originate as translated Greek. Nevertheless, some of the results fell within Martin's ranges for translation Greek, possibly partly because of the influence of Semiticizing Greek (via Old Greek scriptures, etc.) on the homilist and his tradition, and perhaps also because of the homiletic nature of the materials.
The Thought Worlds of the Copyists and Compilers. -- In addition to applying linguistic criteria in an attempt to determine more precisely the most recent history of the document(s) under examination, content and (if possible) intent need to be analyzed within the framework of the identifiable transmitters of the material. What needs were met by Christians copying and recopying TAbr? Did the different forms of TAbr have different functions for their users? Were the motives at work in the transmission and preservation of such materials sufficient to cause the actual composition and/or construction of some of the materials themselves? It should not be assumed that a document composed or compiled by a Christian will necessarily contain characteristically "Christian'"contents. Little systematic information is available [[136]] on such issues as the above, although the tireless work of the Bollandist fathers in Belgium has created tools and studies that can be used with great profit in this aspect of the investigation (see above, n.14).
In very general terms, it is obvious that Christians came to view and use their Jewish heritage in a variety of ways.\19/ Overtly Christian interests in themes that are thought to point concretely to the coming and activity and significance of Joshua/Jesus the Messiah/Christ abound, and have received wide notice. But Christian interest was not limited to "christologically oriented" materials from Judaism that were applied specifically to Jesus and his appearance in history. Many Christians still looked for a future eschatological/apocalyptic consummation, and thus helped maintain a continuity with similar pre- and non-Christian Jewish interests. This applies not only to the preservation of large bodies of Jewish materials relating to the end times, but also to the reworking of such materials in forms that range from covertly Christian (e.g. Greek Apocalypse of Esdras or of Sedrach) to obviously Christian (e.g. Apocalypses of various Apostles and of Mary). Christians who produced ethical treatises often treated their Jewish ethical heritage similarly -- preserving, reworking, initiating. But to the degree that the nature of the material requires fewer explicit references to characteristically Christian persons and views, to that degree it is difficult to distinguish what "originated" from Christian as opposed to Jewish pens or minds. To a large extent, many Jews and Christians had similar attitudes towards such things as praise of God (prayers, psalms), ideals of personal and community morality (what constitutes "righteous" living), and expectations regarding future rewards and judgment (personal and cosmic). As had already been true in pre-Christian Jewish contexts, the ancient heroes of Jewish scripture and tradition were used widely as examples in homiletic exhortation and community commemoration. The author of Hebrews helps set the stage for what later explodes into the rich Christian hagiographical tradition preserved for us. And Christian monasticism provided an eager vehicle for heightening the focus on "righteous persons" of every sort who could serve as moral examples for the spiritual athletes struggling towards the goal of perfection.
\19/ See R. A. Kraft, "The Multiform Jewish Heritagc of Early Christianity" in vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (M. Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 174-199.
Is it possible to trace more specifically the course of such [[137]] developments in Christian circles? How does the ideal of the righteous person change over a period of centuries, or vary from place to place? How are the eschatological/apocalyptic expectations affected as new situations arise? In what terms do authors throughout the centuries view impending death? What can we learn from a close examination of the rampant angelology/demonology of some (especially monastic) Christian materials? What contacts did Christians maintain with Jewish and Jewish Christian communities and traditions throughout the relevant period? Are there helpful clues in the multifaceted history of Christianity during its first millennium of existence that can help us understand better the ways in which Jewish traditions were preserved, adopted, adapted, expanded, abridged, and recast through the centuries? Very little systematic information is available, although the recent Nag Hammadi discoveries have led the way in encouraging a reassessment of older pictures of early Christian developments Hopefully, continued eff orts will be made to expose the variety of interests and activities that obtained especially among those Christians most responsible for producing and preserving the literary heritage on which we so heavily depend. Study of writings such as TAbr will both contribute data to such an investigation and will receive new impetus from it. In any event, this seems to me to be the only available controlled route back towards solving the problems of the recensions, and ultimately the origins of TAbr. In this light, many aspects of the current discussions are simply premature, whether or not they ultimately may prove to have been accurate.
[[end of text]]
[[start of notes]]
\1/ A new edition of the material is in preparation, by J. Smit Sibinga and F. Schmidt. Most of the following information comes from Schmidt's 1971 dissertation. For precise bibliographical information, see above, p. 12.
\2/ M. Weber of the Institut fu%r Altertumskunde at the University of Cologne plans to publish this material; see M. Philonenko, Le Testament de Job = Semitica 18 (1968) 61 n.1.
\3/ Most of the evidence was discussed by James, 7-34. His desire to find that the extant TAbr was referred to by Origen was rejected immediately by reviewers such as Schurer and Weyman (see below, n.12).
\4/ C.C.McCown, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), 32-38.
\5/ For other surveys of the literature, see Schmidt's dissertation, I.115-124, and Delcor, 24-28 and 77f.
\6/ The publication by N.Bonwetsch of an old Church Slavic version of an Apocalypse of Abraham in 1897 doubtless caused James to have second thoughts; see his relatively vague statements in The Lost Apocrypha of the OT (London: SPCK, 1920), 17.
\7/ The position of James is followed, on the whole, by W.A.Cragie in his introduction to the first English translation of TAbr in the supplementary volume to the "Ante-Nicene Library" series (American ed. = "Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. 10) in 1897, and also by J.-B.Frey in his article for the Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. I (1928)33-38.
\8/ K.Koh1er, "The pre-Talmudic Haggada II.C. -- The Apocalypse of Abraham and its Kindred," JQR 7 (1895) 581-606; L.Gjnzberg, art. in Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1901) 93-96; A.Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Litteratur und ihre Erforschung von 1884-1900: vol. I, Erste Abteilung, Die vornicanische Litteratur Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1900) 184-185. See also J.Kaufmann (ed. M.Soloweitschick) in Encyc. Judaica 1 (1928) 564, and the unsigned article in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia 1 (1939) 40.
\9/ Altju%disches Schrifttum (1928), 1333. See also his longer article on "Das Testament Abrahams, ein judisches Apokphon," Theol. Quartalschrift 106 (1925) 3-22.
\10/ G.H.Box, The Testament of Abraham (London: SPCK, 1927), vii-xv and xxviiif.
\11/ Kohler, Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion (New York: Macmillan, 19235, 77 and 80 he does not specify what he thinks the original language was; Flusser in Encyclopaedia Judaica 1 (1971), 129 -- Flusser considers the longer "version" more original than the shorter, but declines to propose a specific date of composition for the work.
\12/ E. Schu%rer, review of James in TLZ 18 (1893) 279-281, (see also his Geschichte des ju%dischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909\4) 338f); C.Weyman, review of James in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893) 642f; H. Weinel, "Die spa%tere christliche Apokyptik" in Eucharisterion 2 (Festschrift Gunkel, ed. H.Schmidt; Go%ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923) 170-172.
\13/ N. Turner, The Testament of Abraham: a Study of the Original Language, Place of Origin, Authorship, and Relevance (unpublished Univ. London Thesis, 1953). Some of his conclusions were summarized in his article "The Testament of Abraham": Problems in Biblical Greek," NTS 1 (1954/55) 219-223. The following discussion and quotations are drawn from a revised, shortened form of his dissertation which he kindly supplied to the author in 1973.
\14/ For a convenient and indispensible handbook to such materials, consult F.Halkin, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (3 vols.; Brussels: Socie/te/ des Bollandistes, 1957\3), and the Analecta Bollandians series in general.
\15/ Some helpful material is available in works such as R. Devreesse, Introduction a l'etude des manuscrits grec (Paris: Klincksieck, 1954).
\16/ For an introductory survey of the developments in post-classical Greek (with extensive bibliography) see R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1969). More extensive, but also somewhat outdated material is available in A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar...from Classical Antiguity down to the Present Time (London: MacMillan, 1897).
\17/ Turner also mentions "εἶπε with accusative of indirect object" in "Recension A" as possible but relatively "more doubtful" evidence of Semitic/Hebraic influence on TAbr; he notes that in Greek, "verbs of saying...often govern a direct object" (p.68), but that is not particularly relevant for the question of what construction is used to designate the addressee. On the broader issue of the declining use of the dative, see J. Humbert, La disparition du datif en grec (du Ier au Xer sie/cle (Paris: Champion, 1930), esp. 37f, l62ff, 185-89; also Browning, Greek, pp. 17, 43, 64.
\18/ In another connection, I hastily applied Martin's criteria 1-9 to some fourth century Christian homiletic material (preserved in MSS of later date) that almost certainly did not originate as translated Greek. Nevertheless, some of the results fell within Martin's ranges for translation Greek, possibly partly because of the influence of Semiticizing Greek (via Old Greek scriptures, etc.) on the homilist and his tradition, and perhaps also because of the homiletic nature of the materials.
\19/ See R. A. Kraft, "The Multiform Jewish Heritagc of Early Christianity" in vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. J. Neusner (M. Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 174-199.
[[end of notes]]