THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON A PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GREEK AND THE SYRIAC TEXTS by GRANT WARD, Ph.D. © by Grant Ward 1996 All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Thomas McDaniel and Richard Wentworth who taught me that there need be no dichotomy between faith and learning; to my wife, Carol and daughters, Beth and Adele, who put up with the dislocations of life lived with a graduate student as a husband and father; to Dr. Robert Wright and Dr. Vasiliki Limberis for their encouragement and persistent optimism; and to all of the churches and the people within them who made my education possible, especially Willow Grove Baptist Church who for six years allowed me to pursue this goal and be their Pastor too; I truly could not have done it without you all. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii CHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. TEXT AND COMMENTARY 16 Psalm One 16 Psalm Two 22 Psalm Three 55 Psalm Four 66 Psalm Five 82 Psalm Six 94 Psalm Seven. 97 Psalm Eight 103 Psalm Nine 122 Psalm Ten 129 Psalm Eleven 135 Psalm Twelve. 139 Psalm Thirteen 146 Psalm Fourteen 153 Psalm Fifteen 157 Psalm Sixteen 167 Psalm Seventeen 179 Psalm Eighteen 215 Summary 217 3. CONCLUSIONS 227 BIBLIOGRAPHY 232 v THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The eighteen poems which make up the Psalms of Solomon are Jewish pseudepigrapha from the first century, B.C.E.1 The earliest surviving reference to the Psalms of Solomon comes from the fifth century C.E., where they are included in the list of the contents of Codex Alexandrinus. The end of the codex, where the Psalms of Solomon would have been, is missing. That the Psalms of Solomon were included in Codex Alexandrinus indicates, at least in this one instance, some relationship to the canonical tradition. The manu- scripts continued to be copied and preserved in some communities, for at various times they are included in lists as antilegomena, pseudepigrapha, and apocrypha.2 The Greek translations are preserved, in whole or in part, in eleven manuscripts dating from the tenth to the sixteenth century C.E., and the Syriac translations are found in five3 manuscripts dating from the seventh century (for the source known as S) to the sixteenth century C.E.4 1 The dating is primarily on the basis of alleged allusions to events, both national and international, in the time period in the Psalms of Solomon. The descriptions of the foreign conqueror mentioned in Psalm 2 seems best to fit Pompey who invaded Palestine in 63 B.C.E. For a fuller treatment of the date of the Psalms and the possibility that stages of editorial activity may have taken place, see Wright, 1985: 640–641. 2 Viteau, 1911: 186–191; Wright, 1985: 639. 3 Depending on whether S, a marginal note on a 7th century manuscript of the Hymns of Severus, is indeed a manuscript. See the discussion of this fragment at the beginning of the discussion of Psalm Three. 4 For a detailed description of the Greek and Syriac manuscripts see Trafton (1985, 5–9) and for the Greek texts see Wright’s forthcoming volume on the Psalms of Solomon. 2 INTRODUCTION The primary importance of the Psalms of Solomon, however, is the light they shed on the historical and theological situation in this first century, B.C.E. . . . [the] Psalms of Solomon preserve one of the most detailed messianic expectations in the immediate pre–Christian centuries. The title, <Messiah,’ . . . is given shape and dimension in these psalms as they describe the person of the Messiah and the character of his government in the age to come. There is more substance to the ideas concerning the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon than any other extant Jewish writing."5 If the psalms are from the first century B.C.E., as most scholars believe, on the occasion of the invasion by the Romans under Pompey in 63 B.C.E., then the theological response in the psalms is important for studying the development of the issues of theodicy, eschatology, the suffering of the righteous, the concepts of life after death, and the person and position of the expected Messiah. The Original Language of the Psalms of Solomon A. The Languages of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: A survey of current discussion in pseudopigraphical literature demonstrates a general consensus that much of the Judaeo– Christian non–canonical literature (extant in various languages in manuscripts dating from the second century B.C.E. to the ninth century C.E.), including the Psalms of Solomon, must have been written originally in a Semitic language (most frequently con- sidered to be Hebrew). The following extended list of quotations from scholars contributing to Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (1985) demonstrates the extent of this consensus: 5 Wright, 1985: 643. THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON 3 (1) Knibb (1985: 146) noted concerning the “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah” that So far as the Martyrdom [of Isaiah] is concerned, there is good evidence for the view that it was composed in Hebrew. . . . The Hebrew Martyrdom of Isaiah was translated into Greek, and, as we have seen, a fragment of the Greek translation has survived. (2) Wintermute (1985: 43–44) expressed the opinion concerning “Jubilees” that There is no longer any reason to doubt that Jubilees was originally written in Hebrew. Nevertheless, there was still considerable latitude for debate until the discovery of fragments of the Hebrew text at both Qumran and Masada . . . . Consequently, it is generally maintained that the text was written in Hebrew. (3) Isaac (1985: 7) asserted concerning “1 Enoch” (Ethiopic Apoc- alypse of Enoch) that Some scholars believe that the original language of 1 Enoch is Hebrew; others, however, think it is Aramaic; still others contend that the book, like Daniel was composed partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. . . . Moreover Halévy’s argument that portions of the Ethiopic text derived ultimately from a Hebrew original has not been disproved. (4) Charlesworth (1985: 473–474) stated concerning the “Treatise of Shem” that The original language seems to be Semitic since there are abundant Semiticism that appear to be original and personal names are defined according to the Semitic alphabet . . . . it is impossible to discern whether the original language is Hebrew or Aramaic (Syriac). (5) Charlesworth (1985: 626) similarly stated concerning the “Prayer of Manesseh” that The scholarly stature of the specialists who favor a Semitic original, the lack of a detailed examination of the question by proponents of either a Greek or a Semitic original, and the cavalier treatment of the Syriac version(s) by almost all scholars should warn against concluding with some authors that the issue is closed and the original language is Greek. While the notes to the following translation demonstrate that the Syriac version sometimes preserves a more reliable tradition, and while I tend to favor slightly a Semitic original, three factors preclude certainty . . . . 4 INTRODUCTION (6) Priest (1985: 920) wrote concerning the “Testament of Moses” that Most of the first editors and translators assumed that the original language [of the Testament of Moses] was indeed Greek. Further investigation, however, indicates the Greek was, in all probability, a translation of a Semitic original . . . . but there remains a question as to whether the original was Aramaic or Hebrew. Certainty is not possible, but the balance of probability leans toward Hebrew. (7) Johnson (1985: 251) noted concerning the “Life of Adam and Eve” that Although no Hebrew text is extant, it is most probable that there did exist an original Hebrew document or documents from which the Apocalypse and Vita were translated, the Greek directly from the Hebrew and the Latin directly either from the Hebrew or from the Greek. (8) Harrington (1985: 298–299) expressed the opinion con- cerning “Pseudo–Philo” that In an 1898 article that introduced Pseudo–Philo to the scholarly world [“An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria, JQR 10: 277–332], Leon Cohn argued that the Latin text is a translation from the Greek and that underlying the Greek there must have been a Hebrew original . . . . For example, the phrase in victoria (9:3) or ad victoria (12:6) can be traced to the Hebrew idiom l(cid:205)nesah, . . “forever, everlasting,” but the root nsh in Aramaic is not used in this . . sense . . . . There we are led to conclude that Hebrew, rather than Aramaic, is the original language of Pseudo–Philo. (9) Anderson (1985: 94) asserted concerning “2 Enoch” (Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch) that The text abounds in Semitisms . . . . It is theoretically possible that the book, or at least parts of it, came directly from Hebrew into Slavonic. . . . An original Semitic composition can still be suspected; but after two stages of translation through Greek to Slavonic, it is not now possible to tell how much written material in a Semitic language might lie behind portions of the text which still have Semitisms, let alone to determine which Semitic language it might have been. (10) Metzger (1985: 520) stated concerning “The Fourth Book of Ezra” that THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON 5 There remain, however, many other phenomena that suggest a Semitic original lying behind the lost Greek text. Several scholars have argued that it was Aramaic. On the other hand, the presence of instances of notable Hebraisms (such as the infinitive absolute construction) has lead most modern scholars to postulate a Hebrew original underlying the Greek. (11) Hare (1985: 380) wrote concerning “The Lives of the Prophets” that It is believed by many that The Lives of the Prophets was originally written in one of the Semitic languages. A few scholars have proposed that the original language was Syriac, but this position has won few supporters. More widespread is the view, vigorously defended by C. C. Torrey, that the book was composed in Hebrew. (12) Robinson (1985: 414) concluded concerning “4 Baruch” that Several early scholars, particularly R. H. Charles and those influenced by him, maintained that the original language of 4 Baruch was Greek. Since the time of Charles, however, scholars have generally come to favor the hypothesis of a Semitic original for the work. (13) Charlesworth (1985: 726) noted concerning the “Odes of Solomon” that Some scholars have thought that the original language [of the Odes of Solomon] is Greek, others that it is Hebrew. It is probable that they were composed in Syriac (or Aram.) . . . . Most importantly, the attractive quality if the extant Syriac is indicative that Syriac is probably the original language. (14) Rubinkiewicz (1985: 682) asserted concerning the “Apocalypse of Abraham” that A thorough investigation of the original language of the Apocalypse of Abraham has never been undertaken . . . . The Slavonic text of the Apocalypse of Abraham contains several Hebrew names . . . . The parallelism of the verses reflect Semitic thought. The positive instead of a comparative betrays a Semitic original . . . . The syntax of the temporal phrases reflects the Hebrew original of our apocalypse. . . The foregoing suggests that the Apocalypse of Abraham was written in a Semitic language, probably Hebrew.