Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins No. 28.1, September 25, 1990 Topic for 1990-91: Christian Appropriation and Adaptations of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha Chairpersons for the year: Robert Kraft and Benjamin Wright Secretary for the year: David Rech Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, August 1998, based on cassette tape recording. Meeting of September 1990 Robert Kraft, University of Pennsylvania "Christian Use of Jewish Pseudepigrapha" (NOTE: This is just a brief summary of the main thrust of the presentation and discussion. The paper that was presented is available in published form, as are other essays that resulted from the presentations on this issue made at the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting in 1990. Given the availability of these more formal records, it was deemed rather superfluous to present a detailed record of the presentation at PSCO. For the fully published form of the paper and the related papers presented at the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting of 1990, see------PROVIDE BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION HERE-------). Kraft passed out a version of his paper on the Christian use of Jewish pseudepigrapha, which was scheduled for discussion at the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting in 1990 in New Orleans. The original version of the paper was delivered in 1976 at Duke University, though without a full footnote apparatus. Only a few of the paragraphs of the paper were actually read or summarized in the presentation at PSCO. The interest in the paper is how early Christianity used Jewish sources, which is one of Kraft's long-standing interests (exemplified already in Kraft's dissertation, which was on the use of Jewish sources in the ). One of the standard sources for the study of ancient Judaism that is often used by scholars is pseudepigrapha that is claimed to be of Jewish origin but has been copied, transmitted, adapted, and perhaps even originated by Christians. The preservation of this material by Christians rather than Jews raises the methodological problem of how one knows whether or not one of these texts or the material in these texts is authentically Jewish and from the period that one wants to study. Thus the dominant theme in the paper is calling scholars to be more rigorous in dealing with the origin and the history of the transmission of these texts in order to determine criteria by which these texts can be used for evidence for ancient Judaism. The texts must first be examined for what they tell about Christian use of the texts. One of the most important precedents for Kraft's work is Marinus de Jonge's work on the , which called attention to the difficulties in distinguishing between the Christian and Jewish use of the texts. Another example is the work of M. R. James on <5 Ezra>. James argued that the French recension of the Latin text of <5 Ezra> has less overtly Christian material in it than the Spanish recension only because it was an originally Christian document that was made to appear more Jewish than was done in the case of the Spanish recension, which is actually representative of an older version. The question in cases such as this is what historical and social context might have inspired this attempt to make a text look more Jewish. Consideration of the potential Christian influence on a potentially Jewish text that was preserved by Christians would require some type of research in the periods, historical contexts, and communities of the later Christian traditions themselves (in the Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval periods of transmission). In addition, the possible impact of contemporary Jews on the Christians in these later periods must also be considered. The use of "Jew" and "Christian" is itself often a problematic distinction, especially in dealing with texts that may have had their origin in communities that may have identified themselves with neither of these terms or may have identified themselves somewhere in between (or in both of) these communities. No less problematic was the tendency of scholars in the late 1800s and early 1900s to attempt to identify whole documents or specific portions of documents as products of groups of known identity, such as the Essenes, the Pharisees, or some other group. Parallels to New Testament writings were often used by M. R. James to show that a work was Christian, while Louis Ginzberg used parallels with rabbinic texts to show that a work was Jewish. This kind of parallelomania (to use Samuel Sandmel's term) is no longer common in scholarship. The growing recognition of diversity in both ancient Judaism and early Christianity has made us aware that ideas found in the New Testament, Rabbinic literature, or some other text did not necessarily originate in that text or even in the type of religious community that produced it. Harnack and others enunciated the view that if a text from the pseudepigraphic literature did not have explicitly Christian ideas in it, then it must be Jewish. But the opposite procedure is much more justifiable: If a text has been preserved by Christians but has nothing that certainly requires it to be Jewish, then it should be regarded as Christian. F. C. Burkitt in fact long ago suggested that an approach such as this may indeed provide a more solid methodology. Thus considerations about the Christian use of so-called Jewish pseudepigraphic texts must be taken much more seriously. E.g., texts were often read, modified, or created in the context of Christian festal celebrations associated with certain saints and religious figures in the hagiographic tradition. The lack of preserved versions of many of the texts in Greek and the reasons for preserving the texts in Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and other linguistic traditions are themselves issues that need to be explained. DISCUSSION Ann Matter mentioned that numerous manuscripts of various pseudepigrapha still remain unstudied in various Medieval collections of European libraries. Vasiliki Limberis mentioned that it seems that there was a major shift in the methodology of text criticism and transmission of manuscripts at about the time of Epiphanius. This would require a rather different treatment of manuscripts and texts preserved in versions from before and after this period. The issue of identifying the religious provenance of a text was discussed extensively. Some of the points that emerged among the various discussants included the following: Just because a text is Christian does not mean it necessarily will have a reference to the incarnation or some other explicitly Christian idea. The text may seem completely Jewish and yet be a purely Christian product. On the other hand, a Jewish text used by Christians may have been interpreted allegorically or used in some other way that did not necessitate interpolation of overtly Christian ideas. John Gager pointed out that Philo is a prime example of another problem: Is a text that is read and used by Christians while forgotten by Jews in fact certifiably not Christian? Philo, for example, has a lot of material that even seems trinitarian and otherwise more Christian than a lot of Christian material. John Reumann pointed out some statements in the paper (especially the statement in the paper that the pseudepigrapha should be used to give us information about Christianity and its diversity) might suggest that some of the documents may even be both Jewish and Christian; i.e., written by Jews but used by Christians and including glosses and interpolations from both Jews and Christians, which may be the only parts of the document that can be identified as distinctively Jewish or distinctively Christian. ///END OF DOCUMENT 28.1/// Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins No. 28.2, November 29, 1990 Topic for 1990-91: Christian Appropriation and Adaptations of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha Chairpersons for the year: Robert Kraft and Benjamin Wright Secretary for the year: David Rech Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, August 1998, based on cassette tape recording. Meeting of September 1990 William Adler, North Carolina State University "Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Greek and Syriac Byzantine Chronographers" Chronography was an important branch of history writing in antiquity, especially among Christians. The universal chronicles was even probably one of the dominant vehicles for history writing up until the Byzantine period. This is exemplified in the works of Julius Africanus, the father of the Christian universal chronicle, and Eusebius, the author of the and an equally important universal chronicle, which unfortunately survives only in Greek fragments. Many other examples could be cited, including fragments of chronographic writing that are preserved in works that may not themselves be universal chronicles in the strict sense; e.g., the chronographic portions in Tatian's work against the Greeks; Clement's Stromata Book 1; Theophilus of Antioch's Epistle; Hippolytus of Rome. Universal chronicles were also popular in the Byzantine period itself, though often they are redundant and copied directly from one another. The major one is that of George Syncellus, who preserves material from Julius Africanus. Chronography continued to be a major discipline through the Medieval period and even later up into the Renaissance. In fact Edward Gibbon himself wrestles with some of the same questions. Joseph Scaliger makes a major break with the tradition but still relies heavily upon it. One of the reasons why the chronographers were so important to Scaliger and other early modern scholars is that the chronographers preserved relatively esoteric sources that were often not preserved elsewhere. George Syncellus's work, for example, includes a treasure of excerpts from otherwise unknown works, such as that of the Babylonian historian Berossus. Before Scaliger uncovered the Paris manuscript of Syncellus, very little was known about Berossus and what was known was based on a forgery of Berossus by Annius, who also forged material purportedly from Manetho. See the work of Anthony Grafton on this. The chronographers thus may not be good historians, but they are excellent sources of excerpts. These include excerpts from Jewish pseudepigrapha. Scaliger's publication of excerpts from George Syncellus included two large excerpts from <1 Enoch>, which attracted great attention because many believed it was actually written before the flood (though Scaliger himself recognized that <1 Enoch> was a Jewish pseudepigraphon). The publication also included excerpts from and other works. Scaliger believed that Syncellus was rather stupid and a mere copyist of a lost work of Eusebius. The popularity of the chronographers has somewhat declined since Scaliger's time because of other sources that have since become available (e.g., the Ethiopic version of <1 Enoch>). The work of Syncellus and other chronographers was important mainly for its value as repositories of excerpts of Jewish texts and other sources. Rarely did scholars ask what Syncellus actually did with these texts or how he had come to know these texts. E.g., Did he know them through a mediator or directly? It turns out that the answer to this question is, through a mediator. Adler's work is thus that first attempt to produce a chart tracing the lines of transmission through which the pseudepigraphic material came to Syncellus and other chronographers. Some other secondary sources do exist, however, which are valuable in this study. Gelzer's work on Sextus Julius Africanus and Byzantine Chronography has a chapter on the remains of the apocrypha in Byzantine chronographers. H. Rönsch, , includes a collection of citations from in the chronographers. Rönsch is to be preferred over A.-M. Denis, because Denis copies Rönsch but made numerous errors in the process. But Rönsch's list is not complete. Syncellus preserves fragments of <1 Enoch> and . He knows under the names "Little Genesis" () and "Apocalypse of Moses." He also seems to know what seems to be an expanded version of 2 under the title "Life of Adam," which was probably the work known from the Byzantine period as the "Testament(s) of the Protoplasts," because another chronicler named "Hiero" cites a work under this name that seems to be identical to the "Life of Adam." Syncellus seems to have derived his knowledge of pseudepigraphic sources through mediators rather than firsthand. He says that he learned them from "certain [ecclesiastical] historians" and also refers to two Alexandrian monks of the fifth century, Panadorus and Annianus, who used <1 Enoch> and . He knows the fragments that he does from them but felt that their own interpretations of the fragments were heretical. Gelzer believed that Annianus used Panadorus, whose work was larger, and that Annianus made an epitome of it according to standards of orthodoxy in his time, and that Syncellus used both works. But Adler suggests that Syncellus only knows excerpts from both works in the forms of epitomes of both works that included fragments of the pseudepigrapha and were made in the seventh century. Thus Syncellus knows , <1 Enoch>, the , and the . All of theses sources cluster around the pre-Abrahamic period. This suggests that Syncellus's interest was in the period before Abraham. Sources dependent on Syncellus include John Zoneros, Michael Glycus, George Cedranus, and George the Monk. Cedranus uses Syncellus's work but seems to know an expanded version of that may be older than Syncellus, possibly going back to an earlier source. Syriac works include most importantly Michael the Great (13th century Syriac), which is now in a French edition. This includes a small fragment of <1 Enoch> studied by Sebastian Brock ( 1968), who argues that Syncellus's version shares a common source with the version used by Michae the Great. This was in fact already argued by Gelzer, who notes Michael the Great says his source is Annianus the monk. In addition, Michael knows , also from Annianus. Michael's use of Annianus may have been mediated through Jacob of Edessa, who had a school of chronography in Edessa. Jacob had defended the authority of <1 Enoch> and often made quotes from . Bar Hebraeus did an epitome of Michael the Great's texts of <1 Enoch> and . The anonymous chronicle for the year 1234 has extensive and faithful citations of in Syriac. Tisserant suggested that this was known from a Hebrew original, but the influence of the LXX and other features in it seems to show that its origins were in a Greek source, though one not subjected to a Byzantine epitome. (The direction of transmission could go in a variety of directions, however. Syncellus, for example, often cites material as from Josephus, even when he appears to know that it comes from ). The Syriac material, like that in Syncellus, thus appears to represent a tradition ultimately derived from the kind of work found in Annianus and Panadorus of Alexandria. An independent Syriac tradition is known, however, which refers to the Testament of the Protoplasts as cited by an otherwise unknown chronographer named Hiero, whose work is mentioned by Anastasius of Sinai and, through Anastasius, in the work of Michael Glycus. Julius Africanus is important because he is so early (third century). His influence may have extended through an epitome made in the seventh century (as Gelzer argued), which may be the source of the fragments of cited in the four texts that Adler calls the "Logothete Chronicles," (whose tenth-century author or major figure identifies himself in one place as Simeon Logothetes and Teacher). The Logothete Chronicles call either "Holy Scripture," "Little Genesis," or just quote it in an abbreviated paraphrase. Reasons for attributing the material to an epitome of Africanus include: First, the excerpts in the Logothete chronicles correspond with the excerpts from Africanus in Syncellus. Second, the chronological emendations of the pseudepigraphic citations correspond to what we know about Africanus's chronicle, since he followed a unique way of resolving chronological difficulties that was rejected by other chronographers (e.g., Africanus's way of dating the period up to Abraham). The stele of the watchers discovered after the flood in is said to be discovered by Cainan in the Ethiopic manuscript tradition of and the LXX. But Cainan is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and a post-diluvian Cainan is also not mentioned in the Logothete chronicles or in Africanus, which suggests the dependence of the Logothete Chronicles on a Hebrew tradition or a type of text of that had no reference to Cainan. Such a text would be typical of a product of the emendation method of Africanus, who follows the Hebrew tradition at this point with its lack of any reference to Cainan. Thus the Logothete Chronicles suggest that they include paraphrases of a very early stage in the transmission of . It would be useful to have this material collected together. The last line of transmission is Epiphanius (Panarion), who has numerous quotes from and in one place calls it rather than Little Genesis. See Adler's forthcoming or recent article in , which studies these fragments of . These probably come from a chronicle which circulated under the name of Eusebius, which included fragments from the chronicle of Julius Africanus updated from the chronicle of Eusebius in the fourth century, which is the form known by Epiphanius. This work is also attested in the sixth century Antiochian chronicle of John Malalas. Some of these fragments are also found in the Paschal Chronicle. Eusebius is an influence on Syncellus and others. Thus in the Logothete Chronicles there are citations from that include a chronological notice or suggestion of emendation based on the chronology of Eusebius's chronicle, which also influenced Syncellus and other chronographers. But Eusebius himself does not quote the pseudepigrapha, as demonstrated in the fact that the Armenian text of fragments of Eusebius's chronicle and Jerome's translation of book 2 do not include fragments of the pseudepigrapha. So the sources for the fragments of pseudepigrapha quoted in the later chronographers must be elsewhere. But Eusebius's chronicle provided an influential chronological arrangement that shaped nearly all later chronographic traditions. Only the Logothete chronicles closely follow Africanus's chronological arrangement, though this order was rejected by others because it follows Hebrew chronology so closely and was thus viewed as Judaizing. The Logothete Chronicles also follow what seems to be an older form of the text of the pseudepigrapha, though in certain rare cases there is evidence of contamination from Eusebius's chronicle. The Cave of Treasures is found in Syriac and Arabic, though probably composed in Syriac. The anonymous chronicle from 1234 conflates citations from with material from the Cave of Treasures, but since there is no evidence of a Greek original and it seems that the Cave of Treasures was an indigenous Syriac work, it was omitted from discussion of the Jewish pseudepigrapha. The next question is then, What did the chronographers do with this material? Why were they interested in it? The reason is that and other sources were used as chronicle material themselves, e.g., for the purposes of dating and for reconstructing what history was like, especially in the period of archaic history (the period before Abraham). One of the first things that strikes one about the Byzantine Chronicles and Africanus's chronicles is the broad scope of the works. E.g., Africanus begins with Adam and goes up to his time; the Byzantine chronicles are even more grandiose and begin with the creation. This is quite different from Greek chroniclers, who were much more conservative about what they felt they could learn about the past. E.g., the Hellenistic chronographer Eratosthenes felt that one could not date anything before the First Olympiad (ca. 776 BCE) and that anything before the Trojan War was unknowable (because mythical) and therefore undatable. The Roman Varro likewise insists that the historical period for chroniclers begins with the First Olympiad; before that, back to the flood of Ogyges, is mythical; and before that is unknowable and not worth talking about at all; it is simply to be given over to poets and philosophers, not historians. This attitude must be contrasted with Jewish and Christian attitudes. Jews and Christians agreed that Greek history could indeed not be known in the earlier periods because Greek sources were unreliable and not preserved. But Jews and Christians insisted that, in contrast to traditions about Greek history, Jewish and Christian traditions about the archaic past had preserved an accurate and datable record of the past as far back as Adam. This seems to have been a standard element of Hellenistic propaganda shared by other cultures of the Near East, including Babylonian and Egyptian traditions. Starting in the third century BCE there appears to have been a reaction against the arrogance of Greek historians, in which indigenous peoples argued that Greeks knew nothing about the past and therefore should not be believed, since indigenous records were better and much older. Berossus the Babylonian, for example, claims to have records for a Babylonian tradition of history that extends back about one million years (the pre-flood period alone being 432,000 years). Berossus attacks the Greeks and holds up his own tradition as much better equipped for writing a universal history. The same kind of rhetoric appears in Egyptian works, Josephus, and later Christian chroniclers. Christian chroniclers begin to do this within the apologetic tradition, dating Moses as early as Ogyges and Inachus because for Varro and others this was the beginning of the mythical period of history; i.e., Christians claimed to have datable history for a period in which Greek history was still shrouded in myth. In an ongoing attempt to develop anti-Greek propaganda to respond to Greek attacks against Christians (e.g., for Christian ignorance of the creation of the universe), Christians increasingly tried to press the frontier of their chronography into earlier periods. Christians pointed out that the Greeks themselves admitted that their own traditions about the origins and earliest phases of the world were nothing but myths, while Christians claimed that they themselves had documents and reliable records about these periods. The second reason why Africanus and other chronographers tried to push back their work into earlier periods was that Christian chronography was apocalyptic and millennial in its basis. Africanus wanted to periodize world history into periods of 1,000 years beginning with Adam, resulting in a world history of 6,000 years. To do this, one had to develop a history that would explain the chronology of events that had occurred in the archaic past beginning with creation. Thus both apologetic and apocalyptic motives contributed to the interest in archaic history. In the fourth century there seems to have been a crisis within Christian chronography, initiated not by pagans but by Christians themselves. First of all, many Christians doubted the apocalyptic use of Christian chronography, e.g., Lactantius refers to them and Eusebius was one of them. The treatment of archaic history was the one place where this crisis manifested itself the most. Christian chronographers increasingly had to recognize that their own traditions were problematic, just as were those of the Greeks; e.g., various recensions of Genesis differed from one another in chronology (LXX, Hebrew, and Samaritan Pentateuch differ radically). In addition, though Christian chronographers liked to cite Berossus and Manetho in their rhetoric against the Greeks, they were forced to recognize that Berossus and Manetho could not always be reconciled with biblical tradition (a problem discussed in Anthony Grafton's book on Scaliger). Other problems include the dating of Methuselah, whose lifespan in the LXX implies that he survived the flood. Africanus was not willing to give up the millennial outline, though he recognized the problems in Genesis. Eusebius, however, was subversive of the whole enterprise of the chronography of archaic history. He set out to undermine the millennial approach by multiplying the problems in the accounts of archaic history so that chronological certitude became impossible. It is Eusebius's new direction that serves as the foundation for later use of the pseudepigrapha. Eusebius said that the dating of any event before Adam's expulsion from paradise cannot be known; it is just an allegory, as Origen said. Eusebius then says that the next period must be based on the LXX, but then subverts it by drawing in chronology from the Hebrew Bible, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and information supplied by Jewish sources. So he seems to be trying to introduce a concession of uncertainty to cast doubt on the whole apocalyptic millennial schema. Vasiliki Limberis pointed out that Eusebius also has a triumphalist theological agenda, however, which suggested that the millennium had arrived, and she suggested that the later chronographers return to the chronological interests of Africanus. Adler agreed that Eusebius had certain theological interests and that the triumphalist motive may have indeed conditioned a reworking of chronology, but he was not willing to accept this view entirely. Adler continued that Eusebius felt that Abraham marks the period from which events can be dated, while events before Abraham should be left out of considerations in dating. Eusebius's views created a crisis in chronography. Eusebius's chronicle was widely read, translated, and disseminated. It was also viciously attacked, especially in the East. By the end of the fifth century it was the object of extensive criticisms by other chroniclers. Diodor of Tarsus wrote a work tearing it apart. In fifth-century Alexandria, the monks Panadorus and Annianus apparently were hostile to what Eusebius was doing. Panadorus tried to solve all the problems that Eusebius claimed were insoluble. It is at this point that the pseudepigrapha becomes important, because the pseudepigrapha played a major role in this process. Eusebius quotes Africanus's statement that before the First Olympiad Greek history is a mess, so Eusebius certainly knows the view put forth by Eratosthenes and other Greek chronographers. Yet he rejects the attempt at one-upmanship put forth by Africanus in Africanus's use of this for apologetic purposes. Eusebius, the preeminent apologist in the beginning of the fourth century, had every reason to date Moses as early as possible. Yet he says in the beginning of the chronological canons, "All of my predecessors (Africanus, Tatian, Clement) date Moses as a contemporary of Inachus and Ogyges. I reject them all and I date Moses later." This is radical, because it undermines the whole foundation of Jewish and Christian apologetic, which is based on dating Moses earlier. He acknowledges that even Porphyry, the arch-enemy of the church who had every reason to date Moses late, dates Moses even earlier than Ogyges. But Eusebius simply says that he has done independent research and dates Moses later. His motive is unclear; perhaps he wanted to commend his work to a Greek audience as objective scholarship. For whatever reason, he was not encumbered by the ideological uses of chronography. John Gager suggested that perhaps in the time of Constantine, Eusebius no longer felt the need to hang his apologetic on the slender reed of chronology; Adler agreed that this may be possible. Eusebius presents an interesting example of a sort of radical conservatism, walking a tightrope between two extremes. Another discussant pointed out that Bede does a similar thing in the eighth century, from his perspective the goal being to correct what was wrong. Adler agreed that Eusebius and others did indeed recognize the many chronological problems in Genesis and other texts related to chronology. Robert Kraft mentioned that Eusebius also knew Origen's Hexapla, which points out many of these problems, and Eusebius also probably knew through Origen that Philo had already recognized that dating in the genealogies from before Abraham was exceedingly problematic, a point that Philo used to free himself from a literal interpretation of the earlier period. On these points Adler agreed, noting that Eusebius stands strictly within the same tradition of Alexandrian exegesis inspired by Philo and exemplified chiefly in Origen. Kraft noted that disputes between Africanus and Origen may have also contributed to Eusebius's disagreement with Africanus, but Adler noted that Eusebius is usually still respectful even when he disagrees with Africanus and often avoids using his name when he disagrees with him. Africanus was still held in high regard in the fourth century, so it would not have been in Eusebius's best interest to attack Africanus by name. Panadorus and Annianus use the pseudepigrapha, in most cases, to resolve the problems raised by Eusebius. E.g., Eusebius had pointed out that the period from Adam's creation to his expulsion from the garden cannot be dated because no one knows about that period. Panadorus argues in response that the dating of this period is quite clear from . Questions such as how long Adam spent in Paradise and how long it took to name the animals had been raised by Eusebius, and Panadorus argues in response that gives quite clear answers to these questions. There must have been whole schools of chronology that developed around different solutions proposed for these problems; e.g., some accept the view of John Chrysostom who, left Adam in paradise for only one day; others followed ; and others took other approaches. The book of <1 Enoch> was introduced to resolve another question that had plagued chronographers, which was how to reconcile the chronologies of Berossus and Manetho with Genesis. Panadorus proposed that no one knew how to reckon time accurately in these early periods. Hence Berossus's ten kings before the flood who ruled for at total of 432,000 years was dismissed by Panadorus as ridiculous and indicated that something was wrong with the way that time was reckoned. The book of <1 Enoch>, however, demonstrated that Enoch was the first to learn about the proper reckoning of time. Thus Panadorus suggests that when the Watchers had relations with women, they revealed to them how to reckon time, but it was demonic and half understood, so it was garbled and the Babylonians mistakenly assumed that a day was a year. Thus Berossus's 432,000 years could be divided by 365 1/4 to result in the correct number of years. This resulted with a number [1183 years] that was much more reasonable and could be used for dating the fall of the watchers and Babylonian history. Enoch, however, had gotten the number of years right in the first place. Panadorus's theory continued to be used for centuries, even by contemporaries of Scaliger, though it was rejected by Scaliger. Syncellus also rejected it, because he discounted the chronology of Babylonian history before the flood as worthless. Thus in the case of and <1 Enoch>, the pseudepigrapha were used to resolve chronological problems in archaic history. Another way in which <1 Enoch> was used in the chronographic tradition was in the euhemerizing use of the Book of the Watchers. The Watchers were identified not as demonic fallen angels, but as the first kings of Babylon and Egypt. Thus <1 Enoch> was demythologized in the same way as Hesiod and Homer were in Greek tradition. Later Byzantine chronographers such as Michael Glycus reject much of the imaginative use of the pseudepigrapha but often cite the pseudepigraphic texts, either just to dismiss them or simply to parade their knowledge of these sources. Thus much of the use of the sources in the fifth century was a direct response to a crisis initiated by Eusebius. Much more difficult is understanding why Africanus used pseudepigraphic sources, but his interest was probably apocalyptic and also motivated by his interest in the origins of culture and civilization. Both of these motives would explain Africanus's use of and <1 Enoch>. DISCUSSION Eusebius's opposition to Africanus may be influenced by his opposition to chiliasm, though he never explicitly attacks Africanus on this in the way he does Papias (whom he dismisses as stupid) or a chronicler in the persecutions of Severus (whom Eusebius psychologized as mentally disturbed as a result of the intensity of the persecution). But the connection between Christian apocalypticism and Christian interest in Jewish apocalyptic pseudepigrapha is not as clear as might be expected. Tertullian, for example, is a Montanist and interested in eschatology, but cites <1 Enoch> not for its apocalyptic elements, but for its implications for women. Eusebius's treatment of Gaius of Rome is indicative of his craftiness; he notes that Gaius attributed the Apocalypse of John to Cerinthus, but does not mention that Gaius also attributed the Gospel of John to Cerinthus (a fact known from Syriac sources). Hippolytus even accuses Gaius of being a heretic, partly in respect to these issues, but Eusebius did not mention this. Daniel 9 was at the root of much of this apocalyptic speculation. Africanus, however, rejects the parts of Daniel not found in Hebrew and also uses Jewish chronology in his rejection of certain other elements of the LXX tradition, though he does follow the LXX for the period before the flood. This raises the question of what text of the LXX he might have known. Africanus often is open-minded to esoteric sources, but rejects the statements about archaic history in the Babylonian and Egyptian sources as nonsense. George Syncellus does have theories about the proper way to use pseudepigraphic texts. He says when he quotes from <1 Enoch> that he recognizes that some feel that <1 Enoch> is not authoritative (which he also says about ), but that it is certainly closer to Genesis than Berossus and Manetho, and we chronographers have been using them. He also says that he is only going to use <1 Enoch> selectively, because the whole would lead astray his readers. He admits that apocryphal books have been polluted by Jews and heretics (especially the Manichees), but notes that Paul cites apocryphal books. Thus he suggests that apocryphal books have certain standing, but he warns his readers that in certain places these works are utterly ridiculous and mythological, so he will protect his readers by not exposing his readers to them. Jacob of Edessa's letter mentioned above says that although Athanasius condemns the use of <1 Enoch>, it can and should be used selectively. Africanus's surviving letters sometimes refer to as "Holy Scripture" and many are not attributed at all. Bob Kraft pointed out that in the period after Athanasius the use of non-canonical works is increasingly problematic, unlike earlier periods in which the status of various works was disputed. Adler pointed out that the drive to overcome the problems raised by Eusebius seems to have been enough to overcome scruples about using non-canonical works. Syncellus's principles for excerpting texts from Jewish pseudepigraphic works are derived from Panadorus's interests, but Syncellus himself probably did not actually read the whole of any of these works. He seems to have relied on epitomes and excerpts already made by Panadorus and Annianus. In addition, he really has no clear intrinsic reason for using <1 Enoch>, because he rejects the theory of Panadorus that used <1 Enoch> to reconcile the biblical account with Berossus; he dismisses Berossus and Egyptian history for the period from before the flood out of hand and says it is irrelevant. Syncellus says that <1 Enoch> was used simply because it was similar to Scripture, but he seems to quote <1 Enoch>, Manetho, Berossus, and the other sources just to show off his knowledge. Thus even though he rejects the Babylonian and Egyptian material in Berossus and Manetho for the archaic period, he quotes them "to refute them and lest my work seem incomplete." Panadorus and Annianus set out to write a sort of corrected version of Eusebius's chronology that would solve the problems Eusebius had raised. Panadorus had numerous and strong objections to what Eusebius had done, especially in primordial history. Syncellus gives portions of Panadorus's new work, but rejects a lot of its perspectives and instead follows the older Eusebian views in many cases. For example, Syncellus rejects the Babylonian antiquities and does so even more strongly than Eusebius did. Panadorus in the fifth century was trying to respond to pagan criticisms of Christianity that used Greek, Egyptian, and Babylonian sources. Syncellus lives in a different world and cannot even understand Panadorus's concern to synchronize biblical traditions with the sources formerly used in Panadorus's time against Christians. Thus Syncellus simply dismisses these other sources out of hand. When Scaliger brought the Babylonian and Egyptian sources back to the attention of the west, however, the problem of synchronizing them with biblical accounts came back with a vengeance, as Anthony Grafton has described in an article in 1975. Joseph Scaliger, a 16th century polymath in the Netherlands and later in France, who started as a classicist and became especially known for revealing forgeries and for his work on chronology, introduced the idea of pre-Adamite human beings so that Babylonian history would not have to be forced into the procrustean bed of Genesis. Scaliger is thus the one who argued that one needs to just cut the knot and let Babylonian traditions go in their own direction. Eusebius's late dating of Moses was rejected by Byzantine chroniclers and viciously attacked by Syncellus. Eusebius originally had said in his prologue that he would show that Moses was earlier than the Greek gods, major events, and pagan writers, perhaps merely rehearsing the expected statements of the apologetic tradition, but then in the actual treatment of the material he dates Moses later than many of these things. Syncellus criticizes Eusebius strongly for this. Syncellus himself seems to reiterate many of the typical themes of the Christian apologetic tradition, but his arguments are almost certainly derived from someone else. The transmission of the pseudepigraphic texts seems to become increasingly conservative over time because of their use in the form of stock selections to provide stock answers to stock problems. Michael Glycus, at the end of the chronographic tradition, quotes the book of concerning the time that Adam spent in paradise, saying that he doesn't know where it was written or who wrote it, but that one should reject its view and instead follow John Chrysostom's view--yet he still quotes the text. The chronographers are hesitant to depart from their predecessors, so it is doubtful that they have greatly modified the pseudepigraphic texts transmitted to them. The Logothete Chronicles, for example, do not seem to have done much to change what Africanus said; it seems to be a fairly neutral epitome and does not seem to distort the text on most occasions, though in a couple places it does seem to have garbled Africanus's text. ////END OF DOCUMENT 28.2/// Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins No. 28.3, January 31, 1991 Topic for 1990-91: Christian Appropriation and Adaptations of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha Chairpersons for the year: Robert Kraft and Benjamin Wright Secretary for the year: David Rech Minutes by Allen Kerkeslager, May 1999, based on cassette tape recording. Meeting of January 1991 Ephraim Isaac Institute of Semitic Studies, Princeton, NJ "Ethiopic Literature and Its Relationship to Pseudepigrapha in Ethiopic" Mastering Ethiopic literature requires a long period of introduction and study because of the vast materials in Ethiopic. For example, in a monastery in Eretria in the mountains Ephraim Isaac found a couple dozen manuscripts in a small room. But he then was shown a first and a second scriptorium, which together must have had a couple thousand manuscripts in them. This type of material is often very old because Ethiopic was one of the first seven languages to receive the Bible. The following presentation will deal with (1) the nature of Ethiopic religious literature; (2) Ethiopian church education as an avenue for transmission of the pseudepigrapha; (3) the importance of the pseudepigrapha in the Ethiopian church. 1. The Nature of Ethiopic Religious Literature History: The pre-biblical Sabean form of writing known from rock inscriptions was in the early Christian period transformed into a vocalized form of writing. This was probably the first Semitic language to vocalize, perhaps, as Chaim Rabin suggests, because of the influence of syllabic forms in India. This helped the translation of the Bible into Ethiopic in the period from the third to the fifth centuries CE, i.e., from the Ethiopian emperors Izana to Chaleb. Most of the biblical and apocryphal works were translated into Ethiopic during this period. Rock inscriptions from Izana's period often consist of quotations from the Bible. The other important period for the translation of Ethiopic literature is from the time of the emperor Amdession of the fourteenth century to Lemna-dingal of the sixteenth century. During this period extensive biblical commentaries were produced and apocryphal literature was retranslated. Canon: There is no "Holy Bible" in Ethiopic. Traditional Ethiopic literature speaks of "Holy Scriptures," but there is no canon in the Ethiopic church. As in Josephus, Philo, and Talmud Sanhedrin, there is a large collection of Jewish literary works, all of which were called "holy books." Ethiopian Christians often speak of the 81 books, which consist of the Hebrew Bible (22 or 24 books), the 27 New Testament books, and the pseudepigrapha. Enoch (i.e., 1 Enoch), Jubilees, Ascension of Isaiah, and other books are not distinguished in value from the Torah. As in Judaism, the Ethiopian church often includes manuscripts that group together the Torah into one manuscript, the Nevi'im into another manuscript, and the Kethuvim into another manuscript. But this is partly out of convenience. In one case Isaac did find a manuscript in Ethiopia that contained the entire Bible, but it required two men to carry. In printed editions, "the eight portions of Torah and the book of Jubilees" often appears. First Enoch is typically placed before the Torah in this sequence because Enoch supposedly wrote his book before Moses wrote his books. Traditional Ethiopian Christian priests do not distinguish the canonical value of Jubilees from that of Genesis. Ethiopian Jews would also not make such a distinction. 2. Ethiopic Education There are four levels of education in the Ethiopic church. The first level is known as "the Alphabet of the Apostles" and includes the study of the writings of the apostles and the Psalms of David. The second level is known as "Standing" because it includes training for priests so that they can "stand" before a congregation and lead chanting and the reading of liturgical works. The third level is called "Poetry." This level includes the study of grammar. It is also at this stage that the study of writing is introduced. Reading and writing are completely separate activities in Ethiopian education; one who can read often cannot write. The type of thinking involved in each is considered distinct. A similar distinction seems to have been maintained in some circles in antiquity. Thus in Mishnah Shabbat, writing is forbidden on the Sabbath but not reading. Graduates of the third level of Ethiopic education are responsible for copying manuscripts. The fourth level of education is called "the House of Books." In northern Ethiopia, monks often live in the schools that focus on this level and study the classical religious texts, including what western scholars call "pseudepigrapha." Jewish monks also sometimes live in these schools. The people who go to these schools are completely devoted to study, often widowers who were formerly copyists, or sometimes individuals who have taken a vow of celibacy. They have four ways of studying the texts. These are: (a) "row reading," i.e., simply reading the texts in Ge'ez; (b) "row translation," i.e., literal translation into Amharic; (c) translation that includes midrashic expansion and commentary similar to Targum Jonathan, quoting various commentators; (d) theological interpretation. 3. The Importance of the Pseudepigrapha in the Ethiopian Church The importance of the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) cannot be overemphasized. It is the most popular book in the Ethiopic church. The Enochic vision is an especially highly influential prototypical model in the Ethiopic church. Many of the unpublished Ethiopic hagiographies display the heavy influence of Enoch on the Ethiopic church. Ethiopic literature simply cannot be understood without first understanding Enoch. This has been quickly discovered, for example, by both early and more recent Western Christian missionaries who have debated with Ethiopian Christians. Ethiopian Christians frequently include quotations from and references to Enoch in their arguments. The strong emphasis on good action as a prerequisite to salvation is a result of the influence of Enoch. Enoch is often cited by Ethiopian Christians to justify their traditional Ethiopian emphasis on the need for both "faith and good action" for salvation. The numerous available commentaries on Enoch, which are often ignored by western scholars because of their use of both Ge'ez and Amharic, often reflect this emphasis. In some cases good action is seen as the method to obtain salvation. Faith is often pictured merely as the aid to producing good action. Enoch is thus important for (a) theology; and (b) a model for literary style. But it is also important for (c) the Ethiopian calendar. This last is suggested in Otto Neugebauer's book on Ethiopic astronomy, which was produced with the assistance of Ephraim Isaac himself. The Ethiopian church does not actually follow the Enochic calendar, according to Neugebauer, but has preserved the Jewish Hellenistic calendar that was used in ancient Alexandria. Commentaries on Enoch are generally in Amharic. But the British Museum has a commentary in Ge'ez on a fifteenth century manuscript. In a commentary from a couple hundred years ago is the statement that Adam ate and brought death, while Enoch abstained from eating and entered heaven; therefore Adam represents death and Enoch represents resurrection. From these comments on the first two words of the Book of Enoch the commentator infers that Enoch is a prototypical model of good works that should be imitated. The commentator continues that Enoch is among the Scriptures even though some do not include it. The commentator bases his conclusion on an appeal to the tradition that the apostles gave a list of scriptural books to Clement, noting that in this list many books were explicitly listed while Enoch was only listed implicitly. There are now about 80 available manuscripts of Enoch. Discussion [Note: For the sake of coherence and elimination of redundancy, this summary of the discussion of the presentation radically reorganizes the actual sequence of the discussion]. The discussion focused especially on the role of Judaism in the formation of Ethiopian Christianity and the transmission of the pseudepigrapha. Isaac noted that the relationship of Judaism to Christianity in Ethiopia has been recognized by outsiders for over 1000 years. Ethiopian Christianity is a Judaizing Christianity. It requires that male children be circumcised. Newborn female children are baptized on the 80th day after the purification of the mother after birth, while male children are baptized on the 40th day. Pork, shellfish, and the sinew of meat are forbidden foods. Churches are built like temples, with four gates and a holy of holies in which are copies of the tables of Moses. The inclusion of copies of the tables of Moses in the churches is based on an Ethiopian legend concerning the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. The queen was beautiful and Solomon fell in love with her. To get her to have sex with him, Solomon contrived a plan that began with making her promise not to take anything from his house. The night before she was to return to her own land, he fed her a meal of very spicy food. The spicy food made her thirsty in the middle of the night, so she drank from a golden goblet that was beside a jar of water cunningly placed near the bed of Solomon himself, who was only feigning sleep. Based on this violation of her promise, Solomon forced her to come to bed with him. During the night, a son was conceived and this son returned as an adult to visit Solomon. This son was Solomon's firstborn, so he wanted to make him king. But the son wanted to go back to his own country. Solomon then ordered all the Israelites to follow suit by sending their own firstborn sons to Ethiopia. The firstborn son of the high priest also had to go, but secretly took with him the tablets of Moses from the temple and left a mere copy in the place of the original tablets. Solomon discovered the substitution but could not catch the perpetrator in time to prevent the removal of the tablets from the land of Israel. The original tablets were then deposited in the building that later became the church of Axsum in northern Ethiopia. Only one person is allowed inside the church to see these tablets: a monk who is appointed for life and is replaced by a successor at his death. Every Ethiopian church has a replica of these tablets that is paraded on holy days. Ethiopian Jews affirm this tradition, arguing that their ancestors had lived in Ethiopia for centuries and that Ethiopian Christians were converts from among these early Jewish ancestors. There is probably some basis to the Ethiopian Jewish claims to predate the arrival of Christianity in Ethiopia. Early Ethiopian Christian emphasis on good works may suggest this, as does the presence of Jewish names in ancient inscriptions that were not common in Christian circles. Some scholars have suggested that the emphasis on good works only goes back to the fifteenth-century Christian emperor Zara Jacob, who decided that the nation should follow the laws of the Old Testament. But Judaizing elements are clearly evident long before this. Judaizing elements in Ethiopian Christianity were most likely derived from Christian Jews, who probably were among the first Christians in Ethiopia. This appears to have support from historical linguistics. H. J. Polotsky argued that loanwords in Ethiopic from Aramaic came not just from Christian Syriac, but also from Jewish Aramaic, which implies a Jewish origin for Ethiopian Christianity. Even the modern word for Friday, "erev," reflects a Jewish Semitic origin. The Ethiopic biblical translation is clearly based on the Greek of the Septuagint, but the Ethiopic often does not follow the Septuagint and instead seems to rely on a Semitic original. Biblical names, for example, typically follow the Greek form in the Ethiopic translation but in some cases (as in the case of the name of Eve) revert directly to a Semitic form without recourse to the Greek form of the name. This suggests that the translators may have known Jewish Aramaic and often directly appealed to it when translating the Bible, even though they used the Septuagint as a the basis of their translation. This implies that the translators were Jews or Jewish Christians. In contrast to the biblical text, which shows the use of a Greek original, nothing stands in the way of assuming an Aramaic original for the earliest Ethiopic translation of Enoch. Modern versions do seem to show the influence of a Greek Vorlage, but this does not require a Greek original for the earliest Ethiopic translation. Ben Wright noted that in a similar way Ben Sira seems to be based on a Hebrew original but often shows that the translators consulted the Greek version when they ran into problems. Isaac later in another part of the discussion reaffirmed that the use of a Greek original for Enoch is not necessary for explaining the Greek in Enoch. Greek loanwords were used in Ethiopic and could have entered into the translation of Enoch simply from customary daily usage. In the fourth century, for example, the emperor Izana's inscription was published in a trilingual form in Sabean, Greek, and Ethiopic. Votive inscriptions were also in Greek, so there were certainly Greek speakers in this period. Greek is also, as Lieberman has shown, present in Mishnaic Hebrew [even though no one would suggest that the Mishnah was based on a Greek translation]. Thus even though it is the standard view that Enoch and other pseudepigraphic works were translated into Ethiopic from Greek, Isaac does not really accept this view. Isaac continued by noting that there is an old theory that the Ethiopian church was influenced by the Coptic church. But there is very little evidence for this. For example, there are very few Coptic loanwords, but in contrast there are numerous Syriac and Jewish Aramaic loanwords. These probably entered into Ethiopic as a result of Christian missionaries who had come directly from Syria or by means of Christian missionaries and Jews who had come from Palestine and South Arabia into Ethiopia. Invasions and conquests from the north, northwest, and northeast probably drove Jews south into Arabia and from there into Ethiopia. The close relationship between Ethiopia and South Arabia is still evident in the traditions of Yemenite Judaism, which preserves old traditions that are often similar to those found in Ethiopian Judaism. Yemenite Jews and Jews of South Arabia in general maintain many traditions that probably extend back to the time of Jesus. Although only ca. 1-2% of Jews are Yemenites, ca. 30% of the Hebrew manuscripts in major libraries come from Yemenite Jews. Yemen and Ethiopia had especially close relations for much of antiquity. The preservation of one of the most pristine forms of Judaism among the Jews of Yemen in such close proximity to Ethiopia suggests that Ethiopian Judaism also is of considerable antiquity. Numerous articles have already been written that discuss the Jewish elements in the Ethiopian church. Jewish Aramaic linguistic elements suggest a direct origin from Judaism of an early period. This is also suggested by the place of Enoch in the Ethiopic church, which is not spurious as in other branches of Christianity. The importance of Enoch in Ethiopian Christianity suggests that Ethiopian Christianity developed before the increasingly negative evaluation of Enoch began to arise. The early origins of Ethiopic Christianity would probably be clarified more easily if the vast body of untouched evidence were better available and used by modern scholars. The NEH-funded microfilming project directed by Walter Harrelson has contributed to the Hill Monastic Library's collection of about 8,000 manuscripts on microfilm, but these were mostly from manuscripts in the Addis Ababa area. Nobody has yet microfilmed the manuscripts from many other churches scattered around Ethiopia, many of which are much older than those in Addis Ababa. For example, a missionary traveling in a remote region found a ninth-century Gospel manuscript. There are probably about a quarter of a million manuscripts in Ethiopian monasteries and churches throughout northern Ethiopia. Often these are located in old rock churches. The eleven rock churches in Dollabella are well known, but there are many other churches consisting of only single buildings located in areas difficult of access. Judaism before Islam probably would not have looked radically different from the Judaism of Ethiopian Jews. Surely it would have looked more like Ethiopian Judaism than the Talmudic Judaism of Poland. (Poland, of course, unlike Ethiopia, is not even mentioned in the Bible!). Ethiopian Jews had a Bible but not a Talmud because with the rise of Islam the Ethiopians closed the doors of the country to the outside world so that they could survive in a sea of Islam. Persons who entered the country, for example, were not permitted to leave. Some of the oral laws found in the Mishnah and many of the traditions found in the midrashim had entered the country before the Islamic period and thus are preserved in Ethiopic texts. But pre-Talmudic rabbinic traditions were not universally known even in Palestine, so one certainly cannot evaluate the "orthodoxy" or "Jewishness" of either Palestinian Judaism or Ethiopian Judaism based on the presence or absence of conformity to rabbinic traditions. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai would not have recognized the Talmud and even Rabbi Akiva would not have known of a written Mishnah. Even by the end of the sixth century, the Talmud as a written text was hardly known. The Talmud had hardly been completed before the rise of Islam forced Ethiopian Judaism into isolation, so the Talmudic traditions of the late Talmudic rabbis never entered Ethiopia at all. This is hardly unique, since few "Talmudic" Jews could own or even know all of the tractates of a complete Talmud. Even Rashi's disciples knew of a tractate of the Talmud (Tohoroth) that they complained of never having seen. In addition, the Talmudic traditions of the Geonim developed in a Muslim world, unlike Ethiopian Jewish traditions. Thus it is more likely that Ethiopian Judaism has preserved older Jewish traditions in their most pristine form. Ullendorff's theory is that Ethiopian Jews are the remnants of Ethiopian "mongrel" Jews who had intermarried with Ethiopians. Another view is that they were Jews who believed that they were the "true Israel." Some have argued that Ethiopian Jews are similar to the Karaites. The Karaites are too late, however. They were actually "Talmudic" Jews who turned their backs on rabbinic tradition. Ethiopian Judaism clearly did not develop only subsequent to Ethiopian Christianity because some of the ancient Ethiopian inscriptions come from the Jewish community. The kind of Judaism that developed in Ethiopia may have been introduced by Jews who were somehow related to the Essenes. This would explain the asceticism of Ethiopian Judaism, some of the passages in the Ethiopian Jewish liturgy that resemble certain passages in the Qumran texts, the use of Enoch and Jubilees, and other features of Ethiopian Judaism. Ethiopian Judaism was probably not the offshoot of a "disenchanted Judaism," however, but probably instead represented the areas of curiosity and interest shared as the heritage of all of Judaism in the Second Temple Period. The study of Yemenite Judaism might help to shed light on the early history of Ethiopian Judaism. The Yemenites of South Arabia had a large Jewish community and Yemen was off and on an Ethiopian province. In the sixth century Jews even obtained the hegemony over South Arabia. But in demonstration of the close relationship of this area to Ethiopia, the Ethiopian king and the emperor Justinian perceived this as a threat and joined together to subjugate South Arabia. This resulted in an influx of Jewish war captives into Ethiopia. Ethiopia and Yemen were essentially a cultural unit before the rise of Islam, much in the same way the Ionian coast of Asia Minor was a cultural unit with the Greek mainland during the classical period. Shlomo Marak has argued that the Hebrew of Yemenite Jews is the Hebrew of [Talmudic] Babylonia, but we do not know how this Hebrew relates to the earlier pre-Babylonian period. Yemenite Jewish traditions convincingly can be traced to the Geonic period. But whether the type of Judaism that they represent can be traced to the time of Jesus is much more difficult to determine, though it is quite possible. Given the close connections between Yemen and Ethiopia, this may have implications for the history of Ethiopian Judaism, which is often similar to Ethiopian Judaism. Like Yemenite Judaism, for example, Ethiopian Judaism emphasizes the importance of individual letters. Thus the Book of Light states that the Law of Moses was given with 232 letters, all of them are important, and none of them should drop. Ethiopian Jews, like Ethiopian Christians, use Jubilees, 4 Ezra, 4 Baruch [Paraleipomena Jeremiou], and other pseudepigraphic texts, including even the Ascension of Isaiah and other texts that have obvious Christian elements. The overtly Christian elements are in various ways simply cut out of consideration. Ethiopian Jews even use parts of the New Testament that resemble the Torah. ////////END OF FILE 28.3/////////