No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Scholasticism, Exegesis, and the Historicization of Mosaic Authorship in Moses Bar Kepha's On Paradise*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 July 2011
Extract
The author of the Pentateuch is famously unknown. There are various ancient speculations about the relative roles of God and Moses in the production of the text,1 and there is a plethora of modern investigations into the Bible's constituent documents and the authors responsible for them, but the biblical text itself is silent. The biblical narrator never identifies himself or herself2 and never narrates in the first person; rather he or she speaks “out of the void, in an authoritative voice that masks any authorial presence.”3
- Type
- ARTICLES
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2010
References
1 The history of the attribution of authorship to God and/or Moses merits a study in itself. David Lambert's as yet unpublished paper, “The Composition of the Torah in the Pseudepigraphic Imagination,” examines the role of Jubilees in the conceptualization of Moses as author of the Pentateuch.
2 For an attempt to ascribe authorship of one strand of biblical narrative to a woman, see Harold Bloom and Rosenberg, David, The Book of J (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990Google Scholar).
3 Alter, Robert, The World of Biblical Literature (New York: Basic Books, 1992) 154Google Scholar. Compare John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 1.1 (PG 60:395; NPNF 1 11:338): “Moses having written five books, has nowhere put his own name to them.”
4 Sternberg, Meir, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985) 84–128Google Scholar.
5 Alter, World of Biblical Literature, 153.
6 Wyrick, Jed, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian Traditions (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004Google Scholar) describes this process as a Christian amalgamation of Hellenistic ideas of authorship and Jewish ideas of divine inspiration.
7 Philo, Mos. 1.1. See more below.
8 But see Najman, Hindy, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2003Google Scholar) for a subtle study of the notion of attributing texts to Moses in the Second Temple period.
9 See Yadin, Azzan, Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
10 For a collection of the relevant rabbinic sources, including certain statements granting Moses a more active role for certain parts of the Pentateuch (especially Deuteronomy), see Heschel, Abraham Joshua, Heavenly Torah: As Refracted through the Generations (trans. Gordon Tucker; New York: Continuum, 2005) 368–640Google Scholar. For a nuanced treatment of this question in Tannaitic sources, see Fraade, Steven D., “Moses and the Commandments: Can Hermeneutics, History, and Rhetoric Be Disentangled?” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel ed. Najman, Hindy and Newman, Judith H.; Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 83 Leiden: Brill, 2004) 399–422Google Scholar.
11 Justin, 1 Apol. 36; Origen, as cited in Basil and Gregory's Philocalia, 7.1–2. For a detailed analysis of the various patristic applications of the “prosopological” technique to the Psalms, see Marie-JosèRondeau, phe, Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier. IIIe–Ve siècles (2 vols.; Orientalia christiana analecta 219–220; Rome: Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982–1985Google Scholar). The prosopological method of interpretation has left its traces in rabbinic sources as well. See Dorival, Gilles, “Exégèse juive et exégèse chrétienne,” in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung ed. Geerlings, Wilhelm and Schulze, Christian; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 131–50Google Scholar, at 137–41, and Richard Steiner, C., “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its Rabbinic Roots, Its Diffusion and Its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification,” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 2 (2003)Google Scholar. Cited 15 February 2010. Online: http://www.biu.ac.il/js/JSIJ/s-2003/Steiner.doc.
12 This account is preserved in several different manuscripts. See the excellent analysis in Reller, Jobst, Mose bar Kepha und seine Paulinenauslegung. Nebst Edition und Übersetzung des Kommentars zum Römerbrief (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994) 21–33Google Scholar. To Reller's collection of manuscript evidence should be added the version contained in Yale Beinecke Syr. 10 (henceforth Bein. Syr. 10). It is upon this manuscript that the current study is based.
13 Following the emerging contemporary consensus, I use the word “Miaphysite” to denote the theological position and social-ecclesiastical identity which has alternatively also been called Jacobite, Syrian Orthodox, and Monophysite.
14 The East Syrian Church is commonly also referred to as the Nestorian Church.
15 Later recensions of Bar Kepha's brief biography identify him as the bishop of Mosul, Beth Raman, and Beth Kiyonoya. Although this is the account commonly followed in the scholarly literature, Reller has demonstrated it to be incorrect (Mose bar Kepha, 42–47). I follow Reller's account, which he derived from MS Mardin orth. 368 and which is further corroborated by Bein. Syr. 10, 125a.
16 Abramowski, Rudolf, Dionysius von Tellmahre. Jakobitischer Patriarch von 818–840. Zur Geschichte der Kirche unter dem Islam (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 25.2; Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1940Google Scholar); Fiey, Jean Maurice, Chrétiens syriaques sous les Abbasides surtout à Bagdad (749–1258) (CSCO 420; Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1980Google Scholar); Robinson, Chase F., Empire and Elites after the Muslim Conquests: The Transformation of Northern Mesopotamia (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
17 One such exception is Bar Kepha's report on Abbasid caliph Mutawakil's (847–861 C.E.) expedition against the Armenians. See Schlimme, Lorenz, Der Hexaemeronkommentar des Moses bar Kepha. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Untersuchungen (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1977Google Scholar) 2:644–45. For information on Bar Kepha's social milieu, Reller deduces a stance on the issue of intermarriage with Muslims from Bar Kepha's exegesis of 1 Cor 7:14 (Mose bar Kepha, 55–57). On Paradise provides two social-historical references. Beinecke Syr. 10, 15a alludes to the contemporary practice in the month of Nisan of tracing out the floor plans for buildings that need to face east. Bein. Syr. 10, 65a implies that women sat separately from the men in contemporary churches.
18 Bein. Syr. 10, 122b–125a, discussing the fate of Adam and Eve had they not sinned.
19 Bein. Syr. 10, 38a, 73b, 108b, 112a–113a, 115b, 119a, and, at more length, Bar Kepha's treatise On Free Will and Predestination (Brit. Mus. Add. 14731). See Sidney Griffith, “Free Will in Christian Kalām: Moshe bar Kepha against the Teachings of the Muslims,” Le Muséon 100 (1987) 143–59. Griffith entertains doubts about the authenticity of the attribution of On Free Will and Predestination to Bar Kepha, but the similarity between the positions expressed in that treatise and in On Paradise lends support to it.
20 Rudolph, Ulrich, “Christliche Bibelexegese und mu‘tazilitische Theologie. Der Fall des Moses bar Kepha (gest. 903 n.Chr.),” Oriens 34 (1994) 299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The argument is somewhat complicated by the fact that the earliest surviving Muslim and Jewish treatises in this genre, such as Māturīdī's Kitāb at-Tauḥīd and Sa'adyā Gaon's Kitāb al-Imānāt wa-l-I'tiqādāt, postdate Bar Kepha by a generation. But the assumption is that these works all drew on predecessors that are no longer extant. Bar Kepha therefore serves for Rudolph both as a reflection of the initial Christian appropriation of Kalām and as an indication of the state of Muslim Kalām in a period for which little Muslim evidence survives. See Rudolph, “Christliche Bibelexegese,” 312–13.
21 Mann, Jacob, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature (2 vols.; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1931–1935Google Scholar) 1:477–79; Laniado, Ezra, The Jews of Mosul (Tirat-Karmel: Institute for the Study of the Jews of Mosul, 1981) 30–31Google Scholar [in Hebrew].
22 In this respect Bar Kepha differs from some of his Syriac-writing contemporaries, who employed the topos of the Jews in polemical contexts. See Sidney Griffith, H., “Jews and Muslims in Christian Syriac and Arabic Texts of the Ninth Century,” Jewish History 3 (1988) 65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that On Paradise (Bein. Syr. 10, 7a) does contain one reference to the Jewish literal reading of the Bible, but this is a trite commonplace in Christian literature, dating back to the New Testament.
23 Bein. Syr. 10, 62b–63a cites an opinion in the name of “the interpreters” proving that Hebrew was the language that God spoke with Adam from the play on words implied in the naming of the woman in Gen 2:23. The argument closely follows Gen. Rab. 18.4 (Theodor-Albeck, 164). For more on this, see Moss, Yonatan, “The Language of Paradise: Hebrew or Syriac? Linguistic Speculations and Linguistic Realities in Late Antiquity,” in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views ed. Markus Bockmeuhl and Guy G. Stroumsa; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 120–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 127–29. Another example is Bar Kepha's citation of the opinion that identifies the tree of knowledge of good and evil with wheat (Bein. Syr. 10, 22b). This opinion appears in several places in rabbinic literature, e.g., Gen. Rab. 15.7 (Theodor-Albeck, 139). In the words of Louis Ginzberg: “Purely midrashic is the identification with the wheat which is found only in rabbinic sources and accepted by Moses bar Cepha.” The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1954) 5:97 n. 70.
24 Schlimme, Lorenz, “Die Bibelkommentare des Moses bar Kepha,” in A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East ed. Fischer, Robert H.; Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology, 1977) 63–72Google Scholar. Cf. Reller, Mose bar Kepha, 161, 209.
25 A few of Bar Kepha's systematic works have been published in translation. Besides On Paradise, which has been published in Latin and (partial) Hungarian translations (see below), Bar Kepha's Treatise on the Soul, Hexaemeron, and Introduction to the Psalms have been published in German translations: Braun, Oskar, Moses bar Kepha und sein Buch von der Seele (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1891Google Scholar); Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar; Gustav Diettrich, ed., Eine jakobitische Einleitung in den Psalter in Verbindung mit zwei Homilien aus dem grossen Psalmenkommentar des Daniel von Ṣalaḥ (BZAW 5; Giessen: Ricker, 1901). For the correct attribution of this Introduction to the Psalms to Bar Kepha, see Vosté, J. M., “L'Introduction de Mose bar Kepa aux Psaumes de David,” RB 38 (1929) 214–28Google Scholar.
26 Notable exceptions are Griffith, “Free Will in Christian Kalām”; Reller, Mose bar Kepha; and Rudolph, “Christliche Bibelexegese.”
27 For fuller bibliographical information, see Vööbus, Arthur, “New Manuscript Discoveries for the Literary Legacy of Mōšē bar Kēphā: The Genre of Theological Writings,” HTR 68 (1975) 377–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reller, , Mose bar Kepha, 59–87Google Scholar.
28 In Bein. Syr. 10, 62a, Bar Kepha signals his intention to write a treatise on Gen 11:1 (the account of the confusion of the tongues) “if God so wills and bestows life.” Unless this is just a pious formula, it would seem to indicate that at the time of writing Bar Kepha was advanced in age. Perhaps very advanced, considering the fact that we have no record of Bar Kepha ever writing the projected treatise on Gen 11:1. It may be conjectured that On Paradise was written approximately in the last decade of Bar Kepha's life: 893–903 C.E. See Reller, Mose bar Kepha, 89, for a proposed chronology of Bar Kepha's works. On Paradise appears towards the end of the list.
29 Several of the manuscripts date from the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. There are twelve known manuscripts of the work in Syriac (not all of which are complete) and at least one manuscript of an Arabic version. See Reller, Mose bar Kepha, 64–65; and Graf, Georg, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (5 vols.; Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1944–1952) 2:230Google Scholar.
30 Rompay, Lucas Van, “Development of Biblical Interpretation in the Syrian Churches of the Middle Ages,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation ed. Magne Sæbō; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2008) 1:559–77Google Scholar, at 562.
31 Masius, Andreas, De Paradiso commentarius, scriptus ante annos prope septingenos a Mose Bar Cepha Syro, episcopo in Beth-Raman et Beth-Ceno ac curatore rerum sacrarum in Mozal, hoc est Seleucia Parthorum (Antwerp: Plantin, 1569Google Scholar). De Paradiso has been reprinted several times, including PG 111:481–608. For a history of the printings, see Baumstark, Anton, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1922) 281Google Scholar n. 6. On Masius and his Syriac scholarship see Albert Roey, van, “Les études syriaques d'Andreas Masius,” OLP 9 (1978) 141–58Google Scholar and Wilkinson, Robert J., Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Delumeau, Jean, History of Paradise: The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition (New York: Continuum, 1995) 181Google Scholar, 183, 189, 198.
33 I offer one notable example. Bein. Syr. 10, 7a, cites the following argument in favor of a spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament alongside a literal interpretation: “If the Old Testament were deprived of its spiritual interpretations it would not be apparent that this creation possesses renewal through Christ, since it is by means of the spiritual interpretations concealed in the Old Testament that the Fathers and prophets and righteous and just men of old realized that Christ will appear and renew this creation which has grown old.” [This and all subsequent translations from Syriac, Latin, and Greek are mine, unless indicated otherwise.] Compare this to Masius's Latin translation, PG 111:489A: “Praeterea nisi in illo recondita fuerint arcana sensa, unde potuere prisci patres, prophetae aliique sancti viri intelligere Christum olim venturum, ex eaque re tanto affici gaudio?” (Furthermore, if secret meanings had not been hidden in it [the Old Testament], whence could the ancient fathers, prophets, and other saints understand that Christ would come one day and that from this thing there would be such joy?). It is possible that the source of the discrepancy is not Masius but his (as yet unknown) Syriac Vorlage. Only a review of all the extant witnesses would allow us to decide. Harvard Syr. 112, 97r and Syr. 118, 178v both agree with Bein. Syr. 10. I thank Jonathan Lipnick for reporting on these manuscripts for me. In any case, it is worth noting that the confusion between the “renewal” described in the Syriac and the “joy” in Masius's Latin was probably related to the similarity between the Syriac words ḥūdātā (renewal) and ḥadwā (joy). It is possible that the alteration had to do with uneasiness about the implication of apokatastasis, a doctrine which was officially condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople (553 C.E.) but which continued to be taught by some Miaphysite authors. See John Chapman, “Monophysites and Monophysitism,” Catholic Encyclopedia (15 vols.; New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913) 10:49; Daley, Brian E., The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 222Google Scholar.
34 Van Roey, “Les études syriaques,” 151–52.
35 On the disappearance and reappearance of the Syriac originals, see Vööbus, “New Manuscript Discoveries,” 378–80. See also Strothmann, Werner, Johannes von Apamea (PTS 11; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972) 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 57, 106 nn. 120–21.
36 Francois Graffin, “Moïse bar Kepha,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité (17 vols.; Paris: Beauchesne, 1937–1995) 10:1471.
37 Kövér, András, Ilona Lukács, and Monika Pesthy, eds., Mózes bar Képha. Paradicsom-kommentár Budapest: Magyar Könyvklub, 2001) (Non vidi). Introduction and Hungarian translation based on Harvard Syr. 112: http://moly.hu/konyvek/mozes-bar-kepha-paradicsom-kommentar (accessed 4 May 2011). According to Reller, this manuscript was written in 1894 C.E. and contains only books 1 and 2 of On Paradise (Mose bar Kepha, 62). See further Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 2:819–61, for a German translation of a portion of the running commentary on Gen 2:8–3:24 that comprises ch. 28 of bk. 1 of On Paradise. Schlimme's translation covers Gen 2:8–15 and is based on Mingana Syr. 65 (copied in 1903 C.E. from a 1079 C.E. archetype).
38 Depuydt, Leo, “Classical Syriac Manuscripts at Yale University: A Checklist,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 9 (2006)Google Scholar. (Accessed 15 February 2010) Online: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol9No2/HV9N2Depuydt.html
39 Depuydt, “Classical Syriac Manuscripts”; Reinink, G. J., Die syrische Apokalypse des Pseudo-Methodius (CSCO 540; Syr. 220; Louvain: Peeters, 1993Google Scholar); Hidemi Takahashi, “(Also) via Istanbul to New Haven—MSS. Yale Syr. 8–11,” in Festschrift for Dimitri Gutas (ed. Felicitas Opwis; forthcoming). See also my facsimile edition of On Paradise, Bein. Syr. 10 (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, forthcoming).
40 This monastery is not to be confused with the more famous monastery of the same name. See Honigmann, Ernest, Le Couvent de Barsaumā et le patriarcat jacobite d'Antioche et de Syrie (CSCO 146; Louvain: Durbecq, 1954) 44Google Scholar; Takahashi, “(Also) Via Istanbul,” n. 72.
41 For names of other scribes, including a modern repair inserted by a certain Paul in 1905 C.E. (pace Reinink, Syrische Apokalypse, xvi, who read 1957 C.E.), see Takahashi, “(Also) Via Istanbul.”
42 Robert Hespel and René Draguet, eds. and trans., Théodore bar Koni. Livre des scolies (2 vols.; CSCO 431–432/Syr. 187–188; Louvain: Peeters, 1981–1982).
43 Ernest G. Clarke, ed., The Selected Questions of Ishō bar Nūn on the Pentateuch (Leiden: Brill, 1962).
44 Ceslas van den Eynde, ed., Commentaire d'Išo‘dad de Merv sur l'ancien testament (CSCO 126, 156; Syr. 67/75; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1950, 1955).
45 Levene, Abraham, The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis: From a Syriac Manuscript on the Pentateuch in the Mingana Collection (London: Taylor's Foreign Press, 1951Google Scholar); Lucas Van Rompay, ed., Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9, 32 du Manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22 (2 vols.; CSCO 483–484; Syr. 205–206; Louvain: Peeters, 1986).
46 This is the conclusion drawn by Clarke, Selected Questions of Ishō bar Nūn, 165–82. For a refinement of this conclusion see Lucas Rompay, Van, “Išo' bar Nun and Išo'dad of Merv: New Data for the Study of the Interdependence of their Exegetical Works,” OLP 8 (1977) 229–49Google Scholar and Molenberg, Corrie, “Išo' bar Nun and Išo'dad of Merv on the Book of Genesis: A Study of Their Interrelationship” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays ed. Frishman, Judith and Van Rompay, Lucas; Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5; Louvain: Peeters, 1997) 197–228Google Scholar.
47 See the discussion of Bar Kepha's scholastic method in Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 1:27–30.
48 Makdisi, George, “Baghdad, Bologna, and Scholasticism,” in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East ed. Drijvers, Jan W. and MacDonald, Alasdair A.; Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 61; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 141–57Google Scholar.
49 Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 1:30–31.
50 The second and third of these terms derive from Medieval Latin scholasticism and were employed by Martin Grabmann in his classic history of the scholastic method. Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode. Nach den gedruckten und ungedruckten Quellen dargestellt (2 vols.; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herdersche, 1909) 1:33–35, 1:105–8, 1:215–24
51 Van den Eynde, Commentaire d'Išo‘dad de Merv, vii. See, however, the more subtle evaluation of Molenberg, “Išo' and Išo'dad,” 228: “Išo'dad did nothing but compile, but he did not compile at random… . At first sight a compiler, Išo'dad made the interpretations of his forerunner his own.”
52 Schlimme, “Bibelkommentare,” 70, draws a similar contrast between Bar Kepha and Dionysius bar Salibi.
53 See Annelie Volgers and Claudio Zamagni, eds., Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), esp. Bas ter Haar Romeny, “Question-and-Answer Collections in Syriac Literature,” ibid., 145–63.
54 See H. Béguin, “Un recueil d'homélies du IXe siècle en langue syriaque,” Revue d'Orient Chrétienne 23 (1922) 82–91, at 82; Reller, Mose bar Kepha, 106–10.
55 Werner Strothmann, ed., Moses bar Kepha, Myron-Weihe (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1973) 24–25; Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 2:698–701.
56 Bein. Syr. 10, 4a: Some patristic statements indicate that paradise is material, others that it is spiritual. Bar Kepha harmonizes the opposition by arguing that paradise must be both material and spiritual.
57 Cases where Bar Kepha sides with one opinion against others: Bein. Syr. 10, 22b–23a, 25a–25b, 44b–45a. Cases where Bar Kepha leaves the decision up to the reader: Bein. Syr. 10, 41a, 65b–66a, 78b–79a, 96a–96b.
58 Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 2.644; Reller, Mose bar Kepha, 40.
59 See, e.g., André Halleux, de, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum coinscriptae; Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis, ser. 3, t.8; Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1963) 126–27Google Scholar, 134, and Strothmann, Johannes von Apamea, 55, 105–8.
60 But unlike many of his late ancient predecessors, Bar Kepha normally cites verses in the name of Moses alone, not adding such qualifications as “by means of the Holy Spirit.” The expression “Moses said through the Holy Spirit” appears only twice in all of On Paradise: Bein. Syr. 10, 5a and 29b.
61 For a discussion of the ambivalent attitudes of Jewish Hellenistic writers see Amir, Yehoshua, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (Forschungen zum jüdischchristlichen Dialog 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983) 77–106Google Scholar; Feldman, Louis H., Philo's Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 15; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007) 258–80Google Scholar; John Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion (WUNT2 173; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 149–74.
62 Philo, Decal. 175; Spec. 1.65, 2.189, 3.7, 4.49. Josephus, Ant. 3.84, 3.87, 3.322, 4.193.
63 Bein. Syr. 10, 36b–37a.
64 Elsewhere (Bein. Syr. 10, 13a), Bar Kepha lists as one of the differences between paradise and the Kingdom of Heaven the fact that Moses wrote about the former but not about the latter.
65 Sifra Behuqotai 8; b. Sanh. 99a. See Heschel, Heavenly Torah, 368–406, 538–640 for a fuller discussion.
66 Augustine, Conf. 12.31–32. See Frederick Fleteren, Van, “Principles of Augustine's Hermeneutic: An Overview,” in Augustine: Biblical Exegete ed. Van Fleteren, Frederick and Schnaubelt, Joseph C.; Collectanea Augustiniana 5; New York: Peter Lang, 2001) 16–17Google Scholar and Carol Harrison, “‘Not Words but Things': Harmonious Diversity in the Four Gospels,” ibid., 166–68.
67 Jacob of Serugh, Memre 79, in Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug) (ed. Paul Bedjan and Sebastian Brock; 6 vols.; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2006) 3:283–305. For an English translation, see Brock, Sebastian, “Jacob of Serugh on the Veil of Moses,” Sobornost 3 (1981) 70–85Google Scholar.
68 Ambrose, Parad. 12.56.
69 Gen. Rab. 19.3 (Theodor-Albeck, 172).
70 Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Genesis on Gen 3:3 (PG 87a:188A).
71 A minority opinion ascribes the additions to Adam, not to Eve: 'Abot R. Nat. 1.
72 Bein. Syr. 10, 66b. It may be noted that the Karaite commentator Yefet ibn ‘Ali, writing a generation after Bar Kepha, adopts the same stance as Bar Kepha, only attributing the discrepancy to “Scripture” (Al-kitāb) not to Moses; cited in Saadya's Commentary on Genesis (ed. Moshe Zucker; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1984) 286 n. 422 [Judeo-Arabic and Hebrew]. For a general overview of Karaite exegetical methods, including literal-historical aspects, see Polliack, Meira, “Major Trends in Karaite Biblical Exegesis in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in Karaite Judaism: A Guide to Its History and Literary Sources ed. Polliack, Meira; Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1, The Near and Middle East 73; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 363–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more on influences of the Syriac commentary tradition on Karaite exegesis, see Nemoy, Leon, Karaite Anthology: Excerpts from the Early Literature (Yale Judaica Series 7; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1952) 43Google Scholar, 54; Stroumsa, Sarah, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition on Early Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis,” Aram 3 (1991) 83–96Google Scholar.
73 Bein. Syr. 10, 51a is another case where Bar Kepha notes an omission of Moses': No reward is mentioned for obeying the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge.
74 For a survey of patristic attitudes, see Rondeau, Marie-Josèphe, “D'ou vient la technique exégétique utilisée par Grégoire de Nysse dans son traité ‘Sur les titres des Psaumes'?,” Mélanges d'histoire des religions. Offerts à Henri-Charles Puech Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974) 263–87Google Scholar. For a very brief treatment of patristic and rabbinic material, see Gilles Dorival, “Exégèse juive,” 141–42.
75 Bein. Syr. 10, 86a.
76 This is not precise given the fact that Bar Kepha himself remarks on two occasions that the description of paradise beginning in Gen 2:8 is out of its place in the narrative: Bein. Syr. 10, 8b and 40a.
77 Antiochus of Ptolemais was a contemporary of John Chrysostom; see CPG 4297.
78 ΠΌθεν ἀνεπλήρωσεν, ἀπορεῖ ὁ λΌγοϛ, ἀλλ’ ἡ δύναμιϛ οὐκ ἀπορεῖ. Καὶ ᾠκοδΌμησε τὴν πλευρὰν ἥν ἔλαβεν εἰϛ γυναῖκα· πῶϛ πάλιν ᾠκοδΌμησεν ἕν ὀστοῦν; πῶϛ εἰϛ ὅλα μετεσχηματίσθη τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὰ μΌρια; ’Αλλ’ οὐκ ἄν ἔχοιϛ τὸν τρΌπον εἰπεῖν. Françoise Petit, ed., La chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale (4 vols.; Louvain: Peeters, 1991) 1:203.
79 See John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 15, on Gen 2:21 (PG 53:121–22), for a similar explanation.
80 Van den Eynde, Commentaire d'Išo‘dad de Merv, 69 [Syriac], 74 [translation].
81 Bein. Syr. 10, 59a.
82 I use this term as synonymous with the Russian Formalist concept of fabula: i.e., the “story” as distinguished from the way it is told (“plot”; sjuŽet). See further below at n. 93.
83 Bein. Syr. 10, 89a–89b.
84 Bein. Syr. 10, 43b.
85 Bein. Syr. 10, 63b–64a.
86 ’Αναγκαίωϛ τοίνυν καὶ ὁ μακάριοϛ Μωυσῆϛ, καθ’ ἥν ὑπὸ τῆϛ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματοϛ χάριτοϛ ἐδέΞατο γνῶσιν τὰ γεγονΌτα ἱστορῶν, παρῆκε μὲν τοῦ διαβΌλου τὴν μνήμην, ὡϛ ἀγνώστου τοῖϛ ἀπατηθεῖσιν ὄντοϛ, λέγει δὲ τὸν ὄϕιν, πρὸϛ ὃν καὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν ’Αδὰμ ἑώρων τΌτε, οὐκ εἰδΌτεϛ τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ διαλεγΌμενον τέωϛ, ἅτε μηδὲ εῖναί τι ἕτερον ἀΌρατον εἰδΌτεϛ πλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ (Petit, La chaîne sur la Genèse, 1:220).
87 Theodoret, Questions on Genesis on Gen 1:1 (PG 80:77c–80a); Procopius of Gaza, Comm. in Gen. on Gen 3:1 (PG 87a:184d); Hespel and Draguet, Théodore bar Koni, 1:85 [Syriac], 1:108 [translation]; Clarke, Selected Questions of Ishō bar Nūn, 20; Van den Eynde, Commentaire d'Išo‘dad de Merv, 20–21 [Syriac], 23 [translation], 73 [Syriac], 78–79 [translation].
88 Bein. Syr. 10, 39b.
89 Theodore uses the verb παρήκειν, “to pass over,” “to omit.”
90 John Chrysostom gives a similar explanation for the related question of why angels are absent from the creation account (Hom. Gen. 2, on Gen 1:1; PG 53:29). Chrysostom and Bar Kepha's explanations of Moses' narratological decisions are related to the more general patristic notion of divine “accommodation” (συγκατάβασιϛ). This notion contextualizes certain biblical laws, like sacrifice and circumcision, as historically bound concessions to the Israelites' weaknesses. The notion of “accommodation” is also used to account for anthropomorphic language in biblical descriptions of the divine. For accommodation in John Chrysostom, see Fabbi, Fabio, “La ‘condiscendenza' divina nell'ispirazione biblica secondo S. Giovanni Crisostomo,” Bib 14 (1933) 330–47Google Scholar. For a more general review of the patristic material, see Stephen Benin, D., “The ‘Cunning of God' and Divine Accommodation,” JHI 45 (1984) 179–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Diettrich, Eine jakobitische Einleitung, 90 n. 1.
91 Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 1:166–67.
92 For proof that Moses uttered and wrote down all five books in the desert, Bar Kepha (at Schlimme, Hexaemeronkommentar, 1:167) cites a curious version of Deut 31:24. In lieu of the commonly accepted, “When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book,” Bar Kepha reads “When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in the five books.” Such a reading would naturally warrant an extension of Moses' narrator-role from Deuteronomy to the entire Pentateuch.
93 Fabula vs. sjuŽet (Russian formalists); histoire vs. discours (French structuralism), etc. See Chatman, Seymour, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989) 19–22Google Scholar for an overview of these distinctions.
94 To cite some examples: Bein. Syr. 10, 40a, introducing Gen 2:8: “After having told about the creation of Adam, he [Moses] returns to fill in details about the six days of creation.” Bein. Syr. 10, 42a, introducing Gen 2:9: “He [Moses] returns to the earlier narrative and completes it, (saying that) Paradise was also planted on the third day.” Bein. Syr. 10, 44b, introducing Gen 2:15: “After narrating the wonders of Paradise, the river that waters it, and the care God, its creator and planter, took for it, Moses begins to discuss the bringing of Adam into Paradise in the following manner.”
95 Bein. Syr. 10, 101b.
96 Bein. Syr. 10, 36a; Bein. Syr. 10, 118b.
97 Bein. Syr. 10, 9a; Bein. Syr. 10, 33b, 34a.
98 See Patrick T. Gray, R., “‘The Select Fathers:' Canonizing the Patristic Past,” Studia Patristica 23 (1989) 21–36Google Scholar; Studer, Basil, “Argumentation, Patristic,” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church ed. Di Berardino, Angelo; trans. Adrian Walford; 2 vols., Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 1:72Google Scholar; Graumann, Thomas, Die Kirche der Väter. Vätertheologie und Väterbeweis in den Kirchen des Ostens bis zum Konzil von Ephesus (431) (BHT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002Google Scholar); Yonatan Moss, “‘Packed with Patristic Testimonies': Severus of Antioch and the Reinvention of the Church Fathers,” in Personal and Institutional Religion: Thought and Praxis in Eastern Christianity (ed. Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Lorenzo Perrone; Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming).
99 Bein. Syr. 10, 5b.
100 Bein. Syr. 10, 5a.
101 Bein. Syr. 88a.
102 Rippin, Andrew, “Tafsīr,” Encyclopedia of Islam ed. Perri Bearman et al.; 12 vols.; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1960–2005) 10:85Google Scholar.
103 Idem, “The Function of Asbāb al-Nuzūl in Qur'ānic Exegesis,” BSOAS 51 (1988) 1–20, at 2.
104 Idem, “The Exegetical Genre of Asbāb al-Nuzūl: A Bibliographical and Terminological Survey,” BSOAS 48 (1985) 1–15, at 14. For two specific examples see Abū Ja‘far Muhammad b. al-Tabarī, Jarīr, Jāmi' al-bayān ‘an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān (30 vols.; Cairo: Mustafa al-Bābī al-Halabī, 1954–1968) 4:591Google Scholar (the historical circumstances in which Sura 2:230's teaching about divorce was revealed) and 3:267–68 (the signs of God in Sura 2:164 are interpreted as a response to claims made by specific opponents of Muhammad).
105 Bein. Syr. 10, 5a and 29b.
106 Given this difference between Bar Kepha and his Muslim contemporaries, perhaps Bar Kepha's historicization of Mosaic authorship should be viewed not so much as a result of Muslim influence as a polemical response to the divine aspect of Muslim exegetical historicization.
107 See Michel Foucault's celebrated essay, “What is an Author,” in The Foucault Reader ed. Paul Rabinow; New York: Pantheon, 1984) 101–20.
108 Minnis, A. J., Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (2d ed.; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988) 5–6Google Scholar.
109 Roland Barthes's 1967 essay “The Death of the Author” was the clarion call, followed by a generation of literary critics. Recently, the question has been reopened. See William Irwin, ed., The Death and the Resurrection of the Author? (Contributions in Philosophy 83; Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 2002).