... title of modern concordance type volume
... title of modern dictionary of meanings type volume
... title of modern encyclopedia type volume
... title of modern periodical or similar series
... title of modern series of volumes
- foreign language materials
... Greek word(s)
... Latin word(s)
... Hebrew word(s)
... Syriac word(s)
... French word(s)
... German word(s)
diacritics are represented by appropriate signs after the letter
to which they apply: / \ ~ ^ %(umlaut) +(dieresis)
----- start of notes to preceding paragraph
\n/ = note number
===== resume text (after local notes)]]
[[1.1]] In autumn of 1975, I was asked to prepare a paper for the
1976 annual meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas
(SNTS) at Duke University on "The Christianity of the
Pseudepigrapha," a topic closely related to my sabbatical project
for l975/76. After struggling with this assignment from a variety
of perspectives, I finally decided to modify the title to
"Christianity and the so-called Jewish Pseudepigrapha," or more
concisely, "The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity." Thus I have
chosen to deal less with precise details within particular
pseudepigrapha, and more with questions of methodology
that arise in the study of these writings.\1/
-----
\1/ This essay has rested uneasily in my files for more than 15
years, waiting for me to find/take time to annotate it! As the
years passed, I considered simply rewriting and updating it. But
now that it has been "dusted off" at long last, I have decided to
leave the text basically as it was delivered in 1976, and to do
all the significant updating in the notes. Otherwise, its
original flavor and (at least to me) excitement will have been
diluted and sometimes simply lost. Much relevant research has
appeared in the intervening years, of which the footnotes attempt
to give some notice. In various particulars, the essay does need
to be rewritten today. But in its general thrust, its challenge
to responsible scholarship still stands. In the footnotes,
OTP refers to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.
James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Doubleday, 1983-85), and
EJMI to Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters,
ed. by R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (Fortress/Scholars
Press, 1986). Both of these works contain much valuable
bibliographical information: see also James H. Charlesworth,
The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a Supplement
(Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7S [initial publication
1976]; Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1981); Gerhard Delling,
Bibliographie zur ju%disch-hellenistischen und
intertestamentarischen Literatur, 1900-1965 (Texte und
Untersuchungen 106; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1969).
=====
[[1.2]] I must confess at the outset that I am relatively unhappy
about some of the directions that 20th century scholarship has
been traveling in the study of this rather amorphous collection
of writings that have been preserved to the modern period
primarily by Christian efforts but are attributed to or closely
identified with various heroes and heroines of pre-Christian
Jewish tradition. Not that I think many of the conclusions
reached in pseudepigrapha scholarship are necessarily wrong; on
the contrary, I believe that much modern work is of great
scholarly significance and suspect that most of the conclusions
are relatively accurate. By and large, these "pseudepigraphical"
writings ought to be examined for any light they may be able to
throw on the pre-rabbinic Jewish situation. Certainly we need to
use all available help to illuminate that shadowy period!
Nevertheless, I am unhappy about the relatively uncontrolled and
hasty approach pursued by most scholars in sifting these
materials for clues regarding Judaism. I am convinced that there
is also a great deal to learn about Christianity from careful
study of the "pseudepigrapha," and that in most instances it is
premature to distil from these writings information about pre-
rabbinic Judaism before they are thoroughly examined for their
significance as witnesses to Christian interest and
activities.\2/
-----
\2/ I am not the first to make such observations or to think them
of foundational importance. Note, for example, Marinus de Jonge's
treatment of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study
of their Text, Composition, and Origin (Brill, 1953), and the
prize essay contest sponsored with his encouragement by the
Teyler Foundation at Haarlem (The Netherlands) in 1985, on the
subject "An investigation concerning the use and transmission of
originally Jewish writings (and/or writings incorporating much
Jewish traditional material) in Early Christianity," which in
turn made special reference to such discussions as: J. Jervell,
"Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung
der Testamente der Zwo%lf Patriarchen," in C. Burchard, J.
Jervell, and J. Thomas, Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwo%lf
Patriarchen (BZNW 36; Berlin, 1969) 30-61; or H. W. Hollander
and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A
Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), Introduction ##8-9.
=====
PROBLEM AREAS
[[2.1]] In a nutshell, my discontent centers on the following
areas of study which seem to me to be inadequately pursued in
much current investigation of the pseudepigrapha:
1. Comparative Linguistic Analysis. -- Little if any
systematic attention has been given to how the vocabulary and
syntax employed in the preserved manuscripts and forms of a given
pseudepigraphon relate to vocabulary and syntax found in other
writings from approximately the same time in the same language.
As we all know, languages change over the years and often display
local variations. To what extent is it possible to classify the
Greek of a particular pseudepigraphon as hellenistic Egyptian, or
as early byzantine from Antioch, or perhaps even as early modern?
What post-hellenistic linguistic features recur in various Greek
pseudepigrapha? What is the history of transmission and
translation of these materials into such languages as Latin,
Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Old Slavic, to
mention only the most obvious? What can be learned about the most
recent stages of development in a writing by careful attention to
these linguistic matters?\3/
-----
\3/ It has come to be expected that scholars worry about whether
the original language of any given writing was Hebrew or
Aramaic or Greek or whatever, but few have concerned themselves
with the language(s) in which the text has survived as a
piece of valuable historical information in its own right.
Some earlier authors comment on this type of problem, but do not
exploit it: for example, M. R. James describes the language of
"The Apocalypse of Sedrach" as "neo-Greek" since it "degenerates
not seldom into modern Greek" (Apocrypha Anecdota 1 in
Texts and Studies 2.3 [Cambridge: University Press, 1893]
127-128), but is mostly concerned about parallels in language and
ideas to earlier materials. (S. Agourides, in OTP 1.606,
also simply notes in passing the "late" linguistic features of
that text.) For the early Greek translations of Jewish
scriptures, H. St J. Thackeray attempted to establish some
linguistic-geographical correlations in his 1920 Schweich
Lectures published as The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A
Study in Origins (London: H.Milford, 1921, 2nd ed 1923), but
not many have pursued that sort of approach further. In more
recent times, see David Satran, "Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy
Man," Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms (ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1980) 33-48, and his unpublished PhD dissertation
at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Early Jewish and
Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of
Daniel (1985).
=====
[[2.2]] I see this as an avenue for discovering more precisely
who was interested in these materials at what periods. Is
it possible to identify in time and space schools of revisors or
translators? Insofar as details of linguistic analysis are
difficult to convey satisfactorily in an oral presentation, I
will not elaborate on these matters here. But this approach will
be facilitated considerably by the increase in relevant
linguistic tools such as Lampe's Patristic Greek
Lexicon,\4/ Gignac's new Grammar of Greek Papyri,\5/
the various concordances and lexicons in preparation covering
such materials as Philo, Josephus, and the Greek pseudepigrapha
themselves, not to mention the ambitious computer based Thesaurus
Linguae Graece (TLG) project or the proposed Septuagint
lexicon.\6/ Methods such as R. Martin's "syntactical analysis" of
Greek translated from Hebrew or Aramaic also should prove helpful
when adapted for use with the Greek pseudepigrapha.\7/ I am less
familiar with the resources available for work in other relevant
eastern Christian languages, but suspect that the situation there
is less encouraging.
-----
\4/ A Patristic Greek Lexicon (ed. G.W.H. Lampe; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1961).
\5/ F.T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman
and Byzantine Periods (2 vols.; Milano: Istituto editoriale
cisalpino-La goliardica, 1976- ).
\6/ Efforts and products along these lines have multiplied in
recent times, especially with the advent of computer-based texts
and tools. The ability to search and analyze the data
interactively is rapidly coming to replace the static
concordances and linguistic aids of the past, and such "hardcopy"
tools can in any event be produced more easily now with computer
assistance -- as for example, A.-M. Denis, Concordance
grecque des pseudepigraphes d'Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-
Neuve: Universite catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste,
1987); Wilfried Lechner-Schmidt, Wortindex der lateinisch
erhaltenen Pseudepigraphen zum Alten Testament (Texte und
Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 3; Tu%bingen:
Francke, 1990); also the various publications in "The Computer
Bible" series edited by J. Arthur Baird et al. (published by
Biblical Research Associates, College of Wooster, Ohio). Now that
the magnificent TLG data bank of Greek literature is almost
complete (TLG updated CD-ROM "D" appeared in 1993), along with
pioneering efforts in more detailed analysis (such as the
Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies [= CATSS] Project,
co-directed by Emanuel Tov [Hebrew University] and myself; see
the Packard Humanities Institute [PHI] CD-ROM 1, 1987, and PHI
CD-ROM 5.3, 1992), major advances in comparative linguistic
research can be expected. For some first fruits from the CATSS
Project, see A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Part
1: A-I (ed. J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992). Josephus and Philo are both
available in the TLG data bank, and can be searched for
concording and other purposes quite easily. Peder Borgen
(Trondheim, Norway) also has created an electronic Philo data
bank for the production of concordances and other tools. On
Josephus, see also the more traditional tool edited by K.H.
Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4
vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973-83) -- I am not sure where the related
Josephus lexicon project now stands, after the death of Horst
Moehring (Brown University). A team of Australian scholars,
including John A. L. Lee and Gregory Horsley, is engaged in the
creation of a new Moulton-Milligan lexicon to the NT, with
computer assistance. For other examples of computer projects and
tools, see John Hughes, Bits, Bytes, & Biblical Studies
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), and more recently The
Humanities Computing Yearbook: 1989-90 (ed. Ian Lancashire;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
\7/ Raymond A. Martin, Syntactical Evidence of Semitic
Sources in Greek Documents (SCS 3; Missoula: Scholars Press,
1974); idem, "Syntax Criticism of the Testament of Abraham,"
Studies on the Testament of Abraham (SCS 6; ed. G.W.E.
Nickelsburg; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 95-120. See also
Benjamin G. Wright, "A Note on the Statistical Analysis of
Septuagintal Syntax," Journal of Biblical Literature 104
(1985) 111-114.
=====
2. A second, closely related area of concern is The Role of
the Pseudepigrapha in Christian Thought. -- Why was a
particular writing preserved and transmitted? By whom? For whom?
How was the writing understood and interpreted? With what other
writings was it associated? What can we learn about Christianity
from each document, and especially about non-Latin and non-Greek
Christianity? In what follows, I intend to explore this approach
in greater detail.
3. A third problem area is the Formulation of Satisfactory
Hypotheses Regarding Origins and Transmission of
Pseudepigrapha.-- If a writing has been preserved only by
Christians, as is normally true for the pseudepigrapha, how
strong is the possibility that the writing actually was compiled
in its preserved form(s) by a Christian? To what extent is it
possible that some or all of the supposedly Jewish contents are
actually Christian in origin? What are suitable criteria for
distinguishing "Jewish" from "Christian" elements? Is it possible
that Christians appropriated the document or some of its Jewish
contents from Jews in the medieval/byzantine period? What do we
know of Jewish-Christian contacts after 135 ce?\8/ What do we
know of Christian writing and reading habits during the first
millennium of Christian existence? What are acceptable criteria
for the identification of "glosses," "interpolations,"
"redactions" and "recensions," and how do these types of literary
activity differ from each other?\9/ Who translated these
materials from one language to another, for what reasons, and
under what conditions? Again, a more detailed look at crucial
aspects of this problem area will follow.
-----
\8/ See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: etude sur les relations
entre chretiens et juifs dans l'empire romain (135-425) (2d
ed.; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1964); English translation, Verus
Israel: A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in
the Roman Empire (135-425) (trans. H. McKeating; New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1986); John G. Gager, The Origins of
Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian
Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985) 113-191.
Regarding specific Church Fathers, see A.L. Williams, Justin
Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho (London: SPCK, 1930), esp.
the Introduction; Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and
Fragments (ed. S.G. Hall; Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) and more
recently I. Angerstorfer, Melito und das Judentum
(Regensburg: Universita%t Regensburg, 1986); David P. Efroymson,
Tertullian's Anti-Judaism and its Role in His Theology
(Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1976); idem, "The
Patristic Connection," Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of
Christianity (ed. Alan Davies; New York: Paulist Press, 1979)
98-117; N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976); Robert L. Wilken, Judaism
and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's
Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1971); idem, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and
Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1983). Similar studies with their focus on
Epiphanius and Jerome would also be illuminating.
\9/ For further details, see my article "Reassessing the
'Recensional Problem' in Testament of Abraham," in Studies on
the Testament of Abraham (see n.7 above) 121-37 (also
available as an electronic resource from CCAT.SAS.UPENN.EDU or on
the listserv of the IOUDAIOS Electronic Discussion Group).
=====
[[2.3]] In short, there seems to be a wide spectrum of important
issues on which little attention has been focused and for which
little precise information is presently available -- issues of
primary importance that require close examination before a
suitably careful and consistent use can be made of
"pseudepigrapha" for purposes of reconstructing pre-Christian, or
at least pre-rabbinic Judaism. Recent developments in the study
of Christian and Jewish history and literature offer promising
rewards in this regard. I have already mentioned some of the more
helpful tools for linguistic study. The fantastic increase in the
number of known manuscripts and, through inexpensive mail-order
microfilms, in their accessibility, will hopefully lead to
significant new insights about the literature that is already
well known as well as providing access to hitherto little known
or unknown writings and traditions.\10/ Current interest in the
relationships between emerging orthodoxy and its heterodox
competitors in both Christian and Jewish settings\11/ also
provides a healthy context for reexamining the various
pseudepigrapha, and the growing awareness among students of
religious history of the possible value of insights and
approaches drawn from anthropological-sociological studies should
not be ignored. (I think especially of studies of so-called
"millennial/millenarian movements" in various times and places,
as this may apply to the production and use of various
apocalyptic writings.)\12/
-----
\10/ In addition to various efforts at cataloguing existing
manuscripts (e.g. the project of Marcel Richard at Paris), note
the development of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at
Claremont and the Hill Monastic Library Project in Minnesota.
But in general, the interest in microform seems to have waned
somewhat, or at least is being challenged by the development of
computer technologies capable, among other things, of capturing
(e.g. on CD-ROM) and even transmitting (on the international
electronic networks) digitized images (equivalent to color
photographs), enhancing and otherwise manipulating the images,
and linking images and transcribed text along with other
pertinent items in a "hypertext" electronic environment. A
growing number of older and newer editions and translations of
ancient texts are finding their way into electronic collections
and archives in this new technological world. On electronic
resources and developments in general, see Lancashire,
Yearbook (above n. 6).
\11/ There have been a number of recent works relating to the
multiplicity of forms of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world. See,
e.g., G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (eds),Schu%rer's
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ (4 vols. in 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87); John
J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in
the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983); S.J.D.
Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1987); E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek
Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988);
Gabrielle Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300
B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); L.L. Grabbe,
Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992); for a more traditional synthesis of the same
evidence, see L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient
World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). A survey
and analysis of mid 20th century scholarship on Judaism to about
1980 can be found in EJMI. For some recent studies on
varieties of early Christianity, see the following note.
\12/ For an application of such insights to early Christianity,
see John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of
Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1975), and the literature cited there; idem, Religious Studies
Review 5/3 (1979) 174-80; W. D. Davies, "From Schwietzer to
Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi," Journal of Biblical
Literature 95 (1976) 529-58; G. Theissen, The Sociology of
Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978);
idem, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); D. J. Harrington, "Sociological
Concepts and the Early Church: A Decade of Research," TS 41
(1980) 181-90; W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The
Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983); R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of
Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); idem,
Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad,
1989). On millennarianism, see further below, n.47.
=====
CONTEMPORARY USE OF THE TERM "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"
[[3.1]] The term "pseudepigrapha" is not a precise term in
contemporary scholarly usage. It has become useful primarily by
default, and against the theological background of the discussion
of the Old Testament canon among Christians. Especially in the
byzantine Greek church, the traditional term for the literature
with which we are concerned was "apocrypha" -- as distinct from
"canonical" and "ecclesiastical" literature recommended for use
in Christian churches. But modern protestant scholarship came to
restrict the term "apocrypha," used with reference to Jewish
literature, to those particular writings or portions of writings
accepted as "deutero-canonical" by Roman Catholics (with some
ambiguity regarding Prayer of Manasseh and 4 Ezra/2
Esdras) but not included among the classical Jewish canonical
scriptures. Thus some other term was needed to designate works
attributed to or associated with revered persons of pre-Christian
Jewish tradition that were considered neither canonical nor
"apocryphal" in the limited sense of "OT Apocrypha." The term
"pseudepigrapha" has come to serve this function in relation to
ostensibly Jewish material, although the more traditional sense
of the term "apocrypha" has been retained by most scholars in
dealing with so-called "NT Apocrypha" (not "pseudepigrapha"!).
[[3.2]] The exact range of items included as "pseudepigrapha"
also varies considerably.\13/ The standard older editions by E.
Kautzsch (l900) and R. H. Charles (1913) agree in employing the
term in a very restricted sense for about a dozen or so writings
including the letter of Aristeas, 4 Ezra, and the
Psalms of Solomon. Charles even published Pirke
Avot, Ahikar and the Zadokite fragment among the
pseudepigrapha. At the opposite end of the scale, with regards to
inclusiveness, is P. Riessler's German edition of some 61
allegedly "non canonical ancient Jewish writings" (1928) other
than Philo and Josephus. Judging from such contemporary projects
as the Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece, edited by
A.-M. Denis and M. de Jonge, or M. Philonenko's Textes et
E/udes series, or the history of H. F. D. Sparks' long awaited
British edition (see its preface!), or J. H. Charlesworth's
ambitious Duke-Doubleday edition, or the work of the Society of
Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Group, the inclusive use of
the term now predominates. Although I am not particularly fond of
the term "pseudepigrapha," I also employ it in a radically
inclusive sense to indicate writings attributed to or associated
with persons known primarily from Jewish scriptural tradition,
and a few other similar writings such as the "Sibylline
Oracles" (as an example of "pagan" prophecy).\14/
-----
\13/ The editions and monographs cited in this paragraph are well
known in the field. Recent literature that provides a larger
context for this discussion includes EJMI (above, n.1),
with standard abbreviations and an appendix on editions, G. W. E.
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the
Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1981); Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period (Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad novum
testamentum; ed. M. E. Stone; Assen and Philadelphia: Van
Gorcum and Fortress, 1984); and the recent anthologies such as
La Bible: e/crits intertestamentaires (ed. A. Dupont-
Sommer and M. Philonenko; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), Charlesworth's
OTP, and The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D.
Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). For a review article on the
last mentioned works, see M. E. Stone and R. A. Kraft,
Religious Studies Review 14/2 (1988) 111-117.
\14/ After all, the etymological sense of "falsely attributed
authorship" applies equally to some writings included in the
traditional OT and NT canons, and some of the writings usually
discussed under the wider heading of "pseudepigrapha" do not have
the same sort of authorship ascription problem -- e.g. Lives
of the Prophets, 3-4 Maccabees. Furthermore, the newly
discovered materials from the Judean Desert ("Dead Sea Scrolls")
need to be worked into the broader classification scheme somehow.
For a discussion of some of these issues, see Stone and Kraft in
Religious Studies Review 14/2 (1988) 111-117; see also
Kraft's review in Journal of Biblical Literature 106
(1987) 738. Note that Sparks preferred to use the term
"apocryphal" in its general sense in his edition (above, n. 13).
=====
MODERN METHODOLOGIES IN STUDYING PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
[[4.1]] Not all scholars are methodologically selfconscious.
There is often a tendency to be overawed by the results achieved
by scholarly giants of past generations, without careful
reevaluation of their operating procedures and presuppositions.
We build on "the assured results of critical scholarship" without
consistently analyzing how those results emerged. And many of us
shy away from detailed work with the preserved texts themselves
-- I mean the actual manuscripts or facsimiles thereof -- relying
instead on whatever printed editions are conveniently available.
Thus we and our students are too often unaware of the extremely
complicated and often tenuous processes by which suspicions have
been turned into hypotheses and hypotheses into "assured results"
which become enshrined as foundation stones for further
investigations.
[[4.2]] In the modern investigation of "psudepigrapha," the
strong desire to throw light on a relatively obscure period of
Jewish history which was believed to be of great significance for
early Christian studies played an important role. The earliest
pioneers of pseudepigrapha study tended to be understandably
cautious in attributing hitherto unattested works to Jewish
authorship, but were relatively quick to identify newly recovered
writings with titles found in ancient lists. M. R. James is
perhaps a good example of caution in the former regard -- he
seldom attached the unqualified adjective "Jewish" to the
numerous psudepigraphic texts he helped to rescue for scholarly
investigation. Other influential scholars, however, including
some well-versed in Jewish traditions like Louis Ginzberg or
Kaufmann Kohler argued strongly for the Jewish origin of numerous
traditions and sections in the pseudepigrapha.\15/ Riessler
represents this latter perspective. It is worth noting how
important the argument from parallel passages was in these
earlier investigations -- M. R. James would list page after page
of alleged verbal reminiscences to NT writings, with the
conclusion that the writing being examined had made use of the NT
and thus was Christian in its present form. In contrast, Ginzberg
would list at length the parallels to known Rabbinic Jewish
traditions and conclude that the basic core of the the writing
was Jewish.
-----
\15/ Examples may be found in the relevant articles by these
scholars in the Jewish Encyclopedia (13 vols.; ed. I.
Singer; New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1907). E.g.
see L. Ginzberg, "Abraham, Apocalypse of," 1.91-92; "Abraham,
Testament of," 1.93-96; "Adam, Book of," 1.179-80; "Baruch,
Apocalypse of (Greek)," 2.549-51; "Baruch, Apocalypse of
(Syriac)," 2.551-56; K. Kohler, "Job, Testament of," 7.200-202;
"Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," 12.113-118. See also
Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1909-38).
=====
[[4.3]] We have, hopefully, come a long way in our critical
awareness if not in our actual practice from simple
"parallelomania" as Samuel Sandmel has dubbed it.\16/ Most of us
no longer assume that virtually any phrase that appears in NT
literature necessarily originated there. We have become more
aware of diversity within pre-Christian Judaism including the
presence there of emphases on faith, on special knowledge, on
imminent eschatological salvation, among other things. Now Qumran
has supplied good examples of even such seemingly Christian ideas
as the divine sonship of God's eschatological agent,
appropriation of God's promised new covenant, eschatological
asceticism, and the religious importance of baptisms and special
meals.\17/ We have also become more aware of diversity in early
Christianity -- of a wide range of beliefs and attitudes ranging
from a relatively conservative and cultic Jewish sort of
Christianity to a highly philosophical and/or mystical dualistic
gnostic Christianity.\18/
-----
\16/ Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," Journal of Biblical
Literature 81(1962) 1-13.
\17/ The journal Revue de Qumran is devoted to the study of
these materials. For a general update and bibliography, see J.
Murphy-O'Connor, "The Judean Desert," EJMI ch. 5; J. A.
Fitmyer, the Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools
for Study (rev. ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).
\18/ See, for example, Walter Bauer, Rechtgla%ubigkeit und
Ketzerei im a%ltesten Christentum (Tu%bingen: Mohr/Siebeck,
1934); 2nd ed., reprinted and supplemented by Georg Strecker
(Tu%bingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1964); English translation,
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity (ed. R. A.
Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [now available
electronically from gopher@upenn.edu on ccat.sas.upenn.edu]).
=====
[[4.4]] In the study of the pseudepigrapha, realization of pre-
rabbinic Jewish pluralism has played a much more influential role
than recognition of early Christian pluralism. Perhaps this is
only natural. After all, most Christianity built on a Jewish base
and introduced relatively little that could be called uniquely
Christian, beyond specific references to Jesus of Nazareth and
other personages or events of specifically Christian history, or
the trinitarian God-language that arose in classical Christian
circles and became standardized by the 4th century. For the most
part, Christians appropriated Jewish scriptures and traditions,
Jewish liturgical language, Jewish eschatological hopes, Jewish
ethical ideals, and many Jewish practices. Reflecting such a
setting, most Christian writings contain apparently "Jewish"
elements and aspects, as is obvious to any contemporary NT
student. The problem comes in attempting to place a label on such
materials. At what point do I describe an originally Jewish
ethical tract that has been adopted and perhaps also adapted by
Christians as "Christian" rather than "Jewish"? And if a
Christian author who has been trained to think about religious
life and conduct in ethical terms that derive from Judaism now
writes an ethical treatise based on that author's own views --
not simply copying an older tract -- is the author not writing a
Christian work? -- even though it may have all the
characteristics of a Jewish work?
[[4.5]] This methodological problem is perhaps best illustrated
by quoting some actual operating procedures of earlier scholars.
In his 1893 History of Ancient Christians Literature, Adolf
Harnack included a valuable, pioneering section entitled "Jewish
Literature Appropriated, and sometimes Reworked, by
Christians."\19/ Harnack argues that Christians sometimes
imitated the style of older Jewish forgeries, thus making it
impossible any longer to distinguish Jewish from Christian
elements. In this connection, Harnack suggests that the
investigator will seldom err if the following rule is observed:
"Whatever is not clearly Christian is Jewish"!\20/ L. S. A. Wells
enunciates a similar philosophy in his study of the Adam-Eve
materials in Charles' Pseudepigrapha volume: "The complete
absence of references, direct or indirect, to Christian notions
of Incarnation, Redemption, even of Christian higher moral
teaching, would make it impossible to assign to most of the work
a Christian origin".\21/
-----
\19/ Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur
bis Eusebius I: die U%berlieferung und der Bestand 2 (Leipzig,
1893; 2nd ed. reprinted Leipzig: Hindrichs, 1958); "U%bersicht
u%ber die von den Christen angeeignete und zum Theil bearbeitete
ju%dische Litteratur," 845-865.
\20/ Ibid. 861.
\21/ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
2.126-27.
=====
[[4.6]] Dissenting voices were also heard occasionally, but were
clearly in the minority. I have already alluded to the cautious
approach taken by M. R. James. Similarly, F. C. Burkitt's 1913
Schweich Lectures on Jewish and Christian Apocalypses
provide a good example. Burkitt is explicitly critical of the
tendency to proclaim as "Jewish" virtually any writing that is
not overtly Christian. Regarding Slavonic (or 2nd) Enoch, he
writes "I do not know that a Christian romance of Enoch need
differ very much from a Jewish romance of Enoch. And ...the whole
question of the channels by which rare and curious literature
found their [sic] way into Slavonic requires fresh and
independent investigation".\22/ According to the Harnack-Wells
approach, a pseudepigraphon would be considered Jewish until
proven otherwise; Burkitt would reverse the situation and put the
onus of proof on those claiming Jewish origin.
-----
\22/ F. C. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses
(London: Milford, 1914) 76.
=====
[[4.7]] Although I am emotionally disposed towards a position
like that of Harnack-Wells, it is clear to me that the James-
Burkitt approach is methodologically more defensible. Except in
rare instances where Jewish fragments or clear early patristic
usage renders the Jewish origin or location of a writing
virtually beyond dispute (as with the "OT" deutero-canonical
writings, some form of Ahikar and 1 Enoch, Aristeas), the
preserved pseudepigrapha are known only from relatively late
Christian manuscripts of various sorts. Clearly the
pseudepigrapha, including those of demonstrable Jewish origin,
have had a long association with Christianity and deserve more
than passing attention in that context. Once their setting in
Christianity has been recognized more clearly, it may be possible
to pose more carefully the questions of origin and early
transmission.
ATTITUDES TO THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN PRE-MODERN CHRISTIANITY
[[5.1]] On the whole, the pseudepigrapha were viewed as a threat
by leaders of classical Christianity, Greek and Latin, from about
the mid-fourth century through at least the ninth. The gradual
standardization of Christianity that was achieved in the internal
battles against heterodoxy and the external achievement of
official recognition in the Roman worlds (west and east)
exhibited itself in the formation of an exclusive Christian
scriptural canon. Aspects of the problem were recognized already
in the late 2nd century. Irenaeus rails against the Marcosians
for "introducing an innumerable number of apocrypha and of
counterfeit writings which they themselves created to amaze the
foolish who do not understand the true writings" (Against
Heresies 1.20.1=13.1). Perhaps around the same time, or not
too much later, the author of the Muratorian canon rejects
compositions associated with various heterodox groups including
"those who composed a new book of Psalms for Marcion."
[[5.2]] To what extent these early testimonies had allegedly
Jewish writings in view is not clear. But the principle of
opposition to unacceptable heterodox writings is quite plain, and
is continued even more explicitly in later authors. According to
Athanasius, who writes from Alexandria at a time when
Christianity had successfully withstood the attempts of emperor
Julian ("the apostate"!) to revive old Roman "paganism" and is
about to be proclaimed as the official religion of the
Roman empire, the "apocryphal" books (that is, our "Jewish"
pseudepigrapha, among others) are a "device of heretics" who
compose them at will and assign them ancient dates to mislead the
simple. Athanasius speaks with disdain of books ascribed to
Enoch, and apocryphal books of Isaiah and Moses. Similar negative
attitudes are found in such other later 4th century authors as
Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the compiler of the Apostolic
Constitutions, Rufinus and Jerome, while the prohibition of
pseudepigrapha is buttressed with more extensive lists of titles
in such later sources as the ps-Athanasian Synopsis of
Scriptures (6th c.?), the ps-Gelatian Decree (6th c.?),
the so-called Catalogue of 60 (canonical) Books (6/7th
c.?), the Stichometry of Nicephorus (9th c), and
elsewhere.\23/ Among the writings to be avoided are those
associated with the names of Adam, Enoch, Lamech, Abraham and the
Patriarchs, Joseph, Eldad and Modad, Jambres and Mambres, Job,
Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Baruch, Sofonia,
Zachariah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, the Sibyl, and
various angels. One list even refers to a "book of the giant
named Og who is said by the heretics to have fought with a dragon
after the flood" (ps-Gelatian Decree)!
-----
\23/ See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in
Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902;
supplemented by R. R. Ottley, 1914; reprinted, New York: KTAV,
1968), part 2 chap. 1; also the "new Schu%rer" (above, n. 11)
3/2.797-98.
=====
[[5.3]] Not all the preserved notices are equally negative. In
the 2nd century, Justin Martyr accuses the Jews of excising
certain passages from their scriptures in order to counter their
use by Christians, including a passage attributed to Ezra and a
reference to Isaiah's death by means of a wooden saw
(Dialogue 72, 120)\24/ -- in Justin's view, of course, the
excised materials are not "pseudepigrapha" (as they become for
us!) but authentic scripture. Justin also refers with favor to
various Greek philosophical authors as to "the Sibyl and
Hystaspes" (Apology 20). Even more striking is the
practice of Clement of Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century,
who shows an extremely wide acquaintance with a great variety of
writings, Jewish, Christian and "pagan," as well as with "Jewish
scriptures" in a strict sense.\25/ He is less concerned with what
writings people use than with how they use the writings,
including scripture (Stromateis 6.[15].124.3). Indeed, he
believes that the scriptures are filled with mysteries that can
only properly be understood by the true Christian gnostic whose
life is in accord with the apostolic tradition. And non-
scriptural literature also contains valuable material when
understood properly -- that is, "gnostically." Clement cites
"Paul" as exhorting his readers to "take also the Hellenic books,
read the Sibyl,... and take Hystaspes to read..."
(Stromateis 6.[5].43.1). Elsewhere Clement quotes material
attributed to "Enoch" (Ecl. Proph 2.1), to "the prophecy
of Ham" (Stromateis 6.[6].53.5, indirectly, from Isidore's
Exegetica of the Prophet Parchor),\26/ to a non-canonical
revelation by "Sofonia the prophet" (Stromateis
5.[11].77.2), and refers to Moses' "assumption" (Comm on Jude 9
and Stromateis 1.[23].153.1 -- at least referring to the
event, if not the name of a writing). In none of these passages,
nor in numerous other references to what are now non-canonical
Christian materials does Clement apologize or show discomfort
about his use of such sources.
-----
\24/ See further R.A. Kraft, "Christian Transmission of Greek
Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe," Paganisme,
judaisme, christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le
monde antique: Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon (ed. A. Benoit
et al.; Paris: Boccard, 1978) 207-26.
\25/ See the index of scriptural citations supplied in the four-
volume Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller edition of
Clement of Alexandria (Griechische Christliche
Schriftsteller 12, 15, 17, 39) begun by O. Stahlin in 1905
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), subsequently revised by Ludwig
Fru%chtel (1960) and Ursula Treu (1970-85), and still in process
(the 4th ed. of volume 2 appeared in 1985). 1905-9).
Unfortunately, the Strasbourg project does not include non-
scriptural citations in its Biblia Patristica: Index des
citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature
patristique (5 vols.; ed. J. Allenbach; Paris: Editions du
Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975- ).
\26/ See Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian
Gnostics (London, 1960; reprinted, Rochester, VT: Inner
Traditions, 1986) 20.
=====
[[5.4]] The situation is recognizably different when we examine
the evidence from Origen, who inherits Clement's openness and
exposure to a wide variety of sources but who also betrays some
revealing reticence in using non-canonical sources. At least in
the later part of his life, when he worked from Caesarea on the
Hexapla, he was in first hand contact with Jewish
informants and traditions.\27/ For him, the Jewish scriptural
canon was fairly well defined as is evident from his work on the
Hexapla, his preserved list of canonical books, and his
"exegetical" writings (scholia, homilies, commentaries).
Nevertheless, he does not forsake the sympathetic use of extra-
canonical, presumably Jewish works and traditions, although he
sometimes prefaces such with words like "if anyone accepts such a
writing" -- so with reference to a passage about angels disputing
at Abraham's death (Homily on Luke 35), to a long
quotation from the "Prayer of Joseph" (Commentary on John
2.31/25), to an "Isaiah Apocryphon" about the death of the
prophet (Commentary on Matthew 13.57/23.37). Elsewhere he
also shows knowledge of the book or books of Enoch (Against
Celsus 5.54-55), of Joseph-Aseneth materials (Selections
in Genesis 41.45), of a Book of Jannes and Mambres (Homily
on Matthew 23.37(25)/27.9), and of an apocryphon of Elijah or
of Jeremiah (Homily on Matthew 27.9) among other non-
canonical references. Thus Origen stands in personal tension
between a relatively firm, exclusivistic view of scripture that
apparently was present in some of the churches (and/or perhaps in
the Jewish circles) with which he was in contact and the
relatively less restrictive attitudes of his predecessor Clement.
-----
\27/ See in general de Lange, Origen and the Jews (n.8
above); R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the
Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of
Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959). Studies that focus upon
specific correspondences between the teachings of Origen and the
Sages include E.E. Urbach, "Homiletical Interpretations of the
Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-
Christian Disputation," Scripta hierosolymitana 22 (1971)
247-75; R. Kimelman, "Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of
Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation," Harvard
Theological Review 73 (1980) 567-95; and D.J. Halperin,
"Origen, Ezekiel's Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses,"
Church History 50 (1981) 261-75.
=====
[[5.5]] A couple of decades earlier, in North Africa, Tertullian
had revealed similar reticence in citing the book of Enoch
regarding fallen angels, in full recognition that some Christians
rejected it because it was not included by the Jews in their
scripture (Cult Fem 2-3). Around the middle of the third
century, Origen's pupil Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria c.247-
264) admits to having read "both the compositions
and the traditions of the heretics" despite a warning from
one of the presbyters that he would thereby injure his soul. But,
in a vision, God instructed Dionysius to read everything at hand
so as to be able to test and prove everything -- and thus he was
able to refute heresy all the more powerfully (Ecclesiastical
History 7.77.1-3; cf 7.24).
[[5.6]] Even at the end of the 4th century (Filaster of Brescia)
or as late as the 8th century (John of Damascus) we still hear
faint ecclesiastical voices arguing, in the same vein as Clement,
Origen and Dionysius, that enlightened Christians can profit from
any and all available literature. But for the most part, the
orthodox spokesmen of whom we know throughout this period were
violently opposed to the pseudepigrapha, associating such
writings with heterodox groups and even accusing the heretics of
having forged some if not all of this material.
ALLEGED HETERODOX CHRISTIAN TRANSMITTERS OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
[[6.1]] Some of the orthodox Christian sources attempt to
identify specific heterodox groups which produced, or at least
used allegedly Jewish pseudepigraphical writings. Other heterodox
groups are also described in terms that suggest an openness to
such literature. In the earliest period, apart from amorphous
Jewish Christian outlooks for which wide use of Jewish materials
would be fully expected, we hear of Elkesaites (early 2nd
century) with their special traditions and their "Book of
Elksai."\28/ Some decades later Basilides is said to have
had a special Psalm Book,\29/ and the 2nd century
Montanist apocalyptic orientation appears to be well
suited to the use of pseudepigraphic apocalyptic writings
(Tertullian argues for accepting Enoch as scripture, perhaps even
before his Montanist alignment). Irenaeus accuses the followers
of Mark the gnostic of using and of forging apocrypha
(Iren Against Heresies 1.20.1=13.1) in the late 2nd
century. About the same time, Lucian of Samosata satirically
describes the temporarily converted Peregrinus as having
authored many books for his Christian associates
(Peregrinus 11). Passing reference is perhaps appropriate
here to the relatively obscure Melchizedekian Christians\30/ and
to the reputed Syrian rhapsodist Bar Daisan.\31/
-----
\28/ There is revived interest in the Elkesaites, partly due to
the recent discovery and publication of the Cologne Mani
Codex (see below, n.32). Consult Origen apud Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History 6.38; Hippolytus, Refutation
9.13-17; 10.29; Epiphanius, Panarion 19.1-6; 53.1; W.
Brandt, Elchasai: ein Religionsstifter und sein Werk
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1912); A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink,
Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden:
Brill, 1973) 54-67; idem, "Elchasai and Mani," Vigiliae
Christianae 28 (1974) 277-89; G.P. Luttikhuizen, The
Revelation of Elchasai (Tubingen: Mohr, 1985); A. Henrichs and
L. Koenen, "Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr.
4780)," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5
(1970) 97-217, esp. pp. 133-60. For a recent attempt to link the
Elkesaites to Jewish literature and institutions, see J.C.
Reeves, "The Elchasaite Sanhedrin of the Cologne Mani Codex in
Light of Second Temple Jewish Sectarian Sources," Journal of
Jewish Studies 42 (1991) 68-91.
\29/ For references and discussion, see Bauer, Orthodoxy and
Heresy 170 n.42.
\30/ Epiphanius, Panarion 55. Interest in this sect has
been spurred by the discovery and publication of Melchizedek
texts from both Nag Hammadi (Nag Hammadi Codex IX 1) and Qumran
(11QMelch). See A.S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische
Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim
aus Qumran Hohle XI," Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965)
354-73; J.T. Milik, "Milki-sedeq et Milki-resa` dans les anciens
ecrits juifs et chretiens," Journal of Jewish Studies 23
(1972) 95-144; F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A
Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1976); P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa`
(Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981); E.
Puech, "Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQ Melkisedeq," Revue de
Qumran 12 (1987) 483-513; B.A. Pearson, "The Figure of
Melchizedek in the First Tractate of the Unpublished Coptic-
Gnostic Codex IX from Nag Hammadi," Proceedings of the XIIth
International Congress of the International Association for the
History of Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 200-208; Nag
Hammadi Codices IX and X (Nag Hammadi Studies 15; ed.
B.A. Pearson; Leiden: Brill, 1981).
\31/ On a possible connection between Bardaisan and the Odes
of Solomon, see W.R. Newbold, "Bardaisan and the Odes of
Solomon," Journal of Biblical Literature 30 (1911) 161-
204; J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity
(trans. John A. Baker, Chicago: Regnery, 1964, from Theologie
du judeo-christianisme; Paris: Desclee, 1958) 30-33; H.J.W.
Drijvers, Bardaisan of Edessa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1966)
209-12.
=====
[[6.2]] In the 3rd century, Mani consciously
selected "the writings, wisdom, apocalypses, parables and psalms
of all the previous religions" for use in his Manichaean super-
religion.\32/ His background seems to include close contacts with
Elkesaites and Marcionites, at the very least. Unfortunately, the
extent to which our allegedly Jewish pseudepigrapha might have
been used among Manichaeans is presently unknown.\33/ According
to the Coptic text of Athanasius' famous Easter letter of 367,
unspecified apocryphal works also were used by the
Meletian sect, which sometimes was closely identified with
the Arians. A few decades later, Epiphanius names a great many
books allegedly used by heretical groups: the Borborite
gnostics use books in the name of Ialdabaoth and of Seth as
well as an apocalypse of Adam and various books attributed to
Mary and the Apostles (Panarion 26.8.1); other
gnostics use a Gospel of Eve (26.2.6f) and a book of
Noriah, wife of Noah (26.1.3-4); the Sethians write books
in the name of great men such as Seth, or his offspring called
Allogenes, or Abraham (an apocalypse), or Moses (39.5.1); the
Archontics create "apocrypha" with such names as the Small
and Great Symphonia or the Ascent of Isaiah or books in the name
of Seth (40.2.1, 7.4). Also from the late 4th century we hear of
the Priscillians in Spain who used apocryphal-
pseudepigraphical books associated with prophets such as Adam,
Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others, and who
were accused of Manichaeanism and of magic.\34/ Some of their
views seem to have survived among the medieval Cathari (and
Albigenses?).
-----
\32/ The quotation is taken from Kephalaia 154; see C.
Schmidt and H.J. Polotsky, "Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten,"
Sitzungsgerichte der preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften (1933) 41 (text p.85). Our knowledge about the
milieu from which Manichaeism sprang has been augmented by the
discovery and publication of the Cologne Mani Codex. See
A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, "Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P.
Colon. inv. nr. 4780)," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 5 (1970) 97-217; idem, "...Edition der Seiten 1-
72," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 19 (1975)
1-85; idem, " ... Edition der Seiten 72,8-99,9," Zeitschrift
fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32 (1978) 87-199; idem, " ...
Edition der Seiten 99,10-120," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie
und Epigraphik 44 (1981) 201-318; idem, " ... Edition der
Seiten 121-192," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 48 (1982) 1-59; L. Koenen and C. Romer, Der
Kolner Mani-Kodex: Abbildungen und diplomatischer Text (Bonn:
Habelt, 1985); idem, Der Kolner Mani-Kodex: Kritische
Edition (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988). For an English
translation of the initial portion of the Codex, see Ron Cameron
and Arthur J. Dewey (trans) The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon.
inv. nr. 4780) "Concerning the Origin of his Body" (Society of
Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 15: Early Christian
Literature Series 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1979). A recent
comprehensive study that incorporates the new information about
Mani is S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire
and Medieval China (2d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992).
\33/ The Cologne Mani Codex contains five citations from
otherwise unknown pseudepigraphic works attributed to Adam, Seth,
Enosh, Enoch, and Shem. Albert Henrichs has suggested that
Cologne Mani Codex 7.2-14 reflects dependence upon the
Testament of Abraham; see Henrichs, "Thou Shalt Not Kill a
Tree: Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales," Bulletin of the
American Society of Papyrologists 16 (1979) 105-106; idem,
"Literary Criticism of the Cologne Mani Codex," The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March
28-31, 1978 (2 vols.; ed. B. Layton; Leiden: Brill, 1980-81)
2.729 n.20. A reliance upon Jewish Enochic literature has been
vigorously advocated by J.C. Reeves, "An Enochic Motif in
Manichaean Tradition," Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented
to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth
Birthday (ed. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen; Louvain:
International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1991) 295-98;
idem, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the
Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College
Press, 1992).
\34/ See H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and
the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976).
=====
RESURGENCE OF INTEREST IN PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN MAINSTREAM
CHRISTIAN CIRCLES
[[7.1]] Very few Greek manuscripts of allegedly Jewish
pseudepigrapha have survived from the period prior to the 9th
century.\35/ To what extent this is a reflection of official
orthodox hostility, or even censorship, or is simply due to the
general paucity of materials that have survived from that period
is difficult to determine. In any event, from the 10th century
onward there is a growing flood of Jewish pseudepigraphical
materials in Greek, especially those which deal with the lives
and deaths of ancient righteous persons.\36/ From the 14th
century onward, various apocalyptic pseudepigrapha MSS appear in
Greek, including both the popular reward-punishment scenes of the
afterlife (as in Dante's Comedy)\37/ and the more cosmic
surveys of the mysteries of past and future history. Again, it
may be simply due to coincidence that the preserved MSS are so
late in date, but at least this information provides a starting
point for further investigation. The main point I wish to make
here is that by the later byzantine period, the orthodox Greek
transcribers readily transmitted and used pseudepigraphical
materials. The primary justification seems to be an avid interest
in martyrology and hagiographic narrative.\38/ Greek liturgical
practice provided a framework for this by stipulating specific
dates on which to commemorate the saints and martyrs of the
Christian tradition -- including pre-Christian Jewish notables.
As nearly as I can determine, the Christian Latin
manuscript tradition shows much less sustained interest in the
Jewish pseudepigraphical materials in the late medieval period,
although some noteworthy Latin MSS or fragments dating from the
6th century (Jubilees, [Assumption of] Moses,
Ascension of Isaiah) to the 9th Century (Life of
Adam, 4 Ezra) are known.
-----
\35/ For the evidence, see A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux
pseudepigraphes grecs d'Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill,
1970); S.P. Brock, "Other Manuscript Discoveries," EJMI
157-73.
\36/ See especially the materials collected by F. Halkin,
Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (3 vols.; 3rd ed;
Bruxelles: Socie/te/ Bollandistes, 1957).
\37/ For the development of such materials, see Martha
Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and
Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1983), and now her Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and
Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
\38/ An interest that I have largely overlooked, but that may
have served as a preserver of traditions and "pseudepigrapha
awareness" at a more "scientific-historical" level, is in world
chronography, recently more clearly identified and documented by
William Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its
Sources in Christian Chronography (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks,
1989), esp. pp. 80-97. In various ways, pseudepigraphic
literatures seem to have been able to serve a wide range of
interests in the "middle ages," including science (especially
astronomological and calendric issues), history, popular piety
(especially with folkloristic tales) and ordinary worship (e.g.
with models of prayer/hymn language). The interrelationship of
such motives among Christian transmitters deserves closer study.
=====
[[7.2]] The situation in eastern Christian circles other than
Greek is more difficult to assess because so little pertinent
scholarly work has been done therein. There are a great many
relevant early Coptic materials, from the 4th century
onward, which seems to indicate that the canon-centered
orientation of Shenouti and his monastically inclined followers
was by no means universal among literate Coptic Egyptian
Christians.\39/ There is also a significant amount of relatively
early material in Syriac,\40/ notably 2 Baruch and
| |