~a"Kraft"b"TAbr" REASSESSING THE RESCENSIONAL PROBLEMS IN TESTAMENT OF ABRAHAM by Robert A. Kraft Study of the Testament of Abraham (T Abr) 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) 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 [[p.122]] sub-groupings and for the longer form dates from much more recent times. Analysis of possible references to T Abr in ancient and medieval/byzantine lists and writings have not proved particularly helpful in establishing clear evidence for the earlier existence of T Abr in any of its known forms.s 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. <1"Recension" Problems in Other Literature>1. -- There is nothing particularly unique about the existence of differing ""recensions'' of the same material in the literature preserved by Christians through- out 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 ""u'' 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 T Job 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 diffi- cult situation regarding Greek forms of T Solomon also seems to fit here, at least according to its editor, McCown,s 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. [[p.123]] (2) largely ""u'' 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. <1Theories about the Relation of the Recensions in T Abr>1. -- T Abr is an excellent example of the third category. Although they tell basically the same story, the longer and shorter versions of T Abr 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 perspec- tives thereafter.s 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 inde- pendent 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 [[p.124]] proportion of the original story'' (p.51). James concludes that T Abr, as he tries to reconstruct it from the preserved witnesses, is sa very much mangled rechauffe/'' of an earlier, now lost (in 1892) Apocalypse of Abrahams, preserving ""all the main features of the old book''--T Abr 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 lOth century'' (p.29).7 There were immediate reactions and disagreements. Kohler and Ginzberg (see also Ehrhard)s argued that T Abr was of Jewish Origin, and Ginzberg implied that the differing Greek recensions were sepa: rate (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 ~berarbeitet'' longer form. Box con- tinued 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 10 A and the shorter Greek forms (following James). A modification of [[p.125]] this approach is implied by Kohler''s 1923 description of T Abr as a Jewish ""Alexandrian product of the first Christian century''--see most recently D. Flusser''s claim that T Abr was ""composed by a Jew, writing in Greek, and was possibly based on a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original.''s On the other side of the coin, some critics viewed T Abr 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 T Abr to post-Constantinian ""Christian'' writings from Asia Minor, and Weinel thought T Abr was ""probably a very late Christian book.''s These critics also agree that T Abr cannot be identified with the story told by Origen about the death of Abraham, as James attempted to do. In more recent discussions, Turner has subje~ted the language and content of the two Greek forms of T Abr to close scrutiny and presents a suitably complex picture of the origins and relations of 13 the two. 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 [[p.126]] 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 supple- ment 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 redac- tion'' (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, T Abr 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 T Abr 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 T Abr 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, materiali 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 ele- ments and wording which were revised in Recension A. (above, p. 97) [[p.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). u u u u u u u.--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. ""u'' u u ""u'': u u u u?.--Unfo r- tunately, much of the discussion about the ""recensional'' problem in T Abr has not been sufficiently selfconscious about what is thought to constitute the ""original'' of T Abr 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 exhibit- ing virtually the same narrow textual base (textual criticism proper) [[p. 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 T Abr. As will become apparent, individual aspects of some of the models are interchangeable. (1) Preserved Greek Original Preserved Greek Recension (2) (Lost Gk Orig) Preserved Gk Rec #1 Preserved Gk Rec #2 i Preserved Gk Rec #1 s Preserved Gk Rec #2 (4) (Lost Semitic Orig) Preserved Gk Translation Preserved Gk Rec (5) (Lost Semit Orig) (Lost Gk Tr) (then patterns ##2 or 3 above) (6) (Lost Semit Orig) sisisisisisisisisisisi i (Lost Gk Tr #1) Preserved Gk Rec #1 s (Lost Gk Tr #2) Preserved Gk Rec #2 i (Lost Semit Rec #1) Preserved Gk Tr #1 LbJ LJost 3emit OrigJ i (9) (Lost ) (Lost Semit Rec #1) (Lost Gk Tr #1) Preserved Gk Rec #1 ( Semit) ( Orig) (Lost Semit Rec #2) (Lost Gk Tr #2) Preserved Gk Rec #2 (10) (Various Individual Traditions) Preserved Gk Orig #1 (in Gk and/or in Semit ) s Preserved Gk Orig #2 ual i, (Lost Semit Orig #1) Preserved Gk Tr #1 s(stsions (Lost Semit Orig #2) Preserved Gk Tr #2 i (as in #11 but with (Lost Gk Tr #1) Preserved Gk Rec #1 s both Gk Tr Lost, thus:) (Lost Gk Tr #2) Preserved Gk Rec #2 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 [[p.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/recen- sional 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 T Abr, confident solutions to the ""recen- sional 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 T Abr 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 T Abr than with exploring strictly ""recensional'' problems, and would be largely irrelevant in models ##10-12, where no single ""original'' is envisioned. u u u u u.--Indeed, a host of relatively unexplored assumptions undergird the aforementioned argu- ments 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 T Abr was composed (compiled?) by an author/editor who was self- conscious 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 , , wit for determining relative chronological priority and/or ""originality'' of a writing is to predetermine arbitrarily how the ""original'' u have been. Supporting evidence for such an assumption is not easy to find, especially in the sort of materials represented in T Abr. The argument that both forms of T Abr preserve evidence of a common outlook (Iranian-Palestinian-Jewish according to Schmidt), but [[p.130]] that a characteristically different perspective (""Egyptian/Alexandrians) has been superimposed upon it in only one of the two preserved forms has similar weaknesses. Is there any reason to believe that character- istically ""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 T Abr 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 per- haps convenient, but are also potentially misleading. Nevertheless, Schmidt's argument that one form of T Abr superimposes a different per- spective 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 pre- cision. 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-Egyptian- ized Jewish materials. At the present stage of developments in the study of T Abr, however, this seems to be a relatively unrewarding line of discussion. Until the "recensional problems is examined with greater care, firm conclusions regarding the ""original'' or T Abr are premature. Unexamined assumptions also plague the use of potentially more controllable evidence such as vocabulary and style in the preserved Greek forms of T Abr. The presence or absence of ""Semitic"' Greek in a particular section of T Abr may not tell us anything directly about the composition or recension of T Abr, but only about the background of one of the sources used by the compiler--or added by a redactor! The presence of "lates words/constructions is perhaps potentially more telling, if it can be assumed that some direct and significant relation- ship obtains between the date of the preserved MSS and the date of the textual archetype they represent (whether that archetype is the ""orig- inal'' 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 [[p.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/assump- tions on which our discussions rest. In short, the view one takes of the "recensional problem" is close- ly intertwined with one's view of the origin of T Abr and of the Jewish and/or early Christian world(s) in which it is thought to have origin- ated. If one assumes that an actual Hebrew or Aramaic original text of T Abr 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 T Abr (whether that was a translation or not) from which all other extant forms derive, one's options for discussing the srecensional problem" are more limited. It is doubtful that any satisfactory solution to either the "recensional problem" or to the problem of the origins of T Abr 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 rele- vant 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 investi- gation of working carefully and consistently from what is securely known or relatively sure to what is unknown or only suspected. u u u u u u u.--This much is clea r: A short form of T Abr was available in Sahidic in fifth century Egypt, and from at least the eleventh century onward, T Abr in various forms and languages had become very popular among eastern Christian copyists and compilers who transmitted hagiographical material for use in conn- ection 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 4 . Jeremiou, Testament of Job.s Whatever the ultimate origins and [[p.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. - When we start with the preserved Greek materials, two obvious lines of investigation are open once the basic, textcritical relation- ships 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 quest- ions 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 compari- won to studies of the longer form (A). There is, of course, nothing new to this type of analysis. Un- fortunately, we often lose sight of the intermediate steps in our im- patience to move from the known MSS to the soriginal." Studies of T Abr 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 T Abr'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 T Abr (based on James, pp. 50f), but fails to offer a systematic study of all the data--Turner treats syntax only in con- nection with his claim that T Abr often contains Semiticized Greek. It is entirely possible, however, that close attention to syntactical features in this and related materials could provide clues to identi- fying 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 sJewishs texts. Unfortunately, appropriate information about pertinent aspects [[p.133]] of "scribals 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 philo- logical 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 Christi- anity in the hellenistic-Roman period are in a position even to begin the sorts of investigations suggested above. And insufficient aware- ness of or focus upon these aspects of the investigation of T Abr 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 T Abr. u u u u u u.--The brief com- ments of James and Turner regarding syntactical features in T Abr 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 s [[p.134]] James gives two examples of ""late forms and constructions" in the longer ,recension" of T Abr--E~dELV rLVW (rather than rLvL or dpoS rLVw), and ~d6 plus accusative (rather than genitive). He adds that "the neo-Greek particle ~s" (contraction of ~MEs--''permit that,'' "in order that") appears in the l4th century MS B of the shorter form at 5.4. Lampe'~ u u lists only one example of ~S, 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 9 (u u 1, 1893~. Liddell-Scott includes wd6 + 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 ELdEv rLv~ (""he told him") con- structsion sis not normal sin T Abr-(dpoS tLv~ is most frequent) but does appear in chs. 1, 4, 15. It is frequent in the "Apocalypse of Sedrachs (ed. james in u u 1, from a l5th century MS) and occurs at least once (2.24) in the closely related Greek Apocalypse of Esdras (ed. Tischendorf, u u [1866], p. 26 n. 30, from a 1 15th century MS). s Careful attention to these and other similar phenomena would perhaps provide desired clues to the more recent his- tory of some of the writings under consideration. 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 suffici- ently controlled for immediate application to material such as T Abr. 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 [[p.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 stranslation -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 character- istic 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 u narrative or discourse; homiletic u polemic or theological/philosophical trea- tise). It might then become possible to measure texts like the longer or shorter forms of T Abr against that spectrum and arrive at more con- vincing results. For the moment, however, unless we assume that both forms of T Abr are datable to around the turn of the era, or assume that Greek syntax did not change significantly during the first millen- ium of the common era, at least for the criteria used by Martin, his attempt at applying his analytic techniques to T Abr must remain uncon- 8 vincing--along with being potentially promising:s u u u u u u u u.--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 T Abr? Did the different forms of T Abr 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 com- posed or compiled by a Christian will necessarily contain characteristic- ally "Christian'scontents. Little systematic information is available [[p.136]] on such issues as the above, although the tireless work of the Bolland- ist 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 9 and use their Jewish heritage in a variety of ways.s Overtly Chrisstian 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 (per- sonal 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 commem- oration. The author of Hebrews helps set the stage for what later ex- plodes into the rich Christian hagiographical tradition preserved for us. And Christian monasticism provided an eager vehicle for heightening the focus on srighteous persons'' of every sort who could serve as moral examples for the spiritual athletes struggling towards the goal of perfection. Is it possible to trace more specifically the course of such [[p.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 sview 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 T Abr 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 T Abr. In this light, many aspects of the current discuss- ions 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, <1Le Testament de Job = Semitica>1 18 (1968) 61 n.1. \3/ Most of the evidence was discussed by James, 7-34. His desire to find that the extant T Abr was referred to by Origen was rejected immediately by reviewers such as Schurer and Weyman (see below, n.12). \4/ C.C.McCown, <1The Testament of Solomon>1 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), 32-38. \5/ For other surveys of the literature, see Schmidt's disserta- tion, 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 u u u u u u (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 T Abr in the supplementary volume to the ""Ante-Nicene Library'' series (American ed. sAnre-Nicene Fathers,'' vol. 10) in 1897, and also by J.-B.Frey in his article for the u u u u, 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 u u 1 (1901) 93-96; A.Ehrhard, u u Litteratur undihre Eru von u: vol. I, Erste -------------- ---- ----- - h L.t---- Abteilung, u u u Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1900) 184-185. See also J.Kaufmann (ed. M.Soloweitschick) in u. u 1 (1928) 564, and the unsigned article in the u u u 1 (1939) 40. \9/ <1Altju/disches Schrifttum>1 (1928), 1333. See also his longer ,d. article on ""Das Testament Abrahams, ein judissches Apokphon,s u. u 106 (1925) 3-22. \10/ G.H.Box, <1The Testament of Abraham>1 (London: SPCK, 1927), vii-xv and xxviiif. \11/ <1Ko>uhlu u u u u u u (New Yor k:. Macmillan, 19235, 77 and 80 Iiie does not specify what he thinks the origin~l languake wa;~; Flusser in u u 1 (1971), i29--Flusser considers ~he longer ""version'' more original than the shorter, but declines to propose a specific date of composition for the work. \12/ E. Sch~rer, review of James in TLZ 18 (1893) 279-281, (see ~ ~. ~, also hsis schte>u u sudischen>u u u u u u, vol. 3 (Leipzi~: Hinric~s, 190;,~1) 338f); C.Weyman, review of James in u u 2 (1893) 642f; H. Weinel, ""Die sp~tere christliche Apok;yptik'' in u2 (Festschrift Gunkel, ed. H.Schmidt; GOn~ingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1923), 170-172. \13/ N. Turner, <1The Testament of Abraham: a Study of the Original Language, Place of Origin, Authorship, and Relevance>1 (unpublished Unii~ London Thesis, 1953). Some of his concl~sions were summarized in his articl~ ""The T~stament 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 disserta- tion which he kindly supplied to the author in 1973. \14/ For a convenient and indispensible handbook to such materials, consult F.Halkin, u u u (3 vols.; Brussels:. Socie/te/ des Bollandistes, 1957s), and the Analecta Bollandians series in general. \15/ Some helpful material is available in works such as R. Devreesse, u u u u u u (Paris: Klincksieck, 1954). \16/ For an introductory survey of the developments in post-classical Greek (with extensive bibliography) see R. Browning, u u u u (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1969). More extensive, but also somewhat outdated material is available in A. N. Jannaris, u u u u...u u u u u u u u (London: MacMillan, 1897). \17/ Turner also mentions sEldE with accusative of indirect object" in "Recension A" as possible but relatively ""more doubtfuls evidence of Semitic/Hebraic influence on T Abr; he notes that in Greek, ""verbs of saying...often govern a direct object" (p.68), but that is not par- ticularly 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, u u u u u grec (du Is au s>u u) (Paris: Champion, 1930), esp. 37f, l62ff, 185-89; also Browning, u, 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 Christi- anity'' in vol. 3 of u, u u u u u, ed. J. Neusner (M. Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 174-199. [[end of notes]]