Editionen und Studien zum Testamentum Salomonis: Herausgegeben:Albrecht, Felix;Mitarbeit:Dochhorn, Jan 9783161624438, 9783161624445, 3161624432

Table of contents :
Cover
Titel
Vorwort
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Jan Dochhorn— Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica«
I. Editionen und Texttraditionen
Felix Albrecht — Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis (Teil A: Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148)
Tommaso Braccini — Un testimone negletto del Testamento di Salomone: Una nuova edizione dell’esorcismo salomonico contenuto nel manoscritto EBE 825, ff. 8v–12v
Jan Dochhorn — Testament Salomos B (ngr.) nach Athen, Εθνική Βιβλιοθήκη, gr 2011 (saec. 18), ff. 19–40
Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala — The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study
Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu — Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon in Christian Egypt: Judgments of Solomon and the Legend of Solomon and Thabor
Natia Mirotadze — King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition
II. Studien
Jan Dochhorn — The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks
Blake Jurgens — Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon
Matthew Goff — The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon
Jan Dochhorn — Warum das Testament Salomos wichtig ist: Ein Beitrag aus neutestamentlicher Sicht
Stellenregister
Handschriftenregister
Autorenregister
Sachregister
Liste der Autoren

Citation preview

Parabiblica Editiones et Studia Edited by / Herausgegeben von Felix Albrecht (Göttingen) · Christfried Böttrich (Greifswald) Jan Dochhorn (Durham) · Nils Arne Pedersen (Aarhus) Jacques van Ruiten (Groningen) ·Tobias Thum (München) Managing Editor / Geschäftsführender Herausgeber Jan Dochhorn

1

Editionen und Studien zum Testamentum Salomonis Herausgegeben von

Felix Albrecht unter Mitarbeit von

Jan Dochhorn

Mohr Siebeck

Felix Albrecht, geboren 1981; 2017 Promotion; Arbeitsstellenleiter des Langzeitvorhabens „Die Editio critica maior des griechischen Psalters“ an der Niedersächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. orcid.org/0000-0003-2511-6475 Jan Dochhorn, geboren 1968; 2003 Promotion; 2007–14 Associate Professor für Neues Testament in Aarhus; Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor für Neues Testament in Durham (Vereinigtes Königreich).

ISBN 978-3-16-162443-8 / eISBN 978-3-16-162444-5 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-162444-5 ISSN 2941-2609 / eISSN 2941-2617 (Parabiblica) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohrsiebeck.com Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlags unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für die Verbreitung, Vervielfältigung, Übersetzung und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Das Buch wurde von Felix Albrecht / SCHRIFT-BILDER.org, gesetzt, von Gulde Druck in Tübingen auf alterungsbeständiges Werkdruckpapier gedruckt und von der Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier gebunden. Die Verwendung der Schrifttype Titus Cyberbit Font für das Georgische erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Jost Gippert. Printed in Germany.

Vorwort Das Testamentum Salomonis (TestSal) erzählt die legendäre Geschichte von König Salomo, der unterstützt von Dämonen den Jerusalemer Tempel erbauen ließ. Alles beginnt damit, dass des Königs Lieblingsdiener vom Dämon Ornias befallen wird, woraufhin Salomo Gott um Hilfe bittet. Diese kommt in Gestalt des Erzengels Michael, der dem König einen magischen Siegelring reicht, welcher seinen Träger dazu befähigt, Dämonen zu rufen und zu binden. Salomo übergibt diesen Ring seinem leidenden Diener und trägt ihm auf, den Dämon zu binden und herbeizuführen. Es folgt Ornias Befragung und Bezwingung durch Salomo. Anschließend überlässt Salomo den Ring dem Dämon Ornias mit dem Auftrag, den Dämonenfürsten Beelzebul zu ihm zu bringen. Beelzebul wird bezwungen und gelobt, Salomo alle unreinen Geister vorzuführen. Salomo ruft einzelne Dämonen, befragt diese nach ihrem Namen, ihrem astrologischen Machtbereich und ihren dämonischen Aktivitäten. Schließlich entlockt er den Dämonen den Namen der ihnen zugeordneten Engel als Gegenmacht, bezwingt sie dadurch und macht sie für den Bau seines Tempels dienstbar. Am Ende wird geschildert, wie Salomo in Liebe zu einer Jebusiterin den Göttern Raphas und Moloch Tempel errichtet und damit von Gott abfällt. Zur Verortung der Grundschrift des Testamentum Salomonis werden in der Forschung mehrere Hypothesen vertreten, die sich allesamt mehr oder weniger an Chester Charlton McCown (1877–1958) orientieren:1 McCown datiert in der Einleitung seiner bislang als maßgeblich geltenden Edition des Testamentum Salomonis dessen Entstehung grob in den Zeitraum 100–400 n. Chr. und näherhin in das frühe 3. Jh. n. Chr. Seines Erachtens repräsentiere Rezension A die älteste Textform. Rezension B gehöre in das 4.–5. Jh. n. Chr., und Rezension C stamme aus dem 12.–13. Jh. n. Chr. Ein neuer, McCown unzugänglicher Textzeuge wird von mir im Rahmen des vorliegenden Bandes editorisch erschlossen (»Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis. Teil A: Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148«; Teil B soll zu gegebener Zeit folgen). Ein von Rezension A abhängendes Exzerpt, das eine Kompilation von Exorzismen enthält, die dem Testamentum Salomonis entnommen sind, bietet Tommaso Braccini (»Un testimone negletto del Testamento di Salomone. Una nuova edizione dell’esorcismo salomonico contenuto nel manoscritto EBE 825, ff. 8v–12v«). Eine neugriechische Version, die von Rezension B abhängt, hat Jan Dochhorn in einer deutschen Erstübersetzung erschlossen (»Testament Salomos B [ngr.] nach Athen, Εθνική Βιβλιοθήκη, gr. 2011 [saec. 18], ff. 19–40«). In einem weiteren Beitrag geht derselbe Forscher auf die Überlieferungsproblematik des Testamentum Chester Charlton McCown: The Testament of Solomon. Edited from Manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna. With Introduction (Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 9), Leipzig 1922; Peter Busch: Das Testament Salomos. Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kommentiert und in deutscher Erstübersetzung (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 153), Berlin u.a. 2006, 30, verortet das Testamentum Salomonis beispielsweise im Jerusalem des 4. Jhs. n. Chr.; vgl. dazu auch ders., Art. Testament Salomos, in: WiBiLex, erstellt: August 2019 (bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/54019), letzter Zugriff: 31.01.2023. 1

Felix Albrecht VI 

Salomonis ein (»The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks«). McCown verdanken wir die Scheidung der Überlieferung in jene drei Rezensionen. Der Optimismus, mit dem McCown nun aber meinte, hinter die Rezensionen zurückblicken zu können, ist verflogen: Zunächst bestehen erhebliche Zweifel daran, dass es McCown gelungen ist, mit seiner Edition den ältesten erreichbaren Text herzustellen. Stattdessen bietet er einen eklektischen Text, der mitunter kaum hinter die byzantinische Sprachgestalt zurückreicht. Immerhin gemahnt zur Vorsicht, dass an keiner Stelle der Überlieferung die alte, durchaus anzunehmende Majuskeltradition erkennbar wird. Das Verdienst McCowns besteht letztlich darin, dass er diese interessante Schrift der Forschung, auf breiterer handschriftlicher Grundlage als es seine Vorgänger vermochten, zugänglich gemacht, und dabei vor allem der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft als Quelle erschlossen hat.2 Der Neutestamentler McCown schildert einleitend zu seiner kritischen Edition von 1922, dass er die Anregung zur Beschäftigung mit dem Testamentum Salomonis während seiner Studien in Heidelberg von Adolf Deissmann (1866–1937) erhielt.3 Die Publikation in der von Hans Windisch (1881–1935) herausgegebenen Reihe »Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament« mag neben dem von McCown vertretenen terminus a quo 100 n. Chr. schließlich dazu beigetragen haben, dass Kurt und Barbara Aland in der Überarbeitung des Bauerschen Wörterbuchs zum Neuen Testament das Testamentum Salomonis eingehend (immerhin 420-mal) berücksichtigen.4 Das Testamentum Salomonis weist in seiner Grundschrift durchaus Nähe zum Neuen Testament auf. Ein Interesse der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft an der Schrift ist daher mehr als berechtigt. Dem geht Jan Dochhorn im vorliegenden Band in einem eigenen Beitrag nach (»Warum das Testament Salomos wichtig ist. Ein Beitrag aus neutestamentlicher Sicht«). Schon Wolf Wilhelm von Baudissin (1847–1926) meinte übrigens im Hinblick auf die Datierung McCowns: »Ein vielleicht anzunehmendes jüdisches Grundwerk könnte noch

Die editio critica McCowns weist bei allen Verdiensten eine Reihe von Schwachstellen auf, so dass deutlich wird, wie überholt diese Edition ist und dass eine kritische Neuedition des Testamentum Salomonis unter Berücksichtigung der neu hinzugetretenen Textzeugen unabdingbar bleibt. Der vorliegende Sammelband ist zugleich als Vorarbeit im Hinblick auf eine solche wünschens- und erstrebenswerte editio critica maior zu verstehen, die bestenfalls eine Synopse der Rezensionen umfassen sollte. Bis dahin aber müssen wir uns mit der Edition McCowns begnügen. 3 McCown: Testament (wie Anm. 1), vii–ix, bes. viii. 4 Walter Bauer u.a.: Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, Berlin u.a. 61988, vi–vii: »[…] Das Gleiche galt für den dritten Bereich, der hier vollständig zu erfassen war, die frühen neutestamentlichen Apokryphen. Hier war die Lage besonders schwierig, denn Bauer hatte sich (wieder in Nachfolge Preuschens) fast ausschließlich auf Preuschens Antilegomena und Klostermanns Ausgabe in den ›Kleinen Texten‹ gestützt, die modernen Funde und Ausgaben waren fast sämtlich unberücksichtigt geblieben. Natürlich kann darüber gestritten werden, ob und welche neutestamentlichen Apokryphen zu ›unserer Literatur‹ – wie Bauer zu sagen pflegte – gehören. Dazu müssen sie griechisch erhalten sein und aus der ersten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts stammen oder mindestens darauf zurückgehen. Aber selbst wo das strittig ist und die zweite Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts, ja vielleicht sogar der Anfang des 3. Jahrhunderts als Ursprungszeit in Betracht kommt, sollte doch kein Zweifel daran möglich sein, daß die neutestamentlichen Apokryphen schon wegen ihres Stoffes in die vordere Linie der für dieses Wörterbuch über das Neue Testament hinaus zugrundezulegenden Schriften gehören. Das ist in der 6. Auflage zu realisieren versucht worden […].« 2

Vorwort VII

älter sein.«5 In der Tat ist das Testamentum Salomonis auch für die Erforschung des (hellenistischen) Judentums von Bedeutung. Auf diesen Themenkomplex geht Matthew Goff mit seinem Beitrag ein (»The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon. Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon«), während Blake Jurgens in einer Untersuchung von TestSal 18 die Provenienzfrage zu klären sucht (»Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon«). Das Testamentum Salomonis ist fast ausschließlich in spätbyzantinischen Handschriften überliefert. Der früheste Zeuge stammt aus dem 14. Jh. n. Chr. (Cod. Vat. gr. 1700). Eine Ausnahme bildet die bruchstückhaft erhaltene Dekanliste, die mit der TestSal 18 gebotenen Liste der 36 Dekane übereinstimmt (siehe dazu den bereits erwähnten Beitrag von Blake Jurgens). Einige Verse dieser Liste sind in einem fragmentierten Papyrus der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek überliefert.6 Dieser um 500 n. Chr. entstandene Papyrus, dessen Text der Rezension B des Testamentum Salomonis nahesteht, setzt jedoch nicht zwangsläufig die Existenz des Testamentum Salomonis zur Mitte des ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausends voraus. Der Papyrus zeigt im Grunde genommen nur, dass die im Hintergrund stehende astrologische Tradition Jahrhunderte vor dem Einsetzen der uns erhaltenen griechischen Handschriften des Testamentum Salomonis, die von wildgewachsener Textüberlieferung und heterogener Textgestalt zeugen, nachweisbar ist. Aufgrund der starken Verwilderung des Textes und angesichts der Tatsache, dass deutlich voneinander abweichende Rezensionen vorliegen, ist die Grundschrift des Testamentum Salomonis nicht ohne Weiteres zu erheben. Wenngleich natürlich mit dem Wiener Papyrus ältere Tradition aufscheint, die ein Schlaglicht auf die weit hinter die byzantinische Überlieferung zurückreichende schriftliche, möglicherweise aber auch mündliche Vorgeschichte des Testamentum Salomonis wirft, so bleibt die Geschichte des Textes vor der Aufspaltung in die besagten Rezensionen nach wie vor weitestgehend im Dunkeln.7 5 Wolf Wilhelm von Baudissin: Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, hg. v. Otto Eissfeldt. Bd. 2, Die Herkunft des Gottesnamens Kyrios in Septuaginta, Gießen 1929, 216 Anm. 1. 6 Papyri Erzherzog Rainer G 330, G 29436, G 35939; die erhaltenen Verse entsprechen (fragmentarisch) TestSal 18:27–29. 33–40; die editio princeps des Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer G 330 besorgte Karl Preisendanz: Ein Wiener Papyrusfragment zum Testamentum Salomonis, in: Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum 48 (1956), 161–67; die Papyrusfragmente G 29436 und G 35939 publizierte Robert W. Daniel: The Testament of Solomon XVIII 27–28, 33–40, in: Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer. Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Textband, Wien 1983, 294–304; das weitere Papyrusfragment G 21390 publizierte Robert W. Daniel: Testament of Solomon. Addendum to P.Rain.Cent. 39, in: Tyche. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik 28 (2013), 37–39 (+ Tafel 5). 7 Die früheste Anspielung auf das Testamentum Salomonis findet sich im »Dialog des Christen Timotheus mit dem Juden Aquila« (CPG 7794). Dieser Dialog wird in der neueren Forschung in das 6. Jh. n. Chr. datiert. Der älteste bislang bekannte Textzeuge ist eine Palimpsesthandschrift des 9. Jhs. n. Chr. in rechtsgeneigter Spitzbogenmajuskel, vgl. dazu Maria Luisa Agati/Paul Canart: Le palimpseste du Vaticanus graecus 770 et du Cryptensis Α. δ.VI (gr. 389), in: Νέα ῾Ρώμη 3 (2006), 131–56. In diesem Dialog findet sich ein Hinweis auf das in TestSal XXVI,4–5 geschilderte Heuschreckenopfer Salomos und ein expliziter Verweis darauf, dass dies in der parabiblischen Tradition, und zwar im Testament Salomos stehe (ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ αὐτοῦ); vgl. Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae, versio longior 9,11–13, ed. Robert Gerald Robertson: The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. A Critical Text, Introduction to the Manuscript Evidence, and an Inquiry into the Sources and Literary Relationships, Diss. Th.D., Harvard University, Cambridge 1986, xvi.

Felix Albrecht VIII 

Diese dunkle Vorgeschichte vermögen zumindest teilweise die im vorliegenden Band behandelten, unter dem Einfluss des Testamentum Salomonis stehenden orientalischen Traditionen zu erhellen: Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala untersucht die arabische Tradition der »Urteile Salomos« und bietet eine Ausgabe derselben mit erstmaliger englischer Übersetzung (»The Testament of Solomon in Arabic. Edition, Translation and Study«). Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough und Alin Suciu analysieren die koptische Überlieferung (»The Legend of Solomon and Thabor in Coptic and Arabic«). Natia Mirotadze stellt summarisch die georgische Salomo-Tradition vor (»King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition«). Ausgangspunkt ihrer Untersuchung war die aus dem 19. Jh. stammende Auskunft, dass eine in Gori befindliche Karabadin-Handschrift eine georgische Version des Testamentum Salomonis oder eine diesem nahestehende Tradition enthalte. Doch leider scheint die Handschrift verloren, zumindest war sie nicht auffindbar. Schließlich ist das Testamentum Salomonis auch in methodologischer Hinsicht interessant. Während im Falle biblischer Schriften der überlieferte Text und seine Textzeugen in der Regel das Ergebnis literarischen Wachstums darstellen, das oftmals nur mühsam rekonstruiert oder auch bloß postuliert werden kann, ist es im Falle vieler parabiblischer Schriften möglich, anhand von teilweise deutlich divergierenden Textzeugen den Prozess und die Prozesshaftigkeit literarischen Wachstums zu beobachten. Das Testamentum Salomonis ist Paradebeispiel einer solchen parabiblischen Schrift, deren literarische Entwicklungen textkritisch ablesbar sind. Bei der Beschäftigung mit dem Testamentum Salomonis sind Literar- und Textkritik also gleichermaßen gefragt, wobei die methodischen Grenzen verschwimmen.8 Der vorliegende Band, der zugleich den ersten Band einer neuen Reihe bildet, versammelt ganz im Sinne der von Jan Dochhorn in seinen »Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe ›Parabiblica‹« beschriebenen Reihenphilosophie sechs editionsphilologisch ausgerichtete Beiträge und vier Studien zum Testamentum Salomonis. Herzlicher Dank gilt in ganz besonderem Maße allen Beitragenden, und zwar insbesondere dafür, dass sie den langjährigen Entstehungsprozess des vorliegenden Bandes geduldig verfolgt und die Verzögerung der Publikation klaglos ertragen haben. Dank gilt überdies der Schrift-Bilder gGmbH (Berlin) für die finanzielle Unterstützung der Drucklegung und schließlich dem Verlag Mohr Siebeck– namentlich vor allem Frau Elena Müller – für die fachkundige Begleitung sowie Herrn Prof. Dr. Dr. Jan Dochhorn für seine Mithilfe bei der Vollendung des vorliegenden Pilotbandes der Reihe Parabiblica. Göttingen im Januar 2023

Felix Albrecht

Gerade die Verquickung der damit verbundenen überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Phasen, namentlich der Literar- und Textgeschichte, hat unlängst Reinhard Müller: Was die Textgeschichte über die Entstehung des Alten Testaments lehren kann, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 142 (2017), 709–24, hier: Sp. 712–13, sehr treffend im Blick auf die alttestamentliche Textüberlieferung umrissen; diesen Zusammenhang thematisieren in aller Ausführlichkeit auch Reinhard Müller/Juha Pakkala: Editorial Techniques in the Hebrew Bible. Toward a Refined Literary Criticism (Society of Biblical Literature. Resources for Biblical Study 97), Atlanta 2022. 8

Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… V Jan Dochhorn Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« ………………………………………………… 1

I. Editionen und Texttraditionen Felix Albrecht Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis (Teil A: Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148)………………………………………………………………… 21 Tommaso Braccini Un testimone negletto del Testamento di Salomone: Una nuova edizione dell’esorcismo salomonico contenuto nel manoscritto EBE 825, ff. 8v–12v……………… 59 Jan Dochhorn Testament Salomos B (ngr.) nach Athen, Εθνική Βιβλιοθήκη, gr. 2011 (saec. 18), ff. 19–40 …………………………………………………………………………………………… 81 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study ……………………… 95 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon in Christian Egypt: Judgments of Solomon and the Legend of Solomon and Thabor……… 149 Natia Mirotadze King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition…………………………………………………………… 171

II. Studien Jan Dochhorn The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks………………………………………… 183 Blake Jurgens Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon …………… 195 Matthew Goff The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon …………………………………………………………………………………… 239

Inhaltsverzeichnis X

Jan Dochhorn Warum das Testament Salomos wichtig ist: Ein Beitrag aus neutestamentlicher Sicht…………………………………………………………… 265 Stellenregister…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 271 Handschriftenregister………………………………………………………………………………………… 281 Autorenregister………………………………………………………………………………………………… 283 Sachregister……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 285 Liste der Autoren……………………………………………………………………………………………… 289

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« Jan Dochhorn Ans Licht der Öffentlichkeit tritt hiermit der erste Band einer neugegründeten Reihe »Parabiblica«, die herausgeberisch betreut wird von Felix Albrecht (Göttingen), Christfried Böttrich (Greifswald), Nils Arne Pedersen (Århus), Tobias Thum (München), Jacques van Ruiten (Groningen) – und von mir, Jan Dochhorn (Durham), als Hauptherausgeber. Die Reihe wird sowohl Sammelbände als auch Monographien umfassen und Raum für editorische Arbeiten sowie religionshistorische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen bieten.

I. Parabiblica – Was ist das? Unter Parabiblica sollen hier Literaturwerke verstanden werden, die eine bereits vollständig oder mindestens überwiegend bestehende biblische Erzählwelt besiedeln1, wie sie sich für uns in den je nach Kirche verschiedenen Corpora des Alten Testaments bzw. im Tenakh oder aber im Neuen Testament findet: Der Begriff setzt nicht notwendigerweise einen Kanon voraus, wohl aber eine autoritativ verstandene erzählerische Referenzwelt. Zu den Parabiblica können damit Schriften gehören, für die es ein Altes oder Neues Testament bereits gab (so etwa das Testament Jakobs, ein Buch aus der koptischen Kirche, das im 10. Jahrhundert nach Christus verfaßt wurde)2, aber auch solche, die älter sind als mehr oder minder abgeschlossene Kanonisierungsprozesse (etwa die Assumptio Mosis, die zur Zeit des Archelaos entstanden sein dürfte).3 Gemeinsam ist ihnen der Bezug zu einer narrativen Welt, die als biblisch bezeichnet werden kann, in 1 Der Begriff »Parabiblica« hat seine Vorgeschichte vor allem in der Qumranforschung, und ich verdanke ihn persönlich Mitteilungen von Armin Lange in Seminaren. Zum Begriff »parabiblische Literatur« vgl. z.B. Armin Lange: The Parabiblical Literature of the Qumran Bible and the Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible, in: Shalom M. Paul u.a. (Hg.): Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94), Leiden etc. 2003, 305–21; Daniel K. Falk: The Parabiblical Texts. Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8; Library of Second Temple Studies 63), London/New York 2007. 2 Vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Testament Jakobs (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Neue Folge 1/7), Gütersloh 2014. 3 Vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Zur Krise der Gerechtigkeit im frühen Judentum. Reflexionen über das Entstehungsmilieu des frühen Christentums, Biblische Notizen 155 (2012), 77–111, speziell 88–100. Mit der Datierung unter Archelaos weiche ich nicht stark von einem schon länger existierenden Opinio communis ab, welche die Ass Mos um die Zeitenwende entstanden sein läßt, vgl. etwa Carl Clemen: Die Himmelfahrt Moses, in: Emil Kautzsch: Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 Bände), Tübingen 1900, II, 311–31, speziell 313–14.

2 Jan Dochhorn

der sie sich ansiedeln, etwa dahingehend, daß sie sich aus ihr legitimieren (etwa wenn Salomo zum Verfasser von alchemistischen Schriften oder Lithika wird)4 oder diese neu gestalten – bis hin zur Nichtwiedererkennbarkeit des Gestalteten (etwa wenn Salomo im Testament Salomos überwiegend der Herrscher der Dämonen ist) – oder ihr Reminiszenzen entlehnen, die auch sehr flüchtig sein können (etwa wenn in der Narratio Zosimi, einer Mönchsgeschichte, die Rechabiter als nackend lebende Selige erscheinen, die jenseits des Ozeans weilen und vor allem an die Brahmanen aus der Alexandersage in stoisch-kynischer Wahrnehmung erinnern).5 Der Konnex mit der biblischen Erzählwelt kann eng sein (so etwa im Falle der Apokalypse des Mose, die weitgehend narrative Auslegung von Gen 3 ist6, oder des Testaments Hiobs, das auf minutiöser Arbeit mit der Rahmenerzählung des Hiobbuches beruht)7, er kann aber auch sehr locker sein (so im Falle der Narratio Zosimi, wo der Anschluß an die Bibelwelt fast ausschließlich in der Identifikation der Seligen mit den Rechabitern besteht). Der Anschluß an Biblisches kann erzählerisch sein (etwa beim Test Hiob), aber auch nicht-erzählerisch (etwa wenn mit Salomo Psalmen oder Oden assoziiert werden). Das Verhältnis zum Biblischen kann das einer mehr oder minder originellen Auslegung sein, von der Bibelnacherzählung (Jubiläenbuch, Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum) bis hin zu Erzählwerken, die auf narrativ-exegetischer Arbeit an einer biblischen Referenzerzählung beruhen und dabei deren Struktur kaum oder nur schwer erkennbar widerspiegeln (Test Hiob, Apc Mos). Vielfach ist die Angst vor der Lücke ein entscheidendes Motiv: Was der Bibeltext offen läßt, füllt späteres Erzählen aus, in Parabiblica genauso wie in der Haggada.8 Der Bibelbezug kann auch korrigierend sein oder zumindest von uns so wahrgenommen werden (beispielsweise, wenn im Jubiläenbuch nicht JHWH, sondern der Fürst der Anfeindung Mose zu töten versucht, vgl. Lib Jub 48,2–3 // Ex 4,24–26), er kann sogar in direktem Widerspruch bestehen (z.B. gegen Moses in der Genesisauslegung des Johan-

4 Zum salomonischen Schrifttum vgl. Karl Preisendanz: Art. Salomon, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband 8 (Stuttgart 1956), 660–704, speziell 699–700 (Alchemistisches); 702 (Lithika). Es gibt hier auch Neues zu entdecken, wie künftig wohl Publikationen von Felix Albrecht zu diesem Forschungsgebiet zu entnehmen sein wird. 5 Vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Die Narratio Zosimi (CAVT 166): Ein Vorbericht, in: Eibert Tigchelaar (Hg.): Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovanensium 170), Leuven 2014, 389–448. 6 Vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Die Apokalypse des Mose. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 106), Tübingen 2005. Eine meiner Hauptthesen besteht darin, daß in der Apc Mos an hebräischem Bibeltext (und dem Jubiläenbuch) exegetisch gearbeitet, Septuagintaüberlieferung aber zitiert wird. 7 Vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Das Testament Hiobs als exegetischer Text. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Hiob-Septuaginta, in: W. Kraus/M. Karrer (Hg.): Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 252), Tübingen 2010, 671–88. Das Testament Hiobs beruht auf exegetischer Arbeit an der Septuaginta, nimmt aber auch Traditionen auf, die sich exegetischer Arbeit an hebräischem Bibeltext verdanken. 8 Zu der Methode des Lückenschließens vgl. Bernhard Heller: Die Scheu vor Unbekanntem, Unbenannten in Agada und Apokryphen, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 83 (1939), 170–84.

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 3

nesapokryphons)9, aber auch in der fast phantasielosen Übernahme von Material (so vielfach im Testament Jakobs). All dieses begegnet auch außerhalb von Literaturwerken, die als Ganzes parabiblisch angelegt sind, etwa in der bereits erwähnten Bibelhaggada der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur10, auch bei Kirchenvätern (die ja vielfach Parallelen zur Haggada aufweisen).11 Vielfach wird es sich als sinnvoll erweisen, eher von Parabiblizität in einem Literaturwerk zu sprechen als von dem Literaturwerk als Parabiblicum – eben wenn Parabiblisches eher einen Einschlag darstellt als ein Konstitutivum, vielleicht auch, wenn wie bei der erwähnten salomonischen Literatur nur eine oberflächliche Legitimationsstrategie durch Zuschreibung an biblische Autorschaft vorliegen sollte. Parabiblica können unterschiedliche religiöse Provenienz haben: Samaritaner, Juden, Christen, Muslime können die Verfasser sein;12 nicht zu unterschlagen sind die Schriften von Nag Hammadi und ihnen ähnliche koptische Funde (Pistis Sophia, Judasevangelium etc.). Auch Manichäer kommen als Autoren in Betracht: Die Mani-Biographie im Kölner Mani-Kodex etwa referiert eine Reihe von Visionen (von Adam, Seth, Enos, Henoch), die einander und den visionären Erlebnissen Manis recht ähnlich scheinen, so daß manichäische Verfasserschaft hier nicht auszuschließen ist.13 Mit Einschränkungen sind Mandäer zu nennen, wo vielleicht eher von Parabiblizität zu reden wäre14, mit ähnlichen Vorbe Vgl. Apcr Joh II,13,20; 22,22; 23,3; 29,6 par nach Michael Waldstein/Frederik Wisse: The Apocryphon of John. Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2 (Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 33), Leiden 1995, Synopsis 35; 59; 61; 76. Das Apokryphon Johannis ist dem Johannes Zebedäus zugeschrieben und somit zunächst einmal ein neutestamentliches Parabiblicum, inhaltlich aber ist es zu einem guten Teil narrativ-exegetische Arbeit an der Genesis. Der inhaltliche Bezug zum AT kann wohl am Besten mit dem unten zu erörternden Begriff der Parabiblizität eingefangen werden. 10 Bibelhaggada arbeitet vielfach auf ähnliche Weise narrativ-exegetisch mit biblischen Texten wie etwa die Apc Mos, das Test Hiob und andere hier erwähnte alttestamentliche Parabiblica, vgl. Heller (wie Anm. 8). 11 Für patristische Parallelen zu jüdischer Bibelhaggada vgl. Émilien Lamirande: Étude bibliographique sur les pères de l’église et l’aggadah, Vigiliae Christianae 21 (1967), 1–11. 12 Als Beispiel für Parabiblica aus der samaritanischen Literatur vgl. das Buch Asatir und eine Geschichte vom Tod des Mose bei Moses Gaster (Hg.): The Asatir. The Samaritan Book of the »Secrets of Moses« Together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses, London 1927. Einen speziellen Fall dürfte das samaritanische Buch Josua darstellen, eine Chronik, die Israel-Geschichte abdeckt, welche bei den Samartitanern gerade nicht kanonisch erfaßt ist, vgl. Th. Guil. Joh. Juynboll (Hg.): Chronicon Samaritanum Arabice Conscriptum cui est Titulus Liber Josuae, Leiden 1848; Moses Gaster (Hg.): Das Buch Josua in hebräisch samaritanischer Rezension, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 62 (1908), 209–79; 494–549; Alan D. Crown: The Date and Authenticity of the Samaritan Hebrew Book of Joshua as Seen in its Territorial Allotments, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 96 (1974), 77–100. Vgl. auch die Gebete des Mose und Josua bei Julius Henricus Petermann: Brevis linguae Samaritanae grammatica, litteratura, chrestomathia cum glossario (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 3), Karlsruhe etc. 1873, Chrestomathia, 12–17. Zur Orientierung über die Samaritaner vgl. etwa Ferdinand Dexinger/Reinhard Pummer (Hg.): Die Samaritaner (Wege der Forschung 604), Darmstadt 1992 (dort Literatur und auch der Beitrag von Crown). 13 Vgl. Ludwig Koenen/Cornelia Römer (Hg.): Der Kölner Mani-Kodex (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 35), Bonn 1985, 92–143 (f. 47–72 im Kodex). 14 In der mandäischen Literatur scheinen Bezüge zur biblischen Erzählwelt zuweilen durch, allerdings in starker Verfremdung und überlagert durch eine Vielzahl anderer Akteure. Das erste Buch des Rechten Ginza etwa, dem eine synoptische Parallele im zweiten Buch des Rechten Ginza entspricht, bie9

4 Jan Dochhorn

halten auch mehr oder minder pagane Magier (so etwa im Falle des achten Mosebuchs)15, Alchemisten und Astrologen16, und damit sind wohl noch nicht alle Möglichkeiten genannt. tet in chronologischer Reihenfolge immer wieder biblische Einsprengsel; in Ginza r 1,201 wird schließlich von Enôš Uthra in etwa dasjenige berichtet, was Christen von Christus zu erzählen pflegen (er kam zur Zeit des Pilatus, heilte Aussätzige etc.); wenigstens von einer Reminiszenz an parabiblische Literatur, von Parabiblizität, polemischer Parabiblizität wird man hier sprechen können (zum Begriff Parabiblizität siehe unten). Vgl. Mark Lidzbarski: Ginzā. Der Schatz oder Das große Buch der Mandäer, übersetzt und erklärt (Quellen der Religionsgeschichte, Band 13, Gruppe 4), Göttingen 1978. Speziell Adam ist präsent (wie bei einer gnostischen Glaubensgemeinschaft wohl nicht verwunderlich) – bis in die neueste Zeit, vgl. die neumandäischen Adamerzählungen bei Rudolf Macuch: Neumandäische Chrestomathie mit grammatischer Skizze, kommentierter Übersetzung und Glossar (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie 18), Wiesbaden 1989, 104–47. 15 Das achte Buch Moses, ein theurgischer Text mit einer (äußerst frei) an den biblischen Schöpfungsgeschichte angelehnten Kosmogonie, ist zusammen mit diversen Zauberrezepten in zwei Rezen­ sionen bezeugt durch den Papyrus Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, J 395 (4. Jh. n. Chr.), vgl. Papyrus Nr. 13 bei Karl Preisendanz (Hg.): Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (2 Bände), Leipzig/Berlin 1928–31 (Nachdruck: Stuttgart 1973–74), II, 86–131, speziell die Zeilen 1–253 und 343–734 (unter den Titeln Βίβλος ἱερὰ ἐπικαλουμένη Μονὰς ἢ Ὀγδοὴ Μωϋσέως [Z. 1] und Μοϋσέως ἱερὰ βίβ⟨λ⟩ος ἀπόκρυφος ἐπικαλουμένη ὀγδοὴ ἢ ἁγία [Z. 343–44]). Der Zauberpapyrus ist nach Preisendanz (S. 86) von derselben Hand geschrieben wie der Papyrus Rijksuseum van Oudheden, J 397 (anno 346 n. Chr.), welcher Rezepte zur Fälschung von Metallen enthält und in die Geschichte der Alchemie gehört, vgl. E. Riess: Art. Alchemie, Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung 1 (Stuttgart 1894), 1338–56, speziell 1341–42. Literatur zum achten Buch Moses: Adolf Jacoby: Entstehungsgeschichte der Kosmopoiie des Leidener Zauberpapyrus, Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 10 (1932–1934), 65–92; Michela Zago: L’emploi des noms divins dans la Kosmopoiia (PGM XIII), Mediterranea 4 (2007), 205–17. 16 Zu Parabiblischem in alchemistischer Literatur vgl. Anm. 4 und Marcellin Berthelot/ Charles-Émile Ruelle: Collection des anciens alchimists grecs (3 Bände), Paris 1888 (Nachdruck: Osnabrück 1967), II, 38–39 (ein Rezept des Mose), 39–40 (Labyrinth Salomos), 300–15 (Chemie des Mose); der bibelweltliche Einschlag ist bei diesen Texten eher schwach. In die mittelalterliche Alchemie wage ich mich hier nicht vor. Zu Parabiblischem in den Astrologica vgl. allein die Veröffentlichungen im Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum (CCAG), Brüssel 1898–1953 (12 Bände in 20 Faszikeln), etwa 1. ein Selenodromion in Mailand, E 16, 39v–47r (CCAG III [1901], 32–40), das die 30 Tage des Monats mit je unterschiedlichen Ereignissen und Personen überwiegend biblischer Provenienz assoziiert; 2. eine Epistula Apologetica des Kaisers Manuel Komnenos aus der Handschrift Rom, Angelicus 17, 1r–9v (CCAG V,1 [1904], 108–25), die interessantes parabiblisches Material enthält; 3. eine kurze Erzählung über Seth, Nimrod und die Astronomie in Codex Paris, gr. 2419, 1r (CCAG VIII,1 [1929], 160); 4. ein Brontologion des Propheten David aus Codex Paris, gr. 2316, 325v (CCAG VIII, 3 [1912], 168–169); 5. eine Danielapokalypse aus Codex Paris, gr. 2316, 380v–418r (CCAG VIII, 3 [1912], 171–179), die astrale Endzeitphänomene betrifft (vgl. Auszüge aus weiteren Textzeugen in CCAG VII, 171; X, 153–55; XII, 153–55); 6. ein Traktat über den Thron Gottes in Codex London, Harleianus 5624, 281r (CCAG IX, 2 [1953], 118–19); 7. eine Ἑρμηνεία τῶν ιβ’ σκηπτρῶν τοῦ Σολομῶντος in Codex London, Regius 16 C. II, 50v (CCAG IX, 2 [1953], 127–28); 8. ein Selenodromion des Propheten David und seines Sohnes Salomo in Codex Athen, 1275, 22r–26r (CCAG X [1929], 121–26), das dem von Nr. 1 oben ähnelt; 9. ein Selenodromion aus Codex Madrid, Nationalbibliothek, 4616, 92r–95v (CCAG XI, 2 [1934], 156–62), das die 30 Tage eines Monats ausschließlich mit Personen und Ereignissen aus der biblischen Erzählwelt von Adam bis Samuel assoziiert; 10. ein Exzerpt aus einer Marienapokalypse und ein Dialog zwischen Salomo und Beelzebul (aus dem Testament Salomos?) nach Moskau, Codex Astrologicus 19 (Eigentum von Šangin, dem Verfasser des Katalogs), dort foll. 3r und 35v (CCAG XII [1936], 170–71). Zum astrologischen Schrifttum gehören partiell auch die Hygromantia Salomonis (vgl. u.a. CCAG VIII, 2 [1911],

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 5

Grundsätzlich ist dabei zu beachten, daß Parabiblica in den genannten Tradentenmilieus nicht nur verfaßt, sondern auch von anderswoher übernommen und tradiert und bei der Tradierung vielfach verändert werden. Den größeren Teil dessen, was wir auf das Judentum zurückführen können, haben wir etwa aus christlicher Überlieferung – und dann auch Überformung. Umgekehrt bedeutet dies: Wo wir im christllichen Milieu auf ein Parabiblicum des Alten Testaments stoßen, müssen wir uns der Frage stellen, ob hier nicht – vielleicht unter einer dicken Schicht von Christlichem verborgen (aber vielleicht entdeckbar!) – Jüdisches auf uns gekommen ist, mitunter von hohem Quellenwert für die Erschließung des uns vielfach entzogenen vor- und außerrabbinischen Judentums. Die damit verbundene text- und literarkritische Problematik wird noch in § III zur Sprache kommen; sie ist immens und stellt eine der spannendsten Herausforderungen in diesem Forschungsbereich dar. Und es muß nicht nur eine Religion sein, die ein Parabiblicum passiert: Das Testament Abrahams etwa dürfte im Judentum entstanden sein, wurde dann von Christen interpoliert und spaltete sich innerhalb des antik-griechischen Christentums in zwei Rezensionen, deren beide Ausläufer im neugriechischen, slavischen und rumänischen Schrifttum finden. Aus der zweiten Rezension heraus entwickelte sich dann auch noch eine koptische Linie, die in die arabische und christlich-äthiopische Überlieferung hinabreichte, um dann schließlich aus der christlich-äthiopischen Überlieferung von den Falascha aufgegriffen zu werden, einer Agaw-Ethnie, die sich als jüdisch verstand und die heute – überwiegend – eine nicht immer heimatliche Heimat in Israel gefunden hat.17 Über das Buch der Giganten wird man ähnliches erzählen können: In Qumran findet man Fragmente dieser dem Wächterengelbuch im 1 Henoch nahestehenden Komposition, und in Turfan hat man mitteliranische und uigurische Versionen des Gigantenbuches von Mani gefunden, die mit den Qumranfunden zu tun haben. Wie ist Mani an dieses Material gekommen – etwa über die Elchesaiten, bei denen er dem Kölner Mani-Kodex zufolge aufgewachsen ist?18 Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Parabiblica gehört auch, daß sie in den Handschriften mit hagiographischer oder homiletischer Überlieferung zusammenfließen: Dabei können sich Adhäsionseffekte mit Kirchenvätern ergeben, die eine reiche homiletische Li139–65) und das Testament Salomos, wie ja überhaupt Magie und Astrologie miteinander verwoben sind und oft in ein- und demselben Überlieferungszusammenhang begegnen (viele der im CCAG ganz oder in Auszügen veröffentlichten Texte sind schlichtweg magische Rezepte). 17 Zur Überlieferung des Test Abr bis hin zu den Falascha vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Rezension zu »Martin Heide, Das Testament Abrahams. Edition und Übersetzung der arabischen und äthiopischen Version (= Äthiopistische Forschungen 76), Wiesbaden 2012«, Ostkirchliche Studien 65 (2016), 348–62, speziell die Einleitung auf S. 348–53. Die wichtigste Ressource für das Test Abr ist Francis Schmidt: Le Testament grec d’Abraham. Introduction, édition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 11), Tübingen 1986. 18 Vgl. die Angaben bei Jean-Claude Haelewyck: Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti (CAVT), Turnhout 1998, § 62 (S. 42–44) und Nils Arne Pedersen: Observations on the Book of the Giants from Coptic and Syriac Sources, in: Samuel N.C. Lieu u.a. (Hg.): Manicheism East and West (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum; Analecta Manichaica 1), Turnhout 2017, 185–202, der annimmt, daß HenochÜberlieferungen auch im syrischen Christentum kursierten, jedenfalls in der Frühzeit (ein Indiz könnte das Wort ‫ ܥܝܪܐ‬für »Engel« sein, das im Syrischen vielleicht wegen der Wächterengelüberlieferung Verbreitung fand, vgl. ebenda S. 196); von dort könnte sie zu Mani gelangt sein.

6 Jan Dochhorn

teratur hinterlassen haben bzw. denen eine solche Literatur zugeschrieben wurde, etwa Athanasius, Chrysostomus oder Ephraem Syrus.19 Vielfach weisen auch diese Schriftsteller oder weisen ihnen zugeschriebene Homilien Eigenschaften von Parabiblica auf bzw. sind Parabiblica;20 besonders das reiche bibelerzählerische Schaffen des syrischen Schriftstellers Jakob von Serug, das über die christlich-arabische Literatur bis nach Äthio­pien ausstrahlte und dort auch die äthiopischen Juden erreichte, kann unter dieser Perspektive mit Gewinn betrachtet werden.21 Für die Parabiblica-Forschung relevant 19 Beispiele: 1. Die koptische Sammlung »Testamente der drei Patriarchen« = Test III (bestehend aus dem Testament Abrahams, Testament Isaaks und Testament Jakobs) ist für das Fest der drei Patriarchen am 24. Mesôrê bestimmt und hat somit Affinität zur hagiographischen Literatur. Sie ist dem Kirchenvater Athanasius zugeschrieben, und dies erkennbar sekundär (ihre beiden ersten Bestandteile sind auch außerhalb des Kontextes Test III und ohne Zuschreibung an Athanasius überliefert); wir haben es hier mit Rezipientenpseudepigraphie und mit Kirchenväterpseudepigraphie zu tun, vgl. Dochhorn: Testament Jakobs (wie Anm. 2), 45–46. 2. Die Apokalypse des Mose ist in einem Textzeugen Chrysostomus zugeschrieben worden, vgl. Dochhorn: Apokalypse (wie Anm. 6), 31–32 (über einen Textzeugen der Apc Mos aus der Pariser Nationalbibliothek). 3. Schaller vermutet, daß sich das Testament Hiobs und eine Sammlung von vier pseudochrysostomischen Hiob-Homilien im Laufe der Überlieferungsgeschichte einander beeinflußt haben, vgl. Bernd Schaller: Das Testament Hiobs (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 3/3), Gütersloh 1979, 320 (dort Anm. 154). Zu den pseudochrysostomischen Homilien vgl. Mignes Patrologia Graeca (MPG) 56, 563–82. 4. Joseph und Aseneth ist in zahlreichen Textzeugen eine Überlieferungseinheit eingegangen mit einer pseudo-ephraemischen Homilie über Joseph, vgl. Christoph Burchard/Carsten Burfeind/Uta Barbara Fink: Joseph und Aseneth (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 5), Leiden/Boston 2003, 30–32. 5. Die Apokalypse des Sedrach, vollständig überliefert in einem Oxforder Codex und teilweise überliefert in einem aus Athen, erscheint in beiden Textzeugen amalgamiert mit einer pseudo-ephraemischen Homilie über die Liebe; abweichend von anderen Forschern vermute ich, daß hier redaktionelle Absicht vorliegt, vgl. Jan Dochhorn: The Apocalypse of Sedrach, in: Jan N. Bremmer/Veronika Hirschberger/Tobias Nicklas (Hg.): Figures of Ezra (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 13), Leuven 2018, 205–25. 20 Beispiele: 1. Züge parabiblisch-neugestaltenden Erzählens lassen die in der vorhergehenden Anmerkung erwähnten pseudochrysostomischen Hiob-Homilien in MPG 56,563–82 erkennen. Aus einer von ihnen ist ein Hiob-Parabiblicum hervorgegangen, das uno codice in Oxford überliefert ist, vgl. Dieter Hagedorn/Ursula Hagedorn (Hg.): Keine Narratio in Iob, in: A. Haltenhoff/F.-H. Mutschler (Hg.), Hortus Litterarum Antiquarum. Festschrift für Hans Armin Gärtner zum 70. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 2000, 211–18; Jan Dochhorn (Hg.): De iusto Job quando venerunt tres amici ut viderent eum (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Holkham 24 [olim 90], 173v–75r), Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 10 (2007), 187–94. Meines Erachtens ist dieser Text durchaus eine Narratio in Job, nur daß sie nicht als Erzählung entstanden ist, sondern im Wesentlichen das Exzerpt einer überwiegend erzählerischen Passage aus einer Homilie darstellt. 2. Nicht gerade wenige der Ephraem dem Syrer zugeschriebenen Homilien (in Griechisch und in anderen Sprachen) haben parabiblischen/haggadischen Einschlag, so etwa die in Anm. 19 erwähnte Homilie über Joseph und Pseudo-Ephraem, De Commoratione Abrahae et Sarae in Aegypto nach Haelewyck: CAVT (wie Anm. 18), § 90 (S. 62), die wohl auf arabisch und sicher auf äthio­pisch, auch bei den Falascha, überliefert ist, vgl. Dochhorn: Testament Jakobs (wie Anm. 2), 19–20; 24–33 passim. Griechische Ephraem-Homilien, die in diesem Zusammenhang interessant sein könnten, sind: Sermo in Danielem prophetam, et in sanctos tres pueros; et in eum qui dicit: »Tempora mala sunt, salvari nequeo«; Sermo de Cain, et de Abel caedo; Sermo I in Abraham et Isaac; Sermo II in Abraham et Isaac; Sermo in Abraham. 21 Zu Jakob von Serug vgl. Anton Baumstark: Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte, Bonn 1922, 148–58. Jakob von Serug zugeschrieben ist auch eine Erzählung vom Tod Aarons, die bei den Falascha überliefert ist, vgl. Haelewyck: CVAT (wie Anm. 18), § 143 (S. 107), ferner der in Äthiopien weitverbreitete Dersana Sanbat, vgl. Max Wurmbrand: Le »Dersâna Sanbat«. Une homélie attribuée a Jacques de Saroug, L’Orient Syrien 8 (1963), 343–94, von

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 7

sind auch große historiographisch angelegte Werke, die zugleich Bibelnacherzählung sind, etwa im griechischen und slavischen Bereich die Palaia historica (CVAT [wie Anm. 18], § 277), im slavischen Bereich die Tolkovaja Paleja, in der syrischen Literatur die Schatzhöhle (CVAT 11) oder das Buch der Biene und Kebra Negast in der äthiopischen Literatur (das dort entscheidend relevant wurde für die Legitimation der salomonischen Dynastie ab dem 13. Jahrhundert).22 Nicht zu vernachlässigen ist auch der Bereich der Folklore: Mündliches Erzählgut über Adam gibt es auch auf Neumandäisch (vgl. Anm. 14), Folkloristisches zu Salomo, das der Salomolegende von Kebra Nagast ähnelt, auch auf Tigre23, und apokryphische Folklore aus Bessarabien ist gerade kürzlich von Florentina Badalanova Geller dokumentiert worden.24 Parabiblica können, wie sich bereits vielfach angedeutet hat, unterschiedlichen Zeiten entstammen: Schon die ältesten Bestandteile des 1 Henoch sind Parabiblica, auch wenn die Thora, mit deren Erzählwelt sie sich überlappten, zur Zeit ihrer Entstehung noch kein völlig abgegrenztes Profil erhalten haben mag (aber hat sie das denn je?). Als Parabiblicum haben ebenso die biblischen Chronikbücher zu gelten: Parabiblica sind nicht notwendigerweise außerkanonisch; das erste Henochbuch ist es ja auch nicht, zumindest nicht in Äthiopien.25 Zu den Parabiblica können aber auch sehr späte Literaturwerke gehören, so etwa Falascha-Parabiblica, die auch dann, wenn sie – wie gewöhnlich – aus der christlich-äthiopischen Überlieferung stammen, zumeist nicht weiter zurückreichen als in die zweite Periode der äthiopischen Literatur (nach der Gründung der salomonischen Dynastie im 13./14. Jahrhundert nach Christus).26 dem in irgendeiner Weise das wohl wichtigste Werk der Falascha, Teezâza Sanbat, abhängen wird, vgl. Steven Kaplan: Teʼezáza Sanbat. A Beta Israel Work Reconsidered, in: Shaul Shaked/David Shulman/ Gedaljahu Stroumsa (Hg.): Gilgul. Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Permanence in the History of Religions Dedicated to R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, Leiden 1987, 107–24. Teezâza Sanbat ist ein Panoptikum biblischer Halakha und Haggada; rezeptionsgeschichtlich ergibt sich hier klar ein Zusammenhang zwischen Homiletica und Parabiblica – mit der interssanten Note, daß christliche Homiletik hier in jüdisch-parabiblische Literatur überging. 22 Zum Buch der Biene des Salomon von Bosra (13. Jh.) vgl. Baumstark: Geschichte (wie Anm. 21), 309, zu Kebra Nagast vgl. Ignazio Guidi: Storia della letteratura etiopica, Rom 1932, 45–47; Paolo Marrassini: Art. Kǝbrä nägäśt, Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3 (Wiesbaden 2007), 364–68. 23 Vgl. Enno Littmann (Hg.): The Legend of the Queen of Sheba in the Tradition of Axum (Bibliotheca Abessinica 1), Leiden/Princeton 1904. Vgl. das Vorwort auf pp. IX–XI daselbst: Littmann erhielt den Text von R. Sundström, für diesen hat ihn ein »evangelist« vom Stamm der Mensa in Gheleb schriftlich niedergelegt, der sie wiederum von einem Angehörigen der Bet-Dyuk hatte, und dieser will sie in Axum gehört haben. Folkloristische Parallelen, ebenfalls aus Äthiopien, werden auf S. 11 aufgeführt. 24 Vgl. Florentina Badalanova Geller: Kniga suščaja v ustach. Folklornaja Biblija Bessarabskich i Tavričeskich Bolgar, Moskau 2017 (Hinweis von Christfried Böttrich). 25 Zum äthiopischen Bibelkanon vgl. Peter Brandt: Geflecht aus 81 Büchern. Zur variantenreichen Gestalt des äthiopischen Bibelkanons, Aethiopica 3 (2000), 79–115. In Kanonverzeichnissen erscheint der 1 Hen selten, wohl aber in Bibelhandschriften (ebenda 100). Er findet sich auch in einer altäthiopisch-amharischen Vollbibel aus dem 20. Jahrhundert (eine Offset-Kopie der ursprünglichen Handschrift ist zugänglich unter »Ethiopian Manuscript Microflim Library« (EMML), Nr. 720; 673; 739; in ihr ist die ursprüngliche Reihenfolge der Bücher rearrangiert – mit der Folge, daß ein separater Apokryphenband mit unter anderem 1 Hen geschaffen wurde (wohl unter westlichem Einfluß), vgl. ebenda 111–12. In der von Haile Selassie veranlaßten amharischen Kaiser-Bibel stehen das Jubiläenbuch und 1 Henoch zwischen den Chronikbüchern und Esra, vgl. ebenda 112. 26 Zum sekundären Charakter der Falascha-Literatur vgl. Steven Kaplan: The Beta Israel (Falasha)

8 Jan Dochhorn

Der Begriff Parabiblica läßt auch eindeutig neuzeitliche Literatur zu, etwa das Buch Mormon, das ja schon äußerlich wie eine Bibel aussieht und auch überwiegend bibelbezogen erzählt. Es wäre ganz sicher auch nicht sinnvoll, das Forschungsinteresse mutmaßlichen oder erwiesenen Fälschungen gegenüber zu verschließen:27 Der Benanbrief, ein Leben Jesu in deutscher Sprache, dessen koptisches Original verschollen ist, herausgebracht durch Max Ernst Edler von der Planitz, gefällig romanhaft und der Gemütslage eines liberalen Protestantismus mit Bedürfnis nach sicherem (!) historischen Grund unter den Füßen freundlich entgegegenkommend28, kann hier ebenso genannt werden wie ein fragwürdiger koptische Fetzen, den es tatsächlich gibt und in dem – didaktisch dem Trend zur visuellen Verdeutlichung in der akademischen Lehre vorausgreifend oder entsprechend – der Hinweis auf eine Ehefrau Jesu etwas deutlicher zu erkennen ist als der Rest des Textes; er hat wohlwollende Aufnahme bei Experten, unter anderem in Boston, gefunden und ist auf jeden Fall parabiblisch, wie auch immer die Datierungsfrage zu entscheiden ist.29 Auch echte Jesus-Erzählungen aus der Forschungsliteratur muß man wohl nicht unberücksichtigt sein lassen; vieles von dem, was in Albert Schweitzers berühmter Darstellung zur Leben-Jesu-Forschung referiert wird, erinnert an »apokryphes« Erzählen oder Haggada; so werden in den Werken von Karl Friedrich Bahrdt über Jesus (1782; 1784–1792) ähnlich wie in der Haggada Lücken gefüllt, wenn etwa beim Brotvermehrungswunder, welches – störend für den Rationalisten – das Woher der Brote offenläßt, dem Heiland die Brote aus einer Höhle angeliefert werden, von Essenern, unsichtbar für die Volksmenge gleichermaßen wie für die Apostel (aber nicht für Bahrdt).30 in Ethiopia. From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, New York/London 1992, 73–77, ferner das Beispiel in Anm. 21 des vorliegenden Artikels. 27 Zum Verhältnis zwischen Fälschung und Parabiblizität bzw. Apokryphizität (zur Begriffsvielfalt s.u.) vgl. Tony Burke (Hg.): Fakes, Forgery and Fiction. Writing Ancient and Modern Christian Apocrypha. Proceedings from the 2015 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium. Foreword by Andrew Gregory, Eugene (Oregon) 2017. 28 Zum Benanbrief vgl. die Dokumentation bei Dochhorn: Testament Jakobs (wie Anm 2), 63 (dort Anm. 87) sowie ferner: Jan Dochhorn: Gefälschte Entdeckungen – ein Werkstattbericht (einsehbar auf meiner Akademia-Seite). 29 Das umstrittene koptische Fragment ist im Internet mühelos einzusehen, vgl. etwa www.uni-muenster.de/news/view.php?cmdid=2966. Besonders deutlich ist auf ihm das Wort ⲧⲁϩⲓⲙⲉ (»meine Frau«) zu erkennen, mit dem Jesus Maria als seine Frau bezeichnet (wohl Maria Magdalene); dieses war dann auch der Auslöser des mit dem Fragment verbundenen Hypes. Es ist Karen King zugespielt worden, und sie hat es veröffentlicht, vgl. Karen L. King: »Jesus said to them „My Wife...“«: A New Coptic Papyrus Fragment, Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014), 131–59. Sie hat die Authentizität zunächst verteidigt, vgl. Karen L. King: Response to Leo Depuydt, »The Alleged Gospel of Jesus’s Wife: Assessment and Evaluation of Authenticity«, Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014), 190–93. Zu den Argumenten gegen die Authentizität vgl. die Aufsätze in New Testament Studies 61, Heft 3 (2015). Vgl. die umfassende Dokumentation bei Wikipedia im Artikel »Evangelium der Frau Jesu«. Zur Provenienz vgl. Ariel Sabar: The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’ Wife, The Atlantic 2016/7 (www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/), der Walter Fritz, einen ehemaligen Ägyptologie-Studenten mit einer bewegten Biographie als den Besitzer des Papyrus identifiziert hat und gute Gründe sieht, ihm auch die Verfasserschaft zu attestieren. King hat ihre Ansichten zur Authentizität des Papyrus offenbar revidiert, vgl. Ariel Sabar: Karen King Responds to the »Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’ Wife«, The Atlantic 2016/6 (www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/). 30 Zu Bahrdt vgl. Albert Schweitzer: Geschichte der Leben-Jesu Forschung, Tübingen 91984 (Nachdruck der 7. Auflage in einem Band), 79–84, zur Brotvermehrung ebenda 82.

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 9

Moderne Bibel-Haggada ist vielfach wohl auch das Leben-Jesu Buch von Ernest Renan, dem Schweitzer den fast schon justitiablen Vorwurf gemacht hat, er habe seinen »charmanten Tischler« aus Galiläa mitsamt den »schönen Marien« »aus den Schaufenstern der christlichen Kunsthandlungen der Place St. Sulpice gestohlen«.31 Ebenso zu erwähnen ist – immerhin als Dokument einer neuen Religion – das Jesus-Buch des Dr. Otoman Zar-Aduscht Hanish, des Propagandisten der Mazdasnan-Religion, der Jesus mit Zarathustrischem amalgamiert (und mit Elementen zeitgenössischer Religiosität wie zum Beispiel Atemübungen, Diäten etc.).32 Vielleicht kann auch der Roman des Thomas Mann über Joseph und seine Brüder seinen Platz in der Parabiblica-Forschung finden oder gar die Josephslegende von Richard Strauss (der eine Programmskizze des Hugo von Hofmannsthal zugrunde liegt), wenngleich sie überwiegend aus Musik besteht. Freilich stellt sich spätestens hier die Frage, inwieweit der Begriff Parabiblizität hier nicht eher greift denn die Klassifikation eines Werks als Parabiblicum: Parabiblizität liegt vor, wenn Techniken des Bibelbezugs begegnen, während für ein Parabiblicum vielleicht auch ein biblisches Moment in Pragmatik und Genre zu erkennen sein muß, indem etwa biblische Techniken der Autorschaftskonstruktion eine Fortsetzung finden (keines der biblischen Bücher hat einen Autor, wie wir es in griechischer und dann westlicher Literaturproduktion kennen; eine interessante Ausnahme bildet das Buch Sirach; s.u. § II,4). Bei allem Interesse für Neueres: Eine Schwerpunktsetzung auf Antike und Mittelalter wird es bei der neugegründeten Reihe dennoch geben; dies deutet schon der Herausgeberkreis an: Wir sind nicht Experten für liberalen Protestantismus, kreative Archäologie oder Neo-Gnosis. Hervorzuheben ist aber die Flexibilität des Begriffs Parabiblica: Es läßt sich unter diesem Leitwort einiges Interessante unternehmen, und man kommt kulturgeschichtlich weit herum.

II. Konkurrierende Begriffe Die mit dem Begriff Parabiblica erfaßte Literatur wird anderswo unter anderen Bezeichnungen verhandelt, und das wird sich wahrscheinlich nicht ändern (terminologischer Pluralismus ist nicht nur ein Problem, sondern ermöglicht auch Multiperspektivität): 31 Zu Renan vgl. Schweitzer (wie Anm. 30) 207–18; zum Vorwurf, er habe sakralen Kitsch gestohlen, ebenda 208. Besondere Freude bereitet Schweitzer das Maultier, auf dem Jesus Renan zufolge nicht nur in Jerusalem ritt, »diese[s] im Orient so sanfte[] und sichere[] Reittier, dessen großes und schwarzes Auge, mit langen Wimpern beschattet, viel Sanftmut hat«. Das »langbewimperte Maultier« taucht im Renan-Referat von Schweitzer immer wieder auf; gegenüber der Vorlage hat es möglicherweise an Gewicht gewonnen, falls diese Konventionsmetapher hier erlaubt sein sollte. Kitsch begegnet mir in den älteren Parabiblica eher selten; sie sind – nach meinem ästhetischen Empfinden – oft eher grotesk als süßlich, was immer solche Wahrnehmungen auch für die Sache selbst bedeuten mögen. 32 Vgl. Otoman Zar-Adusht Hanish: Yehoshua Nazir. Jesus the Nazarite. The Life of Jesus, Los Angeles (California) 1917, vgl. hierzu Adolf Jülicher/Erich Fascher: Art. Benanbrief und ähnliche Leben-Jesu-Fälschungen, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart2 1 (Tübingen 1927), 886–88, speziell 887–88.

10 Jan Dochhorn

1. Nicht selten ist von Apokrypha die Rede, wenn an Biblischem orientierte Erzählungen gemeint sind, oder von Apokryphizität zur Bezeichnung dessen, was hier mit dem Begriff Parabiblizität belegt ist. Dabei wird es sicher bleiben: Es gibt beim Verlag Brepols die Zeitschrift »Apocrypha«, und es erscheint in demselben Verlag die Reihe »Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum«; beide Publikationsorgane sind parabiblischen Texten gewidmet. Doch der Begriff »apokryph« weist Konnotationen auf, die im gegebenen Zusammenhang stören können und es geraten erscheinen lassen, ihm einen anderen mindestens zur Seite zu stellen, der ohne diese Störungsmomente auskommt: »Apokryph« (ἀπόκρυφος) ist traditionell der Gegensatz zu »kanonisch« (ähnlich wie die griechischen Termini νόθος und ἀντιλεγόμενος)33, und damit sind kanontheoretische Implikationen gesetzt: Die biblischen Chronikbücher erscheinen exkludiert. Und was sollen wir mit dem 1 Henoch und dem Jubiläenbuch machen, die in der äthiopischen Kirche biblisch sind (vgl. Anm. 25) – oder mit der Assumptio Mosis, die bei alexandrinischen Kirchenvätern wahrscheinlich einen ähnlich (proto-)kanonischen Status innehatte wie der Judasbrief?34 Im protestantischen Bereich überlappt sich der Begriff auch mit der Bezeichnung für Sondergut der Vulgata-Überlieferung, das durch Hebraica veritas nicht gedeckt ist und daher von Luther aus dem Kanon exkludiert wurde, aber dennoch für »nützlich und gut zu lesen« befunden wurde; für die neue Lutherbibel von 2017 haben Kirche und Wissenschaft (in Gestalt eines Übersetzerteams) ihnen liebevolle Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt, und es scheint, daß man ihren Wert unter Protestanten neuerdings stärker zu schätzen weiß.35

33 Νόθος bedeutet herkömmlich »von falscher Herkunft«, ἀντιλεγόμενος »umstritten« und ἀπόκρυφος »geheim«, womit auch eine positive Charakterisierung verbunden sein kann, vgl. Geoffrey William Hugo Lampe: A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961 (121995), 154–55 (s.v. ἀντιλέγω); 198–99 (s.v. ἀπόκρυφος); 918 (s.v. νόθος). Zum Sprachgebrauch bei Euseb ist einschlägig Historia Ecclesiastica III,25 (Schwartz/Mommsen I, 250–253), wo mit Bezug auf das Neue Testament als ὡμολογούμενα die kanonischen Bücher bezeichnet werden und als ἀντιλεγόμενα, γνώριμα δὲ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς (»umstritten, aber gleichwohl der Mehrzahl bekannt«) Jak; 2 Petr; 2–3 Joh; Judas, während es dann heißt, daß unter die νόθα auch die Schrift über die Taten des Paulus, der Hirte etc. gerechnet werden sollten (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις κατατετάχθω καὶ τῶν Παύλου πράξεων ἡ γραφὴ ὅ τε λεγόμενος Ποιμήν κτλ.). Es sieht so aus, als werde bei den Nicht-Homologumena differenziert zwischen weithin anerkannten, von Euseb aber abgelehnten Schriften, und solchen, die nicht eigens als besonders bekannt bezeichnet werden. Zur Verwendung des Wortes ἀπόκρυφος bei Euseb vgl., Eccl Hist IV,22,9 (Schwartz/Mommsen I,372–373), wo er über Hegesipp berichtet, dieser habe über sogenannte apokryphe Bücher behauptet, es seien einige von ihnen zu seiner Zeit durch Häretiker verfaßt worden. Mit dem Wort »apokryph« kann hier ein positiver Anspruch verbunden sein, den Hegesipp widerlegt. Im engeren Sinne kanontheoretisch verwendet den Begriff die Synopse des Athanasius; vgl. den Text bei Theodor Zahn: Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 Bände), Erlangen/Leipzig 1888–90, II, 302–19, speziell 317. Sie unterscheidet mit Blick auf das Alte Testament zwischen Antilegomena (Sapientia Salomonis, Sirach etc.) und Apokryphen (Henoch, Patriarchen, Gebet Josephs etc.): Erstere sind Werke, die in Septuagintahandschriften vorkommen, letztere solche, denen in der griechischen Kirche kein Erfolg beschieden war. Beim Neuen Testament grenzt dieselbe Synopse indes ohne Differenzierung Apostelakten, Didache und Klementinen als Antilegomena aus, so daß fraglich bleibt, wieviel dem Autor der Synopse angesichts des Nichtkanonischen an begrifflicher Differenzierung gelegen war. 34 Zu diesem Thema bereite ich eine Studie vor. 35 Vgl. hierzu Martin Rösel/Christfried Böttrich (Hg.): Die Apokryphen der Lutherbibel. Einführungen und Bibeltexte, Stuttgart/Leipzig 2017.

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 11

2. Beliebt ist – zumal in der angelsächsischen Forschung – mit Hinblick auf alttestamentliche Parabiblica immer noch die Rede von Literatur des zweiten Tempels (Second Temple Literature). So sehr ich es schätze, daß ich mich auf entsprechende Stellenausschreibungen habe bewerben können (in Deutschland werden eher Lehrstühle mit Schwerpunktsetzung auf dem Corpus Johanneum annonciert), so riskant erscheint der Begriff: Er trifft eine Vorentscheidung mit Hinblick auf die Datierung, die sich oft nicht halten läßt: Das Testament Jakobs, das diesem Feld schon zugeordnet wurde, ist höchstwahrscheinlich eher mittelalterlich-koptisch als ein Produkt aus der Zeit des zweiten Tempels; es ist aber sicher ein Parabiblicum. Andere Werke hinwieder, bei denen diese Datierung vermutlich paßt, so nach meiner neueren Sicht etwa die Apokalypse des Mose, lassen wenig Interesse am Tempel erkennen:36 Der Begriff Second Temple Literature konnotiert die Vorstellung von einem Kultzentrum in Jerusalem als Zentralmerkmal einer religionsgeschichtlichen Epoche der Religion Israels, die religionsgeschichtliche Arbeit mit Vorurteilen belasten kann. 3. Prominent ist auch die Rede von »Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit«; in der »Neuen Folge« der gleichnamigen Serie (JSHRZ.NF) ist meine kommentierte Übersetzung des Testament Jakobs erschienen, was wissenschaftsorganisatorisch für mich sinnvoll erschien (das Buch hat eine Auflage, die für Arbeiten zur koptischen Literatur des Mittelalters unüblich ist), aber doch ein wenig irreführend wirkt. Es ist bei der Kategorisierung von Literatur darauf zu achten, daß nicht Schriften von vornherein dem Judentum oder auch dem Christentum und anderen Religionen zugeordnet werden; auch hier sind Vorentscheidungen zu meiden und Begriffe zu bevorzugen, die dem Forschungsdiskurs Offenheit gewährleisten.37 Zu vermeiden ist nicht zuletzt die Irreführung von Neu- und Alttestamentlern, die anderen Forschungsinteressen nachgehen: Bis heute muß manchmal Kollegen nahegebracht werden, daß es ein jüdisches Martyrium Jesajas wohl nicht gab und die Schrift, aus der man es herausoperierte, die Ascensio Isaiae, vermutlich von Anfang an als ein christliches Werk komponiert wurde38 – mit der Folge, daß Parallelen zwischen der Ascensio und den Proto- und Deuteropaulinen eher rezeptionsgeschichtlicher Art sind als Dokumente der religionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen des paulinischen Schrifttums. Bekannt sind Traditionen (bei Rabbinen und Kirchenschriftstellern), die den Tempelberg als Ort der Erschaffung Adams identifizieren; zu diesen vgl. Joachim Jeremias: Golgotha (ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ. Archiv für neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde 1), Leipzig 1926, 38–39. In der Apc Mos findet sich derartiges nicht, warum auch immer. Sie kennt – wohl aus Lib Jub 3,27 – eine Opferhandlung Adams nach der Vertreibung aus dem Paradies (Apc Mos 27–29), erzählt aber nicht von deren Vollzug und lokalisiert sie auch nicht. Der Ort der Erschaffung Adams ist auch sein Grab (Apc Mos 40,6); ein Grab Adams aber wäre auf dem Tempelberg wohl eher hinderlich gewesen. 37 Problematisch ist in meinen Augen demnach die Rede von »christlichen Apokryphen«, speziell wenn es um Sammelwerke geht. Dies betrifft das Nachfolgewerk des Hennecke-Schneemelcher von Markschies/Schröter: »Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung«, an dem ich mit mehreren Übersetzungen beteiligt bin. Was christlich ist und was nicht christlich, wird sicher vielfach umstritten bleiben; hier Festlegungen zu treffen, belastet die religionsgeschichtliche Arbeit mehr, als wenn man ein Werk als Parabiblicum bezeichnet, das vielleicht anders besser bezeichnet wäre. 38 Der Umschwung in der Forschungsdiskussion ereignete sich in den 80ger Jahren; maßgeblich waren und sind hier italienische Forscher (Acerbi, Norelli, Pesce, Perrone etc.); zu meiner Sicht der Dinge vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Die Ascensio Isaiae (JSHRZ II,1: Martyrium Jesajas), in: G.S. Oegema: Unterweisung in erzählender Form. Mit Beiträgen von J. Dochhorn, B. Ego, M. Meiser und O. Merk (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit VI,1,2), Gütersloh 2005, 1–48. 36

12 Jan Dochhorn

4. Nicht eben selten ist von den hier behandelten Werken als den Pseudepigraphen die Rede, wohl vor allem aufgrund von Sammelwerken wie »Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments« von Kautzsch (1900), »The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha« von Charlesworth oder jetzt auch »Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. More Noncanonical Scriptures« von Bauckham/Davila/Panayotov.39 Auch dieser Begriff hat, vom Vorteil seiner Popularität abgesehen, deutliche Schwächen: Zum einen ist sehr viel anderes in der Weltliteratur pseudepigraph, vom Pseudo-Aristotelicum De Mundo über diverse Hermetica bis hin zur den pseudepigraphen Paulusbriefen des Neuen Testaments (die wiederum insofern Parabiblica sind, als sie sich in einem bereits gesetzten paulinischen und damit autoritativen Referenzrahmen verorten), und zum anderen sind gerade viele sogenannte Pseudepigraphen nicht pseudepigraph. Dies wird oftmals deutlich gerade bei dem, was man die alttestamentlichen Pseudepigraphen nennt: Die Ascensio Isaiae hat wie ein kanonisches Prophetenbuch einen anonymen Erzählrahmen; pseudepigraph bzw. pseudo-jesajanisch sind nur die in ihr mitgeteilten Visionen Jesajas (die ca. 70% des Textes ausmachen). Auch das Testament Abrahams ist eine anonyme Erzählung, desgleichen die Vita Adae et Evae; gleiches gilt für die Vitae Prophetarum (die in der Überlieferung dann vielfach zu Kirchenschriftsteller-Pseudepigraphen wurden).40 Vielfach führen die sogenannten Pseudepigraphen eher Gattungskonventionen biblischer Literaturproduktion weiter; der Begriff Pseudepigraphen konnotiert demgegenüber eine Diskontinuität, die wahrscheinlich verkehrt ist. Es wird mit dieser Begrifflichkeit meines Erachtens ein ganz wichtiger Zusammenhang verschleiert, der hier einmal etwas überspitzt zum Ausdruck gebracht werden mag: Die Literatur Israels ist nicht Autorenliteratur, wohl aber um Personen zentrierte Literatur, und das ist sie lange geblieben, in parabiblischem Erzählen und in der Bibelhaggada gleichermaßen wie dann in der um rabbinische Autoritäten zentrierten Literatur; rabbinische und biblische Autoritäten stehen dann nebeneinander in der hebräischen Elia-Apokalypse.41 Eine frühe Ausnahme ist das Sirachbuch, das erkennbar Autorenliteratur ist; es folgen der Philosoph Aristobul, die Historiographen Eupolemos und Demetrius, der Tragiker Ezechiel und andere griechisch-jüdische Autoren, deren Texte inhaltlich parabiblische Züge tragen, von der Autorenkonstruktion her aber andere Wege gehen als die der herkömmlichen personzentrierten Anonymität.42 Inwiefern sie damit Parabiblica sind, bleibt abzuwägen; im positiven Falle müßte man Josephus und viel39 Vom letztgenannten Werk ist bisher ein Band erschienen, vgl. Richard Bauckham/James R. Davila/Alexander Panayotov (Hg.): Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. More Noncanonical Scriptures, Volume One, Grand Rapids (Michigan)/Cambridge (UK) 2013. 40 Zu den Vitae Prophetarum vgl. Anna Maria Schwemer: Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum (2 Bände) (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 49; 50), Tübingen 1995–96, speziell die Synopse der Rezensionen im Anhang zu Band 1 (die Vit Proph existieren in anonymen Rezensionen, aber auch in Rezensionen des Epiphanius und Dorotheus, von denen mindestens die des Epiphanius kaum orthonym ist). 41 Vgl. Moses Buttenweiser: Die hebräische Elias-Apokalypse und ihre Stellung in der apokalyptischen Litteratur des rabbinischen Schrifttums und der Kirche. I. Hälfte: Kritische Ausgabe mit Erläuterungen, sprachlichen Untersuchungen, und einer Einleitung, nebst Übersetzung und Untersuchung der Abfassungszeit, Leipzig 1897 (mehr nicht erschienen). 42 Vgl. die Texte bei Matthew Black: Apocalypsis Henochi Graece/Albert-Marie Denis (Hg.): Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae Supersunt Graeca Una cum Historicorum et Auctorum Judaeorum

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 13

leicht sogar Philo einbeziehen, vielleicht überhaupt auch Kommentarliteratur, was die Trennschärfe des Begriffs Parabiblica nicht gerade erhöhen und ihm die Flüchtigkeit des Universalen verleihen würde. Es dürfte sich auch hier als sinnvoll erweisen, zwischen Parabiblica und Parabiblizität zu differenzieren. Es zeigt sich, daß über den Begriff Parabiblica diskutiert werden kann und muß, gerne auch im Rahmen der neuen Reihe. Die Gefahr der Überdehnung hat sich angedeutet: Innovationen, auch wenn von anderen übernommen, oftmals gerade dann, lösen bei ihren Propagandisten leicht das Phänomen der Inflationierung aus, ein ballonartiges Anschwellen des Intellekts, der neben dem, was ihn neuerdings erfüllt, kaum noch etwas sieht – jenseits seiner selbst bzw. dessen, was ihn erfüllt. Innovation und Inflationierung, Innovation und Imperialismus können im Konnex miteinander stehen, und so soll es hier nicht sein. Gleichwohl, nicht ein Problembewußtsein, das die Grenzen des Aporetischen mühelos streift oder gar überschreitet, ist der hier angestrebte Modus der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation; eher scheint es erst einmal angebracht, das Potential des Begriffes Parabiblica lustvoll auszuschöpfen und dabei lieber mehr zu tun als zu wenig. Man kann so viel mit diesem Begriff machen, gerade weil er so flexibel erscheint: Er benennt Literaturwerke, die sich narrativ in der biblischen Erzählwelt verorten, er umfaßt Werke mit AT-Bezug gleichermaßen wie mit NT-Bezug, er sieht ab von Vorentscheidungen zur Kanonizität, Datierung und religionsgeschichtlichen Zuordnung, ist offen für die Rezeption dieser Werke in unterschiedlichen religiösen und kulturellen Kontexten und vermeidet Festlegungen hinsichtlich der Konstruktion von Autorschaft (im Sinne einer durchgehenden Pseudepigraphizität), auch wenn Werke, die vorrangig als Autorenliteratur zu betrachten sind (Arbeiten von Demetrius dem Chronographen, Josephus, Thomas Mann), wohl ausgegrenzt oder einem weiter verbreiteten Phänomen Parabiblizität zugeordnet werden müssen (letzteres kann dann auch parabiblisches Erzählen innerhalb von Büchern des Neuen Testaments erfassen sowie Bibelhaggada oder Bibelwissen, vielfach auch transformiertes, in der patristischen Literatur). Nützlich könnte sich der Begriff Parabiblica auch darin erweisen, daß er neue Grenzen zieht: Die Oracula Sibyllina sind draußen, auch andere von Juden – und Christen? – gefälschte Pseudohellenica, etwa Pseudo-Phocylides oder Dichterzitate, die vor allem bei Pseudo-Justin, Clemens von Alexandrien und Euseb begegnen. Für alle diese Werke kann man sich weiter interessieren; sie sind sicher wichtig für die Religionsgeschichte des Judentums, aber es handelt sich nicht um Parabiblica; allenfalls Züge von Parabiblizität mögen ihnen eignen (etwa wenn es Dekaloganklänge gibt bei Pseudo-Phokylides). Ich schlage die Sammelbezeichnung »Pseudo-Auctores Hellenici« vor.43 Mengenmäßig fallen sie nicht so ins Gewicht wie die Parabiblica, und damit wird ebenfalls etwas sichtbar, das ohne die terminologische Neujustierung nicht so klar hervortritt: Mag das Judentum der Antike die Erzählwelt der griechischen Dichter und Götter betreten haben, es verblieb doch viel öfter in einer israelitischen Erzählwelt: Hellenistarum Fragmentis (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece), Leiden 1970, 175–202 (Historiographi); 203–28 (Auctores Judaei Hellenistae). 43 Vgl. die Texte bei Denis: Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum (wie Anm. 42), 148–56 (Sententiae Phocylidis); 158–60 (Epistola Heracliti); 161–74 (Pseudo-Auctores Hellenici) sowie Joh. Geffcken (Hg.): Die Oracula Sibyllina (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, ohne Zählung), Leipzig 1902 (Nachdruck: Leipzig 1967).

14 Jan Dochhorn

Wie hellenistisch war das Judentum wirklich, von dem wir seit Martin Hengel wissen, daß es in Palästina nicht notwendigerweise weniger hellenistisch war als in der Diaspora?44 Und was bedeutet es, wenn die Christen gerade die parabiblische Literatur zum Alten Testament so stark aufgenommen haben, und bis ins Mittelalter hinein, ja auch danach selber parabiblische Literatur zum Alten Testament verfaßten? Läßt sich das auf die Formel bringen, daß man Literatur produzierte wie das alte Israel, weil man sich selbst als Israel sah, als lebend im Glauben der Patriarchen und Propheten? Es mag sich im Rahmen einer Neujustierung des Verhältnisses von Judentum und Christentum anbieten, heute vorfindliches Christentum als Heidenchristentum zu erfassen, aber wie stark entspricht das einem herkömmlichen christlichen Selbstverständnis?

III. Zum Profil der Reihe Was will die neue Reihe »Parabiblica« mit dem anfangen, das von diesem Begriff abgedeckt wird – unter Einbeziehung des Begriffs Parabiblizität, der Parallelphänomene außerhalb der Parabiblica erfassen kann? Wesentliche Punkte seien hier genannt: 1. Eine entscheidende Erfahrungsgrundlage für die Gründung der neuen Reihe ist meine mehrjährige Zusammenarbeit mit Felix Albrecht, die gerade auch darin bestand, im Rahmen des Projekts »Manuskriptrecherchen zur parabiblischen Literatur« (MaRPL) Textzeugen zu parabiblischen Texten (überwiegend zu AT-Parabiblica) zu sammeln, unter anderem auf dem Athos, aber auch in Paris, Rom und Jerusalem. Maßgeblich für diese Aktivitäten war die Erkenntnis, daß textkritische und editorische Arbeit zu den Parabiblica dringend vorangetrieben werden müsse, daß die religionshistorische, auch rezeptionsgeschichtliche Erfassung dieser Werke erheblich eingeschränkt sei, weil große Teile des Überlieferungsbestandes nicht erschlossen sind.45 Bei der Historia de Melchisedech etwa ist dies evident, auch bei den Paralipomena Jeremiae.46 Es kommt hinzu, daß viele durchaus materialreiche Texteditionen in ihrer Methodik überprüft werden müssen; dies gilt etwa für die Ausgabe des Testament Abrahams von Francis Schmidt (wie Anm. 17), der seine Edition der Langrezension (den wohl überwiegend archaischeren Text) fast ausschließlich auf einen Leitzeugen aus dem 12. Jahrhundert gründet und dabei an wenigstens einer Stelle einen pseudo-jüdischen Text bietet, dessen scheinbar jüdischer Charakter sich eher der Parablepsis eines mittelalterlichen Kopisten verdankt als einer Autorenintention.47 Die mit stemmatisch abgesichertem Eklektizismus verbun44 Vgl. Martin Hengel: Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts vor Christus (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 10), Tübingen 31988 (Erstauflage: 1973). 45 Vgl. die Angaben zum MaRPL-Projekt unter http://www.marpl.uni-goettingen.de/. 46 Zur Überlieferungssituation der Hist Melch vgl. Jan Dochhorn: Die Historia de Melchisedech (Hist Melch) – Einführung, editorischer Vorbericht und Editiones praeliminares, Le Muséon 117 (2004), 7–48, speziell das Repertorium auf S. 16–27. Zu den Paralipomena Jeremiae bzw. dem 4. Baruch vgl. Robert A. Kraft/Ann-Elizabeth Purintun (Hg.): Paraleipomena Jeremiou (Society of Biblical Literature. Texts and Translations 1; Pseudepigrapha Series 1), Missoula (Montana) 1973, speziell die Liste der Textzeugen 2–5 (von denen die meisten unediert sind). 47 Vgl. hierzu Jan Dochhorn: Abel and the Three Stages of Postmortal Judgement. A Text-Critical and Redaction-Critical Study of the Christian Elements in T.Ab. 13, 2–8, in: I. Henderson/G. Oegema

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 15

denen Chancen darf sich editorische Arbeit zu den Parabiblica also auf keinen Fall entgehen lassen, wo immer die Rekonstruktion eines Stemmas denn wenigstens ansatzweise möglich ist. Gleichermaßen müssen neue Strategien diplomatischer oder kontrolliert semidiplomatischer Edition einzelner Textzeugen erprobt werden, nicht zuletzt damit so das reale Leben von Parabiblica in ihren Rezeptionskontexten sichtbar gemacht werden kann. Dies leisten Urtexteditionen mit Apparat nämlich vielfach nicht. Denn diese müssen eher oft als selten stemmatisch irrelevante Varianten ausblenden. Aber eben dies Irrelevante – dümmste Fehler und sprachliche Grausamkeiten nicht ausgeschlossen – prägt oft das Bild in den konkreten Textzeugen (das Konkrete, das Gemischte und als gemischtes auch schlechtes ist ja das, was wir eigentlich nur zur Hand haben). Vielfach frage ich mich, wenn ich etwa Parabiblica in Falascha-Handschriften lese, ob nur ich es bin, der das Gelesene nicht versteht; bin ich der erste, der diesem Schriftstück so etwas wie einen Sinn zu entlocken versucht? Auch dieses Phänomen muß sichtbar gemacht werden, und Perspektiven der sogenannten neuen bzw. materiellen Philologie mit ihrem Interesse am konkreten Textzeugen und seinem Lebenskontext sind hier einzubeziehen, nicht so sehr anhand imposanter Artefakte aus der Antike, sondern wesentlich häufiger anhand von Papierhandschriften aus Zeiten, in denen es den Buchdruck schon lange gab.48 Editionen werden das Bild der neuen Reihe erheblich prägen, und es werden dabei sowohl Archetyp und Urtext im Blick sein als auch Rezeptionsprofile, und hier der konkrete Lebenskontext von Textzeugen gleichermaßen wie die Identifikation transmissionsgeschichtlich bedingter Sedimente (etwa von christlichen Zutaten, die nicht in allem Handschriften bezeugt sind, aber auch von archetypischen wie in den Test XII). 2. Die Aufmerksamkeit für spätes Material ist in der Forschung zu den Parabiblica/ Apokryphen gestiegen49, und dieser Trend soll hier durchaus aufgenommen werden: Ein Parabiblicum aus dem Mittelalter ist nicht irrelevant, sondern unter anderem ein kulturhistorisches Zeugnis, das auch an der Antike Interessierte zur Kenntnis nehmen müssen, unter anderem, um tatsächlich Antikes sicher zu identifizieren. (Hg.): The Changing Faces of Judaism, Christianity and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2), Gütersloh 2006, 410–27. 48 Wie neu die Neuphilologie ist, scheint eine schon ältere Frage zu sein; maßgeblich für diese Forschungsrichtung ist jedenfalls ein Heft aus Speculum 65 (1990); sie hat ihren Ausgangspunkt in der Mediävistik genommen. Zu neueren Entwicklungen vgl. Liv Ingeborg Lied/Hugo Lundhaug (Hg.): Snapshots of Evolving Traditions. Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 175), Berlin etc. 2017. Die hier angesprochene Fragerichtung eignet sich meines Erachtens besonders gut bei Literaturkomplexen, in denen individuelle Einheiten schwer abzugrenzen sind, weil Überlieferungen ineinander verschwimmen, etwa in der Hekhalotliteratur, vgl. hierzu James R. Davila: Translating the Hekhalot Literature. Insights from New Philology, in: Lied/Ludhaug (s.o.), 323–46. Es ist damit nicht gesagt, daß sie überall Anspruch auf Alleinvertretung in der Textkritik erheben kann; vielfach sind Urtexte rekonstruierbar, mindestens aber spätere Varianten auszuschließen, und dies ist für die historische Auswertung der Texte entscheidend – und oft auch wichtig für die Analyse der konkreten Textzeugen (»Konkret« ist »gemischt«; woraus aber besteht die Mischung? Ein Wissen darum ergibt sich aus der Frage nach der Vorgeschichte des Mischvorgangs). 49 Rezente Sammlungen nehmen immer mehr Material aus nachantiker Zeit auf. Dies läßt sich etwa beobachten an den »More Noncanonical Scriptures« von Bauckham/Davila/Panayotov (wie Anm. 39), ebenso an dem Nachfolgeprojekt zum neuen »Hennecke-Schneemelcher« von Christoph Markschies und Jens Schröter (»Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung«), vgl. Anm. 37.

16 Jan Dochhorn

3. Parabiblica, solche antiker Herkunft wie auch in Spät- und Nachantike verfaßte Werke, begegnen in sprachlich und religiös unterschiedlich konturierten Kontexten, in denen sie entweder produziert oder rezipiert und dann oftmals überformt werden (vgl. § I). Es gibt griechische und byzantinische Parabiblica, auch viele auf neugriechisch (bekannt sind etwa neugriechische Textzeugen zur Narratio Zosimi, zum Testament Abrahams, zu Joseph und Aseneth und zu den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen);50 es gibt eine schier unüberschaubare Menge an Parabiblica im kirchenslavischen und rumänischen Bereich;51 reichhaltig ausgestattet sind auch die äthiopische Kirche52 und etwa das irische Christentum.53 Und eher selten beachtet wurde bisher, daß es auch jüdische Parabiblica gibt: Nicht gerade wenige der sogenannten kleineren Midraschim, etwa die von Jellinek im Beth Ha-Midrasch herausgegebenen Schriften, sind Parabiblica oder vertragen es mindestens, unter dem Aspekt der Parabiblizität untersucht zu werden.54 Es kann interessant sein, diesen Rezeptions- und Produktionskontexten besondere Aufmerksamkeit zu widmen, und entsprechende Aktivitäten sind schon in Planung (ich gebe gerne zu, daß es speziell der in Anm. 51 genannte Sammelband von DiTommaso und Böttrich ist, der mich zur Nachahmung anregt): Es wird einen Band zu Parabiblica der Falascha geben (womit wir in sehr später Zeit sind), und ebenso zu Parabiblica sowie Parabiblizität in der äthiopischen Christenheit. Je mehr dabei Originalsprachliches sichtbar wird, möglichst in ansprechenden Schrifttypen, desto mehr ist dabei Gutes für eine Forschungsöffentlichkeit geleistet und Neugiede geweckt auf noch mehr und noch Schöneres. 4. Religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien sind hochwillkommen, auch die Einbeziehung von Parabiblizität außerhalb von Parabiblica. Angestrebt sind dabei Diversifizierung und Emanzipation des Forschungsbereiches: Parabiblica-Forschung ist, sosehr sie auf Biblisches bezogen ist, nicht eine Unterabteilung der Bibelwissenschaft, 50 Einen neugriechischen Text zu Narr Zos scheint Panteleêmôn 299, 375v–82r zu bieten, vgl. zu diesem Textzeugen Dochhorn: Narratio Zosimi (wie Anm. 5), 396 (dort Nr. 10); zu Test Abr (ngr.) listet Schmidt (wie Anm. 17) vier Textzeugen auf; zu Jos As (ngr) vgl. Burchardt: Joseph und Aseneth (wie Anm. 19), 7; eine neugriechische Version der Test XII ist in Bukarest, Biblioteca Academiei Române, gr. 580, 7r–120r bezeugt, vgl. Christoph Burchardt: Neues zur Überlieferung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. Eine unbeachtete griechische Handschrift (Athos, Laura I 48) und eine unbekannte neugriechische Fassung (Bukarest, Bibl Acad, 580 [341], New Testament Studies 12 (1956–1966), 245–58; Burchard gibt den Text des Testaments Benjamins wieder (S. 253–58). 51 Vgl. hierzu Émile Turdeanu: Apocryphes slaves et roumains (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 5), Leiden 1981. Als Beispiel für eine Errungenschaft auf diesem Gebiet vgl. Nicolae Roddy: The Romanian Version of the Testament of Abraham. Text, Translation, and Cultural Context (Society of Biblical Literature; Early Judaism and its Literature 19), Atlanta (Georgia) 2001. Vgl. auch Lorenzo DiTommaso/Christfried Böttrich (Hg.): The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition. Continuity and Diversity (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 140), Tübingen 2011. Für slavische Apokryphen ist besonders auf die Arbeiten von Christfried Böttrich und Andrej Orlov zu verweisen. 52 Vgl. Pierluigi Piovanelli: Les Aventures des Apocryphes en Èthiopie, Apocrypha 4 (1993), 197– 224; Ted Erho: New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 2013, 1–23. 53 Vgl. Martin McNamara: The Apocrypha in the Irish Church. Collected Essays (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia 66), Turnhout 2015; idem: The Apocrypha in the Irish Church, Dublin 1975. 54 Vgl. Adolph Jellinek: Bet ha-Midrasch. Sammlung kleiner Midraschim (in 6 Teilen), Leipzig 1853–1857 (Teil 1–4); Wien 1873–77 (Teil 5–6); Neudruck: Jerusalem 1967 (2 Bände); vgl. die meisten der bei Günter Stemberger: Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, München 81992, 319–31 aufgeführten Schriften. Zu beachten sind auch die Literaturangaben ebenda 348–49.

Überlegungen zu der neuen Reihe »Parabiblica« 17

etwa dahingehend, daß sie primär nach der Rezeption von AT/Tenakh oder NT fragte bzw. nach der Relevanz des Materials für die alttestamentliche oder neutestamentliche Wissenschaft oder für das mit dem frühen Christentum kontemporäre Judentum. Es geht auch um die Erschließung ganz anderer religiöser Welten: Es kann die Kirchengeschichte Irlands betroffen sein, die Formierung der altkirchenslavischen Literatur, das Fortleben von christlicher und paganisierter Gnosis bei den Kopten (wie es unter anderem die Nag Hammadi-Codices bezeugen), das Zusammenfließen koptischer und syrischer Tradition im arabischen Christentum, die Rezeption jüdischen und christlichen Bibelerzählens in einer mehr oder minder paganen griechischen Magie, in einer wohl überwiegend christlichen Magie der Kopten und Äthiopier, und es kann auch um die Geschichte von Astrologie, Alchemie und Naturkunde gehen, alles Bereiche, in der Kenntnisse nicht nur des Hermes, sondern auch biblischer Protagonisten eine Rolle spielten. Horizonterweiterung tut gut, hat es im Übrigen ja auch schon länger gegeben; wir setzen hier nicht etwas komplett Neues in die Welt. Horizonterweiterung soll dabei indes nicht verstanden werden im Sinne einer doktrinären »Offenheit«, die ein eher gewohntes Fragen im postmodernen Sinne der Zensur unterwirft: Es ist völlig legitim, im klassisch-neutestamentlichen Sinne beispielsweise zu fragen, was ein Parabiblicum für die Erforschung der Paulusbriefe austrägt; auch ich erlaube mir das, unter anderem im vorliegenden Band. Emanzipation bedeutet nicht Abgrenzung vom Überkommenen, sondern ein Darüber Hinausgehen, unter Einbeziehung des Überkommenen.

I. Editionen und Texttraditionen

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis (Teil A: Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148) Felix Albrecht Das Testamentum Salomonis (TestSal) ist ein in hagiographischem Kontext überliefertes Pseudepigraphon, das die Verfasserschaft des biblischen Königs Salomo für sich beansprucht. Es erzählt die Geschichte vom Bau des Jerusalemer Tempels durch Salomo, der mit Hilfe eines magischen Siegelrings Dämonen bezwingt und sie für den Tempelbau dienstbar macht. Griechisch ist die Schrift breit bezeugt.1 Die Referenzedition des griechischen Textes legte im Jahre 1922 Chester Charlton McCown vor.2 Er berücksichtigt zehn Handschriften, die er auf drei teils stark voneinander abweichende Rezensionen aufteilt.3 Die Liste der Textzeugen lässt sich nach derzeitigem Kenntnisstand gegenüber McCown um weitere Handschriften ergänzen, die im Rahmen des vorliegenden Beitrags, der aufgrund seines Umfangs in mehreren Teilen erscheinen soll, Berücksichtigung finden:4 A Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148 (»K«) – Pinakes: 26177. B Codex Vaticanus gr. 1700 (»R«) – Pinakes: 68329. C Codex EHAI 881 (»G«) – Pinakes: 62049. Die drei neuen Textzeugen werden im Folgenden jeweils kurz vorgestellt und semidiplomatisch ediert. Den Auftakt bildet Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148, dem der Verfasser die Sigel »K« zugewiesen hat.5 Diese Handschrift stammt aus dem Athoskloster Kutlumusiu und ist eine von insgesamt drei Athoshandschriften des TestSal: 1. Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148, ff. 386r–416v – Albrecht: K – Pinakes: 26177. 2. Codex Athos Dionysiu 132, ff. 367r–374v – McCown: D – Pinakes: 20100. 3. Codex Athos Andreu 73, ff. 11r–15v – McCown: Q – zerstört. ¹ Ferner lässt sich eine arabische Tradition nachweisen, die im vorliegenden Band besprochen wird. 2 McCown: Testament. ³ Aus der Reihe fallen die von McCown separat edierten Handschriften D und E. Hs. D bietet eine Art Vita Salomonis; entsprechend auch der von BHG III, Nr. 2389 vorgeschlagene Titel. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit Hs. E. – Die starken Abweichungen in der Überlieferung sind dabei typisch für die parabiblische Literatur, die nicht in kanonischem Ansehen stand und daher auch keinen festen Wortlaut besaß. 4 Seit nunmehr anderthalb Jahrzehnten beschäftigt den Vf. das TestSal. Die Kutlumusiu-Hs. studierte er vor Ort in der Klosterbibliothek. Großer Dank gebührt dem Ältestenrat des Klosters und dem Bibliothekar, Vater Sokrates, für die Erlaubnis, mit der Hs. arbeiten zu dürfen; sowie Herrn Dr. Marios Skempis für die Vermittlungen im Vorfeld. Fotos der in der bulgarischen Patriarchatsbibliothek in Sofia befindlichen Hs. stellte ihm dankenswerter Weise Herr Dr. Dorotei Getov – vor nunmehr zehn Jahren, also vor dem Erscheinen seines Katalogs (2014) – zur Verfügung. Cod. Vat. gr. 1700 ist inzwischen erfreulicherweise nebst Cod. Vat. gr. 1871 und Cod. Vat., Arch. Cap. S. Pietro C. 154 von Bailey: Manuscripts, 170–212, ediert worden. 5 Vgl. Albrecht: Rezension Busch.

22 Felix Albrecht

McCown verwendete für seine Edition lediglich die Handschriften D und Q. Bislang unberücksichtigt blieb die Handschrift des Kutlumusiu-Klosters, von deren Existenz McCown über den Lambros-Katalog zwar wusste, die er aber nicht einzusehen vermochte. In der Klassifizierung McCowns ist K der Rezension A (Hss. HIL) zuzuordnen. In den Jahren 2009 und 2010 bot sich dem Verfassser die Gelegenheit, die Handschrift K in Autopsie einzusehen und eine Neukollation der Handschrift D anzufertigen. Handschrift Q wurde beim Brand der Andreas-Skete am 16. Juli 1958 zerstört;6 einzig McCowns Kollation ist uns erhalten geblieben.

I. Codex Athos Kutlumusiu 148 (»K«) Das Kloster Kutlumusiu wurde in der ersten Hälfte des 12. Jhs. von Qutlumuš gegründet, einem türkischen Konvertiten, der ein Sohn oder Neffe von Qutlumuš I. († 1063) war.7 Die Herrschaftsbereiche dieser seldschukischen Dynastie lagen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien, was die (ungewöhnliche) antiochenische Provenienz einiger Hss. des Klosters erklären dürfte.8 1428 wurde das benachbarte Kloster Alypiou dem Abt von Kutlumusiu unterstellt. In den Jahren 1857 und 1870 beschädigten zwei Brände die Klosteranlage schwer, wobei die Bibliotheksräume verschont blieben. Heutzutage beherbergt die Bibliothek ca. 770 Handschriften.9 Im Sommer 1880 katalogisierte Lambros die ersten 461 Hss. (Lambros Nr. 3070–3534), die Beschreibungen erschienen 1895 im ersten Band seines umfangreichen Katalogs.10 Um 1889 stellte der Bibliothekar Chariton einen Katalog fertig, der auf den Beschreibungen von Lambros aufbaute und bis Hs. 562 reichte.11 Ein weiterer handgeschriebener Katalog, die Nummern 563–662 umfassend, wurde Manusos Manusakas zufolge nach dem 1. Weltkrieg begonnen. Als Manusakas den Bibliotheksbestand im Jahr 1953 sichtete, bemerkte er den Verlust von 18 Hss.12 Linos Politis schließlich verfasste im Juni der Jahre 1957, 1968 und 1969 eine Anzahl weiterer Beschreibungen (Hss. 462–771), die im Ergänzungskatalog von 1973 erschienen.13

⁶ Vgl. dazu Richard/Olivier: Répertoire, 347. ⁷ Vgl. Lemerle: Actes, 5. Zur Geschichte des Klosters vgl. überdies Thomas/Constantinides Hero: Documents, 1408–1410. ⁸ Vgl. z.B. Cod. Athos Kutlumusiu 61; hierzu ausführlich G. Mercati, Opere minori VI, 1937–57 (Studi e Testi 296), Vatikanstadt 1984, 320 m. Anm. 3. ⁹ Richard/Olivier: Répertoire, 337, geben einen Bestand von 766 Hss. an; Olivier: Supplément, 517, notiert mit Fragezeichen eine Gesamtzahl von 770 Hss. – Zum Verlust einzelner Hss. s.u. mit Anm. 12. 10 Lambros: Catalogue I, 270–318. 11 Vgl. Richard/Olivier: Répertoire, 336–37, hier: 337. 12 Vgl. Manusakas, Χειρόγραφα, 386. Manusakas notierte den Verlust der Hss. 7, 70 (jetzt Stockholm, Nationalmusei B 1961), 72, 472, 510–16, 521–22, 524–25, 528, 552, 562. Überdies bemerkte er den Verlust eines Blattes aus Hs. 77 (jetzt Princeton, Princeton University, The Art Museum, Cod. y1936-11). 13 Politis/Manusakas: Κατάλογοι (1973). Die Beschreibung des ersten Teils der Kutlumusiu-Handschriften (Hss. 462–616) erschien bereits 1968 separat: Politis: Κατάλογοι (1968).

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis 23

1. Handschriftenbeschreibung K14 Cod. Athos Kutlumusiu 148 ist unter der Nr. 3221 im Lambros-Katalog aufgeführt und als Papierhs. des 16. Jhs. im Sedez-Format mit einem Umfang von 431 Blatt ausgewiesen.15 Ein Blick auf das Rückenschild der Hs. verrät das Zustandekommen der spärlichen Katalogbeschreibung: Βίοι καὶ μαρτύρια ἁγίων. Λόγοι εἰς δεσποτικάς, θεομητορικὰς ἑορτάς. Ἐξήγησις τινων ψαλμῶν. Αἱ διαθῆκαι Σολομῶντος […]. Demnach hat Lambros scheinbar lediglich die Angaben des Rückenschildes für seine Inhaltsbeschreibung ausgewertet. Die Beschreibung endet mit dem Hinweis, das alles sei in Umgangssprache verfasst (Ἅπαντα ἐν τῇ καθωμιλημένῃ). Es steht außer Frage, dass eine Neubeschreibung der Hs. vonnöten ist. Eine solche umfassende Beschreibung der Hs. habe ich im Juli 2009 und 2010 vor Ort anfertigen können: Cod. Athos Kutlumusiu 148 ist eine Papierhandschrift des 17. Jhs. im Format 150 × 105 mm mit einem Umfang von 434 Blatt. Die Bindung weist mit rundem Rücken und ausstehenden Kapitalen byzantinische Formen auf. Papier und Einband sind durchgängig wurmstichig. Das Papier lässt keine Wasserzeichen erkennen.16 Die Hs. besteht aus 54 Quaternionen und einem Bifolium, wobei eine Kustodenzählung von α′ (f. 7r) bis μη′ (f. 378r) erhalten und eine weitere Zählung für den TestSal-Teil erkennbar ist: f. 386r (α′), f. 394r (β′), f. 402r (Rest von γ′). Bei der Paginierung wurden einzelne Blätter ausgelassen; sie werden im Folgenden mit der vorangehenden Blattzählung und hinzugefügten lateinischen Großbuchstaben bezeichnet: Somit bezeichnet f. 4A das auf f. 4 folgende ungezählte Blatt usw. Blattverluste sind durch X, Y, Z gekennzeichnet. Sowohl am Anfang (f. 1r–6v) als auch am Ende (f. 429r–430v) sind – um 90° versetzt – Teile einer älteren Handschrift eingebunden. Die erste Lage ist wie folgt aufgebaut: 1. Quaternion f. 1r–6v: ┌ f. 1 Ps 9,34b–37b; 10,1b–4b │ ┌ f. 2 Ps 10,6b–11,2b; 11,5c–8b │ │ ┌ f. 3 Ps 12,3a–5b; 13,1c–4b │ │ │ ┌ f. X [Ps 13,7b–14,3c; 14,5b–15,4b] │ │ │ └ f. 4 Ps 15,4b–5b; 14,3c–5b │ │ └ f. 4A Ps 13,4b–7b; 12,6b–13,1c │ └ f. 5 Ps 11,8b–12,3a; 11,3a–5c └ f. 6 Ps 10,4c–6a; 9,38–39b Aus dem eingebundenen Material der ersten Lage lassen sich vier Blatt (f. 1*–4*) einer Psalterhs. mit einem ursprünglichen Format von mind. 210 × 150 mm bei 18-zeiligem Text rekonstruieren. Erhalten sind Ps 9,34b–15,5b.

14 Im Jahr 2015 erfolgte die Ausarbeitung des Manuskripts. Für wertvolle Anmerkungen und Anregungen zur Handschriftenbeschreibung danke ich Herrn Dr. Rudolf Stefec (Wien). 15 Lambros: Catalogue I, 287: »1. Βίοι καὶ μαρτύρια ἁγίων, 2. Λόγοι εἰς δεσποτικὰς καὶ θεομητορικὰς ἑορτάς. 3. Ἐξήγησις Ψαλμῶν τινων. 4. Διαθῆκαι Σολομῶντος. Ἅπαντα ἐν τῇ καθωμιλημένῃ.« 16 Das fehlende Wasserzeichen mag Hinweis auf die östliche Provenienz des verwendeten Papiers geben.

24 Felix Albrecht

Rekonstruktion f. 1*–4* [1r–6v] (Ps 9,34b–15,5b): f. 1* r (f. 1r + 6v): Ps 9,34b–39b v (f. 1v + 6r): Ps 10,1b–6a f. 2* r (f. 2r + 5v): Ps 10,6b–11,5c v (f. 2v + 5r): Ps 11,5c–12,3a f. 3* r (f. 3r + 4Av): Ps 12,3a–13,1c v (f. 3v + 4Ar): Ps 13,1c–7b f. 4* r (f. Xr + 4v): Ps [13,7b–14,3c]14,3c–5b v (f. Xv + 4r): Ps [14,5b–15,4b]15,4b–5b Die letzte Lage besteht aus einem Bifolium (f. 429r–430v): ┌ f. 429 Apg 1,12–1417 └ f. 430 2Kor 2,13–1518 Hierbei handelt es sich um das Blatt (f. 5*) eines Lektionars, welches von derselben Hand stammt wie f. 1*–4* und dasselbe Format aufweist. Erhalten sind Teile aus Apg und 2Kor: Rekonstruktion f. 5* [429r–430v] (Apg 1,12–14; 2Kor 2,13–15): f. 5* r (f. 429v + 430r): Apg 1,12–14 v (f. 429r + 430v): 2Kor 2,13–15 Paläographie Bei der Schrift der vor- und nachgebundenen Lagen auf kräftigem Papier (ff.  1r–6v; 429r–430v) handelt es sich um eine senkrechte, archaisierende Minuskel, die sich in die 2. Hälfte des 16. Jhs. bzw. in das frühe 17. Jh. einordnen lässt. Die Schrift zeigt auffallende Majuskelelemente (Delta, Eta, Ny, Pi, Sigma) und ist an den Hodegon-Stil19 angelehnt. In ähnlicher Form ist sie häufiger in liturgischen Hss. des 16.–17. Jhs. anzutreffen.20

17 Ort in der Liturgie: Πράξεις τῶν Ἀποστόλων, Τῇ Δευτέρα τῆς Διακαινησίµου, Πράξεων τῶν Ἀποστόλων τὸ Ἀνάγνωσμα, Κεφ. 1,12–17; 21–26. 18 Ort in der Liturgie: Ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου Περιόδου Β´, Τῇ Δευτέρα τῆς ΙΑ´ Ἑβδομάδος, Πρὸς Κορινθίους Β´ Ἐπιστολῆς Παύλου τὸ Ἀνάγνωσμα, Κεφ. 2,3–15. 19 Zum Hodegon-Stil vgl. Politis: Schreiberschule. Ein Beispiel für die Verwendung dieses Stils ist Cod. Athos Kutlumusiu 33 (Pergament, 14. Jh.); vgl. dazu ebd., Tafel XV, Abb. 20. 20 Zum Nachleben des Hodegon-Stils in den liturgischen Handschriften des Athos vgl. Politis: Schreiberschule, bes. 282–83. Beispiele für die Weiterentwicklung des Stils sind zahlreich: Im 16.–17. Jh. scheint diese Schrift auf dem gesamten Athos verbreitet gewesen zu sein; vgl. L. Politis: Persistances, 371. Sie findet sich beispielsweise in liturgischen Handschriften des Klosters Iviron, auf die an dieser Stelle deshalb verwiesen wird, weil Specimina dieser Handschriften über die Handschriftenkataloge jenes Klosters gut zugänglich sind; vgl. z.B. die liturgischen Codd. Athos Iviron 1497 (datiert 1555, Papierhs.; Soteroudes: Κατάλογος ΙΑ´, Abb. 103); Athos Iviron 1525 (17. Jh., Papierhs.; a.a.O., Abb. 181); Athos Iviron 1530 (datiert 1633/1634, Papierhs.; a.a.O., Abb. 126; 174); Athos Iviron 1538 (17. Jh., Papierhs.; a.a.O. Abb. 132). Vgl. ferner Zoumbouli: Luc de Buzau.

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis 25

Die übrigen Traktate (f. 7r–416v) sind in einer rechtsgeneigten »barocken« Schrift des 17. Jhs. gehalten, deren besondere Merkmale die Oberlängen des nach links geschwungenen Taus und gelegentlich auch des Epsilons und Sigmas sowie die Unterlängen des nach links gezogenen Iotas (im Falle von καί und der Ligatur Epsilon-Iota), des von der Zeile hängenden Lambdas, des Rhos, Phis und Chis sind, während die Unterlänge des Mys eigentümlich nach rechts gezogen ist. Der letzte Traktat (f. 417r–428v) ist von anderer Hand geschrieben: hier weist das Tau nur selten Oberlänge auf; insgesamt ist die Schrift gedrungener und durch die gehäufte Verwendung von Abbreviaturen geprägt. Inhalt Die Handschrift enthält folgende Traktate: f. 1r–6v

Septuaginta Ps 9,34b–15,5b

Edition: Rahlfs: Psalmi, 92–98. f. 7r–166r

Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita Sabae

Edition: Koikylides: Βίος, 1–96 [non vidi]. Tit.: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Σάββα τοῦ ἡγιασμένου καὶ καθηγητοῦ τῆς ἐρήμου· μεταφρασθεὶς εἰς τὴν κοινὴν γλῶτταν. Εὐλόγησον, π(άτ)ερ. Inc.: Δὲν εἶναι κἂν ἕνα πρᾶγμα […]. Lit.: BHG II, 228 (Nr. 1609). Im Menologion des Symeon Metaphrastes hat die vorliegende metaphrastische Vita ihren liturgischen Ort am 5. Dezember; vgl. dazu Høgel: Symeon, 190. f. 167r–185r

Matthaeus Myrensis, Vita Parascevae Junioris

Edition: Papadopoulos-Kerameus: Ἀνάλεκτα I, 438–53 (Nr. XXI). Tit.: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τῆς ὁσίας μ(ητ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Παρασ⟨κ⟩ευῆς τῆς Νέας τῆς ἐξ ἐπιβατῶν Ματθαίῳ τῷ ταπεινῷ μ(ητ)ροπολίτῃ Μυρέων, ἀπὸ τῆς βουλγαρικῆς διαλέκτου εἰς τὴν ἑλληνίδα μεταφρασθείς (μὲ τὰ φραστής cod.). Εὐλόγησον, οὐδὲν οὕτω ψυχωφελὲς καὶ σ(ωτή)ριον καὶ δέσποτα. Inc.: Παντὸς ἄλλου ⟨κ⟩αὶ πενομένου πράγματος χρησιμώτερον, ὥστε διηγῆται τὰς τῶν ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν θεοφιλεῖς πράξεις καὶ βίους καὶ κατορθώματα. Lit.: BHG II, 172 (Nr. 1421). Die vorliegende Vita geht auf Matthaeus von Myra (gest. nach 1620) zurück; vgl. Papadopoulos-Kerameus: Ἀνάλεκτα I, κ′–κβ′ (Nr. XXI); Kałužniacki: Paraskevalitteratur, 4–9; ferner Podskalsky: Literatur, 314. – Der von Papadopoulos-Kerameus seiner Edition zugrunde gelegte Textzeuge (Cod. Hierosol. Patriarch. 161, ff. 54–66) ist der zwischen 1605–20 anzusetzende Autograph dieser Heiligenvita; vgl. dazu Papadopoulos-Kerameus: Ἱεροσολυμιτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη I, 257–58, hier: 257; Kałužniacki: Paraskevalitteratur, 5 in Anm. 2.

26 Felix Albrecht

f. 185v–209v

Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita Mamantis

Edition: Ioannou: Μνημεῖα, 338–51. Tit.: Μηνὶ Σεπτεβρίου βος, ἄθλησις καὶ μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου μεγαλομάρτυρος τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ Μάμαντος. Εὐλόγησον, πάτερ. Es folgt eine kleine monastische Einleitung der Vita (ff. 185v–186r), inc.: Βούλομαι καὶ σήμερον, ἀγάπητοί μου ἀδελφοί, τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ βοηθοῦντος μοι […]. Inc.: Οὗτος ὁ μέγας καὶ περιβόητος μεγαλομάρτυς τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ Μάμας εἶχεν πατρίδα τὴν Παφλαγονίαν […]. Lit.: BHG II, 72 (Nr. 1018). Vgl. zur vorliegenden metaphrastischen Vita Berger: Viten, 273–274. Im Menologion des Symeon Metaphrastes hat sie ihren liturgischen Ort am 2. September; vgl. dazu Høgel: Symeon, 173. f. 209v–213v

Oratio anonyma

Tit.: Λόγος ὠφέλιμος. ἐὰν θέλει, ὁ δαίμων δύναται σωθῆναι. Inc.: Ἕνας ἀπὸ τοὺς ἁγίους π(ατέ)ρες μέγας καὶ προορατικός […]. Derselbe Text ist auch in Codex British Library, Add MS 34554 (16. Jh.), f. 152r–156v, bezeugt. f. 214r–237v

Passio Procopii

Edition: Papadopoulos-Kerameus: Ἀνάλεκτα V, 1–27 (Nr. I). Tit.: Μαρτύριον τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ ἐνδόξου μεγαλομάρτυρος τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ Προκοπίου, Εὐ⟨λόγη⟩σον, π(άτ)ερ. Inc.: Λοιπὸν ὁ διαλεγ⟨ό⟩μενος οὕτως ἐν μάρτυσιν μέγας τε καὶ θαυμαστὸς Προ­ κόπιος. Ἐγενήθην εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τῶν δυσσεβῶν βασιλέων Διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ Μαξι­μια­νοῦ […]. Lit.: Vgl. BHG 1577. Der Text weicht von dem von Papadopoulos-Kerameus gebotenen geringfügig ab, was kaum verwundert, da dessen Textgrundlage mehr als ein halbes Jahrtausend älter ist als der uns vorliegende Textzeuge. f. 237v–247r Tit.: Inc.: Lit.:

Narratio excerpta e Vita Theodori

Διήγησις πάνυ ὠφέλιμος ἐκ τοῦ βίου τοῦ ὁσίου π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Θεοδώρου, ἐπισκόπου Ἐδέσ⟨σ⟩ης, καὶ περὶ τοῦ μαθητοῦ αὐτοῦ Μιχαήλ.21 Εὐλόγησον, π(άτ)ερ. Βούλεται ὁ λόγος καί τι τῶν παραδόξων ὅσον ἡδύσματι προσθεῖναι τῷ διηγήματι. Vgl. BHG 1744

Μιχα|ήλ post correcturam; π(άτ)ερ | Ἰ(σρα)ήλ ante correcturam.

21

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis 27

Es handelt sich um ein Exzerpt aus der Vita des Theodor von Edessa, das mit keinem der bekannten Exzerpte (BHG 1744b, BHG 1744c, BHG 1744h) übereinstimmt. f. 247r–251v

Origenes, De diapsalmate

Edition: Risch: Origenes, De diapsalmate. Tit.: Γνῶσις τοῦ διαψάλμα⟨τος⟩. Inc.: Πολλάκις ζητήσεται τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ ἐπιγράφεσθαι μεταξὺ τῶν ψαλμῶν διάψαλμα. Unberücksichtigter Textzeuge. Risch, 59, listet zwölf Textzeugen des 10.–17. Jhs. Derselbe Text ist in weiteren Hss. überliefert, beispielsweise in Codex Hierosolymitanus, Patriarchal-Bibliothek, Ἁγίου Σταυροῦ 81 (16. Jh., Rahlfs-Hs. 1627), ff. 1r–5r. f. 251v–256r Tit.: Inc.:

Περὶ τοῦ Ἁλληλούϊα. Ὅ σημαίνει ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος φωνῆς εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνίδα.

f. 256r–260v Tit.: Inc.:

Prolegomena in Psalmos

Prolegomena in Psalmos

Περὶ τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν. Πάλιν ἑτέρα ἐπιγραφή· Ψαλμὸς τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν.

f. 260v–261r

Eusebius, De diapsalmate

Edition: Bandt: Eusebius (?), De diapsalmate. Tit.: Εὐσεβίου (Εὐσευείου cod.) εἰς τὸ διάψαλμα. Inc.: Ἔγραψα τὸ διάψαλμα οἱ ἑρμηνεύσαντες τέσσαρες ἄρχοντες. Unberücksichtigter Textzeuge. Bandt, 276, listet acht Textzeugen des 10.–17. Jhs. Unter ihnen befindet sich Codex Oxoniensis, Bodleian Library, Baroccianus 223 (15. Jh.; RahlfsHs. 1706), der dieselben Psalmentraktate wie die vorliegende Handschrift enthält, also Origenes und Eusebius über das Diapsalma sowie die beiden Texte über das Halleluja und die Stufen. f. 261r–281v

Varia

Es scheint eine Zusammenstellung verschiedener Psalmenauslegungen zu folgen. Leider vermag ich dazu keine näheren Angaben zu machen, da meine Aufzeichnungen zu diesem Teil unvollständig sind. Selbstverständlich werde ich die fehlenden Angaben bei nächster Gelegenheit nachtragen. f. 282r–301v

Apocalypsis Moysi

Edition: Dochhorn: Apokalypse. Tit.: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία Ἀδὰμ καὶ Εὔας, τῶν πρωτοπλάστων ἀπο⟨κα⟩λυφθεὶς ἐκ προστάξεως Θ(εο)ῦ διὰ τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου τῷ Μωϋσῇ τῷ θεράποντι αὐτοῦ, ὅτε

28 Felix Albrecht

καὶ τὰς πλάκας τῆς διαθήκης ἐδέξατο. Εὐ⟨λόγησο⟩ν, π(άτ)ερ. Ἀδὰμ καὶ Εὔας τῶν πρωτοπλάστων. Μετὰ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν αὐτοῦς ἐκ τοῦ παρα­ δείσου. Lit.: CAVT 1.i; BHG I, 6–7 (Nr. 24–25f). Unberücksichtigter Textzeuge; vorläufige stemmatische Einordnung: Subarchetyp *IIIb1/2 in der Edition Dochhorns. – Eine Publikation dieses Textzeugen ist in Vorbereitung (Jan Dochhorn).

Inc.:

f. 302r–327r

Vita Macarii Romani [Ἰανουαρίου ιθ’]

Edition: Vassiliev: Anecdota, 135–65. Tit.: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ὁσίου π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Μακαρίου τοῦ Ῥωμαίου τοῦ εὑρεθέντος ἀπὸ εἴκοσι μιλίων τοῦ παραδείσου. Εὐλό⟨γησον, πάτερ⟩. Inc.: Παρακαλοῦμεν (παλακαλοὺμεν cod.) ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἡμεῖς οἱ ταπεινοὶ καὶ ἐλάχιστοι μοναχοί. Lit.: BHG II, 67 (Nr. 1004). f. 327r–348v Tit.: Inc.: Lit.:

Conversio Christomaei

Διήγησις περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Χρισ⟨τ⟩ομαίου (Χρυσομαίου cod.) ὅπου ἐσυνόδευ{ν}­ σεν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις εἰς τὴν πόλιν τῶν Πάρθων. Καθημένων τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων Βαρθολομαίου [Βαρθολωμέου cod.] καὶ Ἀνδρέου μετὰ τῶν δύο μαθητῶν αὐτῶν. CANT 238; BHG III, 13–14 (Nr. 2056).

f. 349r–367r

Johannes I. Thessalonicensis, Homilia de dormitione Mariae

Edition: Jugie, Homélies II, 344–438. Tit.: Ἰω(άν)ν(ου) ἐπισκόπου Θεσ⟨σ⟩αλ⟨ο⟩νίκης Λόγος εἰς τὴν κοίμησιν τῆς ὑπεραγίας δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θ(εοτό)κου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας. Εὐλό⟨γησον, πάτερ⟩. Inc.: Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος τῆς ἀναπαύσεως Μαρίας καὶ ἅπερ αὐτῇ ἀπεκαλύφθη. Ἡνίκα ἔγνω Μαρία παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὅτι ἀποτίθεται τὸ σῶμα, ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὴν ὁ ἄγγελος καὶ εἶπεν· Lit.: CPG 7924a; BHG III, 167 (Nr. 1144). – Wenger: Assomption, 17–67 (zu weiteren Hss. etc.). Unberücksichtigter Textzeuge der Recensio genuina, welcher zwar den Prolog auslässt und erst mit §3 einsetzt, aber eng mit P2 (Cod. Paris. gr. 1174) der Edition Jugies zusammengeht. Immerhin urteilt Jugie über P2: »une des meilleures copies du texte original« (a.a.O. 351). Dabei scheinen P2 und K unabhängig voneinander am selben Überlieferungsarm zu hängen: Bindefehler: post Μαρίας 2° om. τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου K–P2; loco ὃ ἔδωκέ μοι hab. ὃ δέδωκέ (orthogr. δέδοκέ K) μοι K–P2. — Trennfehler: παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου K ↔︎ παρὰ Κυρίου P2.

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis 29

f. 367r–373v

Athanasius Alex., Narratio de cruce seu imagine Berytensi

Edition: PG 28, 805–12. Tit.: Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Ἀθανασίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρίας Διήγησις περὶ τῆς ἁγίας εἰκόνος τοῦ κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ. Γενόμενον θαῦμα ἐν Βηρυτῷ (Βηρητῷ cod.) τῇ πόλ⟨ει⟩. Inc.: Ἄρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμῶν τῆς διανοίας καὶ ἴδετε τὸ καινὸν θέαμα, ὅπερ γέγονεν νῦν. Lit.: CPG 2262; BHG III, 108 (Nr. 780). f. 373v–382v

Vita Eugenii et Mariae

Edition: PG 115, 348–53. Tit.: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μαρίνου ⟨μον⟩αχ⟨οῦ⟩. Εὐλό⟨γησον, πάτερ⟩. Inc.: Γέγονέν τις ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ὀνόματι Εὐγένιος ἔχων γυναίκα καὶ ὑπήρχεν ἄτεκνος. Lit.: BHG I, 187 (Nr. 614). Weitere Textzeugen sind beispielsweise Cod. Hierosolymitanus, Σάβα 373 (16. Jh.), f. 357v–361v, und Σάβα 390 (16. Jh.), f. 1r–5r. f. 383r–385v

Vita Marci Atheniensis

Edition: Angelidi: Βίος. Tit.: Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ὁσίου π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Μάρκου τοῦ Ἀθηναίου τοῦ ἀσκήσαντος ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῆς Θράκης, τῆς οὔσης ἐπέκεινα τῶν ἐνδοτάτων μερῶν τῆς εἰσόδου Αἰθιοπίας. Εὐλό⟨γησον⟩, π(άτ)ερ. Inc.: Διηγήσατο ἡμῖν ὁ ἀββᾶς Σεραπίων (Σεραπίον cod.), ὑπάρχων ἐν τῇ ἐσωτέρᾳ ἐρήμῳ τῆς Αἰ­γύπτου. Lit.: BHG II, 79 (Nr. 1039–41). Unberücksichtigter Textzeuge; vorläufige stemmatische Einordnung: Familie γ (L, I, A, R, U) in der Edition Angelidis. f. 386r–416v

Testamentum Salomonis

Edition: McCown: Testament. Tit.: Διαθήκη Σολομῶντος υἱοῦ Δαυείδ, ὃς ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων οὓς ἐκράτησε καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ναοῦ ἃ ὑπερβαλλόντως πε­ ποίηκε […]. Inc.: Εὐλογητὸς εἶ, κύριε, ὁ δοὺς τῷ Σολομῶντι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην. Lit.: CAVT 162; BHG III, 68 (Nr. 2390). Unberücksichtigter Textzeuge; stemmatische Einordnung: Rezension A in der Edition McCowns, aufs Engste mit cod. I (Cod. Parisinus Suppl. gr. 500) zusammengehend und im Rahmen des vorliegenden Beitrags editorisch erschlossen.

30 Felix Albrecht

f. 417r–428v

Germanus I., Orationes (PG 98, 221–381), Oratio 3

Edition: PG 98, 320. Tit.: Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις π(ατ)ρ(ὸ)ς ἡμῶν Γερμανοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταν⟨τι­νου⟩­ πό­λεως Λόγος εἰς τὸν Εὐα⟨γγελισμὸ⟩ν τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θ⟨εοτό⟩κου. Εὐλό⟨γησον⟩, π(άτ)ερ. Inc.: Τῆς παρούσης τιμίας καὶ βασιλικῆς συνάξεως. Dieser Traktat ist von anderer Hand geschrieben als die vorangehenden Seiten und durch zahlreiche Abbreviaturen gekennzeichnet. f. 429v–430v

Apg 1,12–14; 2Kor 2,13–15

Edition: Strutwolf u.a. (Hg.): Apostelgeschichte Teil 1.1, 11–14 (zu Apg 1,12–14); Nestle-Aland28, 558 (zu 2Kor 2,13–15). 2. Semidiplomatische Edition K22 Der nachfolgenden Edition liegen in orthographischer Hinsicht folgende Regeln zugrunde: 1. Phonetisch bedingte Verschreibungen und Quantitätsvertauschungen werden i. d. R. stillschweigend korrigiert, z. B.: TestSal I,1: παιδίον] παιδίων cod. K (bedingt durch Quantitätsvertauschung); TestSal I,1: μεγίστην] μεγήστην cod. K (bedingt durch Itazismus). Starke Verschreibungen werden indes vermerkt, z. B.: TestSal I,1: ἐποίει] ἐπή cod. K ( bedingt durch Itazismus). 2. Das Iota subscriptum ist in cod. K nicht benutzt und in der vorliegenden Ausgabe nach den Regeln der Kunst nachgetragen. 3. Eine Eigenart von cod. K besteht darin, die – stets mit Supralinearstrich gekennzeichneten – Nomina sacra anstelle des jeweiligen Akzents mit Apostroph zu versehen, z. B.: TestSal I,4: θ(εο)ῦ] θῡ’ cod. K (f. 387r, l. 14); TestSal I,4: πν(εῦμ)α] πνᾱ’ cod. K (f. 387r, l. 16). 4. Nomina propria werden i. d. R. unkorrigiert wiedergegeben, z. B.: TestSal XXII,19: Ἐφήπτας; XXV,7: Ἔφηππας. Nur in Einzelfällen, wo die Überlieferung offenkundig fehlerhaft ist, wurde korrigierend eingegriffen, z. B.: TestSal XI,6: Ἐκµανουήλ pro Ἐµµανουήλ. 5. Eine Interpunktion ist vorhanden; sie ist in der vorliegenden Ausgabe modernen Gepflogenheiten angepasst. Der Text ist an fünf Stellen durch ausgestellte Initialen in Abschnitte gegliedert, was in der Edition wiedergegeben ist. Mitunter sind rubrizierte Zwischenüberschriften in margine beigegeben; dies ist jeweils vermerkt. 22 Im Jahr 2022 erfolgte der Abschluss des Manuskripts. Für wertvolle Anmerkungen und Anregungen zum Editionstext danke ich meiner Mitarbeiterin, Frau Dr. Maria Tomadaki (Göttingen).

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis 31

Aufgrund der stemmatischen Nähe der Handschriften K und I findet cod. I, der den Text bis TestSal V,8 bietet, im Apparat besondere Berücksichtigung.23 Daneben sind die Handschriften H und L als Zeugen der McCown’schen A-Rezension eigens verzeichnet.24 Die Lemmata, zu denen ein Apparateintrag vorliegt, sind im Haupttext durch Kursivierung hervorgehoben. Größere, vom Herausgeber für notwendig erachtete Korrekturen des Wortlauts der Handschrift werden zusätzlich durch einen Asterisk (※) im Haupttext angezeigt. Der überlieferungsgeschichtliche Wert von cod. K besteht darin, dass er ab TestSal XVIII,29 an die Seite von cod. H tritt, der von dort an einziger Zeuge der A-Rezension ist, weil cod. L mit TestSal XVIII,28 abbricht.

Dass codd. K und I eine direkte gemeinsame Vorlage gehabt hätten, ist unwahrscheinlich, da es Fälle gibt, in denen codd. KH gegen cod. I stehen (z.B. TestSal IV,12), so dass eine Zwischenstufe anzunehmen ist. 24 Überwiegend sind McCowns Lesarten ohne Überprüfung angeführt. Das Hauptaugenmerk liegt im vorliegenden Beitrag auf Codex K. Nur vereinzelt konnten Nachprüfungen an den Handschriften vorgenommen werden. Stichproben des Verfasssers haben ergeben, dass McCown leider fehlerhaft kollationiert hat. 23

32 Felix Albrecht

Titulus Διαθήκη Σολομῶντος υἱοῦ Δα(υί)δ, ὃς ἐβασίλευσεν ἐν Ἱ(ερουσα)λήμ, καὶ περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων οὓς ἐκράτησε καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ναοῦ ἃ ὑπερβαλλόντως πεποίηκε(a) καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν αἱ ⟨ἐξουσί⟩αι δοθεῖσαι (b) αὐτῷ ὑπὸ Θ(εο)ῦ κατὰ τῶν δαιμόνων καὶ παρὰ τίνων ἀγγέλων καταργοῦνται οἱ δαίμονες.

386r

Benedictio

Ε

ὐλογητὸς εἶ, κύριε, ὁ δοὺς τῷ Σολομῶντι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην.

I,1

I,2

I,3

Textus

I. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνοικο⟨δομου⟩μένης τῆς Ἱ(ερουσα)λὴμ καὶ ἐργαζομένων τῶν τεχνιτῶν, ἓν παιδίον ἔχων προθυμίαν μεγίστην ἐπὶ {τοὺς} τὴν τοῦ ναοῦ οἰκοδομήν, ὃ{ς} ἐποίει τοὺς τεχνίτας ‖ προθυμοτέρους πρὸς ἐργασίαν καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες ἔχαιρον πάντες ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ παιδὸς προθυμίᾳ· Ἦν δὲ καὶ ἀγαπώμενον ἄγειν παρ’ ἐμοῦ Σολομῶντος καὶ ἐλάμβανε παρὰ πάντας τοὺς τεχνίτας διπλὸν τὸν μισθὸν καὶ τὰ σιτίδια διπλᾶ.

386v

Κ

αὶ ἤμουν χαίρων καὶ εὐφραινόμενος ἐγὼ Σολομῶν καὶ εὐλογῶν τὸν Θ(εὸ)ν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ ναοῦ οἰκοδομῇ. 2. Φθονήσαντος δὲ τοῦ δαίμονος ἐπὶ τὴ⟨ν⟩ τοῦ παιδὸς προθυμίαν, ἤρχετο καθεκάστην ἡμέραν ὁ δαίμων καὶ ἐλάμβανε τὸ ἥμισυ τῶν σιτίων αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐθήλαζεν ἐκ τῶν ἀντιχείρων τῆς δεξιᾶς αὐτοῦ χειρός. Καὶ ἐλεπτύ‖νετο τὸ παιδίον, ὅπερ ἦν ἀγαπώμενον ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ σφόδρα. 3. Ἐγὼ δὲ Σολομῶν ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνακρίνας τὸ παιδίον εἶπον αὐτῷ· «οὐχὶ ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς τεχνίτας τοὺς ἐργαζομένους ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ σὲ ἠγάπησα καὶ δίδωμί σοι ἐν διπλῷ τὸν μισθὸν καὶ τὰ σιτία· πῶς ἐφ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν λεπτύνῃς;»

Titulus ἐκράτησε] ἐκάρτησε cod. K (mend.), l. ἐκράτησε. | αἱ ἐξουσίαι δοθεῖσαι αὐτῷ] αἱαιδοθὴσαν (sic) cod. K*; αἱαιδοθὴσαι (sic) pro αἱ ⟨…⟩αι δοθεῖσαι cod. Kc, v. infra (b), l. αἱ ἐξουσίαι δοθεῖσαι αὐτῷ cum cod. I; αἱ ἐξουσίαι αὐτῶν codd. PQ. |  παρά cod. Kc (s. accentu cod.)] πα cod. K*. | οἱ cod. K] εἰ cod. I. I,1 ἀνοικο⟨δομου⟩μένης] ἀνοικομένης cod. Κ (mend.), l. ἀνοικοδομουμένης cum codd. HΙ. |  τεχνιτῶν] τεχτητών cod. K*; τεχνητών cod. Kc.  |  τούς addidit cod. K (mend.). | ἐποίει] ἐπή (sic) cod. K. I,2 τή⟨ν⟩] τὴ (sic) cod. K. | ἐθήλαζεν ἐκ cod. K] ἐθήλαζεν ἐν cod. I. I,3 παιδίον cod. Ktxt] παιδάριον codd. Kmg I. | πῶς codd. KP] καὶ πῶς codd. HΙQ. καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ναοῦ ἃ ὑπερβαλλόντως πεποίηκε] Cod. I, der im Titulus cod. K sehr ähnelt, stellt den Satz καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ναοῦ ἃ ὑπερβαλλόντως πεποίηκε an das Ende des Titulus. Dass unser Zeuge die richtige Stellung bewahrt hat, zeigt ein Blick auf die codd. PQ, die diesen Satzteil ebenfalls voranstellen. (a)

Der Text ist in cod. K mutiliert. In ursprünglicher Lesart dürfte der Kopist ἐδόθησαν verstanden haben, denn er schrieb zunächst αιδοθὴσαν (K*); verbesserte dies aber in αιδοθὴσαι (Kc), da seine Vorlage sehr wahrscheinlich verstümmeltes ⟨…⟩αι δοθεῖσαι für ⟨ἐξουσί⟩αι δοθεῖσαι bot, wie das Zeugnis von cod. I nahelegt. (b)

387r

Neue Textzeugen für das Testamentum Salomonis 33

387v

388r

4. Καὶ τὸ παιδίον εἶπε· «δέομαί σου, δέσποτα βασιλεῦ, ἄκουσόν μου καὶ ἐρῶ σοι(a) πάντα τὰ συμβάντα μοι. Μετὰ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἔργου τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ καὶ μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς ἐν τῷ ἀναπαυθῆναι με, ἔρχεται πονηρὸν πν(εῦμ)α καὶ ἀφαιρεῖται ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ τὸ ἥ||μισυ(b) τοῦ μισθοῦ μου καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ τῶν σιτίων μου καὶ λαμβάνει μου τὴν δεξιὰν χεῖρα καὶ θηλάζει μου τὸν ἀντίχειρον καὶ ἰδοὺ θλιβομένης τῆς ψυχῆς μου, τὸ σῶμα μου λεπτύνεται ἐφ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν.» 5. Καὶ ταῦτα ἀκούσας ἐγὼ ὁ βασιλεὺς Σολομῶν ἦλθον εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ καὶ ἐδεήθην ἐξ ὅλης ψυχῆς, ἐξομολογούμενος αὐτὸν νύκτα καὶ ἡμέρα⟨ν⟩, ὅπως παραδοθῇ ὁ δαίμων εἰς τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ ἐξουσιάσω αὐτόν. 6. Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ προσεύχεσθαί με πρὸς τὸν Θ(εὸ)ν τοῦ οὐ(ρα)νοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἐδόθη μοι παρὰ κ(υρίο)υ Σαβαὼθ διὰ Μιχαὴλ τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου δακτυλίδιον ἔχον σφρα||γῖδα κολαπτὴν λίθου τιμίου. Ἦν δὲ ἡ γλυφὴ{ς} αὕτη λέγω⟨ν⟩ οὕτως· «κ(ύρι)ε, ὁ Θ(εὸ)ς ἡμῶν, λέων· σαβαώθ· βιωνίκ· ἀω̅ά· ἐλω̅ί· αἰα̅ώ· ἰω̅ασέ· σιοὺ γεω̅ά· ἀγ̅έ· ἀε̅νίου· οὐουνίου· ἡρ̅ώ.» (c) αὶ εἶπέ μοι· «λάβε, Σολομῶν υἱὸς Δα(υί)δ, ὃ ἀποστέλλει σοι κ(ύριο)ς, ὁ ὕψιστος Σα­βαώθ, καὶ συγκλείσεις πάντα τὰ δαιμόνια, τά τε θηλυκὰ καὶ ἀρσενικὰ καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν οἰκοδομήσεις τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ⟨ἐν τῷ⟩ τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην σε φέρειν τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ.» 8. Καὶ περιχαρὴς γενόμενος ἐπὶ τοῦτο πάλιν ὕμνουν τὸν Θ(εὸ)ν καὶ τῇ ἐπαύριον ἐκέλευσα ἐλθεῖν πρός με τὸ παιδίον καὶ ἐπέδωκα τὸ δακτυλίδιο⟨ν⟩ {τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην} (d) 9. καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ· «ἐν ᾗ ἂν ὥρᾳ || ἐπιστῇ σοι τὸ δαιμόνιον ῥῖψον τὸ δακτυλίδιον τοῦτο, ὃ ἔλαβον παρὰ κ(υρίο)υ Σαβαὼθ καὶ ῥίψον αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ στῆθος τοῦ δαίμονος καὶ εἰπὲ αὐτῷ· δεῦρο, καλεῖ σε ὁ Σολομῶν καὶ δρομαίως παραγίνου πρός με, μὴ διαλογιζόμενος, ἃ μέλλει σοι λέγειν.» 10. Καὶ ἰδοὺ κατὰ τὴν ὁρισμένην ὥραν ἦλθεν ὁ Ὀρνίας τὸ χαλεπὸν δαιμόνιον ὡς πῦρ φλέγων ὥστε λαβεῖν κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες τὸν μισθὸν παρὰ τοῦ παιδός.

Κ

388v

I,4 ἐρῶ σοι] ἐρῶσι codd. KI, l. ἐρῶ σοι, v. infra (a) | ἀφαιρῆται pro ἀφαιρεῖται cod. K] ἀφαίρεται codd. HI. I,5 ἡμέρα⟨ν⟩] ἡμέρα cod. K. | παραδοθῇ] πα|δαδωθὴ (sic) cod. K. I,6 αὕτη] αὔτη cod. K. | λέγω⟨ν⟩] λέγω cod. K. | ἀγ̅έ codd. KI] ἀϊά cod. H. | οὐουνίου cod. K] oὐ οὐνίου cod. H; οὐνίου cod. I; οὐρανίου cod. Is (sec. McCown; Is significat descriptio altera de XII signis). | ἡρ̅ώ cod. K] ἠρώ cod. I; ἥρα cod. H. I,7 ἀποστέλλοι cod. K, l. ἀποστέλλει cum cod. I] ἀπέστειλε cod. H. | ἐν τῷ supplevi sec. coni. (McCown). I,8 ἐπὶ τοῦτο πάλιν codd. KI] ἐπὶ τοῦτον πάλιν cod. H. | ἐπέδωκα codd. KP] ἀπέδωκα codd. HI. | τὸ δακτυλίδιο⟨ν⟩ (δακτίλιδίο cod.) {τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην} cod. K] τὸ δακτυλίδιον codd. PQ; τὴν σφραγῖδα codd. HL; τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην cod. I. – v. infra (d). I,10 παρὰ τοῦ παιδός cod. K] τοῦ παιδαρίου codd. HI. (a) ἐρῶ σοι] Die codd. KI lesen übereinstimmend fehlerhaft ἐρῶσι pro ἐρῶ σοι. Dieser Bindefehler hat stemmatische Relevanz. (b) τὸ ἥμισυ 1°] τὸ ἥ- ist f. 387r als Reklamante geschrieben, aber f. 387v nicht aufgenommen. (c) Der Wortlaut der Gravur ist in cod. K durch Rubrizierung hervorgehoben. (d) Cod. K bietet allem Anschein nach eine konflatierte Lesart aus Rezension A und B: Dabei entspricht der erste Teil der B-Rezension (codd. PQ:

τὸ δακτυλίδιον; vgl. codd. VW [McCown: Rezension C]: τὸ δακτύλιον cod. W; τὸ δακτυλίῳ [sic] cod. V), während der zweite Teil der A-Rezension entspricht (τὴν σφραγῖδα codd. HL; τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην cod. I). Die von cod. K gebotene Wendung ist redundant, wobei τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην aus dem vorangehenden Vers (TestSal I,7) eingedrungen sein dürfte. Es scheint daher m. E. geboten, diesen Ausdruck in der vorliegenden Ausgabe zu klammern, und so als sekundären Zusatz auszuweisen.

I,4

I,5 I,6

I,7

I,8 I,9

I,10

34 Felix Albrecht I,11 I,12

I,13 I,14

II,1 II,2 II,3

II,4 II,5

II,6

11. Τὸ δὲ παιδάριον κατὰ τὸ ῥηθὲν αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως Σολομῶντος ἔρ⟨ρ⟩ιψεν τὸ δακτυλίδιον ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ δαίμονος λέγον αὐτῷ· «δεῦρο, καλεῖ σε Σολομῶν καὶ ἀπίει δρομαίως πρὸς Σολομῶ||ν⟨τ⟩α.» 12. Ὁ δὲ δαίμων ἐκραύγασε λέγων τῷ παιδαρίῳ· «τί τοῦτο ἐποίησας; Λάβε τὸ δακτυλίδιον καὶ ἐπίδος αὐτὸ πρὸς Σολομῶντα, κἀγώ σοι δώσω τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸ χρυσίον πάσης τῆς γῆς, μόνον μή με ἀπαγάγῃς πρὸς Σολομῶντα.» 13. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ παιδάριον· «ζῇ κ(ύριο)ς ὁ Θ(εὸ)ς τοῦ Ἰ(σρα)ήλ, οὐ μή σε ἀνέξομαι, ἐὰν μὴ ἀπαγάγω σε πρὸς Σολομῶντα.» 14. Καὶ ἦλθε τὸ παιδάριον καὶ εἶπε τῷ βασιλεῖ· «βασιλεῦ Σολομῶν, ἤγαγόν σοι τὸν δαίμονα καθὼς ἐνετείλω μοι καὶ ἰδοὺ στήκει πρὸ{ς} τῶν πυλῶν ἔξω δεδεμένος καὶ κράζων μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ διδόναι μοι τὸ χρυσίον καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον πάσης τῆς γῆς τοῦ μὴ ἀπαγαγεῖν με αὐτὸν || πρὸς σέ.» II. Ταῦτα ἀκούσας ἐγὼ Σολομῶν ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου μου εἶδον τὸν δαίμονα φρίττοντα καὶ τρέμοντα καὶ εἶπον αὐτῷ· «τίς εἶ σὺ καὶ τίς ἡ κλῆσίς (*) σου;» Ὁ δαίμων εἶπεν· «Ὀρνίας.» 2. Εἶπον οὖν αὐτῷ· «λέγε μοι, πρὶν ἔξω διώκω (a) σε.» καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ δαίμων· «※ Ὑδροχόος καὶ τοὺς ἐν ※ Ὑδροχόῳ κειμένους δι’ ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν λόγων ἐπὶ τὴν Παρθένον ἐξόδιον κεκληκότας ἐπάγω. 3. Καὶ εἰς τοῦτο τρεῖς μορφὰς μεταβαλλόμενος, ποτὲ μὲν ὡς ἄν(θρωπ)ος ἔχων ἔτι εἰμὴ ※ ἐνύττατον θηλυκόν (b), εὔοσμον, καὶ δι’ αὐτὸν ἀλγῶσι πάνυ, ποτὲ δὲ ὑπόπτερος γίνομαι ἐπὶ τοὺς οὐ(ρα)νίους τόπους, ποτὲ δὲ ὄψιν λέοντος ἐμφαίνω. || 4. Ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν δαιμονίων λαβόμενος, ἀπόγονος δέ εἰμι τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ, καταργοῦμαι δὲ ὑπὸ Μιχαὴλ (*) τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου.» 5. Ὅταν δὲ ἤκουσα ἐγὼ Σολομῶν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Μιχαὴλ ηὐξάμην καὶ ἐδόξασα τὸν Θ(εὸ)ν τοῦ οὐ(ρα)νοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ σφραγίσας αὐτὸν ἔταξα εἰς τὴν ἐργασίαν τῆς λιθοτομίας, τοῦ τέμνειν λίθους τοῦ ναοῦ ἀρθέντας διὰ θαλάσσης ἀναλαβὼν τοὺς κειμένους παρὰ τὸν αἰγιαλόν. 6. Φοβούμενος δὲ αὐτοὺς «τοῦ σιδήρου οὐ προσάψωμαι» ἔφη δὲ ὁ Ὀρνίας· «δέομαί σου, βασιλεῦ Σολομῶν, ἔασόν με ἐν ἀνέσει εἶναι, κἀγώ σοι ἀναγαγῶ

I,14 βασιλεῖ codd. KI] Σολομῶντι cod. H. | πρός codd. KH, l. πρό cum cod. I. | ἀπαγαγεῖν με codd. KΙ] με ἀπαγαγεῖν cod. H. II,1 ταῦτα codd. KI] καὶ ταῦτα cod. H. | (*)] in marg.: Ὀρνίας. II,2 ἔξω διώκω cod. K, v. infra (a)] ἐξωδιώκω cod. I; ἐξάδιώκο cod. H; ἐξεδιώκω cod. L. | ※ Ὑδροχόος (ἰδρουχρώς codd. KI, ἱδρωοχρῶς cod. H) et ※ Ὑδροχόῳ (υδροχρώ ὁ cod. K, ὑδροχρώο cod. I, ἰδροχόω cod. H) scripsi. | τῶν λόγων cod. K] τὸν λόγον cod. I; τὸν λόγων (sic) cod. H. | ἐξόδιον codd. KI] ἐξώδιων (sic) cod. H. | κεκληκότας cod. K] κεκληκότος codd. HI. II,3 ※ ἐνύττατον scripsi] ἐνίτατον cod. K*, ἐνίταδον codd. HKc I (ἐνιτὰδον cod. H), v. infra (b); μετὰ δῶν cod. L. | θηλυκόν] θυλικόν codd. KI; θηλικόν cod. H; l. θηλυκόν, v. infra (b). | γίνομαι] γένομαι codd. KI, l. γίνομαι. II,4 καταργοῦμαι] καταργοῦμεν (mend.) cod. K, l. καταργοῦμαι cum codd. HI. | (*)] in marg.: Μιχαήλ. II,5 ὅταν codd. KI] ὅτε cod. H. | ἀναλαβών codd. KI (ἀναλαβῶν codd.)] ἀνάγων cod. H. (a) Cod. K versucht, dem überlieferten Wortlaut (vgl. das unsinnige ἐξωδιώκω des mit cod. K eng verwandten cod. I) Sinn abzugewinnen und schreibt: „Sage mir, bevor ich dich nach draußen treibe“ (Λέγε μοι, πρὶν ἔξω διώκω σε). Der Ausdruck ἔξω διώκω „ich treibe nach draußen“ ist umständlich; zu erwarten wäre einfaches ἐκδιώκω „ich treibe aus“ (resp. ἐκδιώξω „ich werde austreiben“).

(b) Die rekonstruierte Lesart ἐνύττατον θηλυκόν „überaus reizende Frau“ ist der Versuch, der Stelle Sinn abzugewinnen, da der überlieferte Wortlaut (ἐνίτατον θυλικόν cod. K*; ἐνίταδον θυλικόν cod. Kc) verderbt ist. Die Form ἐνύττατον dürfte ein auf das Verb ἐνύττω ( ‫פּלגשׁ‬/‫פּילגשׁ‬: pi/īlægæš, “concubine”), cf. al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (Leiden: Brill, 1922), 286–93; al-Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (Beirut: al-Maktabah al-Thaqāfiyyah, s.d.), 276–79; EI2, I, 1256 (E. Ullendorff); cf. Toufic Fahd, La divination arabe. Études religieuses, sociologiques et folkloriques sur le milieu natif de l’islam (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), p. 71 and n. 2; William M. Watt, “The Queen of Sheba in Islamic Tradition,” in: James B. Pritchard (ed.), Solomon and Sheba (see above), 85–103; Anthony Hearle Johns, “Solomon and the Queen of Sheba: Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s Treatment of the Qur’ānic Telling of the Story,” Abr Nahrain 24 (1986), 58–82. On the rabbinical origin of the legend reaching Islam, cf. David Sidersky, Les origines des légendes musulmanes dans le Coran et dans les vies des prophètes (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1933), 122–26. On the queen herself, see Jacob Lassner, Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam (Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press, 1993). For the impact of this legend in Hellenistic Jewish art, see for example Goodenough, Jewish Symbols (see n. 444), 189–90. 480 “To be seated upon the throne,” i.e. to reign, cf. 1 Kgs 2:12. 481 For an overview of demonology in the monotheistic Semite milieu, see Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, “Ángeles, demonios y anticristos entre los monoteísmos semitas,” Cuadernos del CEMyR 11 (2003), 87–112. 482 Cf. Ginzberg, Legends (see n. 431), IV, 144. On the association of the Sabaeans with demonic practices, see also Maimonides, Guía de perplejos. Môrēh nebûkîm. Edition prepared by David Gonzalo Maeso. Clásicos para una Biblioteca Contemporánea 27 (Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1983), III, 46 (p. 517). 483 On the power wielded over the demons, see Ginzberg, Legends (see n. 431), IV, 149–54, VI, 291– 93, notes 49–56; Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,2,5. 484 Lit.: “Let your heart not be disquieted by the priest”. 485 Khātam. This term, cognate with the Hebrew ‫( חתם‬ḥōtām), is a translation of the Greek σφραγίς (“seal/ring”). The most likely origin for the legendary tradition of King Solomon’s magic seal/ring is, in the first instance, Song 8:6. But the “seal of the living God” mentioned in Rev 7:2 (σφραγίς θεοῦ ζῶντος) as a guarantee of protection against natural and demonic plagues in the latter days, is probably drawn from echatological images influenced by Ezek 9 and perhaps also by SolSl(gr) 15:9–10; see Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden – Boston – 478 479

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 131

to cast them out486, they shall be in your power487, you shall subject them with this my name, that I have vouchsafed to you488, and you shall order them to move the stones489 for the construction of the temple which you will build in my name«490. [The Seal of Solomon and the Demons] God gave a seal to Solomon and vouchsafed to him his magnificent name, that when Solomon should utter it the demons should hear him whenever he spoke to them491. After that [Solomon] offered up burnt offerings. ¦¦ And leaving the temple he gave them orders using the magnificent name that God had vouchsafed to him. All the demons gathered, Köln: E.J. Brill, 2000), 212. The function of the seal in antiquity is well attested. The signet ring, through the seal it bore, was used throughout the ancient Middle East for the authentication of written records. Any free man of a certain affluence would have his own signet ring, which would often bear a personal seal. On the seal in the Arab milieu, see EI2, IV, pp. 1133–37 (ed. J. Allan–D. Sourdel). For the various types of seal engraved on Solomon’s ring according to a range of Greek manuscripts, see McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 86–87 and 100*–01*. On the reception of Solomon’s seal in Christian Arab texts, see Graf, Geschichte (see n. 17), I, p. 210 § 5. 486 Seal and amulets were widely used in the Semitic world, and particularly in the Jewish milieu, to exorcise or ward off demons, cf. Robert Eisenman – Michael Wise, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. The first complete translation and interpretation of 50 key documents withheld for over 35 years (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), 265–67 from the fragment preserved in 4Q560. 487 Lit.: “they shall be in your hands.” On this practice, see Perea Yébenes, “El poder mágico de los anillos,” in: Idem, El sello de Dios (see n. 466), 17–36. This legendary cycle dealing with Solomon’s seal is also to be found in Islamic tradition, although the narrative focus is different, cf. al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 293–95; al-Τha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 289–90; Sidersky, Origines (see n. 479), 115–21. 488 The mere uttering of the name of God sufficed to exercise power over the demons and give them orders. The name is in fact the Tetragrammaton, as indicated in 11QapPsa passim (Émile Puech, “Un rituel d’exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction,” Revue de Qumran 55 [1990], 377–408; cf. Florentino García Martínez & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vol. [Leiden – Boston – Köln: Brill, 1998], II, 1200–05, although a number of established formula were available for naming God, as found on an amulet from the Cairo Genizah (t-s k 1.68), cf. Naveh – Shaked, Amulets (see n. 470), 223–25 and plate 34, lines 1 and 9; for other records of the Tetragrammaton, see p. 281a. 489 The moving and cutting of stones were tasks entrusted by Solomon to the demons, cf. TestSol(Gr) 2:5; 6:9,11; 7:8; 23:2. 490 TestSol(Gr) 1:7 indicates that the building of the whole city of Jerusalem is dependent on the ring which God gives Solomon. In the rabbinical literature, as in TestSol(Ar), building activity is confined to the temple; see Ginzberg, Legends (see n. 431), IV, 150–54 and 154–57, but contrast Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,6,1–2. Solomon’s building work probably comprised the temple-palace complex (cf. Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,3,1–9; VIII,5,1–3), two separate groups of buildings which together formed an organic complex. The site chosen was Mount Mōriyy…h (2 Par 3:1), exactly the site occupied today by the Islamic al-Ḥaram al-šarīf. On the construction of the temple, see Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,3,1–9. For the theological projection of Solomon as the builder of the temple, see Roddy L. Braun, “Solomon the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chr 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976), 581–90. Various aspects related to the temple are examined in a slim volume by Othmar Keel – Ernst Axel Knauf – Thomas Staubli, Salomons Tempel. Project Bible + Orient Museum (Freiburg: Academic Press, 2004). On the projection of the Temple of Solomon in the Islamic tradition, see Priscilla Parsons Soucek, “The Temple of Solomon in Islamic Legend and Art,” in: J. Gutmann (ed.), The Temple of Solomon: Archaeological Fact and Medieval Tradition in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 73–123. 491 Use of the seal against the demons is accompanied, in some Greek recensions, by an exorcism.

36r

132 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

36v

37r

dragging stones for the temple of God, and brought them over the hills by night. When Solomon retired at nightfall, after eating and drinking492, he had no stones for building, in order to [be able to continue] building [even] one single day [longer], but when he arose in the morning King Solomon found a large stone brought to raise the temple of God, that ten thousand men might [be able to] build with them [for] a whole year, but he [also] ordered them to help the builders and workers who worked by night on the building, yet [despite] all they did, people [never] saw the demons working. Behold, there was a large stone that the people could not lift: the people tied it with ropes and held it fast ¦¦, but to no avail; King Solomon having placed on it the seal that God had given to him, the demons raised it high in the air, that the labourers might not be wearied493. King Solomon gave a copy of the seal to all the men that worked on the building, so that the demons, upon seeing them, would gather stones to [continue] building, and so that the people might not grow weary nor cease [to work], for Solomon gave to the people and to the labourers who were building the temple of God staffs on which [was written] the name of the seal – which is [the name] of God494 – that the demons might heed them, and that when there was a huge stone that they wished to move backwards or forwards, the builders might place the staff thereon and, uttering the name of the seal of Solomon, the stone might move. And as soon as ¦¦ the staff touched the stone, the demons would drag it immediately as the builder might order [them]. [The demons] laboured alongside the men who were working the temple of God – for although they were disembodied, they laboured – but the people saw them not. King Solomon worked on the temple of God for forty-six years495 and neither complaint nor quarrel was heard, for God gave Solomon a substantial mount496 on which was written the magnificent name. [Solomon] made a copy and gave it to the builders497, [who] when they wished to move a stone or a log, placed the substantial mount on the log or the stone and cut it in order to haul it. For this reason, they took forty-six years to build the temple of God, and neither a complaint nor a quarrel was heard between them.

492 The meal (‘ašā’) at nightfall (‘ašiyy) was the more important of the two daily meals (cf. Ex 16:8; 1 Kings 17:6). The New Testament, for example, speaks of an ἄριστον (“lunch”) and a δεῖπνον (“dinner”). 493 Cf. TestSol(Gr) 22:7–8 and 23:1–3. 494 Cf. Emmanuele Testa, Il simbolismo dei giudeo-cristiani. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 14 (Jerusalem: Fransciscan Printing Press, 1981, reed.), 15 and 429–31 for an example from Qumrān. 495 Cf. John 2:20. On the end of the building of the Temple (Haykal) according to the Kitāb al-‘Unwān, see Alexandre Vasiliev, “Kitab al-‘unvan. Histoire universelle écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj,” Patrologia Orientalis 11 (1915), 27 [165]. For an interpretation of the “building of the temple” as the fulfilment of Sol 118,22, see Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 1), 8. 496 Faṣṣ jawhar. This clearly refers to the seal/ring of Solomon (cf. Perea Yébenes, “El poder mágico de los anillos”, in: Idem, El sello de Dios [see n. 466], 19), unless – as is quite likely – it is to be understood as referring solely to the name of God, either Yahweh, or Yahweh ṣebā’ōt. 497 Lit.: “gave it into the hands of the builders”.

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 133

[King Yā’ūn Seeks to Slay Solomon] In those days ¦¦, Nūrwā498, king of the Sabaeans499, heard that King Solomon was building in the house of God500 and, plotting at that time to attack him – for Solomon was busy building the house of God – said: – »Go, fight, and slay him and all his army«. And arising, Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples, marched to Jerusalem501 bearing countless gifts502 and he gave them to King Solomon to see whether he could attack him or not. And going, he spoke to Solomon saying: – »Good health to build the house of God!« Solomon answered him: – »Good health!« Yā’ūn, the king of the [Gentile] people, said to him: – »I have heard in my country503 that you are building a house for the Lord your God, and I have come to you with gifts. Accept them from me [and] place them in the house of the Lord your God504«. King Solomon answered ¦¦ him, saying: – »Keep your gifts, for you may have need of them, for you know that I possess many riches. I thank God, who gave me these magnificent riches«. Yā’ūn answered him: – »You are generous, accept my gift505«. Sic. In the Islamic tradition, this figure is named Nūriyah, cf. al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 293. This name, which appears nowhere else in the text, is immediately replaced by Yā’ūn, the subject of the ensuing narrative section. 499 A hypothetical reading of al-bāba’īn (?) as al-ṣāba’īn. 500 Bayt Allāh. The phrase corresponds to the Hebrew Bēt Yahweh and in itself denotes a building comprising three sections: the first, facing East, was the ‘ūlām (“porch”), measuring 11 metres wide, 5.50 m. long and roughly 16.50 m. high; the second, the hēḵāl (“hall”), called ha-qodeš (“the holy”) measured 11 m. wide, 22 m. long and 16.50 m. high; the third room, the debīr (cella), also known as qodeš ha-qodašīm (“the holy of holies”) was a perfect cube in cross-section, measuring 11 m. high, 11 m. wide and 38.50 m. long. Cf. the description in Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,3,2–3, and the summary included in Eutychius of Alexandria, Annals (see n. 444), 50–51. This “house of Yahweh” was in turn surrounded on three of its four sides (except to the East) by annexes attached to the outer walls. On the Temple of Solomon, see: 1 Kgs 6:1–38; 2 Chr 3:1–17; Ezek 42–48; Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,3,1–9. Cf. G.E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology. (London: John Know Press, 1962), 80–108, esp. 80–85; de Vaux, Instituciones (see n. 465), 410–26. 501 Al-Quds. The name usually given to Jerusalem (from the Aramaic ‫[ קודשׁא‬qūdšā’]), also known as Yarūšalaym, Yrušalaym or Bayt al-Muqaddas, all with variants, recalling the Hebrew forms ‫ ירו‬/ ‫ירושׁלם‬ ‫( שׁלים‬Yerūšālayim/Yerūšālayim; cf. Gr. Ἰεροθσαλήμ) or the construct ‫( בית המקּדשׁ‬Bēt ha-Miqqedaš), or the Aramic forms ‫בית מקדשׁה‬/‫( בית המקדּשׁ‬Bēt ha-Miqdāš/Bēt Maqdešā, cf. Syr. Bēt Maqdīšā), to denote the Temple of Jerusalem. Cf. EI1, IV, p. 1094 (Franz Buhl); EI2, V, p. 321–22 (S. D. Goitein). 502 Cf. 1 Kgs 4:21; Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,7,2. 503 Kūratī. On the term kūrah, see Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, “Lógos spermatikós kaì lógos telikós. Unas notas sobre el étimo del tecnicismo ‘cora’,” in: Jordi Aguadé – Ángeles Vicente – Leyla Abu-Shams (ed.), Sacrum Arabico-Semiticum. Homenaje al Profesor Federico Corriente en su 65 aniversario (Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y de Oriente Próximo, 2005), 289–300. 504 Lit.: “in the building of the house of the Lord your God”. 505 Lit.: “take the gift from my hands”. 498

37v

38r

134 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

38v

39r

Then King Solomon ordered that it [the gift] be accepted from him506. In the evening, he ate with him, and when they had finished eating Solomon withdrew to his quarters and they also spread a rug507 for Yā’ūn before Solomon, whilst Yā’ūn murmured under his breath: – »I have found the moment to attack him while he is busy building the house of God«. Solomon contemplated his kingdom whilst the demons hauled stones and placed them as the foundations for the building of the house of God508, but there was a huge din ¦¦ and even the ground shook. When Yā’ūn heard the din and the shaking he grew frightened and called King Solomon, saying: – »My brother Solomon! Such has been the shouting and the noise509 that even the ground has almost collapsed«. But King Solomon laughed, and said: – »Fear not, brother. Lie down! It is the demons who are hauling stones and laying the foundations for the building of the house of God«. When Yā’ūn, the king of the [Gentile] peoples heard this, though frightened he went to sleep, saying to himself: – »It was the demons that [Solomon] sets to work to haul stones for the house [of God]. Who, then, am I to wage war on him? He will order them to attack me and all those who are with me and he will place me like a baked brick [place him in the wall]«. When he arose in the morning, Yā’ūn, the king of the [Gentile] peoples, set out for his country and never again plotted to attack King ¦¦ Solomon, fearful of the demons over whom [the latter] ruled. [The Three Hundred and Sixty-five Demons] In510 the third year, while Solomon was building the house of the Lord, the demons ceased to [take part] in the building work. Some fled from the presence of King Solomon, and went down to the creek511 and talking among themselves – there were three hundred and sixty-five of them512 – said: – »Until when will you remain in [the state of] slavery [in which you have been kept for] the last three years?. For we are slaves who work for Solomon, we have not [yet] finished half the building work, and still labour under this burden. When shall we rise, 506 The giving and accepting of gifts was, in ancient times, a symbol of the concluding of an agreement/pact, cf. Gen 21:27–29. 507 Firāš. An embroidered rug resembling a tapestry, cf. Ibn Manzhūr, Lisān al-‘arab. Ed. ‘Abd Allāh ‘Alī al-Kabīr, Muḥammad Aḥmad Ḥasab Allāh y Hāšim Muḥammad al-Šādilī. 6 vols (Cairo: Dār alMa‘ārif, 1401/1981), V, 3382; Werner Diem – Hans-Peter Radenberg, A Dictionary of the Arabic Material of S D. Goitein’s A Mediterranean Society (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1994), 162. 508 Cf. Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,3,2. 509 Lit.: “an enormous shouting and din”. 510 In the manuscript, the sequence is introduced by qāla, “he said”. 511 Al-wādī. This term denotes a winter watercourse that in summer remains dry. See Nigel Groom, A Dictionary of Arabic Topography and Placenames (Beirut: Librairie du Liban – Longman, 1983), 303 ; cf. Reinhart Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 vol. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1881), II, 793. 512 Equivalent to the number of days in a solar year, used by the Copts.

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 135

with our companions, and drop an enormous rock513 on the house that they are building, and sink it once and for all, and [in this way] force King Solomon to abandon it, freeing us from this endless fatigue and the burden [that oppresses us]«. And three hundred and sixty-five demons ¦¦ rose up, and going, they dropped an enormous rock, a single stone, saying that the city had been buried along with all those who were in it. But King Solomon told the Spirit514 about their scheme. And calling his servant, [Solomon] said to him: – »Take this seal and hasten to the stone that moves alone, for the demons will be discovered. The place where we shall wait for it you will find [in] the highest part of the land, [at] one thousand six hundred cubits515. Go to it, and speak to it, saying: “This is what King Solomon says, assembly of wretched demons! For the plot you have hatched, for this I command you, by the holy seal516 that God, the Lord, gave to my lord King Solomon, to stop in this place ¦¦ [together with] this stone that you are carrying to destroy Jerusalem”517«. The servant took the seal and departed. Seeing Jerusalem twelve miles away, he discerned the stone in the distance, as it moved alone over the fields and through the villages, with no-one to bear it nor carry it, but it moved alone through the air, like a cloud, darkening with its shadow every place it passed518. When Solomon’s servant drew near the stone, as [it] advanced, he went to it and spoke to it as his lord had told him519: – »This is what my lord Solomon said: “Wretched and rebellious demons! For the plot you have hatched, I command you by the holy seal of the Lord of hosts, that the Lord gave to my lord Solomon, to bear this stone {[which is] in this place, intended to destroy Jerusalem, for you have plotted, one with another, to destroy Jerusalem by planning to take this stone} ¦¦ carrying it until the day of the destruction of Jerusalem”«. At that moment the stone – carried by three hundred and sixty five demons – remained suspended in the air between heaven and earth, [at] one thousand seven hundred cubits520. Solomon’s servant returned to his master, for the king was building the house of God, and the demons were still labouring on its construction.

Lit.: “a rock, an enormous stone”. Al-rūḥ. The figurative value of the term derives from the Hebrew concept rūaḥ (cf. Gr. πνεῦμα) in its basic sense of “wind; air”. See Harry Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of Ruaḥ in Gen. 1.2,” Jewish Quarterly Review 48 (1957–58), 174–82. 515 Ḏirā‘, cf. Hebrew ‫’( אמּה‬ammā). This term denotes one of the measures applied by the Arabs to the three cubits with which they were familiar: the ḏirā‘ akhdam or ḏirā‘ ‘Umar (640 mm.), the “black cubit” of Caliph al-Ma’mūn (± 540 mm.) and the ḏirā‘ qabḍah (480 mm.). See Horace Doursther, Dictionnaire universel des poids et mesures anciens et modernes, contenant des tables des monnaies de tous les pays (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1965), 114. 516 Al-khātam al-muqaddas. On the power to counter demons by a magic spell uttered in the name of the seal of Solomon, cf. Git 68a. 517 Lit.: “for the end of the destruction of Jerusalem”. 518 Al-saḥābah. A water-bearing cloud. See Ibn Manzhūr, Lisān al-‘arab, III, p. 1948. On this symbolic element, cf. TestSol(Gr) 14,5. 519 Mawlā. On this concept, see EI2, VI, pp. 865–74 [A. J. Wensinck − P. Crone]. 520 Sic, as against the one thousand six hundred mentioned earlier. 513 514

39v

40r

40v

136 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

[The Labourer and the Demons Who Stole His Food]

41r

There was a labourer whose food was stolen521, for a demon took the food from his hands and every day when he wanted to eat the demons rushed at him in the form of fiery flames and choked him in order to steal his food522 until the man said he could do nothing, felt weak and [had] to stop [working] because of this demon who took his food every day. On seeing him, the king said unto him: – »You!523 How is it that you feel worse than all the workers, and you have grown so weak? ¦¦ Are you not given food? Or does some limb give you pain? Tell me, and fear not«. The labourer524 answered the king: – »No, my lord king! I am given food, but when they give me my food every day and I wish to sit down to eat525 a fiery flame comes to me, and I am frightened, and at that moment something leaps [at me], and takes the food from my hands, and as a result of this I go hungry. My lord! I have grown weak through hunger, through fear of the demon526 and through the fiery flame«527. When King Solomon heard these words he gave him a copy of the seal528 and King Solomon said to him: – »Take this, and when you take your food today, and sit down to eat, and the fiery flame comes and wants to take away your food, immediately shout – [for] he shall still

521 For this legend, see TestSol(Gr) 1:1–2:9, which provides a longer, more uniform and slightly different redaction; cf. the shorter version in Ginzberg, Legends (see n. 431), IV, 150. 522 In TestSol(Gr) 1:2 (mss. PQ) 1:2.4 (mss. HI) the demon take half the young foreman’s pay and half his food. 523 Lit.: “man”. 524 TestSol(Gr) 1,4: παιδάριον. 525 In the ancient Middle East, diners sat on the ground, where the food was also laid out. Tables were not known in antiquity, for the Hebrew word generally translated as “table”, ‫( שׁלחן‬šulḥān), in fact denotes a leather rug spread out on the ground. They later adopted the Graeco-Roman custom of reclining on their left side, their feet facing outwards. 526 Al-šayṭān. TestSol(Gr) 1:1–2:9: Ὀρνίας. TestSol(Gr) and HI give: “evil spirit”. The Arabic šayṭān comes from the Ethiopic sayṭān, cf. Theodor Nöldeke, Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1910), 47; cf. Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic). Ge‘ez-English/English-Ge‘ez with an index of the Semitic roots (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991), 522–23. See also Harry E. Gaylord, “How Satanael lost his ‘-el’,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982), 303–10. 527 TestSol(Gr) 1:4: (...) ἄκουσόν μου τὰ συμβάντα μοι. μετὰ τὸ ἀπολυθῆναι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἔργου τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ ἡλίου δυσμὰς ἐν τῷ ἀναπαύεσθαί με ἔρχεται πονηρὸν δαιμόνιον καὶ ἀφαιρεῖ ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ἥμισυ τοῦ μισθοῦ μου καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ τῶν σιτίων μου καὶ λαμβάνει μου τὴν δεξιὰν χεῖρα καὶ θηλάζει μου τὸν ἀντίχειρον. καὶ ἰδοὺ θλιβομένης μου τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ σῶμά μου λεπτύνεται καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. 528 TestSol(Gr) 1:8: δακτιλίδιον, described in TestSol(Gr) 1:6 as δακτιλίδιον ἔχον σφραγῖδα γλυφῆς ἐκ λίθου τιμίου.

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 137

be far from you – and say529: “As the Lord of Hosts, the God of my lord Solomon, lives530, ¦¦, I hold in my hand his seal, that nothing may be taken from me” , for when you do this, on seeing the seal in your hand he shall flee from you and shall never again return to you«531. The man did as King Solomon had ordered; when he took his food to eat532 the demon came towards him533 as a fiery flame534 and the man shouted at him from a distance, saying535: – »‘As the Lord of Hosts, the God of my lord Solomon, lives, this seal which I hold in my hand is that of the God of Israel, for this you shall not take away my food from me’«536. As soon as he said this, the demon stopped, on seeing the seal, departed and never returned to him537.

41v

[The Demon Flees to the Land of Egypt] After this, the demon538 left for a country539, ruining it and completely destroying it, turning it into a desert540. He came to it ¦¦ on a strong south wind with great powers541 so that, as it passed through all their villages and fields, any men or beasts therein would be swept away by its great force542. Yā’ūn543, king of the [Gentile] peoples544, who was king of that country, heard that TestSol(Gr) 1:9: εἰς τὸ στῆθος τοῦ δαίμονος λέγων αὐτῷ· δεῦρο καλεῖ σε ὁ Σολομῶν καὶ δρομαίως παραγίνου πρός με μηδὲν λογισάμενος ὧν μέλλει σοι φοβῆσαι. 530 This expression appears with two different denominations in TestSol(Gr): Ζῇ Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου (5:12) and Ζῇ Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (1:13), an expression widely used in the Old Testament: 1 Kgs 17:1; Amos 8:14; Jer 23:7 (LXX). 531 TestSol(Gr) 1:9: καὶ δρομαῖος ἔρχου πρός με μηδὲν δειλιάσας μηδὲ φοβηθῇς ἐν ᾦ μέλλεις ἀκούειν ὑπὸ τοῦ δαίμονος. 532 TestSol(Gr) 1:10: κατὰ τὴν εἰθισμένην ὥραν. 533 TestSol(Gr) 1:10: Ὀρνίας. 534 TestSol(Gr) 1:10: ὡς πῦρ φλεγόμενον. 535 TestSol(Gr) 1:11: ἔῤῥιψε τὸ δακτυλίδιον ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ δαίμονος καὶ εἴπεν. 536 Note the substantial change in the invocation, with the omission of the epithet al-Ṣābā’ūt and the introduction of the theophoric formula Ilāh Isrā’īl. TestSol(Gr) 1:9: δεῦρο καλεῖ σε ὁ Σολομῶν. 537 The account continues in TestSol(Gr) with a brief dialogue first between the lad and the demon and then between the demon and Solomon, providing information about the demon. 538 This demon must be identified as Ἐφιππᾶς (cf. TestSol[Gr] 6:5; 12:4; 24:1; 25:7; 27:18, whose forerunner is the Assyro-Babylonian form-changing demon ašakku marsu (cf. Black – George – Postgate, Dictionary [see n. 440], 25b and 198b), see McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 53–54. See also Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 1), 71. 539 TestSol(Gr) 22:2: ἐν τἦ χώρα τῆς Ἀραβίας. On the Arab demonological element, see A.S. Tritton, “Spirits and Demons in Arabia,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1934), 715–27. 540 Indeed, both in Judaism and in primitive Christianity the desert was the dwelling-place of demons and the setting for their activity, cf. 4 Macc (Gr) 18:8. 541 Lit.: “with strong powers”. TestSol(Gr) 22:2: πνεῦμα δὲ ἐστιν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβία∙ ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἑωθινῇ ἔρχεται αὔρα ἀνέμου ἕως ὥραν τρίτην καὶ ἡ πνοὴ αὐτοῦ δεινὴ καὶ ἀποκτείνει ἀνθρώπους καὶ κτήνη καὶ οὐ δύναται ζῆσαι πνοὴ οὐδεμὶα ἐναντίον τοῦ δαίμονος. 542 Cf. TestSol(Gr) 14:6; 22:2. 543 TestSol(Gr) 22:1 (P): Ἀδάρης. 544 TestSol(Gr) 22:1: Βασιλεὺς Ἀράβων. 529

42r

138 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

42v

God had placed all the demons in the power of King Solomon, and that [he] prevented them [from doing evil], cast them out and stopped them from forcing people from their land. So Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples, arose and took three hundredweights545 of gold and silver and many gifts and gave them to his servant, and [the latter] took them to King Solomon with a letter written as follows546: »Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples, to King Solomon of Jerusalem. First and foremost, peace be with you! I have written to you to ask that you accept my gifts and not return them to me as you did the first time, for I went where you were ¦¦, while you were building the house of God, and you refused to accept my gifts, but now I have heard that you are important547 and your fame has spread through548 all the nations on earth549; God has given you power over all the demons, that you have them under your control550 that they may not frighten the people. I have heard that God gave you a seal, that you might send them from one place to another. They are under [your] rule, they do your bidding, you command them as you wish. I beseech you to go to an evil demon who is laying waste the whole land of Egypt,551 and that you cast him out from there because he is destroying the country. I appeal to you. Greetings!« [King Yā’ūn Sends His Servant to Solomon]

43r

Then, the servant of Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples, took the letter552 and departed to Jerusalem, and standing before King Solomon, the king asked him: – »Whither do you come? What land are you from?« The servant answered, saying: ¦¦ – »I am from the land of Egypt. I am the servant of Yā’ūn, king of Egypt«. And {King Solomon said to him: – »Do you come seeking war or peace?« The servant answered him:} – »Greetings, my lord king! My lord sends me to you bearing gifts [so that] you may place them in the house of God«. Saying this, the servant left the gifts and gave the letter [to King Solomon]. When 545 Qanāṭīr. From Greek κεντηνάριον through Aramaic ‫קנטינר‬/‫( קנטנר‬qinṭenār/qinṭīnār), cf. Fraenkel, Fremdwörter (see n. 440), 203. This weight does not exactly match any of the measures mentioned in the Old Testament, cf. de Vaux, Instituciones (see n. 465), 281–85. 546 TestSol(Gr) 22:1 (B): ἡ δὲ γραφὴ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἔγραφεν οὕτως. On this legend of King Adárēs, cf. Ginzberg, Legends (see n. 431), IV, 153. 547 Lit.: “that your name is great ”. 548 Lit.: “the aroma of your fragrance has remained”. 549 Cf. 1 Kgs 4:31. 550 Lit.: “and they are bound to you”. 551 Miṣr. Although it may appear to refer to the biblical ‫( מצרים‬Miṣrayim), in Greek Aἴγυπτος, the toponym in fact refers to Arabia, though it is not restricted to the Arabian Peninsula, cf. TestSol(Gr) 22:4: ἡ γῆ πᾶσα Ἀραβία. On the value of the Semitic term mṣr, see EI2, VII, p. 148 (B.M. Holt). On the biblical Egypt, see J. Martin Plumley, “Egypt,” in: Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan (ed.), The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 64–67. The border with Egypt, and specifically the land of Gaza, marked the southern boundary of Solomon’s kingdom, cf. 1 Kgs 4:21,24. 552 Kitāb. On this concept in the Arab cultural milieu, se EI2, V, pp. 204–06 (R. Sellheim).

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 139

[King Solomon] read the letter553 he found [written there the following]: »Because of a demon, the land of Egypt has been destroyed; I want you to drive him out from there«. In the morning, King Solomon wrote to Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples, in these terms: »Solomon, king of Jerusalem, to Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples: I have accepted the gifts from [the hands of] your servant, although I do not want them. I shall grant your request: I shall drive out this demon who has destroyed the land of Egypt, so that he shall not return to you afterwards«. [The Servant of Yā’ūn Returns to the Land of Egypt] He gave the letter to the servant and gave him leave to depart with it to his lord. When the people ¦¦ who were in Egypt heard that the king’s servant had arrived, large and small went out to meet him, and asked him, saying: – »Has Solomon driven out the demon that was destroying our land?«554 The servant told them what [Solomon] had written in the text: »I shall cast out this demon from amongst you and expel him so that he will never return to you«. Yā’ūn’s servant came to his lord and gave him the letter. And [King Yā’ūn] found written there the following: »Solomon to Yā’ūn, king of the [Gentile] peoples: You wrote to me of a demon who was destroying your land and I have cast him out, so that he shall never return to you«. When he read the letter before all the people that were in the land, they rejoiced and blessed Solomon, saying: – »How can this king have power over all the demons?«555

43v

[Solomon’s Servant Goes to Egypt to Catch the Demon] After this ¦¦ King Solomon called a servant he had and said: – »Take this seal, take a camel556, load it with food, gather provisions, go into the land of Egypt, catch this demon and bring him to this place«557. The servant replied to King Solomon: – »My lord! Where shall I find him? How shall I catch him? I fear he will burn me, for I am alive«. King Solomon answered him: TestSol(Gr) 22:6: ἐγὼ δὲ Σολομῶν ἀναγνοὺς τὴν ἐπιστολήν. Cf. TestSol(Gr) 22:12. 555 Cf. TestSol(Gr) 22:16. 556 Jamal. Denotes camelus bactrianus. See EI2, III, pp. 687–90 [Charles Pellat]; Robert James Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology. 6 vol. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 21964–66), II, 193–98 and 209; Charles Daremberg – Edmond Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines. 11 vol. (Graz, 1969 = Paris, 1877–1919), I/2, 856–57; Richard Bulliet, The camel and the wheel (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1975). 557 TestSal(Gr) 22:9–10 (+ B, P): ἐπίσαξον τὴν κάμηλόν σου καὶ λάβε ἄσκον καὶ τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην∙ καὶ ἄπελθε εἰς τὴν Ἀραβίαν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον ἐν ᾦ τὸ πονηρὸν πνεῦμα πνέει∙ καὶ κρατήρας τὸν ἀσκὸν καὶ τὸ δακτυλίδιον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ στόματος τοῦ ἀσκοῦ κατὰ τὴν πνοὴν τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐμπνευσθῆναι τὸν ἀσκὸν τότε συνήσεις ὅτι ὁ δαίμων ἐστι∙ καὶ σπουδῇ περιδήσας τὸ στόμα τοῦ ἀσκοῦ κατασφάγισον αὐτον μετὰ τοῦ δακτυλιδίοθ καὶ ἐπίταξον αὐτὸν ἐπί τὴν κάμηλον καὶ κόμισόν μοι ἐνθάδε. 553 554

44r

140 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

44v

45r

45v

– »Take this seal, which is from God, and when you come to that land you will see a mighty wind and a huge cloud that travels from south to north, blowing with force, [then] go into the fire, into the southerly wind and the cloud. And stop; fear not, for the seal, which is from God, is with you and the fire will go out when you approach it. After this, wait for the demon and, standing firm, shout at him and tell God what your lord King ¦¦ Solomon says, with the name of the seal of the Lord God of Israel, so that [in this way] you alone can catch him and, having taken him, come to me and bring him to this place«. Solomon’s servant took the seal from his lord, loaded a camel with food, and set forth to the land of Egypt to catch the demon and take him into the presence of King Solomon558. When the servant neared the land of Egypt, as he walked he looked upwards and saw the cloud; at that moment, the servant hastened forward, descended from the camel and walked into the middle of the cloud, holding in his hand the seal of God that his lord King Solomon had given to him. He stood for a moment and when the dust cloud had stilled, the demon appeared to him. Standing firm, Solomon’s servant reprimanded the demon, saying: – »I adjure you, by order of my lord Solomon, with the seal of God, for the God of Israel adjures everything, for you fear ¦¦ you will be caught and come with me«. At that moment, when the demon saw the seal, he was caught, and Solomon’s servant took him and brought him to his master. On reaching a wilderness in Egypt, the demon said to the servant: – »I beseech you to release me, and not to take me before your lord Solomon, that he may not cast me into hell559 for [all] eternity«. [The servant] answered him: – »I shall not release you until I take you before my lord«. The demon replied560: – »I shall show you a place of gold, silver and precious stones561 so that you may take as much as you want, occupy the place of your lord and cease to be a servant«. Solomon’s servant answered him: – »Show me the place of gold and I shall set you free, and not take you to my lord«. And the demon went with him and showed him the place of gold. Solomon’s servant sealed it ¦¦ with the seal. Then he also showed him the place of silver, and he sealed it with the seal, and he also went with him and showed him the place of precious stones and the servant placed his seal thereon. Then the demon said to him: – »Now let me go and do not take me to your lord«. The servant answered him: – »I shall not release you until I take you before my lord«. The demon replied: Cf. TestSol(Gr) 22:12–16. Al-jaḥīm. This word appears 25 times in the Qu’rān to designate the technical term “hell,” cf. Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Al-Mu‘jam al-mufahras li-alfāẓ al-Qur’ān al-karīm ([Cairo]: Dār wa-Maṭābi‘ al-Ša‘b, s.d.), pp. 164b–165a. Cf. EI2, VII, pp. 958–61 (T. Fahd). Although the punishments they must suffer are not described, hell is the place into which they are cast, see McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 45–46. 560 Cf. TestSol(Gr) 1:14. 561 Ḥijārat al-jawhar. The phrase gives no indication of the specific type of stones involved. 558 559

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 141

– »Let me show you a place of precious stones«. The servant said to him: – »Show me and I shall release you«. Going with him, he showed him the place: the first [of] lapis lazuli562, the second [place of] gems563 and the third [of] emeralds564. The servant placed on [each place] a copy of the seal. Then he showed him the fourth place, which was [of] rubies565, the fifth [of] jewels, the sixth [of] crystals566, the seventh [of] sapphire567 and the eighth [of] ruby568. The servant placed on all of them copy[ies] of the seal and the demon said to him: – »Let me go«. ¦¦ Solomon’s servant said: »As the Lord, the God of my master, lives! I shall not rest until I take you before my lord Solomon«.

46r

[The Servant Takes the Demon before King Solomon] And he did not stop walking until he took him close to Jerusalem, one mile away more or less. Then, the demon caused a huge whirlwind of dust to settle over Jerusalem, and gave a great cry at which all those who were in the city trembled together with fear, and even Solomon was frightened. Then Solomon said: – »This is the accursed demon who has arrived with the servant«. And Solomon cursed the demon before he came to him, saying: – »Cursed be this impure spirit; may he be banned from heaven and earth, placed beyond the angels and the people, beyond the air569, the cold, the damp and the lightning, beyond the beasts and wild animals, beyond the seas and the mountains and the walls, beyond the trees, fruits ¦¦ and fields«. From that moment, he approached no-one not bound for the lower parts of hell. After cursing the demon, he sent him to the deepest part of hell until the Day of Judgement570. 562 Lāzaward. This celebrated ornamental stone was powdered in antiquity for use as a pigment in painting, cf. Jean-Jacques Clément-Mullet, Essai sur la minéralogie arabe (Amsterdam: Philo Press, s.d. = Paris, 1858 and 1868), 163–73. 563 Jawhar. Denotes gems and all kinds of pearls in general, regardless of their size, cf. Clément-Mullet, Essai (see n. 562), 16–17 and Diem – Radenberg, Dictionary (see n. 507), 36. 564 Zumurrud. Precious stone belonging to the glucium family, cf. Clément-Mullet, Essai (see n. 562), 64–67 and Diem – Radenberg, Dictionary (see n. 507), 90. 565 Yāqūt. Denotes a variety of corundum, formed by aluminium oxide, which is typically blue in colour, but may also be violet, yellow or green, cf. Clément-Mullet, Essai (see n. 562), 30–64 and Dozy, Supplément (see n. 511), II, 847; Immanuel Löw, Fauna und Mineralien der Juden. Ed. Alexander Scheiber (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969), 23–24. 566 Mahan. Appears to refer to chrysolite or olivine, an iron and magnesium orthosilicate normally occurring in igneous rocks cf. Dozy, Supplément (see n. 511), II, 622. 567 Yāqūt azraq. See note 135. 568 Yāqūt aṣfar. See note 135. 569 Lit.: “the air and the atmosphere”. 570 Yawm al-daynūnah. Rather than from the Qu’rānic yawm al-dīn (1:4; 15:35; 26:82; 37:20; 38:78; 51:12; 52:52; 70:26; 74:46; 82:17,18; 83:11), this Arabic technical term may come from the Syriac yōm dayanūthō.

46v

142 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

47r

Then, Solomon’s servant went with him and showed him [the] place[s] of gold, silver and precious stones which the demon had shown him. He also showed him [the] place[s] of stones of lapis lazuli, emeralds, gems, jewels, crystals, sapphires and rubies. And Solomon ordered his servant to bring the camels and load them with gold, silver and precious stones. The servant departed and loaded [as much] gold and silver as there is sand in the sea, as the Lord had said to Solomon: I shall give you great riches that you have not desired, for you did not ask for the spirits of your enemies, nor for riches nor treasures, but you asked for wisdom and justice. I shall give you all glory ¦¦ and riches {and wisdom to judge, for there shall be no king like you [on the face of] the earth, and as you have not asked [for it] I shall [also] give you riches}571 like the sands of the sea. [The Queen of the Demons]

47v

After this, should the queen of demons see a land – for Solomon was casting out all the demons, and had them in his power572, he commanded them and did not let them act for themselves – she resolved to flee573 from King Solomon, {but King Solomon forbade} that there should be a place in which they [might] dwell, nor a place to which they might come and go, nor houses to shelter them, nor wild beasts to receive them, nor lions, nor birds, nor any human being. King Solomon forbade all these to give them refuge, except for the sea. He did not forbid them the sea: for that reason, [as] a queen of the demons574 lived in the sea575, the ships576 foundered, sank, and there appeared over them a cloud, dust and a mighty wind until they sank, as though ¦¦ at that moment no ship sailed the sea because of that. [King Kurām writes a letter to Solomon] Kurām, king of Dāras, hearing that God had given Solomon authority over all the demons, to cast them out, wrote a letter to King Solomon in these terms: »Kurām, king of Dāras, to Solomon, king of Jerusalem. First and foremost, greetings! Make use of these one hundred hundredweights of gold to build the house of God. I could not send them to you because a demon who was in the sea sank the ships. If you 1 Kgs 3:11–13. Lit.: “held them between his hands”. 573 Lit.: “they determined in their heart to flee”. 574 TestSol(Gr) 3:4 and 6:1 allude to ἄρχοντα [acc. sing. of ἄρχων] τῶν δαιμόνων (cf. Matt 9:34), but not to a “queen of demons” as referred to in TestSol(Ar). However, demonesses appear frequently, cf. TestSol(Gr) 8:1–12; 13:1–7; 15:1–12. 575 The sea features as a key topos as the lair – albeit unwanted (TestSol[Gr] 5:11; 6:3,6; 16:7) – of certain demons, cf. TestSol(Gr) 2:8; 6:6; 23:2; 25:1, and has parallels with curses in Ancient Egypt, cf. Joris F. Borghouts, Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Religious Texts Translation Series nisaba 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), 18–19, n. 23. The powers ranged against God, in the form of animals, emerge from the sea, cf. Dan 7. This is probably a reference to “hydromancy” as a method of divination; see Torijano, Solomon (see n. 4), 153–55. 576 Marākib. This does not denote a specific type of vessel, cf. Christos G. Makrypoulias, “Muslim ships through Byzantine eyes,” in: Yacoub Y. Al-Hijji – Vassilios Christides (ed.), Aspects of Arab seafaring. An attempt to fill in the gaps of the maritime history (Athens – Kuwait: Institute for Graeco-Oriental and African Studies – Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science, 2002), 186. 571 572

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 143

have power over him, my lord King! and can eliminate him and cast him out, you shall do a great service to all who sail the sea, that ships may cross it, for I have found the way to send [you] what I arranged for building the house of God«. [Solomon Sends His Servant to Summon the Demoness] When Solomon read the letter ¦¦ sent by Kurām, king of Dāras, he grieved mightily, and immediately called for his servant and gave him the seal of God, saying: – »Go to the sea, wait there and summon the devil who is therein, saying: ‘Sea! I command you by the sacred seal of God, the God of Israel, not to accept this wicked demoness, nor to provide her with [any] place to dwell«. The servant did as his master had ordered, and immediately Kūzwā emerged from the sea, the queen of all the demons made herself visible. King Solomon’s servant went to her, and passing the seal [over her] took her to his master.

48r

[King Solomon Questions the Demoness] Then Solomon said to her: – »Why have you committed all these evils in the sea?« [The demoness] answered him: – »Because you prevented me from being granted a place, save in the sea, [which] you did not summon, so ¦¦ I stayed in it and was able to commit all these atrocities«. Then she said: And King Solomon said to her: – »What is your name?«577 [Solomon] wanted her to utter [her name]. And she said: – »My name among demons is Theodora578 and among people al-Ardamīs579«. Then, King Solomon said to her: – »Tell me all the great evils you have committed«.

577 The formula “What is your name?” is the Arabic exorcistic equivalent of the Greek “Who are you?” On this expression in TestSol(Gr), see Torijano, Solomon (see n. 4), 55–68, cf. also, 43–55 and 68–76. 578 Ta’udūrā. From the Greek θεόδωρα, “Gifts of God”. 579 The determined transliteration Ardamīs recalls the Greek (< Ἄρτεμις), on whom cf. L. Kahil, “Artemis,” in: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Bildlexikon der Antiken Mythologie (Zürich: Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984), II, 618–753. Another possibility might be the lectio mendosa al-Ūdīs, which has – as far as we are aware – no equivalent in Greek; alternatively, the intended name might be al-Ūriya[n]s, with a reading/copying oversight of /d/ < /r/ and ellipsis of the nūn due to loss of diacritics, which would give us the equivalent of Ὀριένς (cf. TestSol[Gr] V/W 10,15. TestSol(Gr) contains a number of Latinisms, cf. McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 39, although al-Ūdīs may be a reading of Ἀρης, so that the Arabic form would have to be reconstructed as a putative al-Arīs, in which the wāw and the dāl would be due to the mistaken reading/copying of a single rā’. If this were the correct reading, it could be the name of a demon, corresponding to the ductus ‫אורוש‬, found in Arabic in Ps. Majrīṭī, cf. Naveh – Shaked, Amulets (see n. 470), 202–03 (18) and 213 (17). On Ἀρης, cf. Ph. Bruneau, “Ares,” in: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (see above), II, 479–92.

48v

144 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

[The Demoness and Warūl]

49r

49v

– »I blinded Warūl and I also blinded ten virgins580, those who fill water for the house of God«. Solomon said to her: – »What fault did War™l commit for you to blind him?« [The demoness] answered him: – »What he did to me was neither good nor bad«. And Solomon reprimanded her: – »Then, why did you blind him?« She answered him: – »I was walking along [when] I saw Warūl riding an ass,581 going to a feast582 in Jerusalem. I turned myself into an enormous woman583 ¦¦ and I went to his encounter in a waste land. Then, I said to him: “Peace be with you, man of God!”, and he answered “and with you!”. I added: “Where are you going?” and he answered: “I am going to Jerusalem, to fulfil my religious duties584”. I replied: “I also want to do likewise”, then added: “Have pity on me, and take me, for I am a woman”. And leading me to his donkey, he set me on it and said that this time he would have pity, and he took the animal as far as the city gate. When I dismounted from the donkey I cast myself upon him and blinded him, for he said that this time he would have pity. And he started to feel his way until he reached the house of God, and the priest said to him: “What has happened to you, Warūl!”, [to which] he replied: ¦¦ “I know not”. And he continued: “I was on my way to the feast when I bumped into a woman who said, “Do me a good service585, take me a little [of the way]”. I answered that this time it was worth doing an [act of] mercy, and getting down from the donkey I set her [on the animal]. When I was close to the city gate, she leapt from the donkey, blew in my face and blinded me, rebuking [me]: “Wherefore all this talk about doing good?”« The priest said to him: »Arise, and stand before the temple of God, fast586 and pray [for] seven days, and I shall also pray with you, meditate, for you wished to do good and 580 For these figures, cf. Susanna Elm, ‘Virgins of God’: The making of ascetism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). 581 Ḥimār. In the period immediately prior to the kings, the ass was the mount of dignitaries and princes: Judg 5,10; 10,4; 12,14. The term is linked to the Hebrew ‫( חמור‬ḥamōr) and the Aramaic ‫חמרא‬ (ḥamōrā’), which derive from the Akkadian imēru(m), cf. Black – George – Postgate, Dictionary (see n. 440), 128a. On the absence of ḥmr in Ugaritic, see Dennis Pardee, “Les équides à Ougarit au Bronze Récent. La perspective des textes,” in: Topoi. Orient-Occident. Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 2000), 231. 582 Al-‘Īd. Although this term does not specifically denote any of the three great Jewish feasts, i.e. Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, Flavius Josephus (Ant., VIII,4,1,5) is of the opinion that Tabernacles was the most renowned feast in those days. On the Arabic term, see Cf. EI2, III, p. 1032 (E. Mittwoch). 583 Cf. the description of the demoness Ὀνοσκελίδα provided by TestSol(Gr) 4:2,4,6. 584 Lit.: “to worship there”. 585 Lit.: “a good”. 586 Ṣawm. From the Hebrew-Aramaic ‫( צום‬ṣōm). See Arthur Jeffery, The foreign vocabulary of the Qur’ān (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1938), 202; Ludwig Koehler – Walter Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 32004), II, 949. Cf. Anton Schall, “Der arabische Wortschatz,” in: Wolfdietrich Fischer (ed.), Grundriß der arabischen Philologie. I. Sprachwissenschaft (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982), 147.

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 145

evil came upon you«. The priest fasted with him [for] seven days. »I am aware of this great sin I have committed, and I shall duly receive payment for my fault in hell587, which shall take me in for ever«. [The Demoness and the Twelve Virgins] The Solomon said ¦¦ to her: – »And the twelve588 virgins who served in the house of God? What did they do that you should blind them?« [The demoness] answered him: – »They did nothing wrong, but rather good, but I came upon them while they were going to fetch water for the house of God589 and I turned myself into a little virgin, just the same as them, carrying a jug. I went to the lowest part, before they [arrived], to fill my jug before them. When the first came to fill [her jug] I blew [in her face] and blinded her. Afterwards, I blinded all those who came after her. They, holding each other’s hands, started to feel their way until they reached the house of God. On seeing them, the priest said: “What has happened to you, that you are all blind?”. And the twelve virgins answered him: “We do not know what happened to us. When we were going to the fountain to fill [our jugs], a little virgin ¦¦ came with us to fill her jug, and standing before us, blew in our faces and we were blinded”. The priest fasted and prayed with them, too, for seven days and they understood the great evil I had done to them [by] blowing in their faces, of which I have informed you. Sentence me to whatever punishment and [degree of] hell you wish, according to the sin I committed with them«.

50r

50v

[Solomon Casts the Queen of Demons into Hell] Solomon replied, saying: – »I command you, in the name of the seal that God gave me, to go to the deepest part of hell until the great day, which is that of judgement«. The queen of demons said to him: – »I shall go, as you have commanded, for I fear you, for God has given you power over us«. At that moment, she departed to the deepest part of hell. Great was the rejoicing of King Solomon, for he cast out all the demons – those who served the people ¦¦ remained in his power – and annihilated them. There was great peace in his kingdom among the people of Israel and all those who surrounded them, and all their works, until his name grew great in all those places. Every man who quarrelled with a companion, his children, an acquaintance or a kinsman, went to King Solomon, who judged them and reconciled them [and they all] departed content and of good mien.

Al-Nār. For his image in the Qu’rān, see EI2, VII, pp. 958–61 (T. Fahd). A symbolic number, alluding to the twelve tribes of Israel. 589 Vat. ar. 448 adds the following in the margin: “while they were carrying their vessels to bring water to the house of God”. 587 588

51r

146 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

[The Testament of Qusṭāridus and His Three Sons]

51v

52r

In those days, among the notables of the city there was one whose name was Qusṭāridus and who was very rich in gold, silver, many possessions, animals590 and lands. That man acted shrewdly so that King Solomon might rule with fair and righteous judgement, [as] God ordered him. That man had three sons. The man, murmuring under his breath591, said [to himself]: “So that my sons may not commit [any] injustice towards their brother {the younger one, in what he is due592 of what I have bequeathed to them593, for I shall not find out once dead, I shall draw up a will for when my sons want to cheat their little brother} ¦¦ and so they will go with my will to King Solomon and he shall do justice among them, and reconcile their hearts, and they shall not dispute the ruling of King Solomon. As the time of his death drew near594, Qusṭāridus called his three sons and said to them: – »My sons! The day of my death has come. When I die, be not evil to each other. This is the will that I have drawn up: comply with what you find in it, I have not caused [any] harm in any of your hearts, for I have divided [what I have] among you, that your enemies may not mock you«. This is what he said to his sons, and died. The young men who laid him out wailed [in grief]. They shrouded him and buried him. When the days of mourning had ended595 the sons said to each other: – »Come, let us comply with what is in our father’s will, and see how he has divided it amongst us and we shall do as [it says] in our father’s will«. When they took the will ¦¦ and read it, they found [it] drawn up as follows: »I, Qusṭāridus, have drawn up this will [in favour of] my sons, as my heart has dictated596. I have divided amongst the three of them all the gold and silver I possess. I have placed it in a leather bag597 and I have set at opening a seal598 made of clay599. In this testament, I stipulate that the gold, silver and precious stones that I have placed in the leather bag shall be for my youngest son, who shall take everything. To the second of my sons I have bequeathed the leather bag, alone. To the third, who is the eldest of my sons, I have left the clay seal, alone, which is placed at the opening of the leather bag. Let no-one violate my will; let he who disagrees with my will receive nothing of my estate«. Finding his father’s will thus drawn up, the youngest son said to his brothers: Vat. ar. 448: “possessions”. Lit.: “the meditated in his heart”. 592 Lit.: “in his part”. 593 Lit.: “of my legacy on them”. On the term used to denote the concept of “inheritance”, mīrāth, cf. EI2, III, pp. 108–13 (J. Schacht). 594 Lit.: “when the days of the man’s death were near”. 595 Lit.: “the days of grieving” On mourning in Judaism, see Judith Hauptman, “Death and Mourning: A Time for Weeping, a Time for Healing,” in: Rela M. Geefen (ed.), Celebration and Renewal. Rites of Passage in Judaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 226–51. 596 Lit.: “as I have meditated in my heart alone”. 597 Jild. On this material, cf. EI2, II, pp. 553–54 (A. Grohmann). 598 Khatm, thus distinguishing from the “seal” of Solomon, for which the form khātam is used. 599 Ṭīn. For the different varieties of clay, see Maimonides, Šarḥ asmā’ al-‘uqqār. L’explication des noms de drogues. Edition, translation and commentary by Max Meyerhof. Mémoires de l’Institut d’Egypte 41 (Cairo, 1940), 172. 590 591

The Testament of Solomon in Arabic: Edition, Translation and Study 147

– »Come, let us do as [it is written] in our father’s will«. The eldest replied: – »You want ¦¦ to take all our father’s money, and me to take the clay seal, and my brother, too, the worthless leather bag. Given that our father loved you more than us, he has given you all the money. Our father, before he died, said: “I have acted righteously with you, and have shared [it all] amongst you. Truly, this is what he has done with us, but until I open the clay seal, you can take nothing from the leather bag«. The other [son] added: – »I shall not take the worthless leather bag«. When the time came for them to contest the will with each other, the youngest son said to them: – »Let us go to King Solomon [so that] he may judge among us. We shall hear what he rules, for we have heard that he rules righteously and God dispenses justice [through him]«.

52v

[King Solomon Interprets Qusṭāridus’ Will] And the three went to Jerusalem, to King Solomon and, kneeling ¦¦ before him as he sat on this jewelled throne, said to him: – »Our lord king! We wish you to judge among us«. The king answered: »What have you done?« They answered him: – »We three are the sons of the same man from a large city. Our father died and drew up a will in our favour: he took the gold and silver he had and, bequeathing them to his youngest son said to the three of us before he died: “What you shall find written in the will, truly I have divided [it] among you” Our lord! We have no wish to weary you [with] this, our father’s will. You look at it«. The king said to them: – »Give me the will, that I may see it and know what is wrong«. They gave him their father’s will, he read it and perceived the wisdom that was there. Then King Solomon said to them: – »Your father has orchards, businesses, property, lands and vineyards«. They answered: – »Yes, our lord!« {and [Solomon] added: – »Your father also has beasts, cows, herds}, horses, camels and asses«. They assented: – »Yes, all this, ¦¦ our lord king!« [Solomon] added: – »Hear the ruling that God has revealed to me that I may carry it out: That the youngest son shall take all the denarii600 that appear in your father’s will; to the second son he gave all the beasts, the sheep, the cows, the camels, the asses, the horses – all this the 600 Danānīr, pl. of dīnār. This is the Arabic adaptation of the Greek δηνάριος through Aramaic ‫דינר‬ (dīnār/dīnārā’). See Fraenkel, Fremdwörter (see n. 440), 191; cf. Ethel Stefana Drower & Rudolf

53r

53v

148 Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala

54r

second shall take; to the third son, who is the eldest of them, he left only the clay seal, which is the land your father owns: the eldest son shall take his orchards, businesses, lands and property, because your father left him the clay seal. This is the ruling that God has revealed to me601 that I may carry it out form you«. When the three sons of Qusṭāridus reflected, they understood that their father had shared among them equitably. And all of them crying out [with joy] at the same time, they exclaimed: – »You are the truth, O God, righteous is your wisdom, you judge with the fairness that has been given to you to settle matters. Solomon, you judge among your people with justice. ¦¦ Blessed are you, King Solomon, who are above all the kings of the earth!602 Blessed are those who serve you! Holy are those who hear your wisdom!« [Colophon] In those days, when someone found himself overwhelmed by a matter and did not know [how to deal with it]he went to King Solomon603 and [he] settled it through the judgement of God, and they went home praising and glorifying God. It is fitting to praise and honour him for ever and ever, amen.604 v So ended v v v the testament of Solomon, king of Israel. The peace of the Lord. End.

Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 108b. On this concept, see EI2, II, pp. 305–07 (G. C. Miles). 601 Lit.: “that God has given to my heart”. 602 Cf. 1 Kings 4:24; TestSol(Gr) 19:1; Flavius Josephus, Ant., VIII,7,5. 603 Cf. 1 Kings 4:34. 604 The prayers that follow, with which BnF ar. 214 concludes, are not the same as those that figure in Vat. ar. 448, where, together with a marginal note to the effect that the text has been collated with the original, the copyist ends his endeavour with the following doxology: May our Lord be ever praised! End.

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon in Christian Egypt: Judgments of Solomon and the Legend of Solomon and Thabor* Slavomír Čéplö,1 Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

I. Introduction With the publication of the Arabic recension of the Testament of Solomon (henceforth: TestSol(Ar)) and its translation into English, Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala has filled a long neglected lacuna in the study of this pseudepigraphon and its preservation outside of its original Hellenistic cultural and linguistic context. In this article, we aim to expand on that aspect of Monferrer-Sala’s work by further analyzing the contents and the structure of TestSol(Ar). We particularly focus on its relationship to a little-known Coptic work provisionally titled Legend of Solomon and Thabor and what that relationship can tell us about the transmission and the Sitz im Leben of TestSol(Ar) in Coptic- and Arabic-speaking Egypt.

II. TestSol(Ar) 1. The Work and the Manuscripts In his edition, Monferrer-Sala draws on two manuscripts, Vaticano Arabo 448 and Bibliothèque Nationale de France Fonds Arabe 214. We have been able to identify at least three more manuscripts which brings the total of manuscript witnesses to TestSol(Ar) to five.2 In what follows, we provide a description of each manuscript together with its contents. These, as we will show, bear some relevance to our analysis of the contents and the genre of TestSol(Ar). * The authors would like to express their gratitude to Tony Burke and Briana Grenert for their helpful feedback on the initial drafts. All errors remain ours. 1 Corresponding author. 2 The sixth witness to TestSol(Ar) could be Dayr Abū Maqār 41, a Christian Arabic manuscript dated 1739 kept at the library of the monastery of Anbā Maqāryūs in Wādī Natrun in Egypt (see Zanetti, Manuscrits, 62–63). It is cited by Zanetti as containing a copy of the Arabic recension of TestSol(Gr) with a reference to Graf, Geschichte, I, 210. We have not been able to confirm whether the manuscript actually contains a recension of TestSol(Ar).

150 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

1. BnF Ar. 214 – Bibliothèque Nationale de France Fonds Arabe 214 (previous designations: Regius 385, Ancien Fonds 880). Egypt, 1254 AM/1538 AD.3 Paper, 262 folios numbered in Coptic numerals, 285 × 210 mm, 17 lines per page, fine partially vocalized Egyptian nasḫī. De Slane’s and Troupeau’s catalogue descriptions divide the manuscript into twelve sections which for the most part correspond with individual works: Section

Folios

1.

A refutation of those who claim Mary was not called ‘The Mother of God’

1 – 25

2.

A dispute between the monk Ibrāhīm and a muslim prince Abd ar Rahmān concerning the veracity of the Christian faith

26 – 47

3.

A letter sent from Cyprus to Taqīy ad-Dīn ibn at-Taymīyya of Damascus

4.

A dispute between the monks Satiricus and Andrew and ʿAmrān the Jew

65v – 112r

5.

Four books of the Old Testament with an introduction

112v – 185

6.

TestSol(Ar)

7.

A dispute between a Christian and a Jew

203v – 220r

8.

A commentary on the Lord’s Prayer by Anbā Andrew

220v – 221r

9.

A commentary on the Nicene Creed, a chapter from Kitāb maǧmūʿ uṣūl addīn by Ibrāhīm ibn al-ʿAssā’ī and Abū Iṣḥāq al-Mu’taman

221v – 227r

48 – 65r

186 – 203

10.

19 responses to theological questions by St. Athanasius of Alexandria

11.

23 responses by St. Gregorius of Nyssa to his student Ephrem

227v – 231 232 – 256

12.

A privilege granted to all Christians by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭallib

257 – 261

Table 1: The contents of BnF Ar. 214

Contrary to the description above, however, section 5 contains five distinct works in Arabic, namely: translations of Ecclesiastes (114v–126), Song of Songs (126–131), Wisdom (131v–150), Proverbs (150v–185v) and a translator’s introduction to Wisdom and Proverbs (112v–114), all written in the same hand as TestSol(Ar). Interestingly, in the introduction, the translator makes a brief reference to Solomon’s lost works: Solomon left three thousand proverbs and one thousand and five songs, but they perished and were lost during the captivity of the Children of Israel. And of the proverbs, only this book remained and the book of Qohelet, and of the songs, only the Song of Songs. 2. Vat. Ar. 448 – Vaticano arabo 448. Egypt (?), 17th century.4 Paper, i + 212 folios numbered in Coptic numerals (original scribe) and western numerals (cataloguer), 15 lines per page, careless unvocalized Egyptian nasḫī. According to the Arabic fihrist written on fol. i, the manuscript contains the following works:

Slane, Catalogue, 54–55. Also see Troupeau, Catalogue, 185–87. Graf, Geschichte, I, 210.

3 4

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 151

Work

Fihrist

1.

Ecclesiastes

2.

Song of Songs

3.

TestSol(Ar)

4.

Wisdom

5.

Proverbs

6.

Tobit

7.

Esther

8.

A commentary on the Lord’s prayer

9.

Judith

10.

A letter by Hermes the Wise (?)

‫اوله كتاب قوهلت هو الجامع‬ ‫تانيه كتاب نشيد االنشاد في عدد‬ ‫كتاب االحكام للسًيد سًلمان في عدد‬ ‫كتاب الحكمه في عدد الورق‬ ‫كتاب االمتال في عدد‬ ‫كتاب طوبي ابن طوبي في عدد‬ ‫كتاب استير االسًرايليه في عدد‬ ‫تفسير ابونا الدي في السًموات في عدد‬ ‫كتاب يوديد العبرانيه في عدد‬ ‫كتاب رسالة الحكيم هرمس في عدد‬

Cat. fols. 1 – 20 21 – 28r 29 – 54r 59 – 88r 89 – 141 142 – 158 159 – 167 170 – 180r 181 – 212 215?

Table 2: The contents of Vat. Ar. 448

The final work listed, however, appears to be missing from the volume, as are fols. 55–58 and 169; fol. 168 is blank. 3. CM 67 – Coptic Museum 675 (Call No. Theol. 203), 18th century. 170 folios, 220 × 160 mm, 13 lines per page, incomplete.6 The manuscript is incomplete at the end and contains the following works:7 Work

Folios

1.

Commentary on the Song of Songs by Gregorius of Nyssa

1 – 119r

2.

Song of Songs

119v – 132r

3.

TestSol(Ar), incomplete at the end; fol. 150v is blank

132v – 175v

Table 3: The contents of CM 67

4. CM 31 – Coptic Museum 31 (Call No. Bibl. 114), 17th century. 289 folios numbered in Coptic numerals (corner) and Arabic numerals (top), 220 × 190 mm, 11 lines per page.8 This manuscript contains the following works:9 Work 1.

Proverbs

2.

Ecclesiastes

Folios (Arabic) 3r – 67v 68r – 91v

3.

Song of Songs

4.

Wisdom

103v – 148r

92r – 103r

5.

TestSol(Ar), ff. 163v–164r are blank

148v – 182r

5 This manuscript, which along with an incomplete recension of TestSol(Ar) also contains the commentary on the Song of Songs by Gregory of Nyssa, appears to have been unknown to Graf. 6 Simaika (pasha) – ʻAbd al-Masīḥ, Catalogue, 36. 7 Macomber, Inventory, roll A–7, item 3. 8 Simaika (pasha) – ʻAbd al-Masīḥ, Catalogue, 19–20. Also see Graf, Geschichte, I, 211. 9 Macomber, Inventory, roll A–2, item 8.

152 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

Work 6.

The names of Solomon

7.

Sirach

Folios (Arabic) 182v 183r – 296r

Table 4: The contents of CM 31

5. DMM 120 – Dayr Mār Mīnā Serial Number 120 (Class Number Var. 5), Egypt (?) 17th century. 219 folios, 285 × 205 mm, 15 lines per page.10 The manuscript is incomplete at the beginning and contains the following works: Work 1.

Life of St. Achillas the priest

Folios 1r – 30v

2.

Homily on the Ten Virgins by St. John Chrysostom

30v – 34r

3.

TestSol(Ar)

34v – 53v 53v – 81r

4.

Life of St. John Kama

5.

The names of Solomon

6.

Wisdom

81r – 87r 87r – 109r

7.

Proverbs

109r – 146v

8.

Tobit

146v – 157r

9.

Esther

157v – 163r

10.

Judith

163r – 182v

11.

Job

183r – 218v

Table 5: The contents of DMM 120

For the purposes of the present paper, we consulted BnF Ar. 214 and Vat. Ar. 448 (both used by Monferrer-Sala in his edition and translation), as well as CM 67 (previously unedited and unpublished). The remaining manuscripts remain inaccessible to us. 2. Structure and content We concur with Monferrer-Sala’s assessment that the narrative of TestSol(Ar) consists of a number of previously independent stories tied together by an editor to form a coherent text.11 The table below provides an overview of division of TestSol(Ar) into individual stories based on our analysis the major motifs and the progression of the narrative, especially the obvious breaks and shifts in focus, occasionally marked by graphical means (such as the use of punctuation in BnF Ar. 214, e.g. on f. 192v). Monferrer-Sala’s initial discussion divides TestSol(Ar) into three sapiential/jurisprudent episodes, two at the beginning and one at the end,12 and the core of the work consisting of the stories involving Solomon’s dealing with the demons.13 However, the detailed chapter division in his critical edition and translation confirm that his understanding of the structure of the work is very close to ours as outlined below. Khater – Khs-Burmester, Catalogue, 72–73. Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 96. 12 Ibid. 13 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 97. 10 11

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 153

Story

Brief description

Vat. Ar. 448 fols.

I

Solomon asks God for wisdom – 1 Kings 3:4–15

II

Solomon and the two harlots – 1 Kings 3:16–28 (Solomon’s first judgment)

29v: 14 – 31r: 1

III

Joachim and his daughters Mary and Martha (Solomon’s second judgment)

31r: 1 – 34v

IV

Demons prevent people from worshipping at the temple, Solomon is given a ring to control them and forces them to work on the temple

35r – 37r: 15

V

Legend of Solomon and Thabor (‫[ ناوون‬N’WWN]/‫ياوون‬ [Y’WWN]/14 king of the peoples visits)

29r – 29v: 13

37r: 15 – 39r: 2

VI

365 demons rebel against Solomon

VII

A demon steals food from one of the workers

39r: 2 – 40v: 5

VIIIa

The demon from Story VII escapes to Egypt, ‫[ ناوون‬N’WWN]/ ‫[ ياوون‬Y’WWN] king of the peoples writes to Solomon asking

VIIIb

Solomon sends his servant with the ring to capture the demon

IXa

Queen of demons sinks ships, ‫[ كرام‬kr’m] king of ‫[ دارس‬d’rs] writes to Solomon asking to rid him of her; Solomon sends his servant who brings her to him; Solomon interrogates her and learns her name

47r: 2 – 48v: 6

IXb

Solomon asks the queen of demons to recount her sins, she tells the story of how she blinded a man named ‫’[ ورول‬wrwl] and 12 temple virgins; Solomon finally banishes her to hell

48v: 6 – 51r: 8

X

A man named ‫[ قستاردس‬qst’rds] dies and leaves his three sons a puzzling testament (Solomon’s third judgment)

51r: 8 – 54

40v: 5 – 41v: 13 41v: 13 – 43v

him to drive the demon away

44r – 47r: 2

Table 6: The structure of TestSol(Ar)

These stories are arranged in chronological order with the construction of the temple serving as the main indicator of a story’s place on the timeline. Thus in stories I through III, there is no temple yet, instead a sanctuary (haykal) is mentioned. Story IV takes place around the time the foundations for the temple (bayt Allāh, lit. ‘the house of God’) were laid and its conclusion is tied directly to the beginning of story V. Three years have passed in story VI and the events of the remaining stories seem to follow one another chronologically, with the exception of the flashback in IXb, where once again references are made to a sanctuary (haykal). The exact relationship of individual constituent parts of TestSol(Ar) to each other in terms of their history is far from clear. In fact, it is evident that the editor made a significant effort to shape the entire collection into a coherent self-contained narrative (as evident perhaps by the strict chronological progression of events). However, most of the sources can be clearly identified. Thus Stories I and II correspond directly to portions of 1 Kings 3, although with some differences to the canonical text, such as the reaction of the women to See below for the variation and the analysis of the two names.

14

154 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

Solomon’s test, which is quite different from 1 Kings 3:26. In TestSol(Ar) Story II, it is the mother of the dead boy who speaks first, and the other woman pleads for the boy’s life with the following words: “Hear [me], my Lord the king!: give the living child to this [woman] and slay it not, for when I rise every day and see him in the streets of the city it will be a comfort for me.” Story II also introduces Solomon’s boy-servant who will go on to play an important role in Solomon’s further dealings with demons and who is the one who is told to fetch the sword, as opposed to unspecified ‘they’ in 1 Kings 3:24. Story III is the oddest one in the whole collection and the only one where a source or an inspiration cannot be clearly identified, either in the Old Testament or in the entire Solomonic corpus. As Monferrer-Sala notes,15 the inclusion of New Testament personal names Martha and Mary points to a possible connection to the canonical gospels – Luke 10:38–42 and John 11:1–44 – which refer to sisters bearing the same names. These passages, however, do not feature any thematic connection with Story III, save perhaps for the description of Martha as occupied with domestic affairs16 which might be viewed as a positive quality on par with Martha’s chastity as described by TestSol(Ar), but which the Luke account casts in a decidedly negative light. There exists, however, another possible source which not only contains two of the names found in Story III – this time Joachim and Mary – but also shares one of its main motifs, the test by water: the apocryphal Proto-Gospel of James (ProtJas). In addition to naming a Joachim as Mary’s father, ProtJas 15 and 1617 recounts how the authorities discover Mary’s condition and subject both Mary and her warden Joseph to the test by “Lord’s water of refutation” (ὕδωρ τῆς ἐλέγξεως Κυρίου, ProtJas 16:1): Joseph and Mary drink the water and are then sent to the wilderness only to both return whole and thus judged blameless. This connection between the two texts is hardly coincidental, but on the other hand, a woman referred to by the name of Mary (without Magdalene) who is not only accused, but also proven to be an adulteress, is rather unexpected in a Christian text. Stories IV through IX describe Solomon’s dealings with demons and form what Monferrer-Sala refers to as the central thematic core of the work. Stories IV, VII and VIII contain narrative elements known from the Testament of Solomon, most notably the granting of the ring, the story of a demon stealing a worker’s food and the request of a foreign king – Adarkes in TestSol(Gr) 22, N’WWN/Y’WWN in TestSol(Ar) – to rid his country of a demon. Other motifs familiar to a reader of TSol include Solomon adjuring a demon to hold an object in the air (TestSol(Gr) 24–25, TestSol(Ar) Story VI), Solomon ordering his servant to capture a wind demon (TestSol(Gr) 22, TestSol(Ar) VIIIb) and the concept of interrogating demons and asking them what evils they do (TestSol(Gr) throughout, TestSol(Ar) Story IXb). On the other hand, there are plenty of narrative elements in TestSol(Ar) involving demons that are without a parallel in TestSol(Gr). Story V, as we will show below, is a version of the Coptic Legend of Solomon and Thabor. The beginning of Story VI, also preserved in the same fragment, hints at a possible longer Coptic Vorlage for both Story V and VI. Story IX with the two very specific Greek names for the queen of demons is most likely the continuation of a separate Hellenistic tradition.18 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 126; footnote 457. Ibid. 17 Ehrmann – Pleše, Gospels, 59. 18 McCown, Testament, 66–67. 15

16

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 155

And lastly, there is Story X, the second most curious inclusion in the collection, thanks largely to its history. This literal judgment (also, nota bene, involving a literal testament) has a single known equivalent in the entirety of the Solomonic lore: a story from a collection of Solomonica of Russian provenance written in Church Slavic bearing the title Sudy Solomona, i.e. “Judgments of Solomon.”19 This collection, frequently appearing as a part of the Tolkovaja Paleja,20 is otherwise unrelated to either TestSol(Ar) or TestSol(Gr) and the version of Story X contained in it is not identical to the one in TestSol(Ar); the Russian version is much shorter and some details are different, notably that barrels take place of sacks. The Russian recension, however, is nigh identical to a story from the Babylonian Talmud found in the tractate Bava Batra 58a.21 The only significant deviation is that in the Talmud, it is Rabbi Bena’a who is tasked with making the judgment, and not Solomon. The fact that a Talmudic story appears in the Russian Sudy Solomona is not remarkable – after all, the entire work abounds with Jewish influences.22 The inclusion of this story in TestSol(Ar), however, raises questions about the composition and origin of TestSol(Ar) to which we will return in due course. 3. TestSol(Ar) and TestSol(Gr) Monferrer-Sala describes TestSol(Gr) as “the single most direct source”23 of TestSol(Ar). This, however, is contradicted by a close analysis of the narrative elements and motifs in TestSol(Ar), of which only a handful are directly traceable to TestSol(Gr):24 TestSol(Gr) Narrative elements

1:1–4 Ornias steels food from a worker 1:5–7 God gives Solomon a ring to control demons 22:1–19 Letter of Adarkes concerning the wind demon 24–25 Solomon adjures demons to hold a castle in the air

Motifs

TestSol(Ar) Story VII Story IV Story VIIIa Story VI

Solomon makes demons work on the temple

Story V

Solomon interrogates demons, learns their names and asks what evils they do

Story IXb

Solomon tells his servant to capture the Arabian wind demon

Story VIIIb

Table 7: Comparison of narrative elements and motifs in TestSol(Gr) and TestSol(Ar) Tichonravov, Памятники, I, 259–60. Kamčatnov – Milkov, “Цикл,” 201–28. 21 Bondar, “Повісті.” 22 See e.g. Veselovskij, “Источник,” 298–300. 23 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 99. 24 The chapter and verse division of TestSol(Gr) is based on the translation in Duling, “Testament,” 935–87. 19 20

156 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

Of the ten major storylines in TestSol(Ar) (designated by Roman numerals in our analysis), only five can be traced directly to TestSol(Gr) and even then just barely. And while some of the rest may involve Solomon’s dealings with demons (e.g. V, VI and IXb), it does not mean they should be considered a part of the heritage of TestSol(Gr): for one, there is no known recension of TestSol(Gr) which contains them; additionally, Solomon’s dealings with demons appear in traditions unrelated to TestSol(Gr).25 In fact, the first time a motif that we know to be unique to TestSol(Gr) (a demon stealing a worker’s food) appears is as late in the text as Story VII and like majority of other portions of TestSol(Gr) which made it to TestSol(Ar), it did not do so unscathed: for example, the motif of interrogating demons can only be found in one instance (Story IXb), Solomon is given the ring not in response to the theft of the food, but to an incident where demons bar people from worshipping, and Solomon is able to transfer his control of demons to the workers by making a copy of the ring. And finally, the jumbled order in which motifs and narrative elements of TestSol(Gr) appear in TestSol(Ar) indicates that whatever the Vorlage, it certainly did not look like any of the recensions of TestSol(Gr) preserved to us. More important to the question of the relationship between TestSol(Gr) and TestSol(Ar), however, is the difference in the thematic focus of both works. Unlike TestSol(Gr), TestSol(Ar) is not concerned with demonology, angelology or astrology, and it is only marginally interested in magic and medicine.26 And while the same is largely true of TestSol(Gr) in its recension MS D,27 TestSol(Ar) goes even further: where in TestSol(Gr) Solomon spends considerable amount of time interrogating demons about the evils they cause (mostly manifested as bodily afflictions, cf. TestSol(Gr) ch. 2–18 and 25), a similar motif only appears once in TestSol(Ar), in the story of the queen of demons (Story IXb). In fact, the queen of the demons is the only demon whom Solomon inquiries about their name, traditionally the first step in controlling any demon. In further contrast to TSol(Gr). she gives two names of Greek origin – Teodora and Ardamīs – whose etymologies and history are quite unlike the demonic nomenclature of TestSol(Gr). No mention is made of thwarting angels or indeed any angels at all and so while in TestSol(Gr), it is the Archangel Michael who gives Solomon the ring, in TestSol(Ar), God communicates with Solomon directly without any need for intermediaries, thus doing away with the essential duality of TestSol(Gr).28 In conclusion, we concur with Monferrer-Sala’s assessment that TestSol(Ar) “belongs to an exclusive, genuinely Arabic textual tradition … giving rise to what we might term a virtually ex novo version.”29 The question is, if the textual tradition is a new and specifically Arabic one, can this text be still referred to as Testament of Solomon? As we have shown above, even though TestSol(Ar) contains narrative elements and motifs traceable to TestSol(Gr), they form but a part of TestSol(Ar) and even they, let alone the remaining ones, markedly differ in focus and style from TestSol(Gr). And if the answer to the question above is, as it would seem, in the negative, then the next step is to ask what exactly TestSol(Ar) is. In what follows, we will attempt to answer that question. Cf. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 197–202, CAVT 154–65, and Salzberger, Tempelbau. See McCown, Testament, 47 on the relationship between demonology and medicine in TSol. 27 McCown, Testament, 31. 28 I.e. angels working against demons with God on the sidelines, see Alexander, “Contextualizing,” 627. 29 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 95. 25 26

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 157

4. Genre Having examined the structure of TestSol(Ar) and noting its substantial differences from TestSol(Gr), we now find ourselves confronted with the issue of what exactly TestSol(Ar) is and what its Sitz im Leben was. In other words, what purpose did it serve to the community that produced it and that cared about it enough to leave at least five manuscript witnesses? To our mind, there are three fundamental properties of TestSol(Ar) that should inform any analysis of its origin, structure and nature. First, it is – as noted above – an original Arabic composition. Second, it is a late text: of the five known manuscripts witnesses, none dates back further than the 16th century CE and the manuscript tradition as well as various textual and linguistic clues suggest that TestSol(Ar) as a single self-contained work originated in Christian Egypt.30 And finally, TestSol(Ar) is a composite text that combines canonical material with various more or less independent strands of tradition surrounding Solomon. Some effort has been made on the part of the editor to shape various strands of tradition into a single coherent narrative; nevertheless, as outlined above, the composite nature of TestSol(Ar) is quite clear. That brings us to the issue of genre. As Monferrer-Sala notes in his introduction,31 TestSol(Ar) defies easy genre classification: on the one hand, there are the sapiential passages (our Stories II, III and X), but on the other, the narrative shifts back and forth in focus and theme so much that it is hard to categorize. Monferrer-Sala therefore understandably hesitates to assign TestSol(Ar) a single genre label and resolves to describes the work as “a legendary text about King Solomon”.32 There is, however, another option which arises when one considers the cultural milieu in which TestSol(Ar) was produced, i.e. the late medieval Christian Arabic-speaking Egypt: a popular epic narrative known in Arabic literature as sīra.33 Treading somewhere between biography and historical novel, this genre was extremely popular in Arabic literature and while the earliest siyar focused on Muhammad and his life (the so-called al-sīra al-nabawiyya, i.e. “the prophetic biography”), the genre was soon extended to other historical personalities and semi-legendary figures (such as Sīrat Banī Hilāl, Sīrat Sayf ibn Ḏī Yazān or Sīrat Baybars), combining historical narratives with more fanciful traditions (the al-sīra al-šaʻbiyya, “the popular romance/epic”). The genre was extremely popular and it is therefore not surprising that the Arabic-speaking Christians of Egypt would see it fit to extend it to figures venerated in their religious tradition – in fact, there are several examples of such works.34 The most notable one is the Life of John the Baptist attributed to Serapion (Life Bapt. Serap., CANT 183)35 which shares a number of features with TestSol(Ar):

A similar assessment regarding the origin of TestSol(Ar) is expressed by Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 100. 31 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 98. 32 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 99. 33 Reynolds, “Prose,” 259. 34 See for example Abdel-Malek, “Narratives,” 340–42. 35 Čéplö, “Life,” 262–92. 30

158 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

‒ ‒ ‒

it is preserved (and was likely authored in its present form) in Arabic only, shows signs of being composed in Egypt, starts with a canonical introduction (the Gospels for Life Bapt. Serap., 1 Kings for TestSol(Ar)), ‒ goes on to combine bits and pieces of other traditions both known from elsewhere and unique,36 ‒ and finally, like TestSol(Ar), Life Bapt. Serap. partially relies on a Coptic Vorlage. In this light, the inclusion of two canonical episodes from Solomon’s life at the beginning of the work is particularly significant and should be viewed as an attempt of the editor not only to provide a familiar introduction, but also to add a veneer of respectability to the work as a whole. The fact that in four of the five known manuscripts, TestSol(Ar) appears together with canonical and deuterocanonical works attributed to Solomon, serves as a further proof of the text’s status – whether actual or sought after – as worthy of the same attention and respect as those works. Having considered all of that, we feel confident in concluding that TestSol(Ar) is best treated as a separate work, very likely modeled after traditional Arabic sīra, that incorporates some parts of TestSol(Gr), but should nevertheless be considered an independent product of an unnamed Arabic-speaking editor and the cultural milieu of Christian Egypt.37 As such, it most likely served to supplement the canonical and deuterocanonical accounts of Solomon’s life to educate and perhaps even entertain its target audience with fantastic stories centered around a beloved religious figure, quite in the spirit of contemporary popular romances recounting the life and deeds of Islamic and pre-Islamic heroes.

III. Legend of Solomon and Thabor as Witness to the Origins and Transmission of TestSol(Ar) 1. The Text and the Manuscript In his discussion of the sources and the original language of TestSol(Ar), Monferrer-Sala speculates that Coptic may have played a role in the transmission of TestSol(Gr).38 A little-known 10th century Coptic manuscript fragment housed in the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester provides definite proof of that connection. The fragment is described in Walter Crum’s catalogue as a portion of a narrative involving

36 Both this and the previous characteristic are not unique per se. For example, the same applies to the Apostolic Histories by pseudo-Addias (Lazius, Episcopi). They are, nevertheless, atypical for apocrypha in Arabic. 37 Interestingly enough, there exists at least one Arabic work with the title “testament of Solomon” (waṣīyat Sulaymān), copies of which are preserved (among others) in BnF Ar. 28 and BnF Syr. 195. This work, however, contains maxims and philosophical musings and falls thus strictly within the wisdom genre. See DiTommaso, “Notes,” 313–20. 38 Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 100.

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 159

Solomon and a king named Thabor.39 While the story is one of many surrounding the building of the temple, this particular legend was unknown to Crum and in the hundred years since the publication, the fragment failed to attract the attention of scholars of Coptic or pseudepigrapha, save for one cursory mention in a paper summarizing the development of Solomonic lore.40 We stumbled across this text, provisionally titled Legend of Solomon and Thabor41 (LST), during our research into the various sources of TestSol(Ar) and immediately noticed its striking resemblance to Story V of TestSol(Ar). Upon closer examination, we came to the conclusion that LST is not only most likely a direct source of Story V (and that any apparent evidence to the contrary can be easily explained), but also that the LST fragment contains the beginning of Story VI hinting at the existence of larger Coptic Vorlage for at least Story V and Story VI of TestSol(Ar). In what follows, we will demonstrate the above by providing a full translation of LST based on Crum’s transcription informed by our analysis of the Arabic text of Stories V and VI of TestSol(Ar). 2. Coptic Text and Translation The present edition of the Coptic text of LST is based on the transcription of Crum’s edition.42 The text in the mss. is on two folia sides designated with Coptic numerals [ⲕ̅ⲁ̅] (restored) and ⲕ̅ⲃ̅. Parts of the beginnings and ends of lines in the mss. are hidden by the present manuscript binding with sections of illegible lines in ⲕ̅ⲁ̅ column one, and ⲕ̅ⲃ̅ column two; restorations and emendations in the manuscript differing from Crum have been noted in the commentary. In presentation, the text has been reorganized into paragraphs corresponding to the columns of text in the two manuscript pages. Line numbers correspond to the lines of individual columns. Crum did not indicate superlineation in his transcription, but superlineation has been introduced here by editorial convention. Pipes (|) indicate line divisions with every fifth line separated by a double pipe and numbered.

Crum, Catalogue, 41–42. Carroll, “Apocalypse,” 270. 41 This name is used by Carroll, “Apocalypse,” and has been accepted by present authors. 42 We attempted to obtain a reproduction from the John Rylands University Library, but were informed that this was not possible due to the condition of the Coptic manuscript (personal communication, January 26th, 2009). 39 40

160 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu [ⲕ̅ⲁ̅] Col. I

. . . ] . . . ⲥⲟⲗⲟ|[ⲙⲱⲛ] ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲃⲏⲕ |[ . . . ] ⲛ ⲉⲛ̣ⲉⲧⲕⲟⲓ | [ . . . ]ⲛ · ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ‖ (5) [ⲑ]ⲁⲃⲟⲣ ϩⲱⲱϥ | [ . . . ]ⲁ̣ⲧⲟϥ ϩⲛ̅ⲟⲩ | [ⲁϥ]ⲛ̅ⲕⲟⲧⲕ̅ ⲙ | [ⲡ] ⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩⲱ | [ⲁϥ]ⲙⲟⲕⲙⲉⲕ ⲙ̣ ‖ (10) [ⲙⲟϥ] ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲑⲁⲃⲱⲣ | [ⲡⲣ̅ⲣ]ⲟ ϫⲉ ⲁ̣ⲓ̣ϭⲓ̣ |[ⲛⲉ ⲙ̅] ⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ | [ ⲉ ⲣ̅]ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ ⲙ̅ ⲡ|[ⲥⲟⲗⲟ]ⲙⲱⲛ ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ‖ (15) [ . . . ]ⲛⲉϥϫⲟⲣⲙ̅ | [ⲙ̅ ⲡ]ⲏⲓ ⲙ̅ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ | [ . . ]ⲥ ⲇⲉ ϯ̣ⲛⲁⲣ̅ⲡⲟ|[ⲗⲉⲙ]ⲟⲥ ⲛⲙ̅ⲙⲁϥ | [ . . . ]ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲥⲧⲣⲉⲛ ‖ (20) [ . . . ]ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲣⲟ | [ . ]ⲛ ϫⲉ ⲉϥϫⲟⲣⲙ̅ ϩⲛ̅ | [ . . . ]ⲧ ϫⲉ ϥⲛⲁⲣ̅|[ⲡⲟ]ⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲥⲟ|[ⲗⲟ]ⲙⲱⲛ · ⲉⲓⲥ ‖ (25) [ⲡⲁ]ⲇⲁⲓⲙⲟⲛⲓⲟⲛ ⲧⲏ̣|[ⲣⲟⲩ] · ⲁⲩⲉ̣ⲓ̣ ⲉⲩ . ⲧⲡ̣ |

. . . Solomon the king went . . . (5) King Thabor for his part . . . [he] laid down outside and he thought (10) (viz. king Thabor) “I found the (right) time [to] make war with king Solomon (15) . . . (as) he beckoned(?) to the house of the Lord . . . and I shall make war with him. (I … ) (20) (his?) kingdom. . . . (that) he will wage war on Solomon. And lo, (25) demons (were) everywhere, and they came

[ⲕ̅ⲁ̅] Col. II

[ . . . ] ⲁⲩ̣ⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ | ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϩⲧⲙ̅ ⲡ[ϫⲟⲓ] | ⲙ̅ ⲡⲉⲣⲡⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ‖ (30) ϩⲉⲛ-ⲛⲟϭ ⲛ̅ϩⲃ̣ⲏ̣ⲟ̣ⲩⲉ | ⲛⲁϣ̣ⲱ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ ⲁⲩ|ϣⲱⲡⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲛ̅ ⲧⲁ|ϣⲏ ⲛ̣̅ ⲛ̣̅ⲱⲛⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲩ|ⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲱⲥ ‖ (35) ⲇⲉ ⲉ ⲧⲣⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲕⲓⲙ | ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ · ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ|ⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ̅ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̅|ϭⲓ ⲑⲁⲃⲱⲣ ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ | ⲁϥϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ̅ ⲉⲙⲁ‖ⲧⲉ (40) ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥⲛⲉϩⲥⲉ

. . . (and) they cast them beside the [wall] of the temple. And (30) there were many great works and they happened through the multitude of (the) stones which they cast. And since (35) the earth shook greatly, when he heard them, the king Thabor, he was greatly disturbed (40) and he awoke king Solomon and said to him: “Solomon, my brother, what is this noise and (45) these mighty things that have happened? Perhaps the earth and the [. . .] mocks (us) both.” King Solomon (50) laughed and said to him: “No, my brother, do not be afraid to lie yourself (to sleep).

| ⲙ̅ ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ | ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ | ⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ | ⲟⲩⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲓϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̅ ‖ (45) ⲛ̣ⲉⲓϭ̣[ⲟⲙ] ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲩϣⲱ|ⲡⲉ · ⲁⲣⲏⲩ ⲉⲣⲉ|ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲙ̅ ⲡ̣ [ . . . ] | ⲥ̣ⲱⲃⲉ ⲙ̣̅ ⲡⲉⲥⲛ̣ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ | ⲁⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ ‖ (50) ⲥⲱⲃⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ | ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲛ ⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ̅ |ⲡⲣ̅ⲣ̅ϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲉ ⲛ̅ⲕⲟⲧⲕ̅ | ⲛⲁⲕ |

[ⲕ̅ⲃ̅] Col. I

ⲛⲉⲓϫⲟⲟⲩ̣ⲧ ⲛ̅ⲇⲁⲓ‖ⲙⲟⲛⲓⲟⲛ (55) ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩ|ⲉⲓ † ⲉⲩⲑ̣ⲓⲧ ⲛ̅ⲱⲛⲉ † | ⲁⲩⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϩ|ⲧⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϫⲟⲓ ⲙ̅ⲡⲏⲓ | ⲙ̅ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ ‖ (60) ⲕⲱⲧ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟϥ · | ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ̅ ⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ | ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲑⲁⲃⲟⲣ ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ | ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲁϥ|ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ̅ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲉϥ‖ϫⲱ (65) ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲉϥϩⲏⲧ | ϫⲉ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁϥⲧⲣⲉ ⲛ̅|ⲇⲁⲓⲙⲟⲛⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲣⲣ|ⲅⲁⲥⲓⲁ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲧ ⲱ|ⲛⲉ ⲉ ⲡⲕⲱⲧ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲏⲓ ‖ (70) ⲙ̅ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲓⲉ ⲁⲛⲕ̅ | ⲛⲓⲙ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϫⲉ ⲉⲓⲉⲣ̅|ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲙ̅ⲙⲁϥ | ϥⲛⲁⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲉⲣⲓ|ⲕⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲱⲓ ⲙⲛ̅ ‖ (75) ⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲉ|ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲉⲓ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲓ | ⲛ̅ⲑⲉ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲟⲙⲉ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲕⲉ|ⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ|ⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲉ ϩⲧⲟ‖

These lowly demons are the ones who (55) come carrying the stones. They cast them beside the walls of the house of the Lord which they are (60) building.” When he heard these things, Thabor king of the peoples was disturbed very much and said (65) in his heart: “If he can make these demons (do) work and cut stone for the construction of the house (70) of the Lord. Who am I that I would make war with him? He will command and they will turn upon me and (75) the multitude, and they will trample me like potter’s clay!” When he mounted the horses

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 161 [ⲕ̅ⲃ̅] Col. IV

(80) ⲟⲩⲉ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲑⲁⲃ[ⲱⲣ] | ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϩⲉ[ⲑⲛⲟⲥ] | ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣ̣ⲁ̣[ⲓ ⲉⲡ]|ⲏⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ[ . . . . ] | ⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲉⲧⲟⲟ[ⲧϥ ⲉ] ‖ (85) ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲏ ⲉ ϩⲟ[ⲧϩⲉⲧ] | ⲏ ⲉ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ ⲉ[ϥϫⲱ ⲙ̅]|ⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲛ̅ ⲡⲣ̅[ⲣⲟ ⲥⲟ]|ⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ · [ⲉⲧⲃⲉ(?)] | ⲑⲟⲧⲉ ⲛ̅ ⲛⲉⲛ[ⲧⲁⲩ]‖ (90) ϩⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥ[ⲉ ⲛⲁϥ] | ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇ[ⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ]|ⲣⲉ ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲥⲟⲗ[ⲟⲙⲱⲛ] | ⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲙ̣[ⲉϩ]|ⲧⲏ ⲛ̅ ⲣⲟⲙⲡ[ⲉ ⲙ̅ ⲡ‖(95)ⲕⲱⲧ ⲉ ⲡⲏ[ⲓ ⲙ̅] | ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲁ[ⲩⲁⲣ]|ⲭⲉⲓ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲛ̅ⲇⲁⲓ[ⲙⲟⲛⲓ] | ⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲩⲗ[ⲟ ⲉⲩⲣ̅]|ϩⲱⲃ ⲉ ⲡⲏⲓ [ⲙ̅ ⲡⲛⲟⲩ]‖ⲧⲉ (100) · ⲁϩⲟⲓⲛ[ⲉ | ]ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲟⲧ[ . . . . ? ] | ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ⲇⲉⲕⲁⲛⲟ[ⲥ ⲛ̅ⲛⲁϩ]|ⲣⲙ̅ ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲥⲟ[ⲗⲟ]|ⲙⲱⲛ ⲁⲩ[ⲡⲱⲧ ‖ (105) ⲉ ⲧⲉⲣⲏⲙⲟⲥ [ⲁⲩ]|ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙ̅ⲙ[ⲁⲩ]

(80) (namely) Thabor the king of the peoples, he went down to (his) house and [(never) . . . (85) sought again(?) either to investigate(?) or consider (this), since he spoke this with King Solomon [(and) because of] the fear of those w[ho were (90) under his control. And it happened when king Solomon came into the fifth year of the (95) construction of the House of the Lord, they began, the demons, to cease to do work to the house of God. (100) Some fled from [ . . . ] to(?) the decans before king Solomon, and they [fled] (105) to the wilderness and it happened there . . . [Col. IV ends here]

3. Notes on the Coptic Text 1 – 2: ⲥⲟⲗⲟ|[ⲙⲱⲛ] ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲃⲏⲕ corresponds to … ‫ يلا ناميلس لخد‬in BnF Ar. 214 192r. 7: [ⲁϥ]ⲛ̅ⲕⲟⲧⲕ̅: ‘He laid down’. We restore [ⲁϥ] into Crum’s text from on the sense of the narrative. 11 – 13: ⲁⲓϭⲓ|[ⲛⲉ ⲙ̅] ⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ |[ⲉ ⲣ̅]ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ ‘I found the (right) time [to] make war …’. We propose to restore to Crum’s text a reading [ⲛⲉ ⲙ̅] (i.e. ϭⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̅, ⲙ̅ⲙⲟ⸗ ‘find’) in line twelve and further emend in the following line ⲉ governing ⲣ̅ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ (purpose construction). 15: ]ⲛⲉϥϫⲟⲣⲙ̅ The specific sense is unclear, but immediately after the object [ⲙ̅ ⲡ]ⲏⲓ ⲙ̅ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ in the following line this appears to form a complete sentential unit ‘he beckoned(?) to the house of the Lord’, as the presence of the Greek postpositive conjunction ⲇⲉ in line 17 indicates. It is also possible to consider that there may be a missing circumstantial conversion ⲉ-ⲛⲉϥϫⲟⲣⲙ̅ ‘as he was beckoning’(?) in the lacuna. Also unclear is whether it is Thabor or Solomon is doing the action, although the Arabic version suggests that the masculine subject -ϥ- here refers to Solomon. 19: ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲥⲧⲣⲉⲛ[ appears to be a Greek verb compounded with ⲕⲁⲧⲁ- but the verbal root -ⲥⲧⲣⲉⲛ[ has no clear interpretation from either the LSJ or Förster, Wörterbuch, passim. The object of the verb is undoubtedly the [ⲧ(ⲉϥ)]ⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ‘(the/ his) kingdom’ in the following line. As this appe-

ars in a first person narrative, we could reasonably expect the missing conjugational base to be 1sg. future Ϯⲛⲁ- or conjunctive ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲓ-. 21: ⲉϥϫⲟⲣⲙ̅ cf. l.15 above. 28: ⲡ[ϫⲟⲓ] is restored into Crum’s text from the parallel at line 58 below. Cf. also repetition in the Arabic text. 44 – 48: Thabor’s words to Solomon: The Coptic and Arabic versions disagree after the direct address ⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ “Solomon, my brother. . . ” The text up to the high-stop recorded in Crum’s publication ⲟⲩⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲓϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̅ ‖ (45) ⲛ̣ⲉⲓϭ̣[ⲟⲙ] ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲩ-ϣⲱ|ⲡⲉ · “What is this noise and these mighty things that have happened?” is grammatically straightforward. 49 – 60: Solomon’s words to Thabor: Solomon’s words in the Arabic version closely parallel that of the Coptic version for these following lines. 56: †ⲉⲩⲑ̣ⲓⲧ ⲛ̅ⲱⲛⲉ†: The damaged ⲑ̣ recorded in Crum’s catalogue presents serious interpretational difficulties. ⲑ̣ⲓⲧ ⲛ̅ⲱⲛⲉ as printed is uninterpretable. Circumstantial ⲉ⸗ⲩ- presented by the manuscript followed by the ⲛ̅ⲱⲛⲉ contextually demands that there be some attendant circumstances involving the demons and the stones. As the Arabic version is closely parallel at this point (cf. BnF Ar. 214 192r l4–15 below) it seems sensible to conjecture a reading ⲉⲩϥⲓ-ⲛ̅ⲱⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲛⲟϫⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϩⲧⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϫⲟⲓ ⲙ̅ⲡⲏⲓ ⲙ̅ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ … ‘(they came), carry-

162 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu ing the stones (and) they cast them beside the wall of the temple …’. However, as we have not been able to examine the Coptic manuscript ourselves, we fully admit this must remain a conjectural restoration whose basis lies entirely upon the unintelligibility of the text and the Arabic parallel. 61 – 78: Upon the realization that Solomon can coerce demons to work for him, Thabor becomes greatly afraid, and he expresses to himself how powerless he would be before such an opponent, closely parallel in BnF Ar. 214 192r l.16 to BnF Ar. 214 192v l.2. Particularly striking is the simile involving being beaten like potter’s clay found in Coptic l. 75–78 ⲛ̅ⲥⲉⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲉⲓ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲓ ⲛ̅ⲑⲉ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲟⲙⲉ ⲙ̅ ⲡⲕⲉⲣⲁⲙⲉⲩⲥ to BnF Ar. 214 192v l.2 below. 78 – 89: Having resolved to never again to plot on Solomon, Thabor returns to his country. 83: In the break one might expect from context and by parallel to TestSol(Ar) a negated conjugation base (ⲙ̅ⲡⲉϥ-?) to furnish expected reading (as a result of seeing Solomon’s control over the demons) “he did not again seek…” We have followed this reading in translation, but have left it unrestored it in the presented text. 89 – 91: By the sense of the narrative it is possible to conjecture a restoration in the lacuna left by Crum’s text some preposition with causal force, such as [ⲉⲧⲃⲉ] ⲑⲟⲧⲉ ‘[on account of] the fear’ and in that of the next line [ⲧⲁⲩ] viz. ⲛ ⲛⲉⲛ[ⲧⲁⲩ]‖ (90) ϩⲩⲡⲟⲧⲁⲥⲥ[ⲉ ⲛⲁϥ] ‘of those who were subjected to him (viz. Solomon). 92 – 106: A new episode in the narrative is signaled by the focalizing ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ, indicating a new topic of discourse, corresponding to the beginning to the sixth story ‘365 Demons Rebel’ of TestSol(Ar).

94 – 95: ⲧⲙ[ⲉϩ]ⲧⲏ ⲛ̅ ⲣⲟⲙⲡ[ⲉ ‘the fifth year’ We have suggested a restoration [ⲙ̅ ⲡ-] into the break of l.95 to substantivize l.96 ⲕⲱⲧ. Thus: “And it happened when king Solomon came into the fifth year of construction to the house of the Lord.” Which is comparable to the construction in TestSol(Ar) below (BnF Ar. 214 192v l.5–6) “And then in the third year of king Solomon’s construction of the temple. . . ” The year of the construction differs between versions. 102: ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ⲇⲉⲕⲁⲛⲟ[ⲥ ‘to(?) the decans’. A catalogue of the Δεκανοί appears in TestSol(Gr) ch. 18.43 Although introduced initially as τὰ τρίακοντα ἕξ στοιχεῖα ‘the thirty-six στοιχεῖα’ they later identify themselves specifically as being δεκανοί ‘decans’ when Solomon prompts them for their names in TestSol(Gr) 18.4: κἀγὼ δὲ Σολομῶν . . . εἶπον αὐτῷ· ‘σὺ τίς εἶ;’ ὁ δὲ ἔφη μοι ‘ἐγὼ δεκανὸς α’ τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου, ὃς καλοῦμαι Ῥύαξ.’ ‘And I, Solomon, said to it: ‘Who are you?’ And he said to me: ‘I am the first decan of the Zodiac circle, who is called Ruax’. In astrology each decan corresponded to a ten degree segment of the zodiac. Their appearance is unparalleled elsewhere in TestSol(Gr) and in the Arabic recension of TestSol(Ar), save perhaps for the number of demons (365) who rebel against Solomon in Story VI. It is possible that the figures of the decans were reinterpreted as demons themselves.44 104: We suggest a restoration of the lacuna recorded in Crum’s publication to ⲁⲩ[ⲡⲱⲧ ‘they [fled]’. 106: Coptic Fragment ends here.

McCown, Testament, 51–52. McCown, Testament, 46.

43 44

4. Arabic Text and Translation The Arabic text herein is based on CM 67, a previously unedited and unpublished recension of LST. This text and translation of Story V also contain the beginning of Story VI which appears to be a version of the Coptic fragment’s lines 95–106. For the purposes of comparison between the three recensions of TestSol(Ar) used in this paper, the following sigla have been assigned:

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 163

A – CM 67 B – BnF Ar. 214 C – Vat. Ar. 448 Only the major differences between the recensions affecting our analysis of LST and TestSol(Ar) are recorded. CM 67 145r

CM 67 145v

CM 67 146r

CM 67 146v

(8) ‫فلما كان في دلك الزمان سمع | نور َو‬

‫ملك النبايين ان سليمان | الملك يبني في بيت‬ ‫هللا فتقمقم في | تلك االيام واراد ان يحاربه‬ ‫وكان‬ | ‫سليمان مشغول في البنان في بيت هللا‬ ‫وقال امصي واحاربه واقتله وجميع | عسكره‬ ‫فقام ناوون ملك الشعوب | ومضي الي القدس‬ ‫) تحصي يدفعهم للملك‬5( ‫ومعه هدايا ال‬ ‫سليمان وحتي | ينظر ان كان يقدر علي‬ ‫محاربته | او ال يقدر فمضي وكلم سليمان‬ ‫الملك | وقال له السالم لباني بيت هللا فقال‬ )10( ‫له | سليمان السالمه فقال نا َو َون ملك‬ ‫الشعوب انني سمعت في كورتي | انك تبني‬ ‫بيتا ً للرب االهك‬ ‫وقد جيت اليك بهدايا تقبلهم مني | تدفعهم في‬ ‫بنيان البيت الدي للرب | االهك فقال له الملك‬ )5( ‫سليمان | خلي هداياك لك ربما كنت محتاج‬ ‫اليهم وانت تعرف ان لي خيرات كتيره | انا اشكر‬ ‫االهي الدي رفع لي هده | الخيرات العظيمه فقال له‬ ‫نا َو َون | ان كان وجدت قدامك كرامه | خد هديتي‬ ‫) ان توخد منه‬10( ‫من يدي فامر الملك سليمان‬ ‫ولما كان المساء اكل | سليمان معه ولما فرغوا من‬ ‫االكل‬ ‫دخل سليمان الي مرقده وفرشوا ايضا ً | لنا َو َون‬ ‫فراشه قدام سليمان وكان | نا َو َون متقمقم و يقول‬ )5( ‫ان وجدت | زمان لمحاربته ما دام هو مشغول‬ ‫في بنيان بيت هللا وكان يتطلع | الي مملكة سليمان‬ | ‫وادا بالشياطين | موسوقين حجاره فطرحوهم‬ ‫تحت بنيان بيت هللا فكانت | سوقه عظيمه بالمديمه‬ ‫) عظيمه ايضا ً جدا حتي ان االرض‬10( ‫ورجه‬ ‫| اضطربت فلما سمع نا َو َون الرجه | خاف وانبه‬ ‫الملك سليمان وقال له‬

(8) [Story 5: Legend Of Solomon And Thabor] And when at that time | NWRW king of the B’BYYN heard that king Solomon | was building the Lord’s temple, he was fretful | in those days and wanted to wage war on Solomon while he was busy with the construction of the temple. | So he said “I shall go and wage war on him and kill him | and all his army.” And N’WWN king of the peoples rose | and went to Jerusalem with innumerable gifts (5) to give to king Solomon | and to see if he would be able to wage war on him | or not be able to. He went to speak to king Solomon | and said to him: “Peace (unto your endeavor) to build the temple.” | Solomon said to him: “Greetings.” And N’WWN king (10) of the peoples said: “I heard in my country | that you (are building) a temple for the Lord, your God, and I have come to you with gifts. Accept them from me | for the building of the temple to the Lord, | your God.” King Solomon replied and said: | “Keep your gifts because you may need (5) them and you know that I have many blessings | and I thank my God who gave me these | great blessings.” N’WWN said: | “Indeed I have already found His goodness in your presence. | Take my gift from my hands.” So king Solomon ordered (10) (the gifts) to be taken from him. When the evening came, Solomon dined | with him and once they had finished their meal, Solomon retired into his bed chamber, and they also prepared a bed | for N’WWN in Solomon’s presence. | And N’WWN was fretful and said: “I have indeed found | the (right) time to wage war on him while he is busy building (5) the temple.” And he had his eye | on Solomon’s kingdom. Then suddenly (there appeared) demons | carrying stones and dropping them | beneath the construction site of the temple. And there was so much commotion (10) and strong trembling that the earth | shook. When N’WWN heard the commotion, | he was afraid and woke king Solomon and said to him:

164 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu CM 67 147r

‫يا اخي سليمان عياط عظيم ورجه | كانت حتي‬ ‫ان االرض كادت | تتخسف الي اسفل وان سليمان‬ ‫) يا اخي‬5( ‫الملك | ضحك وقال ال تخاف لكن ارقد‬ ‫هوالء الشياطين موسوقين | حجاره فطرحوهم‬ ‫ملك الشعوب ارتقد وخاف بالمره | وقال ادا كانت‬ ‫الشياطين جعلهم | يعملون ويحضرون الحجاره‬ ‫للبيت | فمن انا حتي اكون احاربه فهو يجعلهم‬ ‫| تحت البنيان | لبيت هللا فلما سمع هدا نا َو َون‬

CM 67 148v

‫يميلوا علي وعلي جميع ويجعلني | متل فخار‬ ‫القرموصي فلما صيح من | باكر نا َو َون ملك‬ ‫الشعوب مضي | الي كورته ولم يرجع يعزم علي‬ ‫) الشياطين‬5( ‫| محاربة الملك سليمان خوف من‬ ‫ قال فلما كان | في تالت سنه والملك‬:: ‫الدين بامره‬ | ‫سليمان يبني | في بيت هللا رجعوا الشياطين‬ ‫تمسكوا وتخلوا فبعضهم هربوا | من قدام وجه‬ ‫الملك سليمان ومضوا | الي الوادي تشاورا مع‬ ‫بعضهم‬

CM 67 149r

‫بعض وكانوا تلتمايه خمسه وستون | شيطان وقالوا‬

“Solomon, my brother, there is so much clamor and commotion | that the earth almost | caved in!” But king Solomon | laughed and said: “Do not fear and go to bed, (5) my brother. These demons carry | stones and drop them beneath the construction site | of the temple.” When N’WWN king of the peoples heard this, | he trembled and was scared by the noise | and said: “If the demons can be mad (10) to work and bring stones to the construction site of the temple, | who am I to wage war on him? He would make them bend me and all who are with me and make me | like potter’s clay.” And when he rose | early in the morning, N’WWN king of the peoples went | to his country and he never again considered | waging war on king Solomon, out of fear of (5) the demons under his command. [Story 6: 365 Demons Rebel] And then: | In the third year of king Solomon’s | construction of the temple, some demons returned | carrying (stones) and stopped working and some of them ran | from king Solomon’s presence and went (10) to a valley where they held counsel with each other. There were 365 demons and they said …

5. Notes on the Arabic Text In the notes to the text above, I highlighted parallels with the language of the Hebrew Old Testament and its direct translation into Arabic. As salient as they are, they might mean little on their own; but when considered with the rest of the context of TestSol(Ar), they may support my speculation regarding the intent of the editor of TestSol(Ar) expressed in 2.4 above: the inclusion of the canonical narratives involving Solomon in TestSol(Ar), as well as the inclusion of TestSol(Ar) in manuscripts containing (deutero-)canonical works ascribed to Solomon reflect the editor’s desire for the reader to receive TestSol(Ar) as a part of the canonical (Christian and orthodox) tradition involving Solomon. The hebraizing language of Story V certainly is not the result of (literal) translation from Hebrew; rather, it might be viewed as an imitation of the style of the Arabic Bible. As such, it could thus be considered another way in which the editor sought to confer legitimacy of the canon upon work they were compiling. The other option is of course that the hebraizing language is the result of (literal) translation from Coptic. At this point, a conclusive answer cannot be provided. CM 67 145r 9: ‫ نور َو ملك النبايين‬A (NWRWa’ king of the B’BYYN): ‫( نوروا ملك البابيين‬NWRW’ king of the B’BYYN) B: ‫ نوروا ملك الباتيين‬C (NWRW’ king of the B’TYYN)’. This is the only time in this story – as

well as in TestSol(Ar) as a whole – that this name is mentioned and the context suggests that this is the same person as N’WWN/Y’WWN (see below). Monferrer-Sala connects this person with Nūrwā king of the Sabeans and amends ‫ الباتيين‬/ ‫ البابيين‬to

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 165 ‫ الصابيين‬accordingly.45 The vocalization of the name in A with a final fatḥa is consistent with the reading in BnF Ar. 214 and supports Monferrer-Sala’s conjecture. 10: ‫ يبني في بيت هللا‬lit. ‘were building in the temple’, so throughout. 10: ‫‘ بيت هللا‬the temple,’ lit. ‘the house of God’, so throughout. 11: ‫ في تلك االيام‬lit. ‘in those days’, compare the Biblical Hebrew ‫ ַ ּביּ ָמִים ָההֵם‬and the use of the same Arabic term in the Arabic translations of the Old Testament, such as Genesis 6:4 in Ms. Sinai Ar. 3, f. 31r. CM 67 145v 3: ‫( نا َو َون‬N’WaWaN) A: ‫( ناوون‬N’WWN) B: ‫ياوون‬ (Y’WWN) C. See below for the analysis. 3: ‫‘ ملك الشعوب‬king of the peoples’. The Coptic equivalent would be ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ. Compare the Biblical Hebrew usage of the term ‫( הַּגֹוי ִם‬Strong 1471). 4: ‫‘ القدس‬Jerusalem’. This is the only time in TestSol(Ar) that this Arabic name is used in reference to Jerusalem. Elsewhere, Jerusalem is consistently referred to as ‫يروشليم‬. CM 67 146r 2: ‫‘ قدامك‬in your presence’. The preposition ‫قدام‬, lit. ‘before’ or ‘in front of’, is used in this non-spa-

tial and non-temporal function a total of three times in the cited fragment of TestSol(Ar), which includes the introduction to Story 6, and a total of 5 times (out of 17 occurrences of the word) in the entire TestSol(Ar). This usage closely mirrors the perceptual usage of the preposition ‫ ִל ְפנ ֵי‬in the Old Testament.46 We have opted to translate it as “in X’s presence” believing this best reflects both the perceptual meaning and the more common temporal and spatial one. 4: … ‫ دخل سليمان الي‬Coptic fragment begins here. 8: ‫(‘ بالشاياطين‬there) suddenly (appeared) demons’. The word used for ‘demon’ is ‫( شيطان‬lit. ‘devil’) which Christian Arabic texts prefer over Muslim Arabic ‫‘ جن‬jinn’. CM 67 148v 2: ‫‘ قرموصي‬potter’ Ar. [qrmwṣy] < Greek κεραμεύς. 2: ‘and make me like potter’s clay’ cf. Isa 41:25. 5: The number of years: 5 in Coptic vs. 3 in Arabic. 8: … ‫ ومضوا الي الوادي‬Coptic fragments ends here.

Monferrer-Sala, in this volume, 129, footnote 499. Arnold – Choi, Guide, 116.

45 46

6. Commentary The undeniable similarity of all the Arabic version of LST in TestSol(Ar) (in all three manuscripts) and the Coptic version, as well as their relative age and the general relationship of Coptic and Arabic pseudepigrapha and apocrypha, would suggest that the Coptic recension is the original and the Arabic one a translation. However, the mismatch between the Coptic and the Arabic names of Solomon’s adversary – Thabor and N’WWN/Y’WWN – raises the possibility of independent origins. A refutation of that objection and a plausible explanation of the different names offer itself in the light of the different forms of the Arabic version of Thabor’s name in all three consulted manuscripts. Assuming the fricative pronunciation of the Coptic ⲃ between vowels, i.e. ⲃ pronounced as [v] and not [b], the putative transcription of ⲑⲁⲃⲱⲣ into Arabic script would be ‫ ثاوور‬or ‫تاوور‬., i.e. Ṯ’WWR or T’WWR. In its initial form, however, the shape of the central part (rasm) of the letters tā’ and ṯā’ is the same as for nūn and yā’, the only difference being the dots (iʿǧām). It is thus more than probable that at a certain point in the chain of transmission which resulted in Vat. Ar. 448, BnF Ar. 214 and CM 67, there

166 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

was a manuscript containing a direct translation of LST (and, possibly, the work that contained it) where the dotting was either illegible or altogether absent, a sight all too common in Arabic manuscripts. Consequently, the copyists had to rely on their own imagination to supply the missing iʿǧām, thus turning the initial tā’ or ṯā’ to nūn and yā’. The very same applies to the final letter: in careless writing, the upward curve of rā’ is often drawn too far so that the tip is brought to the line level. Such rā’ can then be mistaken for the final shape of nūn, especially if it is preceded by a wāw which together make up the sound plural suffix -ūn(a), which is solely by its high frequency susceptible to substitution by sheer muscle memory. The road from ⲑⲁⲃⲱⲣ to ‫ ناوون‬or ‫ ياوون‬is thus as follows (read from right to left): ⲑⲁⲃⲱⲣ < ‫ ياوون‬/ ‫ثاوور > ىاوور > ىاوون > ناوون‬ Along with confirming the most likely relationship between the Coptic and Arabic recensions of LST, this putative evolution of the Coptic name into the Arabic ones(s) has significant repercussions for our understanding of the textual history of TestSol(Ar). Were it not for this minor detail, one would be justified in postulating that Vat. Ar. 448 is an inferior copy of BnF Ar. 214, considering their relative age, almost full agreement and even the fact that the other Solomonic works they contain appear in the same order. However, this one crucial point where they depart from one another is enough to conclude that each of these manuscripts is the last link in a separate chain of transmission and that somewhere in both chains, there was a manuscript with illegible or absent iʿǧām. Whether it was a single manuscript which is the ultimate source of both Arabic recensions of TestSol(Ar) or whether there were two such manuscripts is, much like the complete textual history of TestSol(Ar), still to be determined. Turning now to the story of LST itself, it is remarkable that even after more than a hundred years, Crum’s puzzled observation “I have failed to find any trace of such a story”47 still holds true.48 Some motifs are familiar enough – a visit by a foreign king bearing many gifts reminds of the story of the Queen of Sheba, the idea of demons working on the construction of the temple is a staple of the Solomonic lore. In other aspects, however, LST is rather unique. This is especially true of the name of Solomon’s guest and would-be adversary. Its resemblance to (or rather full identity with) the name of Mount Tabor (Όρος Θαβώρ) and the resulting familiarity to the target audience can explain its readily inclusion in this type of text, yet no person of that name is recorded in any of the relevant traditions.49 The Arabic recension of LST first gives Thabor a different name and origin (see CM 67 145r, l. 9 and the related note) and later, TestSol(Ar) Story VIIIa identifies him as the king of Egypt, none of which provides any insight into the matter. Thabor’s title ⲡⲣ̅ⲣⲟ ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ (‘king of the peoples’) is a particularly interesting aspect of the story. One is immediately reminded of the title ἐθνάρχης used in Roman times for Crum, Catalogue, 41. See for example overviews of Solomon-related apocrypha and pseudepigrapha in Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 197–202 or CAVT 154–65. 49 Interestingly, a “rex Thabor” is mentioned in Historia destructionis Troiae, a medieval Latin romance by Guido delle Colonne, together with two other characters who come to the aid of Troy (Hamilton, “Indebtedness,” 94). However, no connection can be established with LST or any tradition LST may be built upon. 47 48

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 167

rulers ranked below kings, such as Herod the Great’s son Herod Archelaus.50 The use of this word together with the Arabic term ‫( كورة‬literally ‘district, province’) could serve to underscore Thabor’s status in regard to Solomon – Solomon is the true king while Thabor, as just a ruler of a province, is his subordinate. The title could be also a reference to Gen 17:16 (LXX: βασιλεῖς ἐθνῶν) and Nebuchadnezzar’s title in Dan 4:1 (LXX: βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι), based on which one might speculate that the choice of the name is based on Jer 46:18 or rather a misinterpretation of the entire prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 46:13–24). The author of LST misunderstood the reference to Pharaoh in Jer 46:17 and assumed that the one who will come “like Tabor among the mountains” (Jer 46:18 NRSV) and the king of Egypt are the same person. Thabor’s final words before his departure, a near direct quote from Isaiah – “He shall trample on rulers as on mortar, as the potter treads clay” (Isa 41:25 NRSV) – would provide further evidence for an interpretation (or rather use) of Old Testament passages tailored to the particular purpose of LST: illustrating Solomon’s might and power unequalled by that of other rulers of the world. Even the king of Egypt, the greatest power of them all, who presumes to consider himself an equal to Solomon by calling him his brother, soon learns he is in fact no match to the king of Israel. The particular method of achieving that, i. e. Solomon’s control of demons, ties the Legend of Solomon and Thabor into the rich cycle of tradition surrounding Solomon as a master of demons and all things magic.51 And finally, a word on the relationship between LST and TestSol(Gr). While the eponymous main story does not feature any obvious connection to TestSol(Gr), the fragmentary conclusion of LST recounting the rebellion of 365 demons against Solomon strongly indicates that there existed at one point a Coptic Vorlage to TestSol(Ar) Story VI. The Story VI is notable for containing one of the most salient narrative elements in TestSol(Gr), that of Solomon commanding a demon to hold up a pillar in the air. In TestSol(Gr), this motif can be found twice: first in chapter 24 where Solomon issues this command to two demons, one of whom is the Arabian wind demon who is the focus of TestSol(Gr) ch. 22–23 and TestSol(Ar) Story VI and VIII, and then in chapter 25. If our assumption about the existence of a Coptic version of TestSol(Ar) Story VI is correct, LST thus becomes the first known witness to the transmission of TestSol(Gr) in Coptic milieu. Even here, however, the original nature of TestSol(Gr) as a work of demonology and magic becomes suppressed and the stories of Solomon’s dealings with demons turn into straightforward narratives about a beloved Old Testament figure told partly for edification, partly for entertainment. The former is ensured by providing TestSol(Ar) a veneer of respectability by including it with the canonical works ascribed or related to Solomon. And both goals, but especially the latter, were also achieved by giving the work the form of a sīra, a genre popular in the cultural context in which the work originated and designed for specifically this purpose.

Chancey, Culture, 46–47. See Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 197–202.

50 51

168 Slavomír Čéplö, Matthew Scarborough, Alin Suciu

Abbreviations Ar. Arabic BnF Bibliotheque nationale de France ch. chapter CANT Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, ed. Mauritius Geerard, Turnhout 1992. CAVT Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti, ed. Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Turnhout 1998. CM Coptic Museum LST Legend of Solomon and Thabor Ms. manuscript TestSol(Ar) The Arabic recension of the Testament of Solomon (also known as Judgments of Solomon) TestSol(Gr) The Greek recension of the Testament of Solomon Vat. Vatican

IV. Bibliography Abdel-Malek, Kamal. “Popular Religious Narratives.” In Arabic Literature in the Post-Classical Period. Edited by D. S. Richards and Roger Allen, 330–44. The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Cambridge: University Press, 2006. Alexander, Philip S. “Contextualizing the demonology of the Testament of Solomon.” In Die Dämonen: die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld, 613–35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: University Press, 2018. Bondar, Konstantin V. “Давньоруські Повісті Соломонового Циклу: Джерела, Текстологія, ПроБлематика, Поетика.” PhD Thesis, H.S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University, 2007. Carroll, Scott T. “The ‘Apocalypse of Adam’ and Pre-Christian Gnosticism.” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 263–79. Čéplö, Slavomír. “The Life of John the Baptist by Serapion.” In New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Edited by Tony Burke and Brent Landau, 1:262–92. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Chancey, Mark A. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Charlesworth, James Hamilton. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, With a Supplement. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Crum, Walter Ewing. Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the Collection of the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Manchester: University Press, 1909. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Pseudepigrapha Notes IV: 5. The Testament of Job. 6. The Testament of Solomon.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21, no. 3 (2012): 313–20. Duling, Dennis C. “Testament of Solomon.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, 935–87. Yale: University Press, 1983. Ehrmann, Bart, and Zlatko Pleše. The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Arabic and Coptic Witnesses to the Transmission of the Testament of Solomon 169 Förster, Hans. Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den koptischen dokumentarischen Texten. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002. Graf, Georg. Geschichte Der Christlichen Arabischen Literatur. Vol. 1. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1944. Hamilton, George L. “The Indebtedness of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde to Guido Delle Colonne’s Historia Trojana.” Columbia University, 1903. Kamčatnov, Alexander Michailowitsch, and Vladimir Vladimirovitsch Milkov. “Апокрифический Цикл о Царе Соломоне в Составе Палеи Толковой.” Scientific Journal of Saint-Petersburg Theological Academy 11, no. 1 (2019): 201–28. Khater, Antoine, and O. H. E. Khs-Burmester, ed. Catalogue of the Coptic and Christian Arabic MSS. Preserved in the Cloister of Saint Menas at Cairo. Publications de La Société d’archéologie Copte. Le Caire, 1967. Lazius, Wolfgang. Abdiae Babyloniae Episcopi et Apostolorum Discipuli de Historia Certaminis Apostolici Libri Decem. Bale, 1552. Macomber, William F. Final Inventory of the Microfilmed Manuscripts of the Coptic Museum, Old Cairo, Egypt. Rolls A1–20. Manuscripts in Arabic, Coptic (Bohairic, Oxyrhynchite, Sahidic), and Greek. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1990. McCown, Chester Charlton. The Testament of Solomon, Edited from Manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922. Reynolds, Dwight. “Popular Prose in the Post-Classical Period.” In Arabic Literature in the Post-Classical Period. Edited by D. S. Richards and Roger Allen, 243–69. The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Salzberger, Georg. Salomos Tempelbau und Thron in der semitischen Sagenliteratur. Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1912. Simaika (pasha), Marcus H., and Yassa ʻAbd al-Masīḥ. Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscripts in the Coptic Museum, the Patriarchate, the Principal Churches of Cairo and Alexandria and the Monasteries of Egypt. Cairo: Government Press, 1939. Slane, William McGuckin baron de. Catalogue Des Manuscrits Arabes. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883. Stetkevych, Suzanne Pinckney. “Solomon and Mythic Kingship in the Arab-Islamic Tradition: Qaṣīdah, Qurʾān and Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ.” Journal of Arabic Literature 48, no. 1 (2017): 1–37. Tichonravov, Nikolai Savvich. Памятники Отреченной Русской Литературы. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg: Vǔ tipografîi tovariščestva Obščestvennaja polǐza, 1863. Troupeau, Gerard. Catalogue Des Manuscrits Arabes. 1, Manuscrits Chrétiens. Tome I, Nos 1–323. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1972. Veselovskij, Alexander Nikolajewitsch. “Талмудический Источник Одной Соломоновой Легенды в Русской Палее.” Журнал Министерства народного просвещения 208 (April 1880): 298–300. Zanetti, Ugo. Les Manuscrits de Dair Abû Maqâr. Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1988.

King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition Natia Mirotadze Speaking wisely is silver, but silence is gold (Speech is silver, but silence is golden), as Solomon says – this is the final sentence of the very first paragraph of the original Georgian hagiographical text – The life of St. Gregory of Khandzta (951) – by Giorgi Merchule. It is not important whether these words actually belong to Solomon or are only ascribed to him; it is more important that the wisdom of Solomon or pseudo-Solomon can be found everywhere in Georgian literature, even in medieval medical books as a recipe of medicine for diarrhea. I will briefly review the texts of both written and oral traditions by or about Solomon and the sources containing these texts.1

I. Written Tradition 1. Biblical Books There is no need to justify beginning with the Biblical Books, since it is they that determine and shape Solomon’s character and all the ideas about him. All four biblical books by Solomon were translated into Georgian. To take the example of Ecclesiastes: as re1 Enkiro Gabidzashvili, Old Georgian Translated Literature, vol. 1–6: Hagiography (2004), Ascetical and Mystical texts (2006), Homiletics (2009), Biblical, Exegetical and Apocryphal Texts (2009), Liturgical and Hymnographical Texts (2011), Canonical, Dogmatical and Polemical Texts (2012) – ენრიკო გაბიძაშვილი, ძველი ქართული მწერლობის ნათარგმნი ძეგლები, ტ. 1–6: ჰაგიოგრაფია (2004), ასკეტიკა და მისტიკა (2006), ჰომილეტიკა (2009), ბიბლიოლოგია, ეგზეგეტიკა, აპოკრიფები (2009), ლიტურგიკა და ჰიმნოგრაფია (2011), კანონიკა, დოგმატიკა და პოლემიკა (2012). Bakar Gigineishvili, Nargiza Goguadze, Gulnaz Kiknadze, Tsiala Kurtsikidze, Ucha Tsindeliani, “A description of the Georgian Old Testament Manuscripts,” in Bakar Gigineishvili and Tsotne Kikvidze (eds.), The Books of Old Testament, I (Genesis, Exodus), Tbilisi, 1989, pp. 559–639 – ბაქარ გიგინეიშვილი, ნარგიზა გოგუაძე, გულნაზ კიკნაძე, ციალა ქურციკიძე და უჩა ცინდელიანი, ძველი აღთქმის ქართულ ხელნაწერთა აღწერილობა, წიგნში: ბაქარ გიგინეიშვილი და ცოტნე კიკვიძე (გამ.), წიგნნი ძუელისა აღთქუმისანი, I (შესაქმე, გამოსვლათა), თბილისი, 1989 წ., გვ. 559–639. Korneli Kekelidze, The Etudes from the History of Old Georgian Literature, Vol. 5, Tbilisi, 1957 – კორნელი კეკელიძე, ეტიუდები ძველი ქართული ლიტერატურის ისტორიიდან, 5, თბილისი, 1957 წ. Liana Samkurashvili, Irina Gogonaia, Tamar Abuladze, Lela Shatirishvili, Natia Khizanishvili, Medical and Veterinary Manuscripts in the Depositories of Georgia and Abroad, Tbilisi, 2022 – ლიანა სამყურაშვილი, ირინა გოგონაია, თამარ აბულაძე, ლელა შათირიშვილი, ნათია ხიზანიშვილი, სამედიცინო და ვეტერინარული ხელნაწერები საქართველოსა და უცხოეთის სიძველეთსაცავებში, თბილისი, 2022 წ. Ramaz Shengelia, Nani Khelaia, Nia Matabeli, Keti Dzadzamia, Neli Bagrationi, The Catalogue of the Georgian Medical Manuscripts, Tbilisi, 2017 – რამაზ შენგელია, ­ნანი ხელაია, ნია მატაბელი, ქეთი ძაძამია, ნელი ბაგრატიონი, ქართულ სამედიცინო ხელნაწე­რთა კატალოგი, თბილისი, 2017 წ.

172 Natia Mirotadze

search has shown, it was translated quite early from the Greek original of the Egyptian textual type.2

Song of Songs Mount Athos, Iviron, Ath.-1 (978): vol. II: ff. 265r–271v Vienna National Library Geo 4 (1160): ff. 255r–266r NCM3 A-65 (1188–1210): ff. 211v–214v NCM A-51 (XVII–XVIII cc.): ff. 427r–429r NCM S-409 (XIX c.): ff. 1–6 Bakari printed Bible (1743): pp. 509–522 Bibliography

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.



Ilia Abuladze, Nargiza Goguadze, Vladimer Kekelia, Tsiala Kurtsikidze (eds.), Bible (Old Testament), Vol. II, Tbilisi, 2017 – ილია აბულაძე, ნარგიზა გოგუაძე, ვლადიმერ კეკელია, ციალა ქურციკიძე (გამ.), ბიბლია (ძველი აღთქმა), ტ. II, თბილისი, 2017 წ. Dali Chitunashvili, Song of Songs in Vienna Manuscript (Text-critical Analysis), Christian-Archaeological Studies III, Tbilisi, 2010, pp. 513–38 — დალი ჩიტუნაშვილი, ვენურ ხელნაწერში დაცული „ქებაჲ ქებათაჲ“ (ტექსტოლოგიური გამოკვლევა), ქრისტიანულარქეოლოგიური ძიებანი III, თბილისი, 2010 წ., გვ. 513–38.

Elene Dochanashvili, Mtskheta Manuscript (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Solomon, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel), IV, Tbilisi, Metsniereba, 1985 – ელენე დოჩანაშვილი, მცხეთური ხელნაწერი (ეკლესიასტე, სიბრძნე სოლომონისა, ქება ქებათა სოლომონისა, წინასწარმეტყველთა წიგნები – ესაია, იერემია, ბარუქი, ეზეკიელი), IV, თბილისი, მეცნიერება, 1985 წ. Giorgi Kiknadze, The Keimenon and Vocabulary of One Translation by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli, Four texts of the Ancient Georgian Literature, Tbilisi, 1965, pp. 128–35 — გიორგი კიკნაძე, მთაწმიდელის ერთი თარგმანის კიმენი და ლექსიკა, ძველი ქართული მწერლობის ოთხი ძეგლი, თბ. 1965 წ., გვ. 128–35.

Zurab Sarjveladze, “The Text of ‘The Song of Songs’ Kept in Vienna,” Mravaltavi X, 1983, pp. 75–78 — ზურაბ სარჯველაძე, ვენაში დაცული „ქებაჲ ქებათაჲს“ ტექსტისათვის, მრავალთავი X, 1983 წ., გვ. 75–78.

Цагарели А., Сведения о памятниках грузинской письменности I, вып. I, СПб., 1886, 2-ое приложение, pp. 17–56.

Ecclesiastes Mount Athos, Iviron, Ath.-1 (978): Vol. II: ff. 252r–265r Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Jer-113 (XIII–XIV cc.) ff. 395–402 NCM A-51 (XVII–XVIII cc.): ff. 419r–420v NCM S-1349 (XVIII c.): ff. 213–254 NCM A-1418 (XVIII, XIX cc.): ff. 104r–115v NCM S-409 (XIX c.): ff. 15–25 Bakari printed Bible (1743): pp. 513–18

2 Natia Dundua, The Textual Value of the Old Georgian Version of Ecclesiastes, XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Wolfgang Kraus, Michaël van der Meer, and Martin Meiser (eds.), Munich, 2013 (Atlanta, SBL Press: 2016), 231–39. 3 NCM is an abbreviation for K. Kekelidze Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts.

King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition 173

Bibliography 1.

Abuladze, et al. (eds.), Bible (Old Testament) II, see Bibliography “Song of Songs”.

2.

Dochanashvili, Mtskheta Manuscript, see Bibliography “Song of Songs”.

3.

Dundua, “Textual Value” (see n. 2).

4.

Korneli Kekelidze, The Book of Ecclesiastes, in Metrophanes of Smyrna – Commentary on the Ecclesiastes, Monuments of the Old Georgian Language, I, TSU, “Sakhalkho Sakme”, 1920, pp. 179–226 – კორნელი კეკელიძე, ეკლესიასტე სოლომონისა, თარგმანებაჲ ეკლესიასტისაჲ მიტროფანე ზმჳრნელ მიტროპოლიტისაჲ, ძველი ქართული ენის ძეგლები I, თსუ, სახალხო საქმე, ტფ., 1920 წ., გვ. 179–226.

Wisdom of Solomon

Mount Athos, Iviron, Ath.-1 (978): Vol. II: ff. 271v–296v NCM A-51 (XVII–XVIII cc.): ff. 423r–426v NCM S-1349 (XVIII c.): ff. 255–336 NCM A-1418 (XVIII, XIX cc.): ff. 115v–136r NCM S-409 (XIX c.): ff. 31–50 Bakari printed Bible (1743): pp. 523–30

1.

Lika Abralava, Old Georgian Translation Of The Wisdom of Solomon (Issues of Origin, Text History and Translation Technique), (Master Thesis), Tbilisi, 2017 – ლიკა აბრალავა, სოლომონის სიბრძნის ძველი ქართული თარგმანი (წარმომავლობის, ტექსტის ისტორიის და თარგმანის საკითხები), (სამაგისტრო ნაშრომი), თბილისი, 2017 წ.

Bibliography

2.

Abuladze, et al. (eds.), Bible (Old Testament) II, see Bibliography “Song of Songs”.

3.

Dochanashvili, Mtskheta Manuscript, see Bibliography “Song of Songs”.

4.

Jost Gippert, “Georgian,” in Alexander Kulik, Gabriele Boccaccini, Lorenzo DiTommaso, David Hamidović, Michael E. Stone (eds.), A Guide to Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christian Transmission, New York 2019, pp. 165–94.

5.

Mikheil Kavtaria, “Presumable Source of Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani’s Dictionary,” Matsne, 1965, № 1, pp. 249–56 — მიხეილ ქავთარია, სულხან-საბა ორბელიანის ლექსიკონის ერთი წყაროს შესახებ, მაცნე, 1965 წ., № 1, გვ. 249–56.

6. 7.

Tsiala Kurtsikidze, Old Testament Apocrypha, I, 1970, pp. 184–272 — ციალა ქურციკიძე, ძველი აღთქმის აპოკრიფები, I, 1970 წ., გვ. 184–272.

Tsiala Kurtsikidze, Old Testament Apocrypha, II, 1973, pp. 174–220 — ციალა ქურციკიძე, ძველი აღქმის აპოკრიფები, II, 1973 წ., გვ. 174–220.

Proverbs

NCM H-999 (V–VI cc.) ff. 141r–144v (frag. inner text of palimpsest) Mount Athos, Iviron, Ath.-1 (978): Vol. II: ff. 215r–252r NCM A-51 (XVII–XVIII cc.) ff. 404–418 NCM S-409 (XIX c.): ff. 59–91 Bakari printed Bible (1743): pp. 485–513

174 Natia Mirotadze

Bibliography 1.

Abuladze, et al. (eds.), Bible (Old Testament) II, see Bibliography “Song of Songs”.

2.

Elene Dochanashvili, Mtskheta Manuscript (Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs), III, Tbilisi, Metsniereba, 1983 – ელენე დოჩანაშვილი, მცხეთური ხელნაწერი (ტობის, ივდითის, ესთერის, იობის წიგნები, ფსალმუნი, იგავთა წიგნი), III, თბილისი, მეცნიერება, 1983 წ.

3.

Bakar Gigineishvili, “Georgian Versions of the Book of Proverbs,” Mravaltavi II, 1973, pp. 55–57 — ბაქარ გიგინეიშვილი, სოლომონის იგავთა ქართული რედაქციები, მრავალთავი II, 1973 წ., გვ. 55–57.

4.

Ivane Javakhishvili, “Newly Discovered Ancient Manuscripts and Their Value in Research,” Tbilisi University Moambe, № 2, 1922/23, pp. 313–91, esp. 372 — ივანე ჯავახიშვილი ახლად აღმოჩენილი უძველესი ქართული ხელნაწერები და მათი მნიშვნელობა მეცნიერებისათვის, ტფილისის უნივერსიტეტის მოამბე № 2, 1922/23 წწ., გვ. 313–91, განს. 372.

5.

Elene Metreveli, “The Sources of the Book of Proverbs in Mtskheta Bible,” Mravaltavi VII, Tbilisi, 1980, pp. 98–116 — ელენე მეტრეველი, მცხეთის ბიბლიის „იგავთა წიგნის“ წყაროების შესწავლისთვის, მრავალთავი VII, თბ., 1980 წ., გვ. 98–116.

6.

Joseph Molitor, Monumenta iberica antiquiora. Textus chanmeti et haemeti ex inscriptionibus, S. bibliis et patribus collegit et in linguam latinam convertit addito glossario, Louvain, 1956.

2. Liturgical Collections Pericopes of the biblical books are also included in the Lectionary and in the other types of Liturgical collections to be read in church during the liturgy. Therefore, the common people had quite frequent opportunities to get acquainted with Solomon and to be inspired by his wit and wisdom. Lectionary 4 Proverbs Wisdom of Solomon Lessons MMS 5 Lessons MMS 17: 1:1–9 PSL 27: 8:22–31 PSL 68: 10:20–25 P 146: 11:7–13 PL 164: 29:2–6 PL 200: 23:11–18 PL 201: 4:8–12 P M. Tarkhnishvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle), Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; Scriptores Iberici t. 9/10, 13/14, Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, Louvain, 1959–60. 5 The table is prepared according to the complete Lectionary manuscripts: P Paris, National Library, Géorgien 3 (cote); X–XI cc. Named as Parizi Lectionary. L Mestia, Georgian National Museum 621 (M 51); IX–X cc. Named as Latali Lectionary. K Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, Q 1653; X c. Named as Kala Lectionary. S Sinai, St. Catherine Monastery, Sin 37; 982. Named as Sinai Lectionary. 4

King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition 175

Proverbs Wisdom of Solomon Lessons MMS Lessons MMS 269: 11:30–12:4 PL 322: 8:33–36 P 333: 2:16–3:17 P 338: 1:1–2:4 P 358: 8:11–31 P 375: 1:10–19 PLK 384: 1:20–33 PK 389: 4:20–5:17 P 392: 10:1–9 P 396: 25:2–15 P 407: 10:10–19 P 420: 12:5–24 P 425: 14:11–15:3 P 428: 15:4–19 P 432: 2:1–16 P 446: 15:32–16:21 P 454: 3:24–4:9 P 464: 18:10–23 P 471: 19:3–19 P 490: 24:23–25 P 490: 30:1–8 L 490: 30:1–14 P 513: 22:22–23:14 P 516: 23:15–31 P 521: 4:10–19 P 534: 24:15–22 P 541: 24:28–34 P 541: 30:15–31:9 P 555: 28:10–29:1 P 563: 24:22–25 K 563: 29:7–15 P 563: 29:19–28 P 563: 31:10–28 P 572: 10:27–11:2 PL 612: 9:1–12 SK 620: 1:10–19 PK 620: 1:10–33 S 634: 9:1–12 PK 699: 1:12 … K 699: 2:12–18 LK 705: 2:12–23 PS 882: 14:27–15:4 PL 883: 7:15–29 PL

176 Natia Mirotadze

Proverbs Wisdom of Solomon Lessons MMS Lessons MMS 900: 3:1–8 P 901: 5:1–17 P 1056: 8:4–11 PL 1149: 31:30–32 PL 1187: 20:6–15 PL 1222: 8:2–4 PL 1240 h: 3:18–23 PL 1242: 14:1–7 PL 1550: 9:1–19 P 1257 a: 12:25–13:3 PL Prophetologion Lessons from various Biblical Books, including Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon: NCM S-3474 (XI–XII cc.): ff. 22v, 29r–v, 44r, 45v, 70v, 71v NCM H-1392 (XIII–XIV cc.): ff. 1r–31v Synaxarion NCM A-112 (XVIII c.): f. 355v Lessons from Biblical Books NCM Q-508:3 (XIX c.): ff. 187–305

3. Commentaries Exegesis of the biblical books has been quite a popular genre in Georgia and a number of texts have been translated since the beginning of translation activities in Georgia. The Books of Solomon are no exception. Commentaries on the Song of Songs by Hippolytus of Rome NCM S-1141 (X c.): ff. 162–177r Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Jer. 44:10 (XII–XIII c.): ff. 193v–207r NCM A-165 (XVII–XVIII c.): ff. 632–662 NCM Q-1052 (XVIII–XIX cc.): ff. 197r–215v Bibliography 1.

2.

Bakar Gigineishvili and Elguja Giunashvili (ed.), Shatberdi Collection (MS 10 c.), Tbilisi, 1979, pp. 249–68 – ბაქარ გიგინეიშვილი და ელგუჯა გიუნაშვილი (გამ.), შატბერდის კრებული X საუკუნისა, თბილისი, 1979 წ., გვ. 249–68. Gérard Garitte (ed.), Hippolytus Romanus, Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath:

King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition 177

Sur le Cantique des Cantiques et sur l’antéchrist. Louvain: Sécretariat du Corpus SCO, 1965. 3.

Николай Марр, Тексты и разыскания по армяно-грузинской филологии, Кн. 3: Ипполит, Толкование песни песней, Санкт-Петербург, 1901.

Commentaries on Ecclesiastes by Metrophanes of Smyrna NCM A-61 (XIII c.): ff. 1–302. Bibliography 1.

Korneli Kekelidze (ed.), Metrophanes of Smyrna, Commentary on the Ecclesiastes, Monuments of the Old Georgian Language, I, TSU, “Sakhalkho Sakme”, 1920 – კორნელი კეკელიძე, თარგმანებაჲ ეკლესიასტისაჲ მიტროფანე ზმჳრნელ მიტროპოლიტისაჲ, ძველი ქართული ენის ძეგლები I, თსუ, სახალხო საქმე, ტფ., 1920 წ.

4. Biblical Pseudepigrapha In this section, I can name only one text: About the Building of the Temple (ტაძრის აღშენებისათჳს). It is a very short text (two pages), listing the donators and the amounts of the donations that were spent for the temple. NCM S-269:43 (XVII c.): ff. 185v–186r 5. Teachings – Excerpts From the Texts of Solomon Excerpts from works of various authors (e.g., Plato) and biblical books (Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.) are collected together for teaching young people. The aim of these collections is to educate future generations, to share with them the experience of the wisest people who have ever lived in the world. 1. 2.

Words and teachings NCM A-565 (1749): ff. 2r–41v NCM S-85 (1814): ff. 1–204 NCM S-269:19 (XVII c.): ff. 70v–125r NCM S-368:2 (XIX c.): ff. 209–243 NCM S-1269:1 (XIX c.): ff. 1–87 NCM S-1504:1 (1788): ff. 2v–44r NCM S-2434:1 (1749): ff. 1r–39v NCM S-4622:2 (XIX c.): ff. 35r–70r NCM H-131 (XVIII c.): ff. 2r–8v NCM H-345:1 (1762): ff. 1r–401v NCM H-618:1 (1762): ff. 1r–69r NCM H-1053:1 (1761): ff. 1r–21r NCM Q-568 (XIX c.): ff. 1r–112r Short teachings from the Biblical Books (Manuscript inscriptions in marginalia) NCM S-1230 (XIX c.): ff. 1r, 18r–20v

178 Natia Mirotadze

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Excerpts from Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon NCM S-1506:1 (XVIII c.): ff. 1r–149r NCM H-370:1 (1785): ff. 1r–160v Moral teachings from the Books of the Old and New Testament NCM A-308:2 (1808): ff. 12r–73r Questions and Answers by Solomon NCM S-3620:54 (1851): f. 125r NCM H-377 (1806): f. 121r Excerpts collected from Wisdom of Solomon and Plato’s Philosophy NCM S-3726:18 (XIX c.): f. 28r Paradise by Iovane Nebieridze (collection of various works). 3: Moral teachings for young people to educate them. Proverbs of Solomon, ch. 7 NCM Q-524:3 (1865): ff. 63r–119v

6. Medical Texts Karabadins and other kinds of medical manuscripts contain recipes ascribed to King Solomon for treating various diseases. For example, there are three recipes by Solomon for treating diarrhea in Karabadin, compiled by Zaza Fanaskertel-Tsitsishvili. SMGHEM 6034/146 Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical and Ethnographic Museum owns the Karabadin manuscript – SMGHEM (გსიემ) 6034/14. Its title says that all the recipes included in it belong to Solomon: This Karabadin is copied in 1877 on October 12. This Karabadin is tested by Doctors. All recipes are by Solomon the Wise [4r].7 Despite this, the ingredients, e.g. Wine of Kakheti (region of Georgia famous for its wines), of the very first recipe make it obvious that the manuscript has no connection to Solomon. The name of Solomon makes the recipes and methods of treatment more trustworthy. It seems that belief in medicine and doctors supported by the authority and wisdom of Solomon was an essential part of successful treatment.

6 SMGHEM (გსიემ) 6034/14: The manuscript is not large (21 × 17 cm.) and contains 101 folia written on yellowish paper. It includes two texts: 1) Karabadin (4r–56r), copied on 12 October, 1877. 2) Thoughts of Mary – Mother of God (57v–101r). The text begins at the other end of the manuscript, and was been copied between 24 November and 15 December, 1929. Many white sheets of paper are cut out between these two texts. 7 „1877 წელსა, ოქტომბერის 12-სა გარდიწერა ეს კარაბადინი, ექიმთაგან ნაცადია ეს კარაბადინი, ყოველივე სოლომონ ბრძნისაგან თქმულა“ [4r]

King Solomon in the Georgian Tradition 179

One more karabadin manuscript – Language of Flowers – is ascribed to King Solomon. This manuscript was found in Gori in 1894 by Alexandre Khakhanashvili. The note about this was published in the newspaper Iveria.8 Alexandre Khakhanashvili describes the contents of the manuscript in “Очерки по истории грузинской словесности”:9 Solomon can subdue evil spirits – Devs – with his seal. They then confess to him which disease they cause, and what is the treatment against them. Khakhanashvili gives brief information in the book about each devil: name, description of their appearance, diseases they cause, and treatment. Khakhanashvili remarks that this text has some similarities to the Testament of Solomon, but without detailed textual study it is not possible to say if the Karabadin is directly connected to the Testament or not. As he says, this is a matter for further research. Unfortunately, this manuscript is lost. I searched for it or for the text through the catalogues of the Georgian Manuscript Libraries (K. Kekelidze Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts, Manuscript collection of the Georgian National Archives, Sergi Makalatia Gori Historical and Ethnographic Museum, etc.), but my search remains unsuccessful. To find the text or the manuscript, it is necessary to study the texts of the unpublished medical manuscripts.

II. Oral Tradition King Solomon is a symbol of wisdom and wit in the Georgian folklore. The fairytales connected to Solomon both in prose and in poetry were very popular in all the regions of Georgia. Many different textual forms of the same story were collected in different regions and at various times. Solomon is mainly a passive character in the story, who gives the protagonist three wise admonitions. At first, these admonitions seem very stupid, and the protagonist feels disappointed; but later in the course of the story, in a very dramatic moment, these admonitions rescue him and give him fame, glory and wealth (at least one of these). This resembles Solomon’s biblical choice when he asks God for wisdom over anything else (I Kings 3:1–14). In the other cycle of stories, Solomon defeats the Lord of the evil spirits – King Kandzuleli (the name is differently spelled in different versions) – thanks to his wisdom and wit. The plot is very popular throughout the world, and is found in other national folklore as well (e.g. German, Russian). Folklore Texts 10 1.

Solomon the Wise and Kandzulian NCM S-951b (XVIII c.): ff. 12v–13v and f. 1r (inscription) NCM S-5293g:38 (XIX c.): f. 12r–v NCM S-5293g:44 (XIX c.): f. 16v

Iveria № 47, 1894 Александр Соломонович Хаханов, Очерки по истории грузинской словесности. Москва, 1895, 170–75. 10 All these texts have been collected and written down recently. 8 9

180 Natia Mirotadze

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

NCM H-1938:3 (1916): ff. 10r–14r NCM H-1943 (XX c.): ff. 1r–3v NCM H-1999i:2 (XIX c.): f. 2r A man came up to Solomon the Wise and said unto him: “I am very studious, but I could not make a fortune all the same …” NCM A-1330:32 (1889–1891): ff. 126r–130r The Poem of Solomon the Wise, Thus saith Solomon the Wise NCM H-1926:26 (XIX–XX cc.): f. 6r Solomon the Wise and the Herdsman NCM H-1936 (1916): ff. 47v–48r NCM H-1939:9 (1915): ff. 18v–19r NCM H-2448:15 (XX c.): f. 38r–v Solomon the Wise and the Shepherd (legend) NCM Q-1116c (1915): f. 10r – verso of the back cover The Words of Solomon the Wise NCM H-1939:59 (1915): f. 78r–v The Eligible Bachelor and Solomon the Wise NCM H-1944:24 (XIX–XX cc.): f. 16r The Stories of Solomon the Wise NCM H-1993:1 (XIX–XX cc.): ff. 1r–2r Solomon the Wise and the Complaint of Dogs NCM H-1993:2 (XIX–XX cc.): f. 3r The Wicked Woman NCM H-1994:17 (XX c.): ff. 77r–81v Solomon the Wise NCM H-1995:5 (XIX c.): ff. 76r–78r The Wisdom of Solomon NCM H-1997a:1 (XX c.): ff. 1r–4r The Hunting of Solomon the Wise NCM H-1999i:1 (XIX c.): ff. 1r–2r Birth and Death of Solomon the Wise NCM H-2004b:2 (XX c.): f. 2r Solomon the Wise gave the order to bring the people together to discover the meaning of the line drawn by him on the paper NCM H-2004b:3 (XX c.): f. 2r–v

Even this very brief review demonstrates that Solomon, symbolizing wisdom and discernment, was clearly very popular in the Georgian tradition.

II. Studien

The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks Jan Dochhorn The Testament of Solomon (hereafter Test Sol) is a parabiblical writing1 associated with Solomon2 and dealing with magical affairs. It is potentially of high value for the history of magic and demonology. Regrettably, problems basic to the evaluation of Test Sol as a source still await a convincing solution. As yet, we still have no clear idea concerning the Urtext.3 It still remains an open question whether the Test Sol has a Jewish core or whether – if the original composition can be reconstructed at all – it might be entirely of Christian origin. This article begins with an overview of the content of Test Sol and of some elementary research problems connected with this text (§ 2). After that, we will present a case study of Test Sol A 15:7–15 (§ 3–5), which might suggest a strategy for the assessment of Test Sol as a whole.

I. A Short Presentation of Test Sol 1. The Story The story line of Test Sol, as presented in the long recension (here called Test Sol A) according to McCown’s edition,4 runs as follows: when Solomon built the temple, there The term “parabiblical writings” is used here instead of the term “pseudepigrapha”. This latter term is tendentially misleading since many of the “pseudepigrapha” are not really ascribed to a pseudonymous author. The Testament of Abraham, for example, is an anonymous story about Abraham, but not an Abraham pseudepigraphon. For our purposes, a parabiblical writing can be defined as a haggadic text that is associated with special biblical characters or text passages. 2 For the parabiblical writings associated with Solomon cf. Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Clavis Apocryphorum Veteris Testamenti, Turnhout 1998, 111–18 (§ 154–65). 3 Cf. Sarah L. Schwarz, “Reconsidering the Testament of Solomon,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 16 (2007), 202–37, esp. 214–18. Schwarz tends to the conclusion that seeking an Urtext is methodologically outdated. However, I do not agree with this new paradigm in textual criticism, even when confronted with a “fluent textual tradition” as in the case of the Testament of Solomon: the recensions may differ so much that we cannot reconstruct an Urtext, but then we fail in a project which still makes sense. Perhaps we must conclude that the manuscripts are in fact witnesses for two or more different compositions; then we would have to reconstruct many Urtexts and could after that try to find out how these Urtexts are related to each other. Cf. also James Harding and Loveday Alexander, “Dating the Testament of Solomon,” (posted on 28-5-1999, removed after 20 years), accessible via: https://web.archive. org/web/20190503205000/https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/guestlectures/harding/), § 3. 4 Chester Charlton McCown, The Testament of Solomon. Edited from Manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna. Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 9 (Leipzig, 1922), 1*–75*. 1

184 Jan Dochhorn

was one young craftsman who was favoured by Solomon because he did good work. However, although the king paid him double-time, the young man became weaker and weaker (Test Sol A 1:1–2). Solomon asked him about the reason for this and the young man confessed to him that he was tormented by a demon who sucked his thumb at night (1:3). Solomon prayed to God, and thereafter the Archangel Michael handed over to him a ring by which he would be able to subjugate the demons, so that they would work for his temple project and be imprisoned (1:5–7). Solomon hands the ring over to his servant, who captures the demon by it (1:8–11). The demon is forced to appear before Solomon (1:11–14), who asks him about his name, his activity, the star with which he is associated, and the angel who is able to suppress him. The demon gives his name, Ornias, and answers the other questions; he is then ordered by Solomon to capture Beelzebub, using the ring (ch. 2). The procedure is repeated, and through Beelzebub Solomon is able to subjugate all demons (ch. 3). They are all asked questions similar to those put to Ornias and then commanded to assist in the construction of the temple (ch. 4–17). The series of demons culminates with the 36 decans (Test Sol A 18); this list of decans is probably very old; it was transmitted separately in late antiquity as a Papyrus from the sixth century preserved in Vienna shows.5 After the apparition of the 36 decans, the story line changes over to the personal situation of king Solomon (ch. 19–26): he was visited by the Queen of Sheba (ch. 21), commanded some demons to do special work for the temple (ch. 22–25) and – finally – abandoned righteousness and served the idols (ch. 26:1–7). In the end he became aware of his faults and wrote the Testament of Solomon (ch. 26:8–10 – see the apparatus in McCown’s edition [n. 3], pp. 74–75). This feature will be discussed in detail later. 2. Recensions and Subrecensions Test Sol exists in several recensions und subrecensions that differ considerably in content; two recensions called Test Sol A and Test Sol B will be distinguished in this article: both are attested in subrecensions. Test Sol A presents a long text and Test Sol B a short one. Test Sol B is transmitted both in Koinê and in Modern Greek. The Koinê version is preserved in Athos, Monê Dionysiou 132 (called Ms. D by McCown and edited ibidem, pp. 88*–97*), whereas the Modern Greek version comes down to us in Saba 290 (called Ms. E by McCown and edited ibidem, pp. 102*–120*), and Athens, Εθνική Βιβλιοθήκη της Ελλάδος, 2011, the latter being unknown to McCown and published in 1927 by Delatte.6 Test Sol B concentrates on depicting Solomon as the one who subjugates the demons and is, unlike 5 Cf. Robert W. Daniel, “The Testament of Solomon XVIII,27–28, 33–40,” in Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.). Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Vienna 1983, Textband, 294–304; Tafelband, tab. 58. An older edition presenting only two of the four fragments edited by Daniel is Karl Preisendanz, “Ein Wiener Papyrusfragment zum Testamentum Salomonis,” Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologiae Polonorum 48 (1956), 161–67. This papyrus was unknown to McCown. 6 Cf. Armand Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia, Tome I: Textes Grecs inédits relatifs à l’histoire des religions. Biblio­thèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’université de Liége 36 (Liége/Paris, 1927), 211–27. The Modern Greek version according to this Codex is translated into German in the present volume, cf. pp. 79–92.

The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks 185

Test Sol A, not interested in thoroughly describing each demon. In contrast to Test Sol A it also includes a narrative about Solomon’s prehistory, that is the Uriah story (cf. D, ch. 1:1–12 // E, ch. 1 and the parallel in the manuscript from Athens [Delatte p. 212–213]). McCown regards Test Sol B as a witness for the older narrative (cf. idem [n. 4], 30–38). However, this view is debatable: Test Sol B apparently contains secondary elements. The Urias material, for example, does not really match the story line, for it has nothing to do with demons. Furthermore, in the parabiblical tradition short recensions are often suspicious: there was a general tendency to abbreviate texts, both for the sake of economy, and because of passages which were regarded as problematic or unnecessary. Sometimes the texts were also mutilated by physical damage, and sometimes the manuscripts present extracts.7 In the case of Test Sol B, the passages concerning the identity and activity of the demons could have been omitted by a redactor who was interested in Solomon, but not in a detailed demonology.8 Nevertheless, a secondary short recension may also contain older variants. It can thus be important for the reconstruction of an Urtext of Test Sol, if such is possible. In this article, Test Sol A will generally stand for Test Sol. The textual history of Test Sol B seems to be complicated: The Modern Greek and the Koinê versions differ seriously. The Modern Greek version is longer than the Koinê recension and sometimes provides common features with Test Sol A that are missing in the Koinê-version (cf. Busch [n. 8], 16). It may possibly contain some archaic elements.

Also the textual tradition of Test Sol A is not a monolithic block. Three subrecensions are to be distinguished: a, attested by the manuscripts HIL; b, attested by PQN, and c, attested by STUVW. Subrecension a is normally preferred by McCown for his edition of Test Sol A (however, not at the beginning and at the end). Subrecension b is regarded by him as containing secondary elements, but is preferred in the initial and concluding sections. Subrecension c replaces the greater part of the text by new material concerned with de-

7 The tendency to abridge the text in the transmission history of parabiblical literature can be demonstrated by an analytical presentation of the witnesses attesting the Apocalypse of Moses: D-St B | AV | An2-Pa-AH || P2-J2-J1(s)-J3-An1-Arm | J1-E1-S3-AD-E2 || Br-S1 ||| A-AC-Ath-C | VidAdlat-VitAdarm-VitAdgeorg || Va-P1-LibAdslav. This list arranges the witnesses of the Apc Mos according to groups and families (the sign “-” between witnesses signalizes a subgroup connection, the sign “|” separates groups, the sign “||” separates subfamilies, the sign “|||” families). The witnesses printed in italics contain expanded versions, those in bold type (nearly) complete texts, and those in normal type texts which are abridged (some interpolations notwithstanding). The overwhelming majority attests shorter texts, and this tendency can be detected in all families and subfamilies. Cf. Jan Dochhorn, Die Apokalypse des Mose. Text, Übersetzung, Kom­mentar (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 106), Tübingen 2005, 21–75 (witnesses; some are excluded from the list mentioned above because they are only fragmentary or not collated); 657 (stemma). The situation in the manuscript tradition of the Testament of Abraham is similar, cf. Francis Schmidt (ed.), Le Testa­ment grec d’Abraham. Introduction, édition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 11 (Tübingen, 1986), 27, where the content of the witnesses attesting Test Abr A is presen­ted. The long recension of the Test Sol is also attested by abridged witnesses, cf. McCown, Testament (see n. 4), 6–9 and see below in this article. 8 For arguments against the originality of Test Sol B cf. Peter Busch, Das Testament Salomos. Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kommentiert und in deutscher Erstübersetzung. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 153 (Berlin et al., 2006), 15–17.

186 Jan Dochhorn

monological and magical issues.9 The situation, however, appears to be even more complicated because of the fact that among the 11 manuscripts used by McCown (HIL PQN STUVW) only three (H PN) are more or less complete (cf. McCown [n. 4], 10–28); and even one of these manuscripts, H, lacks a long passage in the middle (Test Sol 14:b–16:1, cf. McCown 45* App.). The other manuscripts are either extracts (IL Q STU) or transmit the text of c (VW). One manuscript – the Vienna Papyrus mentioned above (cf. n. 5) – does only have passages from chapter 18 and – aside from this chapter – apparently never included anything else of the Test Sol. In the present situation it is unclear if this manuscript attests an extract of the Test Sol A (and is, therefore, a direct witness of the Test Sol A) or a source of the Testament (which can only be evaluated indirectly for reconstructing the archetype and the Urtext of the Test Sol A).10 Charlesworth and Busch mention two Arabic manuscripts: Cod. Vat. arab. 448, 39r–54r (Arabic) and Cod. Paris., BNF, syr. 194, 153r–156v (Carshunic)11 which were unknown to McCown. However, they contain parabiblical material on Solomon that is different from the Test Sol.12 For Cod. Vat. arab. 448, 39r–54r cf. the contribution of Monferrer-Sala in this volume.

3. Genre As the Test Sol does not contain many magical receipts and centres on Solomon who is depicted as a pious king, later abandoning the commands of God, – obviously a very “theological” item –, the magical character of the Test Sol has recently been thrown into doubt by Busch.13 In our view, the classification given by Alexander who identifies it as a product of magical literature is to be preferred. According to him, Test Sol belongs neither among the magical spells nor the books of magical spells14, but to a second genre of magical literature, viz. the books of magical theology, which provide the reader with a worldview compatible with magical practice.15 This view is a more suitable match for the content of the Test Sol, especially Test Sol A. After all, if the piety of Solomon was ⁹ For the text historical data and McCown’s assessment of the recensions, cf. McCown, Testament (see n. 4), 30–38. 10 Cf. Harding –Alexander, “Dating” (see n. 3), § 5 ; Schwartz, “Reconsidering,” (see n. 3), 218–25; Todd E. Klutz, Rewriting the Testament of Solomon. Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late Antique Pseudepigraphon. Library of Second Temple Studies 53 (London, 2005), 21–22; 129–30. See also Clinton E. Arnold, “Sceva, Solomon, and Shamanism. The Jewish Roots of the Problem at Colossae,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55 (2012), 7–26, esp. 11–13, who considers this text as one source for a “folk judaism” that was familiar with shamanic practices (like Skeuas in Acta 19,13–17 ; he does not mention Jesus). 11 Cf. Busch, Testament (see n. 8), 11 (ibidem n. 4) and James Hamilton Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 75 (Chico, 21981), 197. 201. 12 Cf. Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Pseudepigrapha Notes IV: 5. The Testament of Job. 6. The Testament of Solomon,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 21 (2012), 313–20, esp. 318–19. 13 Cf. Busch, Testament (see n. 8), 38–51. 14 This genre can also be associated with Solomon, cf. the excellent survey in Karl Preisendanz, Art. “Salomo 4,” in: Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaften, Supplementband 8 (Stuttgart 1956), 660–704. 15 Cf. Philip S. Alexander, “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” in: A. Lange/H. Lichten­berger/K.F.D. Römheld (ed.), Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitsch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, Tübingen 2003, 613–35, especially 613–25.

The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks 187

primarily the theme, why are we supplied with all this very special information about very special demons? In the manuscripts, Test Sol A appears both among theological and magical or astrological tractates. The content of H is ecclesiastical (McCown 12); in I, Test Sol A follows Ecclesiastes and Canticles, but the scribe did not copy it completely, perhaps because of its content (McCown 12). In N, Test Sol A is associated with the Narratio Josephi de Arimathaea (McCown 112–13).16 In P, Test Sol A is the only text (ibidem 16). In L, STUVW Test Sol A appears among magical treatises and similar materials thus indicating a close relationship of Test Sol A to this genre (McCown 14–15; 18–27).

4. Milieu of Origin It is still a mystery where the Test Sol originated. This is partially caused by the diversity of the material: the demon Beelzebul (Test Sol A 3) is only known from Christian sources (see below § 2.5), whereas for example the demon Akephalos (Test Sol A 9) also occurs in pagan belief.17 The main problem is, however, the source critical question: can a Christian layer be separated from a Jewish substrate, or is the composition as a whole of Christian origin? The latter is the position of Busch. He identifies Test Sol’s milieu of origin in a post Constantinian debate about the legitimacy of exorcisms done by ascetics, in which Test Sol defends the exclusive right of the church hierarchy to execute exorcisms by depicting king Solomon as the exorcist per se (cf. Busch, Testament [see n. 8], 279–85). Where, however, does the Test Sol exclude “non-approbated” exorcisms? According to Test Sol A 26:8–10, the testament is written in order to enable Israel to cope with demons (cf. § 3). There is no indication that a special group of exorcists should be excluded. Above that, why should Solomon represent ecclesiastical hierarchy? Busch’s thesis demonstrates just how unclear the situation remains. It is not by chance that the Test Sol is rarely used in research on Early Judaism and the New Testament. 5. The Crucial Problems The reason for the uncertainties debated in the foregoing sections has more to do with the technical aspects of the humanities: We lack sound solutions both for the text critical problems and for the diachronic problems associated with the text. We are – as far as textual criticism is concerned – generally still in the situation which was established by McCown’s edition (1922), especially with regard to his edition of Test Sol A, which has proved to be the most important text for reconstructing *Test Sol (cf. § 2.2). In his edition of Test Sol A, McCown collected most of the manuscripts and presented an eclectic text with an extensive apparatus. McCown’s editorial work is important and shows great erudition. It lacks, however, a clear foundation in text history. This means that McCown does not present a stemma which could support his text critical decisions. His preference for subrecension b in the initial and concluding sections, for example, is simply based on the observation that subrecension b here has the shorter 16 For that apocryphon cf. Mauritius Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, Turnhout 1992, § 76 (p. 55). 17 Cf. Karl Preisendanz, Akephalos. Der kopflose Gott, Leipzig 1926 and idem: Art. “Akephalos,” in: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1 (Stuttgart, 1950), 211–16.

188 Jan Dochhorn

text (McCown 37–38). However, especially in the text criticism of parabiblical literature, the lectio brevior argument is often misleading, because a tendency to abridge the texts prevailed in their transmission history (cf. § 2.2). The present article will show that regarding the concluding section McCown would have done better to have followed the subrecension he also preferred elsewhere, that is subrecension a. In spite of the fact that there seem to be some indications supporting the superiority of subrecension a, the text critical problem generally cannot be solved simply by selecting one particular manuscript or recension regarded as superior to the others. Normally, in the transmission of parabiblical literature we cannot rely on a “best” manuscript or recension that would supply us with a good text. All manuscripts are faulty and all recensions are likewise faulty. This proved to be true in the text tradition of Apc Mos18 and is also applicable to Test Abr A, where the most recent editor, F. Schmidt, erroneously singled out one manuscript as the most reliable one.19 The reason for the general inferiority (and equality!) of all manuscripts is both the fluidity of the tradition typical of hagiographical and pseudepigraphical writings and the bad education of the scribes, who were extremely careless. In this situation, only an eclectic text based on a clear reconstruction of a stemma could represent the archetype, which, however, can also contain mistakes. The question of whether we really will be able do this work in the case of the Test Sol must be left open. I would maintain that this has been done successfully in the case of the Apocalypse of Moses, for example, which was transmitted under comparable circumstances (cf. n. 7), and, hopefully, this could also be possible with regard to the Testament of Abraham.

Concerning Literarkritik, i.e. the diachronic question, the situation is no better, not least because the text critical work has not yet been completed. A really serious problem is posed by the question of whether the Testament of Solomon – which in all manuscripts shows clear traces of Christian influence – has a Jewish core. The situation is highly complicated because there appear many Christian moments in the Test Sol that cannot easily be isolated: Christian elements can also be detected in features of the narrative that appear to belong to the main story line. So, for example, the fact that Beelzebul is the leader of the demons (Test Sol 3), could possibly be attributed to Christian influence. But likewise here we cannot be sure: on the one hand, Beelzebul is not known as the leader of the demons in Jewish texts. On the other hand, in the synoptic Gospels he is called the leader of the demons by protagonists representing non-Christian Judaism (Mt 12:24; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). Another intriguing feature is the fact that in many cases the angel who suppresses the demons – according to the answers the demons give to Solomon – is Jesus Christ (Test Sol A 17:4; 22:20). This is a Christian trait, but normally Christ is not an angel. Has a Jewish motif been carelessly transferred to Christ? Are these hints to Christ perhaps something like an interpolation or traces of a careless reworking? This problem cannot be solved here. 18 Cf. my edition mentioned in n. 7. However, there exists another edition, namely Johannes Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek. A Critical Edition. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 6 (Leiden et al., 2005). The differences between the two editions could serve as an argument against the Urtext paradigm (see note 3), but both Tromp and I would deny that. Important is here, above all, that both Tromp and I use the eclectic strategy based on stemmatic considerations for reconstructing the archetype, and the differences between our editions are generally not substantial. For a discussion supporting the general veracity of my reconstruction (notwithstanding mistakes that cannot be excluded) cf. my review in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 17 (2008), 313–19. 19 Cf. Jan Dochhorn, “Abel and the Three Stages of Postmortal Judgement: A Text-Critical and Redaction-Critical Study of the Christian Elements in Testament of Abraham A 13:2–8,” in: I.H. Henderson/G.S. Oegema, The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity, and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Studien 2 (Gütersloh, 2006), 398–415.

The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks 189

II. Enepsigos and Why Solomon Wrote His Testament (Test Sol A 15) A brief case study will now try to show a direction in which the text critical and diachronistic analysis can go. The text analysed probably belongs to the kernel of the narrative of Test Sol A, for it concerns the question of why the Test Sol A was written. A text-critical contra-argument is to be neutralized in the beginning: Test Sol 15 is only attested by two manuscripts (P and N), which belong to subrecension b. Subrecension c has in Test Sol 9:8 sqq. material differing from the two other subrecensions, whereas subrecension a lacks Test Sol 14–15 and Q which also derives from subrecension b does not attest Test Sol 2–19. Harding concludes from the low number of witnesses for the story about Enepsigos that the sequence discussed below is secondary, cf. Harding – Alexander, “Dating” (see n. 3), § 6,3. However, this conclusion is hardly convincing: it is true that this sequence is only attested by two witnesses of subrecension b, but it finds – as we will show – a correlate in Test Sol 26:8–10 H, and H belongs to subrecension a. This means that material from subrecension b is supported by material from subrecension a. When witnesses from different families share common material, this is generally a hint that this material is old.20 Beyond that, arguing with the scarcity of witnesses is – for good reasons – not very common in textual criticism. If this argument held true, we would have to do without a lot of good readings. Readings attested by a traditio vulgata are regrettably very often not the best ones. A good example is to be found in Rev 13:10, where Codex Alexandrinus is the only witness reading ἀποκτανθῆναι, which according to the opinio communis fits best to the general tendency of Rev.21

The passage to be discussed now begins like other passages in the Test Sol: Solomon orders a new demon to appear before him. It is a female demon named Enepsigos who can by its self-presentation easily be identified as the famous deity of the sorcerers, Hekate (Test Sol A 15:1–6). She has, for example, three heads (15:1), and she appears in three manifestations (15:4: τρεῖς μορφὰς κατέχω) – clear hints at the conventional Hekate-iconography. She is further associated with the moon (15:4), which is also typical for Hekate.22 The Hekate identity of Enepsigos, however, is not the most interesting point in this paper. Interesting is what she says to Solomon, after she has been bound by him with three chains (15:7–12), and how Solomon reacts (15:13–15). She tells Solomon that his kingdom will be torn to pieces (15:8: ῥαγήσεται ἡ βασιλεία σου) and that later the temple will be destroyed by the king of the Persians, Medians and Chaldaeans (15:8). Then the vessels of the temple will serve the idols (15:8) and the jars in which Solomon has confined the demons will be destroyed (15:9). As a consequence, the demons will come free and lead the whole world astray until Jesus the son of the virgin will appear (15:10). When Solomon later saw that the prophecy of the demon was being fulfilled, he wrote this testament in the hour of his death in

Cf. Dochhorn, Apokalypse (see n. 7), 80–81. The examples discussed there show that this rule also can be applied when the witnesses supporting each other are generally of little value. 21 Cf. David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16. Word Biblical Commentary 52B (Dallas, 1998), 719. 22 For the Hekate motives in Test Sol A 15 cf. Busch, Testament (see n. 8), 203–5. References to archaeological material are to be found in Hertha Sauer, Art. “Hekate,” in: Der kleine Pauly 2 (Stuttgart, 1979), 982–83. For Hekate in the magical literature cf. the passage associated with Hekate in the Parisian magical papyrus, cf. Karl Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Zweite, verbesserte Auflage mit Ergänzungen von K. Preisen­danz, durchgesehen und herausgegeben von A. Henrichs, Vol I, Stuttgart 1973, § IV (= Paris, BNF, suppl. gr. 574), 2441–2707, especially in the annotated edition Richard Wünsch, Aus einem griechischen Zauberpapyrus. Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 84 (Bonn, 1911). 20

190 Jan Dochhorn

order that the Israelites should be informed about the demons, their activities and the angels who could suppress them (15:13–15). A closer reading of this story demonstrates that it contains an inconsistency: the hint at Jesus Christ is apparently isolated. In the passage relating the reaction of Solomon to this prophecy nothing occurs that would correspond to it. Solomon only reacts to that part of the prophecy that concerned the destruction of the jars in which the demons were confined. Can the hint to Christ be a secondary element? I would suggest that this is the case. Without this Christological moment the narration seems to be sound: Enepsigos tells Solomon that the demons will be released, and Solomon writes a testament that helps the Israelites to cope with this situation. The Testament of Solomon then has the same function as the book of Noah mentioned in the Book of Jubilees, ch. 10, according to which Noah wrote a book which would help his descendants against the afflictions caused by the demons. Obviously things work better without Christ in this passage, and therefore I would propose that the prophecy of Christ here is a secondary feature. This view is supported by an interesting observation that can be made in the last chapter of Test Sol A. There, Solomon narrates that he wrote this testament before his death, after he had been punished by God for his idololatry (cf. Test Sol A 26:6–8). In the text originally preferred by McCown, which is the text of the manuscript P (not normally given the first rank by McCown!), this story is told in a very short form. Because of Solomon’s idololatry, God withdraw his Spirit from him, and Solomon’s mind was darkened. Therefore, Solomon wrote his testament in order to encourage readers to pray and to pay attention to the last things and not the first things, a very spiritual aim, so to speak, which is formulated with regard to Solomon’s apostasy mentioned before and does not appear to have a great deal to do with demons and demonology. There exists, however, another ending of the story which McCown later regarded as the better one (see below). It is attested by the manuscript H (Holkham Hall 99), cf. the variant text to Test Sol 26:6–8 in McCown’s apparatus (= Test Sol 26:6–10 [H]): After his apostasy, Solomon saw that his kingdom had been torn to pieces and that ten tribes had been enslaved by Jeroboam. He understood that the prophecies of the demons were being fulfilled and therefore wrote his testament in order to enable the Israelites to cope with the demons. This ending is interesting in many aspects: it clearly corresponds to the story of Enepsigos and Solomon in Test Sol 15, because here also the Testament written by Solomon aims at helping the Israelites against the demons. Interesting is the fact that the narrative in Test Sol 26:8–10 (H) does not contain any hint of Jesus Christ. This confirms our assumption that the Christological elements in Test Sol A 15:7–12 are secondary. Furthermore, with the text of Test Sol 26:6–10 (H) in mind, we understand better what is meant when ch. 15:13 relates that the prophecy of Enepsigos was fulfilled in the time of Solomon: here, in the final narrative as attested in H, Solomon saw that his kingdom was “torn into pieces”. The word used here (διεράγη – Test Sol A (H) 26:7) is very similar to that used in ch. 15:8 (ῥαγήσεται). The narration in Test Sol A (H) 15:7–10 ends, besides, with a heavenly scene with the angels singing to God Sa­ba­oth a hymn recalling the Trishagion (15:9: ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος κύριος σαβαὼθ καὶ εὐλογητὸς εἶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν). There is another Jewish text closing with a passage recalling the Trishagion, namely the Apocalypse of Moses (Apc Mos 43:4: ... ὁ ἄγγελος ἀνῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν δοξάζων καὶ λέγων ἀλληλούϊα, ἀλληλούϊα, ἀλληλούϊα· ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος κύριος εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός· ἀμήν = “… the angel [sc. Michael] went upwards into the heaven, praising and saying ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord’ for the sake of

The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks 191 the glory of the father God, Amen”).23 Perhaps this was a means of ending a text that was common in certain parts of early Jewish literature. Obviously the writer of the Holkham manuscript or one of his predecessors regarded this final Trishagion as unsuitable for the ending of a text and therefore added a more conventional doxology (Test Sal [H] 25:10: δόξα σοι, ὁ θεός μου, καὶ κύριος, δόξα σοι σὺν τῇ ὑπερευκλεεῖ θεοτόκῳ καὶ τῷ τιμίῳ προδρόμῳ καὶ πάντας ἁγίους, δόξα σοι). In Apc Mos 43:4 the final Trishagion was – in many witnesses – replaced by conventional doxologies (cf. Dochhorn [n. 7], 563–64).

The consequences of this observation concerning textual criticism are not to be underestimated. We should pay special attention to the Holkham manuscript, which here, apparently, preserves a really old reading. In addition, its text is partially supported by the manuscript N (St. Saba 422), which was collated by McCown after he had finished his edition; the variants of N are notated in the introduction of his edition (pp. 112–23). In addition to that, McCown supplied emendationes in textum in an appendix (pp. 121*–22*), in which he presents a new eclectic text for the ending of the Testament that resembles that of the manuscripts H and N (ibidem). This proposal by McCown is completely ignored by Busch; it should be taken into consideration carefully. However, in his new text, McCown replaced the Trishagion pericope in Test Sol A (H) 15:9 with the conventional doxology of N. As a consequence, this text also appears to be debatable.

The observations proposed here can only be taken as a prophecy of more thorough work on the Testament of Solomon, which will most probably not be done by me. However provisional these observations might appear, the implications are far-reaching: 1. Manuscript H is of special value. 2. There is a Christian superstrate in the Test Sol A, and, in conclusion, 3. There existed a Jewish core narrative in Test Sol A presenting a story about Solomon who confined the demons in the temple and, because Enepsigos informed him about their later liberation by those who would destroy his temple, wrote a testament which aims at instructing the Israelites on how to overcome those demons. The content of Test Sol A, including the demono­logical passages, generally matches this core narrative. Thus the story line of Test Sol A can be taken as mainly representative of the original Jewish *Test Sol. Test Sol A is basically not a Christian writing but rather a Jewish composition interpolated and reworked by Christians. However, we have good reasons to be careful: The Christian superstrate in Test Sol should not be underestimated.

III. A Jewish Temple Legend and Its Religio-historical Background The Jewish story reconstructed above can be detected as one of the numerous ideas and legends connected with the temple in Jerusalem. Like many other legends associated with the temple, it assigns the temple a central role in the cosmic order. Cosmological ideas associated with the temple are well known in Early Judaism. It should suffice to mention the traditions about Adam having been created in the temple area (Gen. Rab. 14.9; PRE 11; Targ Ps-Jon ad Gen 2:7) or the cosmological ideas associated with the holy rock, especially the ‫’( אבן שתיה‬æbæn šetijjāh), from where – among other things – the creation of the world allegedly started (Tanchuma, Qiddušîm ad Lev 19); it is likewise in For Apc Mos 43:4 and its Jewish character see Dochhorn, Apokalypse (see n. 7), 565–72.

23

192 Jan Dochhorn

this area that the tehôm is suppressed by a potsherd on which David wrote the name of God (bSukka 53).24 Our narrative assigns such a cosmological role to the temple in Jerusalem, too: the temple, though only the Solomonic one, was able to neutralize all demonic powers in the world by centralizing them somewhere in the temple area: Neutralization by centralization – a very similar process happens to the tehôm, when the temple is the very place where it both culminates and is suppressed by the special plug already mentioned. There is a gnostic text presenting a close parallel to the core narrative of Test Sol. The Testimonium Veritatis, preserved in Coptic in Nag Hammadi Codex IX, contains a story that tells how Solomon built the temple and confined the demons in special jars (Test Ver in NHC IX,70.1–24).25 This story, however, differs from Test Sol in its ending: The demons were liberated when the temple was destroyed – by the Romans! I would – like Harding – suggest that this variation hints at a Jewish origin of the story in the Testimonium Veritatis:26 it matches a tendency to parallel the destruction of the Solomonic temple and the Second temple, which is typical of Early Judaism. This tendency can, for example, be detected in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch which both deal with the destruction of the first temple, but are intended to solve the religious problems of readers confronted with the destruction of the second temple. In a Christian milieu, a story like the one presented in Test Ver would not seem that convincing: the demons were liberated after Christ came to earth! Thus Test Ver attests a Jewish version of the legend about the demons confined in the temple. This is a second observation indicating that the temple legend about Solomon and the imprisonment of the demons probably is of Jewish origin.

IV. A Christian Epiludium As known since Jeremias wrote his sophisticated – and sometimes slightly speculative – study of the Christian Golgotha mythology (cf. n. 20), the Christians generally adopted temple legends and situated these in the Christian centre of the world, i.e. Golgotha. This is also the case with the legend about the confinement of the demons: the Christian itinera sacra literature that reflects pilgrimages to the Holy Land attests in many instances that this legend found correlates in Christian ritual practice in Jerusalem and – especially – at Golgatha and the Holy Sepulchre. A first vague witness of a Christian adoption of a demon myth associated with Solomon may probably be found in the Itinerarium Burdigalense, a short description of a journey to Jerusalem and Palestine written A.D. 333.27 The Itinerarium Burdigalense 24 For the traditions cited above cf. Joachim Jeremias, Golgotha. ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ. Archiv für neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde. Beihefte 1 (Leipzig, 1926), 38. 45. 55–56; for the holy rock as the centre of the world cf. ibidem 51–68. 25 Cf. Birger Albert Pearson/SørenGiversen, Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. Nag Hammadi Studies 15 (Leiden, 1981), 190–95. 26 Cf. Harding –Alexander, “Dating” (see n. 3), § 6,3. 27 Edition: Paul Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana Saeculi IIII–VIII. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 39 (Prag/Wien/Leipzig, 1898), 3–33. About this itinerary cf. Georg Röwerkamp, Art.

The Testament of Solomon: Some Preliminary Remarks 193

relates that in Betsaida, the water basins which had five porticos (cf. Joh 5:2–3),28 a crypta was shown where Solomon had tormented the demons (Geyer, Itinera [see n. 27], 21,5–9). This tradition might be Christian in view of the clear allusions to Joh 5:2–3 in the Itinerarium. However, a Jewish provenience cannot be excluded, given the fact that most of the holy places enumerated and described in the Itinerarium Burdigalense are of Jewish origin. The Itinerarium Burdigalense, being the oldest preserved itinerary at all, attests a sacred geography in Palestine that is only superficially Christianized. Interesting is the fact that this Solomon myth is neither associated with the temple nor with Golgotha nor the Constantine church. Ritual practices associating Solomonic traditions that are very close to our Golgatha legends and the Testament of Solomon as a whole are attested a little later in the Peregrinatio Egeriae. This travel story, a prominent witness of Christian Palestine tourism in Late Antiquity, relates that the pilgrims in the Constantine church, after they had kissed the Holy Cross, marched past the ring of Solomon, which was presented to them by a deacon (Per Eg 37,3 = Geyer, Itinera [see n. 27], 88,22–25). Also Petrus Diaconus mentions the ring of Solomon almost immediately after referring to the Cross (Geyer, Itinera [see n. 27], 107,13–14); maybe he depends on Egeria. And finally the Breviarius de Hierosolyma, written in the 6th century A.D, locates the ring by which Solomon sealed the demons at Golgotha and denotes this as the place where Adam was created, Isaac was immolated and Christ was crucified (Geyer, Itinera [see n. 27], 154,3–6). It further mentions an altar with twelve columns and above them twelve jars in which Solomon sealed the demons. This altar was close to the place where the Holy Cross was deposited (Geyer, Itinera [see n. 27], 153,5–10). We do not know if there were similar cultic institutions in Judaism that associated legends of Solomon and the demons with the temple. Undoubtedly, the Christians attempted to ritualize those legends. They were obviously interested in them, and this is also attested by the Christian layers in the Testament of Solomon. The Christian reception of the Testament of Solomon is, given the cultic evidence in Jerusalem, probably not a marginal phenomenon that would have little in common with mainstream Christianity.

“Itinerarium Burdigalense,” in: S. Döpp/W. Geerlings et al. (ed.), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Kultur (Freiburg et al., 31998), 365. 28 In the Itinerarium, the location is clearly called Betsaida, some differences in the manuscripts notwithstanding. This toponym corresponds to the reading Βηθσαϊδά in Joh 5:2, which is only attested by some witnesses, among them the famous Codex Vaticanus, the Vulgate and Tertullian (De Baptismo 5,5 [CCSL 1, 281]; Adversus Iudaeos 13,26 [CCSL 2, 1390]). The reading preferred by Nestle-Aland is Βηθσαθά (which also dominates in the Vetus Latina tradition). The one attested by most manuscripts is Βηθεσδά.

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon Blake A. Jurgens In an attempt to explain why prior studies on the Testament of Solomon had all but overlooked the issue of provenance, Chester McCown wrote in his 1922 monograph that previous scholars had “perhaps wisely” neglected the subject insofar that “no certain conclusion can be reached.”1 Not surprisingly, McCown dedicated only a meager two pages to the issue himself (plus a handful of scattered cursory remarks), noting that such research could only yield “probabilities” rather than definite answers due to the eclectic nature of the material contained within the Testament of Solomon.2 Without question, out of all the colorful and exotic interactions of the Israelite king with his demonic foils in the Testament of Solomon (henceforth Testament or TSol) none has been more centrifugal regarding the issue of provenance than Solomon’s encounter with a potpourri of thirty-six demonic decans in chapter 18. A preponderance of scholars have associated this so-called “decan list”3 with the ancient Egyptian concept of the thirty-six astronomical decans, a notion which first emerged during the Middle Kingdom. This particular section of the Testament became even more important in 1956 when Karl Preisendanz published fragments of a fifth- or sixth-century CE papyrus (now known as the Vienna Papyrus) which preserved parts of TSol 18:33–40 antedating all other Testament manuscripts by nearly a millennium.4 Since Preisendanz’s publication of the Vienna Papyrus, and the subsequent republication of additional fragments of TSol 18:27–28 by Robert Daniel in

1 Chester Charlton McCown, The Testament of Solomon. Edited from Manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna. With Introduction. Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 9 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922), 109. The primary translation of the Testament of Solomon remains the one by Dennis C. Duling, “The Testament of Solomon,” in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 1.935–87. Duling’s translation is based upon McCown’s eclectic text. 2 At the end of the day, McCown concluded that Asia Minor, Egypt, and Jerusalem were, in descending order, the most plausible regions to have fostered the composition of the Testament of Solomon. 3 I will refrain from using the common parlance of “decan list” to describe the catalogue of the thirty-six decans in 18:4–40 of the Testament and shall use the phrase “decan chapter” in its stead. The main reason behind this terminological switch, as shall be clear in the next section, lies in the fact that the phrase “decan list” within the study of ancient Egyptian astronomy is usually used to refer to actual lists of decan names found on Egyptian coffin lids or upon various architectural edifices (i.e., temple walls and ceilings, naoi) rather than later iatromathematical or astrological treatments of the decans, such as the one found in the Testament. 4 Karl Preisendanz, “Ein Wiener Papyrusfragment zum Testamentum Salomonis,” Eos 48 (1956), 161–67.

196 Blake A. Jurgens

1983,5 very few sections of the Testament have received more attention in terms of assessing not only the origins and provenance of the Testament, but also its compositional history and scribal transmission. Oddly, despite a near consensus associating chapter 18 to some degree with Egypt, it is astonishing that very few have actually attempted to investigate concretely just how closely the “decan list” of the Testament actually relates to the historical understanding of the decans in Egypt. Part of the reason behind this gap may lie in an understandable discomfort and unfamiliarity on the part of biblical scholars with the specialized field of archaeoastronomy and astrology. Up until now, the only scholar to even come close to such a project has been Wilhelm Gundel, who in his 1936 monograph on decans and their place in ancient astrology attempted to situate the thirty-six decans of the Testament within later Egyptian astronomy.6 While Gundel’s monograph still remains a significant source regarding both ancient decans and the decans of the Testament, his work is nevertheless starting to show its age, especially when one considers the considerable amount of research published on both Egyptian astronomy and the decans in the last twenty years alone. Already in 1959 Otto Neugebauer and Henry Bartlett van Hoesen critiqued Gundel’s evaluation of the Testament and especially “Gundel’s tendency to derive much too much from Egyptian sources”, noting that the Testament lacked any true Egyptian decan names and had “nothing in common with the Egyptian originals.”7 More recently, Sarah Schwarz has also expressed uneasiness with Gundel’s uncritical assessment of the decan chapter of the Testament, stating that while chapter 18 does retain “some connection” to the genre of decan lists, in her opinion the Testament “seems to be using decans list [sic] at most for the mysterious antiquity and power of their genre, and seems to have had very little meaningful interaction with earlier forms.”8 Echoing Neugebauer and van Hoesen, Schwarz cites the lack of Egyptian decan names and any real resemblance to ancient Egyptian decan texts (esp. decan lists) as being especially problematic.9 Yet, while Schwarz openly claims that the decan chapter of the Testament Robert Daniel, “The Testament of Solomon XVIII 27–28, 33–40,” in H. Loebenstein, H. Harrauer et al. (ed.), Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.): Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Payprussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Vienna: Brüder Hollinek, 1983), 294–304. In his article, Daniel also republishes Preisendanz’s earlier fragments and adds in-depth analysis of the entire manuscript. See also idem, “Testament of Solomon: Addendum to P.Rain.Cent. 39,” Tyche 28 (2013), 37–40. 6 Wilhelm Gundel, Dekane und Dekansternbilder: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Sternbilder der Kulturvölker. (Glückstadt/Hamburg: J. J. Augustin, 1936) esp. pp. 49–62 and 286–87. 7 See Otto Neugebauer and Henry Bartlett van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1959), 5–6. 8 Sarah L. Schwarz, “Building a Book of Spells: The So-Called Testament of Solomon Reconsidered,” (Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Pennsylvania, 2005), 162–66. Regarding Gundel, Schwarz criticizes his approach to decanal lists being “marred by a sense of parallelomania” as well as a “relentless quest for Egyptian roots for just about everything” (p. 165). See also Sarah L. Schwarz, “Reconsidering the Testament of Solomon,” JSP 16 (2007), 203–37 and eadem, “Demons and Douglas: Applying Grid and Group to the Demonologies of the Testament of Solomon,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 80 (2012), 909–31. 9 Methodologically, Schwarz also criticizes what she sees as hasty and undue parallels between the references to thirty-six angels in the Sepher Ha-Razim (1.85–90) and the thirty-six stoicheion in PGM IV.440–41 with the thirty-six decans, arguing that the number thirty-six held a prominent place 5

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 197

is “idiosyncratic” compared to other descriptions of the decans in Egyptian astronomical literature, at no point does she press the issue further, much less attempt to concretely demonstrate this perceived dissonance in more detail.10 The main goal of this study is to offer an in-depth analysis of the decan chapter of the Testament and its portrayal of the thirty-six decans. As the following pages will show, while the description of the thirty-six decans in the Testament deviates from those found in ancient Egyptian astronomy, a number of features in TSol 18 bear considerable resemblance to the portrayal of decans in Roman Egypt, especially those found in Egyptian astrology, Greco-Egyptian Gnosticism, and the Greek Magical Papyri among other sources.

I. The Decans in Egypt: From the Middle Kingdom to the Roman Period In order to assess the decan chapter of the Testament vis-à-vis contemporaneous treatments of the thirty-six decans in ancient and antique Egypt, it is important first to gain a basic understanding of the evolving conceptualization, depiction, and utilization of the decans in ancient Egypt. The concept of decans can be traced as far back as the bakiu of the 9th and 10th dynasties of ancient Egypt (c. 2160–2025 BCE).11 Our earliest information regarding the bakiu is found in diagonal star tables located on ancient sarcophagus or coffin lids such as those from Asyut.12 These diagonal star tables consist of a grid of in general “quasi-mystical” literature and thus “there is no reason to see every reference to the number thirty-six as a reference to decans” (Schwarz, “Building a Book of Spells” [see n. 8], 147, 158). 10 Not to mention most of Schwarz’s understanding of the decans relies on a single article by G. J. Toomer (“Mathematics and Astrology,” in J. R. Harris [ed.], The Legacy of Egypt [Oxford: University Press, 1971], 27–51) and the aforementioned discussion of the decans in Neugebauer and van Hoesen’s Greek Horoscopes (see n. 7). To say that the field of ancient astronomy and astrology has changed substantially since these publications would most certainly be an understatement. 11 For general summaries of ancient Egyptian astronomy, including the place of decans therein, see among others Bartel L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening II: The Birth of Astronomy (Leiden and New York: Noordhof International and Oxford University Press, 1974), 13–32; Richard A. Parker, “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276, No. 1257 276 (1974), 51–65; Marshall Clagett, Ancient Egyptian Science: Calendars, Clocks, and Astronomy (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995); Christian Leitz, Altägyptische Sternuhren. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 62 (Leuven: Peeters, 1995); Gregg DeYoung, “Astronomy in Ancient Egypt,” in H. Selin (ed.), Astronomy Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), 475–508. For works specifically directed towards Egyptian star tables, see the excellent studies of Sarah Symons, including “A Star’s Year: The Annual Cycle in the Ancient Egyptian Sky,” in J.M. Steele (ed.), Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient World (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997), 429–46; eadem, “Egyptian ‘Star Clocks’,” in C.N. Ruggles (ed.), Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy (New York: Springer, 2015), 1495–1500. For a helpful survey of decanal star lists all the way through the Greco-Roman period, see eadem, “Contexts and Elements of Decanal Star Lists in Ancient Egypt,” in D. Bawanypeck and A. Imhausen (ed.), Traditions of Western Knowledge in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia: Proceedings of Two Workshops Held at Goethe-University, Frankfurt/Main in December 2011 and May 2012 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 91–122. 12 An overview of twelve of these coffin lids and the ceiling of the temple of the Osireion of Abydos can be found in Otto Neugebauer and Richard A. Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts. Volume 1: The

198 Blake A. Jurgens

rectangular cells with each cell containing the name of a particular bakiu presiding over that portion of the evening sky. In this manner, the bakiu in the diagonal star tables act as astral markers partitioning the night’s sky into twelve “hourly” increments, with each increment identified by a specific set of stars. Besides charting the progression of sidereal time through the evening hours, these diagonal star tables in theory would have also kept track of the progression of time throughout the entire year in ten-day partitions.13 While earlier scholars such as Neugebauer were generally inclined to view these diagonal star tables as somewhat primitive astronomical forms of time-keeping, more recent research has begun to challenge this presumption.14 The frequent appearance of blatant astronomical errors and incomplete elements in these tables, along with a majority of these star tables appearing in funerary contexts, has led some to suggest that these coffin tables may have instead been ideal and ritualistic representations of the evening Early Decans (Providence: Brown University Press, 1960). The most recent assessments of these coffin lids have been conducted by Jochem Kahl and the Asyut Project; for a general survey see Jochem Kahl, Mahmoud El-Khadragy, Ursula Verhoeven, Andrea Killan (eds.), Seven Seasons at Asyut. First Results of the Egyptian-German Cooperation in Archeological Fieldwork (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011). An in-depth review of twenty-two of these diagonal star charts can also be found in Symons, “Contexts” (see n. 11). See also Kurt Locher, “Two Further Coffin Lids with Diagonal Star Clocks from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 23 (1992), 201–7; Robert Cockroft and Sarah Symons, “Diagonal Star Tables on Coffins A1C and S2HIL: A New Triangle Decan and a Reversed Table,” PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 10 (2013), 1–10. 13 The ten-day increments reflect the period of time a specific bakiu would appear or “rise” on the eastern horizon. After ten days, a new bakiu would appear on the horizon. An ideal diagonal star chart would thus consist of forty columns with twelve rows of decans. The first thirty-six columns would chart each of the individual decanal periods of ten days each (total 360 days) with the row of twelve decans dividing the evening into twelve sidereal portions. As one would theoretically move from one decanal period to another, the bakiu in the next row would shift as the star(s) closest to the dawn horizon would disappear while a new star or set of stars would emerge in the evening horizon, thus rotating in a sequence. 14 Part of the problem equating these diagonal star tables solely as time-keeping devices lies in the fact that the decanal system displayed on even the most complete of these tables is inherently prone to constant destabilization. To start, the time-keeping system portrayed in many of these diagonal star tables does not seem to accurately correspond to the actual configuration of the nightly sky and the stars. Moreover, even the basic structure of the 360-day Egyptian year plus its supplemental five-day epagomenal week does not sufficiently account for the six-hour solar gap occurring per year. This would have led to a major disruption in the efficacy of the time-tracking system every few decades. As such, by the Middle Kingdom alternative systems of decanal time-keeping being emerging, such as the so-called Ramesside star charts, although these charts also show a considerable amount of error. See for example Juan Antonio Belmonte, “The Ramesside Star Clocks and the Ancient Egyptian Constellations,” in M.  Blomberg, P.E. Blomberg, and G. Henriksson (ed.), Calendars, Symbols, and Orientations: Legacies of Astronomy and Culture (Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet, 2003), 57–65. Another alternative decanal system is what Neugebauer and Parker refer to as “transit star clocks” which appear to have based their charting of time on their relationship to the meridian rather than the eastern horizon. The main examples of this system of decans are the Seti I cenotaph at Abydos (i.e., the Seti I B decan list), the tomb of Rameses IV, and most notably the so-called Book of Nut which was transmitted in some form as late as the second-century CE as seen in p. Carlsberg 1 and 1a. See Alexandra van Lieven, Grundriß des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007); eadem, “Translating the Fundementals of the Course of the Stars,” in A. Imhausen and T. Pommerening (ed.), Writings of Early Scholars in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Rome, and Greece, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 286 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 139–50.

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 199

sky meant to guide the deceased in their post-mortem life.15 Thus, while it seems likely that the decanal bakiu were used by ancient Egyptians to track time in some capacity, it is unclear exactly how these funerary diagonal star tables related to the overarching time-keeping system(s) of that period. Besides diagonal star tables, decanal lists also appear on astronomical diagrams found on temple ceilings and tombs, the earliest extant example being the tomb ceiling of Senmut at el-Baḥri.16 Unlike diagonal star tables, these astronomical diagrams frequently offer pictorial representations of certain elements of the heavens, including major constellations (represented in their iconographic forms), various deities (especially the feline-goddesses Sekhmet and Bastet, and the hippopotamus-crocodile goddess [i.e., Tawaret]), and the all-encompassing arched body of the sky goddess Nut.17 Many of these astronomical diagrams also include both lists of decan names as well as pictorial representations of the decans, whose forms range from human or god-shaped to more animalistic forms, including serpentine entities, lion- or cat-headed humanoids, and even sphinx or baboon figures.18 According to Clive Ruggles, the salient place of these astronomical diagrams in temples and tombs represents the ideological link in Egyptian religion between cosmology and the afterlife (i.e., Duat). Just as the sun god Ra and the decanal stars would disappear on the horizon only to heliacally rise once again, so too these astrological diagrams signified the similar route of the deceased through Duat in order to join the immortal stars.19 In addition to astronomical diagrams, pictorial portrayals of decanal entities are also found on various ritual objects, including amulets, menits, and statues of Sekhmet, Bastet, and Isis, each of whom bore a connection to the 15 Leo Depuydt, “Ancient Egyptian Star Tables: A Reinterpretation of Their Fundamental Structure,” in A. Imhausen and T. Pommerening (ed.), Writings of Early Scholars in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Rome, and Greece: Translating Ancient Scientific Texts, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 286 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 241–76; Cf. also Harco Willems, Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and Conceptual Development of Middle Kingdom Standard Class Coffins. (Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 1998). 16 Recent overviews of the Senmut ceiling and its relationship to other astronomical diagrams include Donald V. Etz, “A New Look at the Constellation Figures in the Celestial Diagram,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 34 (1997), 143–61 and José Lull and Juan Antonio Belmonte, “A Firmament Above Thebes: Uncovering the Constellations of Ancient Egyptians,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 37 (2006), 373–92. 17 Some of the most well-known early examples of these include the Seti I cenotaph and the Ramesses IV/V cenotaphs at the Theban necropolis. Both diagrams depict the northern constellations bookended on both sides by various deities, as well as a list of decan names as well. For more on these decan lists, see Symons, “Contexts” (see n. 11), 99–105. 18 The most notable early example is the tomb of Osorkon II at Tanis (around 850 BCE) which depicts primarily serpentine decans. Alexandra von Lieven has argued that the depiction of decans undergoes three phase changes, the first being ophidian decans, the second consisting of humanoid-shaped decans with animals heads, and the third and final consisting of animal heads upon serpentine bodies. This last phrase, which supplemented the second phase of decanal portrayals, arises in the iatromathematical traditions found in Hermetic literature and upon magical gems, a trend which she associates with the religious innovations behind them. See Alexandra von Lieven, “Die dritte Reihe der Dekane oder Tradition und Innovation in der spätägyptischen Religion,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2 (2000), 21–36. 19 Clive Ruggles, Ancient Astronomy: An Encyclopedia of Cosmologies and Myth (Santa Barbara: ABC-Cilo, 2005), 143–47. See also Joanne Conman, “It’s About Time: Ancient Egyptian Cosmology,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 31 (2003), 33–71.

200 Blake A. Jurgens

heavenly skies.20 This increased iconographic representation of decans, alongside their association with various gods and goddesses and their presence upon ritual objects – especially those associated with apotropaic protection – reflects a burgeoning perception during the Third Intermediate and Late Periods that these astral decans were minor deities or powers whose scope of influence ranged from offering protection and good fortune to inflicting illness and even controlling the weather.21 The growing association of astral decans with the gods and other elements of Egyptian religion underwent additional changes during the Ptolemaic period.22 With the arrival of Alexander the Great and the subsequent influx of Greek culture, ancient Egyptian astronomy quickly became subsumed under the already-developed system of Hellenistic astrology, with the most notable addition being the interpolation of the Greek zodiac atop the older Egyptian astronomical systems.23 In this fashion, the thirty-six decans became structurally subsumed into zodiacal astrology and were divided into groups of three, with each tripartite group distributed to one of the twelve zodiacal signs. This 20 László Kákosy, “Decans in Late-Egyptian Religion,” Oikumene 3 (1982), 163–91 (esp. 163–79). This includes the Tanis tomb of Osorkon II which also contained two amulet bracelets of prince Hornakht, one which depicts twenty-six decans (most being either serpentine, lion-headed, or possessing other animal heads) and prescribes to offer protection to Hornakht, and the other which depicts a series of similarly-portrayed decans as well as traditional Egyptian deities (i.e., Osiris, Horus, Thoth, etc.) separated by a serpent. Both bracelets epigraphically claim to function as protective ritual objects. See also Pierre Montet, La nécropole royale de Tanis, I. Les constructions et le tombeau d’Osorkon II à Tanis (Paris: Fouilles de Tanis, 1947). 21 Kákosy goes as far as to claim that during the late period there was an extant “decan-cult” (see Kákosy, “Decans” [see n. 20], 191 and elsewhere). A similar idea is fronted by Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum, who argues that later associations of decans with demons (e.g., Origen, c. Cels. 8.58) have their roots in the evolving perspective during the Late Period that the decans were not merely stars, but actually divine beings subservient to the higher gods. See Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum, The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology: Origins and Influence. Ancient Magic and Divination 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 213–20. For an assessment of the demonization of guardian beings in late Egyptian religion, see also Rita Lucarelli, “Demonology during the Late Pharaonic and Greco-Roman Periods in Egypt,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 11 (2011), 109–25; cf. Dmitri Meeks, “Demons,” in D.B. Redord (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1.375–78. Some astronomical diagrams, such as section E of the Temple of Esna, depict decans alongside seven minor deities which serve Sekhmat and cause misfortune. In addition, the famous Naos of the Decades also depicts its decans as guardian deities who have power over the weather; see Anne-Sophie von Bomhard, The Naos of the Decades: From the Observation of the Sky to Mythology and Astrology (Oxford: Oxford Centre for Maritime Archaeology, 2008). 22 The standard collection of these texts is still Otto Neugebauer and Richard A. Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts. Volume 3: Decans, Planets, Constellations, and Zodiacs (Providence: Brown University Press, 1969). 23 For example, see Micah T. Ross, “The Role of Alexander in the Transmission of the Zodiac,” in V. Grieb, K. Nawotka, and A. Wojciechowska (ed.), Alexander the Great and Egypt: History, Art, Tradition (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014), 287–306. Even the very name “decan” derives from the Greek δεκανός which indicates that every decan governed one-third of each zodiacal sign (i.e., 10 degrees × 36 decans = 360 degrees). A number of scholars have noted that ancient Greek astrology may have been influenced by Babylonian thought prior to its arrival in Egypt; see for example Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, “History of the Zodiac,” Archiv für Orientforschung 16 (1952–53), 216–30; Francesca Rochberg-Halton, “Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 108 (1988), 51–62.

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 201

integration of the zodiac atop the Egyptian decanal system can be tangibly observed in the inscriptions and rectangular zodiacs found in various temples constructed during the Ptolemaic period, including the Temple of Horus-Apollo at Edfu (end of the second-century BCE) and the Temple of Hathor at Dendera (first-century BCE). The earliest example of these rectangular zodiacs is the so-called Esna A zodiac at the Temple of Khnum which is normally dated around 200 BCE.24 Like other rectangular zodiacs, the Esna A monument consists of two rows, with the center of each row bearing six zodiacal figures represented by Egyptian-style icons.25 To the left and right of these zodiacal signs stand the decans, represented by lion-headed, sphinx-shaped, and serpentine figures. While the integration of the decanal system into the Greek zodiac demonstrates a pronouncedly Hellenized version of the decans, these zodiacs still preserve a number of distinctively Egyptian elements, including their indigenous role as “time-keeping” increments, the Egyptian names of the decans, their cosmological orientation (include the appearance of Nut), and their portrayal as serpents or humanoid entities with animalistic parts. As such, while the decans became transposed into a foreign astrological context, they nevertheless maintained both their older roles as incremental astral components of the cosmos as well as their general appearances. The assimilation of the decans into the Greek zodiac not only significantly modified how Egyptians understood the structure and workings of the cosmos, but also caused dramatic changes in sorts of services offered in Egyptian temples as well. Besides the already-mentioned iconographical alterations upon ceiling friezes and inscriptions, the influence of Greek culture motivated Egyptian priests to supplement their native astronomical practices with components of Hellenistic astrology.26 As Jacco Dieleman writes, the growing reputation of Egypt as the cradle of esoteric knowledge and astrological knowledge among the Greeks went hand-in-hand with the incorporation of astrological practices into the repertoire of Egyptian priests.27 By the Roman period, the role of astrology in the Egyptian temple had exponentially increased, an observation first artic See esp. Alexandra von Lieven: Der Himmel über Esna. Eine Fallstudie zur religiösen Astronomie in Ägypten am Beispiel der kosmologischen Decken- und Architravinschriften im Tempel von Esna. (Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2000). 25 The top row contains Leo, Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, Aries and Pisces, while the bottom row consists of Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, and Aquarius. 26 For example, see Jacco Dieleman, “Stars and the Egyptian Priesthood in the Graeco-Roman Period,” in S.B. Noegel, J.T. Walker, and B.M. Wheeler (ed.), Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 137–54; idem, “Claiming the Stars. Egyptian Priests facing the Sky,” in S. Bickel and A. Loprieno (ed.), Basel Egyptological Prize 1. Junior Research in Egyptian History, Archeology, and Philology (Basil: Schwabe & Co, 2003), 277–89. Cf. Ian Moyer, Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), esp. 230–48; Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 19–29. Older Egyptian practices preceding the influence of Greek astrology include the tasks of “hour-priests” such as tracking the places of the decans in the nightly sky in order to properly determine the exact time to conduct evening rituals, and hemerology which used the stars to track calendrical periods in order to determine which days offered good fortune or bad fortune. This latter task resonates with the association of the decans as divine guardians who can both project an individual or cause afflictions. 27 Dieleman gives the example of Harkhebi, a second-century BCE priest whose biography is inscribed upon a pillar at Tell el-Fara’in. In particular, Dieleman points out that Harkhebi’s priestly duties included not only the traditional tasks of older Egyptian hour-priests, but also using the stars and pla24

202 Blake A. Jurgens

ulated by Franz Cumont which has gained further traction in recent years.28 Much like the Ptolemies, the Romans also financially supported the outfitting of Egyptian temples with zodiacal diagrams replete with iconographical planets, constellations, and decans. The most notable example is the famed circular zodiac of the Dendera temple which partitions its planets and the twelve zodiacal signs with the thirty-six decans.29 While the depiction of the decans and figures in the Dendera zodiac still displays typical Egyptian iconography, the configuration of the cosmological diagram as a planisphere reflects a Greek understanding of the heavens as a series of concentric circles. The concentric form of the Dendera zodiac is reminiscent of the arrangement of astrological boards used by astrologers during the late Hellenistic and Roman periods.30 One such example is the reconstructed second-century CE ivory astrological board from Lorraine (i.e., les Tablettes de Grand).31 This particular astrological board consists of a series of concentric nets to offer predictions of the future, thus possibly representing the earliest identifiable instance of an Egyptian using astral bodies in a divinatory manner. Dieleman, “Stars” (see n. 26), esp. 142–44. Cf. also DeYoung, “Astronomy” (see n. 11), 484–88 and 491–95. 28 See Franz Cumont, L’Égypte des astrologues (Brussels: Fondation égyptologiques Reine Élisabeth, 1937), 113–31, esp. 113. Cumont’s main argument was centered on the fact that Greek and Latin astrological manuals and texts, including Hermetic texts, bore no significant socio-cultural connection to Greco-Roman life outside of the temple. Supporting Cumont’s theory with some refinement is Alexander Jones, “The Place of Astronomy in Roman Egypt,” Apeiron 27 (1994), 25–52, esp. 41–43. 29 Among others, see Gyula Priskin, “The Dendera Zodiacs as Narratives of the Myth of Osiris, Isis, and the Child Horus,” Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 8 (2015), 133–85; Christian Leitz, “Die Sternbilder auf dem rechteckigen und runden Tierkreis von Dendara,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 34 (2006), 285–318. Another cosmological zodiac, this time with the typical rectangular format, built during the Roman period is the Deir el-Haggar Temple. See Olaf E. Kaper, “The Astronomical Ceiling of Deir el-Haggar in the Dakhleh Oasis,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 81 (1995), 175–95. 30 The oldest known example of an astrological board was recently found in the excavations of the Nakovana Cave in Croatia. The fragments of this board, made of pieces of ivory, contained the depiction of a crab (Cancer), two fishes (Pisces), a pair of humans (Gemini), a jumping animal (Sagittarius?) and a few other unidentified fragments. Scholars have dated this board to the second- or first-century BCE. See Stašo Forenbaher and Alexander Jones, “The Nakovana Zodiac: Fragments of an Astrologer’s Board from an Illyrian-Hellenistic Cave Sanctuary,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 42 (2011), 425–38. All other examples date to the Roman period, including the Grand tablets, the squeeze of the lost Daressy tablet, and the Tabula Bianchini. See Hans Georg Gundel, Zodiakos: Tierkreisbilder im Altertum – Kosmische Bezüge und Jenseitsvorstellungen im antiken Alltagsleben (Mainz: Verlag P. von Zabern, 1992), 110–12. For the Tanis glass disk from Kharga, see M.-D. Nenna, “De Douch (oasis de Kharga) à Grand (Vosges): un disque en verre peint à représentations astrologiques,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 103 (2003), 355–76. 31 Despite appearing a significant distance from Egypt, James Evans and others have postulated that the astrological board from Grand was constructed in Roman Egypt; the decans’ names are Greek transliterations of their Egyptian names, their iconographic representation greatly resembles those found in late period and Ptolemaic period friezes from Egypt (e.g., the Esna Temple, the Dendera circular zodiac), and forms of the four winds appear in the corners which is a distinctive quality of earlier Egyptian astronomy. See James Evans, “The Astrologer’s Apparatus: A Picture of Professional Practice in Greco-Roman Egypt,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 35 (2004), 1–44, esp. 4–7. An additional feature which suggests an Egyptian provenance not only for the Grand tablets but other ancient astrological boards as well, is the use of ivory as the primary material for these boards, as ivory was never manufactured in many of these locations. See Forenbaher and Jones, “The Nakovana Zodiac” (see n. 30), 432–33. For more on the Grand astrological table see Josèphe-Henriette Abry (ed.), Les tablettes astrologiques de Grand (Vogues) et l’astrologie en Gaule Romaine. Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18 mars 1992 organisée au

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 203

rings containing the decans, their names, the twelve zodiac signs, and their terms (i.e., five-part divisions of zodiacal signs connected to the individual planets).32 As James Evans has aptly argued, the use of these apparatuses by astrologers (both temple priests and freelancers) to offer horoscopic readings for individuals appears to be linked to various Demotic and Greek astronomical papyri and ostraca from the first-century BCE to the fifth- and sixth-centuries CE.33 A majority of these rather terse fragments contain little more than raw astrological data describing the positions of planets and other astral bodies in relationship to zodiacal signs sometimes preceded by a header indicating the year, Egyptian month, day, and hour of the horoscopic reading.34 Among other systems utilized to subdivide the zodiac into more precise portions, some of these astronomical papyri use the decans as increments of the zodiacal signs pinpointing more specific astronomical information.35 Along these lines, these papyri depict the decans primarily as astral increments which bear no overt connections to the earlier concepts of decanal deities. Outside of Egypt, the use of astrology as a form of imperial legitimization in many ways led towards horoscopic astrology becoming in vogue across the Roman Empire.36 Centre d’Éudes Romaines et Gallo-Romaines de l’Université Lyon III. (Lyon: Centre d’Études Romaines et Gallo-Romaines, 1993); Anthony John Turner, “Greco-Egyptian Zodiacs from a Gallo-Romano Site,” Nuncius 2 (1987), 95–110. 32 Reference to astrological boards being used to assess the heavens in ancient sources include PGM CX.1–12 and especially the Alexander Romance (I.4.5–6) which describes the board (used by pharaoh Nectanebo) as being made from ivory, gold, and silver and consisting of three zones of circles (1) the thirty-six decans; (2) the twelve zodiacal signs; and (3) the Sun and the Moon. This description accurately matches the configuration of these astrological boards with minor variances. 33 Evans, “Apparatus” (see n. 31), 3, writes that these fragments probably represent the “rough notes” of the astrologer which presuppose the use of some sort of astrological apparatus or diagram. Helpful articles on these texts with examples include Andreas Winkler, “Some Astrologers and Their Handbooks in Demotic Egyptian,” in J.M. Steele (ed.), The Circulation of Astronomical Knowledge in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 245–86; Alexander Jones, Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus: (P. Oxy. 4133-4300a) (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1999); Micah T. Ross, “A Survey of Demotic Astrological texts,” in C. Burnett and D.G. Greenbaum (ed.), The Winding Course of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology (Bristol: Culture and Cosmos, 2007), 1–25; idem, “A Provisional Conclusion to the Horoscopic Ostraca from Medînet Mâdi,” Egitto e Vicino Oriente 34 (2011), 47–80; T. de Jong and K.A. Worp, “More Greek Horoscopes from Kellis (Dakhleh Oasis),” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 137 (2001), 203–14; Briant Bohleke, “In Terms of Fate: A Survey of the Indigenous Egyptian Contribution to Ancient Astrology in Light of Papyrus CtYBR Inv. 1132(B),” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 23 (1996), 11–46. Not surprisingly, many of these astronomical texts and ostraca are found in and around temples. 34 For example, one restored fourth-century CE papyrus from the Temple of Tutu starts with the regnal year (year 53 of Diocletian = 336/337 CE), the month and date (Mesore 19 according the Egyptian calendar; Pachon 19 according to the Julian calendar), the position of the horoscope (in Venus), and then a bi-columned section listing the position of planets in relationship to the zodiacal signs. See de Jong and Worp, “More Greek Horoscopes” (see n. 33), 210–13. 35 For example, see p. London 98 and 130 (see Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes [see n. 7], 21–38) and Oxyrhynchus papyri no. 4245, 4277, and 4284 from Jones, Astronomical Papyri (see n. 33). 36 The seminal work still remains Frederick Henry Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1954). The recent dissertation by Kyle Grothoff provides an excellent and detailed survey of the role of astrology in both Republican and early Imperial Rome, see “Astrology in Augustan Rome: A Cultural History,” (Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Indiana,

204 Blake A. Jurgens

As such, from the first-century CE onwards we see a substantial increase in the production of technical astrological manuals and handbooks, many of which purport to derive their esoteric knowledge from legendary Egyptian astrologers like Nechepso and Petosiris and the so-called Salmeschiniaka attributed to them.37 On the one hand, a number of these astrological works which mention the decans treat them exclusively as incremental units segmenting the zodiac with little or no recourse to earlier Egyptian conceptions of the decans. One such example is the first-century CE Roman astrologer Manilius who in his Astronomica (4.294–386) utilizes the thirty-six decans as zodiacal increments whose presence explains the complex variations found in horoscopic readings.38 At no point does Manilius provide names for the decans or associate them with Egyptian deities.39 On the other hand, unlike Manilius some astrologers during this period show acquaintance with older Egyptian conceptions of the decans. The first-century CE Egyptian astrologer Teucer of (Deltaic) Babylon, in a fragment preserved by Antiochus of Athens

2016). See also Tamsyn S. Barton, Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomic, and Medicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994). Roman attitudes towards astrology seem to have been fairly negative during the Republic (e.g., Valerius Maximus 1.3.3), a rejection which may be due to the non-traditional nature of astral divination for the Romans and its ties to Greek culture (cf. Cato the Elder, On Agriculture, 5.4; Cicero, On Divination, 1.132). Arguably, one of the major turning points was the horoscope of Augustus by Nigidius Figulus foretelling his rise to unprecedented power over Rome, an omen which was circulated both in written form and in Capricorn coins as a form of pro-Octavian propaganda. See most recently, Anne-Marie Lewis, “Augustus and His Horoscope Reconsidered,” Phoenix 62 (2008), 308–37. This does not mean, however, that following Augustus astrologers were given free-reign; astrological horoscopes regarding the nativity of the emperor were expressly forbidden on multiple occasions, as were other forms of divination regarding the reign of the current emperor. 37 The Salmeschiniaka is a (Hellenistic-)Egyptian astrological compendium which remained highly influential during the Roman Empire. While no full or partial copy of the Salmeschiniaka has been discovered, numerous fragments of the text have become known through citations of the work by a number of revered Roman-era astrologers, including Firmicus Maternus, Vettius Valens, and Hephaestion of Thebes, as well as other significant Neoplatonic thinkers such as Porphyry and Iamblichus. The fragments are collected in Ernestus Riess, “Nechepsonis et Petosiridis: fragmenta magica,” Philologus Supplementband 6 (1891), 325–94. For a more recent assessment of these fragments, see Stephan Heilen, “Some Metrical Fragments from Nechepsos and Petosiris,” in I. Boehm and W. Hübner (ed.), La poésie astrologique dans l’Antiquité. Textes réunis par Isabelle Boehm et Wolfgang Hübner. Actes du colloque organisé les 7 et 8 décembre 2007 par J.-H. Abry avec la collaboration d’I. Boehm, Paris 2011 (Paris: CERGR, 2011), 23–93. 38 As explained by Katharina Volk, each decan under a zodiacal sign would be associated with its own separate zodiacal sign. Thus, under the sign of Cancer are three decans associated with Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces respectively. In many ways, Manilius’ deviation from more standardized treatments of the decans appears to be an intentional move in order to explain why people born under the same zodiac sign (i.e., Aries, Gemini) can still possess different traits and characteristics: each sign is further divided by decans who each are individual associated with their own zodiacal sign, thus creating a more complex system which allots for an increased number of personal configurations. See Katharina Volk, Manilius and His Intellectual Background (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 99–101. For the Latin text and translation, see George P. Goold, Astronomica. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977). 39 Cf. Greenbaum, Daimon (see n. 21), 225–26.

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 205

(c. second- or third-century CE),40 goes decan-by-decan through the zodiac, revealing how each decan affects the lives of those born during their ascendency: The first decan of Aries. He produces dangers, plots, humors. And in the second (decan of Aries) riches and high esteem, except (they are) prone to sudden death. In the third (decan of Ares) diseases, clamours, suffering in youth, but good cheer in old age.41

For Teucer, the rising of a particular decan lies behind a number of human events, including their acquisition of wealth or honor, their suffering of various ills, and even whether or not one will die a premature death. This association of decans with human fortunes, health, and death recalls earlier conceptions of the decans in pharaonic Egypt, and the structuring of these illness-causing decans within the zodiac reflects the influences of the Hellenistic era.42 Similar associations of the decans with older Egyptian concepts appear in the works of authors from the third- to the fifth-centuries CE. The Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry references the Salmeschiniaka in his Letter to Anebo in his terse treatment of the decans.43 There Porphyry describes how the Egyptians conceived of the decans and other astronomical bodies (e.g., planets, stars, zodiac) as their gods before promptly criticizing their reduction of the divine solely to the sensible realm (Letter to Anebo 2.12b–c). In addition, Porphyry also states that the decans possess names and that they can offer healing and information concerning future events. A more detailed approach to the decans is that of the fourth-century Julius Firmicus Maternus in his Matheseos (also known as Eight Books on Astrology). Firmicus not only describes the decans as tripartite divisions

40 The reference to Teucer by Antiochus of Athens is actually from chapter 47 of Porphyry’s Introduction to the Tetrabiblos. The text can be found in volume one of F. Boll, F. Cumont, W. Kroll et al. (ed.), Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorus I: Codices Florentinos (Brussels: Henri Lamertin, 1898), 150–51 (henceforth abbreviated as CCAG). Two other major portions of Teucer are found in the works of Rhetorius of Egypt (sixth- or seventh-century CE); see Franz Boll, Sphaera: Neue griechische Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sternbilder (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903), 5–21, 31–52. No complete copy of any of Teucer’s works have been found. 41 CCAG I.150 lines 8–10. 42 The relationship between the decans and the zodiac is even more obvious in Rhetorius’ lengthy citation of Teucer’s understanding of the paranatellonta (i.e., the rising of constellations). Here, Teucer describes the features of each of the twelve zodiacal signs (beginning with Aries), including their basic qualities (e.g., masculine or feminine, temperament, etc.), planetary domiciles, decans and their corresponding rising stars and planets, climes associated with that sign (e.g., Britain, Galatia, Judea, etc.), and finally specific letters and parts of the body which each constellation rules over. 43 An excellent treatment of this passage and the later criticism fronted by Iamblichus (On the Mysteries 8.4.265.13–267.1) can be found in Grant Adamson, “The Old Gods of Egypt in Lost Hermetica and Early Sethianism,” in A.D. DeConick and G. Adamson (ed.), Histories of the Hidden God: Concealment and Revelation in Western Gnostic, Esoteric, and Mystical Traditions (London and New York: Routledge, 2014), 58–86 (esp. 60–67). Unlike other ancient authors who attribute the Salmeschiniaka to Nechepso or Petosiris (or both) Porphyry and Iamblichus attribute the text to Chaeremon, who may have been the same Stoic philosopher Chaeremon who served as a priest in the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria during the first-century CE and wrote about various astronomical and astrological issues, although we only currently possess fragments of such works. See Pieter W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. The fragments collected and translated with explanatory notes (Leiden: Brill, 1987).

206 Blake A. Jurgens

of the zodiacal signs but also attributes the decans their own tripartite sub-increments (munifices and liturgi) whom he refers to as “divinities” who cause “sudden accidents, pains, sicknesses, chills, fevers, and everything that happens unexpectedly” (Matheseos 2.4.4–5).44 Later, Firmicus attributes this knowledge to the Egyptian pharaoh astrologer Nechepso who: “… by means of the decans predicted all illnesses and affliction; he knew which decan produced which illnesses and which decans were stronger than others. From their different nature and power he discovered the cure for all illnesses, because one nature is often overcome by another, and one god by another.” (Matheseos 4.22.2; trans. Bram)

In this same section, Firmicus lists the decans, their names, and their corresponding zodiacal signs, with some of the names roughly matching those in the Seti I B decan list (Matheseos 4.22.7–19).45 While Firmicus does integrate the decans into the overarching system of Roman horoscopic astrology, his description of the decans as quasi-divine beings who cause illness, his attribution of such knowledge to Egyptian sources, and his preservation of older Egyptian decan names suggest that Firmicus had considerable acquaintance with ancient Egyptian sources regarding decans.46 One of the most extensive treatments of the decans out of later Roman Egypt is that of the early fifth-century Hephaestion of Thebes who spends a large portion of the first book of his Apotelesmatika describing the delineations of the zodiacal decans and their effects on humans including their physical appearances, their familial relationships, and their quality of life.47 Like Firmicus, Hephaestion also divides his decans into smaller In other words, Firmicus pictures each zodiacal sign being divided up into nine sections with three decans who are each divided into three smaller segments. The Latin text is by Wilhelm Kroll and Franz Skutsch, Iulii Firmici Materni: Matheseos Libri VIII (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1897–1913). Translation, introduction, and some commentary by Jean Rhys Bram, Ancient Astrology: Theory and Practice. Matheseos Libri VIII (Park Ridge: Noyes Classical Studies, 1975). As Greenbaum, Daimon (see n. 21), 228, notes, Firmicus in Matheseos 4.22.2 refers to the decans as numen. 45 For instance, under Cancer Firmicus lists the decans Sothis, Sith, and Thiumis, which correspond fairly well with spdt, št(w), and knm(t) in the Seti I B list. In contrast, the names Firmicus provides for Scorpio (Sentacer, Tepisen, and Sentineu) do not match up to ḫnt hr(t), tpy-‘ḫnt, and ḫnt ḥr(t). It is possible that Firmicus received these names from a Greek source (cf. Hephaestion of Thebes) or perhaps that Firmicus is working with a different decan list than the Seti I B or the Tanis list, such as one from a Hermetic text. Immediately after the list (4.22.20) Firmicus notes that this “most true and immutable theory” was revealed by the Egyptian astrologer Petosiris. See also Josèphe-Henriette Abry, “Les noms des décans chez Firmicus Maternus (Mathesis IV, 22),” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 67 (1993) : 197–228. 46 While Firmicus does not explicitly mention the Salmeschiniaka by name, or any other titles which are commonly attributed to this Egyptian compendium, it seems likely that he derived the information about the decans from this text. Riess in his edition of the fragments attributed to the Salmeschiniaka (“Nechepsonis et Petosiridis: fragmenta magica”) includes Matheseos 4.22.2 among the citations of the work, labeling it Frg. 28. 47 For example, in the sign of Taurus, Hephaestion writes: “It (has) three decans. Choou, the first, Ero the second, Rombromape the third. The one who has the first horoskopos will be pleasant, muchloved, and a sweet life, but will struggle and after casting off (their) first marriage shall marry a seduced spouse and there will be great flourishing for them. The signs: a large head, their eyes large, proportional size, their lips large. There will be a mark around the throat and also around their chest and another around the right rib. The important times of this decan are the first year, the fourth, the eighth, the eleventh, the twenty-second, the thirty-third, the forty-ninth, the fifty-sixth, the sixty-ninth, the seven44

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 207

increments, citing the Salmeschiniaka regarding the division of the decans into seven horoskopoi which determine the events which occur during the progression of a human’s life such as their birth, illnesses and injuries, marriage and children, and finally their death (Apotelesmatika 2.18.70–6). Like these other authors, while the decans for Hephaestion bear the heavy influence of Hellenistic astrology, their function as bringers of good or bad fortune and other life events correlates with earlier Egyptian conceptions of the decans.48 To summarize, the role of the astral decans in Egypt underwent a series of visible changes over the course of several centuries. The oldest remnants of decanal thought construed the bakiu as astral markers whose rotation through the heavens not only demarcated the progression of sidereal time but also appears to have held ritual significance in terms of the human relationship to death and the afterlife. In later Egyptian thought and practice, these decans became organically incorporated into the cadre of divine beings of Egyptian religion and were attributed particular iconographical representations and powers. By the Hellenistic age, these decans became supplemented by Greek astrology and the zodiac, accompanying the rise of astrological practices within the Egyptian temple. The spreading influence of astrology across the Roman Empire further codified the decans’ role in astrological manuals, albeit with varying degrees of consistency with older Egyptian doctrines. While some astrologers treated the decans predominantly as systemic subunits of the zodiac, others maintained particularly Egyptian elements to their understandings of the decans, including their names, their depiction as divine entities, and their propensity for affecting humanity through disease and shifts in fortune.

II. The Decan Chapter of the Testament of Solomon In the collection of documents used by McCown in his 1922 eclectic text, Solomon’s interrogation of thirty-six decans appears in four manuscripts.49 Two of these manuscripts fit in McCown’s shorter “recension A” (MSS H and L)50 and the other two in McCown’s longer “recension B” (MSS N and P).51 In all of these manuscripts, the decan ty-second.” Text from David Pingree, Hephaestio Thebanus. Apotelesmaticorum libri tres (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1973). 48 Cf. also Greenbaum, Daimon (see n. 21), who also notes Hephaestion’s tendency to refer to the decans as gods insinuates the old role of the decans as the primary temporal guides of the cosmos, and his citation of the Salmeshoiniaka, as evidence associating Hephaestion with Egypt (ibid. 229–31). 49 MS H: No. 99 from the Library of the Earl of Leicester (fifteenth-century CE). – MS L: Harley no. 5595, fols. 8r–18r from the British Library (fifteenth-century CE). – MS N: No. 422 from the Library of the Greek Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Sancti Saba (fifteenth- or sixteenth-century CE). – MS P: Anciens fods grecs no. 38 (Colbert 4895) from the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (sixteenth-century CE). 50 MS L unfortunately breaks off after TSol 18:28. In the chart at the back of her dissertation, Schwarz, “Building a Book of Spells” [see n. 8], incorrectly neglects to mark that MS H possesses TSol 18:4–40. 51 One must note here that MS N was discovered rather late by McCown in Jerusalem, and as such was not included in the data compiled for the construction of his eclectic text. McCown did, however, include an appendix describing the manuscript and its affinities with his recension B as well as a list of substantial lexical variants of MS N from the eclectic text (see McCown, Testament [see n. 1], 112–23).

208 Blake A. Jurgens

chapter appears directly after Solomon’s interrogation of the lewd spirit of a giant man (chapter 17). Besides these four manuscripts, additional portions of TSol 18:27–28 and 33–40 are preserved by the scriptio continua fragments of the Vienna Papyrus.52 Unlike the other four manuscripts, the Vienna Papyrus is not part of a larger codex but rather a rotulus, a long and narrow vertical roll with writing on one side.53 The form of the fragments, including the presence of a defined bottom margin after TSol 18:40 decorated with semi-circles, has led scholars to conclude that the Vienna Papyrus most likely contained only TSol 18:4–40 without the narratival bookends found in the other manuscripts, and thus circulated as an independent text whose contents were limited solely to the compendium of decans.54 In terms of its relationship to the other four manuscripts, the Vienna Papyrus is most closely related to MSS N and P of McCown’s recension B and thereby contains many of the longer readings.55 In the four major manuscripts, chapter 18 consists of three sections: a narrative introduction (vv. 1–3); the list of the thirty-six decans (vv. 4–40); and finally a conclusion (vv. 41–42 or 41–44). The narrative introduction begins in much the same way as many of Solomon’s other demonic rendezvous in the Testament. To start, Solomon describes in the first-person how he “commanded” (ἐκέλευσα) that “another demon” (ἕτερον δαίμονα)56 be brought (παρεῖναι) before him (TSol 18:1).57 To Solomon’s surprise, not just one but rather a cavalcade of odd entities appear before him, described as “heavenly bodies” (στοιχεῖα)58 in MSS H and L and as thirty-six “spirits” in MSS N (πνεύματα) and P (πν(εῦμ)α). Much like the previous sections in the Testament, after witnessing their assorted appearances Solomon asks these thirty-six beings “Who are you?” (καὶ ὑμεῖς τίνες Papyrus Vindobonensis G 330 + 29 436 + 35 939. See Lloyd W. Daly, “Rotuli: Liturgy Rolls and Formal Documents,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 14 (1973), 332–38. The earliest examples of rotuli from the Ptolemaic period through the early Roman period often are legal documents, including leases and sale contracts. By the Byzantine period these rotuli seem to have become adapted into a liturgical context as well as magical objects. See for example Gideon Bohak, “The Magical Rotuli from the Caigo Genizah,” in G. Bohak, Y. Harari, and S. Shaked (ed.), Continuity and Innovation in the Magical Tradition, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 15 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 321–40. 54 Besides Daniel, “Testament” (see n. 5) and Preisendanz, “Papyrusfragment” (see n. 4), see Schwarz, “Reconsidering” (see n. 8), 218–25. 55 Daniel, “Testament” (see n. 5), esp. 299. 56 All manuscripts agree on this point except MS H which uses πνεύματα in lieu of δαιμόνια. 57 Both the verb ἐκέλευσα and the phrase ἕτερον δαίμονα occur in TSol 5:1; 7:1; 10:1; 11:1; 12:1; 13:1; 14:1; 15:1; and 16:1. The use of the verb “to command” also occurs in 6:1, and in 8:1 the verb appears alongside ἄλλον δαίμονα. In most manuscripts of 9:1 Solomon “asked” (ᾔτησα) for ἕτερα δαιμόνια to be brought before him (MS P uses ἐκέλευσα). In most manuscripts of 17:1 Solomon “commanded” for “another spirit” (ἕτερον πνεῦμα) (MS L has δαίμονια). 58 A group of seven demonic stoicheia (possibly representing planets or other heavenly bodies) also appear in TSol 8. The term most notably appears in the Pauline literature of the New Testament (Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20; cf. the “world-rulers” in Eph 6:12). Schwarz investigates the use of the term in the Testament and its relationship to other occurrences of the word (Schwarz, “Building a Book of Spells” [see n. 8], esp. 148–63). Schwarz concludes that the term holds a wide variety of meanings in the ancient world and the Testament in much the same way uses stoicheia in multiple ways as well. The word does bear connections to astronomical and astrological concepts in the Greco-Roman world (e.g., PGM IV.1301–7) and may be used here in similar fashion. 52 53

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 209

ἕστε)59 to which they respond in unison “We are thirty-six stoicheia, the world-powers (κοσμοκράτορες) of the darkness of this era” (TSol 18:2).60 Unlike the prior demons, however, the thirty-six stoicheia proclaim to Solomon that he is unable to “harm” (ἀδικῆσαι), “lock (them) up” (κατακλεῖσαι) or “command” them,61 thus attributing their current subservient interview with Solomon not to his own authority, but rather to the authority God provided him “over all the spirits of the air, the earth, and beneath the earth” (TSol 18:3).62 Following the narrative introduction recounting the initial interaction between the king and these demons, the next section of the chapter (vv. 4–40) describes the demons as they approach Solomon one-by-one. Much like TSol 18:1–3, this second section is rhetorically framed by the first-person perspective of Solomon, insofar as each demon’s audience before the king is retold by Solomon to the reader. Following Solomon’s encounter with the first of the thirty-six demons the remainder of TSol 18:4–40 follows a fairly formulaic linguistic pattern which reduces the king’s narratival role to that of a background interrogator until the conclusion at TSol 18:41–42. In many ways, Solomon’s interaction with the first decanal demon serves as the transition shifting the reader into this formulaic section. Unfortunately, the appearance of the first of these spirits before the king shows a considerable degree of confusion among the available manuscript witnesses: Then I, Solomon, having summoned the first spirit63 said to him “Who are you?” And he answered me “I am the first decan of the zodiac; I am called Ram.64 I cause the heads of people to feel pain and I shake the temples. If I hear only ‘Michael, imprison Ouroel’65 I immediately go away.” (TSol 18:4–5; MSS H and L)

59 Usually the form of Solomon’s initial question to the respective demons appears in the singular (τίς εἶ σύ; TSol 2:1; 3:6; 5:2; 7:3; 9:2; 10:2; 12:2; 13:2; 14:2; 17:2). The one other occurrence of Solomon dealing with multiple demons is his interaction with the seven heavenly bodies (again stoicheia) in chapter 8 where he asks “Who are (you)” (τίνες ἔστε). Pablo Torijano connects the form of this question and its consistant appearance in the Testament to the use of the question “who are you” in 11QapPsa, the Questions of Bartholomew, and a couple other texts. Torijano conjectures that in the Testament the question “who are you?” should be understood as an exorcistic formula characteristic of traditions portraying Solomon as exorcist. See Pablo Torijano, Solomon as Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition, JSJSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 41–81. 60 The manuscripts mostly agree on this line with the most significant variation being MS L which reads “We are (ἐσται) the thirty-six demons and stoicheia.” 61 MSS H and L (i.e., the short recension) do not possess “command us” (οὐδὲ κελεῦσαι ἡμῖν). 62 The Greek in McCown’s eclectic text reads ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ἀερίων πνευμάτων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων. For the most part, the manuscripts agree with one another, with MS P shifting “all the spirits (pl.)” into the singular “every spirit” and changing the declensions of the following words to follow suit grammatically. Similar tripartite references to spirits over the air, earth, and beneath the earth appear in TSol 16:3 and 22:1. 63 MS H: πν(εύμ)ατα. 64 As explained below, this translation of MSS H and L is based upon what MSS H and L ought to read in light of MS P rather than what the Greek text actually reads, which makes no discernable sense and shows evidence of scribal errors at some point during its transmission. 65 The verb used in MS P for “imprison” is ἔγκλεισον. Both MSS H (ἔγγεισον) and L (ἔγγισον) show variant readings here, as they do many other times where this verb appears in MS P. In addition, the reading “Ouroel” comes from MS L while MS H reads the odd οῦ οῦρὸν.

210 Blake A. Jurgens Then I, Solomon, having invoked the name of Lord Sabaoth, asked them [i.e., the spirits] one-by-one the sort of manner befalling them, and I commanded each one of them to come forth to state their activity.66 Then the first came forward and said, “I am the (first) decan of the zodiac, called Ram67, and with me are these two (others).” Therefore I asked them “What are you (pl.) called?” Then the first one said “I am called Ruax. I cause the heads of people to feel pain and I shake the temples. If I hear only ‘Michael, imprison Ruax’68 I immediately go away.” (TSol 18:4–5; MSS N and P)

As previously mentioned by Schwarz,69 MSS H and L are chalked full of nonsensical errors, a trait which she proposes originates from earlier scribal confusion regarding the relatively foreign astrological terminology of the decan list.70 To start, the opening words uttered by the first spirit in MS H are ἐγω δεκαδὰν τοῦ ἐξοδίου κυκλῶνος while MS L reads ἐγω δεκάδων τοῦ ἐξοδίδυ κακόκλονος, neither of which make any discernable sense. In contrast, MS P here provides a much more intelligible text: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ α ́ [πρῶτος] δεκανὸς τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου “I am the first decan of the Zodiac.” It seems then that the errors displayed in both MSS H and L reflect scribal misunderstanding regarding what seemed to be incomprehensible decanal terminology. An even more abrupt point of confusion is the attribution of the name “Ram” (κριός) to the first decan in MSS H and L, as well as initially in MS P. In an attempt to alleviate this issue, McCown in his eclectic text restores the name Ῥύαξ “Ruax” in the place of “Ram” – a name he derives from TSol 18:5 of MS P – despite the fact that no manuscripts, including MS P, actually have Ruax in TSol 18:4.71 While McCown’s restoration does not work in terms of the available manuscript attestation, there is evidence in MS N which supports his reading. In the margin of MS N, a scribe adds the phrase ἀπὸ κρίου πρώτο⟨υ ἕως⟩ δεκά⟨του⟩ – “from the Ram; first until the tenth.” It appears that this scribe, noticing the odd use of κριός as the decan’s name, rightfully indicated that this was a scribal error and that the word “ram” was actually meant to represent the zodiacal sign of Aries (i.e., the Ram) and the position of this decan in that particular zodiacal sign (i.e., the first position).72 66 The Greek reads εἰπεῖν τὴν εαυτοῦ πρᾶξιν. Cf. TSol 7:5 where Solomon asks the demon Lix Tetrax the same question: “And I said to it, ‘What is your activity?’” (εἶπον δὲ αὐτῷ·τίς ἡ πρᾶξις σου). The word πρᾶξις is also used to describe demonic abilities in 11:3; 14:4; and 16:4. 67 In Greek καλοῦμαι κριός. This reading comes from MS P; in contrast, MS N here reads φαρμουθίου καλοῦμαι “I am called Pharmouthi.” It appears that at some point during either the copying of MS N or one of the manuscripts preceding it a scribe confused the name of Coptic month Pharmouthi (corresponding to 9 April–8 May in the Gregorian calendar) with the name of the first decan. 68 The phrase “imprison Ruax” is only in MS P. MS N reads instead ἐγὼ κλήροσι ἄκας. Peter Busch in his translation renders this as ἐγὼ κληροῦσθαι ἄκα and translates it as “Ich habe Heilmittel zu wählen!” treating κλήροσι as a corrupted form of κληρόω “to cast lots, to obtain” and ἄκας presumably as a neuter plural of ἄκος “cure, remedy.” See Peter Busch, Das Testament Salomos. Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kommentiert und in deutscher Erstübersetzung (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 224, n. 5. 69 Schwarz, “Building a Book of Spells” (see n. 8), 173–75. 70 This is also noted by McCown who comments that his restorations of MSS H and L are dubitanter propono (McCown, Testament [see n. 1], 52*). 71 Cf. Duling, “Testament” (see n. 1), who follows McCown in his translation and supplies the name Ruax without explanation. 72 See also Busch, Testament (see n. 68), 223, n. 3. MS N continues this pattern throughout the rest of the chapter, listing before each individual decan the name of the Coptic month and the ten-degree decanal period which that particular decan inhabits (i.e., first to tenth, eleventh to twentieth, etc.).

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 211

Considering that MS N uses the name Ruax for this first decan in TSol 18:5 (as does MS P) McCown’s restoration of Ruax as the decan’s name seems likely.73 Additionally, MSS H and L offer a much shorter reading following the first decan’s self-introduction, listing only the sort of physical ailments he inflicts upon humans (headaches and throbbing temples) and the method of counteracting him. In contrast, MSS N and P contain a longer text divulging Solomon’s initial encounter with the decans. To start, prior to Solomon addressing the first decanal demon, MSS N and P depict Solomon “invoking” (ἐπικαλεσάμενος)74 the name of Lord Sabaoth. Next, Solomon describes how he asked questions regarding the manner (τρόπος) and the activity (πραξῖν) of each of these thirty-six decanal spirits. Finally, unlike MSS H and L which depict Solomon asking the first demon “Who are you?” (σύ τίς εἶ) prior to his personal introduction as the first decanal demon, MSS N and P instead depict the first demon coming forward spontaneously and revealing to Solomon not only his name, but the fact that “with me are these two” (μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ οἱ δύο οὗτοι) suggesting that this decan is travelling in a pack of three.75 Following this first decanal demon, the next thirty-five entities all encounter Solomon in a similar formulaic manner, one-by-one revealing to Solomon their respective names, their adverse (often physiological) effects, and the proper apotropaic methods to cause their retreat. First, the narrator precludes each decanal demon by stating its numerical position in the sequence (ὁ [ordinal number] ἔφη “The Nth said”).76 Second, the decanal demon introduces its name (ἐγω [decan name] καλοῦμαι “I am called X”). Third, the decanal demon explains the specific ailment it causes. Fourth, the decanal demon reveals the apotropaic procedure meant to counteract it. This particular portion of TSol 18:4–40 presents a fairly high degree of variance. A sizable amount of the decans (sixteen total) 73 One additional issue to bring up concerning the name Ῥύαξ is the appearances of the similar name Ῥὺξ in chapter 18 of the Testament. In McCown’s eclectic text and Duling’s translation (Duling, “Testament” [see n. 1]) the name Rhyx occurs as the first portion of every decans name from TSol 18:24–40 (decans 20–36). Prior to the discovery of the Vienna Papyrus, scholars had a difficult time understanding both the meaning of the name as well as the rationale behind its frequent appearances. McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 42, equated it with the Hebrew word ‫חור‬. Gundel, Dekane (see n. 6), 49–50, suggested that both Ῥύξ and Ῥύαξ stemmed from the Greek ῥύαξ “flow/stream of lava.” Preisendanz, “Papyrusfragment” (see n. 4), observed that rather than the typical template found in TSol 18:24–40 (i.e., “I am called Rhyx NN”), the Vienna Papyrus instead prefaced each decan with the phrase Ἐγώ κύριε ῥήξ NN καλοῦμαι which he translated “Ich, Herr, heisse Rêx NN” reading it like McCown as part of the decans’ names. A solution to this problem came with Robert Daniel’s edition of the Vienna Papyrus, who rightfully noted that the name ῥήξ in the Vienna Papyrus was not part of the decans’ names, but rather was a Greek transliteration of the Latin rex “king” and thus part of the regal address given to Solomon by the individual demons – “I, Lord King, am called NN.” See Daniel, “Testament” (see n. 5), 296–98. For more details on this issue, see Todd Klutz, Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late Antique Pseudepigraphon, Library of Second Temple Studies 53 (New York/ London: T&T Clark, 2005), 26–27; Dennis C. Duling, “The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect,” JSP 2 (1988), 87–112 (pp. 94–96); Schwarz, “Reconsidering” (see n. 8), 224 fn. 51. 74 Ctr. MSS H and L which read “Then I, Solomon, summoned (προσκαλεςάμενος) the first spirit.” 75 As is affirmed by Solomon’s response, “Therefore I asked them ‘What are you (pl.) called?’” (ἐπηρώτησα οὖν αὐτούς τίνες καλεῖσθε). Solomon is thus presumably talking to the three decans rather than just the first one, although only the first one responds. 76 MS L will almost always replace ἔφη with εἶπεν.

212 Blake A. Jurgens

are stymied by reciting a sacred name77 or occasionally an entire phrase.78 A nearly equivalent portion of the decanal demons (fourteen total) are counteracted by some form of writing either by itself,79 upon the entrance to one’s house or upon an amulet,80 or in the context of a particular ritual.81 Finally, the remaining six decans prescribe various other apotropaic rituals,82 ranging from treating one’s body with some sort of magical concoction (i.e., mixtures of oil and salt, oil and laurel seeds, coriander) to inserting a bone into one’s chest. Fifth, following their directions for how to get rid of them, most of the decanal demons exclaim the result of properly performing the aforementioned ritual – “and I leave immediately” (καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναχωρῶ).83 While scattered variants throughout the manuscripts do occasionally disrupt this general pattern, as a whole this five-part formulaic structure is maintained throughout TSol 18:4–40.84 The third and final section of chapter 18 is the conclusion. After hearing from the thirty-sixth and final decanal demon, Solomon narrates that “I glorified the God of heaven and earth and I commanded (ἐκέλευσα) them to bear water” (TSol 18:41; MS H)85 before praying to God, requesting that “the thirty-six demons which hinder humanity go to the Temple of God” (TSol 18:42; MS H).86 While MS H ends at v. 42, MSS P and N both contain 77 This includes decans 1–10, 13, 15, 25, 32. In MSS H and L the usual statement is that the decanal demon will announce “if I hear ‘[sacred name]’ I flee immediately” (ὡς/ἐὰν ἀκούσω NN εὐθὺς ἀναχωρω; often δὲ will appear in between ὡς/ἐὰν and ἀκούσω). For example: “The ninth said, “I am called Kourtael. I send forth churnings of the bowels (στρόφους ἐγμάτων; i.e., intestinal pains or colic. MS P reads στρόφους ἐν κοιλίᾳ). If I should hear, “Iaoth” (MS H uses σαβαὼθ) I flee immediately.” (18:13); “The fifteenth said, ‘I am called Soubelti (MS P: Κουμελτὴλ). I send forth shivering and numbness. If I hear only, ‘Rizoel’ (MS P: ζωρωὴλ) I flee immediately.” (18:19). In addition, both MSS N and P add the phrase “imprison NN” (ἔγκλεισον NN) after the mentioning of the sacred name meant to thwart the demon, a feature which only sporadically appears in MSS H or L. 78 In MSS H and L decan 14 flees when one recites “Iax do not stand fast.” MS P adds “Do not be warmed for Solomon is better than the eleven fathers.” Decan 17 which causes spasms and spontaneous fainting states that he flees when one says into the afflicted person’s ear “Iouda Zizabou” three times. 79 Decans 21–23, 26, and 34 in most manuscripts offer no specification other than writing one or more sacred names. Others specify the medium which the words much be written on, such as decan 20 (papyrus) and decan 24 (the words “Marmaraoth of the mist” upon a piece of wood from a ship run aground). 80 Decans 18, 19, and 36 require one to write one or more sacred words on the front of one’s house or on the doorstop. Decan 12 states that one should write “Iae, Ieo, sons of Sabaoth” (the different manuscripts each render this differently) and then wear it around one’s neck while decan 28 states one should write “Kok Phedismos” and wear it (or hang it; περιάψει) from the sides of one’s forehead. 81 Decan 11 (TSol 18:15) Katanikotael prescribes writing upon seven laurel leaves (γραψάτω εἰς ἑπτὰ φύλλα δάφνης) “the names of the ones who thwart me” (or “make useless, impair” καταργοῦντά με) which are “Angel, Eae, Ieo, Sabaoth” and then sprinkling the house with laurel leaves doused in water. Decan 33 prescribes writing “Leikourgos/Lykourgos” on ivy leaves. 82 I.e., decans 14, 16, 17, 27, 29–31, 35. 83 Two of the decans (e.g., decans 34 and 35) use the verb καταργέω in the middle of their respective speeches, a feature also apparent in the Vienna Papyrus. 84 Cf. Busch, Testament (see n. 68), 232, who writes that “Dabei ist ein Formschema erkennbar, bestehend aus: Namensnennung, Wirkweise, Gegenmittel (mit Überwinderengel). Dieses Schema ist mit nur leichten Variationen durchgeführt worden.” 85 MS P reads the same as MS H here except exchanges “to bear water” (ὕδωρ φέρειν) with the more descriptive ὕδωρ κομίζειν ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ θεοῦ. MS N reads ὑδροφονεῖν. 86 MS P renders this verse differently in a number of places. Most notably, instead of restating the

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 213

an additional ending (labeled vv. 43–44 by McCown) which describes in greater detail how he “condemned” (κατέκρινα) and “commanded” (ἐκέλευσα) some of these demons to work on the Temple, while others he “locked up” (κατέκλεισα).87 The inclusion of vv. 43–44 in MSS N and P in many ways helps make sense of the somewhat confusing events occurring in narrative introduction of the chapter. In TSol 18:3 the thirty-six demons declare that Solomon himself is not able to “harm” or “lock (them) up” (ἀδικῆσαι … κατακλεῖσαι; MSS N and P add “command them” κελεῦσαι ἡμῖν) and that only God has authority over them, authority which he has bequeathed to Solomon. In contrast to MSS H and L which have Solomon immediately proceed to summon the first demon after this statement, MSS N and P instead depict Solomon responding to this declaration of the decans by calling upon the name of Lord Sabaoth prior to addressing them, thereby explicitly invoking the divine power to which the thirty-six spirits had just alluded. After this, Solomon not only experiences no difficulties interrogating these thirty-six demons, but after glorifying and praying to God is able to do the very things the decans said he would be unable to do harm them, command them (ἐκέλευσα) to do hard labor, and lock them up (κατέκλεισα).88 In this way, the introduction and conclusion of chapter 18 form a cohesive and contained unit, a feature arguably more apparent in the longer recension contained in MSS N and P than in MSS H and L. Having offered a summary of the contents of TSol 18, the question now remains to what degree this chapter reflects the conception of decans found in Roman Egypt. As noted in the introduction to this study, one glaring omission which definitely complicates the question is the utter lack of any discernable Egyptian decan names in the Testament. In his brief assessment of the decan chapter, Conybeare contrasted Celsus’ description of the decans in Contra Celsum, which uses the actual Egyptian names of certain decans, to the names found in the Testament, which he ruled as being “mock Hebrew.”89 As Origen writes: number of decanal demons (i.e., τριάκοντα ἕξ δαίμονας), MS P says “outsider/foreign demons” (ἕξω δαίμονας), and instead of having Solomon simply have the demons go to the Temple, MS P adds that the demons were ordered to be “bound together” (συμποδίζεσθαι). 87 “I condemned some of the demons to do the heavy work of the construction of the Temple of God. Some I locked up in prisons. Others I ordered to battle the fire in (the production of) gold and silver, and to sit down beside lead and cinerary urns, and for the rest of the demons to prepare places in which they ought to be locked up” (trans. Duling, “Testament” [see n. 1]). Duling writes that this extended ending could suggest that prior to MS P the Testament concluded with chapter 18 (ibid., 981 fn. s3). This theory also configures in Klutz’s proposal concerning the final redaction of the Testament where he concludes that the coda of TSol 18 displays a literary seam which was unedited by later scribes. See Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 73), esp. 128–29; see also 104–10. 88 Cf. Torijano, Solomon (see n. 59), 148, who instead interprets Solomon as having limits to his divine power, attributing this to the decans’ status as astrological entities which may have been perceived as “more powerful or, at least, as less prone to be influenced”. 89 F. C. Conybeare, “The Testament of Solomon,” JQR 11 (1898), 1–45, see p. 6. Later, Conybeare makes the observation that the presence of magical names, amulets, and incantations in the decan chapter combined with the lack of any “exclusive use of the name of Jesus Christ or of the living God” as opposed to Origen entails that “the Christianity of the Testament, if it be originally Christian at all, is of a very different type to Origen’s.” In contrast, Conybeare sees a significant parallel with “the Palestinian Essenes, who cherished as a secret lore the names of the angels, so that the neophyte, upon entering their order, took an oath not to reveal them” and cites Josephus, Jewish War, 2.142 to back up his point.

214 Blake A. Jurgens Let anyone inquire of the Egyptians, and he will find that everything, even to the most insignificant, is committed to the care of a certain demon. The body of man is divided into thirty-six parts, and as many demons of the air are appointed to the care of it, each having charge of a different part, although others make the number much larger. All these demons have in the language of that country distinct names; as Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou, Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor, and other such Egyptian names. Moreover, they call upon them, and are cured of diseases of particular parts of the body (c. Cels. 8.58; translation from ANF 4)

Unlike the thirty-six decans found in the Testament, the names used by Origen to describe these demons are explicitly said to be derived from the Egyptian tongue, and indeed all of the decan names listed by Origen appear in the Seti I B and/or Tanis decan lists.90 Traditional Egyptian decan names such as those preserved by Origen continued to be transmitted by some astrologers through the Roman period, as demonstrated earlier by Firmicus Maternus. Like Firmicus, Hephaestion of Thebes also lays out all thirty-six decans, their Egyptian names, and their various effects on human beings (e.g., appearances, personality, fortune, etc.).91 Although the lack of true Egyptian decan names is problematic in terms of determining the relationship of chapter 18 to ancient and antique Egypt, by no means does this absence necessitate that this portion of the Testament was composed elsewhere. McCown himself raised this position, stating that while the decan names of the Testament were “Hebrew, or, perhaps, mock Hebrew” the fact that other decan lists contain only a handful of Egyptian names, or even none altogether, entails that the Testament is not alone in this regard.92 According to McCown, because the Testament depicts its decans in ways similar to other decan catalogues (i.e., causing diseases to certain body parts) it follows that chapter 18 “comes from Egyptian sources,” albeit sources heavily revised by a Jewish editor.93 While McCown’s postulation that chapter 18 represents a

Conybeare also notes the Essenes’ preoccupation with warding off disease and concludes that “[t]he entire section of the Testament in which these thirty-six decani and their functions and countervailing angels are enumerated has nothing Christian about it” and thus attributes it to common Greco-Jewish belief. See esp. pp. 6–10 (quotes on p. 8). 90 For example, Chnoumen (Χνουμὴν) = knm(t) (Seti I B: Cancer Decan 3; Tanis: Cancer Decan 1), Sicat (Σικὰτ) = sȝ ḳd (Seti I B: Aries Decan 3; Tanis: Aries Decan 2), and Biou (Βιοὺ) = bȝw(y) (Seti I B: Pisces Decan 3; Tanis: Aries Decan 1). 91 Parker in his article (“Ancient Egyptian Astronomy,” 61–62) compares Hephaestion to the Seti I B and Tanis decanal lists with the final results that Hephaestion’s list agrees with the Seti I B list 24 total times, with Tanis 15 total times, and three times with both lists (Virgo decan 3: ipsd = αφοσο; Libra decan 1: sbhs = σουχωε; Libra decan 2: tpy-‘ḫnt = πτηχουτ). While all of Hephaestion’s decans correspond at least in some way to one of these decan lists, there are a number of places where the order of these decans is jumbled. Overall, the list provided by Hephaestion is closer to older Egyptian decan lists than Firmicus. 92 McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 56–59. 93 McCown, Testament (see n. 1), 59. As he writes “[t]he editor has made it [i.e., the decan chapter] more nearly monotheistic than the other account [i.e., decan lists] mention above, in regarding the decans as demons who cause diseases, rather than deities who “rule” or cure the parts affected. Yet he has failed to purge out all the heathen elements, such as the amulets and voces mysticae.” Certainly part of McCown’s ruling was dependent upon his overarching thesis that the earliest form of the Testament was derived from a Jewish Urtext.

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 215

heavily Judaized decan list is unnecessary, his overall point is well-taken. Many of the astronomical papyri which mention decans from the Roman period neglect to provide names for them, often referring to these decans solely by their position within their zodiacal sign.94 One of the most famous of Roman-era astrologers, the second-century CE Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, does not mention the decans at all in his lengthy Tetrabiblos, a work which became the de facto standard of ancient astrology in the following centuries.95 Even technical astrological tools like the Tablettes de Grand which contain lists of decan names do not match perfectly any older Egyptian decan lists. Thus, while the presence of Egyptian decan names potentially would have solidified the Egyptian provenance of the decan chapter of the Testament, by no means does their absence derail the possibility that TSol 18 was produced in Roman Egypt. Outside of the decan names, there are a number of components throughout chapter 18 of the Testament which resemble other formulations and descriptions of the thirty-six decans in Roman Egypt. As we have already seen above, all the manuscripts, in one way or another, connect the thirty-six spirits to the zodiac, as seen in the speech of the first decan Ruax.96 MS P in particular depicts Ruax coming to Solomon in a set of three decans, a detail which again presumes an understanding of the division of the thirty-six decans among the twelve zodia. As a whole, however, these are general features of decanal astrology which, although particularly florid in Roman Egypt, were by no means confined to that geographical region. Perhaps a more telling characteristic of the Testament is its thoroughgoing association of the demonic decans with diseases and ailments. As Todd Klutz has observed, while the demons found in the other chapters of the Testament intermix illness with physical torments and various moral temptations and vices, a vast majority of the decans (thirty out of thirty-six) in chapter 18 inflict only disease-based infirmities, many of which are restricted to one particular part of the body as the following three examples exhibit:97

94 Jones, Astronomical Papyri (see n. 33), 10–11. Cf. also Teucer of Deltaic Babylon, who in the fragments attributed to him also never mentions a single decan’s name. 95 In contrast, Ptolemy treats other zodiacal divisions, such as the faces and the terms, with a considerable amount of detail. See Stephen Heilen, “Ptolemy’s Doctrine of the Terms and Its Reception,” in Ptolemy in Perspective: Use and Criticism of his Work from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century. Ed A. Jones, Archemedes 23 (New York: Springer, 2010), 45–94 (esp. 45, 54). One must wonder if Ptolemy’s neglect of the decans is at least partially attributable to his overarching methodology of adapting astrology to Aristotelian philosophy as a more “scientific” venture. If so, the omission of the decans would make sense in that their association with Egyptian deities and animalistic representations certainly would have stood in juxtaposition to the philosophical ideology which Ptolemy sought to integrate into his astrological theories. Porphyry in his Introduction to the Tetrabiblos 49 reaffirms that Ptolemy’s doctrine of terms did in fact disagree with the Egyptians on certain points, a fact also mentioned in chapter 12 of Rhetorius’ Compendium. 96 In addition, MS P has an addition at the end of TSol 18:3 where the decans specify where they came from which consists of a list of the twelve zodiacal signs in order of their appearance (i.e., Aries, Taurus, etc.), once again affirming the zodiacal structure of the forthcoming decanal catalogue. 97 Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 73), 50.

216 Blake A. Jurgens The fifth said, “I am called Kairoxanondalon. I cause ears to have obstructions. If I should hear, ‘Ourouel, imprison Kairoxanondalon,’ I retreat immediately.” The sixth said, “I am called Sphendonael. I produce tumors of the parotid gland and recurvation. If I hear, ‘Sabael, imprison Sphendonael,’ I retreat immediately.” The seventh said, “I am called Sphandor. I weaken the strength of the shoulders and deaden the nerves of the hand, and I make limbs paralyzed. If I hear, ‘Arael, imprison Sphandor,’ I retreat immediately.” (TSol 18:9–11; trans. Duling, “Testament” [see n. 1])

Much like Celsus’ statement about the Egyptian decans mentioned earlier, chapter 18 of the Testament associates a majority of its demonic decans with individual human body parts and the disorders or illnesses which assail them.98 The associations of decans with sicknesses in TSol 18:4–40 has been referred to by scholars in recent years as an appropriate example of melothesia, a form of medical astrology (also known as iatromathematics) popular in ancient Egypt where certain astral bodies and their positions govern the physical configuration of specific parts of the human body.99 Various categories of melothesia existed in the ancient world. Zodiacal melothesia attributed each body part of a particular zodiacal sign, as exhibited briefly by Manilius (Astronomica 2.453–65).100 Ptolemy in his Tetrabiblos (3.11–14) presents a form of planetary melothesia where each Following his reference to Celsus’ treatment of the decans, the next several paragraphs in the Contra Celsum (8.59–64) consist of Origen railing against Celsus’ claims that the decans provide healing for humans. It seems likely that Celsus was exposed to Egyptian decanal astrology and melothesia while living in Alexandria. Among others supporting Celsus’ Alexandrian origins, see Maren R. Niehoff, “A Jewish Critique of Christianity from Second-Century Alexandria: Revisiting the Jew Mentioned in Contra Celsum,” JECS 21 (2013), 151–75. 99 For instance, Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 200–2, 235–36; idem, “Reading the Human Body and Discerning Zodiacal Spirits: A Proposal for the Use of Physiognomics in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A. Klostergaard Petersen et al. (ed.), Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006, STDJ 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 155–72 (esp. 168–69); Kocku von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie: Judische und christliche Beitrage zum antiken Zeitverstandnis (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000), esp. 399–403; idem, “Astral Magic in Ancient Jewish Discourse: Adoption, Transformation, Differentiation,” in G. Bohak, Y. Harari, and S. Shaked (ed.), Continuity and Innovation in the Magical Tradition, Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 15 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 245–70 (esp. 254–57). See also Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 73), 130; Busch, Testament (see n. 68), 238–41. 100 “Now learn how the parts of the human frame are distributed among the constellations, and how the limbs are subject each to a particular authority; over these limbs, out of all the parts of the body, the signs exercise special influence. The Ram as chieftain of them all is allotted the head, and the Bull receives as of his estate the handsome neck; evenly bestowed, the arms to shoulders joined are accounted to the Twins; the breast is put down to the Crab, the realm of the sides and the shoulder- blades are the Lion’s, the belly comes down to the Maid as her rightful lot; the Balance governs the loins, and Scorpion takes pleasure in the groin ; the thighs hie to the Centaur, Capricorn is tyrant of both knees, whilst the pouring Waterman has the lordship of the shanks, and over the feet the Fishes claim jurisdiction.” (trans. Goold). Cf. also 4.696–711 where Manilius compares zodiacal melothesia with zodiacal powers ruling over geographical portions of the world. A helpful list of ancient sources treating zodiacal melothesia is found in John Z. Wee, “Discovery of the Zodiac Man in Cuneiform,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67 (2015), 217–33 (see pp. 220–24). Unfortunately, Wee does not specifically distinguish between strictly zodiacal melothesia and those which integrate other elements, such as the decans, into their systems, although Wee acknowledges this in the study. 98

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 217

of the seven planets hold sway over specific elements of the body.101 Many times, features of multiple types of melothesia were bended together to create overlapping systems. This is also the case for decanal melothesia which is often found embedded in zodiacal and planetary astrological frameworks. One excellent example of decanal melothesia outside of the Testament is the De duodecim signorum decanis tractate.102 Like other astrologers such as Teucer and Hephaestion, the anonymous author starts with Aries and works his or her way through the zodiac decan-by-decan,103 presenting their names and the scope of their healing powers: The first decan (of Aries) is called Parcham. It is written on gypsum stone and is placed underneath a root of a panakias plant and is worn (γράφεται δὲ ἐν λίθῳ σεληνίτῃ καὶ ὑποτίθεται ῥιζίον βοτάνης πανακίας καὶ φορεῖται). Write the name and as much pain as in the head is healed (γράφε δὲ καὶ τὸ ὄναμα καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ πάθη ἰᾶται). The second decan (of Cancer) is called Tenoum Tanlach. It is written on an ironwort stone and the one who wears (it) will most surely not suffer bodily pain at all of the breasts or the chest or the ribs (γράφεται δὲ ἐν λίθῳ σιδηρίτῃ καὶ ὁ φορῶν οὐδ᾿ ὅλως ἀλγήσει τὸ σύνολον ἤ μαστοὺς ἤ στέρνα ἤ πλευράς). It is necessary to wear it purely. The first decan (of Virgo) is called Talantis Charcham. It is written on a silver leaflet with a twig of saffron and rose water, and it is doused with rose water and it is drunk. It serves as much pain as surrounds the gut, the stomach, and the intestines.

Similar to the Testament, this manual informs the reader of the decans’ names, the type of body-specific disease each decan is associated with, and the means by which such pain can be subdued, each in a formulaic fashion.104 In turn, like the Testament, the decan names presented in the De duodecim signorum decanis do not match any known Egyptian decan list.105 While the Testament and the anonymous tractate share a great deal in terms of form and their respective associations of decans with parts of the human body, one major difference between the two is that while the De duodecim signorum decanis

101 For example, Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 3.12) goes through all seven planets and lists each of the body parts or components associated with each planetary body (e.g., “Jupiter is the lord of touch, the lungs, arteries, and semen.”). He also connects the planets to bodily appearances and diseases elsewhere in this section. 102 First published in CCAG VI 73–8. 103 As indicated by the heading of every tripartite zodiacal sign (e.g., ζῴδιον ὁ ζυγός; ζῴδιον ὁ σκορπίος etc.). The anonymous tractate also places a planetary symbol at the end of each decan’s section, which suggests that the author combined the doctrine of planetary faces with his decanal melothesia. 104 Thus, the tractate proceeds structurally (1) the ordinal number of the decan (ὁ πρῶτος/δεύτερος/ τρίτος δεκανὸς); (2) its name (καλεῖται NN); (3) the writing of (γράφεται) or inscription of (γλύφεται) the gem, including the type of stone or precious metal object to be used; (4) additional ritual recourse accompanying the amulet (e.g., wearing it, additional preparation, etc.); and (5) the types of maladies the gem heals, relieves, benefits, and guards against. 105 In addition, Kroll also mentions that Cod. Parisinus 2419 contains a partial decan list organized by zodiacal signs which shows some correspondences with the anonymous tractate. See CCAG VI.78.

218 Blake A. Jurgens

portrays its decans as curative power (similar to Celsus) the Testament in contrast understands its decans as the demonic causes of disease and maladies.106 While the De duodecim signorum decanis tractate does provide a significant example of a decanal melothesia similar to that of the Testament, its late manuscript date (fourteenth- or fifteenth-century CE) and unknown provenance proffers very little assistance in ascertaining whether or not the decan chapter of the Testament should be located within a Roman Egyptian milieu.107 Two parallels which may prove more illuminating, as recently shown by Grant Adamson, are the decanal melothesia found in the Sacred Book of Hermes to Asclepius and the Gnostic Apocryphon of John.108 As indicated by the moniker attached by Ruelle in his text and translation,109 the Sacred Book of Hermes to Asclepius (henceforth SBHA) describes in great detail the workings of “the forms and the outward appearance of the thirty-six decans in the zodia” (τῶν ἐν τοῖς ζῳδίοις λς ́ δεκανῶν τάς τε μορφὰς καὶ τὰς ἰδέας; SBHA 1).110 More specifically, like the anonymous De duodecim signorum decanis, the SBHA instructs the reader how to “engrave” (γλύφειν) these decans upon the “proper stones” (ἰδίου λίθου) and thereby “wear” (φορεῖν) them as a means of counteracting the many sufferings sent upon human beings from the stars and bring about their healing properties:111 Each of the zodia have power over its own (body)part and produces according to it (i.e., the part) some pain. If you truly wish not to suffer that which is necessary to suffer under the zodia, engrave both the forms and the outward appearances of these decans upon the stones. And having placed the plant of

In addition, while the Testament proceeds with no overarching physiological order through its decans, the melothesia of the anonymous tractate proceeds like other melothesia (e.g., Manilius, Teucer) from the head down through the feet, with each zodiacal sign representing a certain portion of the body (e.g., head, neck, shoulders) and each decan serving as the means to healing a particular sort of pain to that bodily area. 107 Although this is not to say that the De duodecim signorum decanis tractate did not come from Egypt. Von Stuckrad, “Astral Magic” (see n. 99), 255–56, appears to associate the text with Egypt and goes as far as to say that both this text (which he refers to as the anonymous Greek-Jewish Decan Book) and the Testament should be linked to Egyptian doctrines of decanal melothesia. 108 Grant Adamson, “Astrological Medicine in Gnostic Traditions,” in A.D. DeConick, G. Shaw, and J.D. Turner (ed.), Practicing Gnosis: Ritual, Magic, Theurgy and Liturgy in Nag Hammadi, Manichaean and Other Ancient Literature. Essays in Honor of Birger A. Pearson, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 85 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 333–58. 109 Charles-Émile Ruelle, “Hermès Trismégiste: Le Livre Sacré sur les Décans,” Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 32 (1908), 247–77. Jean-Baptiste Pitra issued the text found in the fifth volume of Analecta sacra et classica spicilegio Solesmensi parata. (Paris: Roger and Chernowitz, 1888), 284–90. 110 Cf. SBHA 2–3 which like other melothesia distributes a body part to each section of the zodiac, starting with Aries (the head) and progressing through Pisces (the feet). 111 “For as much pain as is sent to humans from the influence of the stars, by them (i.e., the decans) they are healed.” (ὅσα γὰρ ἐπιπέμπεται πάθη τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων ἀπορροίας, τούτοις ἰᾶται). Note that the construction of ὅσα in conjunction with πάθη “as much pain as…” is also frequently found in the De duodecim signorum decanis. The SBHA also reveals the “proper plant” (ἰδίας βοτάνης) needed for the amulet, a feature also found in portions of the De duodecim signorum decanis. Cf. also Galen, who in a number of places derides astrological medicine along with the production both of healing amulets and the accompanied use of plants. See among others Adamson, “Medicine” (see n. 108), 340–41; Vivian Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), 266–67. 106

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 219 each (decan) underneath and furthermore having constructed the form, wear the amulet, a great and blessed resource for your body. (SBHA 4)

According to the author, each zodiacal sign holds domain over a particular part of the body, and it is through the decans and the construction of decanal amulets that such maladies can be counteracted.112 The description of the construction of decanal amulets to counteract the ill-effects of zodiacal signs upon the body found here in the SBHA matches many of the decanal gems found in the ancient world, many of which contain an inscribed image of a particular decan and its name.113 After this introduction, the SBHA goes through all thirty-six decans starting with Aries. Much like the Testament, the SBHA addresses each of the thirty-six decans in a formulaic manner, as can be seen in the following examples: Second decan (of Gemini): This one has the name Ouari. The form is goat-faced (αἰγοπροσώπου), in the right hand it holds a staff, and the left hand is laid over (its) thigh. It is covered with wrappings until the knees. It governs the arms. Therefore, engrave this one upon a panchrous stone and then place it beneath a five-fingered plant. Enclose it in whatever you wish and wear it while avoiding parrot-wrasse. First decan of Cancer: This one has the name Sōtheir. The form is dog-faced and the entire body is of a curled-up serpent (κυνοπροσώπου τὸ δὲ σῶμα πᾶν ὄφεως σπειροειδές),114 being seating upon a pedestal. It governs illnesses (παθῶν) extant around the innards. Therefore, engrave this one upon a dryite stone and then place it beneath a wormwood plant. Enclose it in whatever you wish and wear it while avoiding the stomach of a white sow. First decan of Leo: This one has the name Chnoumos. The form is lion-faced (and) has solar rays (λέοντος πρόσωπον ἀκτίνας ἔχον ἡλιακάς). The entire body is a curled-up serpent ascending upwards. It governs over pains of the heart. Therefore, engrave this one upon an agate stone and then place it beneath an edelweiss plant. Enclose it in whatever you wish and wear it while avoiding the eggs of songbirds.

The structure of these individual treatments of the decans can be organized into six different components. First, a heading presents the decan in relationship to its zodiacal sign.115 Second, the name of the decan is given.116 Although the SBHA does not completely conform to any particular Egyptian decan list, individual names do intermittently correspond to older lists like the Seti I B series.117 Third, the form (μορφὴν) of the decan 112 As Adamson points out, in the SBHA the decans are never attributed fault in humans contracting illnesses and afflictions. Instead, suffering is that which is “necessary” (δεῖ) to endure due to the zodiacal signs. As he writes “[t]he zodiac brings about suffering, which the decans heal” (“Astrological Medicine in Gnostic Traditions,” 350). 113 For more on decanal amulets, see Florent Heintz, “A Greek Silver Phylactery in the MacDaniel Collection,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112 (1996), 295–300; Attilio Mastrocinque, From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism. Studein und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 24 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), esp. 173–83; Maria Grazia Lancellotti, “Médicine et religion dans les gemmes magiques,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 218 (2001), 427–56; von Lieven, “Reihe” (see n. 18). 114 Cf. Ruelle (“Le Livre Sacré sur les Décans,” p. 259) who renders this phrase “la forme d’un (home) à visage de chien et tout le corps en spirale d’un serpent.”  115 E.g., Κριοῦ πρῶτος δεκανός; Δεύτερος δεκανός; Τρίτος δεκανός are the headings for the first three decans, with this pattern continuing throughout the rest of the text (i.e., the fourth decan thus reads Ταύρου πρῶτος δεκανός). 116 This is always done with the form “This (decan) has the name NN” (οὗτος ὄναμα ἔχει NN). 117 Most notably, the first decan of Cancer (i.e., the star Sirius/Sophet) in SBHA is named Σωθείρ which matches the Egyptian spdt and Hephaestion’s σωθις. Others include the second decan of Gemini,

220 Blake A. Jurgens

is revealed, which includes the type of head or face the decan has (e.g., male/female, lion, serpent, bird, etc.), the sort of body they possess, and their posture as well as any accoutrements they might be holding (e.g., a flask, scepter, etc.). Such descriptions recall the pictorial representation of the deified decans found on temple ceilings or walls, as well as those found on certain astrological boards (i.e., the Grand tablets).118 Fourth, the body part over which the decan has dominion (κυριεύει) is listed. Fifth, instructions are given for the carving of the amulet, the type of plant to place it beneath, and the wearing of the amulet.119 Sixth, a final quip instructs the reader to avoid (ἀπεχόμενος) eating a certain food in conjunction with the wearing of their amulet.120 The combination of some Egyptian decan names, iconographical descriptions matching Egyptian pictorial representations of the decans, along with its Hermetic context and focus on iatromathematics suggests that the SBHA was composed in Roman Egypt sometime during the first few centuries of the Common Era.121 In terms of its general linguistic structure and content, the melothesia of TSol 18:4–40 shows a substantial amount of semblance to the SBHA. Just as the SBHA in its introductory section explicitly situates the decans within its overarching zodiacal structure, so too the TSol 18:4 configures its decans in relationship to the zodiac. Manuscripts of the Testament fitting into McCown’s longer recension – which as we have already seen usually shows a greater acquaintance with astrological jargon and concepts – explicate the structural relationship of the decans with the zodiac even more pronouncedly. Like the De duodecim signorum decanis and the SBHA, each decan in the Vienna Papyrus is introduced by a header naming the zodiacal sign of the decan and its position within that

which in SBHA is named Οὐαρί which appear to match the Egyptian w’rt and ουαρε, and the third decan of Aries (SHRA: Σικέτ; Egyptian: sȝ ḳd; Hephaestion: σικετ). 118 For example, the iconography of the first decan of Leo Chnoumos (the thirteenth decan) matches the iconography found on Chnoumos/Chnoubis gems, including leonine head with protruding sun-rays and the curled serpentine body, and its place as the first sign of Leo. For a survey, see Mastrocinque, From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism, 61–93; Véronique Dasen and Árpád M. Nagy, “Le serpent léontocéphale Chnoubis et la magie de l’époque romaine impériale,” Anthropozoologica 47 (2012), 1–25. 119 Normally with the form “Therefore, engrave this/it upon a stone of X” (γλύψον οὖν τοῦτον ᾳὐτὸν ἐν λίθῳ X) although some minor variations occasionally occur. After describing the engraving process, the phrase “and having placed (it) beneath a plant of X” (καὶ ὑποθεις βοτάνην Χ) begins the next subsection. Finally, this section concludes with the phrase “and wear it” (καὶ φόρει) or the longer “enclose (it) in whatever you wish and wear it” (κατάκλεισον ᾧ βούλει καὶ φόρει). 120 The command not to eat (μὴ φαγεῖν) only appears in some sections (e.g., decan 3 of Taurus) and is implied in most cases. 121 Not to mention that a number of other Hermetic texts refer the decans in similar ways (e.g., Stobaeus, Excerpt 6, 1.21.9, the Latin Decan List in the Liber Hermetis). For a brief survey, see Florian Ebeling, The Secret History of Hermes: Hermeticism from Ancient to Modern Times. Trans. D. Lorton (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007), 21–23. Among other supporting Egyptian origins for Hermetic writings, see Jean-Pierre Mahé, “Preliminary Remarks on the Demotic “Book of Thoth” and the Greek Hermetica,” VC 50 (1996), 353–63; idem, Hermès en haute-Egypte. Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 3 and 7 (2 vols.; Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1978–82); Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986)

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 221

sign.122 In MS N of the Testament not only is every individual decanal testimony prefaced by a rubric stating the zodiacal sign which contains the decan and the decan’s specific place within that zodiacal sign (in degrees), but the Egyptian month corresponding to that zodiac is also given.123 Besides possessing similar headings, the Testament and the SBHA both treat their individuals decans in step-by-step formulaic fashion, respectively revealing the name of the decan, their domain of influence, and finally the appropriate cure associated with that decan.124 In turn, like the SBHA and a number of other Egyptian astrological texts, the Testament begins its catalogue of decans with the first decan of Aries. Another somewhat more idiosyncratic example of decanal melothesia coming out of Roman Egypt is the Apocryphon of John, a pseudepigraphic Sethian Gnostic text preserved in four Coptic manuscripts in two recensions (long and short) originally composed sometime around the middle of the second-century CE.125 The entire composition 122 For example, frgs. c+d line 15 (TSol 18:37) contains the phrase ὑδριχόου δεκανὸς γ “Aquarius Decan 3” and the next decan (frgs. c+d line19; TSol 18:38) is preceded by ἰχθύος [δεκανὸς] α “Pisces [Decan] 1.” 123 For example, decans 4–6 (TSol 18:8–10) respectively possess the headings: πάχο ταύρου ἀπὸ πρώτου ἕως δεκάτου (“Pachom [Decan] of Taurus from one until ten”); πάχο ταυρίου β ἕως κ (“Pachom [Decan] 2 of Taurus until twenty”) and πάχο ταύρου γ ἕως λ (“Pachom [Decan] 3 of Taurus until thirty”). The Egyptian months used by MS N match up to the calendrical areas of the zodiacal figures. It is important to note that because the Egyptian civic calendar consisted of twelve, 30-day months (=360 days plus one supplementary five-day week) it follows that the zodiac and the Egyptian calendar are incompatible in terms of keeping accurate time. However, the Egyptian calendar still remained a prominent feature of Egyptian astrology and continued to be used both alongside the Julian months and without them. One other element of TSol 18:4–40 which emphasizes its overarching astrological structure is TSol 18:6 where the second decan Barasafael states “I cause men who reside in my time period to have pains on the sides of their heads” (trans. Duling, “Testament” [see n. 1]). The Greek text of McCown’s recension A reads τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ μου κειμένους while MSS N and P read nearly the same with MS N omiting the τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. While Duling’s translation of ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ μου is not wrong (cf. also Busch, Testament [see n. 68], 224: “Zeitabschnitt”) the nuance here is that those “residing” (cf. the similar use κειμένους in reference to Aquarius in TSol 2:2–4) in the “hour” are those under the astrological jurisdiction of Barasafael, i.e., located within his zodiacal degrees. For an example of a similar termenological use of “hour,” see Manilius, Astronomica, 4.577, 597. 124 Cf. also the De duodecim signorum decanis which as I showed earlier also possesses a rigid formulaic approach to the decans which is similar to that of the Testament. 125 Karen King places the initial composition of the Apocryphon in a school setting in second-century Alexandria, citing its acquaintance with and denigration of Jewish traditions, its use of Platonism and Christianity (cf. Basilides and Valentinus), and numerous parallels to Egyptian religion, along with its circulation all around Egypt. See The Secret Revelation to John (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 9–21. Cf. Régine Charron, “‘Apocryphon of John’ (NHC II, 1) and the Graeco-Egyptian Alchemical Literature,” VC 59 (2005), 438–56. Text and translation of the three Nag Hammadi manuscripts and the Berlin manuscript are found in Michael Waldstein and Frederik Wisse, The Apocryphon of John. Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). A number of scholars view Ireneaus’ reference to material found in the Apocryphon in his Against the Heresies (1.29) as a rough terminus ante quem of the Greek text underlying the Coptic translations (i.e., c. 180 CE). However, because Ireneaus’ references to the Apocryphon (or, as he calls it, the Secret Book of John) are limited to one section, it is not conclusive whether he possessed an entire copy of one of the recensions of the Apocryphon, or merely possessed material later subsumed into the Apocryphon.

222 Blake A. Jurgens

is framed as Christ’s post-mortem revelation to John concerning the creation and structure of cosmos. In the section on the creation of Adam, the chief ruler Yaltaboath and the planetary powers join together to shape Adam’s psychic body, with each planetary power associated with one layer of Adam’s non-physical body.126 Following the initial, layered creation of Adam’s psychic body, the longer recension of the Apocryphon states that the angels attended to Adam, receiving the seven portions of his psychic body in order to “create the proportions of the limbs, and the proportions of the trunk, and the proper working together of each of the parts” (NHC II,1 15.26–29). As this statement suggests, the next section presents these “angels”, each of whom is responsible for a specific “part” (ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ) of Adam. In total, seventy-two names are listed here, with their domains proceeding from the head to the toes: The first one began to create the head. Eteraphaope-Abron created his (i.e., Adam’s) head; Meniggesstroeth created the brain; Asterechmen (created) the right eye; Thaspomocham (created) the left eye; Yeronumos (created) the right ear; Bissoum (created) the left ear; Akioreim (created) the nose… (NHC II,1 15.29–35)

The list proceeds in homologous fashion through the next sixty-five names. In his analysis of the decan names, Joachim Quack notes that most of these names share only rough correspondences with those found on Egyptian decan lists such as those of Hephaestion or the Grand astrological tables.127 Despite this, the fact that these angels 126 Long Recension: NHC II.1.14.24–19.10; IV.1.23.2–29.18. Short Recension: NHC III.22.1–23.19; BG 8502.2 48.6–51.1. More specifically, the first power “Goodness” creates the “bone-soul” (ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲛ̅ⲕⲁⲥ) while the second power “Providence” contributes the “sinew-soul” (ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲩⲧ ́) with the next five all adding the next successive layer to the psychic body (i.e., flesh, morrow, blood, tooth, hair). For more on the planetary rulers here, see Andrew J. Welburn, “The Identity of the Archons in the ‘Apocryphon of John’,” VC 32 (1978), 241–54. For an in-depth look at the construction of Adam’s psychic body in the Apocryphon and its relationship to Platonism (esp. the Timaeus) and other Gnostic texts, see Roel van den Broek, “The Creation of Adam’s Psychic Body in the Apocryphon of John,” in idem and M.J. Vermaseren (ed.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions: presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 91 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 38–57. 127 Joachim Quack, “Dekane und Gliedervergottung: Altägyptische Traditionen im Apokryphon Johannis,” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 38 (1995), 97–122. On pp. 114–20 Quack analyzes about half of the names from the Apocryphon. A number of these names, he argues, bear some connection to older decan names or other Egyptian deities, but seem to have been distorted in transmission. For example, Quack reads the name ⲑⲁⲥⲡⲟⲙⲭⲁ (NHC II,1 15.33) mentioned in the example I present above as a perversion of the name of the first decan of Gemini rendered by Hephaestion as θοσολκ, stating that the pi was inserted and the me was a misread lambda. Quack ultimately concludes “daß die Dekannamen nicht so sehr den Formen bei Hephaistion entsprechen, der normalerweise die ägyptischen Urbilder am treuesten bewahrt. Näherstehend sind Formen des Frimicus Maternus, der hermetiscehn Tradition, des Testamentum Salomonis, und gelegentlich auch die magischen Nomina barbara” (p. 120). On the same page, Quack concludes that the decan names here were “nicht unmittelbar” derived from an Egyptian tradition, but rather were transmitted via the medium of hermetic traditions. Like the Testament, many of these names bear Greek and Semitic linguistic characteristics. See Howard M. Jackson, “The Origin in Ancient Incantatory “Voces Magicae” of Some Names in the Sethian Gnostic System,” VC 43 (1989), 69–79.

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 223

number seventy-two (i.e., 36 × 2) has led some scholars to postulate that these “angels” are actually decans who are organized in pentads (i.e., five-day increments) rather than in decades.128 The use of seventy-two decans is not unprecedented by any means. One of the Oxyrhynchus papyri (P. Oxy 465) divides the zodiac into seventy-two decans.129 In addition, P. Oxy 465 also proportions its seventy-two decans by the twelve months of the Egyptian calendar, a feature also seen in MS N of the Testament. Grant Adamson suggests that the use of pentads in P. Oxy 465 may reflect a combination of the thirty-six decans with the thirty-six horoscopoi, a trait which he claims may also be extant in Porphyry and Iamblichus.130 In his analysis of the melothesia of the Apocryphon, Joachim Quack ultimately deduces that seventy-two entities the Apocryphon echoes older Egyptian iatromathematical ideas, including the role of the decans as divine powers of healing and illness, and Egyptian deification of parts of the human body.131

128 E.g., Zlatko Pleše, Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative and Cosmology in the Apocryphon of John. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 52 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), esp. 180–81, 204–10. The appearance of seventy-two rulers is not uncommon in Gnostic literature. The Epistle of Eugnostos (NHC III,3) parallels the processional hierarchy of creation to the temporal schema of reality, both which include the seventy-two powers. In NHC III,3 82.7–84.11 the cosmos emanates from the First Begetter, to the Savior, and then to the twelve powers (six male and six female) who altogether bear seventy-two powers, each of those which beget five powers, totaling three-hundred and sixty powers. This cosmological procession of creation is reflected in the structure of time in which Time (=the First Begetter) and the Year (=the Savior) are divided into increments of months (twelve powers) and days (three-hundred sixty total powers) as well as hours and minutes (lesser emanating spirits). The Apocryphon of John is comparable in the fact that it’s seventy-two decans alongside the other angels and archons number a total of three-hundred and sixty-five (NHC II,1 19.2–10). On the Origins of the World (NHC II,5 104.35–105.19) mentions the seventy-two gods over the seventy-two languages of humans (cf. P. Oxy 465 which also calls its seventy-two powers “gods”). The first Apocalypse of James depicts James speaking with the Lord regarding the archons and the hebdomad. The Lord corrects James and states that there are twelve hebdomads (not seven), out of which proceed seventy-two powers which are distributed everywhere by the twelve archons (NHC V,3 25.10–27.12). Cf. also the Gospel of Judas which mentions the ruler seventy-two luminaries. Cf. also PGM 1.195–222 which describes itself as a prayer of deliverance for the first-begotten and firstborn god and describes it as the one who has established the decans, archangels, and many other angels. 129 Text and translation from Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part III (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903), 126–37. The editors date the manuscript paleographically to the late-second century CE but suggest that the content could be older. Only eight of the total seventy-two pentads appear on the fragmentary manuscript. 130 Adamson, “Gods” (see n. 43), 65–67. Adamson derives this theory from the fact that both Porphyry and Iamblichus treat the decans and horoscopes as separate categories, and in other places (notably, P. Lond. 98) the number seventy-two is associated with decans and horoscopes. 131 Quack, “Dekane” (see n. 127). For Quack’s position on the seventy-two decans, see pp. 101–04. In a later article, Quack addresses the attribution in the Apocryphon of the melothesia section to the Book of Zoroaster, arguing that this Book of Zoroaster was most likely an astrological treatise which could have been composed in Egypt, perhaps by Egyptian-born Persians. See “Les Mages Égyptianisés? Remarks on Some Surprising Points in Supposedly Magusean Texts,” JNES 65 (2006), 267–82. Here as well, Quack affirms that the Adamic melothesia is “definitely in an Egyptian context” (p. 272).

224 Blake A. Jurgens

In terms of its appropriation of decanal melothesia, the Testament bears significantly more structural resemblance to the SBHA than the Apocryphon. The Apocryphon never explicitly equates its seventy-two decans with illness or maladies, and linguistically is more terse, offering only the names of the decans and their matching body parts. Moreover, while the Testament and the SBHA both depict the decans primarily as powers dictating human existence, the Apocryphon depicts its decans as generative forces within its cosmological hierarchy responsible for the construction of Adam’s psychic body.132 Be that as it may, the overall outlook regarding the decans found in the Apocryphon actually comes much closer to the portrayal of the astral decans as dangerous demonic entities in the Testament. As Adamson rightfully points out, both the Testament and the Apocryphon view their respective decans not as benevolent or ambiguous beings meant to be praised or appeased by means of decanal amulets or ritual invocations, but instead conceive of them as dangerous and malicious entities who need to be thwarted by invoking the powers superseding them.133 Just as the Apocryphon follows its lists of seventy-two decans and the thirty energies by revealing two sets of seven powers which hold authority over them (NHC II,1 17.7, 29–30), so too the Testament presents its thirty-six decans as destructive demons who are to be defeated by the superior power of the names and rituals revealed there.134 Furthermore, much like the Testament, the names of the decans in the Apocryphon do not represent any ancient Egyptian decan list and instead consist of a hodgepodge of voces magicae of Semitic, Greek, and Egyptian phonetic components. In fact, as Quack notes, a couple of the decan names in the Testament even correspond to names found in the decan list of the Apocryphon.135 Besides showing a number of parallels to decanal melothesia produced in Egypt, another characteristic of the Testament which resonates with Egypt is the sorts of magical means it prescribes for thwarting these decanal spirits. Although the decan names of the Testament find no true parallels in any astrological manuals or texts, the same cannot be said for the names and rituals given to Solomon to stymie these demons. 132 In many ways, the general position of the seventy-two decans in the Apocryphon within the emanations of the cosmological hierarchy is close to that seen in the Pistis Sophia. For example, in the introduction in Book 1.1 the author writes of the luminaries who arose from the begotten ones, as well as “their archons and their powers and their lords and their archangels and their angels and their decans and their ministers and all the house of their spheres and al the ranks of each one of them.” See also 1.8, 43; 2.93; 3.131; 4.136. Text and transaltion by Carl Schmidt and Violet Macdermot, Pistis Sophia (Leiden: Brill, 1978). See also Erin Evans, The Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia as Handbooks to Eternity: Exploring the Gnostic Mysteries of the Ineffable. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 52–55, 105–106, 168. 133 Adamson, “Medicine” (see n. 108), 350–52. In addition, Adamson notes that the Testament also is similar insofar as it emphasizes verbal apotropaic methods of counteracting the demonic decans. 134 This also fits the general trajectory of the Testament, which in a couple of places in various manuscripts proclaims itself to be the first-hand account of the renowned exorcist Solomon recounting both the identities and dastardly deeds of the demons as well as demonically-revealed methods by which they are defeated (e.g., TSol 1.00; 15.13–15). 135 He associates the decan name Belbel (TSol 18:12) with the name ⲃⲁⲗⲃⲏⲗ in the Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1 16.10) noting also the names βαλβηλ in PGM IV.1010 and βελβαλι in PGM XIII.75. In addition, Quack compares ⲉⲩⲁⲛⲑⲏⲛ in NHC II,1 16.7 to Enautha in TSol 18:27. See Quack, “Dekane” (see n. 127), 115

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 225

On the one hand, a number of the apotropaic names and phrases given by the thirty-six decans to Solomon are more or less standard fare within the parlance of Greco-Roman magic. For example, the first several names given by the decanal demons which cause them to flee are angelic (e.g. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael), most of them fairly common across the ancient Mediterranean (TSol 18:5–13).136 Likewise, the names presented by decans 9 through 14 possess general parallels in Gnostic literature, various magical handbooks, not the least of which includes the Greek Magical Papyri, and on numerous amulets.137 One especially interesting example is that of the eleventh decan: The eleventh said, “I am called Katanikotael.138 I send forth fights and wrongful acts in homes and I cause severities (μάχας καὶ ἀδικίας κατ’ οἴκους ποιῶ καὶ σκληρίας).139 If someone wishes to restore peace, let them write upon seven laurel leaves (γραψάτο εἰς ἑπτὰ φύλλα δάφνης) the name of the angel who thwarts me, and these are the names (τὸ ὄναμα τοῦ καταργοῦτος με ἀγγελου καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα): ‘Iae, Ieo, sons of Sabaoth,140 by means of the name of the great God (ἰαὲ ἰεώ υἱοὶ σαβαὼθ διὰ τὸ ὄναμα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ),141 imprison Katanikotael’ and having doused (πλύνας) the laurel leaves in water,

136 Besides the names mentioned above, decans 1–7 are also thwarted by Ouriel (a variation of Uriel), Ourouel (another variation of Uriel), Sabael, and Arael (i.e., Ariel). The only one of these names which is not attested widely in the ancient world is Sabael (Σαβαὴλ) which appears in all manuscripts as the power to combat the decan Sphendonael. Most of the occurrences of this name appear in objects or texts coming out of Egypt. One example is a haematite gem, dated to the first- to the fifth-centuries CE, which depicts Helios surrounded by the names μιχαηλ σαβαη[λ ρ]αφαηλ. See Campbell Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Greco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950), 291. In a Coptic tractate containing a series of protective incantations a series of angelic names are listed, including Sabael who is said to be “over the good” and Adonael who is “the one who is over the coming in of the father and his going forth.” See the translation by Marvin Meyer in idem and R. Smith (ed.), Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), 133–46. The eighth name, Karael (καραήλ) which thwarts the decan Belbel, appears in MSS H and L while MS P reads ἀραήλ again. 137 The name Iaoth (᾿Ιαώθ) which counters the ninth decan (Kourtael) appears a few times in the Greek Magical Papyri (e.g., PGM V.459–89; cf. XLVII.1–17) and is one of the archon found in the Apo­ cryphon of John (see Welburn, “The Identity of the Archons in the ‘Apocryphon of John’”). The name Adonael (MS P: ᾿Αδωναήλ) which thwarts the tenth decan (Metathiax) appears in a few Egyptian manuscripts, as attested by Erik Peterson, “Engel- und Dämonennamen. Nomina Barbara,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Neue Folge 75 (1926), 393–421 (see p. 394). Similarly, the thirteenth decan Phobothel is defeated by the name Adonai (᾿Αδωναί̈) which appears frequently in the Greek Magical Papyri (e.g., PGM V.481; VII.973–80; VIII.61; X.36–50, etc.) as well as on a number of Egyptian amulets (e.g., CBd-395 which depicts Horus, Isis, and Nephthys on the front, with the inscription ᾿Αδωναί̈ on the back). 138 MS N reads κανικοταιήλ and both MSS H and L differ as well. 139 Ctr. MSS H and L which read μάχας καὶ αὐθαδείας κατ’ οἴκους “fights and stubornnesses (?) in homes” and omit the last clause. 140 As Duling points out, Sabaoth, said to beget Death in On the Origins of the World II,5 106, subsequently begets the seven androgynous authorities who themselves create the forty-nine demons whose names are said to be found in the “Book of Solomon” (Duling, “Testament” [see n. 1], 979 fn. a2). For more on this section and Solomon’s place in Egyptian Gnosticism, see Jacques van der Vliet, “Solomon in Egyptian Gnosticism,” in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect, Themes in Biblical Narrative 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 197–218 (esp. 201–4). 141 MSS H and L vary slightly in their individual renderings of the voces magicae and both terminate the phrase after Sabaoth.

226 Blake A. Jurgens let him or her sprinkle their house with water from the inside to the outside, and immediately I go away.” (TSol 18:15; MSS P and N)142

The names Iae, Ieo, and Sabaoth were some of the most prominent voces magicae in the ancient Mediterranean, and as such are especially profuse among Gnostic texts, various papyri, and ritual objects coming from Egypt.143 Both Iao and Sabaoth appear in the archon list in the Apocryphon – as does the name Iaoth (TSol 18:13) in the Berlin Codex – and other lists of the seven archons attest to Iao and Sabaoth as well.144 The Greek Magical Papyri of Greco-Roman Egypt frequently utilize these names in ritual formulae, often appearing altogether alongside other Semitic-sounding voces magicae.145 One of the Oxyrhynchus papyri (P. Oxy 1152), dated to the fifth- or sixth-centuries, beseeches among other names “Adonaei, Iao Sabaoth” to “Come aid (βοήθι) us and this house”,146 and several Egyptian amulets do much the same, often placing some or all of these names alongside other angelic names and iconographic representations of Egyptian deities such as Anubis.147 Like in TSol 18:15, Iao, Sabaoth, and variations of the two names often appear in near proximity to one another.148 Besides the names listed in TSol 18:15, the ritual itself – inscribing laurel leaves, dampening them, and then ritually washing an area – is also found in a number of magical manuals, including in the Greek Magical Papyri.149 The names Iae, Ieo, and Sabaoth also appear in the next verse (TSol 18:16) of 142 The text and translation here is based primarily on MS P. MS N agrees with nearly everything here, save for a couple minor grammatical changes and the omission of the phrase καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα. 143 The name Iao (ΙΑΩ) served as a Greek rendering of the Tetragrammaton and may have become popular in conjunction with the use of repetitious vowels in numerous spells and incantations. The name Sabaoth also arose out of ancient Judaism and became especially prominent in Gnostic contexts. 144 This includes Ireneaus, Against the Heresies, 1.30.9; Origen, Contra Celsum, 6.31; On the Origins of the World, II,5 100.24–25. See van den Broek, “Creation” (see n. 126). 145 For instance, see the examples provided by Jacco Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites: The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 CE). Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 65, 69, 75–78, 137, 148–50, 172, 253. 146 The full text reads ῾Ωρ ῾Ωρ Φωρ ᾿Ελωεί ᾿Αδωναεί ᾿Ιάω Σαβαώθ Μιχαήλ ᾿Ιεσοῦ Χριστέ Βοήθι ἡμῖν καὶ τούτῳ ὄικῳ ἀμήν. Text by Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part VIII (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1911), 253. 147 For example, see Paula Veiga, “Preliminary Study of an Unusual Graeco-Roman Magical Gem (MNA E540) in the National Museum of Archaeology in Lisbon, Portugal,” in K. Griffin (ed.), Current Research in Egyptology 2007: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Symposium Swansea University 2007 (Oxford: Oxbow, 2008), 141–50. The first part of the obverse of the amulet reads “Ouriel Raphael Razoiel Gabriel Chakriel Michael Saripha Iao.” The reverse contains images of Anubis, Akephalos, a man, Harpocrates, and Abrasax/the Anguipede. 148 See esp. PGM VII.593–619. The phrase “Iao, Iae, sons of Sabaoth” also appears in TSol 18:16 in some manuscripts. 149 All translations of the Greek Magical Papyri come from Hanz Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spell (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985). Similar rituals with laurel leaves and writing appear in PGM I.262–347; II.1–64; II.64–83 [esp. 65–76]; XIII.734–1047 [esp. 1044–58]). For example, PGM VII.795–845, a spell meant to assist in seeing a dream oracle, instructs the reader to take a branch of laurel (κλάδον δάφνης) and inscribe upon each leaf (ἐπίγραψον εἰς ἕκαστον φύλλον) a sign of the zodiac. Another spell connected to envisioning a dream oracle (PGM VII.1009–16) advises the ritual expert to write the matter they are inquiring about upon laurel leaves and then call upon “Sabaoth, Michael, Raphael and Gabriel” to bring revelation concerning that issue. In turn, the use of laurel leaves to sprinkle water within a ritual context is also

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 227

some manuscripts as well, this time serving as voces magicae meant to be written and worn around the neck, presumably as an amulet.150 Although many of the angelic names and those of Iao and Sabaoth are by no means exclusive to Roman Egypt, at a minimum their presence does suggest that an environment like Roman Egypt is a possible location for the composition of the decan chapter. A more concrete parallel associating the decans of the Testament with Egypt can be found in the ritual invocation of the name Marmaraoth which appears in TSol 18:28 and 33. On the one hand, like Iao and Sabaoth, the name Marmaraoth appears on ritual objects across the Mediterranean and by no means was unique to Roman Egypt.151 That being said, the name is especially prolific in texts and objects found in Egypt. The most notable case of the name Marmaraoth in the Testament comes in 18:28. Much like the beginning of chapter 18, this section shows a number of errors across the manuscripts in their descriptions of the thwarting of the decan Aktomenach;152 like the narrative introduction many of these errors probably stem from the confusion of later copyists. With the help of the Vienna Papyrus, which fortunately preserves portions of TSol 18:27–28, we can reconstruct the minutiae of this particular ritual: ὁ τέταρτος καὶ εἰκοστὸς ἔφη.153 Ἐγώ κύριε ῥήξ Ἀκτωμενὰχ καλοῦμαι. πλευρὰς καὶ ψόας ἀλγεῖν ποῖω. ἐάν τις γράψῃ154 εἰς ὕλην ἐν ἥλῳ χαλκῷ ἀπὸ νηὸς155 ἀστοχήσασης “Ἀρνίου Μαρμαραώθ Σαβαώθ, διώξατε156 Ἀκτωμενάχ”157 καὶ περιάψῃ τῷ ἰσχίῳ, εὐθὺς ἀναχωρῶ. found in PGM V.172–212 – a spell for catching a thief – where the ritual performer is instructed to fill a faience with water, myrrh and a snapdragon and then wet a branch of laurel in order to cleanse the ritual objects necessary for the ritual. The use of laurel in rituals of divination or dream oracles has its roots in Apollo and the Pythian Oracle (cf. the Hymn to Apollo in the Homeric Hymns; the story of Daphne in Ovid, Metamorphoses, 1.452ff.). 150 MSS H and L both depict the decan Saphthorael prescribing Solomon to “write these (words)” (γράψει ταῦτα) “Iae, Ieo, sons of Sabaoth” with MS H adding that these names are to be worn around the neck (φορεῖ ἐν τῷ τραχήλῳ; omit MS L). MS P contains the longer section prescribing the writing of the names “Iaeo, Ieilo, Ioelet Sabaoth Ithoth Bae” upon papyrus and then hanging it around the neck. 151 The name itself probably derived from the Aramaic word ‫“ מר‬Lord” and may mean (or at least was intended to mean at one point) “Lord of Lords”. For examples of it on ritual objects outside of Egypt, see Rou Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae Part I. Published Texts of Known Provenance. Papyrologica Coloniensia 22/1; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994, Amulets no. 48 and 52. 152 ᾿Ακτωμενὰχ appears only in the Vienna Papyrus, but seems to be the correct rendering of the name. MSS P and N both contain ακτομεν while MSS H reads ακτονμε and MS L κτονμε. 153 Per usual, the Vienna papyrus lists the decan’s relationship to the zodiac (“decan 3 of Scorpio”) rather than the ordinal number. 154 MSS H and L have γράφει; MS P and N read γλύψη “engrave” which is the verb appearing in the SBHA and other texts describing the inscription of decanal gems and amulets. The oldest manuscript, the Vienna Papyrus, possesses γράψῃ which seems most likely, as it fits the grammatical context. That being said, it seems at least some of the scribes behind MSS N and P were acquainted enough with the ritual of amulet or gem engraving to know the most common verb for the process. 155 MSS P and N: πλοίου. Vienna Papyrus: νηὸς. 156 MSS P and N render the verb here as a singular imperative δίωξον rather than a plural, suggesting that these scribes considered these names to refer to a single angelic being rather than three, as suggested by the grammar of the Vienna Papyrus. 157 MS H reads only ἀερίου Μαρμαραώθ and omits the rest.

228 Blake A. Jurgens The twenty-fourth said, “I, Lord King, am called Aktomenach. I cause the ribs and loins158 to suffer pain. If someone should write upon a piece of wood with a copper nail from a ship which has run aground159 ‘Arniou, Marmaraoth, Sabaoth, make Aktomenax leave,’ and fasten it upon the hip, I immediately go away.” (TSol 18:28; text and translation my own).160

Like the other decans in TSol 18, Aktomenach gives his name, the bodily affliction he causes, and the ritual cure for his afflictions – inscribing the words “Arniou, Marmaraoth, Sabaoth, make Aktomenax leave” on a piece of wood with a nail from a shipwrecked ship, and then wearing it as a protective amulet. The use of objects from shipwrecks occurs occasionally in the Greek Magical Papyri.161 This includes the use of nails taken from a wrecked ship: Excellent love charm: Inscribe by scratching on a tin lamella the characters and the names, and after making it magically potent with some magical material, roll it up and throw it into the sea. The characters are these: “[series of magical characters] ichanarmenthochasar cause her, NN, to love me” (add the usual). Write with a copper nail from a shipwrecked vessel (γράφε ἐν ἥλῳ κυπρίνῳ ἀπὸ πλ[ο]ίου νεναυαγηκότος). (PGM VII.462–660).

Much like TSol 18:28, this love spell prescribes the rare use of a wrecked ship’s nail for the inscription of a ritual object. Not only does the Greek Magical Papyri possess a similar instruction for the epigraphic use of shipwreck nails, but later in the same manuscript we witness another shipwreck ritual, this one invoking Marmorouth, a variant of Marmaraoth: Take a [lamp], not painted red, with seven wicks, and make a wick of [the hawser of] a wrecked ship. On the [1st] wick write with myrrh “Iao”; on the 2nd “Adonai”; on the 3rd “Sabaoth”; on the 4th “Pagoure”; on the 5th “Marmorouth”; on the 6th “Iaeo”; on the 7th “Michael.” (PGM VII.594–99).

MSS H and L omit “and loins.” This particular sentence seems to have stupefied later scribes, and as is the text and translation are both plausible restorations and should be read as such. The text is rendered as follows: MS H: ἐν οἴλο ἀπὸ πλοίου ἀστολίσαντος; MS L: ἐν ἡλίω [MS L omits everything from this point until ἀναχωρῶ, further suggesting the difficulties facing the scribe]; MS P: ἐν ὕλῃ χαλκοῦ ἀπὸ πλοίου ἀστοχήσαντος; MS N: the same as MS P except ὕλο for ὕλῃ; Vienna Papyrus frgs. a+b: εἰς [...] ἀπὸ νηὸς ἀσ[τοχή­σ]α[ση]ς. The respective readings of MS H and MS L of οἴλο and ἡλίω make no sense; it seems likely that later scribes conflated ὕλη “wood” with the similar looking word ἧλος “nail”, thus combing them together. This also might explain why MS P has the idiosyncratic reading “on wood of copper from a shipwrecked ship.” The lacuna in the Vienna Papyrus is said by Daniel to be around 25 letters long. My restoration of εἰς ὕλην ἐν ἥλῳ χαλκῷ here would consist of 14 letters, which suggests that another additional adjective may have existed here describing either the nail or the type of wood used. Daniel, “Testament” (see n. 5), 300, suggests a similar restoration of the texts. Another option which would perhaps fill the lacuna more fully would be that the word “wood” was never actually part of the spell and is simply a product of later scribes confusing the word for “nail” with the more common word for “wood.” In this case, older manuscripts would have theoretically contained a ritual object, such as a metallic lamella, which would have housed the inscription with the nail. Unfortunately, the lacuna of the Vienna Papyrus obstructs any attempts to reconstruct this further. 160 This text is based primarily on the Vienna Papyrus in conjunction with MSS N and P. 161 For example, PGM V.54–69 offers a vision spell which instructs its performer to anoint their right eye with “water from a shipwreck” or, in case of no available shipwrecks, water from a sunken skiff. 158 159

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 229

This particular spell, meant to invoke these seven “masters” and “great gods” to fetch and tame an unmanageable woman, uses the rope of a wrecked ship as wicks, each of which are dedicated to a divine being.162 Like TSol 18:28, both Marmaraoth/Marmorouth and Sabaoth are invoked in conjunction with a shipwreck ritual. Outside of PGM VII.594–99 and TSol 18:28, no other known spells have been found which simultaneously invoke Marmaraoth while utilizing items procured from a shipwreck. It is thus entirely possible that the author of the decan chapter was familiar with such a ritual attributed to Marmaraoth as seen in the Greek Magical Papyri, a ritual without precedent outside of Roman Egypt.163 Besides Marmaraoth and his ritual connection to wrecked ships, a couple other decanal cures which appear in the Testament have parallels which have exclusive ties to Roman Egypt. In TSol 18:29 the decan Anatreth is countered by the words ἀραρὰ ἀραρή according to MSS H and L, but in MSS N and P the incantatory phrase is instead rendered αραραχαραρα. To my knowledge, the only occasions where this palindromic name appears in any other Greco-Roman magical texts is in the Greek Magical Papyri.164 In TSol 18:38 the thirty-fourth decan Autoth is said to be thwarted by “the Alpha and Omega written down” (τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὠμέγα γραφόμενα)165 which could reflect the attribution 162 More specifically, this spell tells the practitioner to insult each of the seven beings while lighting their wicks (e.g., “Iao does not have ribs”; “Marmorouth was castrated”; “Iaeo was not entrusted with the ark”; etc.) and then to inform them that it was, in fact, “the godless NN” who said such things, presumably infuriating the beings. After asking the gods to fetch and tame her, the spell instructs the user that if the flame on a certain wick flickers, it will signify whether she became daimonically seized (wick 1: Iao), is en route to his homestead (wick 3: Paroure) or within his house (wick 7: Michael). 163 Cf. other mentions of Marmaraoth in PGM I.345–47; XII.72, 187; 290; XLII.7; and the Rossi Gnostic tractate in Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith, Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), 136. 164 The name αραραχαραρα appears in PGM XVI.1–75 where a “daimon of the dead” is adjured by a series of voces magicae, including αραραχαραρα (l. 70), and twice in PGM LXVII.1–24 among other voces magicae. The name also appears in PGM II.100; IV.2850, and in PGM LIX.1–15 in the middle of an even longer palindromic name. For more on palindromes in the Greek Magical Papyri and Greco-Egyptian magic, see Richard Gordon, “Shaping the Text: Innovation and Authority in Graeco-Egyptian Malign Magic,” in H.F.J. Horstmanshoff, H.W. Singor, F.T. van Straten, and J. H. M. Strubbe (ed.), Kykeon: Studies in Honour of H. S. Versnel, Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 142 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 69–112 (esp. 85–97). As Gordon states, while palindromes and other forms of pictorial spell writing came to Egypt from Hellenistic influences, by the Roman period they became a fairly prominent of Egyptian magic. Another instance where the Testament uses a similar spell-writing style is TSol 18:37, another section which caused many of the scribes (esp. MS H) problems (see esp. Daniel, “Testament” [see n. 5], 302–3; Howard Manning Jackson, “Notes on the Testament of Solomon,” JSJ 19 (1988), 19–60 [see 53–54]). Here the name λυκουργος is written in what is often known as a “heart” or “(grape)cluster” form where one or two letters (i.e., the ones the very front or back of a word) are successively removed, reducing the word until only two letters are left which possess some sort of power. While recension A does not indicate this, MSS P and N both write out the whole process, and the Vienna Papyrus seems to hint at this as well. 165 MSS N and H have Alpha and Beta. Daniel’s restoration of the Vienna Papyrus suggests the Alpha and Omega are the original (τὸ ἄλφα κ[αὶ] τὸ [ὠμέγα γραφόμενα ἅ ἐσ]τι ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος) although this is just conjecture (Daniel, “Testament” [see n. 5], 299). The use of Alpha and Omega to defeat the decan could also simultaneously reflect early Christian uses of these letters as a form of apotropaic power.

230 Blake A. Jurgens

of certain letters to decans as seen primarily in Teucer of Babylon. The eighteenth decan (TSol 18:22) proclaims to be thwarted by whomever “writes the names of the eight fathers” (γράφει τῶν ὀκτὼ πατέρων τὰ ὀνόματα) and places them in the doorstops of their house. As already suggested by Gundel,166 the apotropaic use of the names of the “eight fathers” could be an allusion to the Ogdoad.167 In ancient Egyptian cosmogonies, the Ogdoad is a cohort of four pairs of male/female deities manifesting primeval matter and the created world.168 Under the influence of Greek philosophy, these eight deities became integrated into Platonically-infused hierarchical cosmologies as generative powers associated with the four elements.169 This cosmological adoption of the Ogdoad is most apparent in Egyptian texts such as the Hermetic Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth, the Eugnostos, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and the Sophia of Jesus Christ.170 The names of the Ogdoad are listed twice in the Greek Magical Papyri (here called “the eight guards”) in relationship to the power of their controlling deity.171 Another detail of note is the addi Gundel, Dekane (see n. 6), 58. One difficulty with this reading is that both MSS P and N have τῶν σῶν πατέρων “of your fathers” instead of τῶν ὀκτὼ πατέρων, and MS L also has a problem with ὀκτὼ and reads ἕξη instead. The “names of your fathers” are taken by MSS P and N to be the names of the patriarchs, as seen in the additional ending to TSol 18:22 which is found in these manuscripts (indicated by italics): “if you write the names of your fathers on papyrus (ἐν χάρτῃ; not in MSS H and L) and place them in the doorstops of your house, then I leave. And the epigraph is this: The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob commands you ‘Flee from this house peacefully.’ Immediately I leave.” If this is the original reading, it is not without parallels in the Greek Magical Papyri, as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is invoked a number of times, often in conjunction with Iao Sabaoth (e.g., PGM XII.287; XIII.815–18; XXV.15; LXXXIII.1–20). See esp. PGM IV.1227–64 where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is hailed, along with Jesus Chrestos, the Holy Spirit, and the Seven to bring Iao Sabaoth to drive out a demon. 168 See, for example Leonard H. Lesko, “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmology,” in B.E. Shafer (ed.), Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 88–122; Françoise Dunand and Christiane Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Trans. D. Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004) (esp. 49–50). While the Ogdoad was a fairly old Egyptian concept, evidence such as the Khonsu text from Thebes and the Naos of the Decades show that cosmogonic understandings of the Ogdoad still persisted at least through the Ptolemaic period. See Richard A. Parker and Leonard H. Lesko, “The Khonsu Cosmogony,” in J. Baines, T.G.H. James, A. Leahy, and A.F. Shore (ed.), Pyramid Studies and Other Essays Presented to I.E.S. Edwards (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1988), 168–75; plates 34–37; von Bomhard, Naos (see n. 21), 65–67. The pairs of deities were usually portrayed ichnographically with serpent and frog heads and represented the forces of creation. Thus, Nun and Naunet were equated with the waters, Heh and Hauhet the lack of form, Kuk and Kauket darkness, and Amun and Amunet the air. 169 See Adamson, “Gods” (see n. 43), 68–69. The Ogdoad also at times was used to refer to the supercelestial region above the seven heavens, each of which is inhabited by a particular deity or demon. Cf. Ireneaus, Adv. Haer. 1.29–30. 170 Among others, see van den Broek, “Creation” (see n. 126), esp. 56–60; Douglas M. Parrott, “Gnosticism and Egyptian Religion,” NovT 29 (1987), 73–93; Jean-Pierre Mahé, “A Reading of the Discourse on the Ogdoad and the Ennead (Nag Hammadi Codex VI.6),” in R. van den Broek and W.J. Hanegraaff (ed.), Gnosis and Hermeticism From Antiquity to Modern Times (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998), 79–86; Thomas Gaston, “The Egyptian Background of Gnostic Mythology,” Numen 62 (2015), 389–407. 171 See PGM XIII.734–1077 and XIII.1–29. In the latter, the names of the eight guards are given alongside the mention of the name of their controlling deity being written upon a phylactery. 166 167

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 231

tion found in MSS P and N to TSol 18:31 which states to combat Axiophthith one must adjure him in pure wine as well as “by the eleventh Aeon, saying ‘I adjure you by the eleventh Aeon (κατὰ τοῦ ἐνδεάτου ἐων) to stop Axiophthith.’”172 This invocation could be a reference to the eleventh Aeon of the Dodecad or any other system of Aeons found in Egyptian Gnosticism. Next, while roughly thirty of the decans in TSol 18:4–40 are equated with disease, a feature which matches other earlier Roman Egyptian texts and melothesia, at least six of the decans in the Testament are not associated with any sickness or pain.173 Two of the decans, Belbel (decan 8) and Enautha (decan 26) cause disorder in human hearts and minds.174 The twelfth decan, Saphthorael, casts sedition upon humans (διχοσταςίας ἐμβάλλω τοῖς ἀνθρώποις) and offends them.175 The remaining three decans all cause domestic discord, including fighting within the home (μάχας καὶ αὐθαδείας κατ’ οἴκους; decan 11 [Katanikotael]), the separation of wives from husbands (γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς χωρίζω; decan 18 [Modebel]), and envy and quarreling between loved ones (φθόνους φίλων καὶ μάχας ποιῶ; decan 34 [Autoth]). The association of decans not just with disease but also social bedlam is a common element of Egyptian decanal astrology and horoscopes. Hephaestion in the Apotelesmatika list (2.18.70–6) lists “marriage” (γάμος) and “children” (τέκνα) as two aspects of human life related to the position of horoscopic decans. For each decan, Hephaestion lists whether the person will have a happy marriage, a tumultuous one, or will end up divorced.176 As mentioned before, the horoscopic decanal astrology of Teucer of Babylon also associates decans with particular life events, including marriage: 172 MS N instead of ἐων reads εωλ in the first instance and εω in the second. Busch, Testament (see n. 68), 228, in his commentary claims that MS N renders the reading of MS P “unwahrscheinlich.” 173 These are decans 8, 11, 12, 18, 26, and 34. The two final decans could also be included in this category. Phtheneoth (decan 35) casts the evil eye (βασκαίνω) on human beings and is thwarted by the inscription of “the much-suffering eye” (ὁ πλυπαθὴς ὀφθαλμὸς). The last decan, Mianeth, causes both bodily afflictions (“I hold a grudge [ἐπίφθονός εἰμι] against the body … I cause the flesh to rot [σάρκας ἀφανίζω]”) and demolishes houses (οἴκους ἐρημῶ). Elliott reads decans 34–36 (TSol 18:38–40) as all dealing with the Evil Eye, noting that both decan 34 and 36 deal with φθονός in some capacity, and the name Phtheneoth of decan 35 may be related to the word φθονός. In addition, Elliott cites a variety of amulets which depict Solomon opposing the Evil Eye. See John Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. Volume 3: The Bible and Related Stories (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2016), 86–89. While Elliott’s assessment of Solomonic amulets and interesting observation regarding the role of φθονός is intriguing, his explanation for the Phtheneoth is speculative. 174 Belbel proclaims to distort the hearts and minds of men (καρδίας ἀνθρώπων καὶ φρένας διαστρέψω) while Enautha steals away minds and changes hearts (φρένας ἀποκλέπτω καὶ καρδίας ἀλλοιῶ). MS P adds to Enautha the detail that she also causes toothlessness (νοδὸν [sic νωδὸν] ποιῶ). 175 MS P reads εὐφραίνομαι αὐτοὺς σκανδαλίζων “I take joy scandalizing them.” While MSS H and L read φρένας σκαδαλίζω “I scandalize (their) minds.” 176 For example, in Apotelesmatica 1.1.13–14, those who have the first decan of Aries (Chontare) marking their hour (ὡροσκοποῦντα) will “marry poorly in their early years but in their later years marry well” (δυσγαμεῖν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡλικίᾳ ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ εὐγαμεῖν). Those ruled by the first decan of Gemini (Thosolk) according to Hephaestion “will struggle concerning woman and will take a wife out of love or companionship” (ἀκαταστρατήσει κατὰ γυναῖκα καὶ ἐξ ἔρωτος ἤ φιλίας λήψεται γυναῖκα) (1.1.51).

232 Blake A. Jurgens The first decan of Gemini. The one who has married will not prosper (ὁ γήμας οὐκ εὐτυχήσει), he will not practice (a business), and he will be grieved on account of (his) children. In the second (decan of Cancer). The one who has married will become successful (ὁ γήμας εὐχρηματίσει) and he will take advantage of the deeds of others, and he will be grieved by (his) wife (λυπηθήσεται ὑπὸ γυναικός). In the third (decan of Sagittarius). He produces riches and renown and he will receive an inheritance from (his) wife.177

Similarly, in the lengthy citation of Teucer in Rhetorius, the decans produce a variety of personality traits, ranging from possessing many friends and being well-loved to being abrasive, argumentative, and estranged from family.178 Thus, the mixing of disease-causing decans with discord-causing decans in the Testament matches other descriptions of the activities of decans as described by ancient Egyptian astrologers. Finally, up to this point, the comparison of chapter 18 of the Testament with other Roman Egyptian portrayals of the decans has mostly remained confined to TSol 18:4–40. Many of these observations have centered upon structural, linguistic, or ritualistic similarities shared between the Testament and texts like the SBHA and the Greek Magical Papyri. While such parallels certainly make Roman Egypt a likely location for the composition of the decan chapter, it is arguable whether such evidence adequately satisfies the burden of proof. However, there is one more area which thus far has evaded our analysis – the narrative introduction to the presentation of the thirty-six decans.179 In contrast to TSol 18:4–40 which describes the names, maladies, and cures of each of the thirty-six decans, TSol 18:1 describes the appearances of these decans. First, Solomon narrates that when the thirty-six spirits appeared before him that αἱ κορυφαὶ αὐτῶν ὡς κύνες ἄμορφοι.180 In his translation, Duling renders this phrase “their heads like formless dogs” but only briefly attempts to explain what this means.181 In contrast to Duling’s From the fragments of Teucer from Antiochus of Athens, see CCAG I.149–151. Cf. also the verso of fragment 167 of the Paris Codex gr. 2425 (see CCAG VIII/4.238–39) which also associates the decans with marriage and children. 179 Thus far, no one to my knowledge has attempted to connect the description of the decans’ appearances in TSol 18:1–3 to other iconographic depictions of the decans. In my opinion, there are two reasons which perhaps caused a lapse concerning this detail. First, the emphasis in the last sixty years upon the primacy of the Vienna Papyrus as independent of the rest of the Testament and self-circulating has tended to cause scholars to ignore the introduction and conclusion of TSol 18 as either secondary elements added to supplement the insertion of the older decan catalogue into the Testament, or as mere narratival bookends which scribes like the one who composed the Vienna Papyrus viewed as peripheral and thus omitted in their excerpt of the chapter. Second, the fact that many of the demons in the Testament possess monstrous forms combining various animal and human elements may have caused past interpreters to overlook TSol 18:1–3 as merely following suit with the rest of the vivid demonic depictions found in the Testament rather than providing a specifically catered iconographical description. For a theoretical look at the monstrous forms of the demons in the Testament, see Thomas Scott Cason, “Creature Features: Monstrosity and the Construction of Human Identity in the Testament of Solomon,” CBQ 77 (2015), 263–79. 180 MSS H, N, and P read this, except MSS N and P uses ὡσεὶ in lieu of ὡς. MS L agrees with MS H except replaces αἱ κορυφαὶ with καὶ ἡ κορυφῆ. 181 Duling suggests that this reference to dogs could be an allusion to “watchdogs” i.e., servants of the gods (Duling, “Testament” [see n. 1], 977 fn. b). While ancient Egyptians did at times describe the gods as dogs in relationship to higher deities such as Amon-Re, there is no further evidence here to suggest this reading. 177 178

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 233

translation, Busch in his commentary renders this phrase “ihr Kopf war hässlich und Hunden gleich.”182 Neither of these are entirely satisfactory, although Busch’s use of “hässlich” (“ugly, unsightly”) is to be preferred over “formless.”183 Taking Busch’s lead, a more proper translation would be “their heads (were) like unsightly hounds.” Earlier in the Testament, Solomon encountered the demon Scepter who possessed “the design like a large dog” (τὸ σχῆμα ὡς κύων μέγας; TSol 10:1). However, here the thirty-six spirits are not dog-shaped, but rather possess dog-heads or faces. As noted earlier, ancient Egyptian iconographic representations of the decans often melded animal features (especially heads) with humanoid bodies. This particular reference to dog-heads could suggest one of two decanal figures. First, and least likely of the two options, a number of decanal processions contain what are known as “dog-faced baboons” (Papio cynocephalus). Early in ancient Egyptian religion, the dog-faced baboon was associated with Thoth, Khonsu, and other lunar deities.184 Early Egyptian astronomical diagrams, such as the Seti I Tomb, often include baboon-headed deities such as the god Hapi the son of Osiris, and later menits many times depict dog-headed baboons alongside other decans.185 The second and more likely recipient of the dog-headed description is the god Anubis and various other jackel- or dog-headed decans which frequent many Egyptian temples from the Hellenistic and Roman period. Anubis in particular is especially important in Egyptian astronomy. By the Roman period the star Sothis (Sirius the “dog-star”), which in many decanal systems was the “leader” of the decans, had become associated with Anubis and Hermanubis.186 Zodiacal diagrams, like that of the Dendara Temple and the Grand Tablets, often contain several decans with dog or jackal-heads, and the SBHA describes some of its decans as being “dog-faced” as well.187 This initial reference to dog-faced decans might additionally elucidate the rationale behind the first decan’s name Ruax. As Daniel and others have convincingly argued,188 the name Ruax represents a corruption of the Busch, Testament (see n. 68), 223. Especially since the next section clearly lays out the actual appearances of the stoicheia, thus giving them forms. While the word μορφή does appear a number of times in the Testament to describe the “form” of a demon (e.g., TSol 2:1; 4:2; 13:1; 15:4–5; 15:14; 16:1) the adjective ἄμορφος never appears elsewhere in the Testament. 184 See Geraldine Pinch, Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 113–14. 185 Kákosy, “Decans” (see n. 20), esp. 170, 175. The dog-faced baboon may be identified with the decan Imstj-m-ibw although most ancient decans had fairly fluid iconographic features. Dog-faced baboons also figure on some water-clocks associated with Thoth. 186 Hermanubis was a Roman-era polytheophric god combining Hermes and Anubis. Like Anubis, this god is often depicted with a dog or jackal head. For more on this, including ancient descriptions of the gods, see Amin Benaissa, “The Onomastic Evidence for the God Hermanubis,” in T. Gagos (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2010), 67–76. One must also ask whether the early reference in TSol 18:1 to dog-faced decans may be associated with the name of the first decan “Ruax” (i.e., the Latin Rex) who could potentially represent Sothis/Sirius, the leader of the thirty-six decans. 187 For example, the second decan of Aries (Chontaret or Kau) is said to have κυνοπρόσωπος, as are the third decan of Taurus, the first decan of Cancer, and the first decan of Virgo (κυνὸς ὄψις). In Rhetorius’ longer treatment of Teucer, the first decan of Leo is said to be doglike. 188 Cf. footnote 73 above. 182

183

234 Blake A. Jurgens

Greek transliteration of the Latin rex “king” which occurs commonly in the manuscripts of the Testament. Considering that the first decan in most Egyptian decanal systems was equated with the star Sothis who was often depicted with Anubis-like features and was described as the leader of the decans, it follows then that TSol 18:1–5 may be reflecting this view, giving its first decan the name “King” or “Lord” and offering a physical description of the decans which would iconographically match this particular decan. Besides pointing out the terrible dog-heads of the decans, and perhaps Sothis in particular, the Testament also reveals several other bestial features of these astral demons. MS P describes the proceeding decans as ἀνθρωπόμορφοι ὀνοπρόσωποι βοοοπρόσωποι καὶ πτηνοπρόσωποι “human-formed, donkey-faced, bull-faced, and bird-faced.” As mentioned earlier, ancient Egyptians depicted the decans as humanoid figures, often possessing the bodies of men or women and the heads of various animals. In turn, the three sorts of faces which MS P mentions (“donkey-faces, bull-faces, bird-faces”) all correlate with decans mentioned in the SBHA and seen on various decanal processions and astrological artifacts.189 MS N adds to this list θεριοπρόσωπα “beast-faced” which fits the general description of these decans, as well as calling them πυροειδῆ “fiery” which corresponds to the language used to describe at least one of the decans in the SBHA. MS N also contains the descriptor σφηγγόσωμα “sphinx-bodies” (cf. also MS H: σφιγγοπρόσωπα). A number of decanal processions contain lion-faced figures or sphinx-figures seated or placed on pedestals. The most notable sphinx-figured entity dominating Egyptian astronomical diagrams was the Late Period god Tutu. As Otto Kaper and others have pointed out, one of the major aspects of Tutu was his association with the stars and his dominion over the decans.190 Finally, in MS H we also find that the decans are also δρακοντόμορφα. As mentioned in the previous section, serpentine elements are some of the most essential components of the iconographic representation of the decans, a feature apparent from the earliest astrological diagrams all the way through the Roman period. It thus seems rather likely that the author of chapter 18 was acquainted not only with the astrological activities of the thirty-six decans, but also what these beings actually looked like. Considering that pictorial depictions of the decans are predominately found in Egyptian temples or upon astrological tables often produced in Egypt, it is quite likely that whomever wrote chapter 18 of the Testament had either observed these iconographic representations in the sacred architecture of Egypt, or at the very least encountered ritual tools or objects depicting these monstrous entities.

In SBHA the decan Ouari (second of Gemini) is said to be ὀνοπροσώπου. In the Grand Tablet, one of the decans of Gemini also has an ass-head. In the Esna rectangular zodiac we find a few bull-headed decans and a couple seated bull-headed decans in the Temple at Hibis decanal diagram, and bulls are common elements in Egyptian astronomical diagrams due to the prominence of Horus. MS L reads ταυρόμορφα. Bird-faced decans and winged decan are extremely common in most zodiacal diagrams. 190 Otto E. Kaper, The Egyptian God Tutu: A Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta 119 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), esp. 67–74; cf. idem, “The Astronomical Ceiling of Deir el-Haggar”; von Lieven, Himmel (see n. 24), 186–88; eadem, “Reihe” (see n. 18). 189

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 235

III. Conclusion As the following pages have shown, despite the absence of Egyptian decan names in the Testament there are nevertheless several features of the decan chapter which resonate with Roman Egypt. To summarize, general formal and structural elements of the decan chapter, including its use of repetitious formulaic language, its overarching organization of its thirty-six decans by the zodiacal signs (starting with Aries), and its association of the decans with parts of the human body and disease are all consistent with other decanal melothesia found in Roman-era Egypt.191 In addition, the inclusion of decans who effect social or domestic events in the Testament finds precedent in the role of the decans as controllers of human fate and other life events seen both in the Late Period and in the works of Teucer and Hephaestion. Next, the curative rituals prescribed by the Testament to counteract the maladies and disorders instigated by the demonic decans show considerable connections to similar rituals proposed in Roman Egyptian decanal melothesia and magic. Most notably, a number of the powerful names meant to thwart the decans, along with the proper instruction for constructing inscribed amulets and performing certain apotropaic rituals proffered in the Testament, find tangible parallels in various texts coming out of Egypt. Finally, like the iconographical representation of the decans in Roman Egypt, the decans in the Testament are also described as humanoid entities replete with animal heads and bodies. Although the collection of evidence presented in this study cannot provide a conclusive answer whether the Testament and its decan chapter were composed in ancient or antique Egypt, the conglomerate effect of the numerous parallels compiled here certainly suggests Roman Egypt as the most likely location. At a very minimum, the results of this study entail that whoever composed this portion of the Testament had to be wellversed in decanal melothesia and Roman Egyptian magic as well as acquainted with the appearances of the decans as found primarily on Egyptian temples or upon ritual objects produced in Egypt. In conclusion, if we accept Roman Egypt as the most likely location fostering the composition of chapter 18 of the Testament, some potential new horizons emerge in terms of theorizing the social climate from which the Testament emerged. For instance, while it is clear that the decan chapter shows significant familiarity with Egyptian astrology and melothesia, by no means does its description of the thirty-six decans simply regurgitate prevailing Egyptian conceptions of the decans. If anything, chapter 18 of the Testament regards the decans with immense suspicion, going as far as to intentionally subvert the ritual invocation of the astral decans by painting them as the nefarious causes of disease and disorder rather than the curative powers meant to dispel such harm.192 Interestingly, while the reconfiguration of the astral decans in the Testament as monstrous demons Echoing this is von Stuckrad, who citing Jan Assmann’s claim that the most typical appropriation of astrology found in Roman Egypt is medicinal astrology (see Kocku von Stuckrad, “Magic and Theology in Ancient Egypt,” in P. Schäfer and H. G. Kippenberg [ed.], Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 1–18 [see 4]), briefly asserts that the Testament of Solomon “has to be linked to these Egyptian doctrines.” See Von Stuckrad, “Astral Magic” (see n. 99), 255. 192 Not to mention that the hybrid appearance of the decans and other Egyptian deities caused considerable problems across the board for the Greeks and the Romans as well as Jews and Christians. 191

236 Blake A. Jurgens

stands as an incisive polemic against the religious practices common to the landscape of Roman Egypt, at no point in chapter 18 are specific forms of ritual power themselves disputed or delegitimized. The decans are defeated not by simple recourse to the name of Jesus Christ or expressly Christianized rituals, but through the use of apotropaic amulets, voces magicae, and other forms of ritual power which often times are mirror images of the exact same sorts of practices and performances which in other contexts (e.g., the SBHA) would have been used to curry favor from the decans. In other words, while the purpose and function of the rituals may have shifted, the rituals themselves and the presumed power undergirding them remained.193 This reappropriation of traditional magical rituals as a means of combating deceptive demonic forces – that is, the gods and divine powers of traditional “pagan” religion – aptly fits the sociocultural situation of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-century Egypt as Christians began to more fervently project themselves as alternative forms of ritual power over and against institutionalized priests of local temples and non-institutionalized ritual experts.194 Yet, while Christian holy men and monks certainly sought to emerge triumphant in ritual battles with temple priests and itinerant sorcerers, by no means did they supplant the entire ritual system at hand. On the contrary, Christian ritual experts reordered and restructured native ritual speech and action within their overarching ideological framework. In this fashion, hagiographies of regional Christian holy men such as Shenoute, Apollo of Hermopolis, and Macarius of Tkow paradoxically decry and demonize the practices of pagan religion while simultaneously adopting and adapting their forms of ritual power – such as the production of amulets, curses, erotic incantations, etc. – as their own efficacious devices.195

See Klaas Antonius Donato Smelik and Emily Ann Hemelrijk, “‘Who Knows not What Monsters Demented Egypt’s Worship?’ Opinions on Egyptian Animal Worship in Antiquity as Part of the Ancient Conception of Egypt,” ANRW II.17.4, 1852–2000. 193 One must wonder whether the lack of Egyptian decan names in the Testament is actually an intentional move meant to deprive the astral decans of the ritual power behind their names as well as perhaps situate the decan names of the Testament as the actual names behind these demonic decans, thus construing the older traditional systems as containing false or incorrect information and thereby delegitimizing the efficacy of ritual practices attached to them. This is especially surprising when one notes the technical application of ritual instructions in chapter 18 of the Testament which is comparable to other medicio-magical manuals in ancient and antique Egypt. Case in point, only on a couple of rare occasions do we find names in the apotropaic instructions of TSol 18:4–40 which have no parallels outside of the Testament. 194 For example, see David Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 213–39 (esp. 229–39); David Frankfurter, “Syncretism and the Holy Man in Late Antique Egypt,” JECS 11 (2003), 339–85; idem, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998) (esp. 198–237; 257–64). Cf. Peter Brown, “Arbiters of the Holy: The Christian Holy Man in Late Antiquity,” in Authority and the Sacred: Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 55–78. 195 For example, see David Frankfurter, “The Perils of Love: Magic and Countermagic in Coptic Egypt,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10 (2001), 480–500; idem, “Curses, Blessings, and Ritual Authority: Egyptian Magic in Comparative Perspective,” JANES 5 (2005), 157–85. This includes the production and preservation of spell books and incantation manuals, some of which have even been found in monastic cells (e.g., Cairo 45060).

Demonic Decans: An Analysis of Chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon 237

In many ways, the depiction of the decans in the Testament echoes many of the sentiments of Christian ritual experts in fourth- to sixth-century Egypt. The decans are real and tangible powers – just as Teucer, Hephaestion, and various other astrologers and magicians had claimed – but instead of potentially beneficial powers they are inherently devious forces, demonic authorities whose activities result only in disorder and disease. However, like the other demonic deities of Egyptian religion, these astral demons can be defeated through the invocation of the proper names, the construction of an amulet, or the correct performance of a certain ritual. As such, like the holy men of Roman Egypt, the Testament resituates the location of ritual power beneath the auspice of Christianity and the figure of Solomon as it simultaneously disparages the former deities to whom such rituals were originally intended to invoke.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon Matthew Goff

Wart’ für dergleichen Höllenbrut Ist Salomonis Schlüssel gut. – Goethe, Faust (Part I, lines 1257–58)1

I. Introduction The study of the Testament of Solomon has, in a sense, come full circle. After Fleck first published a manuscript of the composition in 1837 (P = Colbert 4895), Bornemann, in one of the first studies of the composition, argued in 1844 that the Testament of Solomon is a Christian text that dates to the early fourth century.2 Beginning in 1898 with Conybeare, several scholars, such as McCown, whose 1922 critical edition of the testament is still influential, and Klutz, in his 2005 monograph on the testament, argued that some or 1 This passage prefaces Fleck’s editio princeps of the Testament of Solomon. See Ferdinand Florens Fleck, “Testamentum Salomonis,” in Wissenschaftliche Reise durch das südliche Deutschland, Italien, Sicilien und Frankreich II.3, Anecdota maximam partem sacra (Leipzig: Barth, 1837), 111–40. I thank Kyle Roark and Blake Jurgens for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. 2 Friedrich August Bornemann, “Das Testament des Salomo,” Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 14 (1844), 9–56. His argument relies on parallels between the testament and Lactantius (compare, for example, Divine Institutes 2.15 with T. Sol. 20:11–13). The P text is also the version of the testament published in 1864 in Migne, PG 122, cols. 1315–58. Consult also Chester Charlton McCown, The Testament of Solomon, edited from manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, Milan, Paris and Vienna, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 9 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1922), 105; Todd E. Klutz, Rewriting the Testament of Solomon: Tradition, Conflict and Identity in a Late Antique Pseudepigraphon, Library of Second Temple Studies 53 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 23. The manuscripts of the text are primarily in Greek, but there is evidence for the transmission of the text into other languages. There is a form of the Testament of Solomon in Syriac (Bibliothèque Nationale, fonds syriaque 194; 16th cent.). Graf mentions another in Arabic (Vatican, Vat. Ar. 448; 17th cent). The Arabic Judgment of Solomon attests a number of motifs regarding Solomon found in the Testament, such as Solomon using a ring to force demons to do work at the temple. A new edition of this text is available in this volume, as well as relevant material in Coptic. See Slavomir Čéplö, “Testament of Solomon and Other Pseudepigraphical Material in Aḥkām Sulaymān (Judgment of Solomon),” in Vahan S. Hovhanessian (ed.), The Canon of the Bible and the Apocrypha in the Churches of the East, Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition 2 (New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 21–37 (27); Raʿanan Boustan and Michael Beshay, “Sealing the Demons, Once and For All: The Ring of Solomon, the Cross of Christ, and the Power of Biblical Kingship,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 16 (2015), 99–130 (105); Georg Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, 5 vols. Studi e testi 118; 133; 146–47; 172 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944–53), 1.210–11.

240 Matthew Goff

most of the composition was extant as a Jewish text during the first century CE.3 It is a common trope in the scholarship on the Testament of Solomon that it is a Christian text with a Jewish Urschrift. The inclusion of the testament in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, a collection generally understood as containing ancient (pre-Christian) Jewish texts that were preserved and redacted by Christians, bolsters this perspective.4 The most recent monograph on the work, by Peter Busch (2006), argues instead that the Testament of Solomon is a Christian text originally composed in the fourth century.5 The composition, in his understanding of the text, does not have an older Jewish layer but rather comprises, as the subtitle of his book expresses, “die älteste christliche Dämonologie.” Boustan and Beshay have argued for a similar dating, asserting that the trope that Solomon has a ring which gives him power over the demons is first linked to the motif that he used this power to make them build the temple in the context of Christianity during the third century.6 And so we come full circle back to Bornemann – thinking of the Testament of Solomon as primarily a Christian document best understood in the context of late antique Christianity. This emphasis, stressed by Busch in our time and Bornemann in the mid-nineteenth century, raises a key question: how should the Testament of Solomon be understood in relation to Judaism? A leading answer to this question, as we have seen, is to posit a Jewish Urtext, a stratum of the testament that is the product of not Christianity but pre-Christian Judaism. In this article I will attempt to adjudicate the critical issues involved in approaching this topic. First I will review and assess various ways scholars have articulated a Jewish Urschrift of the Testament of Solomon. I also assess the viability of this putative text through appeal to the ancient Jewish evidence regarding Solomon having power over demons.7 The pursuit for such a Jewish Urschrift is problematized by significant textual diversity of the preserved forms of the testament. Moreover, during the period to which such a Jewish text is often dated, ca. 100 CE, Judaism and Christianity are not clearly differentiated as two distinct religions, which problematize the assertion that particular sections of a Christian text are Christian while others are Jewish. Nevertheless the Dead Sea Scrolls, which generally date to the second and first centuries Frederick C. Conybeare, “The Testament of Solomon,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 11 (1898), 1–45 (12); McCown, Testament (see n. 2), 85, 108; Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 109. 4 Dennis C. Duling, “Testament of Solomon,” in James H. Charles­worth (ed.), Old Testament Pseud­ epigrapha, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 1.935–87; idem, “The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2 (1988), 87–112; Howard Manning Jackson, “Notes on the Testament of Solomon,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 19 (1988), 19–60. 5 Peter Busch, Das Testament Salomos: Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kommentiert und in deutscher Erstübersetzung, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 153 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 17–18, idem, “Solomon as a True Exorcist: The Testament of Solomon in Its Cultural Setting,” in Joseph Verheyden (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect, Themes in Biblical Narrative 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 183–95. 6 Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 123–24. 7 I will not engage here the interpretative problem of defining “demon.” While the Greek term δαίμων has a vast range of meanings, with the ability to denote disparate terms such as “god” or “soul,” I use the word in its conventional sense of signifying a malevolent spiritual being. For discussion and scholarship on this issue, see Matthew J. Goff, “A Seductive Demoness at Qumran? Lilith, Female Demons and 4Q184,” in Jan Dochhorn, Susanne Rudnig-Zelt and Benjamin Wold (ed.), Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen, WUNT II/412 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 59–76 (60–61). 3

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 241

BCE, and other Jewish writings that date to the first century CE, such as the Wisdom of Solomon and the corpus of Josephus, clearly show the antiquity of traditions that are utilized in the Testament of Solomon. But, as the analysis in this article will demonstrate, the parallels between the testament and this Jewish material are far from exact. It is reasonable to assert that the crucial element of the Testament, the trope that Solomon used a ring to compel demons to construct the temple, develops within the context of late antique Christianity rather than first century Judaism. The earliest Jewish text that attests this trope is the Babylonian Talmud (Giṭ. 68a–b), whereas it is well attested in late antique Christianity.

II. The Persistent Urschrift There is a long standing scholarly tradition of positing that a stratum of the Testament of Solomon can be identified as a product of first century CE Judaism. As mentioned above, this opinion was first articulated by Conybeare at the end of the nineteenth century. For him the document had a “very archaic air.”8 He was of the opinion that the Essenes’ insistence, according to Josephus (J.W. 2.142), on not divulging the names of the angels is compatible with the knowledge disclosed in chapter 18 of the testament about the demonic powers ruling each decan.9 Recognizing parallels between the testament and the gospels, such as the assertion that demonic powers descend “like flashes of lightning” from heaven (T. Sol. 20:17; Luke 10:18), is best explained as the testament influencing New Testament writings, instead of the other way around.10 Conybeare suggested that the original form of the testament may have constituted “the very collection of incantations” attributed to Solomon by Josephus that is used during an exorcism he purportedly witnessed, described in a passage in Book 8 of the Jewish Antiquities discussed below.11 For him some portions of the Testament of Solomon, such as chapter 18 with its system of decans, are unambiguously very old and very Jewish, arguing that by 100 CE Christians had already begun to add explicitly christological material to the document.12 McCown’s 1922 edition expanded the field of available manuscripts of the testament to sixteen. He argued that these manuscripts attest the development of the text, and that various later recensions (A, B, C) can be discerned. McCown’s understanding of the origins of the testament has been roundly and justly critiqued.13 Critical for his perspective is manuscript D, first published by the Russian scholar V.M. Istrin in 1898.14 Conybeare, “Testament” (see n. 3), 12. Ibid., 8. 10 Ibid., 10. 11 Ibid., 12. 12 Ibid., 6. Conybeare in this article does not argue for a particular Urstratum for the testament but rather discusses selected passages which he argues are clearly archaic, with others being Christian additions. 13 Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 31; Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 104; Busch, Testament (see n. 5), 12; Pablo A. Torijano, Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 54–55. 14 V.M. Istrin, Grieceski spiski zabesania Solomona (Odessa: Ekonomicheskaia, 1898). 8

9

242 Matthew Goff

This manuscript, which dates to the sixteenth century, contains a range of stories about Solomon and David. Not all of them accord with the content normally ascribed to the Testament of Solomon, which is based on the critical edition in McCown. In chapter 7 of the D manuscript, for example, Solomon interacts with Samael, a major demonic figure of Jewish tradition who never appears in the critical edition.15 McCown posited that D itself contains an older layer, which he called d, the putative original core of D.16 Thus d attests “the original Jewish stem” of the testament.17 For McCown this stratum comprises chapters 1, 2, 20–24 of the composition, a collection of Jewish midrashim involving Solomon that was in circulation in the first century CE. A Christian in the third century reworked this d into a testament.18 He also identified E as preserving a form of the composition that is similar to D.19 McCown’s vision of the Jewish Urschrift of the testament stresses not the bulk of the work in which Solomon shows dominion over a long sequence of demons (chs. 3–18) but rather its frame: the narratives involving the demon Ornias (chs. 1–2, 19–20), Solomon’s interaction with the Queen of Sheba (ch. 21), and the section centering on the Arabian wind demon Ephippas (chs. 22–24). McCown argues that his d constitutes a “story containing no exorcisms,” an opinion shaped by his conviction that D, which gives scant attention to Solomon’s interrogation and conquest of a sequence of demons (but see D 3.6–8), preserves authentic ancient Jewish midrashim.20 Thus the Solomonic books associated with the exorcist Eleazar in Ant. 8.46–49, critical for Conybeare’s understanding of the Testament of Solomon, are dismissed by McCown. While McCown’s understanding of the Jewish Urschrift of the Testament of Solomon is generally no longer held today, the perspective that there is such a Jewish early layer imbedded in the text very much persists. This is exemplified by the position of Todd Klutz.21 In an odd demonological echo of pentateuchal debates, Klutz stresses the antiquity of P over D. P is the manuscript of the testament published by Fleck in 1837. According to Klutz, a version of the testament akin to P, written as a Christian text, was in place by the third century CE.22 But, he argues, the text was not written ex nihilo in this period but has older tradents. A Christian author/redactor, between approximately 125 and 175 CE assembled older source material in the initial formation of what became the Testament of 15 McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 96*. For the figure of Samael, see, for example, Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 46. 16 McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 85–86, 108. 17 Ibid., 87. 18 This redactor for McCown is “a half-hearted Christian in a world where Christianity is not yet the conquering religion.” For him this helps explain the diversity of views and attitudes in the text, “a bizarre potpourri of fragments” of ideas from throughout the Mediterranean region (ibid., 89). 19 E is manuscript 290 of the Library of the Greek Patriarchate, Jerusalem, Sancti Saba (eighteenth century). Five years after the publication of McCown’s study a manuscript emerged which preserves a text similar to that of E (Bibliothèque Nationale No. 2111). See McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 123–26; Armand Delatte, “Testament de Salomon,” Anecdota Atheniensia 36 (1927), 211–27; Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 32. 20 McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 106. It is possible that McCown subscribed to this view because of his opinion that ancient Judaism had more interest in angels than demons (p. 61). 21 Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2). 22 Ibid., 34.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 243

Solomon. Klutz argues that an early form of chapter 18 existed by the middle of the first century CE. Independently, a form of the first fifteen chapters of the work was composed between 75 and 125 CE.23 Klutz understands these two putative early documents as Jewish. Chapter 18 is “lacking Christian elements” and chapters 1–15 are “prior to Christian additions.”24 Both documents “fall into Christian hands” in the second century. Klutz’s understanding of the antiquity of chapter 18 of the testament has the support of the Vienna Papyrus (P. Vindobonensis G 330 + 29 436 + 35 939), a fifth century rotulus manuscript that is a thousand years older than all other textual witnesses for the testament. It was published in 1956 and thus unknown to McCown.25 The Vienna Papyrus only preserves material that corresponds to ch. 18, although the full extent of what the manuscript once contained has not survived.26 Klutz suggests that chapter 18 was originally composed in Egypt, an assertion voiced earlier by Duling.27 This is not impossible but while the decan system is indeed a very old feature of Egyptian astronomical thought, it was disseminated widely in the Hellenistic period, a fact that does not limit the text’s provenance to Egypt.28

Ibid., 109. Ibid., 108. 25 Daniel published additional fragments of this manuscript in the 1980s. See Karl Preisendanz, “Ein Wiener Papyrusfragment zum Testamentum Salomonis,” Eos 48 (1956), 161–67; Robert W. Daniel, “The Testament of Solomon XVIII 27–28, 33–40,” in Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.): Festschrift zum l00-jährigen Bestehen der Payprussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Vienna: Brüder Hollinek, 1983), 294–304. 26 The extant material of the scroll does not preserve all thirty-six decans but rather starts at the twenty-third (T. Sol. 18:27). A gap after the speech of the thirty-sixth decan in this rotulus (v. 40) suggests it was understood as the end of a section or may have been the end of the scroll. See Daniel, “The Testament of Solomon XVIII 27–28, 33–40,” 295. 27 Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 35; Duling, “Testament” (see n. 4), 1.944. 28 The decan system is attested in Egypt by the late second millennium BCE. A Ptolemaic representation of the system is available in a frieze in the Temple of Edfu, which dates to the time of Ptolemy VII Euergetes II (d. 117 BCE). This decan system was in circulation in Greek during the first century CE, as is evident from a Greek horoscope (P. Lond. 130) completed by an astrologer by the name of Titus Pitenius in response to a birth, in 81 CE Hermopolis (Egypt). The text shows no awareness of the demonic powers associated with the decans in the Testament of Solomon. Origen shows knowledge of the decan system and associates it with Egyptian names of demons (Contra Celsum 8.58). Several Greek and Latin decan lists reflect the older Egyptian names for them, such as the one by Hephaistion of Thebes (fourth century CE). The first decan, for example, according to Hephaistion’s list and the frieze at Edfu is, respectively, χονταρε and ḫntw ḥry. The first in Testament of Solomon 18 is different, Ruax. There is no unambiguous reflection of the ancient Egyptian decan names in the Testament of Solomon. This suggests it is a later Hellenistic adaption of an originally Egyptian system, a model that does not require an Egyptian provenance. For the possibility of an Egyptian provenance for the text, see the article in this volume by Blake Jurgens. For P. Lond. 130 and discussion of the Egyptian decan system, see O. Neugebauer and H.B. van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1959), 5–6, 21–38. See also R.A. Parker, “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy,” in F.R. Hodson (ed.), The Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World: A Joint Symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 51–65 (53–54, 62); Wilhelm Gundel, Sterne und Sternbilder im Glauben des Altertums und der Neuzeit (New York: G. Olms, 1981 [orig. pub., 1922]), 284–85; Roger Beck, “Imagery and Narrative in an Ancient Horoscope: P. Lond. 130 (Greek Horoscopes No. 81),” JSRNC 7 (2013), 397–406; McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 88. 23 24

244 Matthew Goff

Klutz’s argument for the existence of an early (Jewish) form of chs. 1–15 relies primarily on appeals to redactional seams in the text. He observes that T. Sol. 15:13–14 sounds like a conclusion and suggests that it was written as the conclusion to this putative early text.29 The fact that this passage is found in P (and N) helps explain why this manuscript is important in Klutz’s system. His second century redactor/editor combined and embellished these two older sources and composed chs. 16–17. Then, in the third century CE, a second Christian stage of redaction took place that produced chs. 19–26, intended to highlight Jesus and his superiority over Solomon. Klutz is also of the opinion that this final stage of Christian redaction took place so that the document would be better suited for use in theological debates with Jews.30 So understood, the text delineates a strange arc, with its origins in Jewish tradition but its final form intended to be used against Jews. Busch offers an understanding of the text that is very different from that of Klutz. Busch endorses the basic idea, articulated by previous scholarship, that the composition first took on the form as a testament (the “Grundschrift” of the text) within a Christian context. He argues that this happened in the early fourth century in Jerusalem.31 Busch finds the idea of an earlier Jewish Urschrift à la McCown (or Klutz) unconvincing. He reaches this point not through engagement with ancient Jewish literature but rather with the textual witnesses to the composition. He argues that the manuscripts thought to attest the pre-Christian Jewish stratum (D, E, cf. Bib. Nat. 2011) all in fact presuppose a longer form of the testament.32 D 3.6–8, which states that Solomon interrogated demons, making them reveal their names, their preferred ways to harm human beings and by which holy angels they can be overcome, is thus understood as a highly abbreviated allusion to a longer form of chapters 3–19 of the testament. Busch dismisses any claims of a Jewish Urschrift, taking his Christian Grundschrift as the starting point of the textual history of the Testament of Solomon, construed as a fourth century composition that contains much of the material in the present form of the composition.33 While Busch grants that Jewish traditions may have had a formative role in the text, and that chapter 18 in particular draws on older traditions, he never engages these issues substantively. Later Jewish texts, which are from a period closer to Busch’s dating of the Testament such as the Sepher Ha-Razim, are also never engaged in a substantive manner.34 The text 29 T. Sol. 15:13–14: “When I, Solomon, heard these things, I glorified God. Though I was amazed at the defense of the demons, I distrusted them and did not believe the things which were said by them until they occurred. But when they happened, then I understood, and at my death I wrote this testament to the sons of Israel and I gave (it) to them so that (they) might know the powers of the demons and their forms, as well as the names of the angels by which they are thwarted.” See Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 128. 30 Ibid, 109. 31 Busch, Testament (see n. 5), 17–30. 32 Ibid., 14. 33 There is no substantive engagement in Busch, Testament (see n. 5), with Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), or his alternative schema for an early Jewish layer of the Testament of Solomon. Busch’s book appeared in 2006 and shows no knowledge of Klutz’s 2005 study, which does not appear in the bibliography. 34 The text has been dated to the fourth century but some or all of the work could be dated to the seventh or eighth centuries. The preface of this book presents it as a copy of a text originally disclosed by the angel Raziel to Noah, who inscribed it upon a sapphire. It also states that this text was transmitted

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 245

is primarily understood in the context of fourth century Christianity, in particular the visitation of Solomonic relics by Christian pilgrims (a topic I return to later in this essay). He interprets elements of the text in terms of this historical context. For example, the reference in the Testament of Solomon to ‘demonic’ pillars, such as the one mentioned in T. Sol. 12:4 that was brought up to Jerusalem by the demon Ephippas from the Red Sea, still evident at the temple “to this day” (24:5), Busch argues, can be readily explained through appeal to the claim made by Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah (1.55) that a statue of Hadrian existed at the time in Aelia Capitolina at the site of the destroyed Herodian temple.35 The Testament of Solomon so understood provides a demonic etiology for aspects of the temple precincts that existed in the fourth century CE. With this understanding of the text, it follows, contra the earlier position of Conybeare, that affinities between the testament and the New Testament, such as the claim that Beelzeboul is a ruler of demons (T. Sol. 3:5; Mark 3:22), are explained by positing that the demonology of the New Testament played a formative role in the composition of the testament, rather than the other way around.

III. Models of Composition The current state of affairs in the study of the Testament of Solomon is exemplified by the very different proposals for understanding the text provided by Klutz and Busch. Critical for adjudicating the issue is how the document should be understood in relation to ancient Judaism. To address this question two major issues should be considered – assessing models of composition for the testament and ancient Jewish evidence regarding Solomon vis-à-vis the demons in relation to the text. I first take up the question of models of composition. All of the eighteen Greek manuscripts of the testament that have been so far identified are relatively late. Except for the Vienna Papyrus they date to the fifteenth century or later.36 To subscribe to either of the main proposals for articulating an older, Jewish stratum (McCown and Klutz) one must grant that a late manuscript, D for McCown, P from patriarch to patriarch until it reached Solomon. This, the book asserts, explains why he “ruled over everything he desired, over all the spirits and the demons that wander in the world.” See Michael A. Morgan, trans., Sepher Ha-Razim: The Book of the Mysteries, SBLTT 11 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 19; Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2008), 170–75; Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 198–208; Philip S. Alexander, “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” in Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K.F. Diethard Römheld (ed.), Die Dämonen. Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühcrhistilcher Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 613–35 (620–21). For the dating of Sepher Ha-Razim, see Bill Rebiger and Peter Schäfer, ed., Sefer ha-Razim, 2 vols., TSAJ 125, 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 2.9. 35 Busch, Testament (see n. 5), 22–23. See also idem, “Solomon” (see n. 5), 189–94. Jerome’s reference to this statue of Hadrian in Jerusalem is mentioned in his discussion of Isa 2:8–9. See Thomas P. Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah. Including St. Jerome’s Translation of Origen’s Homilies 1–9 on Isaiah (New York: The Newman Press, 2015), 99. 36 For a list of the manuscripts, see Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 19. For additional witnesses to the document, see the articles by Felix Albrecht, Tommaso Braccini, and Jan Dochhorn in this volume.

246 Matthew Goff

for Klutz, contains textual evidence on which basis the nature of the document at least 1,400 years prior to these copies can be reconstructed. Such hypotheses are not a priori impossible but are inherently problematized by the large gap in time between the manuscripts and putative date of composition. Moreover, there is a substantial deal of diversity among the manuscripts of the Testament of Solomon. The material which appears in McCown’s critical edition and in Duling’s OTP translation as T. Sol. 14:3–16:1 appears only in the manuscripts identified as N and P. Manuscript D, as mentioned above, contains forms of chapters 1–2 and 19–24 of the testament as part of a single narrative which contains a substantial amount of material that has no analogue in McCown’s edition. This manuscript, E, and Bib. Nat. 2011, all begin with a tale involving David and Bathsheba, for example, which is not in the McCown edition of the text.37 Manuscript W (Bib. Nat. 2419), which is important for McCown’s Recension C, along with V, combines portions of T. Sol. 1:1–9:7 with large sections of a different text, the Hygromanteia of Solomon. This is a late antique composition attributed to Solomon addressed to his son Rehoboam that provides instruction on astronomical topics and how to construct various implements used in magical rites and divination.38 Manuscript W is in fact one of the major manuscripts used by Torijano in his edition and translation of the Hygromanteia.39 Manuscript W illustrates that in the early modern period, the time in which most of the extant manuscripts of the testament were produced, scribes freely and creatively reconfigured material from this composition with other writings, based on a conception of Solomon as an authoritative conduit for hermetic and demonological lore, rather than a pristine or fixed conception of the text of the Testament of Solomon.40 This makes it difficult to understand the manuscripts of the composition as preserving the exact form(s) of the work composed in antiquity. Much of the content of the work, a string of narrative sequences in which Solomon summons demons and compels them to describe their mode of harassing humankind and how they can be thwarted (chs. 3–18), lends itself to revision and adaptation by scribes, who could easily change and adapt the sequence of demonic interactions. The textual diversity of the evidence for the composition problematizes the proposition that the work developed over time according to a

Busch, Testament (see n. 5), 13. See also Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 30. The Hygromanteia, for example, states that the plant associated with Taurus is the trefoil and that if one throws its fruit upon the hide of an unborn bull, anyone who one wears this when in the presence of kings or powerful people will find honor. Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 233, argues that this material should be dated to the third and fourth centuries (see p. 247 for the portion discussed in this note). A translation of the Hygromanteia by Torijano is available in Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures: Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 305–25. Consult also Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 33. 39 Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 231–309. 40 McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 36, observing the omissions and variants in V and W compared to other manuscripts of the testament, attributes them to “a class of men of rather low mentality and poor Greek education,” who were “careless” scribes. Alexander, “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” 624, stresses that the testament was understood as an “open book” that people could adapt and revise to their own purposes. 37 38

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 247

simplistic evolutionary model of development.41 Schwarz argues that the key context of the testament’s development is Byzantine, between late antiquity and the late middle ages – much later than other models proposed for understanding the text.42 But there is much fluidity in the manuscripts produced even after this date. In any case, a thesis such as Schwarz’s better explains the diversity of the textual evidence for the testament than the evolutionary models of McCown and Klutz. The diverse range of textual evidence for the testament poses enormous challenges to scholars who desire to reconstruct a Jewish Urschrift that constitutes the oldest core of the work. An additional complication for positing a Jewish older layer incorporated into later Christian material is that in the period to which several scholars date critical literary activity for the production of the testament (first century CE) is a time in which Judaism and Christianity have a muddled and overlapping relationship.43 This is particularly the case regarding a figure such as Solomon, who is an important figure of the scriptural heritage of both religious traditions. Solomon’s power against demons occurs in a range of amulets and texts, the religious provenance of which is not always clear.44 It should also be mentioned that the manuscript evidence does provide some indication that some very archaic material, perhaps even dating to the Hellenistic period, was incorporated into the testament, and reliably transmitted by scribes over the centuries. Critical in this regard is the Vienna Papyrus. It indicates that at least chapter 18 of the Testament of Solomon was copied and transmitted in the fifth century. Compatible with the view that this chapter 18 can be understood as a “source” for the testament, with its own distinct and separate provenance from the rest of the text, is the fact that its demonological system, which articulates a ruling demonic power for each ten degrees of the 360 degrees of the zodiac, provides an internally coherent model for understanding demons that appears nowhere else in the testament. Moreover, chapter 18, as Klutz observes, has a more consistent focus on demons as producers of illness, whereas in the rest of the composition they cause a wider array of problems for humankind, including sexual sins and social disharmony (e.g., 6:7; 14:4), themes never articulated in chapter 18.45 The range of textual witnesses to the Testament of Solomon complicates the delineation of its “sources,” while also indicating that its manuscripts do in fact preserve forms of much older textual material. 41 Sarah L. Schwarz, “Reconsidering the Testament of Solomon,” JSP 16 (2007), 203–37 (211). See also her “Demons and Douglas: Applying Grid and Group to the Demonologies of the Testament of Solomon,” JAAR 80 (2012), 909–31; Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 103. 42 Schwarz, “Reconsidering” (see n. 41), 214, 229, situates the textual fluidity of the testament against the backdrop of Byzantine spellbook compendia, such as the Kyranides, to understand the transmission of the testament. 43 Adam Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed (ed.), The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 44 See the amulets discussed in Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 130–39; Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 84–86. Consult also Schwartz, “Reconsidering,” 208, 236; Roy Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae. Part I: Published Texts of Known Provenance (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994), 174–80; Karl Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1974), 2.206–7 (P. Janda 14; P17); Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 100. 45 Klutz, Rewriting (see n. 2), 109. See also Daniel, “The Testament of Solomon XVIII 27–28, 33–40,” 304.

248 Matthew Goff

IV. The Testament of Solomon and Ancient Judaism If the manuscripts of the work themselves cannot be reliably used to affirm that they contain an ancient Jewish, pre-Christian Urschrift, another way to approach the issue is to compare the testament with our evidence for ancient (pre-Christian) Judaism. While it is generally recognized that the testament draws upon Jewish tradition, it is striking that neither of the two major recent studies on the composition (Klutz and Busch) includes a robust engagement with Early Jewish literature. In the case of Busch this is consistent with his model that late antique Christianity is the context in which the text was written. With regard to Klutz this absence is more surprising, since he argues that a form of most of the work existed before its Christian redaction. Ancient Judaism produced extensive legends about King Solomon, including his control over demons. The legendary character of his reign is stressed in the Hebrew Bible. 1 Kings 5:1 (Eng. 4:21) makes the incredible claim that his kingdom covered much of the ancient Near East, from the Tigris to the Nile. His wealth is described in similarly fantastic terms (10:21–29). His wisdom is famously described as greater than “the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt” (5:10; Eng. 4:30). This wisdom includes the ability to write numerous proverbs and songs, and knowledge of the natural world. 1 Kings depicts Solomon speaking knowledgably about trees such as the cedar and animals, including birds, reptiles and fish (5:13; Eng. 4:33). The legend of Solomon as a writer of proverbs and songs shapes the presentation of material elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, since several texts are attributed to him, such as Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Psalms 72 and 127 (cf. 2 Chr 35:4). Solomon’s wisdom is also evident in his leadership and acumen as the builder of the temple in Jerusalem. The account of Solomon in the Septuagint suggests that in the Second Temple period the legendary character of his reign increased. The LXX has extensive pluses when compared to the masoretic text that emphasize his wealth, piety, wisdom and prowess as a builder before he receives his famous wisdom after praying to God at Gibeon (3 Kgdms 2:35a–o; 2:46a–l; cf. 2 Macc 2:9). None of this material associates Solomon with demons, magic, or astrology, but, as Torijano suggests, later traditions in which such associations are explicit may in part be derived from the Greek scriptures.46 In the version of Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chronicles 6 the king urges God to heal the sick, which may provide some basis for the later characterization of Solomon as a subduer of demons (v. 28). Also, the account of Solomon’s prayer for wisdom at Gibeon in 2 Chr 1:7 states that God appeared to him, omitting the detail from the account in 1 Kings that the deity came to him “in a dream” (3:5). This change may reflect growth with regard to Solomon’s importance vis-à-vis the supernatural world during the Second Temple period, since in the Chronicles account God can be understood as not appearing to the king in a vision but rather as going to him directly, as the demons do in the Testament of Solomon.47 This text utilizes the scriptural tradition 46 Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 32. 3 Kingdoms 5:12 states that Solomon spoke 3,000 παραβολάς (“proverbs” or “parables”), corresponding to ‫ משל‬in the MT. This Greek word can also denote “astronomical conjunction.” The LXX also credits Solomon with 5,000 songs (MT: 1,005), using the term ᾠδή, which is very similar to the word for “spell” or “charm” (ἐπῳδή). See also Angela Kim Harkins, “The Odes of Solomon as Solomonic Pseudepigrapha,” JSP 25 (2016), 247–73 (252–54). 47 Harkins, “The Odes of Solomon,” 262.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 249

that Solomon acquired special knowledge through piety to express his power over demons. Much of the testament depicts Solomon as a devout king who prays to God and acknowledges that his power over demons comes from the deity (e.g., T. Sol. 8:1; 10:10; 12:1; 15:1). Ben Sira and Eupolemus also provide ancient Jewish evidence for the tradition of Solomon as a famous king and the builder of the temple.48 The book of Ben Sira, some form of which was composed in the early second century BCE, praises Solomon as a righteous and wealthy king who reigned during a time of peace who wrote songs, proverbs and parables (47:12–18; cf. 1 Chr 22:9).49 Five fragments of Eupolemus are preserved by Eusebius and Clement. These texts date to at least to the early first century BCE since they were collected by Alexander Polyhistor, whom these patristic authors cite. The second and third fragments (apud Eus., Praep. ev. 9.30.1–34.18 and 9.34.20, respectively) deal with Solomon. The lengthy second fragment purports to preserve correspondence between Solomon and the kings of Egypt and Phoenicia (Vaphres and Souron, respectively), discussing, not unlike 1 Kings 5, the procurement of supplies and labor for the construction of a massive and luxurious temple, adorned with copious amounts of gold (over four million talents), a claim based on scriptural traditions (Praep. ev. 9.34.14; cf. 1 Kgs 10:14–22; 2 Chr 9:13–22).50 None of these texts describe demons playing any role whatsoever in the construction of the temple. Eupolemus is important for supporting the pre-Christian antiquity of the tradition that Solomon constructed an edifice of epic proportion (cf. 11QT 30–42). Though not a major theme of the composition, the Testament of Solomon analogously presents the temple in lavish terms, filled with gems and vessels of silver, gold, and bronze (21:1–4; cf. 10:4–10). It describes the temple as having a massive cornerstone (22:7; 23:2; cf. 24:2–4). The Eupolemus fragments also provide a precedent for the correspondence in the testament between Solomon and neighboring kings, with chapter 22 purporting to be a message from King Adarkes of Arabia to Solomon. Solomon’s apotropaic prowess first emerges in our extant Jewish sources in the first century BCE. The Dead Sea Scrolls are critical in this regard. Solomon in general makes relatively few appearances in the Qumran texts. Patriarchs such as Enoch and Abraham are much more prominent in this corpus by comparison. Solomon’s infrequency in the scrolls is particularly striking in the instructional texts found at Qumran.51 There is nevertheless a fragmentary but nevertheless very important Qumran text with regard to the theme that Solomon exerts power over the demons – 11Q11, conventionally entitled 48 Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 33–37; Benjamin G. Wright iii, “Solomon in Chronicles and Ben Sira: A Study in Contrasts,” in Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol (ed.), Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes, DCL 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 139–57. 49 Ben Sira also engages Solomon’s numerous marriages with foreign women, describing the dissolution of the united monarchy as punishment for his sins (47:18–22). 50 Eupolemus claims that the name of the city of Jerusalem is based on the tradition that Solomon is the builder of the temple. The assertion is based upon a Greek wordplay: “The shrine was first called the ‘Temple of Solomon’ (ἱερὸν Σολομῶνος). Later, corruptly the city was named from the temple Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ), and by the Greeks it is correspondingly called ‘Hirosolyma’” (Praep. ev. 9.34.11; cf. Josephus, J.W. 6.438). This translation is from Robert Doran, “Eupolemus,” in OTP, 2.861–72 (870). 51 Matthew Goff, Discerning Wisdom: The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, VTSup 116 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 289.

250 Matthew Goff

“11QApocryphal Psalms.”52 This text attests the remains of a collection of at least three apotropaic hymns, a type of poetic composition also found in 4QSongs of the Maśkil (4Q510–511; cf. 4Q444). The scroll was copied in the middle of the first century CE, based on the Herodian character of its paleography; this strongly suggests that the text was composed at an earlier date, at least the early first century BCE. The hymns of the collection invoke the Tetragrammaton as a weapon to be uttered to expel demons (e.g., 11Q11 1 4; 4 4, 11; 5 8). The Great Cave 11 Psalms Scroll asserts that among David’s poetic compositions were four written to be “sung over the stricken (‫)הפגועים‬,” generally understood as songs recited to those possessed by a demon (11QPsa 27:9–10).53 Psalm 91, a form of which is preserved in 11Q11, is described in rabbinic tradition as a “song of the stricken (‫)פגועים‬,” not unlike 11QPsa.54 This psalm accords with the theme of demon possession since it praises God for keeping destructive spiritual forces at bay. The claim in the Psalms Scroll that David wrote four apotropaic songs may refer to the collection of hymns in 11Q11.55 This would provide some grounds for understanding 11QApocryphal Hymns as being written by David, although this trope is explicit in only one of the scroll’s hymns (11Q11 5 4; see 6 3). The inclusion of at least one hymn attribution attributed to David, along with its inclusion of a form of Psalm 91, suggests that 11Q11 had some form of authority via a connection with David. This is not well conveyed by entitling the collection “apocryphal.” 11Q11 contains no evidence that it was attributed to Solomon. Solomon appears in only one fragmentary phrase in the scroll: ‫]ויקר[א‬ ֯ [‫( שלומה‬11Q11 2 2). The immediate context of this phrase is not extant, but it clearly involves malevolent spirits, with spirits and demons (‫ )השדים‬mentioned in line 3, with “the demons” likely attested again in line 4, along with the “prince of enmity” (‫;[הש]דים ו֯ ̇ש[ר המשט]מה‬ Q

52 For its official edition, see Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, “11QApocryphal Psalms,” in idem, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31, DJD 23 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 181–205. Consult also Mika S. Pajunen, “How to Expel a Demon: Formand Tradition-Critical Assessment of the Ritual of Exorcism in 11QApocryphal Psalms,” in idem and Hanna Tervanotko (ed.), Crossing Imaginary Boundaries: The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Context of Second Temple Judaism (Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 2015), 128–64; Émile Puech, “Les Psaumes davidiques du ritual d’exorcisme (11Q11),” in Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen M. Schuller (ed.), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetic Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet, STDJ 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 160–81; Harkins, “The Odes of Solomon,” 253. In addition to 11Q11, there are a few other references to Solomon in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Copper Scroll appears to attest the tradition that Solomon was a builder and wealthy, asserting that near Solomon’s channel are twenty-three talents of silver (3Q15 5 8–11; cf. ll. 4–5); note, however, that the text describes other sites as containing much, much more wealth (e.g., 1 5). 4QMMT appeals to the days of Solomon as a time of peace and prosperity, asserting that the blessings written in the Torah occurred during his reign (4Q398 11–13 1; 4Q397 14–21 16). Cf. 4Q245 1 i 11; 4Q247 1 3; 4Q385a 1a–b ii 5. See Armin Lange, “Solomon,” in Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2.886. 53 This presumably means that the songs were to be uttered over people who had some sort of disease attributed to demonic forces. 54 Note, for example, b. Shebu. 15b; y. Shabb. 6.8b; y. ʿErub. 10.26c; Midr. Pss 91:1. Consult also DJD 23, 183; James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa), DJD 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), 93. 55 Pajunen, “How to Expel a Demon” (see n. 52), 130, argues against this possibility.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 251

cf. CD 16:5; 1QM 13:11). The editors of DJD 23 translate the phrase ‫ויקר[א‬ ֯ of 11Q11 2 2 as “and he shall invo[ke.”56 In this case what is the subject of the verb? When 11Q11 mentions an imagined user/reciter of the hymns, he is addressed in the second, not the third, person (5 5, 11; cf. l. 4). A more plausible understanding of ‫ויקר[א‬ ֯ in my view, is offered by James Sanders in the Princeton edition of 11Q11.57 He reads it as a converted waw phrase: “when he invoked.” So understood the verb denotes a past action rather than a future one.58 The most immediate referent of the verb is Solomon. While the poor state of preservation prevents firm conclusions, Solomon can be understood as uttering speech against the demons (“…. Solomon. When he invoked …”).59 This reading of ‫ויקר[א‬ ֯ in line 2 provides an appealing way to interpret the same verb in line 8 as an imperative, 60 “and invo[ke]!” (‫)וקר[א‬. ֯ The hymn can be understood as presenting the envisioned reciter of the hymn as not simply invoking God’s name against demons, but by doing so following the example of Solomon. Solomon appears in 11Q11 as a lauded figure from the past who uttered the divine name against demons. 11Q11 thus constitutes an important precedent for the Testament of Solomon. By having Solomon make the demons divulge their weaknesses and remedies against them, the composition presents Solomon as a model that others can use in their struggles against demons (e.g., 15:14), not unlike 11Q11 2. Nevertheless there are important differences between the testament and 11Q11. The collection of hymns from Qumran, in striking contrast to the Testament of Solomon, never associates Solomon’s power of demons with a ring. The focus of 11Q11 is on banishing demons to the netherworld (cols. 4 and 5), and protecting humans from their machinations (col. 6), not on trapping demons (contrast the fate of Obyzouth or Kunopegos in T. Sol. 13 and 16) or making them build the temple. The temple plays no role whatsoever in 11QApocryphal Psalms.61

DJD 23, 190. So too Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 48; Pajunen, “How to Expel a Demon,” 139. James A. Sanders, “A Liturgy for Healing the Stricken (11QPsApa = 11Q11),” in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers, vol. 4A of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/ Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 216–33 (221). The editors of DJD 23, 191, grant that this understanding of the verb is possible. 58 Eric D. Reymond, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, and Morphology, SBLRBS 76 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 198. 59 What he is imagined as speaking against the demons is not extant but given the use of the Tetragrammaton elsewhere in the text, one can reasonably imagine Solomon as invoking the name of God. This is the case in the reconstruction of 11Q11 2 2 by Puech, “Les Psaumes davidiques,” 169. So too Sanders, “A Liturgy,” 220–21. See also DJD 23, 191. 60 This word is generally read as an imperative. See Sanders, “A Liturgy,” 221; DJD 23, 192; Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 49. Puech, “Les Psaumes davidiques,” 170, reads it as an (unconverted) perfect. 61 Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 50–68, connects 11Q11 to the testament by stressing Solomon’s question “who are you?,” which the king repeatedly poses to demons in the testament (e.g., T. Sol. 2:1; 3:6; 5:1; 8:1). He argues that 11Q11 indicates that this is an “exorcistic formula” that circulated in ancient Judaism (p. 32). The phrase does indeed come up in apotropaic hymns in 11Q11 (5 6; a possible example is also in 3 2). Since there is only one unambiguous of the question posed to a demon in 11Q11, it is not sufficient evidence to understand it as a fixed “formula” used against demons in the first century BCE that is in turn appropriated in the Testament of Solomon. Note also that the expression occurs in 11Q11 5 as part of a hymn explicitly attributed to David, not Solomon. 56 57

252 Matthew Goff

The other major source for establishing the Jewish antiquity of the trope of Solomon displaying power over the demons is Josephus, writing in the second half of the first century CE. He describes in Ant. 8.46–49 an exorcism conducted by a Jew named Eleazar which he claims to have witnessed.62 Exorcisms are relatively rare in the Josephan corpus, a dearth that is consistent with the Tendenz in Josephus to present Jewish history in rationalist terms that Greco-Roman intellectuals would find appealing.63 The only other instance of exorcistic activity in Josephus is Ant. 6.166–69, part of Josephus’ account of the life of David, which describes him playing the harp to remove from Saul the evil spirits which tormented him (cf. 1 Sam 16:14–23).64 The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, generally dated to the first century CE, attests a similar tradition that Solomon can control demons.65 The text gives an account of a young David removing spirits through music, providing the text of the apotropaic song he would sing (LAB 60:2–3). In the final verse of this song David prophetically announces to the demon that he will have a son who will have power over evil spirits: “But let the new womb from which I was born rebuke you, from which after a time one born from my loins will rule over you.” Josephus uses the verb ἱστορέω to report Eleazar’s exorcism (Ant. 8.46). In Greek historiography this verb has the sense of inquiring into events which occurred (e.g., Herodotus 1.56). This suggests that Josephus presents the episode as something which actually took place.66 His claim that it happened in the presence of Vespasian and other Roman dignitaries also indicates Josephus’ intent to convey the legitimacy of his account. Eleazar, according to Josephus, placed a ring “that had under its seal a root from among those prescribed by Solomon” before the nose of the afflicted person (8.47).67 The root is likely an image embossed on the ring. The demon is then drawn out through the person’s nostrils while Eleazar recites Solomon’s name and “incantations” (ἐπῳδάς, notice the similarity to the “odes” [ᾠδαί]) he composed.68 He then commanded the demon to overturn (ἀνατρέψαι) a container of water, to prove to the by-standers that it was no longer inhabiting the man (8.48). Eleazar’s exorcism, Josephus concludes, is a clear demonstration of the “understanding and wisdom” (σύνεσις καὶ σοφία) of Solomon (8.49; cf. T. Sol. 24:3).

62 Roland Deines, “Josephus, Salomo und die von Gott verliehene τέχνη gegen die Dämonen,” in Lange, Lichtenberger, and Römheld, Die Dämonen, 365–94; Dennis C. Duling “The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon’s Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus’s ‘Antiquitates Judaicae’ 8.42–49,” Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985), 1–25; Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 95–105. 63 Duling, “Eleazar Miracle” (see n. 62), 9–12; Gerhard Delling, “Josephus und das Wunderbare,” NovT 2 (1958), 291–309. 64 Deines, “Josephus, Salomo,” 367–72. 65 Jackson, “Notes,” 34–36. 66 The verb ἱστορέω in Ant. 8.46 may convey that he “learned about” this ‘real’ event rather than witnessing it directly. Duling, “Eleazar Miracle” (see n. 62), 2. See also Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 102. 67 Translation, with minor modification, is from Christopher T. Begg and Paul Spilsbury, Judean Antiquities Books 8–10: Translation and Commentary, FJTC 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 68 Josephus writes that the demon is drawn out by “smelling (ὀσφρομένῳ) through the nostrils.” The action described may involve not simply the ring itself but also an image of a root on the ring which the afflicted person ‘smelled’, allowing the power of the root to effect the demon.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 253

This exorcism account occurs in the context of Josephus’ treatment of King Solomon as part of his lengthy presentation of the monarchic history of ancient Israel. 1 Kings 5:12 (Eng. 4:32) claims he wrote 1,005 songs and 3,000 parables. Josephus, showing the legendary status of Solomon as a composer of texts, claims that he wrote 1,005 “books of odes and songs, and 3,000 “books of parables and allegories” (8.44). The “incantations” attributed to Solomon in the Eleazar passage may reflect the view that some of these “songs” had apotropaic powers. Josephus also praises Solomon’s profound knowledge of the natural world, another trope about Solomon emphasized in 1 Kings (discussed immediately below), and then claims that God “enabled him to learn the technique against demons (τὴν κατὰ τῶν δαιμόνων τέχνην) for the benefit and healing of people” (8.45).69 Solomon’s mastery over the demons is likely conceptualized as part of his knowledge of the natural world. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Eleazar’s Solomonic ring is embossed with a kind of root. The Wisdom of Solomon likely attests the trope that the patriarch’s comprehension of nature encompasses mastery over spiritual beings. This text, which is generally dated to the early first century CE, includes an expansive iteration of the knowledge God gave Solomon. According to Wis 7:20–22, he received “unerring knowledge of what exists,” which the text delineates as including “the nature of animals … the violent powers of spirits (πνευμάτων βίας) and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots; I learned both what is secret and what is manifest, for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.” Winston, in his authoritative commentary on the composition, states that the phrase πνευμάτων βίας is ambiguous, and could refer to winds or spirits.70 This may be a false choice. Traditions earlier than the Wisdom of Solomon associate malignant spirits with the wind.71 Texts that postdate this composition do as well.72 In the Testament of Solomon the Arabian demon Ephippas kills people with gusts of wind; Lix Tetrax also makes whirlwinds (7:5; 22:1–3). In any case, as Torijano points out, Wis 7:20, with its claim that God gave Solomon knowledge of “spirits,” human thoughts and kinds of roots and plants, “constitutes a veritable repertoire of expertise comprising the core disciplines of magic that were central” to later hermetic Deines, “Josephus, Salomo,” 373–75. David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, AB 43 (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1979), 175. For an overview of the Wisdom of Solomon, see Matthew Goff, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” in Randall Chesnutt (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (London: Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming). 71 In Mesopotamian tradition, for example, Pazuzu was regarded as the king of wind demons, who were thought to spread disease by means of the wind. See Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Dragons, Monsters, and Fabulous Beasts (Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004), 29. 72 The Quran preserves a tradition that Solomon was given control over winds and demons: “And to Solomon we subjected the stormy wind blowing at his command towards the land which we have blessed, and we have knowledge of everything. And some of the devils dived for him and did other work besides that and we were watching them” (21.81–82; cf. 34.12–13; 38.36–37). Al-Ṭabarī records a legend that Solomon was able to transport a massive army, which consisted of humans, birds, wild animals and jinn, by lifting them up en masse with the wind. See William M. Brinner, trans., The History of alṬabarī. Volume III: The Children of Israel (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 154 (3.575; cf. 3.577; Qur. 27.17). I thank my colleague Adam Gaiser for this reference. Consult also Sarit ShalevEyni, “Solomon, his Demons and Jongleurs: The Meeting of Islamic, Judaic and Christian Culture,” AlMasāq 18 (2006), 145–60 (146). 69

70

254 Matthew Goff

traditions regarding Solomon’s knowledge of magic lore.73 The Wisdom of Solomon, if it is alluding to this king’s knowledge of and control over demonic spirits in chapter 7, could have admittedly been clearer on this point. Perhaps his interactions with malevolent beings would have been considered inappropriate for the portrait of Solomon as a great Hellenistic king the text intends to convey. It is reasonable nevertheless to posit that Wisdom of Solomon 7 alludes to Solomon’s apotropaic powers, construed as part of his deep mastery over the natural world. This ‘demonic’ reading of πνευμάτων βίας is suggested by its association in Wis 7:20 with roots and plants. Moreover, the following verse (v. 21) claims that Solomon attained esoteric knowledge (κρυπτά), implying that he knows more than even the expansive breadth of knowledge described in chapter 7. The “violent powers of spirits” could denote the harsh impact evil spirits were thought to exert on humankind (e.g., 1 En. 15:11–12). This material from Josephus and the Wisdom of Solomon is important for understanding the Testament of Solomon. These texts constitute evidence that in the first century CE Solomon’s legendary wisdom could be understood as including the king’s know­ ledge of and power over spiritual beings. At the very least this material indicates that a core feature of the Testament of Solomon is in direct continuity with Jewish traditions regarding Solomon that were in circulation in the first century CE. Josephus’ account, as a description of people exerting power over demons by using a ring associated with Solomon is particularly important with regard to the Testament of Solomon. There are differences, however, between the rings described in Josephus and the testament. While they both have seals, the Solomonic ring used by Eleazar appears to have been embossed with an image of a root, whereas no description of the ring in the Testament makes this claim (T. Sol. 1:5). The techniques associated with the rings in both accounts are also different. In the Testament of Solomon, the ring is not placed in front of the nose of a possessed person, as Eleazar does in Ant. 8.47. Rather, when others aside from Solomon use the ring, they throw it into the chest of a demon, while saying “Come! Solomon summons you!,” as Ornias does in T. Sol. 1:11 and 3:1–4.74 In both Josephus and the Testament of Solomon, however, the power of the ring over demons is actualized in combination with Solomonic speech. Another issue that merits comparison is water bowls. The apotropaic activity described in the Eleazar episode includes the use of one (Ant. 8.48). Themes of water and demonic entrapment are entwined in the Testament of Solomon. Asmodeus expresses fear of water and is trapped by being encircled by ten water jars, presumably in the temple, according to T. Sol. 5:12.75 The decanic demons of chapter 18 are, when subdued, Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 93; Michael E. Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. (ed.), Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 414–52 (437). 74 For a critique of the view that the ring is thrown at the demon, see Jackson, “Notes,” 26–27. 75 It may be implied in the Greek that the water is to be poured upon the demon. The Greek περιχώννυσθυαι can as a passive form denote a substance that covers something, rather than encircles something, as Duling, “Testament” (see n. 4), 1.967 note q, observes. But the water, once poured out, seems like it would no longer be an effective medium for trapping demons. Note also that the demon shaped by a lion predicts that Emanouel will come and drive him off a cliff into water, invoking the story of the Gerasene demoniac of Mark 5 (T. Sol. 11:6). 73

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 255

forced to carry water and go to the temple (18:41–42). The Enepsigos episode in chapter 15 mentions that demons are trapped in “vessels” (v. 9); the Greek word for “vessel” (ἀγγεῖον) can denote receptacles that hold liquid, allowing one to understand the demons as trapped in water jars in the temple, although this chapter does not stress the theme of demons trapped in water.76 The motif of aquatic imprisonment is prominent in chapter 16 of the Testament, in which Solomon overpowers the sea-horse demon Kunopegos. He is thrown into a large bowl into which ten containers of sea water are poured (v. 7). In the Josephus account Eleazar commands the demon to knock over a bowl of the water to demonstrate to the crowd that the demon has left the afflicted individual. The tipping of the bowl signifies a successful exorcism. Bowls have a different apotropaic function in the Testament of Solomon. Kunopegos is not forcibly extracted from a human being, unlike the unnamed spirit in the Josephus text. He is commanded to enter into a large bowl, in which a large amount of seawater is poured, and then sealed (16:7).77 Kunopegos is a “cruel spirit of the sea” and he attacks men who are on the open sea (v. 1). The bowl of sea water is an appropriate receptacle for him.78 This homology between the marine demon and the mode of his entrapment has no parallel in the Josephus account. The use of the bowl in the Testament of Solomon does not appear to rely on a Jewish apotropaic bowl tradition evident in the Josephus account of Eleazar.79 It also deserves mention that the late antique incantation bowls from Mesopotamia from late antiquity do not appear to have been filled with water when used against demonic forces, in contrast to the bowls in the Eleazar episode and the Testament.80 Other Jewish traditions that were in circulation before the emergence of Christianity are incorporated into the Testament of Solomon. Asmodeus tells Solomon that he can be 76 In this chapter the demon, in an ex eventu prophecy, proclaims that the destruction of the temple shall result in these vessels being destroyed, resulting in the influx of demonic powers into the world (v. 8; cf. 20:14–17). The temple’s destruction thus serves as an etiology of evil in the world, a dangerous situation which, the text asserts, will last until Christ, the ultimate vanquisher of demons, appears (16:9–10). 77 Compare the demon Abezethibou, who explains to Solomon that he was submerged in the water of the Red Sea when the Israelites passed through, pinned down by the pillar that he and Ephippas bring to Jerusalem (25:7; cf. 6:5; 24:3–5). 78 Solomon sends a boy to Arabia to capture the wind demon Ephippas, telling him “take a leather flask and this seal” (T. Sol. 21:9). The flask when it holds the demon is not filled with water but air (v. 11). As with Kunopegos trapped in the bowl, the entrapping receptacle here is filled with a medium that suits the demon entrapped in it. The Testament of Solomon 25:7 in P and Q also mention Ephippas being trapped in a flask. This motif may be the source for the trope of a genie trapped in a bottle known from the Arabian Nights. See Sarah Iles Johnston, “The Testament of Solomon from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance,” in Jan N. Bremmer and Jan R. Veenstra (ed.), The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 35–49 (41, 45–47). Consult also Duling, “Testament” (see n. 4), 1.986 n. b. 79 So too Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 108. 80 The bowls were inscribed with apotropaic texts and deposited in fixed (often domestic) locations, to protect them from demonic powers. The inside of the bowls was used as a surface on which to write spells, which is not conducive with the bowls being filled with water. See Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 183–93 (esp. 187); Shaul Shaked, James Nathan Ford, and Siam Bhayro, ed., Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 3; Shaul Shaked, “Aramaic Magic Bowls and Their Use: A Brief Introduction,” in Filip Vukosavović (ed.), Amulets and Demons: Jewish Magic Through the Ages (Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2010), 61–67.

256 Matthew Goff

repulsed by burning the liver and gall of a fish, knowledge which draws directly from the book of Tobit (T. Sol. 5:10; Tob 6:6–8).81 There are also significant iterations of the Enochic watchers tradition in the Testament. Asmodeus explains to Solomon that “although I was born of a human mother, I (am the son) of an angel” (T. Sol. 5:3). This demon accords with the giants of Enochic tradition, who are the offspring of angelic fathers and human mothers. Watchers recounts that they are punished for their antediluvian violence by having their physical bodies destroyed while their spirits are to remain on earth, which are to cause problems for humans such as difficulty in childbirth (1 En. 15:12). The evil spirits of Enochic tradition are often understood as demons in Early Christian literature.82 There are Jewish antecedents for the assimilation of the spirits of the giants into a hierarchy of demonic powers. The first century CE Similitudes of Enoch presents the watchers as “servants of Satan” (1 En. 54:6; cf. 40:7; 53:3; Jub. 10:8).83 Enochic giant traditions are also evident in chapter 17 of the Testament of Solomon. There an unnamed spirit tells Solomon: “I am a lecherous spirit of a giant man (ἀνθρώπου γίγαντος) who died in a massacre in the age of giants (γιγάντων)” (17:1). The spirit lurks in graveyards and when he possesses peoples he makes them gnaw at their own flesh, evoking Mark 5 (the Gerasene demoniac) and also the claim in 1 Enoch 7 that the giants consumed human flesh and that of their fellow giants.84 Watchers also claims that these creatures were physically destroyed by an internecine war incited by the archangel Gabriel (1 En. 10:9). The reference to the war of the giants in T. Sol. 17:1 indicates that it was produced by a scribe who had some familiarity with Enochic tradition. This reliance does not, however, require attributing some or all of chapter 17 of the Testament to a Jewish Urschrift of the composition since Watchers was in circulation during the first few centuries of the common era. Enochic watcher traditions are also evident in the Testament of Solomon’s account of Beelzeboul. This demon, who should perhaps be identified as Satan, brags to the king that he was once the highest ranking angel in heaven (6:2).85 Abezethibou, whom Beelzeboul mentions in his discussion with Solomon, likewise informs him that he was in the first heaven, which is named Amelouth (v. 3; 25:2). Even though Abezethibou is paired with the wind demon Ephippas in the pillar narrative at the end of the testament, in terms of his heavenly origins, the composition links Abezethibou instead to Beelzeboul. This dyad brings immediately to mind the two leading watchers in Enochic 81 Asmodeus specifies the kind of fish that can be used in this apotropaic act, the sheatfish (γλάνις; cf. 4Q196 14 i; 4Q197 4 i). Tobit 6 never identifies the kind of fish is involved in the story, suggesting that T. Sol. 5:10 has an exegetical dimension, representing an effort to fill in a detail missing from Tobit. 82 E.g., Justin Martyr, Second Apology 5; Athenagoras, Embassy 24–25. See Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Trickery of the Fallen Angels and the Demonic Mimesis of the Divine: Aetiology, Demonology, and Polemics in the Writings of Justin Martyr,” JECS 12 (2004), 141–71; James C. VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in idem and Wiliam Adler (ed.), The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, CRINT 3.4 (Assen/Mineapolis: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1996), 33–101 (esp. 64–65). 83 Matthew Goff, “Enochic Literature and the Persistence of Evil: Giants and Demons, Satan and Azazel,” in Dochhorn, Rudnig-Zelt, and Wold, Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen, 43–57 (54). 84 Matthew Goff, “Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism and Insatiable Eating in Enochic Literature,” JAJ 1 (2010), 19–42. 85 Alexander, “Contextualizing the Demonology of the Testament of Solomon,” 631.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 257

literature, Shemiḥazah and Asael. In the Testament of Solomon one of the demons is imprisoned (Abezethibou, in the Red Sea), whereas Beelzeboul roams free until he is commanded by Solomon to work at the temple (6:9). Such a distinction is not found in Watchers, according to which both Shemiḥazah and Asael and all the other wayward angels are imprisoned in the netherworld (1 En. 10:4, 11). A better parallel is the rabbinic composition known as the “Midrash of Shemḥazai and Azael,” a text attested in several late medieval rabbinic sources.86 It constitutes the lengthiest extant iteration of the watchers myth in rabbinic literature. In most versions of the midrash, such as that of Yalquṭ Shimoni (Bereshit §44) or Bereshit Rabbati, Shemiḥazai is affixed in the sky for his sexual transgressions, suspended upside down between heaven and earth.87 Azael, unlike Shemiḥazai, moves freely, inciting humans to sin. He is associated with dyes and colors that are used in the ornamentation of women, which he uses to incite sexual sins among men. Shemiḥazai, being trapped between heaven and earth, can be compared to Abezethibou being trapped in the Red Sea, whereas Azael in the midrash, being free to roam encouraging men to lust against women, invokes comparison to Beelzeboul in the Testament of Solomon, since he incites sexual sin (6:4). Some of the composition’s Enochic parallels resonate more with later iterations of Enochic tradition as opposed to Watchers. This does not support the pre-Christian antiquity of the Testament. Watchers circulated in the first centuries of Christianity, falling out of use during the fourth century.88 This material could have easily entered the composition during this century. Also consistent with this conclusion is the fact some demons in the testament clearly draw on the watchers of Enochic tradition, whereas others accord better with their sons the giants, attesting a conflation of the two groups which are clearly distinct in earlier Enochic literature. The elements of the testament that resonate with Enochic tradition are more likely a product of engagement with Enochic lore in the late antique period, as opposed to a pristine survival of ancient Jewish material in the testament.

V. Conclusions: Questioning the Status of the Testament of Solomon as an Ancient Jewish Text The evidence that can be marshalled to understand the Testament of Solomon, in portions or as a whole, as an ancient Jewish (pre-Christian) text is inconclusive. The legendary character of Solomon as a king is already present in the Hebrew Bible. His fame for his wisdom, being an author of texts, and being the builder of the temple, expands in the Second Temple period. This is evident, for example, from Josephus and Eupolemus. 11QApocryphal Hymns suggests that the king was exalted for his power over demons by 86 For a concise discussion of this text and its main sources, see Reed, Fallen Angels, 258–68. Józef Milik provides a translation and version of the Hebrew text of this composition. See his The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 321–39. 87 For these texts, see, respectively, Adolf Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch (6 sections; 3rd edition; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967 [orig. pub., 1853–78]), 4.127–28; Henoch Albeck, Midraš Berešit Rabbati, ex libro R. Mosis Haddaršan collectus e codice Pragensi (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1940), 31. 88 Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 218.

258 Matthew Goff

the first century BCE. The Eleazar episode of Josephus illustrates that by the first century CE the legend of King Solomon’s power over the demons was associated with a ring, and some of the writings attributed to him were understood as incantations he wrote that can be used against demonic powers. Pseudo-Philo and perhaps even the Wisdom of Solomon also suggest by this century a tradition that Solomon had power over the demons was also in circulation. This, however, is not proof that some or all of the Testament of Solomon must be from the first century. The key theme of the Testament – that the king used the ring to compel the demons to build the temple – is not attested in the ancient Jewish texts reviewed above. This is crucial, as Boustan and Beshay have stressed, for adjudicating the question of whether the Testament of Solomon, in parts or as a whole, can be understood as compatible with or placed with an ancient Jewish setting. While a conventional traditio-historical approach is ill-suited to explain the complexity of traditions, in particular their localized adaptations, the Testament of Solomon can be understood, broadly speaking, as attesting a combination of two macro-themes – Solomon as builder of the temple and Solomon as subduer of demons – that are attested as distinct tropes in our ancient Jewish evidence. This would suggest that the Testament is later than these Jewish texts. As I have attempted to demonstrate in this essay, I do not see any way, whether by appealing to redaction criticism, analysis of manuscript variants, or tradition-criticism that would prove or make a persuasive case that some or all of the testament represents a Jewish composition from the first century CE. Some portions of the composition may preserve archaic material, and a lack of evidence does not rule out the possibility that some form(s) of the composition was produced in this early period. As scholars have recognized, chapter 18 with its decan system is the most likely case within the Testament to be a very old text that originally developed in pre-Christian antiquity. But, even if one accepts this possibility as valid, as does Klutz, that core combination of motifs – Solomon forcing the demons to build the temple – is not a major element of chapter 18 at all. After the chapter’s elaborate description of the thirty-six decanic demons, the assertion that they assisted in the construction of the temple only appears at the end: “When I, Solomon, heard these things, I glorified the God of heaven and earth and I ordered them to bear water. Then I prayed to God that the thirty-six demons who continually plague human go to the temple of God” (18:41–42).89 These lines could be easily understood as secondary, appended to the coherent system of decanic demons described throughout the body of the chapter. To my knowledge, the earliest attestation of the motif that Solomon marshaled his power over the demons to construct the temple is the Nag Hammadi document known as the Testimony of Truth: The P manuscript here gives a longer text that gives more treatment of the demons’ labor at the temple: “And I Solomon when I heard this, glorified the God of heaven and earth. And I commanded them [the 36 decanic demons] to fetch water in the temple of God. And I furthermore prayed to the Lord God to cause the demons without, that hamper humanity, to be bound and made to approach the temple of God. Some of these demons I condemned to do the heavy work of the construction of the temple of God. Others I shut up in prisons. Others I ordered to wrestle with fire in (the making of) gold and silver, sitting down by lead and spoon. And to make ready places for the other demons in which they should be confined.” For this translation, see Conybeare, “Testament” (see n. 3), 38. Consult also McCown, Testament, (see n. 2), 59*. 89

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 259

[David] is the one who laid the foundation of Jerusalem; and his son Solomon, whom he begat in [adultery,] is the one who built Jerusalem by means of the demons (daimōn) because he received [power]. When he [had finish building, he imprisoned [the demons (daimōn) [in the temple.] He [placed them] into seven [waterpots. They remained] a long [time] [in] the [waterpots], abandoned [there.] When the Romans [went] up to [Jerusalem] they discovered [the] waterpots, [and immediately] the [demons] ran out of the waterpots as those who escape from prison (70.4–19).90 This text has been dated to the late second or early third century CE. The passage is an important parallel for the Testament of Solomon. Not only does it share the general similarity with the Testament that Solomon had demons build the temple. It has a number of specific parallels in particular with chapter 15 of the composition. Both texts attest the same constellation of motifs – Solomon having power over the demons, using them to build the temple, trapping them in waterpots (in the temple), and the release of the demons into the world upon the destruction of the temple. The Testimony of Truth attributes the escape of demonic powers to the Roman destruction of the temple, whereas the Testament of Solomon appeals to the Babylonian overthrow of the Solomonic temple by the “king of the Persians and Medes and Chaldeans” (15:8). The Testimony of Truth may allude to Solomon’s ring by stating that he was given power over the demons but the text includes no direct references to such an object. The theme in this Nag Hammadi text of waterpots in the temple being ultimately unable to contain the demons accords, as Boustan and Beshay observe, with the larger motif in this composition of baptism. The composition stresses that baptism by water is ultimately unsuccessful and that an authentic baptism constitutes a rejection of the world (Testim. Truth 69.7–29; cf. 30.18–23).91 Though not connected to the temple, Solomon’s power over the demons is also attested in another Nag Hammadi text, the Sethian Apocalypse of Adam. In this text, which was produced sometime between the first to fourth centuries, Solomon orders his “army of demons” to find the virgin who will give birth to Christ the Illuminator, a central theme of the final section of the composition (78.27–79.14).92 They cannot find her but bring the king another virgin whom he impregnates. The Apocalypse of Adam does not state that the demons are in or built the temple, but this may be presupposed.

90 Søren Giversen and Birger A. Pearson, “NHC IX,3: The Testimony of Truth,” in Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, Coptic Gnostic Library 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 101–203 (192–95). For the dating of the work, see pp. 118–20. See also Birger A. Pearson, “The Testimony of Truth,” in Marvin Meyer (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The International Edition (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 613–28. 91 Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 117–18. See also Giversen and Pearson, “NHC IX,3,” 107, 109. 92 George MacRae, “The Apocalypse of Adam: V,5:64,1–85,32,” in Douglas M. Parrott (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1, Coptic Gnostic Library 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 152–95 (180–83). There has been some discussion that the final section of the Apocalypse of Adam, which describes the origin of the Illuminator in terms of a sequence of thirteen kingdoms (Solomon’s being the fourth) is a later interpolation. See Madeleine Scopello and Marvin Meyer, “The Revelation of Adam,” in idem, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 343–56 (344). The Apocalypse of Adam is the only Nag Hammadi text that appears in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. See George MacRae, “Apocalypse of Adam,” OTP 1.707– 19 (the key passage is on p. 716).

260 Matthew Goff

In any case, Solomon’s association with the demons is construed as something negative in this text. The Testimony of Truth and the Apocalypse of Adam, generally identified as gnostic texts, are important for understanding the relationship of the Testament of Solomon to Judaism. The final form of the work is undeniably Christian (e.g., 15:10). The core position of scholars who argue for a Jewish Urtext preserved in the testament, as exemplified in the work of Klutz, is that the essential bulk of the composition developed in an ancient Jewish context and that the unambiguous Christian elements constitute a secondary stage – secondary in a chronological sense and also in the sense of priority – that more of the work can be identified as pre-Christian than can be attributed to its Christian redaction. But the Nag Hammadi material, particularly the Testimony of Truth, raises the possibility that core elements of the Testament of Solomon were not formed in a Jewish context. Providing new justification for Busch’s dating of the text, Boustan and Beshay argue that Christian debates about baptism are important for understanding the formation of the composition. They point out that there is evidence that in the fourth century Christians developed a thematic link between Solomon’s ring and the temple to help legitimize the Christianization of Jerusalem in terms of salvation history, as the culmination of the region’s ancient and scriptural past, of which Solomon’s kingship plays an important part.93 A travel narrative written in Latin by a pilgrim named Egeria in 381 CE claims that on the Friday of Holy Week pilgrims would go through the courtyard of the basilica of Constantine. They would one at a time touch the true cross (putatively discovered during construction) with their forehead and kiss it, with the bishop of Jerusalem watching over the process. Then, according to Egeria, “they go on to a deacon who stands holding the ring of Solomon and the horn with which the kings were anointed. These they venerate by kissing them, and till noon everybody goes by, entering by one door and going out through the other, till midday” (Egeria 37.3).94 The Breviarius, a text that provides a topographical account of Jerusalem, attested in two recensions from the sixth century but may have existed as early as the fourth, similarly claims that at Constantine’s basilica one can see Solomon’s ring on display: And going from there [i.e., the basilica of Constantine] into Golgotha there is a great court where the Lord was crucified. There is a silver screen round this Mount, and a hard kind of rock has been left on the mount. It has silver doors where the cross of the Lord has been displayed, all adorned with gold and gems and a dome open above. Much gold and silver adorn the screen. And the plate is there on which was carried the head of St. John. There is the horn with which David was anointed, and Solomon. And there too is the ring with which Solomon sealed the demons. It is made of electrum. There Adam was formed. There Abraham offered Isaac his son as a sacrifice in the very place where the Lord was crucified (A2).

93 Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 119. They discuss the textual evidence that follows and further information about these texts can be found there (pp. 120–22). 94 Busch, Testament (see n. 5), 27–28.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 261

Another part of the Breviarius claims that in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher one can see twelve silver bowls that Solomon used to trap demons (A1).95 The text does not mention that this captivity took place in the temple but that is a reasonable assumption. This material demonstrates that items associated with Jerusalem’s scriptural heritage were being utilized to illustrate Christian control over this legacy by the fourth century. The Nag Hammadi texts that have been reviewed similarly suggest that the trope of Solomon forcing demons to control this temple emerges in this general time period (the third or fourth century). This time frame would therefore be reasonably understood as when key elements of the Testament of Solomon, above all material that depicts him compelling demons to build the temple, were produced. From this evidence once could argue that this took place in Jerusalem, but this is by no means a necessary conclusion. Another text that suggests the fourth century as an important time frame for the production of the testament is the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. This text, often dated to the fourth century, makes the earliest known reference to a form of the Testament (cf. Acts Phil. 11:6).96 The earliest Jewish text that unambiguously presents Solomon as compelling demons with his ring to build the temple is from the Babylonian Talmud – significantly later than the late antique Christian evidence for this trope.97 A well-known passage, b. Giṭṭin 68a–b, claims that demons helped in the construction, as does the shamir, often understood as a stone-cutting worm, and that Solomon captures Asmedai (Asmodeus) by

95 Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 121, identify this passage as a later stratum of this recension of the Breviarius. Also note that a travel account by a pilgrim from Bordeaux claims in 333 CE that there is a vault at the ruins of the temple where Solomon would torture demons (Bordeaux Pilgrim 589–90). The passage never directly mentions his ring or water bowls. See also Busch, Testament (see n. 5), 21. 96 Some parts of the text are often dated earlier. Pastis has argued that its final recension took place in the fifth or sixth century. The key passage reads: “Know, O Jew, that he [Solomon] worshipped graven images and slaughtered locusts (ἀκρίδα) to them. The Jew said: He did not slaughter them, but he crushed them in his hand unwillingly. However these things are not included in the Book of the Kings, but are written in his Testament” (9.11–13). The combination of Solomon worshipping idols and locusts (ἀκρίδων) matches T. Sol. 26:5. The passage from the Dialogue also shows awareness of the title of the composition. This translation is taken from Jacqueline Z. Pastis, “Dating the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: Revisiting the Earlier Vorlage Hypothesis,” Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002), 169–95 (187; see also 182, 195). Consult further Robert Alan Kraft, “The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and its Echoes of Judaism,” in idem, Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 137 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 173–95; Schwarz, “Reconsidering,” 209; Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 122. 97 There are several bowls, as well as amulets, from the late antique period that refer to Solomon’s magic ring. Whether this material should be understood as Jewish is not always clear. One bowl, JBA 46 (MS 2053/49), is an adjuration against demonic forces that mentions Solomon’s signet ring (l. 9). Note also PGM IV.3040, which mentions a seal of Solomon which the king placed on Jeremiah’s tongue. The trope of Solomon’s ring is also important in Islamic tradition. See Shaked, Ford, and Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells, 208–9; Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1.171; Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 100; Georg Salzberger, Die Salomo-Sage in der semitischen Literatur. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Sagenkunde (Berlin-Nikolassee: Kommissionsverlag von Max Harrwitz, 1907), 115–29. See also the evidence discussed in Torijano, Solomon (see n. 13), 76–87, and Duling, “Eleazar Miracle” (see n. 62), 16. Consult further Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 158–65.

262 Matthew Goff

means of a ring engraved with the name of God.98 Other rabbinic texts that are also late attest the trope that demons helped Solomon create the temple (NumR 11.3; SongR 1.5; Pesiq. Rab. 6.7).99 But none of these texts emphasize that Solomon did so by means of a ring. The Sepher Ha-Razim, which has been dated to the fourth century but may be later, claims that Solomon was able to rule over the demons because of wisdom contained in a book that he possessed, rather than a ring. This text may allude to their assistance in the construction of the temple, but the text is ambiguous on this point.100

98 “R. Johanan said: There were three hundred kinds of demons in Shihin, what a Shidah is I do not know. The Master said: Here they translated ‘male and female demons’. For what did Solomon want them? As indicated in the verse, And the house when it was in building was made of stone made ready at the quarry, [there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building] (1 Kgs 6:7; cf. Deut 27:5); he said to the rabbis, How shall I manage [without iron tools]? They replied, there is the shamir which Moses brought for the stones of the ephod. He asked them, Where is it to be found? They replied, Bring a male and a female demon and tie them together; perhaps they will know and will tell you. So he brought a male and a female demon and tied them together. They said to him, We do not know, but perhaps Ashmedai the prince of the demons knows. He said to them, Where is he? … Solomon thereupon sent thither Benaiahu son of Jejoiada [to Ashmodai], giving him a chain on which was graven the [Divine] Name and a ring on which was graven the Name and fleeces of wool and bottles of wine” (68a; Soncino translation). B. Giṭṭin 68b includes a tale in which Solomon, after the temple is built, gives the ring to Ashmodai, whereupon he swallows it and throws the king four hundred parasangs. A version of this story is found in Midr. Pss 78:12 and NumR 11.3. The participation of the shamir in the construction of the temple and exegesis of 1 Kgs 6:7 (not the ring of Solomon) appears in b. Soṭah 48b. For other rabbinic texts that mention the shamir, see Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003 [orig. pub. 1909–38]), 1.35, 40. The Ethiopian Kebra Nagast (ch. 25) also attests the tradition that Solomon built the temple with the assistance of demons. This motif is also found in the Arabic Judgment of Solomon. See Čéplö, “Testament of Solomon,” 26. A story similar to Ashmodai taking Solomon’s ring and masquerading as him is found in an Islamic source, al-Ṭabarī’s history. He records a narrative about the devil stealing Solomon’s ring and changing his appearance to that of the king (3.590–93 [cf. 3.582–83]). See Brinner, The History of al-Ṭabarī, 162, 169–72. See also Gerhard Langer, “Solomon in Rabbinic Literature,” in Verheyden, The Figure of Solomon, 127–42 (134–35); Shalev-Eyni, “Solomon, his Demons and Jongleurs,” 150; Martin Przybilski, “Salomos Wunderwurm: Stufen der Adaptation eines talmudischen Motivs in lateinischen und deutschen Texten des Mittelalters,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 123 (2004), 19–39. 99 The Songs Rabbah passage asserts that demons and angels helped Solomon build the temple while, like b. Giṭṭin 68a–b, appealing to 1 Kgs 6:7 (cf. ExodR 52.4). The Pesikta passage likewise interprets this verse to mean that demons and other creatures helped build the temple. The Targum Sheni to Esther (chapter 1) interprets 1 Kings 5:13 to mean that “demons and evil spirits, ferocious beasts and (other kinds of) spirits” were placed under Solomon’s control. This attests the perspective that Solomon’s control over the demons should be understood as a consequence of his profound knowledge of the natural world. See Duling, “Eleazar Miracle” (see n. 62), 16, Bernard Grossfeld, The Two Targums of Esther, The Aramaic Bible 18 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 106; Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 108. 100 “The Books of Mysteries were disclosed to him and he became very learned in books of understanding, and (so) ruled over everything he desired, over all the spirits and the demons that wander in the world and from the wisdom of this book he imprisoned and released, and sent out and brought it, and built (‫ )ובנה‬and prospered.” The reference to building may refer to the temple. For this translation, see Morgan, Sepher Ha-Razim, 19. Boustan and Beshay, “Sealing” (see n. 2), 110, offer a translation of a slightly different version of this text from the Cairo Geniza (Taylor-Schechter A 45.28). See Rebiger and Schäfer, Sefer ha-Razim, 1.2, 124*.

The Diabolical Wisdom of Solomon: Assessing the Jewishness of the Testament of Solomon 263

Our earliest unambiguous evidence for the trope that Solomon exerted control over the demons to build the temple occurs in non-Jewish contexts. This provides plausible evidence for the position that the Testament of Solomon did not simply achieve a Christian redaction in this period but that the core theme of the narrative – that Solomon compels demons with his ring to build the temple – was produced within the context of Christianity. The motifs at work in the composition, such as Solomon being a legendary king, subduer of demons and the builder of the temple, all have their origin in scripture and Jewish tradition. Several related motifs, such as Solomon having demons build the temple are found in later Jewish literature, such as the Babylonian Talmud. Only in this rather circumscribed sense can the Testament of Solomon be understood as Jewish. There is no compelling evidence that a particular Jewish context or setting represents a critical stage in the formation of the composition. Moreover, it is not clear that the Testament was preserved or transmitted in rabbinic Judaism. While there is a long standing tradition of understanding the document as an ancient Jewish text that was expanded by Christians, the Testament of Solomon might be better understood as essentially a Christian document that was formed in the context of the third or fourth century, while it continued to be revised and adapted in later periods – a position similar to what Bornemann argued in the first study of the composition in the 1840s.

Warum das Testament Salomos wichtig ist: Ein Beitrag aus neutestamentlicher Sicht Jan Dochhorn

I. Einleitung Das Testament Salomos1 ist nicht geschrieben worden, um von einem Neutestamentler wichtig gefunden zu werden, wann und wo immer seine Grundschrift zu verorten ist. Wie ein archäologisches Relikt, das nicht im Boden liegt, um einem Archäologen etwas zu sagen, ist auch das Testament Salomos, mag es Zeichen an sich sein, Zeichen für einen Neutestamentler nur aufgrund einer an ihn herangetragenen wissenschaftlichen Betrachtungsweise. Diese muß allerdings dann auch noch zum Objekt der Betrachtung passen, damit es als Zeichen erschlossen werden kann. Meines Erachtens ist eine gelungene Interaktion eines Neutestamentlers mit dem Testament Salomos möglich: Vom Testament Salomos her läßt sich Entscheidendes für das neutestamentliche Schrifttum erschließen, vor allem für seine Hintergründe beim Historischen Jesus und bei der frühen Jesusbewegung. Der vorliegende Kurzbeitrag soll dies andeutungsweise skizzieren.

II. Die Voraussetzung: ein hohes Alter und eine jüdische Provenienz der Grundschrift Das Testament Salomos weist in allen Rezensionen, die auf uns gekommen sind, christliche Elemente auf, doch diesen eignet – speziell in den Subrezensionen a und b des Test Sal A – nur Superstratcharakter.2 Es hat eine jüdische Grundschrift gegeben. Dies zu 1 Edition: Chester Charlton McCown: The Testament of Solomon. Edited from Manuscripts at Mount Athos, Bologna, Holkham Hall, Jerusalem, London, Milan, Paris and Vienna (Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testamrent 9), Leipzig 1922. 2 Ich differenziere Test Sal A (bezeugt von den Subrezensionen a, b, c = Rezensionen A, B, C bei McCown) und Test Sal B (bezeugt durch die Handschriften D und E bei McCown [wie Anm. 1] sowie eine Handschrift der Nationalbibliothek in Athen); vgl. meinen Artikel im vorliegenden Band (dort § 2.2). Die Handschrift E und der Athener Codex stehen einander inhaltlich sehr nahe, auch sprachlich: Beide sind mittelgriechisch (die Athener Handschrift scheint dabei etwas regelhafter). Ihr Text ist umfangreicher als der von Ms. D, hat auch mit Test Abr A mehr gemein als Ms. D, teilt aber mit D Spezifika (vor allem: die Geschichte von Bathseba, der Mutter des Salomo am Anfang und den weitgehenden Verzicht auf dämonologische Details). Wahrscheinlich stellt der Text von Ms. D eine gekürzte und umgearbeitete (und ins Koinê-Griechische rücktransponierte?) Version des Test Sal B dar.

266 Jan Dochhorn

demonstrieren versuche ich in einem weiteren Beitrag zu diesem Band; hier ist nur das wesentliche Ergebnis zu wiederholen: Eine narrative Kernidee des Test Sal besteht darin, daß dieses verfaßt wurde, damit die Israeliten nach der Zerstörung des ersten Tempels und dem dadurch ermöglichten Freiwerden der Dämonen ein Hilfsmittel gegen eben diese Dämonen in der Hand haben. Diese Kernidee funktioniert hervorragend ohne den Exorzisten Jesus, ja sogar besser. Sie dürfte ein jüdisches Interesse am Exorzisten Salomo als Begründer eines exorzistischen Praxis widerspiegeln, und eben seine solche Praxis und ein Interesse an Salomo als ihrem Begründer ist exakt das, was wir dem Bericht des Flavius Josephus über einen Exorzismus eines Juden Eleazar vor den Augen der Truppen des Vespasian entnehmen können, vgl. Antiquitates VIII,46–48 (Niese II, 186–87). In das Judentum der Zeit Jesu dürfte auch die von Vollenweider für die Erklärung von Lk 10,18 aufgegriffene Erzählung des Dämonen Ornias vom Wissen der Dämonen verweisen (Test Sal A 20,6–18)3, die der Basiskomposition des Test Sal ebenfalls angehören könnte, da sie mit dem für die Rahmenerzählung entscheidend relevanten Dämon Ornias verbunden erscheint: Ornias berichtet hier, warum die Dämonen Bescheid wüßten, hier speziell über einen demnächst eintretenden Todesfall: Sie dringen von unten über das Firmament zwischen die Sterne vor, hören dort die göttlichen Bescheide und führen sie aus, fallen dann aber, weil sie nicht genug Kraft haben, sich oben zu halten, anders als die des Zugangs zum Himmel gewürdigten »Herrschaften, Mächte und Gewalten« (ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι καὶ δυνάμεις) herunter wie Blätter von den Bäumen und sehen dabei aus wie Blitze, wirken dabei auch schadenbringend.4 Eine Parallele findet sich in den Bilderreden des 1 Henoch, denen zufolge der Angesichtsengel Phanuel die Satane am Zutritt zum Thron Gottes hindert (1 Hen 40,7.9); der Hinweis auf das Wissen der Dämonen im Jakobusbrief, obwohl dort auf das Einssein Gottes und nicht auf Schicksalsschläge bezogen (Jak 2,19), und die Hinweise im Markusevangelium auf ein spezielles Wissen der Dämonen über Jesus (z.B. Mk 1,24) mögen ebenfalls in diesen Zusammenhang gehören. Wieweit popularphilosophisches (postplatonisches?) Wissen über semidivine Wesen (im Griechischen: Δαίμονες)5 oder den Seelenmythos des Phaidros (p. 248) eine Rolle spielen, sei hier dahingestellt; die Frage nach dem Einfluß hellenistischer Popularphilosophie und Magie stellt sich immerhin. Es mag hier auch erwähnt sein, daß für das Testament Salomos als Abschluß eine auf dem Trishagion basierende Doxa-Akklamation an Gott rekonstruiert werden kann6, die Parallelen findet im Explizit der Apokalypse des Mose (Apc Mos 43,4), in der neunglied-

Vgl. Samuel Vollenweider: »Ich sah den Satan wie einen Blitz vom Himmel fallen« (Lk 10,18), Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988), 187–293, speziell 191–97. 4 Test Sal A 20,6–18 ist nur durch die Handschriften H (< Subrezension a) und PQ (< Subrezension b) bezeugt, und dies nicht einmal durchgängig, vgl. McCown (wie Anm. 1), 61*–63*. Doch diese Textzeugen haben gemeinhin einen hohen Wert, vgl. § 2.2 und 3 meines Artikels im vorliegenden Band. Die Zeugen von Test Sal B bieten Parallelen (Ms. D: § 4; Ms. E: § 5, auch die Athener Handschrift), die ein hohes Alter der zur Rede stehenden Tradition möglicherweise ebenfalls sichern. 5 Zur griechischen Dämonologie vgl. Julius Tambornino: De Antiquorum Daemonismo (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 7,8), Gießen 1909, speziell die Quellentexte auf S. 3–27 (von denen einige jüdischen oder christlichen Einschlag aufweisen). 6 Vgl. § 3 meines Artikels im vorliegenden Band. 3

Warum das Testament Salomos wichtig ist 267

rigen Hagios-Akklamation gegen Ende des Poimandres (CH I, 31–32)7 und im ebenfalls Trishagion-bezogenen Explizit der Hypostase der Archonten (NHC II, 97,15–23). Bezeugt scheint hier eine frühjüdische und dann überraschenderweise gerade in christlich-gnostischen und paganen Nachbarbezirken des Judentums weitergeführte Konvention, literarische Werke mit Sanctus-Akklamationen abzuschließen, die sich formal mehr oder minder im Übergang zur späteren Doxologie befinden, wie sie als Abschluß unter anderem hagiographischer Werke im Christentum üblich geworden ist.8

III. Beelzebul im Testament Salomos und in den Evangelien Die bisher genannten Belege für eine religionsgeschichtliche Nähe des Test Sal zum frühen Christentum betrafen makrokontextuell relevante Bestandteile des Textes, die schwerer herauszulösen und damit als Superstrat zu erweisen sind als andere; das mag eingeschränkt auch für das Explizit gelten, das über die Zentralideen eines Textes einiges besagen kann, allerdings textgeschichtlich sehr veränderungsanfällig ist. Es gibt ein weiteres Beispiel dieser Art im Test Sal: Grundlegend für seinen Erzählverlauf ist die Gestalt des Beelzebul als des Anführers der Dämonen (Test Sal A 2,9; 3; 4,2; 6; 9,8; 16,3); es wird schwerfallen, diese herauszulösen; eher wird dies mit dem ihm nachgeordneten Asmodaios gehen (Test Sal A 5) und erst recht mit Referenzen auf den Teufel bzw. Satan, die im Überlieferungsbestand des Test Sal völlig isoliert bleiben; das Test Sal ist alles andere als ein satanologischer Text.9 Für die Erzählungen von Beelzebul im Test Sal ist ein Moment charakteristisch: Salomo hat mit göttlicher Hilfe über ihn Gewalt gewonnen und bedient sich seiner, um sich die anderen Dämonen gefügig zu machen. Eben dies aber ist es, was ganz ähnlich in den Beelzebul-Perikopen der synoptischen Überlieferung Jesus vorgehalten wird (Mk 3,22–27; Lk 11,14–23; Mt 12,22–30). In diesen Perikopen, die sowohl für Markus als auch für Q gesichert werden können und somit wohl altes Material repräsentieren10, sagen – 7 Vgl. hierzu Ola Wikander: Old Testament Prototypes for the Hermetic Trishagion in Poimandres 31 – and Support for an Old Conjecture, in: Greek Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013), 579–90. 8 Vgl. hierzu Alfred Stuiber: Doxologie, in: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 4 (Stuttgart 1959), 210–26. 9 Für das Test Sal A ist nach der Ausgabe von McCown der Teufel nur in Test Sal A 15,11 bezeugt, das zu einer vom Kontext ablösbaren christlichen Interpolation gehört (Test Sal 15,10–11; vgl. meinen Artikel im vorliegenden Band, § 3). Häufiger belegt scheint satanologisches Gut in Test Sal B-Überlieferung, aber dort macht es nicht gerade den Eindruck der Ursprünglichkeit (der bei Test Sal B ja ohnehin wenig aufkommt): In Test Sal B [nach Ms. D] ist vom Teufel bzw. Satan in 1,1.4.5.6 die Rede; dort haben wir es mit Sondergut des Test Sal B zu tun. Die anderen Belege für das Wort διάβολος oder σατανᾶς, etwa Test Sal B (nach Ms. D) 2,7.11.13; 3,2, passen gerade nicht, da sie den Dämonen Ornias generisch als einen Teufel bzw. Satan bezeichnen. Sondergut des Test Sal B ist die Herbeizitierung des Samael, vgl. Test Sal B (nach Ms. D) 7; Test Sal B (nach Ms E) 9. Nur in Ms. D scheint dabei Samael als der Herrscher aller Dämonen dargestellt (Beelzebul ist Ms. D unbekannt, nicht aber Ms. E, vgl. Ms. E 4). Für Ms. E sind Anspielungen auf den Luzifermythos und damit den Teufel typisch, die in Ms. D fehlen, vgl. Ms E. 4,5; 5,8. Alles, was über Ms. E gesagt wurde, gilt auch für die Handschrift aus Athen. 10 Die Texte bei Matthäus und Lukas haben derart viel gegen Markus gemeinsam, daß man gewöhnlich eine Q-Überlieferung als deren Grundlage annimmt, vgl. Paul Hoffmann/Christoph Heil: Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe, Griechisch und Deutsch, Darmstadt/Löwen 22002, 63–65. Für einge-

268 Jan Dochhorn

ursprünglich wohl religionspolitisch nicht näher bezeichnete – Zeitgenossen über Jesus, er treibe die Dämonen mit dem Beelzebul aus (Mk 3,22; Lk 11,15; Mt 12,24)11; verbunden damit behaupten sie bei Markus 3,22, Jesus habe den Beelzebul. Diese Aussagen erinnern doch stark daran, was Salomo im Testament Salomos macht! Ein Unterschied mag darin bestehen, daß Jesus – mindestens bei Markus – Besessenheit durch eben den Beelzebul, dessen er sich bedient, vorgeworfen zu werden scheint, während Salomo ihn unter Kontrolle hat, aber dieser Unterschied ist nicht sehr groß: Von Dämonen weiß man, daß sie auch für Experten schwer zu bändigen sind; wer die Experten nicht mag, wird über sie erzählen, daß eher die Dämonen sie als sie die Dämonen im Griff haben, wie etwa die Episode über die Söhne des Skeuas in der Apostelgeschichte zeigt (Acta 19,14–17). Meines Erachtens ist klar: Im Testament Salomos liegt im Wesentlichen dieselbe Sicht über Beelzebul vor wie in der Aussage über Jesus, er treibe die Dämonen aus mit dem Beelzebul. Dabei läßt das Testament Salomos keinerlei Interesse erkennen, seine Sicht des Beelzebul irgendwie an das Beelzebul-Motiv der Evangelien anzudocken, geschweige denn, von ihm her zu entwickeln. Es wäre auch schwer gewesen, denn was in den Evangelien ein Problem zu sein scheint, das ist im Testament Salomos ohne jedes Bewußtsein um ein Problem erzählt, ganz im Gegenteil: Daß Salomo die Dämonen mit Hilfe der Dämonen bezwingt, ist dort Anlaß für einen Lobpreis Gottes (Test Sal A 2,9; 3,5.7 etc.); was Salomo da tut, verdankt er Gott und paßt zu seiner Frömmigkeit (vgl. Test Sal A 1,5–7). Wir können das Testament Salomos also in dieser Hinsicht als vom Neuen Testament unabhängige Parallele betrachten, und dies bedeutet nicht zuletzt: Es gibt einen vom Neuen Testament unabhängigen Beelzebul-Beleg. Und wohl noch mehr läßt sich konstatieren: Was in den Beelzebul-Perikopen der Evangelien vorausgesetzt erscheint (ein Verhältnis des Exorzisten zu Beelzebul), wird im Testament Salomos entwickelt. Es besteht damit in dieser Sache ein Traditionsgefälle vom Testament Salomos zum Neuen Testament, und daraus ergibt sich Abhängigkeit der Jesus-Überlieferung vom Testament Salomos oder aber von Erzählungen, die dessen Beelzebul-Erzählung ähneln.

IV. Zum historischen Jesus Die Beelzebul-Perikopen der Evangelien stellen altes Traditionsgut dar und werden relevant sein für die Rekonstruktion des historischen Jesus. Was läßt sich angesichts ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Testament Salomos oder ihm nahestehender Überlieferung für den historischen Jesus vermuten? Eine kurze Skizze sei gewagt; sie wird weiter ausgeführt werden in dem Buch, das ich in Anm. 10 angekündigt habe:

hendere synoptische Analysen muß ich auf eine demnächst erscheinende Studie über den Teufel in der biblischen Überlieferung verweisen, die ich zusammen mit Thilo Rudnig und Susanne Rudnig-Zelt für die Reihe »Topoi Biblischer Theologie« (ToBiTh) verantworte. 11 Markus hat in Mk 3,22 mit den Schriftgelehrten aus Jerusalem typisch markinische, Matthäus in Mt 12,24 typisch matthäische Gegner. Die anonymen Sprecher in Lk 11,15 hingegen dürften für die älteste Tradition stehen. Überlieferungsgenealogisch ist dies möglich, denn Lukas kann Q bezeugen, und Q kann archaischer sein als Markus – so jedenfalls nach der Mehrheitsauffassung zur synoptischen Kritik, der ich hier ohne weitere Erläutertung folge.

Warum das Testament Salomos wichtig ist 269

1. Es lag im Bezugsmilieu Jesu nahe, seine Exorzismen mit Überlieferungen über den Erzexorzisten Salomo und Beelzebul in Verbindung zu bringen, ob ursprünglich mit polemischer Note (im Sinne eines Besessenheitsvorwurfs), sei hier dahingestellt. Es mag sich hier ein synkretistischer Einschlag im Bezugsmilieu Jesu zu erkennen geben: Das Testament Salomos weist, so sehr es im Laufe der Zeit überformt und erweitert worden sein mag, Affinitäten zu griechischer und gemeinmediterraner Magie auf, und Beelzebul hat einen Namen, der wohl auf den Stadtgott der Philisterstadt Ekron zurückgeht (vgl. 2 Kön 1, wo dieser Gott Baal Zebub = »Herr der Fliegen« genannt wird)12, womit sich vielleicht nicht nur das jüdische Bedürfnis nach Dämonisierung oder Depotenzierung eines heidnischen Gottes andeuten mag, sondern auch eine Faszination durch denselben, die auch positiver Natur gewesen sein kann: Immerhin hielt man es ja nicht für unmöglich, sich seiner zu einem guten Zweck zu bedienen. 2. Jesus hält von diesen Erklärungsansätzen wenig: Er weist die These (den Vorwurf?), er bediene sich Beelzebuls für seine Exorzismen, zurück und stellt dagegen die Erklärung, daß er ein in sich einheitliches Satansreich ausplündere, über das er als jemand Macht habe, der stärker sei als der Satan und diesen gebunden habe. Er stellt damit zum einen klar, daß er nicht etwa ein exorzistischer Pragmatiker sei, der Antagonismen im Dämonenreich aufgrund eines speziellen Wissens für sich zu nutzen verstehe, sondern daß er sich in einer prinzipiellen und dualistisch begriffenen Auseinandersetzung mit Satan, nicht Beelzebul, und seinem Reich als Ganzen befinde. Satan wird dabei nicht einfach eine andere Bezeichnung für Beelzebul sein (vgl. Mk 3,23, wo Beelzebul ein Satan ist, aber nicht der Satan), sondern steht für eine Alternative: Die Macht der Dämonen ist für Jesus nicht die eines locker strukturierten Dämonenreichs mit tendentiell polytheismusanalogen Strukturen 12 Vgl. hierzu Ludwig Koehler/Walter Baumgartner u.a.: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Unveränderter Nachdruck der dritten Auflage (1967–95) (in 2 Bänden), Leiden u.a. 2004, I, 250 (sub lemmate ‫ ;)זבוב‬vgl. auch das Material bei Georg Benedikt Winer: Biblisches Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch für Studirende, Kandidaten, Gymnasiallehrer und Prediger. Zweite ganz neubearbeitete Auflage (in 2 Bänden), Leipzig 1833–38, 170–71 (sub lemmate Beelzebub). Die Identifikation des Beelzebul der Evangelien mit Beelzebub in 2 Kön 1 ist alt und liegt schon zugrunde in dem Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum des Hieronymus (p. 66,11–13): Beelzebub habens muscas aut uir muscarum. in fine ergo nominis B littera legenda est, non L. musca enim zebub uocatur (»Beelzebub heißt „Fliegen habend oder Fliegenmann“. Am Ende des Namens ist also der Buchstabe B zu lesen, nicht L. „Fliege“ heißt nämlich „zebub“«), vgl. Paul Anton de Lagarde (Hg.): Onomastica Sacra, Göttingen 1887 (Nachdruck: Hildesheim 1966), 99; vgl. den sehr viel expliziteren Kommentar des Hieronymus zu Mt 10,25 (in Matthaeum I, Zeile 1679–85 nach CCSL 77,70). Vgl. auch den Beleg aus einem griechischen Onomastikon bei de Lagarde, der den Namen Βεελζεβούλ mit Fliegen assoziiert (176,36 = de Lagarde 205: Βεελζεβοὺλ καταπίνων μυίας); vgl. dazu weitere Belege bei Franz Wutz: Onomastica Sacra. Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des Hl. Hieronymus (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur III,11), Leipzig 1914–15 (in 2 Bänden mit durchgehender Seitenzählung), 709,30; 872. Die Erinnerung an den Stadtgott von Ekron und 2 Kön 1 mag mitschwingen in der onomastischen Überlieferung bei de Lagarde 214 (= 188,66–68): Βεελζεβοὺλ δαίμων βακελεὺς ἢ καταπίνων ἐν ἀναπαύσει στόματος. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὄνομά τινος Πριάπου αἰσχροῦ μεγαλομορίου (»Beelzebul: „Dämon, der verschnitten/geil ist wie ein Priester der Kybele“, oder „Verschluckend in der Ruhe des Mundes“. Es ist aber auch der Name eines häßlichen Priapen mit einem sehr großen Teil.«).

270 Jan Dochhorn

(etwa dahingehend, daß der Dämonenchef zu einer Potenz wird, die man vielleicht ähnlich nutzt wie die Macht eines Primus inter pares), sondern ist ein monolither Machtblock mit Satan als unumschränktem Herrscher. Statt des von antiker Magie inspirierten synkretistischen Ansatzes einer kontemporär vielleicht sehr wirksamen Salomo-Tradition vetritt Jesus damit eine satanologische Dämonologie; er greift damit wohl direkt oder indirekt auf die Satanologie des Jubiläenbuchs zurück, wo der »Fürst der Anfeindung« (= Satan) als Anführer der Dämonen fungiert (Lib Jub 10). Dies könnte wiederum bedeuten, daß er eine konservative Sicht vertritt; das Jubiläenbuch wurde in Qumran gelesen, aber auch von der vielfach prärabbinischen und präpaulinischen Apokalypse des Mose.13 3. Das Selbstbewußtsein Jesu ist in diesem Zusammenhang nicht ganz unbeträchtlich: Er ist der Stärkere, der Satan überwunden hat und deswegen die Dämonen austreiben kann (Mk 3,27; Lk 11,21–22; Mt 12,29). Ob er damit eine Tradition des Täufers Johannes aufgenommen hat, der Mk 1,7 par. zufolge von einem Stärkeren nach ihm geredet hat, sei hier dahingestellt; vielleicht ist die Täufertradition auch von Christen im Anschluß an die jesuanische formuliert worden. Wichtiger scheint: Die für Q gesicherte jesuanische Aussage, daß »hier« mehr sei als Salomo (Lk 11,31 // Mt 12,42), welche man wohl am besten auf Jesus selber bezieht, findet hier eine Parallele: Immerhin siegt hier jemand viel grundsätzlicher über die Dämonen als Salomo. Salomo war nicht nur als Dämonenbezwinger bekannt, sondern auch als der mächtigste König Israels, in der Weisheit Salomos etwa als der Zionskönig von Psalm 2, der die heidnischen Herrscher (die Tyrannen) zum rechten Vernunftgebrauch und damit zur Unterordnung unter den Machtanspruch Gottes und Israels auffordert (vgl. Sap Sal 1,1; 6,1–5 // Ps 2,10–12).14 Damit klingen politische Implikationen an; erfolgreiche Exorzismen Jesu, verstanden vor dem Hintergrund der Tradition von König Salomo als Exorzisten, konnten leicht als Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung angesehen werden. Jesus hat sich anscheinend bemüht, die Salomo-Tradition nicht einfach unverändert für die Deutung seines Handelns zu übernehmen, aber wie auch immer er sich selbst verstand: Die Geschichte ist nicht gut ausgegangen, vorerst jedenfalls nicht.

13 Zur Rezeption des Lib Jub im frühen Judentum vgl. die Hinweise bei Jan Dochhorn: Die Bestrafung des Unzuchtsünders in 1. Kor 5,5. Satanologische, anthropologische und theologische Implikationen, in: Jan Dochhorn/Susanne Rudnig-Zelt/Benjamin Wold (Hg.): Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen – Evil, the Devil, and Demons (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 412), Tübingen 2016, 127–51, speziell 133–34 (dort Anm. 15); eine großangelegte Übersicht zur Bezeugung des Jubiläenbuchs bietet Hermann Rönsch: Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Kleine Genesis, Leipzig 1874, 251–422 (wo besonders die Hinweise auf die Test XII, den Midrasch Wajjisâu und das Neue Testament von Belang sein dürften). 14 Die Rede des Zionskönigs in Ps 2 und speziell Ps 2,10–12 ist meines Erachtens der Nukleus der Sapientia Salomonis als Ganzer, vgl. hierzu Jan Dochhorn: Frömmigkeit und Konflikt. Die Weisheit Salomos, in: Martin Rösel/Christfried Böttrich (Hg.): Die Apokryphen der Lutherbibel. Einführungen und Bibeltexte, Stuttgart/Leipzig 2017, 92–98 sowie meine bisher unveröffentlichte Einleitung zur Sapientia Salomonis (einsehbar auf meiner Academia-Seite).

Stellenregister Altes Testament Gen 3 2 17:16 167 21:27–29 134 Ex 4:24–26 2 16:8 132 25:16 124 25:21 124 31:18 124 32:15 124 34:19 124 40:20 124 Lev 13–14 128 20:14 126 21:19 126 Num 5:11–31 127 5:24 127 Dtn 9:9 124 9:11 124 9:15 124 19:18–21 127 22:22 126 27:5 262 Jos 21:17 123 Ri 5:10 144 10:4 144 12:14 144 1 Sam 16:14–23 252

1 Kön 2:12 99, 130 2:35a–o 248 2:46a–l 248 3:4–5 99, 123 3:5 248 3:6–9 99, 124 3:11–13 99, 142 3:15 99, 124 3:16 124 3:16–21 99, 125 3:22–28 99, 125 3:26 125, 154 4:21 133, 138 4:24 99, 138 4:31 99, 138 4:34 99 5:1 248 5:10 248 5:12 248, 253 5:13 248, 262 6:1–38 133 6:7 262 8–9 99 8:9 124 9:2 123 10:1–10 130 10:1–13 99 10:14–22 249 10:21–29 248 11:1–8 130 11–14 99, 124 17:1 137 17:6 132 2 Kön 5:7

99, 128

1 Chr 16:39 123 21:29 123 22:9 249

Stellenregister 272 2 Chr 1:3 123 1:7 248 1:7–13 123 3:1–17 133 5:10 124 6:28 248 9:1–9 130 9:13–22 249 35:4 248 Est, Jdt

151

Tob 151 6:6–8 256 2 Makk 2:9

248

4 Makk 18:8 137 Ps 2 270 2:10–12 270 9:34b–15:5b 23, 25 72 248 91 250 117:22 LXX 53 127 248 Spr 150–51 1:1–9 174 1:10–19 175 1:10–33 175 1:20–33 175 2:1–16 175 2:16–3:17 175 3:18–23 176 3:24–4:9 175 4:10–19 175 4:20–5:17 175 8:4–11 176 8:11–31 175 8:22–31 174 8:33–36 175 9:1–12 175 10:1–19 175 10:20–25 174 10:27–11:2 175 11:7–13 174 11:30–12:4 175 12:5–24 175

12:25–13:3 176 14:27–15:4 175 15:4–19 175 15:32–16:21 175 18:10–23 175 19:3–19 175 20:6–15 176 22:22–23:14 175 23:11–18 174 23:15–31 175 24:15–25 175 24:28–34 175 25:2–15 175 28:10–29:1 175 29:2–6 174 29:7–15 175 29:19–28 175 30:1–8 175 30:1–14 175 30:15–31:9 175 31:10–28 175 31:30–32 176 Koh

150–51, 187

Hld 8:6

150–51, 187 130

Weish 150–52, 173–78, 180, 253–54, 258 1:1 270 1:1–2:4 175 1:12 175 2:12–18 175 2:12–23 175 3:1–8 176 4:8–12 174 5:1–17 176 6:1–5 270 7:15–29 175 7:20 253–54 7:20–22 253 7:21 254 8:2–4 176 9:1–19 176 14:1–7 176 14:11–15:3 175 Sir 47:18–22 249 Am 8:14 137

Stellenregister 273 Jes 2:8–9 245 40:15 74 41:25 167 Jer 23:7 (LXX) 137 46:13–24 167 46:17 167

46:18 167 Ez 9 130 42–48 133 Dan 3:46 ο′θ′ 4:1

45 167

Neues Testament Mt 9:34 142 12:22–30 267 12:24 188, 268 12:29 270 12:42 270 Mk 1:24 266 3:22 188, 245, 268 3:22–27 267 3:23 269 3:27 270 5 254, 256 Lk 10:18 241, 266 10:38–42 126, 154 11:14–23 267 11:15 188, 268 11:21–22 270 11:31 270 Joh 2:20 132 5:2 193 5:2–3 193

8:5 126 11:1–44 126, 154 12:2 126 Apg 1:12–14 24, 30 19:14–17 268 2 Cor 2:13–15

24, 30

Gal 4:3 4:9

208 208

Eph 6:12 208 Kol 2:8 208 2:20 208 Jak 2:19 266 Offb 7:2 130 13:10 189

Parabiblica Alttestamentlich 1 Henoch 7 256 10:4 257 10:9 256 10:11 257

15:11–12 254 15:12 256 40:7 256, 266 40:9 266 53:3 256 54:6 256

274 Stellenregister Apocalypsis Moysi 2, 27, 185, 188 43:4 190–91, 266 Assumptio Moysi

10

Caverna Thesaurorum 7 Historia de Melchisedech 14 Hygromantia Salomonis 246 Kebra Negast

7, 97

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 2 60:2–3 252 Liber Jubilaeorum 2 10 190, 270 10:8 256 48:2–3 2 Narratio Zosimi

2, 16

Palaia historica

7

Paralipomena Jeremiae 14 Salomo et Thabor

149, 154

Testamentum Abrahae 14, 183, 185, 188 Testamentum Job 2 Testamentum Salomonis 1:1 30 1:1–2 184 1:1–12 185 1:3 184 1:4 30 1:5 254 1:5–7 184 1:8–11 184 1:11 254 1:11–14 184 2:1 233 2:2–4 221 2:4 75 2:9 267 3:1–4 254

4:1 74, 76 4:2 233, 267 4:4 75 4:12 31, 76 5:3 256 5:4 76 5:8 31 5:9 74, 76 5:10 256 5:12 254 6:2 256 6:3 73, 76, 256 6:4 257 6:5 255 6:8 76 6:9 257 7:1 76 7:4 76 7:5 77, 253 7:7 77 8:3 77 9:8 189, 267 10:1 233 10:11 77 11:4 74 11:6 30, 254 12:2 77 12:3 77 12:6 77 13:1 233 13:3 77 13:4 73 15:1–6 189 15:4–5 233 15:7–12 189–90 15:7–15 183 15:8 190, 255, 259 15:9 190–91, 255 15:10 260 15:13 190 15:13–15 189–90 15:14 233 16:1 233, 255 16:3 267 16:4 77 16:7 255 17:1 76, 256 17:3 74 17:4 188 18:1 74, 232 18:1–3 232 18:1–5 234 18:4 76, 162

Stellenregister 275 18:4–40 221, 231–32 18:8 76 18:8–10 221 18:9 75 18:10 75, 77 18:11 75 18:12 75, 77 18:13 75, 226 18:15 75–76, 226 18:16 72, 75–76, 226 18:17 75–76, 78 18:18 76 18:20 75 18:21 72, 75 18:22 78, 230 18:24 77 18:25 76 18:26 76 18:27–28 227 18:28 31, 228 18:29 31, 229 18:31 231 18:37 229 18:38 229 18:41–42 255, 258 20:6–18 266 20:14–17 255 21:9 255 22:1–3 253 22:19 30 22:20 188 24:3 252 24:3–5 255 25:2 256 25:7 255 25:10 191 26:1–7 184 26:4–5 VII 26:5 261 26:6–8 190 26:6–10 190 26:7 190 26:8–10 184, 187, 189–90 Handschriften des Test. Sal. D 21, 55, 184 E 184 G 21, 55 H 31, 55, 73–74, 76, 191, 229 I 29, 31, 55, 73–74, 187 K V, 21, 31, 55 L 31, 55, 73–74, 76,

N O P Q R V W

187, 229 73–74, 77, 187, 191, 229 73 55, 73–74, 77, 229 21, 55, 73 21, 55, 73 73 73

Rezensionen des Test. Sal. A V, 29, 31, 73–76, 184 B V, 73, 184 C V, 73 Testamentum XII patriarcharum 15 Tolkovaja Paleja 7, 155 Neutestamentlich Acta Andreae et Bartholomaei 28 Acta Philippi 11:6 261 Evangelium Judae 3 Narratio Josephi de Arimathaea 187 Pistis Sophia

3

Protevangelium Jacobi 15–16 154 16:1 154 Vita Johannis Baptistae 157 Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Adam 78.27–79.14 259 Apocryphon of John 218, 221 15.26–29 222 15.29–35 222 17.7, 29–30 224 Hypostasis of the Archons 267

276 Stellenregister 39 3 50 154 76 187 183 157 238 28 250.i 261

Testimony of Truth 192 30.18–23 259 69.7–29 259 70.1–24 192 70.4–19 259 BHG 24–25 28 614 29 780 29 1004 28 1018 26 1039–41 29 1144 28 1421 25 1577 26 1609 25 1744 26–27 2056 28 2389 21 2390 29

CAVT 1.i 2, 27, 185, 188, 190–91, 266 11 7 61 254, 256–57, 266 88 14, 183, 185, 188 95 14 118 15 131 2, 252 132 2, 190, 256 270 134 10 161 246 162 (→ Test. Sal.) 278–80 166 2, 16 207 2 225 14 277 7

CANT 28

3

Koran 21:81–82 253 27:17 253

34:12–13 253 38:36–37 253

Judaica / Rabbinica Flavius Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae VI,166–69 252 VIII,2,1 123–24 VIII,2,2 124 VIII,2,5 130 VIII,3,1–9 133 VIII,4,1 124 VIII,4,1,5 144 VIII,6,5–6 130 VIII,7,2 133 VIII,44 253 VIII,45 253 VIII,46 252 VIII,46–48 266 VIII,46–49 242, 252

VIII,47 252, 254 VIII,48 252, 254 VIII,49 252 Bellum Judaicum II,142 214, 241 VI,438 249 Mišnah Sot 1–7

127

Talmud b. Giṭṭin 68a

135

b. Giṭṭin 68a–b b. Giṭṭin 68b b. Shebu. 15b

241, 261 262 250

Stellenregister 277 b. Soṭah 48b b. Sukkah 53 y. Shabb. 6.8b y. ʿErub. 10.26c

262 192 250 250

Canticum Rabbah 1.5 1.9

Midr. Pss 78:12 262 91:1 250

Targum Ps.-Jonathan ad Gen 2:7 191 Sheni ad Esther 1

262 124

Pesiq. Rabbati 6.7 14

262

262 124

Pirque Rabbi Eliezer 11 191

Midrashim und andere Rabbinica Bereshit Rabbati

257

Genesis Rabbah 14.9

Sepher Ha-Razim

191

Exodus Rabbah 52.4

Tanḥuma, Qidd. ad Lev 19 191

262

Yalquṭ Shimoni

Numeri Rabbah 11.3

262

262

257

Qumran 1QM 13:11 251 3Q15 250 4Q196 256 4Q197 256 4Q245 250 4Q247 250 4Q385a 250 4Q397 250

4Q398 250 4Q444 250 4Q510–511 250 4QMMT 250 11Q11 249–51 11QPsa 27:9–10 250 11QT 30–42 249 CD 16:5 251

Patristische und Byzantinische Quellen Athanasius Narratio de cruce seu imagine Berytensi 29 Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis 24–25 256 Breviarius de Hierosolyma 193, 260 A1 261 A2 260

Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae VII, 54, 261 9.11–13 261 Egeria Itinerarium 37.3

193, 260

Eusebius De diapsalmate 27 Praeparatio evangelica 9.30.1–34.18 249 9.34.11–20 249

278 Stellenregister Eutychius Alexandrinus Annales 124, 130, 133 Germanus I. Orationes 30 Hieronymus Commentaria in Isaiam 1.55 245 Hippolytus Commentarius in Danielem 45 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.29 222 1.29–30 230 Isidorus Hispalensis Etymologiae 12.7.42 75 Itinerarium Burdigalense 261 21:5–9 193 Johannes I. Thessalonicensis Homilia de dormitione Mariae 28 Josephus Bryennios Consolatio ad monachos Cretenses 74 Justinus Martyr Apologia 5

Origenes Contra Celsum 8.58 214, 243 8.59–64 216 De diapsalmate

27

Pachomius Rusanos Sermones contra haereticos 74 Passio Procopii

26

Petrus Diaconus De locis sanctis 107.13–14 193 Prolegomena in Psalmos 27 Symeon Metaphrastes Vita Mamantis

26

Vita Sabae

25

Tertullianus Adversus Iudaeos 13.26 193 De Baptismo 5.5 193 Vita Eugenii et Mariae 29

256

Vita Macarii Romani 28

Lactantius Divinae institutiones 2.15 239

Vita Marci Atheniensis 29

Manuel Malaxos Nomocanon 710

Vita Theodori 79

Matthaeus Myrensis Vita Parascevae Junioris 25 Oratio anonyma

26

26

Stellenregister 279

Pagane Quellen Aretaeus De causis et signis

Papyri Graecae Magicae 74

Claudius Ptolemaeus Tetrabiblos 3.11–14 216 3.12 217 Hephaestio Thebanus Apotelesmatica 206, 217 1.1.13–14 231 1.1.51 231 2.18.70–6 207, 231 Hermetica Hermes an Asclepius 218 Liber Hermetis 220 Poimandres 267 Herodotus Historiae 1.56 252 Julius Firmicus Maternus Mathesis 205 2.4.4–5 206 4.22.2 206 Manilius Astronomica 2.453–65 216 4.294–386 204 4.577 221 4.597 221 4.696–711 216

1:345–47 229 2:100 229 4:131 74 4:1227–64 230 4:2850 229 5:54–69 228 7:462–660 228 7:594–99 229 12:72 229 12:187 229 12:287 230 12:290 229 13:1–29 231 13:734–1077 231 13:815–18 230 16:1–75 229 25:15 230 42:7 229 59:1–15 229 67:1–24 229 83:1–20 230 Plato Res publica 382e 73 Porphyrius Epistula ad Anebonem 2.12b–c 205 Stobaeus Excerptum VI 1.21.9 220

Handschriftenregister Athen EBE 825 EBE 2011 Athos Andreu 73 Dionysiu 132 Iviron 1497 Iviron 1525 Iviron 1530 Iviron 1538 Iviron, Ath.-1 Kutlumusiu 33 Kutlumusiu 148 Laura I 48 Laura Θ 20 Panteleemon 299

V, 59 V, 81 21, 55 21, 55 24 24 24 24 172–73 24 21, 55 16 59 16

Bukarest Biblioteca Academiei Române, gr. 580

16

Monastery of Anbā Maqāryūs Dayr Abū Maqār 41

149

Monastery of Mār Mīnā Dayr Mār Mīnā 120

152

Oxford Bodl. Libr. Baroccianus 223 Bodl. Libr. Holkham gr. 82 Paris BnF, arab. 28 BnF, arab. 214/6 BnF, gr. 38 BnF, gr. 1174 BnF, suppl. gr. 500 BnF, syr. 194 BnF, syr. 195

27 55 158 95, 149–50, 152, 163 55 28 29, 55 186 158

Kairo Coptic Museum 31 Coptic Museum 67

151 151, 163

Gori SMGHEM 6034/14

178

Rom Vat. arab. 448 95, 149–50, 152–53, 163, 186 Vat. Arch. Cap. S. Pietro C. 154 21 Vat. gr. 770 VII Vat. gr. 1700 21, 55 Vat. gr. 1871 21

Grottaferrata Cryptensis Α. δ.VI (gr. 389)

VII

Sofia EHAI 881

Jerusalem, Gr. Orth. Patr. Georgian Ms. 44:10 Georgian Ms. 113 Ἁγίου Σταυροῦ 81 Σάβα 290 Σάβα 373 Σάβα 390

176 172 27 81 29 29

London British Library, Add MS 34554 British Library, Harley 5596

26 55

Madrid Bibl. Nat. 4616 Bibl. Nat. 4644

73 75

21, 55

Tbilisi NCM A-51 NCM A-61 NCM A-65 NCM A-112 NCM A-165 NCM A-308:2 NCM A-565 NCM A-1330:32 NCM A-1418 NCM H-131 NCM H-345:1 NCM H-370:1 NCM H-377 NCM H-618:1

172–73 177 172 176 176 178 177 180 172–73 177 177 178 178 177

282 Handschriftenregister NCM H-999 NCM H-1053:1 NCM H-1392 NCM H-1926:26 NCM H-1936 NCM H-1938:3 NCM H-1939:9 NCM H-1939:59 NCM H-1943 NCM H-1944:24 NCM H-1993:1 NCM H-1993:2 NCM H-1994:17 NCM H-1995:5 NCM H-1997a:1 NCM H-1999i:1 NCM H-1999i:2 NCM H-2004b:2 NCM H-2004b:3 NCM H-2448:15 NCM Q-56 NCM Q-508:3 NCM Q-524:3 NCM Q-1052 NCM Q-1116c NCM S-85 NCM S-269:19 NCM S-269:43 NCM S-368:2 NCM S-409 NCM S-951b NCM S-1141 NCM S-1230 NCM S-1269:1 NCM S-1349 NCM S-1504:1 NCM S-1506:1 NCM S-2434:1

173 177 176 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 177 176 178 176 180 177 177 177 177 172–73 179 176 177 177 172–73 177 178 177

NCM S-3474 NCM S-3620:54 NCM S-3726:18 NCM S-4622:2 NCM S-5293g:38 NCM S-5293g:44 Venedig Marc. gr. II.163 Wien National Library Geo 4 Papyri P. Lond. 98 P. Lond. 130 P. Oxy. 465 P. Oxy. 1152 P. Vindobonensis 29 436 P. Vindobonensis 35 939 P. Vindobonensis G 330

176 178 178 177 179 179 75 172 223 243 223 226 VII, 243 VII, 243 VII, 243

Rahlfs A 189 B 193 609 55 1222 53 1530 53 1627 27 1706 27 Pinakes 20100 21, 55 26177 21, 55 39555 55 48150 55 49599 55 53244 55 62049 21, 55 68329 21, 55

Autorenregister Adamson, Grant 218, 223–24 Aland, Barbara VI Aland, Kurt VI Albrecht, Felix 1, 14, 245 Bahrdt, Karl Friedrich 8 Bornemann, Friedrich August 239–40 Böttrich, Christfried 1, 16 Braccini, Tommaso V, 245 Burke, Tony 149 Busch, Peter 240, 244–45 Čéplö, Slavomír VIII Chariton 22 Charlesworth, James Hamilton 12 Conybeare, Fred. C. 239, 241, 245 Cumont, Franz 202 Daniel, Robert 195 Deissmann, Adolf VI Delatte, Armand 59 Delatte, Louis 79 Dieleman, Jacco 201 Dochhorn, Jan V–VI, VIII, 1, 28, 245 Duling, Dennis C. 243 Edler von der Planitz, Max Ernst 8 Evans, James 203 Fleck, Ferdinand Florens 239, 242 Gaiser, Adam 253 Getov, Dorotei 21 Goff, Matthew VII Grenert, Briana 149 Gundel, Wilhelm 196 Hanish, Otoman Zar-Aduscht 9 Istrin, Vasilij Michajlovič 242 Jurgens, Blake VII, 239 Kaper, Otto 234 Kautzsch, Emil Friedrich 12 Klutz, Todd 215, 239, 242–45, 247

Lambros, Spyridon 22–23 Luther, Martin 10 Mann, Thomas 9, 13 Manusakas, Manusos 22 McCown, Chester Charlton V, 21, 95, 195, 207, 239, 247 Mirotadze, Natia VIII Monferrer-Sala, Juan Pedro VIII, 149 Neugebauer, Otto 196 Pedersen, Nils Arne 1 Politis, Linos 22 Preisendanz, Karl 195 Renan, Ernest 9 Rhousopoulos, Rhousos 82 Roark, Kyle 239 Scarborough, Matthew VIII Schwarz, Sarah 196 Schweitzer, Albert 8 Skempis, Marios 21 Stefec, Rudolf 23 Suciu, Alin VIII Thum, Tobias 1 Tomadaki, Maria 30 Tzankarolos, Benedetto 59 van Hoesen, Henry Bartlett 196 van Ruiten, Jacques 1 von Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm VI von Hofmannsthal, Hugo 9 Windisch, Hans VI

Sachregister Abraham 230, 249 Adam 3, 7, 1136, 191, 193, 222, 224 Adarkes von Arabien 249 Äthiopien 5–7 – Literatur 7 – Parabiblica 16 – Falascha 5, 7, 15–16 Alchemie 2, 4, 17 Alexander Polyhistor 249 Al-Ṭabarī 253 Altes Testament 2, 12, 150, 154, 165, 167, 178 Amulette 131486, 199, 212, 219–20, 224–26, 228, 235–37, 247, 26197 Antiochus von Athen 204 Apokryphen VI, 9–10, 1137, 12, siehe auch Parabiblicum Apollo von Hermopolis 236 Archelaos 1 Aristobulus 12 Astrologie 17, 156, 162, 196, 200–01, 203, 206–07, 215–16, 231, 235, 248 Athanasius 6 Autorenliteratur 12–13, 16 Autorschaftskonstruktion 9 Autorität 12, 209, 213, 246 Benanbrief 8 Blut 85, 87, 222126 Buße 83–85 Christentum 5, 11, 14, 16–17, 267 Chrysostomus 6 Clemens von Alexandria 13 Dämonen 96–98, 130–32, 134–39, 142–45, 153–56, 160–64, 167, 184–85, 187–93, 209, 212–14, 225, 240–42, 245–63 – Abezethibou 256 – Abyzùth 70 – Ache 69 – Adiùth 70 – Alixtephras 69 – Apate 69 – Artosaèl 71 – Asmodeus 69, 74, 261, 267 – Athae 69

– Barsaphaèl 71 – Beelzebul V, 245, 256 – Belbèl 71 – Biou 214 – Chnachoumen 214 – Chnoumen 214 – Cnat 214 – Dynamis 69 – Ekerixinudàlon 71 – Ephippas 242, 253, 255 – Erebiou 214 – Erion 69 – Erou 214 – Gnophognon 70, 78 – Gylou 75 – Hieropàk 72 – Horoopolon 71 – Iàtrax 72 – Kale 69 – Kandàn 71 – Katanikotaèl 71 – Kryphodrakon 70, 78 – Kunopegos 255 – Leontophron 69–70, 74 – Lesoèl 72 – Lix Tetrax 253 – Machthrà 70, 79 – Merixaumadeòth 72 – Metathiàz 71 – Modebèl 72 – Onoscelida 68 – Ornias V, 68, 242 – Phandòron 71 – Phobothèl 71 – Phonos 69 – Plane 69 – Ramanor 214 – Reianoor 214 – Rhabdos 69 – Rhixinathàstho 72 – Rhixmaduòr 72 – Rhixoalàth 72 – Ruax 210 – Saphthoraèl 71 – Sicat 214 – Sphenodonaèl 71

286 Sachregister – Subeltì 72 – Synopegon 70 – Zele 69 Datierung VI, 8, 11, 13 David 250 Dekane VII, 161–62, 184, 195–237, 241 Demetrius 12 Edelsteine 140–42, 146, 249, 260 – Bergkristall 141–42 – Chrysolith 141566 – Lapis Lazuli 141–42 – Olivin 141566 – Rubin 141–42 – Saphir 141–42, 24434 – Selenit 217 – Smaragd 141–42 Egeria 260 Ehebruch 83, 127, 129, 154, 259 Eisen 86 Elfenbein 202, 20332 Eleazar 242, 252, 255, 258, 266 Elektron (Legierung) 260 Engel – Bariaò 69 – Bathuèl 69 – Eiòn 70 – Eliùth 69 – Iamèth 70 – Lamachtià 69 – Marmariòth 69 – Michael V, 68 – Ormedoèl 69 – Peraòth 69 – Raffael 69–70 – Rharhuchiacham 69 – Rhathanaèl 70 – Rhuathù 69 – Uruèl 69 – Zachaà 70 Enos 3 Ephraem Syrus 6 Esel 147 Eupolemus 12 Euseb von Caesarea 13 Exorzismus V, 98, 128470, 129474, 187, 242, 252–53, 255, 266, 268–70 Ezechiel Tragicus 12 Flavius Josephus 13, 99 Folklore 7, 179–80 Gebet 85, 8816, 92–93, 96, 148604, 223128, 248

– Herrengebet 150–51 Giganten 5, 208, 256–57 Götter – Amon-Re 233 – Anubis 233 – Hermanubis 233 – Hermes 233 – Horus 234 – JHWH 2 – Moloch V – Ogdoad 230 – Raphas V – Thoth 233 – Tutu 234 Gold 90, 92–93, 138, 140, 142, 146–47, 171, 20332, 21387, 249, 25889, 260 Gregor von Khandzta 171 Hadrian 245 Haggada 2–3, 8–9, 12–13 Halakha 721 Hagiographie 5, 21, 171, 188, 236, 267 Henoch 3, 249 Herodes Archelaus 167 Hierarchie 256 – kirchlich 187 – kosmologisch 224, 230 Historiographie 7, 12, 252 Homiletik 5, 721, 100 Irland 17 Isaak 193, 230 Jakob 230 Jakob von Serugh 6 Jerusalem 11, 14, 83, 93–94, 96–99, 124, 126, 133, 135, 138–39, 141–42, 144, 147, 163, 165, 191–93, 245, 248, 24950, 25577, 259–61, 26811 Jesus 189–90, 267–68 Johannes der Täufer 270 Judentum VII, 5, 11, 14, 17, 266–67 Kalk 87, 92 Kamel 90, 139–40, 142, 147 Kanon 1, 12 – Kanonizität 13, 16, 213 – Kanontheorie 10 Karabadin-Handschrift VIII, 178–79 Kirchenslavische Literatur 5, 7, 16–17, 155 Königin von Saba 97, 166, 242 Konstantin 260

Sachregister 287 Krankheiten 178–79, 200, 205–07, 216, 219, 223–24, 247 Kulturgeschichte 9 Kurām 98 Legitimation 3, 7 Lutherbibel 10 Magie, Magier 4, 17, 96, 156, 167, 186, 224–30, 235–37, 266, 269 Makarius von Tkow 236 Mani 3, 5 Maria und Martha 154 Marmor 86–87, 91–92 Medizin 156, 171, 178, 218111 Märchen 179 Midraschim 16, 242, 257, 27013 Mittelalter 9, 11, 14–15 Mose 2 Nathan 83 Nechepso 204, 206 Neues Testament 1, 17, 265–70 Nurūwā 98 Parabiblicum, -biblica 1–2, 5, 7, 11–13, 16, siehe auch Apokryphen Parabiblizität 9–10, 13 Petosiris 204 Protestantismus 8–10 Psalmen 2, 25, 27, 84, 92, 248, 250, 270 Pseudepigraphie 12–13, 16, 21, 1831 Pseudo-Justin 13 Pseudo-Phokylides 13 Ptolemaios VII., Euergetes II. 243 Qumran 11, 5, 249, 251, 270 Qutlumuš 22 Religionsgeschichte 1, 13–14, 16–17, 267 Rezeptionsgeschichte 1, 5, 14–17, 27013 Ring, Fingerring V, 21, 85, 97–98, 131490, 132496, 153–56, 184, 193, 240–41, 251–54, 258–63,

Rituelle Beschwörungen 60, 128470, 137536, 224, 227, 231, 235, 237 Salomo 7 Satan 85–87, 88, 91, 256, 266–67, 269–70, siehe auch Teufel Schwert 83, 125, 154 Second Temple Literature 10–11 Seth 3 Shenoute 236 Siegel(ring) V, 21, 85–86, 89–91, 94 Silber 90, 138, 140, 142, 146–47, 171, 20332, 21387, 217, 249, 25052, 25889, 260 Souron 249 Sünde 83, 128, 153, 247, 24949, 257 Tempel V, 10–11, 21, 191–92, 248–49, 266 – Tempelbau 21, 81, 83–94, 96–99, 129–32, 153, 163–64, 177, 257–58, 261–63 Teucer von Babylon 204, 217 Teufel 83–86, 88, 94, 267, siehe auch Satan Titus Pitenius 243 Tradentenmilieu 5 Überlieferung – mündlich 100, 171, 179–80 – Überlieferungsproblematik V Urschrift 240–45, 247–48, 256 Vaphres 249 Vespasian 266 Vulgata 10 Weisheit 84, 94, 98, 123–24, 142, 147–48, 153, 171, 179–80, 248, 252, 270 Yā’ūn 98 Zion 84, 89–90, 92

Liste der Autoren

Dr. Felix Albrecht, Niedersächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Deutschland. Prof. Dr. Tommaso Braccini, Dipartimento di Filologia e Critica delle Letterature Antiche e Moderne, Università di Siena, Italien. Dr. Slavomír Čéplö, CERES, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Deutschland. Prof. Dr. Dr. Jan Dochhorn, Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, England. Prof. Dr. Matthew Goff, Department of Religion, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA. Prof. Dr. Blake Jurgens, Department of Religion, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA. Dr. Natia Mirotadze, Fachbereich Bibelwissenschaft und Kirchengeschichte, Universität Salzburg, Österreich. Prof. Dr. Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Córdoba, Spanien. Dr. Matthew Scarborough, Institut for Nordiske Studier og Sprogvidenskab Department, Københavns Universitet, Dänemark. Dr. Alin Suciu, Niedersächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Deutschland.