Bishop Gregory (hgr) wrote,
Bishop Gregory

An Unknown Danielic Pseudepigraphon from an Armenian Fragment of Papias in the Light of the Qumranic

моя пока неопубл. статья про добрых и хороших angels watchers, которые не из кн. Еноха, а из традиции, связанной с именем пророка Даниила. все шрифты полетели. на то это и не публикация.

Basil Lourié (St Petersburg, Russia)
An Unknown Danielic Pseudepigraphon from an Armenian Fragment of Papias in the Light of the Qumranic and Some Other Pseudo-Danielic Literature

1. Introduction

A fragment of Papias known from the Armenian version of the Commentary on the Apocalypse of St Andrew of Caesarea was republished by Fölker Siegert in 1981 on the base of five manuscripts (F. Siegert used the editio princeps of 1855 based on three manuscripts of Jerusalem and checked additionally two manuscripts from Vienna). This fragment poses several problems some of them being dealt with in our previous publication on the topic . It should be noted that the fragment in question, though not passed unnoticed, so far has not attained the favour that it deserves .
I will start from summing up my previous paper where I conclude that:
1. the whole Armenian fragment lacking from the extant Greek text (and its Slavonic version ) of St Andrew of Caesarea is in fact a part of the authentic text as it was written by the author (working in the 7th cent.), mutilated, however, by the late Byzantine censorship especially because of some archaic features of the exegesis we have to analyse below,
2. this Armenian fragment contains a Papias’ quote continued by St Andrew himself, the end of the quote being, despite Siegert’s supposition, at the very point where the Armenian editors of Jerusalem 1855 editio princeps inserted a paragraph break,
And, finally, — and now we have to elaborate on this —
3. that Papias’ quote contains a paraphrase of a pre-Christian Danielic source reflected in Dan 4:14 MT and in some early Christian works.
So, now we have to reread the Papias’ fragment only (= first paragraph according to Siegert’s publication) and to expand at length the exegetical traditions underlying Papias’ words. Our ultimate goal will be to precise the nature of Papias’ Pseudo-Danielic source.

2. Papias’ Armenian version and Greek remnants

St Andrew of Caesarea quotes Papias’ commentary on Rev 12:9, the fall of the Dragon on the earth. Below are the Armenian text and its English translation .
Few words of our Armenian fragment preserved in the extant Greek text of St Andrew of Caesarea; they will be placed within the Armenian text in the left column. Some other Greek words may be useful for understanding while they are nothing but my retroversion from Armenian; so, they will be placed in the right column within the English translation.
(   •      ) 
And Papias in his sermon [said] as following: “The heaven did not bear his [Dragon’s] earthly thoughts, because it is impossible to the light to have communion with darkness (cp. 2 Cor 6:14). He [Dragon] was cast out into the earth (Rev 12:9) to live here, and, when the mankind came where he was, he did not allow [them] to act according to the natural passibility (   ) , but led them astray into many evils. But Michael and his warriors who are the Watchers () of the universe did help to the mankind, as and Daniel taught, by giving the Law and by making the prophets wise.”
This is the story of Michael and his “Watchers” that we have to deal with below.
Despite Siegert’s note “Sic! — Vgl. Dan. 12, 1 ff.” , it is rather obvious that the verses Dan 12:1 sqq have nothing to do with the Law, prophets and Watchers, even if Dan 12:1 does mention Michael. So, Papias refers to a Daniel other than that we know from the canonical Book of Daniel, even if we take into account all its known recensions . A reference to a Pseudo-Danielic source is therefore the first interesting point in our “story of Michael”.
The second and the third points are the respective roles of Michael and the Watchers.
Although the intercession of the angels in the revelation of the Law to Moses at Sinai is a well-known early Christian tradition going back to a pre-Christian Jewish milieu, any specific role of Michael in this process is almost unknown (we shall browse exclusions). As to the Watchers, their intercession at Sinai is not only at odds with the mainstream Jewish and Christian traditions, but goes against the well-established and prevailing in both Jewish and Christian worlds tradition identifying them with the Giants. This tradition starting from 1 Enoch (“Book of Giants”, 3rd cent. BC) and going through the Qumranic texts, ends with the Middle Age Byzantine historiographers, thus becoming a part of the trivial mediaeval knowledge … By the way, this is, to my opinion, the reason why our fragment was cut off from the Greek text of St Andrew’s Commentary.
No doubts, there were, in the Second Temple Judaisms, some movements where the Watchers-Giants were not painted only in black. For instance, in Jub 4:15 they taught the mankind “to make justice”, in contrast to 1Enoch where they taught to do only the bad things. Nevertheless, in Jub 7:21 the standard story of their fall with the women took place, and this “place” is before the Flood, that is, long before Moses…
However, in our Papias’ fragment the Watchers’ image is not only absolutely positive, with no connection to Giants, but even crucial for the Old Testament as a whole — because the Watchers, together with Michael, become the intercessors in the revelation of the Law to Moses. This is an independent tradition that should be traced.

3. Other testimonia of the same tradition

There are two early Christian texts, both in Greek, that are certainly representing the same tradition. Beside this, there is third Greek Christian text, not so early (5th cent.), that has to be read in the light of two previous sources and could shed, in turn, some light on them both.
The first testimonium belongs to Origen, fragment 109 of his Commentary on Lamentations preserved in the catenae. The author explains the only place in the Christian Greek Bible (that is, not in Aquila or Symmachus) where the term occurs, Lam 4:14 LXX: “Her watchmen () staggered in the streets, they were defiled with blood in their weakness, they touched their raiment with it” (Brenton’s translation). The relevant part of the commentary runs as follow:                               [“Watchers the Scripture calls angels, as (it is) in Daniel. And they were those by whom probably the Law has been given to Moses, according to for if the Law spoken by angels… (Heb 2:2)”] 
Origen mentions the watchers in the situation of the reception of the Law by Moses and refers to Daniel.
Our second source is the Greek title of a pseudepigraphic work called Apocalypse of Moses or Life of Adam and Eva. This title, lacking from all the Oriental and Latin versions of the work, has no internal relation to the text and is considered as a later addition peculiar to the Greek recension . However, for us it is an independent source representing some ancient tradition, regardless to its own date. The title in question is:       §                 ÷   ÷   ÷ ÷(“Story and Life of Adam and Eva the first-created, revealed by God to Moses his servant, when he received from the hand of the Lord the tablets of the Law of the Covenant , being taught by archangel Michael”).
No mention about the Watchers here, nor about Daniel. But, in this case, Michael is mentioned as an intercessor between Moses and God at Sinai.
Finally, Michael, Daniel and even the angels and the citation of Heb 2:2 are gathered together around the figure of Moses at Sinai in the commentary of St Thodorete of Cyrus on Gal 3:19 (where the Law is said to be “ordained by angels”). This text is especially informative if checked against its more archaic background which is the same as that is transparent in the above quoted commentary by Origen.
After having quoted Heb 2:2, St Theodoret continues:                             [“Because God of all established them Michael, and this is what blessed Daniel taught us. And to great Moses He (scil., God) promised to send together (with him) to the people an angel (Exodus 32:34)”].
Let us compare this quote with our first testimonium from Origen. An angelic intercession at Sinai is explained with the same double reference to Heb 2:2 (quoted explicitly in both cases) and to a “Daniel” (not quoted verbatim, in both cases as well). This is a distinctive mark of a common exegetical tradition. So, if we are still in the same exegetical vein, we have to identify “Michael” and “angel” of Theodoret with the “Watchers” of Origen — taken into account that, according to our Papias, these “Watchers” are the guard of the same Michael! “Watcher” is replaced by “angel”. Such a replacement is an example of the so-called concealment (of one notion by another), a phenomenon which affected very much the whole tradition under study (see below, part 5).
It is most probably that St Theodoret in the 5th century was the last Father (St Andrew of Caesarea taken aside) who was referring to an obscure Danielic source attributing to Michael and his angels-watchers an intercessory role in the revelation of the Law at Sinai.
Now we can reconstruct the skeleton of our source as the following scheme:
1. claiming to the authority of Daniel, it
2. describes the revelation of the Law to Moses at Sinai, when
3. Michael and
4. his angelic warriors — Watchers
5. are the intercessors, and where
6. the Watchers are the helpers of the men, with no connection to the fallen Giants.

4. Biblical Connection: Dan 4:14 MT

Despite the fact that our Danielic source could not be identified with any part of any recension of the canonical Book of Daniel, it has some connection with this book, and especially with one verse, Dan 4:14 MT, the relevant part of which is lacking from the Septuagint (cp. its corresponding verse Dan 4:17 LXX), although translated into Greek by Aquila and Symmachus, as well as by Pseudo-Theodotion .
In its Aramaic original Dan 4:14 MT runs as follows (I quote the King James version and retain in Aramaic only the most important terms): “This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men”. The Aramaic for “by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones” is: !yviyDIq; rm;ameW am'g"t.Pi !yrIy[i tr;zEg>Bi. Aramaic !yrIy[i “watchers” is rendered as by Aquila and Symmachus, transliterated as by Pseudo-Theodotion and reinterpreted as  in the Septuagint in two neighbouring verses Dan 4:13, 23 LXX (= 4:10, 20 MT).
Although Dan 4:14 does not mention Moses neither the Law revealed at Sinai, its topic is very close: the word mg"t.Pi (Old Persian loanword in both Aramaic and Hebrew) has a rather vague meaning including that of “commandment” .
It is impossible to our Danielic source to be in any dependence on Dan 4:14 MT. On the contrary, the verse Dan 4:14 is a pale reflection of a previous tradition which may be common or even identical with that of our source.
Indeed, the Book of Daniel is one of the most diffuse books of the Bible. Some traditions of the Persian Judaism were crystallising here while some other were not (cp., for this, Eze 14:14, 20). Its different parts are almost independent, and this is the cause why its text varies between the recensions… It is hardly probable that the selection(s) of the Book of Daniel, in all its recensions, was (were) somewhat exhaustive. It is even not clear if there were some other recensions of Dan containing some different stuff.
Therefore, one can cautiously conclude that our Danielic source could be either a Persian Judaism tradition with no connection to the canonical Book of Daniel or a tradition which was included into a lost recension of the latter.

5. “Watchers” vs. “Blinds”: Biblical, Ugaritic and Qumranic

To go deeply we could try to realise in what extent our Danielic source was depending on a tradition that turned out to be in conflict with the most of the biblical and para-biblical literature.
We have already noticed that our source where the Watchers are good angelic beings contradicts to the mainstream tradition where they are the fallen Giants. But this is not all.
When comparing above a testimonium from Theodoret with another one from Origen we have seen an elimination of the term “watcher” replaced by the neutral term “angel”. We have seen as well the same policy in the Septuagint translation of Dan 4. But the ultimate roots of this policy are most probably within the Hebrew Bible — at least, such a hypothesis was put forward by Fr Robert Murray, s.j. , and I am glad to add my two cents to his argumentation.
There is a need to recollect some points from Fr Murray’s article. He is working in a well-known field, although with new tools. As it is known, the mentions of (quasi-)divine beings were often excluded, by one means or another, from the Hebrew Bible. E. g., Deut 32:43 where the “sons of God” — preserved in LXX and confirmed by Qumran — are deleted from MT. Sometimes, such names — as it was supposed by quite a few scholars — are not deleted, but simply distorted to obtain another meaning with a minimal alteration of the pronunciation. It is possible that the phenomenon of Aramaic-Hebrew bilinguism [or maybe dyglossia] interfered here. The processes like these affected very much the history of the Aramaic term for “watcher”.
According to Fr Murray, there was, in ancient Hebrew, a word *cyrus [pronounced as cār / cēr (pl. cārîm / cērîm)] having the etymological meaning “protect” and designating some protecting deities. As it is especially important, “cār / cēr could denote benevolent beings, and so be applied to good angels, obedient to God” (p. 315) — not to the fallen Giants, let us add. Then, “like mal’āk, cār / cēr was adopted in Aramaic, where we find it vocalized cîr and soon understood as ‘one who keeps awake’ [that is, etymologized as a genuine Aramaic word]” (ibid.).
During the process of suppression of the names of the pagan deities this word became a subject of different changes. Sometimes it has been replaced by its (consonantial) homograph “town” (e. g., Mic 5:13), sometimes has been replaced by somewhat similar words with similar meaning relating to angelic/divine beings, e. g., îr (“messenger” or maybe “intercessor” — like in Isa 63:9 where it is rendered by the LXX as  in a verse very remarkable for us: “not an ambassador, nor a messenger, but himself saved them” (Brenton’s translation)).
Finally, and this is the most original part of Fr Murray’s argument, sometimes the concealment was controlled by the purposes of the satire — “to help laugh them [polytheistic deities] out of people’s hearts”. So, a “mocking substitute” of cārîm / cērîm appears: it is ciwrîm “blinds”. “This would be the origin of the satirical sequence ‘they have eyes and see not’, etc. (Ps 115, 5-7; 135, 16-18). Perhaps it was ‘Second Isaiah’ who began the game” (cp. Isa 42:7, 42:16-19, 43:8 and cf. 44:18) (p. 312–313). The case of ciwrîm turned our to be analogous to that of another protecting divinities, ps (another root with the meaning “protect”), as it is especially evident in 2 Sam 5:6: “…the ciwrîm and pisîm which the Jebusites said would defend them… both refer to protecting deities” (p. 312).
But the most evident case is Lam 4:14 which we have seen earlier commented by Origen: “They have wandered as blind men in the streets” (KJV) of the MT is “rendered” here as “Her watchmen [or “watchers”] staggered in the streets” (Brenton) by the LXX (p. 312–313). The only explanation of this fact is that the Hebrew original of the LXX has had “watchers” instead of “blinds”.
What we have to keep from this brief review? One point of a relatively minor significance and one point of a great one.
First, our term cîr turned out to be somewhat akin to the term îr: sometimes they are used as synonyms, as it takes place in Isa 63:9. This fact corresponds to the intercessory role of the Watchers in our Danielic source. Even if suppressed and “concealed”, this role is familiar to the biblical literature.
Second, that the blindness could be, in some contexts, an appropriate epithet for the Watchers who are, by definition, never sleeping and must be always clairvoyant. Let us go further.
The idea that some deities must by punished by the blindness is certainly older than its “satirical” applications. So, we have already in Ugarit (1Aqht 167-168), in a prayer of Daniel (Danel) against cAnatu: cwr. yštk. bcl. lht. wclmh “let Bacal make thee blind from now and forever” .
An akin tradition is testified in a Danielic document from Qumran, 4QpsDanc. It is a very short fragment (lines numbered according to García Martinez who published all the Pseudo-Danielic fragments from the Cave 4 jointly):
36. […]
37. to] put an end to iniquity
38. ] those who shall err in their blindness ( )
39. ] those who shall arise
40. the ho]ly ones ([][]) and shell return
41. … in iniquity […]
According to F. García Martinez and his predecessors , this text covers the topic related to the resurrection and the judgment; so, those mentioned in the l. 38 are not the same as those mentioned in the l. 39. “The holy ones” in the l. 40 are angelic beings; we have already seen in Dan 4:14 MT that this term may be synonymous to our “Watchers”. Similarly, both terms, “Watchers” and “Holy Ones”, are enumerated side by side, as beings of the same rang, in 1QGenAp ii, 1. It is not certain, but however probable that in 4QpsDanc those “who shall err in their blindness” are some angelic beings.
Indeed, the Watchers are not treated very favourably in the Qumranic literature, even outside 1 Enoch and Jubilees. In CD ii, 18 and, most probably, in 1QGenAp ii, 1 they are angelic beings fallen with women. But there is, among the DSS, a much more significant text, 4QMessAr .
This document explores the theme of a rivalry between the Messiah and the Watchers. After having said (4QMessAr ii, 16) that “His [Messiah’s] deed will be as the one of the Watchers ()”, the document continues:
18. […] … […] Holy One and the Watchers ) […] saying
19. […] they have spoken against him
The lacunae prevent us from any detailed understanding of these verses. However, the most natural understanding of the general sense would be a conflict of the Messiah with “Holy One and the Watchers”. I have called this conflict “rivalry” because, as it is clear from the l. 16, both Watchers and Messiah play on the same field.
We have seen a “Watcher” (singular) and “Holy One” in a quasi-messianic role (that of an intercessor between God and humans) in Dan 4:14 MT. And, finally, in our Pseudo-Danielic source we have the Watchers accompanying an angelic being (thus, a “Holy One”) whose name is specified as Michael. But the evidences of the tradition where Michael is indeed a messianic figure, sometimes no less than Christ Himself, are abundant .
The circle is locked. Two different concepts of “Watchers” correlate to two different messianic (or, at least, mediator) concepts.

6. Angelic vs. Divino-Humane: a hypothesis for the further study

The “Watchers”, “Holy Ones” and “Michael” of our texts are clearly angelic beings. They play a messianic/mediator role in our Danielic source as well as in the tradition, “concealed” in, e. g., Isa 63:9 and other places reviewed by Fr Murray.
However, in the canonical Daniel as well as in 4QMessAr the main mediator figure is either divine and/or human with a very specific relation to God. I would like to avoid here any discussion on neither divinity/humanity of the Danielic “Son of Man” nor Noah as a possible hero of 4QMessAr, but I do state that he is certainly not an angelic being. Indeed, in 4QMessAr i, 10 we read that Messiah is “His [God’s] birth” (), and this prophecy is corroborated by 1QSa ii, 11-12 . However, despite the existence of a biblical term “sons of God” applied to angelic beings, it is hardly possible to see any angelic Messiah/mediator in these Qumranic documents. Similarly, Isa 63:9 in its preserved recension insists that God Himself, and not any angelic being, will come to His chosen people.
What is especially important, 1Enoch, a “standard work” of the Watchers-Giants tradition, describes its principal mediator figure as a humane “Son of Man”.
As it seems, a negative attitude towards the Watchers (justified by their treatment as the fallen Giants) is proper to the tradition(s) concentred on the divino-humane mediator/messianic figures. On the other hand, the Watchers are positive figures in the tradition(s) where they have a leading role in the revelation of the Law. These traditions are both relevant to the Jewish background of the Jesus worship, the latter being especially relevant to the so-called Engelchristologie.
The early history of such doctrines, so much crucial for the formation of the first Christian approaches to the unity and uniqueness of God and to His revelation, is still far from being understood, even in its general lines . There are some doubts, however, that “an unprecedented reshaping of monotheistic piety” that includes “a second object of devotion alongside God”, being, in the same time, “essentially internal development within the Jewish monotheistic tradition”, is to be ascribed to the first generation of the Christians, as Larry Hurtado does . Another scheme, where such an attitude towards “One God” is considered as being elaborated step by step within the Jewish religion before Christ seems to me much more reasonable, and, in this process, the Danielic “Son of Man” may be the most important figure .
It is not difficult to see that both kinds of the mediation concepts, divino-humane and angelic, are not mutually exclusive but, nevertheless, competitive. If so, here may be “concealed” the key to our problem — why our Watchers tradition has been almost completely eliminated from both Danielic and more general Jewish-Christian traditions’ sources.


F. Siegert, Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei Armenischen Schriftstellern, NTS 27 (1981) 605–614, esp. 606 (text in transliteration, German tr.)—607, 611, note 10 (on the mss and on the editio princeps).
В. Лурье, Цитата из Папия в составе армянской версии Толкования на Апокалипсис св. Андрея Кесарийского: перевод и историко-экзегетическое исследование [B. Lourié, A quote from Papias within the Armenian version of the Commentary on Apocalypse of St Andrew of Caesarea: translation and study in the history of the exegesis], in: Писания Мужей Апостольских / Под общ. ред. А. Г. Дунаева (Москва, 2002) 511–532 (в печати) [Writings of the Apostolic Fathers / Ed. by Alexey G. Dunaev (Moscow, 2002) 511–532 (forthcoming)]; quoted below as Lourié, Papias.
Cf. the bibliography in Lourié, Papias, and esp. ibid., note 4, discussion on the criticism of Siegert by U. H. J. Körtner, Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentum (Göttingen, 1983) (FRLANT 133) 35–36.
Unfortunately, a very important for us Georgian version of St Andrew’s Commentary remains still unpublished and even unchecked.
The whole Armenian fragment republished by F. Siegert was translated into German by him and into Russian by me. Moreover, it was translated into English by Dr Joseph Alexanian in: The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings. Second Edition / J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, Editors and Translators. Michael W. Holmes, Editor and Reviser (Baker Book House, 1992) 589–590, but this translation is somewhat vague and contains some mistakes which make this translation unsuitable for any research purpose [e. g., in the part of the text quoted below he translates “treatises” (instead of “treatise/sermon”) and “laws” (instead of “Law”) despite that the corresponding Armenian plural forms have normally the meaning of singular; not to say that his translation of a really difficult phrase “according to the natural passibility” is quite wrong (“in natural passions”)].
On this peculiar phrase which is a bit at odds with the patristic texts earlier than the 4th cent., see our commentary in Lourié, Papias, note 7.
Siegert, Unbeachtete Papiaszitate…, 611, note 16.
See, on the various texts of the canonical Book of Daniel: J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. With an essay “The influence of Daniel on the New Testament” by Adela Yabro Collins / Ed. by F. M. Cross (Minneapolis, 1993) (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible); A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (Garden City, NY, 1977) (The Anchor Bible, 23); C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. The Additions (Garden City, NY, 1977) (The Anchor Bible, 44); K. Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch. Entstehung und Textgeschichte. 2 Bde (Kevelaer/Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1987) (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 38); J. Lust, The Septuagint Version of Daniel 4–5 // The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings / A. S. van der Woude (ed.) (Leuven, 1993) (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 106) 39–53. Critical editions and studies of some Oriental Christian versions: S. Peter Cowe, The Armenian Version of Daniel (Atlanta, GA, 1992) (University of Pennsylvania. Armenian Texts and Studies, [9]); R. A. Taylor, The Peshitta of Daniel (Leiden—N. Y.—Köln, 1994) (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute, Leiden; 7). См. также: O. Löfgren, Studien zu den arabischen Danielübersetzungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der christlichen Texte. Kritik des Peschittatextes (Uppsala, 1936) (Uppsals Universitets Årsskrift 1936:4).
See the references in Lourié, Papias; they include, beside the patristics, the NT texts such as Gal 3:19, Act 7:38, Heb 2:2 and an OT reference to Deut 32:2 LXX. As to the Qumranic connections and other pseudepigraphic literature, cf. review article by F. García Martinez, The Book of Giants, in: Idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden/N.Y./Köln, 1992) (STDJ 9) 91–115. For the intertestamental literature, including the targums, see L. Díez Merino, Los “vigilantes” en la literatura intertestamentaria, in: Simposio biblico español (Salamanca, 1982) / Editado por N. Fernandes Marcos, J. Trebolle Barrera, J. Fernandez Vallina (Madrid, 1984) 575–609. Cp. also: M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabinischer Zeit (Tübingen, 1992) (TSAJ, 34). Especially for the Hekhaloth literature, see: P. Schäfer, Engel und Menschen in der Hekhalot-Literatur, Kairos 22 (1980) 201–225 [= Idem, Hekhalot-Studien (Tübingen, 1988) (TSAJ 19) 250–276]; D. J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot. Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen, 1988) (TSAJ 16).
Origenes, Fragmenta in Lamentationes (in catenis), fr. 109, l. 3–5, in: Origenes Werke. Bd. 3 / Hrsg. E. Klostermann (Leipzig, 1901) (GCS 6) 235–278 (quoted by the CD-ROM edition in the TLG_E). In all the mss of Heb 2:2 there is “word” ) here instead of “law” (; on this various reading which is not very strange in the early patristic context and on its possible Jewish background cf. Lourié, Papias, note 29.
I am grateful to Dr Alexey G. Dunaev for calling my attention to this source. Its critical edition: D. A. Bertrand, La Vie grecque d’Adam et Ève. Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (Paris, 1987) (Recherches intertestamentaires, 1); the study on which this edition is grounded is: M. Nagel, La Vie grecque d’Adam et Ève. Apocalypse de Moïse. Thèse présentée devant l’Université de Strasbourg II le 10 juin 1972. Lille : Service de reproduction des thèses, 1974. Ire partie : L’Histoire du texte. T. I : Histoire du texte. T. II : Notes sur l’Histoire du texte. IIème partie. T. III : Édition du texte avec synopse de toutes les variantes. The work is certainly pre-Christian Jewish one, even if the attempts of its precise localisation within its Jewish context failed (cf.: J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. From Sirach to 2 Baruch (Sheffield, 1988) (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Suppl. Ser., 1) 163–190 (Ch. 10. Apocalypsis of Moses and Vita Adae et Evae). For a more large context cp.: M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha relating to Adam and Eve. Edited with introductions, translations and commentary. Leiden—N. Y.—Köln, 1996 (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 14).
On the very peculiar phrase “the Law of the Covenant” known so far only from the Latin and Georgian versions of the Epistles attributed to St Anthony the Great and also recovered with a great certitude in one place of a Tura papyrus of Didymus the Blind (this is the only case, besides the above, where it is available directly in its Greek original), cp. Lourié, Papias, note 32.
Theodoret of Cyrus, In Gal. 3:19; PG 82, col. 481. Again, I owe this reference to Alexey G. Dunaev.
On this translation, see esp.: A. Schmitt, Die griechischen Danieltexte (“A” und ïA) und das Theodotionproblem, Biblische Zeitschrift 36 (1992) 1–29.
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic based on the Lexicon of W. Gesenius as translated by E. Robinson / Ed. by F. Brown with the co-operation of S. R. Driver, Ch. A. Briggs (Oxford, 1952 [repr. 1991]) 1109, ср. 834, s. v.
R. Murray, The Origin of Aramaic cir, Angel, Orientalia [Roma] 53 (1984) 303–317.
Cuneiform text: Ch. Virolleaud, La légende phénicienne de Daniel. Texte cunéiforme alphabétique avec transcription et commentaire, précédé d’une introduction de la civilisation d’Ugarit (Paris, 1936) (Mission de Ras-Shamra. T. I ; Bibl. Archéologique et historique, t. XXI). Pl. IV. Cf. ibid., p. 170 for transliteration and a still incomplete French translation. English translation by Cyrus H. Gordon: “May Baal make thee one-eyed / From now and unto eternity…” (C. H. Gordon, Ugarit and Minoan Crete. The bearing of their texts on the origins of Western Culture (N. Y., 1966) 137). For need to reconstruct the original text in some minor points, as well as for Russian translation and for a brief discussion on the blindness as a punishment throughout the ANE, cp.: И. Ш. Шифман. Угаритский эпос (Moscow, 1993) (Памятники письменности Востока, CV, 1).
F. García Martinez, 4QPseudo Daniel Aramaic and the Pseudo-Danielic Literature [first published in Spanish in 1983], in: Idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic. Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden/N. Y./Köln, 1992) (STDJ, 9) 137–161, esp. 138 (text), 139–140 (tr.); cp.: Idem, The Prayer of Nabonidus: A New Synthesis [first published in Spanish in 1980], ibid., 116–136. Editio princeps of 4QpsDanc: T. Milik, “Prière de Nabonide” et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel. Fragments araméens de Qumrân 4, Revue biblique 63 (1956) 407–415.
I am grateful to David Suter for having checked for me the photo of the ms on Brill’s CD-ROM edition (1999); the problem arose because T. Milik in his 1956 editio princeps translated “comme un aveugle”, while in his edition the proposition before cwr was b-, and not k-.
See esp. A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer (Würzburg/Stuttgart, 1971) (Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien, 12) 42–50 (on the whole 4QpsDan) and passim.
I am quoting the edition in: F. García Martinez, 4QMessAr and the Book of Noah [first published in Spanish in 1981], in: Idem, Qumran and Apocalyptic... 1–44. Cf.: J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic “Elect of God” text from Qumran Cave 4, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965) 348–372, reprinted in: Idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971) 127–160.
See, for instance: J. Barbel, Christos Angelos: die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christlichen Altertums (Bonn, 19642) 34–45. Cp.: L. T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology. A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (Tübingen, 1994) (WUNT II/70). The basic collection of the early Christian and Jewish traditions related to Michael has been published by W. Leuken, Michael. Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der jüdischen und der morgenländisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael (Götingen, 1898). Cp. additionally an important evidence of the liturgical invocation of Michael as Christ: S. Donadoni, Les graffiti de l’église de Sonqi Tino, in: Nubia. Récentes recherches. Actes du colloque nubiologique international au Musée National de Varsovie. 19–22 juin 1972 / Sous la rédaction de K. Michałowski (Varsovie, 1975) 31–39.
On all this, cf. also É. Puech, Fragment d’une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le « Royaume de Dieu », Revue biblique 99 (1992) 98–131.
Let us limit ourselves to quote the most important works: Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (Tübingen, 1985) (WUNT 36); Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord. Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia, 1988); Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man. Vision and Interpretation (Tübingen, 1986) (WUNT 38).
Hurtado, One God, One Lord..., 101.
See Caragunis’ (The Son of Man..., 80) conclusions (his book has been not taken into account by Hurtado): “We are on the same wavelength as Daniel when we understand the nature of his ‘Son of Man’ in the kind of way Jesus, in interpreting Ps 110:1, showed the fallacy of the current Jewish understanding of the messiah <...> [Mt 22:45]. No human messiah will do for Daniel”.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.