Presentation
at Univeristy of Toronto for 11 April 2007
"Pursuing the Para-Scriptural by way
of the
Pre-Scriptural"
[Seminar, 4 pm on Wednesday, 11
April 2007]
[update 10ap07]
Introductory
- Please interrupt as we go for points
of clarification, but hold
off for discussion.
- assumption -- source producers are
being honest (even if wrong!), and are not engaging in conscious
deception (such as Lucian [late 2nd c CE] does in his "True History," a
caustic commentary by imitation on the "mythographers" and those like
them): [[image01]]
"...as I have no truth to put on
record, having lived a very humdrum life,
I fall back on falsehood (τὸ ψεῦδος) -- but falsehood of
a more consistent variety;
for I now make the only true statement you are to expect, that I am
lying (κἂν ἓν γὰρ δὴ
τοῦτο ἀληθεύσω λέγων ὅτι ψεύδομαι). This confession is, I
consider, a full defence against all
imputations, for I am saying nothing that is true. (ὁμολογῶν μηδὲν ἀληθὲς λέγειν).
My subject is, then, what I have neither seen,
experienced, nor been told, what neither exists nor could conceivably
do so. I humbly solicit my readers' incredulity (διὸ δεῖ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας μηδαμῶς πιστεύειν αὐτοῖς)."
- larger context -- attempting to expose
the thought world and resources of the ancients we study
<>
Evidence -- what do the preserved sources tell or show us
about antecedent sources?
Explicit
references --
There is ample
evidence that some
of those responsible for the composition and transmission of what have
come to
be considered "scriptural" writings in the traditions of Judaism and
Christianity believed that earlier sources existed and often claimed to
use them. The most blatent general statement
comes from the cynical Hebrew book of Qohelet
[[image03]]
-- "of the making of
books there is
no end" (12.12; OG "guard against making many books")! Whenever that
was written -- and it probably can be no later than the time
of Alexander the Great and his immediate "hellenistic" successors --
and whatever it may mean statistically, we are unable to flood our
bibliographies with the names of authors or fill our shelves with books
from that period, especially those written in semitic languages.
More specifically, we
find such
explicit passagess as the following in the books that have come to be
considered
"scriptures," not to mention additional references to various
letters:
[[image04]]
Exod 24.7 (book of the Covanant; see 2 Kgs 23.21,
2 Chron
34.30)
Num 21.14 (the book of the Wars of the LORD),
Joshua 10.13 and 2 Sam 1.18 (the book of Jashar, "lament of the
bow"),
Joshua 24.26 (Joshua records things in the book of the Law of God)
1 Chron 27.24 (the book of the Acts of David)
1 Kings 11.41 (the book of the Acts of Solomon),
1 Kings 14.19 et passim (the book of the Acts of the Kings of
Israel
[23], or of Judah [15], or the book of the kings of both [4]) -- Israel
(1 Kgs 14.19, 15.31, 16.5, 16.14, 16 20, 16.27, 22.39, 2Kgs 1.18,
10.34, 13.8,
13.12, 14.15, 14.28,15.11, 15.15, 15.21, 15.26, 15.31, 16.5, 16.14,
16.20,
16.27, 22.39); Judah (1 Kgs 14.29, 15.7, 15.23, 22.45, 2
Kgs 8.23,
12.19, 14.18, 15.6, 15.36, 16.19, 20.20, 21.17, 21.25, 23.28, 24.5);
book of
the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Chron 9.1, 2 Chron 16.11,
25.26, 27.7,
28.26, 32.32, 35.27, 36.8); book of the kings (2 Chron 24.27)
Neh 12.23 (book of the Acts)
Esther 2.23 & 10.2 (book of the Acts, the chronicles of the king's
reign)
Luke 1.1-4 (many have attempted this before me)
2 Corinthians 7.8 (made you sorry with a letter)
Colossians 4.16 (the Laodicean Letter)
2 Thess 2.2 (letter supposedly from Paul's group)
<>
The title that was
given to the Hebrew books of Chronicles in the Greek tradition may also
be revealing. These books are called "Paraleipomena" -- "Leftovers."
[[image05]]
Leftover from what?
Presumably from what is contained in Samuel-Kings (or as they came to
be known in Greek, 1-4 Kingdoms). I once wondered whether
"paraleipomena" might have been a traditional Greek title for certain
types of material, but found no confirmation in searching Greek
literature (TLG). It does appear in the "Testament of Job" as a title,
and the whole situation may merit further investigation, for anyone
looking for this type of dissertation topic.
Compositional evidence
--
In addition to such references or allusions to prior literature,
there
is plenty of evidence for composite compilations in scriptural and
related materials -- we can even glimpse the process happening in
certain
instances:
A striking
example
[[image06]]
of
misplaced juxtaposition occurs with an extensive family of
Greek manuscripts in which Polycarp's
Letter
to the Philippians is cut off at 9.2 by the
Epistle of Barnabas 5.7 and
following, thus
forming a hybrid that was copied again and again, without any
indication of the join. Probably the cause was the loss of an entire
section (a quire or more) in an early codex that contained these texts
of what came to be called the "apostolic fathers." The preservation of
other copies of the involved texts made it relatively easy to identify
this sort of "mechanical" problem. The
Epistle of Barnabas itself contains
two distinct sections, of which the final part, on the "two ways," is
absent from the early Latin translation.
[[image07]]
We also know of
other versions of the "
Two Ways"
tradition, both separate and also sometimes joined with other materials
(as in the
Didache), which
suggests that various combinations and revisions of sources are taking
place in the prehistories of these materials.
Similarly, in the 4
th/5
th
century CE mega-codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, the book of
Baruch and the brief
Letter of Jeremiah are treated as
separate compositions, with the
Letter
following
Lamentations (see also the
SyroHexapla and Arabic evidence), but many other
witnesses (especially Latin) adjoin the
Letter to
Baruch, as a final section and
without any warning. Similarly, as time
goes on a Greek Jeremianic corpus becomes standard, usually with
Jeremiah plus
Baruch plus
Lamentations plus
Letter, but sometimes with
Baruch last (or omitted [
[[image08]]
see Origen in Eus HE
6.25, Jer+Lam+Letter "in one book"]). Probably these sorts of
development took place as the relatively new codex technology provided
an easy (or easier) means of bringing smaller units into juxtaposition
and standardizing their organization.
Again, what we now
usually call the apocalypse of "
4
Ezra" exists as a separate unit in various old versions (Syriac,
Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Arabic, etc.),
but in virtually all Latin manuscripts, it is preceded by what we now
call "
5 Ezra"
and followed by "
6 Ezra," to
the confusion of many who study these
materials
[[image09]]
--
especially as the Latin version is perpetuated in many English
translations under the title
"
2 Esdras" (e.g. AV, RSV,
NRSV)! "
5th" and "
6th" Ezra seem to be unknown
outside of the Latin tradition and its poorly attested Greek parentage.
Moving earlier in time, already into
the world of scrolls, we find the twelve
Minor Prophets drawn together as a
collection, although not always in exactly the same order.
[[image10]]
Our earliest
surviving physical example, a fragmentary Greek scroll (or perhaps two
scrolls) from Nahal Hever along the west coast of the Dead Sea near
Masada, seems to follow the order that became standard in later Hebrew
circles (at least the order
Joel
-
Micah seems sure), not the
order than became standard in later Greek compilations (
Micah -
Joel, etc.), also with occasional
exceptions. The concept of viewing these "minor prophets" together
seems to have been more important than the exact sequence, at least in
some circles. The same, of course, can be said about other
sub-sequences among traditional "scriptures," as well as the overall
sequence in general.
The concept
of "holy scriptures" is separable from the details of content and
order, at least in the earliest periods before it was possible to
include everything in one physical "book." I'll talk more about
that development tomorrow night.
Issues of order and also extent, plague the anthology that we call
"Psalms," especially in the light of the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries.
[[image11]]
Even before the
DSS came to light, the presence of Psalm 151 in non-Hebrew versions was
a symptom of the larger problem, as were the presence or absence
of authorial attributions (psalms of David [most], of the sons of Korah
[42, 44-49, 84-85, 87-88], of Asaph [50, 73-83], of Solomon
[72], of Ethan [89], of Moses [90], etc. -- and not necessarily grouped
together in the collection[s]). The extensive cave 11 fragments of a
collection of Psalms (11Q5) underlines these problems, since it
includes what came to be "biblical" psalms (sometimes in a different
order, and not in sequence) along with other psalms and even a
statistical note about how many Davidic compositions were thought to
exist
[[image12]]
-- 4,050,
all composed "through the spirit of prophecy which had been given to
him from before the Most High." The DSS also provide us with copies of
other psalmic compositions as well, perhaps similarly revered.
\n/ Note also the different division of
materials between MT and OG (= Latin Vulgate):
Hebrew 1-8 = OG/Vulgate 1-8
Hebrew 9 = OG/Vulgate 9-10
Hebrew 10-112 = OG/Vulgate 11-113
Hebrew 113 = OG/Vulgate 114-115
Hebrew 114-115 = OG/Vulgate 116
Hebrew 116-145 = OG/Vulgate 117-146
Hebrew 146-147 = OG/Vulgate 147
Hebrew 148-150 = OG/Vulgate 148-150
(Hebrew lacking) + OG/Vulgate 151
Even the book of
Jeremiah
itself betrays its
problematic prehistory. It is
preserved in both a shorter version (e.g. OG, and some DSS fragments)
and a longer one (MT, and some DSS fragments!), with major
internal differences in order as well
[[image13]]
(chs MT 25.15 - 51;
both end with 52). This should not be surprising insofar as
that material itself provides ample evidence of stages of development
and
collection (see MT 45.1 = OG 51.31, and the conclusion in MT 51.64 [cf
OG 28.64 var] which is followed by an
appended contextualizing narrative much like Isa 39 -- Jer 52 = 2Kgs
24.18-25.30). [[This situation is comparable to the problems relating
to the ending of the Gospel of John, where what is now the final
chapter follows an obvious concluding statement; also the "adulterous
woman" pericope in John 8 illustrates a similar set of issues.]]
Further
Compositional clues --
In addition to such "control
cases" (where we can actually witness the processes of association,
collection, and even amalgamation taking place), there are
numerous examples of the results of similarly agglomorative procedures
that have left clear roadmaps in the surviving literature, even without
the "smoking guns" of manuscript variations or explicit statements:
- Proverbs, [[image14]]
as a conscious and
variegated collection, can be expected to have a history similar to
Psalms, with different authors mentioned and similar flexibility of
organization possible
- Isaiah,
[[image15]]
with the
obvious narrative break at
chapters 36-39 (= 2 Kgs 18.13-20.19 plus Hezekiah's lament/thanksgiving
in Isa 38.9-20) and the change of subject and perspective in what
follows also qualifies; did Kgs use Isa, or v-v, or a common source?
Where did the Hezekiah psalm come from?
- Greek
"1 Esdras" [[image16]]
appears
to be the result of combining what we know of from Hebrew Ezra
and Nehemiah, with adjustments.
- The library of 1 Enoch, [[image17]]
with its explicit movement
from work to work, provides revealing introductory statements and other
signs of "seams" between works
- Paraleipomena
Jeremiou ["leftovers"
language], [[image18]]
with
quite different sections in both content and style, is also a probable candidate
- The Synoptic
Gospels [[image19]] present
a gigantic
interwoven textcritical and sourcecritical mess, leading to theories
about multiple sources, problems of priority, and crossfertilization of
texts
- In the NT
book of Acts, [[image20]] explicit
references to first hand presence (the "we source") combines with
changes of style and some apparent joins ("seams") to reveal a complex
background regarding sources
- Mention has already been made to complications with the 4th
Gospel [[image21]]
(ending, adulterous woman pericope), to which the
allusions to a
"signs source" and prologue source can be added, and to the complicated
problem of Paul's letters to Corinth.
Evidence -- what do we know about availability of antecedent sources?
In General --
In 1942, Edgar
J. Goodspeed included an final chapter on "the Lost Books
of Early Christian Literature" in his
History of Early Christian
Literature,
[[image22]]
in which he listed "lost works" known to have existed
in the early Christian worlds. In Robert M. Grant's 1966 enlarged
revision of
this volume, a chapter on "Eusebius and Early Christian Literature"
was also added. We can get a rough idea of how many works named by such
catalogers as Eusebius have not survived intact, or nearly intact, to
the
present. Most have not survived at all. Probably, as Christians became
more
involved in writing and authorship became more noticed, more items were
produced to be listed and lost. It is difficult to get an accurate idea
of what
was happening in the first hundred years or so of Christian existence,
with largely anonymous gospel
production, narratives about the apostles, public and private letters,
apocalyptic accounts, community handbooks, and the like. Clearly much
that was
once present has now disappeared, although occasional new discoveries
such as
the Coptic finds of the past 60 years both increase the list of
previously
unknown items and increase what has survived. And if it were possible
to identify
the sources represented by the hundreds of scraps of literary papyri
from Egypt
that are deposited in our museums and libraries, not to mention private
collections, the general picture might be a bit more
revealing. But as it is, my guess is that no more than 10% of early
Christian
literature has survived to any significant extent, and that estimate
might be
optimistic.
A similar exploration of surviving Greek and Latin literature, without
reference to Judaism and Christianity, would be possible by comparing
the
extensive lists of "authors consulted" that is provided by Pliny the
Elder in his
Natural History
[[image23]]
with lists of
surviving manuscripts (e.g. the TLG canon for Greek authors). Perhaps
someone has done this already, but I haven't found it yet.
My point is
that in all liklihood the worlds from which our Jewish and Christian
scriptures came were full of other public writings -- not to mention
more private materials and unwritten traditions -- of which we know
very little. The attempts to explain virtually everything in
terms of what has survived are undoubtedly quite misguided. Elsewhere
I've called this "textual myopia," meaning that we have often
restricted our gaze to the texts we can see, without recognizing that
the range of possibilities is much more extensive.
In Early Judaism --
The Dead Sea
discoveries are helping to open our eyes with reference to the
situation in early Judaism. Even if the estimate that some 800 or so
different documents are represented by the Scrolls
[[image24]]
should prove to be
exaggerated (after all, different scribes can work on the same copy,
and hitherto unknown texts can change their contents in different
sections), we are still faced with a flood of new materials that call
for close attention in the discussion of scripturality and the
development of texts and traditions within Judaism. Even if we decide
that the DSS do not represent anything important in Jewish history, we
still have Philo and Josephus and several other preserved writings from
that period to interrogate in a more informed manner about their
sources and procedures.
Although often
relatively "daring" in his interpretations, Philo seems relatively
"conservative" in his designation of what constitutes his "scriptures."
[[image25]]
Moses is major,
with the Greek Pentateuch providing the basis of most of
Philo's extant works, and the figure of Moses treated "larger than
life." Yet Philo feels free, in his extensive narrative on Moses' Life,
to give Moses a voice not found in the Pentateuch
[[image26]].
Philo is also aware
of other scriptural books that deserve respect, and even mentions by
name "Judgments" (Judges), . He is also respectful of certain
non-Jewish Greek sources
including, as one might expect, Homer and Plato. What other
literature he may know and respect from his Alexandrian Jewish
context, and how he knows it (complete texts, anthologies, reviews and
reports) is worth further consideration, but probably will not assist
us much in the quest for pre-scriptural materials. It is, after
all, a strong view of scriptural authority that drives one to allegory
-- the scriptural claim is not reasonable as interpreted literally, but
since scripture must be correct, it must have another interpretation
(allos agein). On the other hand, Philo's description of the
Therapeutae and their literature is suggestive,
[[image27]]
but unfortunately
rather vague. Note, at least, that he does not criticize them for their
production and use of such literature.
With Josephus,
we move to the edges of first century CE Greek Jewish evidence.
Josephus claims not to be sophisticated in his use of Greek, although
this need not mean that he did not have a working knowledge of Greek
from his youth. But he did not consider Greek to be his primary
literary language. Nevertheless, by the time he releases the surviving
published version of the Antiquities he clearly has made extensive use
of Greek Jewish materials, even allowing for the possibility that the
surviving copies of Josephus may have been adjusted by later copyists
to the LXX/OG text in places, as they seem to have been to give
reverence to Jesus.
[[image28]]
Unlike
Philo, when Josephus deals with material that we find in our copies of
the Pentateuch he seldom gives direct quotes or even verbally identical
wording. It is open to question whether he even
used
the Pentateuch directly,
[[image29]]
or depended on modified versions of the pertinent material,
created by himself or by some predecessor. And what are the sources of
his departures from or additions to the Pentateuchal thread? Whence did
he derive the tale of Moses and the Ethiopians, for example?
[[image30]]
Josephus knows and
sometimes quotes from a
variety
of other sources regarding the history of Israel and associated
matters (especially Nicolaus of Damascus, also Alexander Polyhistor,
among others). Quite different is his treatment of the materials
parallel to
1 Maccabees,
[[image31]]
where the extensive verbal repetitions are difficult to mistake.
Like the
11QPsalms notice about David's compositions, Josephus (Ant
8.(2.5).44-46)
[[image32]]
says
of Solomon:
"He also composed books of odes and
songs a thousand
and five, of
parables and similitudes three thousand; for he spoke a parable about
every
sort of tree, from the hyssop to the cedar; and in like manner also
about
beasts, about all sorts of living creatures, whether upon the earth, or
in the seas, or in the air; for he was not unacquainted with any of
their
natures, nor omitted inquiries about them, but described them all like
a philosopher, and demonstrated his exquisite knowledge of their
several
properties. God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels
demons, which
is a science useful and healing to men. He composed such incantations
also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the
manner
of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never
return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day."
We can't determine what Josephus has actually seen and read, but he
certainly claims to know much more than we do, or than the existing
scriptures and related materials (e.g. "Testament of Solomon") do about
such things. Solomon is also associated with exorcism in the Qumran
materials (11Q11).
Since most of
the non-DSS Jewish "extracanonical" materials have come to us through
Christian channels, they also invite some attention, along with various
materials of certifiably "Christian" origin. A work such as the Latin
LAB attributed to Philo
[[image33]]
is especially ripe for exploration, filled as it is with
supplementary pentateuchal material. Prior to the discovery of the DSS,
Jubilees would have been in a
similar category -- preserved only through Christian scribal activity
-- and also the "
1 Enoch"
library, for that matter. Of course now we know better, although the
"Similitudes/Parables" of Enoch still stimulate heavy discussion
regarding their origins, since they have not yet turned up in the
Qumran discoveries. Furthermore, the discovery among the DSS of
fragments of a "Testament of Levi" with connections to the later texts
of the "Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs" is not terribly surprising,
although the survival into Byzantine times of a close Greek translation
of a section of that Hebrew material in a single Greek MS of the
Testaments is provocative. But for present purposes, this is all
further evidence for the existence of a large number and wide variety
of respected and preserved materials in early Judaism, flowing over
into early Christianity. And similarly with the "Jewish Apocrypha,"
[[image34]]
most of which
survived because of the respect shown them by Christians, some of them
now attested at Qumran (most notably Letter of Jeremiah and Tobit;
Sirach was already known from Hebrew fragments in the Cairo Geniza).
<>
In Early
Christianity --
As has already
been noted, early Christianity has its share of "lost" writings,
judging from the lists provided by Eusebius. This scene carries back to
the poorly attested earliest period of early Christian developments. As
already noted, scholars reconstruct the mysterious "Q" source for
sayings attributed to Jesus that appear in the later compilations
called Matthew and Luke. The discovery of the sayings "Gospel of
Thomas" has strengthened the probability that such collections
circulated from early in the game. The author of Luke admits to knowing
of the existence of "various" prior attempts to present information on
Jesus (Lk 1.1-4), evidence of which may survive in the various
fragmentary papyri dealing with Jesus traditions;
[[image35]]
and many ancient
claims are preserved that "Matthew" wrote an account of some sort in
Hebrew or Aramaic. Of course, it is assumed that as a Roman
administrator, Pilate must have kept records,
[[image36]]
so it is no surprise
that by the mid 2nd century Christians are appealing to such a source,
whatever its origin. The preserved letters of Paul, whether authentic
or not, attest the existence of other such letters at an early date,
[[image37]]
and scholarly
conjecture finds remnants of at least two Pauline letters in what we
now call "
2 Corinthians,"
while a "
3rd Corinthians"
correspondence
turns up in connection with the partly preserved
Acts of Paul. It
was clearly a world full of books!
Questions (points to ponder) -- [[image38]]
What became of such materials?
The simple idea that it all disappeared when Judaism and Christianity
decided on their respective scriptural canons must have some truth to
it since emerging mainstream Judaism preserves only weak hints about it
all, while emerging mainstream Christianity tends to marginalize what
has managed to survive despite the restrictive filters that were
developed. Fortunately, enough has survived from alternate forms of
both traditions to shed some light on the broader situation. The
marginality of early Christianity in relation to early Judaism is a
significant factor, along with the discovery of dead ends in Jewish
history such as what the DSS represent. And the marginality of
"gnostical" Christianity, and of non-Greco-Roman forms of Christianity
(Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, etc.) play a similar role. Might
we have such early lost materials reflected or
even embedded in what we know as parascriptural locations (known texts)
or elsewhere (comments,
exerpts)?
Judgments about "rewritten scriptures" often fail to
consider this larger picture. Even when it is clear that what became
canonical
scriptures are intentionally in the background, as with Josephus, there
are
significant anomalies that call for other explanations -- e.g. Moses
and the
Ethiopians episode, or the earthquake of Uzziah [[image39]]
(which Eusebius cites
and attributes to Josephus' knowledge of the "deuterosis," the orally
or perhaps secretly
transmitted tradition). Information from written sources are probably
in the
picture, if not directly at least indirectly. That is, whatever their
origin,
traditions or stories such as this probably found their way into
written
accounts, although the connection with a Josephus need not have been
directly
from something written, just as Josephus' treatment of other accounts
found in
the Pentateuch need not have been produced by direct literary
consultation. The words attributed to Jesus, "you have heard it
said," probably are applicable in many situations. Heard
information gets to be written, and written information gets to be
heard. [[image40]]
Written information also gets to be excerpted in writing,
and summarized in writing, and reused in various ways. Settling
on simple answers may sometimes be justified -- Philo almost certainly
had access to the Greek Pentateuch text, more or less as we know it --
but more often is not likely to bring convincing or satisfying results
in this type of exploration. We have lost sight of that world full of
books, and traditions, and our scholarly endeavors may be significantly
poorer for that fact.
//end//