Magic in the Biblical World -The Archer and the Cross Par Todd Klutz

THE. ARCHER AND THE CROSS: CHOROGRAPHIC ASTROLOGY AND LITERARY DESIGN DESI GN IN THE TESTAMENT OF TESTAMENT OF SOLOMON

Todd E. Klutz

The Testament of Solomon^ like many other pseudepigraphal works,' seldom seldom attracts the kind of scholarly scholarly attention that is almost almost continuously devoted to books of the Jewish and Christian canons. In the last 15 years, for instance, while the Testament has been mentioned in a variety of scholarly treatments of other topics,^ only one substantial study—that produced by D.C. Duling for the Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary—has been pub lished specifically on the Testament itself.' In recent scholarship on this document, therefore, a disconcerting pattern can be identified: although the Testament of Testament of Solomon Solomon is increasingly being cited in comparative studies of other ancient texts/ the Testament itself continues to be deprived of the sort of careftil careftil analysis which the best varieties varieti es of comparative comparat ive study nec essarily involve. This incongruity constitutes much of the rationale for the present study; but almost as importantly, it also suggests that one of the most appropriate ways to begin the present analysis is to summarize at least briefly the contents of this still relatively obscure text. In order order to prevent the complexities of the Testament^s textual identity fro from causing disheartening dis heartening confusion confusion at the outset, I wish to begin begin with a simplification simplification which, though it will need to be problematized in the

1. See. e.g.. the collection in DTP. See, e.g., T. Barton, Ancient Astrology (Sciences in Antiquity: London: Rouilcdgc, 1994). p. 69; S. Garrett. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke's Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1989). p. 8; and M.E. Mills. Human Agents of Cosmic of Cosmic Power in Power in Hellenistic Judaism and the Synoptic Tradition (JSNTSup, 41 ; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1990). pp. 55-61. 3. D.C. Duling. 'Solomon 'Sol omon.. Testament Testament of \ in ABD, VI, pp. 117-19. 4. Growing awareness of the Testament can be attributed largely to the English translation and informative introduction provided by D.C. Duling, 'Testament of Solo mon', in DTP, I. pp. 935-87. 2.

Elements sous droits d'auteur

220

Magic in the Biblical World

ensuing discussion, is not not without without expository exposi tory ulihty. uli hty. The simplilying meas ure in question question is to summarize only one of the Testament' Testam ent'ss 16 know known n textual witnesses—namely, manuscript P—which more closely than any other witness to the text corresponds in general content to the critical edition translated by Duling in OTP? Dated to the sixteenth century CE CE, manuscript P opens with the title ti tle,, 'Testament of Solomon, Son of Davld\ and previews the ensuing text as dealing with with Solomon's Solom on's knowledge and and use of'a of 'all ll the spirits of the air, of the earth, and and under the earth' ear th' (1.00). Then Then comes a doxology (1.0). which is followed followed by a story of how Solomon came ca me to possess a specialring(1.17) that enabled him to interview a series of heteromorphic demons. In the course of these interviews Solomon extracts from the demons a massive store of esoteric knowledge (1.8-25.9). ranging from demonology and astrology to incanlational and ritual prescriptions, all of which which is disclosed in the Testament for a variety of prophylactic prophylactic and and therapeutic uses against the demonic realm. By means of this same knowledge, moreover, and equipped with the ring, Solomon is also able to compel the demons to assist him in the construction of the Jerusalem Temple (1.00; 1.7; 2.8; 6.12; 6.12 ; 12.5). E>espit spitee this t his achievement achieveme nt and the vast wisdom which which the great king acquired through the demons, the Testament of Solomon ultimately comes to t o an ambivalent ending, with Solomon Solomon as narrator detailing how he eventually was led into idolatry through his love of alien women (26.1 -5) and reduced to the status of a 'laughingstock' before 'the idols and demons' (26.6-8). As already hinted, however, the text-critical realities surrounding this document—indeed, the assumptions we have to make merely to speak of Testament of Solomon—are considerably less tidy than the summary the the Testament of just jus t provided provided could be misunderstood to suggest. suggest. Accordingly, Accordingly, much of of the discussion below deals with the kinds of difficu difficulties lties that any serious effort effort to understand the Testament is obligated to address. The particular com plexities in question, moreover, revolve around four issues in scholarly

5. Prior to its contribution to the eclectic edition prepared by C.C. McCown, The Testament of Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922). manuscript P had been printed on its own twice, twi ce, once by F.F. Fleck Fleck in 1837 1837 (*Wisscnsc (*WisscnschaftI haftIichc ichc Rcisc durch das sfldliche Deutschland, Italien. Sicilien und Frankreich*, ll/^, AnecJota maximam partem sacra [Leipzig: J.A. Barth, 1837], pp. 113-40). which was reprinted in PG CXXII, cols. 1315-58: and again (in tronly) in F.C. Conyt)eare, 'The Testament of Solomon', J( ?^ 11 (1898). (1898). pp. 15-45. 15-45.


KLUTZ The Archer and the Cross

111

the Testament on which the rest of this study is designed to shed study of the light,^ light,^ These Thes e are: (1) therelationshipbetween the manuscript just summar summar ized (i.e. P) and another roughly like it—namely, manuscript H—whose value for establishing the text has been judged superior to that of P in sev eral of the most influential works of scholarship;^ (2) the linguistic and liter ary evidence in manuscript P (and another manuscript commonly grouped with it—namely, N- -in a single recension) for the existence of a coherent but hitherto unrecognized source that antedates both P and H; (3) the stylistic features which, in combination with the most recently discovered manuscript evidence (i.e. the Vienna Papyrus, discussed further below), strongly support the thesis, still opposed in some quarters, that Solomon's dialogue with the 36 'world-rulers of the darkness of this age' (T Sol. 18.2) not only once circulated independently independently of the rest rest of the Testament but also constitutes the eariiest stratum of source material in any of the extant manuscripts;** and (4) the history of tradition that can be seen to emerge the three difficulties from the proposals defended below in connection with the just noted.*

None of these questions, however, possesses any great significance without first being contextualized in relation to the history and present state of research in Testament of Testament of Solomon Solomon studies. Consequently, in order to give some sense of what these questions might mean and why they are worth asking in the first place, another brief story needs to be told—a tale not the magic about antique rings and demons and incantations, but rather about the of modernism, the intellectual misfortunes to which it has contributed in one one area of scholariy inquiry, and the self-affirm self-affirming ing ecstasy induced by its own brand of verbal enchantment.

6. The priniary focus of ihe prcseni study falls on the first two of these issues, with the remaining two being addressed only briefly and in general temis. 7. See. e.g., McCown, The Testament of Testament of Solomon, pp. 37-38. 8. See especially R. R. Daniel, 'The 'Th e Testament Testament of Solomon Solomon XVIII XVIII 27-28. 27-28 . 33-40' 33- 40'.. in Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Papyrus Enherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.): Festschrift zum 100 jahrigen Bestchen der Papyrussammhung der Papyrussammhung der Osterreichischen BrQdcr cr Hollinck. 1983), 1983), pp. 294-95; 294 -95; contested by D.C. Nationalbihiiothek (Vienna: BrQd pp. 93-95. Duling, Duling, 'The Testam Testament ent of Solomon: Solomon: Retros Retrospec pectt and Pros Pr ospe pect ct\J \J5P 5P2 2 (1988), pp.

9. This idea of sclf sclf-<: -<:ons onscio cious us reconstructive reconstructi ve work in which the object of reconstruction is allowed allowed (In some cases by necessity) necessit y) to have imprecise boundaries is adapted from D. Caichpole, The Questfor Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). pp. 5-6.


222


I. A Tale of Textual Abuse: The Testament 5 Modern Reception In the critical edition of the Testament published in 1922 by CC. McCown, which is the only published monograph to date devoted exclusively to the document, overtly negative evaluations of the antique text and its alien point of view abound, strongly underscoring not merely the great gulf between the cultural context of McCown an and d that of the much earlier traditionists of the Testament, but also the deeply modernistic self-confidence self-confidence that the ideas found in the Testament could not for a moment be taken seriously seriously by the scholarly author or his enlightened (i.e. twentieth century and Western) readers.'*' readers.'*' A hand handful ful of brief extracts extract s from from McCown McC own's 's work are suffi sufficien cientt to illustrate illustrat e my point. point . In thefirstof these, these, which notably occurs occ urs in the opening opening two paragraphs of the * Introduction' and thus before before most readers in the study' st udy'ss intended intended audience could begin to acquire even a vague notion of what the Testa ment is about, McCown McCown characterizes the obscure text as a piece oVnaive popular science'," and then as a *product of those xYixte pseudo-sciences which have brought more disappointed hopes and abject terrors to man kind than any others: astrology, demonology, and magic'.'- Shortly atêr this unflattering description, but not until the Testament's ideas have been debased further as "superstitious puerilities...Tccordin^ the hopes and fears of the vast majority of mankind'.'^ which of course the civilized societies of the author and reader are assumed to have outgrown outgrown long ago, McCown gives the text of my second example: In spite of their ahsurJtties demonology and magic had a tremendous hold upon the great body of mankind. The Testament is doubly welcome, since unfortunately we have too fe few first first hand sources in this field.'" fiel d.'"^^

As a footnote attached to this latter piece reinforces the author's overt the Testament's worldview by associating it with 'ancient repudiation of the superstitions superst itions','^ ','^ it is dif diffic ficult ult not to wonder wonder why why the Testament is 10. 10. On the abiding influence of McCown's work, sec Duling. *The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect*, p. 91. All italics in the ensuing quotations from McCown afxr mine. 11. 11. McCown. The Testament of Solomon, p. I, 12. 12. McCown, The Testament of Solomon, p. 1. 13. 13. McCown. The Testament ofSolomon, p. 1. 14. 14. McCown. The Testament ofSolomon, p. 2. 15. 15. McCov^n, The Testament of Solomon, p. 2 n. 3.


KLutz The Archer and the and the Cross

223

described, on the other hand, as 'doubly welcome'. While no answer to this question can be given with certainty, the combination in these pages of pejorative description on the one hand and interest in alien (and thus inferior) religious beliefs on the other does suggest at least one somewhat disturbing answer: the reason McCo McCown wn regards the Testament 'doubly wel come', especially in a modernistic context from which it differs so conspi cuously, is that it serves to remind us all—author and readers—of how wondrously far far our part of the world has progressed, progress ed, how impressively we have transcend transcended ed what what A.A. Barb, an ideological ideological kinsman of McCown Mc Cown's, 's, once memorably called 'the syncrelistic, rotting refuse heap of the dead and dying religions of the whole ancient world*."* To subject this sort of description to a simple variety of deconstruction, deconst ruction, we might say that McCown's Cow n's overt overt binarism binarism of modem/ancien modem/ancientt entails an implicit implicit but unmistak unmist ak able hierarchy of culturally relative values—namely, values—namely, our rationality over their superstition. And not surprisingly, standing at the very top of that hierarchy, hierarc hy, looking down down with reason-induced ataraxia at the putrid mass of our protological forebears, is McCown—along with, it is important important to add, any of us who assume ourselves liberated, by whatever means, from the dangers of chronological snobbery and its band of ethnocentric allies. Although further critique of McCown is essential at several points aim in this paper is not to deride him for simply having below, my chief aim absorbed certain biases that were ingrained in the academic culture he un avoidably internalized; to engage in such derision, after after all, would merely Testament of Solomon, implicate me in a boring replay of McCown vs. the Testament of the with my abuse of McCown being no more equitable than his abuse of the Testament. Nor, for that matter, is my goal to champion the virtues of par ticular brands of criticism that have arisen since the publication of McCown, and which might prove useful in future analyses of magico-religious texts in general; general ; indeed, the constructive steps ste ps recently taken by a handf handful ul of scholars in this latter l atter field'^ field'^ are becoming sufficientl sufficiently y influential, in my

16. 16. A.A. Barb, *The *The Survival Survival ot*M ot*Mag agic ic Arts Ar ts',', in A. Momiglian Momig liano(ed.) o(ed.),, The Conflict Clarendon Press, Between Paganism and Christianit and Christianityy in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon 1963), p. 104. cited in R. MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale Universit>' Universit>' Press, Press , 1981), p. 83, who tacitly valorises Barb's Barb' s rationalist rationalist phraseology phraseology by describing it as merely 'a trifle dramatic' and conveying 'the right impression'. 17. 17. For exemplary sensitivity to the theoretical problems in scholarly discourse about magic, sec especially J.G. Gager (ed.). Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from Oxford University Press. Pres s. 1992), pp. 24-25; 24-25 ; Garrett. The the Ancient World {Oxford: Oxford Demise of the Devil, pp. 2-36; and M. Meyer and R. Smith (eds.). Ancient Christian


224

Magic in the Biblical

World

view, to justify the rather differen differentt path being pursued pursued here, her e, namely, to focus less on theoretical aspects of scholarly discourse about *magic' and •religion' than on the four issues outlined above and related matters. But before we turn to concentrate on those concerns, and in order to create a satisfactory context for my own foray into this field, a few more observa tions on the work of McCown and the lasting influence it has exerted on scholarly understanding of the Testament's textual identity are necessary. of Solo As hinted above, what is conveniently called 'the Testament of Solo mon' is not so much a solid text with a clear identity as it is a blurry and elusive textual space thinly populated by an an assortment of heterogeneous manuscripts whose chief source of unity is their mutual interest in certain secrets obtained by Solomon from the demonic realm. Although I will expand on this generalization in some detail below by discussing several of the Testament's individual individual manuscripts, at this juncture junct ure my sole strategy to defend its suitability as a summary of the text-critical situation is to appeal to a recent essay by D.C. Duling, who, after translating and com menting extensively on the Testament in Charlesworth's OTP, asserted five years later: later: 'Despi ' Despite te the dominance dominance of McCown's views [i.e. on on mat ters of textual textual history history and identity], there has not been been total agreement on the earliest form or evolution of T. So/, a problem which persists to the present'.'** As Duling goes on to observe, moreover, most scholars inter ested in the Testament have tended to rely heavily on McCown, repeating his views on everything from genre and origins to provenance and recen sions.'*' Indeed, this same observation is in many respects applicable to Duling's own publications on the Testament, with his positions on matters of tradition history and textual criticism (i.e. those of greatest concern in the present essay) being especially close to those advanced by McCown over 75 years ago.^^ Merely a casual reading of Duling*$ work therefore enables us to recover Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 1-6. Learned Learned and usefu usefull but inconsistent on the problem of definiti definition on is F. Graf. Magic in 10; Cambridge. MA: Harvard Harvard the Ancient Ancient World{XXBns. F. Philip; Revealing Antiquity, 10;

University Press. 1997), pp. 12-19. 18. Duling, *The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect', p. 90. 19. 19. Duling, 'The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect*, p. 91. A notable example is K. Preisendanz, "Salomo", in PWVIII, cols. 684-90, which, in addition to relying heavily on McCown, shows no awareness of the evidence discussed below for a literary seam at the end of the the Testament's fifteenth chapter. 20. See Duling, *The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect', pp. 91. 95-97.


226


our initial survey of the document's contents (i.e. P). One of the main reasons P merits special attention is that it contains a block of material (T. Sol. 14.3-16.1 according to the textual divisions in McCown and Duling) which, though absent from fr om every other witness except except manuscript N, was considered by McCown to be an original part of the Testament and included by Duling in his English translation.-' The material in question, it is worth worth adding, is colourf colourful: ul: near its beginning, for for instance, the demon demon known as *the Winged Dragon* discloses that the sort of evil in which he takes special delight is to copulate, copul ate, 'not 'no t with many women, women, but with with only a few few that have beautiful beautiful bodie bod ies' s' and belong to a particular zodiacal sign, the identity of which is discussed below. But more important for our pre sent purp>oses, this same problematic section includes includes near its end end (15.1314) a number of features which suggest that, at an earlier stage of compo sition, either all or much of 1.00-15.14 circulated without the remaining eleven chapters of the document. As manuscript N, moreover, includes not only 14.3-16.1, but almost everything else found in manuscript P,-** these two witnesses witne sses were we re grouped together toge ther by McCown as the the leading represen tatives of a single recension, which McCown himself and subsequent in terpreters have labelled 'B'. 25 Although McCown judged both P and N (especially the latter) very important for establishing the imagined *original,- 26 and despite despite his confide confidence nce that P and and N's N 's inclusion of 14.3-16.1 best represented that original, he still rated these two witnesses as gener ally inferior to H, I and L,27 which he grouped together into another recen sion—namely, "A",28 Particularly in light of the presence of 14.3-16.1 in both P and N, McCown's McCo wn's classifica classification tion of these two witnesses as belonging belonging to the same text type is accepted here (as it has been by others) as unassailable. Similarly, his grouping grouping of manuscripts H, I and L into the single recension *A* shows no sign of critical vulnerabili vulner ability. ty. Yet these thes e achievements should

23. McCown, The Testament of Solomon^ p. 31 n. 4. and p. 33 n. 3; and Duling, *The Testament of Solomon*, pp. 974-76. 24. The only material found in P but absent from N is the brief prefatorial matter and the first four verses of the narrator's story (i.e. the title, the prologue, and T. Sol. l.M). 25. McCown. The Testament of pp. 31 -34: and Duling, *Tbc Testament Testament of Solomon, pp. of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect', pp. 89, 101. 26. McCown, The Testament of Solomon, p. 33. 27. McCown, The Testament of Solomon, p. 33. 28. McCown. The Testament of Testament of Solomon, pp. 31, 35-36.



227

by no means be allowed to lull us into placing unreserved confidence in McCown's whole recensional and historical reconstruction, and especially that part of it which dates recension A (represented by manuscripts H, I and L) earlier than recension recension B (represented by manuscripts N, P and and Q) and thus nearer the 'original' Testament;29 for McCown's textual taxon omy begins to run into serious difficulties difficulties as soon as his third and final fina l witness to recension B, namely, manuscript Q, is collated in terms terms of gen eral content w ith the other witnesses. Although Q agrees almost perfectly perfectly in content with P from the title (1.00) to the end of Solomon's interroga tion of the demon Omias (2.1 -9), it has none of the material found found in P and and N of 3.1-20.9, which amounts to well over half of the Testament. To be sure, when Q eventually rejoins P and N in the middle of a conversation between Solomon, an elderiy artisan, and the demon Omias (20.10), it agrees closely in content with P and N up to their common conclusion, which consists of Solomon's first-person disclosure of his reasons for composing the Testament. But far more important for a convincing classi ficati fic ation on of the the manuscripts, a comparison comparison of Q with another key witness to the agreement —namely, manuscript D—shows that the the Testament —namely, agreement between these two in terms of general general content content is much much greater than than 0*s overlap with N and P—the P—the manuscripts, that is, which which along with with Q form form McCown's recension B. To be more precise, D agrees with Q not only in its inclusion of almost all the material from the title (1.00) to the end of Solomon's examination examination of the demon demon Omias (2.1 -9), but also in its major major omission of material from 3.1 to 19.3, with the last two verses of ch. 18 (vv. 42-44) being the only material that D includes from this lengthy section.^** This striking combination of agreements, whose existence has not been

Testament of Solomon, pp. 31-33. 29. McCown, The Testament of 30. If D, as suggested below, should be grouped with manuscript Q to form a pre viously unrecognized recension, then its inclusion ol* T. Sol. 18.42-44. which consists of one one of the tradition's two premature endings to the Testament (the other being T. Sol. 15,13-14). would entail an alignment ofthe new recension and McCown's family B against recension A (which lacks this ending), indicating contra McCown that this material was not added but rather omitted at a late stage in the history ofthe tradition. This latter point, in turn, supports the theses defended below that (1) the presence of the premature endings in manuscripts N and P, viewed in the light of their absence from McCown's recension A (manuscripts H. I and and L). is a feature feature that an editor would be more likely to remove than to add; and (2) that the Testament's eighteenth chapter in particular once circulated as an independent document whose original ending (i.e. 18.42-44), which is preserved in slightly differe different nt forms forms in manuscripts N, P and D. was deliberately omitted by the edilor(s) of recension A.



229

sion, it nevertheless contains all the co-text immediately surrounding the disputed material, material , not to mention mention almost all of 1.1-14.2, so that that the diver gence from P and N on this matter is once again again striking. striki ng. Accordingly, the omission of I4.3-I6.1a from these two important witnesses (H and L) demands an explanation, which in turn requires consideration of select details of the omitted material. First, in manuscripts P and N of 15.13-14, and thus just before the end of the disputed section, a shift of topic and of temporal orientation takes place, moving the focus away from Solomon's conversation with the individual demon Enepsigos in the distant past (15.1-12) to his present reflections, reflections, as narrator, on the reliability of all the demonic testimony re counted in the preceding co-text of these lines. Signalled by a variety of tangible linguistic features—a divergence, for instance, from anarthrous singular forms of 6aiMCOV\6aiM6viov at the beginning of each of the five units in 11.1 -15.12" to the articular plural in 15.13- U;34 the first allusion in the document to Solomon's death (v. 14); and Solomon's anaphoric referenc referencee to 'this 't his testament test ament'' (v. 14)—t 14)—the he sense sense of closure closure produc produced ed by this transition causes vv. 13-14 to differ markedly from all the material that precedes it (1.00-1 (1.0 0-15.1 5.12) 2) and to functi function on much like a coda, sealing off the text and apparently realizing the conclusion of the document. As the occurre occurrence nce of Si SiaBriKTi in 15.14 15.14 is furthermore the first fir st appearanc appea rancee of this th is term since its use at the very beginning of the document (in its title, Testament of Solomon', in manuscript P of 1.00),^^ it contributes to the formation of an indusio which strengthens the impression that the text is about to end. Notwithstanding this strong sense of closure in 15.13-14, 15.13-14, however, however, the text preserved by these same manuscripts (P and N) does not actually conclude conclu de at this point, but but rather continues contin ues with 14 further further units of vari vari  egated material, agreeing in general general content, content , therefore, with manuscrip manuscriptt H

33. 33. Sec T.Sol. II.I; 12.1; 13.1; I4.I; 15.1. 34. Whereas the anarthrous singular forms are used to denote the individual demons in the context of their conversations conversations with with Solomon, the articular plural plural in 15.13 (Tcov 5oiMOv 5oiMOvcov cov)) functions anaphorically, referring back to all the demons Solomon has interviewed in the antecedent antecedent co-text. co-text. 35. Manuscript N begins at 1.5 and thus, having no parallel to the title in manu of indusio foun script P at 1.00, .00, lacks the sense of indusio found d in manuscript P at 15.1 15.14. 4. Still, it should should not not be overlooked overlooked that 6ia8 6ia8f) f)tc tcn n in manuscript N at 15.1 15.14 4 conveys conveys the same suggestss the same sense of anaphoric nuance that it does in manuscript P and therefore suggest closure. :nts sous droits d'auteur

230

Magic in the Bihiical World

up to 26.8 and thus undermining the structural cues foun found d at the end of ch. 15. 15. But just as importantly, the end of ch. 15 is merely the first of two conspicuous junctures junctu res in P and N where a coda without parallel in H and L turns out out to be a fals falsee ending. To be precise, precise , as in 15.13-14 so also at the 36 18, and thus once again at the close of a discrete unit of text, end of ch. 18, material that is absent from H and L37 but present in N and P strongly sig nals a macrostructural ending,38 whose schematic implications are bla the lengthy stretch of text that directly tantly undermined, however, by the follows in chs. 19-26. In comparative perspective, therefore, the type of text preserved by H and L can be seen to reflect a very specific and identifiable stage of redac tion which the textual trajectory represented by N and P did not undergo. More specifically, this thi s phase of editorial modificatio modification n consisted, at least least in part, of a process of removing codas which, though Ihey may have functioned perfectly well as endings in the older sources used by the redac tor's), became conspicuously inappropriate as more and more Solomonic materials got added to the original Testament (i.e. 1.00-15.14). As for the identity of these older sources, moreover, the evidence just summarized 36. That is. the discourse discourse on the 36 decans {T. Sol. 18.1-42). 37. To be sure, as the text of manuscript L stops abruptly at the end of T. Sol.

18.28, L's omission of the subsequent coda is not as significant as H's. Nevertheless, as the break in L comes directly after the discourse of the twenty-fourth dccan, which of course is a muhiplc of the th e zodiacal number 12, the ending of L hardly hardly looks arbitrary or accidental. But more importantly, since manuscript H corresponds closely to P and and N in general content apart from from the omission of 14.3-16.1, its lack of the coda at the end end of ch. 18 is almost almost certainly the result of redactional polishing. polishin g. 38. The key portion of o f the additional material in manuscript manuscript P, which agrees in general content with manuscript N, is as follows: Kai elxov rroXXnv nouxiav eyco OOXOMCOV EV TTOOri TTJ y f j KOI EV EV E l p n v n S iT iy O V TTOXXri, TTOXXri, TipCOM TipCOMEVOS EVOS'' UT UTTO nClVTCOV nClVTCOV

avGpcoircov Ka\ TCOV UTTO TCOV oupovcav, Km COKO5CHIOUV TOV vobv oXov Kuplou TOO TOO GEOO, Kai Kai n âo ^ aoiX iXsi siaa pou f] f]v EuSuvo EuSuvouoa uoa KQ'I b OTpaT(>>^ pou f)v MET* EMOO. KOI XoiTTov avEnauooTO q noXis" itpouoaXrip xaipouoa KOI ayaXX ayaXXico icoMEv MEvr] r] ('An (' And d I, Solomon, had much quiet in all the land and was living in great great peace, p eace, being honoured all of humankind and those under heaven. I built the whole temple of God: my reign by all steered straight; and my army was with me. Finally, the city of Jerusalem was at repose, rejoicing and being glad' (my translation].) While Duling, 'Testament of Solomon', OTP I, pp. 981-82 n. s3. s3 . recognizes recognizes the potential of these lines to signif signify y what may have been, at an earlier stage in the Testament's development, an end to the document, he fails to comment on how how the difference difference between manuscripts P and i^ at two manuscripts back in T. Sot. this point corresponds to the contrast between the same two 15.14-15.


KLUTZ The Archer and the and the Cross

231

suggests that two documents in particular, partic ular, corresponding roughly to 1.001.0015.14 and 18.1 -44, probably probably circulated prior to the existence of any of the manuscripts discussed above—none above—none of which, it is worth noting, has been been dated to earlier than the fifteenth century Ch; further evidence regarding the existence and identity of sources antedating the manuscripts manuscripts discussed above will be presented below. Although Although an aesthetically orientated revulsion to inappropriate inappropriate endings almost certainly played a role therefore in the removal of T. Sol. 14.316.1 16.1 a from manuscripts H and L, this factor in itself scarcely accounts for the omission of 14.3-16,Ia as a whole. For in the first place, while the excision of this material obviously succeeded at ridding the Testament of one of its two premature endings, it did not succeed at enhancing the document's overall coherence, at least not in any striking way; for the transition which the reader of manuscripts manuscripts H and and L has to make in jumping jumpi ng from the end of 14.2 to 16. l b is only slightly less awkward awkward than having to negotiate negotiat e the dysfunctional dysfunctional codas in in 15.13-14and 18.42-4 18.42-44 4 in in manuscripts N and P.39 Appeals to literary sensibility and coherence, therefore, can take us only so far towards understanding the motives behind the removal of 14.2-16. lb from the textual trajectory of H and L. But just as signifi cantly, regardless of the degree to which these appeals help to explain H and L's L 's lack of 15.13-14. by themselve thems elvess they shed no light light on why the rest of 14,3-16.la (and most notably 14.3-15.12) was omitted. In order to make progress on this latter question, we need above alt to attend to certain features located near the beginning of the contested section. Very intriguingly, just as the objectionable coda in 15.13-14 is situated close to one of (he omitted section's boundaries—namely, its end—so too the feature that probably inspired the excision of material leading up to the coda is found near a boundary boundary of the same section -but -b ut in this instance its beginning. To be precise, in 14.4 the demon known as *the Winged Dragon', who has just disclosed his fondness for intercourse with shapely women women (14.3), (14.3 ), proceeds to describe in picturesque detail his preferred style of copulation: he approaches his prey in the form of *a winged spirit', he says, 'copulating [with the women] through [their] 39. In manuscripts H and L, the jump jum p readers have to t o make from from 14.2 14.2 to 16.2 16.2 due to the omission of 14.3-16.1 involves a grammatically awkward shift shift from from the dis course of one demon to that of another. Therefore, as Darrell Hannah has helpfully pointed out in response to an earlier version of this paper, the nature of the omission appears to have been a removal of an entire page or two rather than a careful careful editorial surgery.


KLUTZ The Archer and the and the Cross

233

attention, he specifies that they must not only be nicely formed but also possess 'a ' a name of To Tou û ûXou of this star'. sta r'. As McCown's McCow n's critical appara tus helpfully explains, in manuscript P the genitive ending of the noun is absent and the Greek letter lambda is not found after the upsilon but rather above it. Still, at least on the surface TOU ÛXOU seems a reasonable reconstruction, which, as its referent in this context would almost almost certainly certa inly be the cross of Christ, would cohere c ohere with several other Christian Christian interpola interpola tions in the Testament's first 15 chapters."" This same reconstruction, moreover, is certainly preferable preferable to most most of its rivals, rivals , several several of which which are regarded even by McCown as unintelligible;^* and an itacized corruption of the same noun is attested at this point in manuscript N (TOU ÊIXOU). And finally, the same noun noun is used used in precisely this fashion, fashion, to refer refer to the cross, in 15.10.** Despite the merits of this reading, however, it is vulnerable to a syn tactical objection that appears appe ars to have been overlooked by all all of its known known proponents; to be precise, by construing the letters lett ers TOU as an article whose functio function n would be to particularize particul arize the conjectured genitive ûAou, ûAou, which in turn would be connected w ith the anarthrous noun 6vo|ja, the solution just jus t summarized results in a grammatical grammatical construction that violates a fun fun damental principle of ancient Greek usage. The principle in question is Apollonius's Canon, which says that two nouns linked together in this kind of construction will either both have the article or both lack it; only rarely, in certain classes of exceptions (none of which is represented here), do we find one noun with the article and the other without it. 47 This

44. See. T. o/. 6.8; 11.6; 12.3: 15.10 45. McCown. The Testament of Solomon, Solomon, p. 45* (the asterisk distinguishes pages in McCown's critical edition from pages in his introductory discussion). McCown mentions two other options postulated by F. Bomemann, 7.HT 14(1844). pp. 9-56: TOU 5i(^'iou(*of the sword-sha sword-shaped ped comet c omet') ') and TOU Zcipiov (the brightest brightest star of the con stellation Canis Major, variously known as the Dog Star. Canicula, Sothis) respec tively—but rightly dismisses them. Bomemann's conjectures are prone to the same criticism outlined below against TOO ÛXOU. For additional criticism of Bomemann*s alternatives, sec Jackson, "Notes "Notes on the Testament Testament of Solomon', Sol omon', p. 52. 46. Jackson. 'Notes on the Testament of Solomon', pp. 51 -52. 47. On Apollonius's Apolloni us's Canon and classes of exceptions exceptions to it. see S. Porter. Idioms of (Biblical Languages: Greek, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), the Greek New Testament (Biblical Although one t)pe t) pe of exception exception to this rule involves involves the use of proper names p. 111. Although (see BDF. pp. 135-36). the syntactical pattern in these cases is for the the head noun to be articular and the proper name to be anarthrous, which is the reverse of what we would have with ovopo -*- TOU ÛXOU.

234


consideration by itself constitutes a nearly fata fatall blow to the idea that TOO ûXou is the original reading; consequently, as soon as we recognize fur ther that Tou ûXou is not in fact a proper name 48 and that its hypothesized occurrence in construct with 6vo\xtx would result in a most unlikely com binati bination on/* /*^^ we can safely dismiss dismi ss this t his reading rea ding once and for for all as a s a corrup tion of some other. There is only one alternative that has more advantages than liabilities. Conjectured tentatively by McCown but never seriously defended by him or any one else who has published on the matter, 50 the reading in question is the anarthrous genitive singular form of the name TOÔTTIS'—that is, TOÔTOu^*—which would constitute a reference to the zodiacal sign of Sagittarius, otherwise known as 'the Archer'. In context, then, the demonic speaker (i.e. the aforementioned Winged Dragon) would be saying that that all the women he attacks are associated in some way with Sagittarius.52 48. At first glance the Acts of Peter 37, where the apostle Peter is cited twice as

referring to 'the name of the cross' (ovopa OTaupoO). may seem to undermine me on this point. poin t. But two considerations consideratio ns seriously weaken the for force ce ofthis evidence: (1) since neither of the occurrences in Acts of Peter 37 include an articular noun (i.e. all the nouns arc anarthrous), both both instances instances of the key phrase actually uphold uphold Apollonius's Apollon ius's Canon; and and (2) differe differences nces in the respective respective semantic ranges of orau or au p o ^ and ûX ûXov ov,, the former being much narrower in compass, make the latter far less suitable as a name. But just as important as either of these factors, in the few passages of the Testament where w hereûXov is employed to denote the cross of Christ (T. Sol. 12.3 and 15.10).nohint of an appellative nuance is discernible, depriving us of any basis within the Testament itself for imagining that its editors had this sense in mind. 49. Although one may wish to urge in response that TOO fy\o\i is precisely the the dif ficult son of reading a scribe would be tempted to change (and thus has good claim to be original), we might counter that some readings are so difficu difficult lt that they can be satis factorily explained only by recourse to the postulate of transcriptional accident: cf. B.M. Metzger, The Text of Text of the Sew Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd cdn. I968),p. 209. Testament of Solomon, p. 45*; and Jackson, 'Notes on the 50. See McCown, The Testament of Testament of Solomon', p. 52. 51. The change from TOÔTOU to ToO ÔXou can be explained in at least two differ ent ways. Either a Christian copyist deliberately deviated from his yorlage in order to develop a favourite theme—namely, that the demonic realm has a special interest in spoiling the sexual purity of Christian women (i.e. those who 'possess a name of the cross')—or cross')— or an angular letter tau tau at the end of the the stem in TOÔTCKJ was mistaken as a lambda, which could easily have led the copyist to construe the word as a carelessly written TOU ûXou. 52. As explained by A. Bouché-Leclercq, L Astrologie grecque (Paris (Pa ris:: Lxrr Lxrrou oux, x, 1899), pp. 373-83, most astrologers of Late Antiquity, unlike their modem counter-

Elem El emen ents ts SOUS droit dr oits s d'auteur


235

This proposal has multiple advantages over TOG ÛAOU. First of all, as TOCOTOU is anarthrous, its syntactical link in this context with the anar throus noun ovopot has none of the shortcomings noted above in relation to Apollonius's Canon. Second, TOÔTTI^, unlike unli ke ûXov, ûXov, fulfi fulfills lls the gram matical matical obligation obligation of ovopa ovop a in this context to occur in constru construct ct with a bona fide name." Furthermore, a reference to the zodiacal sign of Sagit tarius would cohere much better than a reference to the Cross would with the immediate co-textual reference to 'this star' (14.3), for both 'Sagit tarius' and *star' have overtly astrological overtones in this context. Simil arly, in terms of wider literary and thematic appropriateness, whereas 1.00-15.14 includes only one clear reference to the Cross (15.10), it con tains many references to astrological astrological phenomena, phenomena, including particular signs of the zodiac.^ But perhaps most important of all, a reference to Sagittarius parts, identified the zodiacal sign of their clients not according to time of birth but rather according to time of conception, which was assumed of course to have occurred nine signs earlier. However, for reasons discussed below, the branch of astrological theory assumed in this context is probably not of this genethlialogical variety, which was devoted to casting specific horoscopes for individuals, but rather is chorographic in nature, dealing on a higher level of abstraction with the fates of entire geographical areas or ethnic groups: for further disciission of chorographic astrology, sec Barton, pp. 179-81,212, Ancient Astrology pp. 53. The collocational collocational appropriateness of having TOÔTT)^ occur with a term from from the ovopa group is well illustrated in Vetlius Valens, Anthologiarum 9.55.12: b ptv ydp' HXios THjpcoSns uirdtpxcov rrpoocpKEicoBn Kpicb AEOVTI TOÔTTI, oirtp auTOU Tptycovov npoacovOM0(o6ri npEpivov ('For the sun, since it is like a firebrand, was assigned assigned to Arics-Leo-Sagitiarius, Arics-Leo-Sagitiarius, which which is the the name of his triangle by day') day ').. 54. Sec,e .g.,/:5 .g., /:5b/. b/. 2.2:4.6-10;5.4,8;6 2.2:4.6-1 0;5.4,8;6.7;7.6;8. .7;7.6;8.2,4; 2,4; 10.3 10.3;; U.3; U. 3; 13.3 13.3;; 15. 15.55-6. 6.As As additional support for reading TOCOTOU here, it should be noted that while no form of this word is found found in the critical text assembled by McCown. it docs occur as a variant in manuscript manuscript P at 18.3; and, since the contents content s of the Vienna Papyrus, which is the (fifth th or sixth century CR), clearly indicate that the Testament's earliest textual witness (fif earliest known form of the Testament's eighteenth chapter was organised zodiacally. with the 36 decans being distributed among the 12 zodiacal signs, we can be virtually certain that To^brns was present in the three rubrics that originally stood in T. Sol. 18.29-31, designating the zodiacal patron of the three decans who who reveal themselves in these verses. As noted by Barton, Ancient Astrology^ p. 97. the distribution of 36 decans between the 12 signs of the zodiac was a standard conception in Graeco-Roman astrological theory. In fact, many ancient astrological texts are so schematic and repetitive that any damaged or missing lines in them can be confidently recovered, at least in part, on the basis of the familiar familiar sequencing sequencin g and structure of the zodiacal code; for a particularly interesting example, see F. Schmidt. Schmidt. 'Ancient Jewish Jewish Astrology: An Attempl to Interpret 4QCryplic (4Q186)\ in M.E. Stone and E.G. Chazon (eds.).


236


here would satisfy expectations created by two distinct schemes—one aesthetic, the other astrological—which powerfully constrain the structure and sequencing of 1.1-15.14. First of all, on the level of macro-literary structure, we have already seen how the material at the end of this section (i.e. 14.3-16.1) functions not only as a coda signalling the end of the narrative but but also as part of an inciusio that frames all the material between 1.00 and 15.14. The existence of this fram framee therefore invites us to ask whether a more elaborate structure of schematic features might be discemed in this section. More specifically, as the unit in which Sagittarius is mentioned (14.1 -8) lies not far from the coda in 15,13-14, separated from it by only one unit (15.1-11), its expec ted parallel ought to be located near the abstract/title in 1.00. And predic tably, situated only a short distance from the Testament's beginning is a unit that does in fact anticipate and parallel Solomon*s conversation in 14.1-8 with the Winged Dragon. In 2.1-7, to be more precise, the demon Omias, whose interrogation by Solomon is separated from the abstract only by the story story about the master workman's workma n's little boy boy (1.1 -13), discloses that the t he zodiacal sign in which which both he and one special group of his his human human victims 'reside' is the Waterpourer, otherwise known as Aquarius. The conceptual link between Aquarius here in 2.2 and Sagittarius in 14.3 is conspicuous; conspi cuous; and its structural significa significance nce only increases increases when we we recognize that, despite the prominence in this section section (1.1-15.14) (1.1 -15.14) of astro the twelve signs of the zodiac are logical motifs in general, only three of the associated closely with the story's demonic characters. But just as impor tantly, the parallelism of 2.1 -7 and 14,1-5 is reinforced by several other ele ments of correspondence. In both passages, for instance, astrology astrology is united with sexual motifs: while the demon who mentions Sagittarius apparently takes delight in anal intercourse, copulating with human females ^through their buttocks', Ornias has already been portrayed as sucking the thumb of the master workman's little boy (1.1-2) and later describes himself as 'craving the bodies of effeminate boys' (2.3). In both units, moreover, mythological overtones involving a god or goddess of love can be identi fied (Virgo in 2.2; Eros in 14.4). Furthermore, both of these demons are pictured as possessing wings (2.3; 14.3), which only a minority of the Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead attested Sea Scrolls (Leiden: EJ.BriM 1998). pp. 189-203. On the zodiacalframework attested

in the Vienna Pap>Tiis. see Daniel. *Thc Testament of Solomon XVII! 27-28, 33-40', pp. 299-304; and Duling. 'The Testament of Solomon: Reu-ospect and Prospect', pp. 91,93-94.



237

demonic spirits in chs. 1-15 arc portrayed as owning. And finally, like Omias in 2.5, the demon in 14.5 is coerced by Solomon into assisting in the construction of the temple.55 Although we shall take note below of another arresting link between these two units, the cumulative impact of those just surveyed is to suggest that 2.1-7 and and 14.1-5 14.1-5 do form form a macrostructural scheme inside the frame provided by the abstract and coda. As noted noted above, only three demons in chs. 1-15 1-15 are closely associated with individual signs of the zodiac; and significantly, like the two just identified identified (i.e. Aquarius and Sagittariu Sagitt arius), s), the third is mentioned not by Solomon himself but rather by one of the demons interviewed by him. 56 The identity of the third sign emerges in 4.1 -6, in Solomon's conversation with the satvra Onoskelis, whose distinctive combination of the face face and body of a beautiful beautiful woman woman and the legs of a mule constitutes constitu tes a clear cl ear zodiagraphic representation of the sign of Capricorn.^" of Capricorn.^" Moreover, while Onoskelis's speech is not as vividly erotic as the Winged Dragon's, she does share his keen interest in sexual intercourse and even uses the same lexis (e.g. ouyy'ivoij ouyy'iv oijai) ai) to denote denote her activities in this this area area as the Winged Winged Dragon uses for his (14.3).^^ But just as importantly, in addition to antici pating the representation representation of the Winged Winged Dragon, Dragon, Onoskelis also parallels Omias, Omi as, the zodiacally affilia affiliated ted demon that precedes her in the scheme (2.1-4); for like him she identifies herself with the constellation with which her human victims are associated. Thus, alongside Omias and the

55. Although this particular link docs add strength to the larger parallelism between the two units, units , in itsel itsel fit fi t carries only o nly minimal weight since most of the demons inter viewed by Solomon Solomon in this section section are coerced into int o working on the construction of the temple. 56. While astrological concepts are linked with many of the other demons in the Testament, they concern pianetar\' and astral phenomena outside the zodiacal system of 12 signs (e.g. 8.1-tl; 15.5). 57. Duling. ^Testament of Solomon', p. 965 n. 4c; on the symbolism of Capricorn, see especially Bouch^-Leclercq. L Astrohgie grecque, pp. 144-45. 58. As several other lexical options (e.g. yivcooKco. OUMTTXCKCO) would have been familiar and available to the re.v re.v/t /tfw fwt't'M/'s M/'s author/editor author/edi tor (see I). I ). Bain, 'Six ' Six Greek Verbs of Sexual Congress'. CiQ 4[ [1991]. pp. 51-77). the use of ouyy'ivoiiai ouyy'ivo iiai in both both of these contexts should not be presumed litcrarily innocent or structurally inconsequen tial; on the contrary, since any two verbs for sexual congress could have been chosen from the larger set of available options, the repetition of the one tenn in this context helps to create a sense of schematic correspondence co rrespondence between between the two passages and and thus thu s reinforces the argument made here and below concerning the structure and former former inde pendence of the Testament's first 15 chapters.



239

4. Natal vs. Chorographic Astrology

If this zodiacal scheme has the various implications I am suggesting it has. its discovery generates a whole new set set of questions which which I can can do little l ittle more than mention here. For instance, what significance might this parti cular group of signs have had in the triplicity source's earliest context of reception? And why this particular triplicity rather than another? As the four seasons of the year can be correlated very neatly with any four-f four-fold old division of the 12 signs of the zodiac, zodia c, a season-orientated interpretation might be attractive if any ancient evidence for for it could could be cited; cit ed; but unfort unfortu u nately it cannot.**- Indeed, were we simply to accept the usual assumption that the type of astrolog astrology y instantiated instantiated in these passages is the well-known genethlialogical (i.e. natal) variety,*^ we would probably have to dismiss the whole zodiacal arrangement of this part of the Testament as being marred by the same kind of unintelligibility that H.M. H. M. Jackson attributes to the astrological discourse of Omias in particular (2.2).^ Jackson's struggles with T Sol. 2.2 merit further attention here, for for they almost certainly cer tainly stem in large measure measure from from an errant errant assumption concern ing the passage's most important astrological reference. To be more pre cise, in his his handling handling of the demon demon Omi O mias as's 's utterance M strangle those who lie in Aquarius who because of their lust for wenches have invoked the sign sign of Virgo' Vir go' (2.2),^^ Jackson understands residing *in Aquarius' as mean mean ing to be *bom under' (or during) that sign;** thereby, and even more the zodiac) is not diffi difficult cult to imagine in early Imperial and Late Antique culture; cultu re; for, according to Barton {Ancient Astrology, zodiacal triplicities played a {Ancient Astrology, pp. 82. 125-30). zodiacal prominent role in the astrological theorizing of figures such as Dorotheus of Sidon (first century en) and Rhclorius the Egyptian (sixth century CE). 62. For discussion of the various ways the 12 signs were categorized by ancient astrological theorists, see Barton. Ancient Astrology; p. 102. 63. Unlike chorographic astrology ast rology (discussed furthe furtherr below), which concerns itself with the behaviour and characteristics of whole races and countries and cities, genethlialogy focuses chiefly on matters of individual interest. For further discussion of the differences differences between the two, sec Barton, Ancient Astrology, pp. 179-84. 64. Jackson, *Notes on the Testament of Solomon', p. 27. On Omias*s Omias*s claim that he strangles 'those who reside in Aquarius who because of their lust for wenches have invoked invoked the zodiacal zodiacal Virgin' V irgin' (2.2). (2.2) . Jackson Jackson comments. 'This is nonsens nonsensical ical in astro logical, logical, not to mention mention logical logical terms t erms'' (p. (p . 27). 65. For reasons discassed below, I opt here for Jackson's own rendering of the Greek ('Notes on the Testament of Solomon', p. 27) rather than Duling's. 66. Jackson, 'Notes on the Testament of Solomon Solomon*, *, p. 27.


240


importantly, he also assumes that the wider astrological game being played in this context is essentially of the genethlialogical variety. Against this, however, both 2.2 and 4.6-7 contain clues suggesting that that something something other than genethlialogy is involved involved here, that perhaps to"lieinAquarius"in this context is better interpreted in terms of chorographic or so-called mundane astrology, which is comparatively more group-orientated in its concerns. The clearest clue pointing in this direction is probably Onoskelis's dis closure, in 4.6-7, that the men she most enjoys intercourse with are those whose skin is 'honey-coloured'. As these honey-toned men are also described as belonging en masse to the same zodiacal sign to which Onoskelis herself belongs (i.e. Capricorn), the assumed framework of con cepts in this setting is therefore one in which belonging to a given given sign of the zodiac is based not on date of birth or conception but rather on physi cal attributes and thus, in most most cases, on on ethno-geographical identity; for for this latter set of factors would have stood a far better chance of being un derstood in relation relation to skin colour than would dates of birth or conception. conception. In chorographic discourse, each sign of the zodiac functions as the patron deity of a particular set of geographical areas and their associated racial groups. Unsurprisingly, therefore, chorography was widely used in the Graeco-Roman world to explain the physical appearance and cultural habits of differe different nt peoples and race races. s.^^ ^^ As an understanding of choro chor o graphic concepts furthcrmo furthcrmorc rc enables us in the present context to under un der stand both why the devotees of Onoskelis all have honey-coloured skin and why they are obligated obligated to honour her (and (and thus Capricorn) in particu lar, this species of astrological theory ought ought to be recogniz recognized ed hencefor henceforth th as one of the most relevant systems of contextual knowledge for anyone trying to understand and explain the content of T SoL 4.6-7. In view of the interpretative light shed by chorography on 4.6-7, we may well w ish to explore whether this same frame framewo work rk of concepts helps us to understand the other zodiacal references in 1.00-15.14. Awareness of chorographic ideas does in fact fact help to clear up at least one grammatically problematic aspect of the demon Omias*s speech cited above (2.2-4). Whereas the Greek construction TOUS EV'YSpoxoco Keipevous Keipevous"" 5 r €7 €7T Ti-

67. Barton, Ancient Astrology^ pp. 182-85. An early and particularly interesting variation on this theme is present in Hippocrates, Airs, Waters. Places 15.20-21, where, as the antecedent co-text of the passage makes clear, the pale skin of the Scythians is attributed attributed not not just to factors factors of climate, bu butt also to that on which which all climatic variation is thought to depend, that is, therisingsand and settings of stars, the solstices, solstice s, equino.x equino.xes, es, etc.



241

yu vaiiKcjv 9\jpiav Tcov yuva

rriv TTapSEvo TTapSEvov v ^co5 ^co5io iov v KEKXritcoTa-^ CCTTOTiviyco in 2.2 is translated by Duling, *I [Omias] strangle those who reside in Aquarius because of their passion for women whose zodiacal sign is Virgo*,*'* it has been rendered more recently by Jackson as meaning, 'I strangle those who lie in Aquarius who because of their lust for wenches have invoked the invoked the sign of Virgo' (my emphasis).^'* As Jackson's rendering the participle KGKXriKOTas (*who offers by far the better understanding of the have invoked'), invoke d'), which Duling inexplicab inexplicably ly leaves untranslated, it is adopted here as the superior interpretation.^" Ironically, though, Jackson himself fails to appreciate that his own own suggestion at this point is supported supported by con siderations not only of syntax but also of the whole network of cultural knowledge assumed by Omias's utterance; for in view of the aforemen tioned obligation of each geographical area to worship the zodiacal sign to which it has been alloned, Omias's violent hostility to men of his own sign (i.e. Aquarius) who invoke another (i.e. Virgo) to help them carry out their erotic schemings is not, as Jackson Jackson suggests, complete nonsense,^' nonsense,^' but but perfectly perfectly reasonable in terms terms of everyday everyday patron-clien patron- clientt relations between ancient divinities and their worshippers. To be more precise, by calling calling on (and thus honouring) a zodiacal sign other than the one they have been destined by geography and race to worship, these lusty men dishonour the zodiacal patron to whom both they and Omias Omi as are subordinate, subordi nate, and whose whose honour Omias upholds by strangling those that challenge it. Thus, as in T. Sol. 4.6-7 so in 2.2 the astrological material makes far better sense against a backdrop of chorographic concepts than it does in terms of genethlialogical horoscopy. Indeed, as a basic understanding of chorography enables us to discover a whole network of culturally appropri ate meanings meanings where otherwise only incoherence would be found, found, we might wish to explore the possible implications of chorography for interpreting other aspects of the Testament, asking for instance what geographical regions and racial groups would have been associated in Late Antiquity 68. Duling. Duling. 'Testament 'Testament of Solomon', p. 963. 69. Jackson, 'Notes on the Testament of Solomon', p. 27. 70. As the perfect perfect tense-fo tense-form rm of the the partici part iciple ple KEicAnKOTas serves serv es well in this thi s context to frontground frontground the process it denotes (i.e. the invocation of Virgo by the men of -Aquar -Aquarius ius), ), conveying how important and newsworthy, indeed heinous, Omias consid ers this kind of behaviour to be, its absence from from Duli D uling' ng'ss translation misses what what may be the most semantically important feature of the verse. On the importance of verbal aspect in the use of Greek participles in general, sec Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, pp. 181, 183. 71. Jackson, 'Notes on the Testament of Solomon', p, 27.


Manque les pages 242, 243, 244

Magic in the Biblical World -The Archer and the Cross Par Todd Klutz

Recommend Documents