04.01 - An Epigraphic Memorial of the Septuagint.
An Epigraphic Memorial of the Septuagint. The Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament passed from the sphere of Jewish learning after Hellenistic Judaism had ceased to exist. Later on, the very existence of a Greek translation was completely forgotten.932 It is therefore all the more interesting to follow the traces which reveal any direct or indirect effects which the Septuagint had upon the common people—their thoughts and their illusions. The materials for a knowledge of the popular religious and ethical ideas of the Jews and Christians in the imperial period are more meagre than those which yield us the thoughts of the cultured and learned. But those materials, scanty though they be, have not as yet been fully worked. Scholars are usually more interested in the theologians of Tiberias, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, than in such people as found their edification in the “Apocryphal” Legends, Gospels and Acts. But surely it is erroneous to suppose that we have a satisfactory knowledge of the history of religion when we have gained but a notion of the origin and development of dogma. The history of religion is the history of the religious feeling (Religiositat) not that of theology, and as truly as religion is older than theology,—as truly as religion has existed in every age outside of theology and in opposition to dogma, so imperious must grow the demand that we shall assign a place in the gallery of history to the monuments of popular piety. These are necessarily few. For while theology, and the religion of theologians, have always been capable of asserting themselves, the religion of the people at large has not been concerned to raise memorials of itself. Thus it is not to be wondered at that the copious literature of theology should, so far as appearance goes, stifle the insignificant remains of the people’s spontaneous expression of their religion,933—not to speak of the fact that much that was of value in the latter was intentionally destroyed. That which was extra-theological and extra-ecclesiastical was looked upon by the official theology as a priori questionable. Why, even at the present day, most of those productions of ancient popular religion come to us bearing the same stigma: we are accustomed to think of them as Apocryphal, Heretical, Gnostic, and as such to ignore them. But those ideas, further, which we commonly designate as Superstition934 seem to the author to deserve a place in the history of popular religion. The ordinary members of the community, townsman and peasant, soldier and slave, went on living a religious life of their own,935 unaffected by the theological tendencies around them. We may very well doubt, indeed, whether that which moved their hearts was religion in the same sense as Prophecy or the Gospel, but their faith had received from the illustrious past the religious temper, at least, of ingenuous and unquestioning childhood. Their faith was not the faith of Isaiah or of the Son of Man; still, their “superstition” was not wholly forsaken of God. A devout soul will not be provoked by their follies, for throughout all their “heathenish” myth-forming and the natural hedonism of their religion there throbbed a yearning anticipation of the Divine. The superstitions of the imperial period do not permitof being divided into the three classes: Heathen, Jewish, Christian. There is frequently no such clear distinction between the faith of the Heathen and the Jew and that of the Christian. Superstition is syncretic in character: this fact has been anew confirmed by the extensive recently-discovered remains of the Literature of Magic. And yet it is possible, with more or less precision, to assign certain fragments of these to one of the three departments named. The literary memorial which is to be discussed below has been influenced in the most marked degree by the ideas of Greek Judaism, or, what is practically the same, of the Alexandrian Old Testament. After a few remarks about the circumstances of its discovery,936 the text itself is given. The tablet of lead upon which the Inscription is scratched comes from the large Necropolis of ancient Adrumetum, the capital of the region of Byzacium in the Roman province of Africa. The town lies on the coast to the south-east of Carthage. In connection with the French excavations which have been successfully carried on there for some time, the rolled-up tablet was incidentally found by a workman in the
June of 1890;937 he noticed it only when a prong of his mattock had pierced the roll. This damaged the tablet in three places.938 There were also other three holes in the lead—probably caused by a nail with which the roll had been perforated. The tablet is thus damaged in six places, but the few letters which are in each case destroyed permit, with one exception, of being easily supplied.
We read the text thus939 :—
Ὁρκίζωσε,δαιμόνιονπνεῦματὸἐνθάδεκείμενον,τῷὀνό- ματιτῷἁγίῳΑωθ
Αβ[αὠθτὸνθεὸντοῦΑβραανκαὶτὸνΙαωτὸντοῦ
Ιακου,Ιαω
Αω[θΑβ]αωθθεὸντοῦΙσραμα˙ἄκουσοντοῦὀνόματος
ἐντίμου
4 & 5 καὶ [φοβ]εροῦκαὶμεγάλουκαὶἄπελθεπρὸςτὸνΟ(ὐ) ρ-
βανόν,ὃν ἔτεκ(ε)νΟὑρβανὰ,καὶἄξοναὐτὸνπρὸςτὴν
6 Δομιτιανὴν,ἣν ἔτεκενΚ[αν]δίδα,ἐρῶνταμαινόμενον
ἀγρυπνο[ῦν]-
ταἐπὶτῇφιλίᾳαὐτῆςκαὶἐπιθυμίᾳκαὶδεόμενοναὐτῆς
ἐπανελθεῖν
εἰςτὴνοἰκίαναὐτοῦσύμβιο[ν] γενέσθαι. Ὁρκίζωσετὸν
μέγανθεὸν
τὸναἰώνιονκαὶἐπαιώνιονκιὰπαντοκράτορατὸν ὑπερ- άνωτῶν
10 ὑπεράνωθεῶν. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνκτίσαντατὸνοὐρανὸν
καὶτὴνθά-
λασσαν. Ὁρκιζωσετὸνδιαχωρίσαντατοὺςεὐσεβεῖς.
Ὁρκίζωσε
τὸνδιαστήσαντατὴνῥάβδονἐντῇθαλάσσῃἀγαγεῖνκαὶ
ζεῦξαι
[τὸ]νΟὐρβανὸν,ὅν ἔτεκενΟὐρβανὰ,πρὸςτὴν
Δομιταιανὰν,ἣν ἔτεκεν
[Καν]δίδα,ἐρῶνταβασανιζόμενονἀργυπνοῦνταἐπὶτῇ
ἐπιθυμίᾳαὐ-
15 τῆςκαὶ ἔρωτι,ἵνααὐτὴνσύμβιονἀπάγῃεἰςτὸνοἰκίαν
ἑαυτοῦ. Ὁρκί-
ζωσετὸνποιήσαντατὴνἡμίονονμὴτεκεῖν. Ὁρκίζωσε
τὸνδιορίσαν-
τατὸ [φῶς] ἀπὸτοῦσκότους. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνσυντρίβοντα
τὰςπέτρας.
Ορκίζω[ωσ]ετὸνἀπο(ρ)ρήξαντατὰὄρη. Ὁρκίζωσετὸν
συνστρέφοντατὴν
γῆνἐ[πὶτ]ῶνθεμελίωναὐτῆς. Ὁρκίζωσετὸἅγιονὄνομα
ὃοὐλέγεται˙ἐν
20 τῷ [. . .] ῳ [ὀ]νομάσωαὐτὸκαὶοἱδαίμονεςἐξεγερθῶσιν
ἔκθαμβοικαὶπερί-
φοβ[οιγεν]όμενοι,ἀγαγεῖνκαὶζεῦξαισύμβιοντὸνΟὐρ- βανὸν,ὃν ἔτεκεν,
Οὐρβανὰ,πρὸςτὴνΔομιτιανὰν,ἣν ἔτεκενΚανδίδα,ἐρῶντα
καὶδεόμε-
νοναὐτῆς,ἤδηταχύ. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνφωστῆρακαὶἄστρα
ἐνοὐρανῷποιή-
σανταδιὰφωνῆςπροστάγ[μ]ατοςὥστεφαίνεινπᾶσιν
ἀνθρώποις.
25 Ὁρκίζωσετὸνσυνσείσαν[τ]απᾶσαντὴνοἰκουμένηνκαι
τὰὄρη
ἐκτραχηλίζοντακαὶἐκβρά[ζ]οντατὸνποιοῦντα ἔκτρομον
τὴν [γ]ῆ-
νἅπασ(ανκαὶ) καινίζονταπάνταςτοὺςκατοικοῦντας. Ὁρ- κίζωσετὸνποιή-
σαντασημεῖαἐνοὐρανῷκ[αὶ] ἐπιὶγῆςκαὶθαλάσσης, ἀγαγεῖνκαὶζεῦξαι
σύμβιοντὸνΟὐρβανὸν,ὃν ἔ[τ]εκενΟὐρβανὰ,πρὸςτὴν
Δομιτιανὰν,ἣν
30 ἔτεκενΚανδίδα,ἐρῶντααὐτῆςκαὶἀγρυπνοῦνταἐπὶτῇ
ἐπιθυμίᾳαὐ-
τῆςδεόμενοναὐτῆςκαὶἐρωτῶντααὐτὴν,ἵναἐπανέλθῃ
εἰςτὴνοἰκίαν
[α]ὐτοσύμβιοςγενομένη. Ὁρκίζωσετὸνθεὸντὸνμέγαν
τὸναἰώ-
[νι]ονκαὶπαντοκράτορα,ὃνφοβεῖταιὄρηκαὶνάπαικαθ’
ὅλην [τ]ὴνοἰ-
κο[υ]μέ[ν]ην,δι’ὃνὁλέωνἀφίησιντὸἅρπαγμακαὶτὰ
ὄρητρέμει
35 κα[ὶἡγῆ] καὶἡθάλασσα,ἕκαστοςἰδάλλεταιὃν ἔχει
φόβοςτοῦΚυρίου
α[ἰωνίου] ἀθανάτουπαντεφόπτουμισοπονήρουἐπιστα- μένουτὰ
[γενόμεν]αἀγαθὰκαὶκακὰκαὶκατὰθάλασσανκαὶπο- ταμοὺςκαὶτὰὄρη
κα[ὶτὴνγ]ῆν,ΑωθΑβαωθτὸνθεὸντοῦΑβραανκαὶ
τὸν [Ι] αωτὸντοῦΙακου,
Ια[ὠΑωθΑβαωθΘεὸντοῦΙσραμα˙ἄξονζεῦξοντὸν
Οὐρβανὸν,ὃν
40 ἔτεκενΟὐρβα(νὰ),πρὸςτὴνΔομιτιανὰν,ἣν ἔτεκενΚαν- δίδα,ἐρῶντα
μαι[ν]όμενονβασανιζόμενονἐπὶτῇφιλίᾳκαὶ ἔρωτικαὶ
ἐπιθυμίᾳ
τηΔομιτιανῆς,ἣν ἔτεκενκανδίδα. ζεῦξοναὐτοὺςγάμῳ
καὶ
ἔρωτισυμβιοῦνταςὅλῳτῷτῆςζωῆςαὐτῶνχρόνῳ˙ποίη- σοναὐ-
τὸνὡςδοῦλοναὐτῇἐρῶντα ὑποτεταχθέναι,μηδεμίαν
ἄλλη[ν]
45 γυναῖκαμήτεπαρθένονἐπιθυμοῦντα,μόνηνδὲτὴνΔο- μιτια[νὰν],
ἣν ἔτεκενΚανδίδα,σύμβ[ι]ον ἔχεινὃλῳτ[ῷ] τῆς [ζωῆς
αὐτῶνχρόνῳ], ἤδηἤδηταχὺταχύ.
Line 2, Ιακου: M. corr. Ἰ(σ)άκου.
Line 3 and line 39, Ισραμα: M. corr. Ἰσραήλ.
Line 4, line 5 had to be commenced after μεγάλου.
Line 20, τῷ[. . . ] ῳ : M τῷ (ἀδύτ)ῳ.
Line 27, και before καινίζοντα had fallen out by hemigraphy.
Line 33, ὅν: M. οὗ.
Line 35, ἓκαστος (in place of the ἓκαστον of the original) ἰδάλλετα. M. (ὃν) ἕκαστος (ε)ἰδάλλεται.
Line 44, ἄλλη[ν]: M. μήτε.
Keeping up the formal peculiarities of the text, we may, perhaps, translate it as follows:—
“I adjure thee, demonic spirit, who dost rest here, with the sacred names Aoth Abaoth, by the God of Abraan and the Jao of Jaku, the Jao Aoth Abaoth, the God of Israma: hearken to the glorious and fearful 4 & 5 and great name, and hasten to Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and bring him to Domitiana, whom Candida bore, so that he, loving, frantic, sleepless with love of her and desire, may beg her to return to his house and become his wife. I adjure thee by the great God, the 10 eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is exalted above the exalted Gods. I adjure thee by Him who created the heaven and the sea. I adjure thee by him who separates the devout ones. I adjure thee by him who divided his staff in the seasic, that thou bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him with Domit- iana, whom Candida bore, so that he, loving, tormented, sleepless with desire of her and with love, may take her 15 home to his house as his wife. I adjure thee by him who caused the mule not to bear. I adjure thee by him who divided the light from the darkness. I adjure thee by him who crusheth the rocks. I adjure thee by him who parted the mountains. I adjure thee by him who holdeth the earth upon her foundations. I adjure 20 thee by the sacred Name which is not uttered; in the [— —] I will mention it and the demons will be startled, terrified and full of horror, that thou bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him as husband with Domitiana, whom Candida bore, and that he loving may beseech her; at once! quick! I adjure thee by him who set a lamp and stars in the heavens by the command of his voice so that they might lighten all 25 men. I adjure thee by him who shook the whole world, and causeth the mountains to fall and rise, who causeth the whole earth to quake, and all her inhabitants to return. I adjure thee by him who made signs in the heaven and upon the earth and upon the sea, that thou bring Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, and unite him as 30 husband with Domitiana, whom Candida bore, so that he, loving her, and sleepless with desire of her, beg her and beseech her to return to his house as his wife. I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and almighty, whom the mountains fear and the valleys in 35 all the world, through whom the lion parts with the spoil, and the mountains tremble and the earth and the sea, (through whom) every one becomes wise who is possessed with the fear of the Lord, the eternal, the immortal, the all-seeing, who hateth evil, who knoweth what good and what evil happeneth in the sea and the rivers and the mountains and the earth, Aoth Abaoth; by the God of Abraan and the Jao of Jaku, the Jao Aoth Abaoth, the God of Israma, bring and unite 40 Urbanus, whom Urbana bore, with Domitiana, whom Candida bore,—loving, frantic, tormented with love and affection and desire for Domitiana, whom Candida bore; unite them in marriage and as spouses in love for the whole time of their life. So make it that he, loving, 45 shall obey her like a slave, and desire no other wife or maiden, but have Domitiana alone, whom Candida bore, as his spouse for the whole time of their life, at once, at once! quick, quick!”
EXPLANATION. The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D.; the part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century,940 that is—to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible—about the time of Origen. Maspero includes it among the Imprecation-tablets (Devotions-oder Defixionstafeln) not infrequently found in ancient tombs.941 A leaden tablet, rolled up like a letter, was placed in the tomb with the dead, in order, as it were, to let it reach the residence of the deities of the underworld; to their vengeance was delivered the enemy whose destruction was desired.942 This tablet, however, contains no execrations against an enemy, but is a love-spell943 dressed in the form of an energetic adjuration of a demon, by means of which a certain Domitiana desires to make sure of the possession of her Urbanus. The technical details of the spell have no direct significance for our subject; we are interested only in the formulae by which the demon is adjured. It is upon these, therefore, that the greatest stress will be laid in the following detailed explanation. We may at once take for granted that these formulae were not composed by Domitiana herself. She copied them, or had them copied, from one of the many current books of Magic, and in doing so had her own name and that of the person loved inserted at the respective places. To conclude from the biblical nature of the formulae she used, that she must have been a Jewess, or even a Christian,944 would be a precarious inference; it seems to the author more probable that she and Urbanus, to judge from their names perhaps slaves or emancipated945 persons, were “heathens”.946 Quite ingenuously the love-sick girl applied the spell, which her adviser asserted to be of use in love-troubles—just because it so stood, black on white, in the “Books”. On this assumption the historical value of the formulae is increased, for the formulae thus employed in the third century must have been extracted by the writer of the book in question at a certainly much earlier date947 from the Alexandrian Old Testament. In the Magic books now in Paris, Leiden and London, which were in the main composed before the third century, we find quite a multitude of similar adjurations compiled from biblical materials, and the task of subjecting these to a critical survey is well worth while.948 It would thus, for the reasons indicated, be a mistake, as the author thinks, to add this tablet to the proofs of the presence of Jews westwards of Cyrenaica, a collection of which has been made by Schurer949 so far as regards the imperial period. In detail, the following observations must be made:— Line 1 f. It is the δαιμόνιονπνεῦμα of the tomb in which or upon which the spell was laid that is addressed. That the δαιμόνια stay beside the grave is an idea of post-biblical Judaism: these demons of the tomb help men in the practice of Magic.950 It is in the Papyri a frequently given direction, to make sure of the assistance of a spirit who resides in the grave of a murdered person or of one who has in any other way perished unfortunately.951—ὁρκίζωτῷὀνόματιτῷἁγίῳ: cf. (3) 1Es 1:48, ὁρκισθεὶςτῷὀνόματικυρίου ; for τὸ ὄνοματὸἅγιον, exceedingly frequent in “biblical” Greek, specially in Lev., Pss. and Ezek., particular references are unnecessary.— Α ω θ: a Divine name in Magic, not infrequent in the Papyri; in the Clavis Melitonis952 it is “explained” as gloriosus. As in Pap. Lond. xlvi. 134,953 so also here it stands in connection with Αβαωθ, likewise a Magical Divine name. —τὸνθεὸντοῦΑβρααν : ὁρκίζειντινά = to adjure by any one, as in Mark 5:7, Acts 19:13. The God of Abraham, etc., is the solemn biblical designation of God. We thought it well to leave the form Αβρααν in the text, as it is significant for the nationality of the writer of the tablet: a Jew would hardly have written it so. Domitiana—or the obliging magician—did not know the word. The writer of Pap. Lugd. J 384, ix. 7 954 has made a similar corruption where he, in the midst of a long series of Magical Divine names, writes Αβρααν,τὸνΙσακ,τὸνΙακκωβι ; so also Codex B (Birch) has Αβρααν in Luke 3:34. The interchanging of μ and ν at the end of Semitic words is to be frequently seen elsewhere; see below, p. 310 f. [↓]— τὸνΙαωτὸντοῦΙακου : on Ιαω see below, p. 324; observe the article here. Ιακου was likewise left as it was; probably it is a corruption of Ισακου ;955 even Josephus Graecises the simple transcription, as with most proper names; Ισακ or Ισαακ he gives as Ἲσακος. Line 3 f. τοῦΙσραμα : clearly a corruption of Ισραηλ, arising from a copyist’s error; the Λ might easily become A. The use of the solemn designation the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob is exceedingly common in the Magical formulm.956 These names, according to Origen, had to be left untranslated in the adjurations if the power of the incantation was not to be lost:957— ἄκουσοντοῦὀνόματοςἐντίμου καὶφοβεροῦκαὶμεγάλου : LXX Deuteronomy 28:58, φοβεῖσθαι τὸὄνοματὸ ἔντιμοντὸθαυμαστὸντοῦτο (Cf. also LXX Psalms 71:14 [MT Psalms 72:14], ὄνομα ἔντιμον said of a human name); LXX Psa. 110꞉9 [MT Psalms 111:9], φοβερὸντὸὄνομααὐτοῦ, similarly LXX Psalms 98:3 [MT Psalms 99:3]; τὸὄνοματὸμέγα of the name of God, LXX Psalms 98:3 [MT Psalms 99:3], Ezekiel 36:23, cf. LXX Psalms 75:2 [MT Psalms 76:2] and Isaiah 33:21; the combination μέγαςκαὶφοβερός is very frequently applied to God in the LXX: Deuteronomy 10:17, 1 Chronicles 16:25, Nehemiah 1:5, Nehemiah 4:14, LXX Psalms 46:3 [MT Psalms 47:3], LXX Psalms 88:8 [MT Psalms 89:8], LXX Psalms 95:4 [MT Psalms 96:4], Sir 43:29. Lines 4-8. The persons named, as has been said, were probably slaves or had been emancipated. An Οὐρβανός is found also in Romans 16:9; he was a Christian of Ephesus,958 and is distinguished by Paul with the title of honour συνεργός.—The consistent annexation of the name of the person’s mother is stereotyped in the Magic formulae, and manifests itself up to a late period.959 The directions found in the Magic Papyri exhibit this pattern in innumerable examples; the construction is such that the particular person’s name requires only to be inserted instead of the provisional ὁ δεῖνα,ὃν ἔτεκενἡδεῖνα. — ἀγρυπνέωἐπί : cf. LXX Proverbs 8:34, Job 21:32.— σύμβιος: as to the usage of this word, especially in Egyptian Greek, attention should be paid to the collection of W. Brunet de Presle,960 which may be extended by many passages in the Berlin Papyrus documents now in course of publication. The word is common among the Christians later on. Line 8 f. τὸνμέγανθεὸντὸναἰώνιον : LXX Isaiah 26:4, ὁθεὸςὁμέγαςὁαἰώνιος ; cf. Isaiah 40:28, Sus. 42.—ἐπαιώνιον LXX Exodus 15:18, κύριοςβασιλεύωντὸναἰῶνακαὶἐπ’αἰῶνακαὶ ἔτι.—παντοκράτορα, very frequent in LXX.— τὸν ὑπεράνωτῶν ὑπεράνωθεῶν : cf. LXX Ezekiel 10:19, καὶ δόξαθεοῦἸσραὴλἦνἐπ’αὐτῶν (the cherubim) ὑπεράνω, similarly Ezekiel 11:22; and with the idea, φοβερόςἐστινἐπὶπάνταςτοὺςθεούς, LXX Psalms 95:4 [MT Psalms 96:4] 961 Line 10 f. τὸνκτίσαντατὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴν θάλασσαν ; an echo of Genesis 1:1, not in expression,962 but in sense, like LXX Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22, [3] 1Es 6:13, Bel 5, cf.Revelation 10:6, and with this LXX Psalms 145:6 [MT Psalms 146:6] . The collocation Heaven and sea instead of Heaven and earth is surprising in this connection, but it is not foreign to the O.T. An exhaustive collection of the many variants—echoes of Genesis 11:1-32.— for Creator of the heavens and the earth in Judaeo-Hellenistic and early Christian literature which have become formulaic, would be an important contribution to the history of the text of the “Apostolic” Symbol. Line 11. τὸνδιαχωρίσαντατοὺςεὐσεβεῖς can only mean, he who separates the devout ones, i.e., from the godless; διαχωρίζω = to separate from is common in the LXX. The passage is an allusion to Sir 36:1-26 [33] ff.ἐν πλήθειἐπιστήμηςκύριοςδιεχώρισεναὐτοὺς (men): so we have the contrast ἀπέναντιεὐσεβοῦςἁμαρτωλός (in Sir 36:14). Line 12. τὸνδιαστήσαντατὴνῥάβδονἐντῇθαλάσσῃ, literally, he who divides his staff in the sea. This is, of course, meaningless; the first writer of the incantation, without doubt, wrote inversely: τὸνδιαστήσαντατὴνθάλασσανἐντῇῥάβδῳ or τῇῥάβδῳ, who divided the sea with his staff, an allusion in sense to LXX Exodus 14:15 f.: εἶπεδὲκύριοςπρὸςΜωϋσῆν . . . καὶσὺ ἔπαροντῇῥάβῳσουκαὶ ἔκτεινοντὴνχεῖρά σουἐπὶτὴνθάλασσανκαὶῥῆξοναὐτήν, with the difference that in the Bible it is Moses who lifts the staff—though of course at God’s command. In regard to form its similarity with Theodotion LXX Psalms 73:13 [MT Psalms 74:13]963σὺ (God) διέστησαςἐντῇδυνάμεισουτὴνθάλασσαν, with which should be compared LXX Exodus 15:8: καὶδιὰπνεύματοςτοῦθυμοῦσουδιέστητὸ ὕδωρ. . .ἐπάγητὰκύματατῆςθαλάσσης. The miracle at the Red Sea, so frequently celebrated in the Psalms and elsewhere, is also alluded to in other Magical formulae.964 See under ἐν, above [↑], Art. ii., upon the possible ἐντῇῥάβδῳ. Line 16. τὸνποιήσαντατὴνἡμίονονμὴτεκεῖν a peculiar designation of God. It does not occur, as such, in the Old Testament, but the underlying idea of God’s providentia specialissima for the animals is very similarly expressed in the sublime address of Jahweh to the doubting Job (Job 38:1-41 ff.); cf., in particular, Job 39:1-3: Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? Or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? Canst thou number the months that they fulfil, or knowest thou the time when they bring forth? They bow themselves, they bring forth their young, they cast out their sorrows. It is God who directs all this. Just as He gives young to the wild goats and the hinds, so, the present passage would say, He has made the mule to be barren. The barrenness of the mule is often mentioned in the Mishna;965 it was manifestly a fact of great interest in the Jewish Philosophy of Nature, as also in Greek and Latin authors:966 Plin. Nat. Hist. viii. 173: observatum ex duobus diversis generibus nata tertii generis fieri et neutri parentium esse similia, eaque ipsa quae sunt ita nata non gignere in omni animalium genere, idcirco mulas non parere. When Zopyrus was besieging Babylon he received, according to Herod. iii. 153, the oracle ἐπεάνπερἡμίονοιτέκωσιν,τότετὸτεῖχοςἁλώσεσθαι. The partus of a mule was reckoned a prodigium Cic. de Div. ii. 22 49 , 28 61 , Liv. xxxvii. 3 3 , JUV. xiii. 64, Sueton. Galba, 4, and this explains the Roman proverb” cum mula peperit, i.e., never. Then the fact played a great part in incantations. Gargilius Martialis (third cent. A.D.) in de cura bourn § 19 (ed. Schuch)967 hands down the following healing charm: nec lapis lanam fert, nec lumbricus oculos habet, nec mula parit utriculum; similarly Marcellus (fifth cent. A.D.), De Medicam. viii. 191 (ed. Helmreich):968nec mula parit nec lapis lanam fert nec huic morbo caput crescat aut si creverit tabescat, and a Codex Vossianus ed. Piechotta Anecd. lat. clxx.:969 “quod mula non parit” et exspues, “nec cantharus aquam bibit” et exspues, “nec palumba dentes habet” et exspues, “sic mihi dentes non doleant” et expues. Finally, reference must be made to a passage in the Leiden copy of the Codex Corbeiensis of Vegetius,970 which gives the formula: focus alget, aqua sitit, cibaria esurit, mula parit, tasca masca venas omnes. But what comes nearest to our passage is a sentence preserved in a poem of the Codex Vindobonensis, 93:971herbula Proserpinacia, Horci regis filia, quomodo clausisti mulae partum, sic claudas et undam sanguinis huius, and in a still more instructive form in the Codex Bonnensis, 218 (66 a):972herbula Proserpinacia, Horci regis filia, adiuro te per tuas virtutes, ut quomodo clausisti partum mulae, claudas undas sanguinis huinus. Strange as at first sight the affirmation thus made of God may appear in connection with the others, we now see that in an incantation it is least of all strange. The Jewish compiler of our text borrowed it from pagan sources, probably unconsciously but perhaps intentionally using a biblical phrase—and, indeed, the intention did not directly oppose the biblical range of thought. Line 16 f. τὸνδιορίσαντατὸφῶςἀπὸτοῦσκότους : cf. LXX Genesis 1:4, καὶδιεχώρισενὁθεὸςἀνὰμέσοντοῦφωτὸςκαὶἀνὰμέσοντοῦσκότους—similarly Genesis 1:18. The compiler quotes freely: διορίζειν, frequent elsewhere in the LXX, also with ἀπό, does not stand in any of the Greek translations of this passage. It is significant that he has avoided the repeated “between,” a Hebraism taken over by the LXX. Line 17. τὸνσυντρίβοντατὰςπέτρας : an echo in form of LXX 3Ki. 19꞉11 [MT 1 Kings 19:11], πνεῦμαμέγα . . . συντρῖβον πέτραςἐνώπιονκυρίου : cf. LXX Nahum 1:6, καὶαἱπέτραιδιεθρύβησανἀπ’αὐτοῦ. Line 18. τὸνἀπορρήξαντατὰὄρη : cf. LXX Psalms 77:15 [MT Psalms 78:15] διέρρηξεπέτρανἐνἐρήμῳ, similarly LXX Psa. 104꞉41 [MT Psalms 105:41]; parallels to the thought are easily found. Line 18 f. τὸνσυνστρέφοντατὴνγῆνἐπὶτῶνθεμελίωναὐτῆς : συστρέφω, current in the LXX, though not in this connection; τὰθεμέλιατῆςγῆς is likewise frequent. With regard to the sense, cf. LXX Proverbs 8:29ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς, and the common phrase ἐθεμελίωσετὴνγῆν. Line 19 ff. ὁρκίζωσετὸἅγιονὄνομαὃοὐλέγεται : It is possible to doubt this punctuation. Maspero writes ὃοὐλέγεταιἐντῷἀδύτῳ, but if the reading ἀδύτῳ is correct, then, with his punctuation, the thought would be in direct opposition to the Jewish view, for the Temple was just the one place in which the name of God could be pronounced; Philo, De Vit. Mos. iii. 11 (M., p. 152), says . . ὀνόματοςὃ μόνοιςτοῖςὦτακαὶγλῶττανσοφίᾳκεκαθαρμένοιςθέμιςἀκούειν καὶλέγεινἐνἁγίοις,ἄλλῳδὲοὐδενὶτὸπαράπανοὐδαμοῦ. The Mischna, Tamid, vii. 2,973 has “In the Temple the name of God is pronounced as it is written; in the land [elsewhere] another title is substituted”. We consider it absolutely impossible that any one having any kind of sympathy with Judaism whatever could assert that the holy name was not pronounced in the Temple. If the word read by Maspero as ἀδύτῳ can be made out at all—which to us, judging at least from the fac-simile, appears impossible—then, if it is to be read after ὃοὐλέγεται, it must be a general term of place such as κόσμῳ or λαῷ; if, again, it is to be connected with the following ὀνομάσωαὐτό, then ἐντῷἀδύτῳ were meaningless, or at least very singular. Of which Temple could the Jewish compiler be thinking? Can it be that he wrote before the destruction of the Temple?974 We would therefore propose to consider ὃοὐλέγεται as a clause by itself: it expresses the well-known Jewish idea that the name of God is an ὄνομαἄρρητον,—see LXX Leviticus 24:16ὀνομάζωνδὲτὸὄνομακυρίουθανάτῳθανατούσθω; Josephus, Antt. ii. 12 4: καὶὁθεὸςαὐτῳσημαίνειτὴνἑαυτοῦπροσηγορίαν οὐπρότερονεἰςἀνθρώπουςπαρελθοῦσαν,περὶἧςοὔμοιθεμιτὸν εἰπεῖν.975—ἐντῷ [ . . . ]ῳὀνομάσωαὐτὸκαὶοἱδαίμονες ἐξεγερθῶσιν ἔκθαμβοικαὶπερίφοβοιγενόμενοι. How the lacuna after ἐντῷ is to be filled up the present writer does not know, and he will make no conjectures; thus much only is probable, viz., that what stood there was a designation of place or time. The magician utters the severest possible threat against the demon; he will, in order to win him over, pronounce the unutterable Name of God, the very sound of which fills the demons with shuddering and dread. That demons and spirits are controlled by the mention of sacred names has remained to the present day one of the most important ideas in magic.976 We have no direct example of this in the LXX, but we can point to James 2:19 as being valid for biblical times, καὶτὰδαιμόνια πιστεύουσινκαὶφρίσσουσιν, which presupposes the same fearful impression upon the demons of the thought of God. With this is to be compared Pap. Lond. xlvi. 80 f.977 (fourth cent. A.D.), where the Demon is adjured κατὰτῶνφρικτῶνὀνομάτων, just as Josephus, Bell. Jud. v. 10 3, speaks of the φρικτὸν ὄνοματοῦθεοῦ. The overwhelming effect of the Divine name upon the Demons was a very familiar idea in post-biblical Judaism.978 not altogether un-Greek. —ὥστεφαίνεινπᾶσινἀνθρώποις : LXX Genesis 1:17καὶἔθετοαὐτοὺςὁθεὸςἐντῷστερεώματιτοῦοὐρανοῦὥστεφαίνεινἐπὶτῆςγῆς.
Line 25 f. τὸνσυνσείσανταπᾶσαντὴνοἰκουμένην: LXX Psalms 59:4 [MT Psalms 60:4], συνέσεισαςτὴνγῆν. For πᾶσαν τὴνοἰκουμένην, cf. LXX Isaiah 13:5.— καὶτὰὄρηἐκτραχηλίζοντακαὶἐκβράζοντα:984 a repetition of the thought; in line 18, but verbally independent. Line 26 f. τὸνποιοῦντα ἔκτρομοντὴνγῆνἅπασ(αν): cf. LXX Psa. 103꞉32 [MT Psalms 104:32] ὁἐπιβλέπωνἐπὶτὴνγῆνκαὶποιῶν αὐτὴντρέμειν ; ἔκτρομος does not seem to have been retained anywhere else, the LXX using ἔντρομος in the same sense, LXX Psalms 17:8 [MT Psalms 18:8] and LXX Psa. 76꞉19 [MT Psalms 77:19].
Line 27. (καὶ) καινίζονταπάνταςτοὺςκατοικοῦντας : the author follows Maspero in adding the καί. We may reject the idea that καινίζοντα has an ethical reference in the sense of the πνεῦμακαινόν of Ezekiel 11:19, cf. Psalms 50:12 [MT Psalms 51:12], or of the καρδίακαινή of Ezekiel 36:26; we must rather take it as expressing the idea of the preservation of the race by the ceaseless upspringing of new generations. The compiler may have had a confused recollection of phrases like ἐπέβλεψενἐπὶπάνταςτοὺςκατοικοῦνταςτὴν γῆν, LXX Psa. 32꞉14 [MT Psalms 33:14], and κύριοςὁθεὸς . . . καινιεῖσεἐν τῇἀγαπήσειαὐτοῦ, Zephaniah 3:17; cf. LXX Psalms 102:5 [MT Psalms 103:5], ἀνακαινισθήσεταιὡςἀετοῦἡνεότηςσου. In Wis 7:27, τὰπάντακαινίζει, is predicated of the divine σοφία.
Line 27 f. τὸνποιήσαντασημεῖαἐνοὐρανῷκαὶ ἐπὶγῆςκαὶθαλάσσης : see Daniel 6:27καὶποιεῖσημεῖακαὶ τέραταἐντῷοὐρανῷκαὶἐπὶτῆςγῆς, cf. LXX Joel 2:30. Line 31. ἐρωτῶντα : here, as often in Paul, Synopt., Acts, John, in the sense of beg, beseech; not “an application of the word which was manifestly first made through the influence of the Hebrew שׁאל,” 985 (which in that case must surely have appeared first of all in the LXX), but popular Greek.986 Line 33. ὃνφοβεῖταιὄρηκαὶνάπαι : instead of the unmistakable ὅν Maspero writes οὗ. A specialising of the idea that the earth also has a “fear of God”: cf. LXX Psalms 32:8 [MT Psalms 33:8], φοβηθήτωτὸνκύριονπᾶσαἡγῆ, and LXXPsalms 66:8 [MT Psalms 67:7], φοβηθήτωσαναὐτὸνπάντατὰπέρατατῆςγῆς. For the combination of ὄρη and νάπαιcf. LXX Isaiah 40:12, Ezekiel 6:3, Ezekiel 36:6. Line 34. δι’ὃνὁλέωνἀφίησιντὸἅρπαγμα : the fact stated in this connection vividly recalls τὸνποιήσαντα τὴνἡμίονονμὴτεκεῖν in line 16. It is surprising that it should be said that God causes the lion to abandon his prey,987 whereas the biblical idea is just that God supplies the lion’s food, Job 38:39. One might suppose an allusion to Daniel 6:27, ὅστιςἐξείλατοτὸνΔαυιὴλἐκχειρὸςτῶνλεόντων, and similar passages, the more so as a little before, in line 27 f., there was a strong resemblance to the first half of the same verse; but this may be considered as negatived by ἅρπαγμα. We shall not err in considering the statement to be an expression of God’s omnipotence, of His complete dominion over nature: God is even able to make possible that which is against nature, viz., that the lion shall relinquish his prey. We may be reminded by this of the prophetic pictures of theMessianic future in Isaiah 11:6, καὶμοσχάριονκαὶταῦροςκαὶλέωνἅμαβοσκηθήσονταικαὶπαιδίονμικρὸνἄξειαὐτούς, and Isaiah 65:25 = Isaiah 11:7,καὶλέωνὡςβοῦςφάγεταιἄχυρα, in which it is likewise affirmed that the lion may change his nature, if God so wills it. The clause has been freely compiled from biblical materials.— καὶτὰὄρητρέμει: LXX Jeremiah 4:24εἶδοντὰὄρηκαὶἦντρέμοντα. Line 35. ἕκαστοςἰδάλλεταιὃν ἔχειφόβοςτοῦ Κυρίου: perhaps this is the most difficult passage in the Inscription. ἰδάλλομαι, (εἰδάλλομαι) or ἰνδάλλομαι means to seem, appear, become visible, show oneself, also to resemble. The word does not occur in the LXX, but ἴνδαλμα, the noun, is found in LXX Jer. 27꞉39 [MT Jeremiah 50:39], probably in the sense of ghost, in Wis 17:3 for image, which meanings are easily obtained from, the verb. The first appearance of the verb in biblico-ecclesiastical literature, so far as the author knows, is in Clement of Rome, 1Co. 23:2, διὸμὴδιψυχῶμενμηδὲἰνδαλλέσθωἡψυχὴἡμῶνἐπὶταῖς ὑπερβαλλούσαιςκαὶἐνδόξοις δωρεαῖςαὐτοῦ) (God), where either it has the meaning to seem imagine oneself, somewhat like φυσιοῦσθαι, or it is, as Bryennios, following others, has recently again proposed, a synonym of the verbs ἰλιγγιᾶν, to be confused, and ἐνδοιάζειν, to waver.989 Now ἕκαστονἰδάλλεται, as the passage runs in the original, does not give sense: Maspero conjectures ὅνἕκαστοςεἰδάλλεται and translates a qui chacun devient semblable, which appears to us to be grammatically impossible. In regard to the reading which we propose, which may recommend itself by the insignificance of the textual change, we would refer to the explanation of the verb which is given by Hesychius: ἰνδάλλεται˙ὁμοιοῦται, φαίνεται, δοκεῖ, στοχάζεται, ἰσοῦται, σοφίζεται,990 with which is to be compared the note of Suidas εἰδαλίμας˙συνετάς. Taking then ἰδάλλεται = σοφίζεται,991 we get the familiar biblical thought that the Fear of God gives men Wisdom, as in LXX Psa. 110꞉10 [MT Psalms 111:10] = Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10ἀρχὴσοφίαςφόβος κυρίου, Proverbs 22:4γενεὰσοφίαςφόβοςκυρίου; cf. LXX Psalms 18:8, Psalms 18:10 [MT Psalms 19:8, Psalms 19:10] ἡμαρτυρίακυρίουπιστὴσοφίζουσανήπια . . . ὁ φόβος κυρίουἁγνὸςδιαμένωνεἰςαἰῶνααἰῶνος. The only possible objection to this explanation is that the clause has no connection with the previous one; and certainly a καὶ, or the repetition of the δι’ὃν, were desirable—only it would be equally required with any other reading. The writer of the tablet seems not to have understood the statement.—With regard to ὃν ἔχειφόβοςτοῦκυρίου (cf. LXX Job 31:23φόβοςγὰρκυρίουσυνέσχεμε), reference should be made to the equivalent (in profane Greek likewise common) use of ἔχειν, LXX Job 21:6, Isaiah 13:8, Mark 16:8. Examples of φόβοςτοῦκυρίου would be superfluous. Line 36. ἀθανάτου : Sir 51:9 [13] Cod. A has καὶἀπὸ ἀθανάτουῥύσεωςἐδεήθην, which probably means and to the Immortal One did I pray for deliverance; cf. 1 Timothy 6:16, ὁμόνοςἔχωνἀθανασίαν. The thought is a Greek one; this attribute of God, in the present connection (cf. line 35), recalls the sublime Hellenistic-Jewish thought that the knowledge of God, the possession of the divine σοφία and δικαιοσύνη, impart immortality: Wis 15:3εἰδέναισουτὸκράτοςῥίζαἀθανασίας, Wis 8:17ἔστινἀθανασίαἐνσυγγενείᾳσοφίας, cf. Wis 8:13ἔξωδι’αὐτὴνἀθανασίαν, Wis 1:15δικαιοσύνηγὰρἀθανασίαἐστίν.992 – παντεφόπτου:993Esther 5:1τὸνπάντωνἐπόπτηνθεόν; 3Ma. 2:21ὁπάντωνἐπόπτηςθεός; 2Ma 7:35 (cf. 2Ma 3:39) τοῦπαντοκράτοροςἐπόπτουθεοῦ; cf. LXX Job 34:24ὁγὰρκύριος πάντας (Cod. A, τὰπάντα) ἐφορᾷ, similarly 2Ma 12:22 and 2Ma 15:2.—μισοπονήρου: the idea is common in the O.T.;994 in regard to the word cf. μισοπονηρέω,2Ma 4:49 and 2Ma 8:4; μισοπονηρία, 2Ma 3:1. Line 36 ff. ἐπισταμένου κτλ. : a well-known biblical idea, here developed independently with the assistance of biblical expressions. Line 43. συμβιοῦντας: Sir 13:5 has the word. Line 45. ἐπιθυμοῦντα with the Accusative as not infrequently in LXX; cf., e.g., Exodus 20:17, οὐκἐπιθυμήσεις τὴνγυναῖκατοῦπλησίονσου. Looking again at the Inscription, we find, in the first place, confirmation of the supposition that the writer of the tablet, whether male or female, and the original author of the text cannot have been the same individual. No One apparently so familiar with even the deeper thoughts of the Greek Bible could fall into such childish errors in the most everyday matters, such as the names of the patriarchs and other things. It is in all probability most correct to suppose that the tablet (with the exception of such parts as referred to the particular case) was copied from a book of Magic, and that even there the original text was already corrupt. If the tablet was itself written in the third century, and if between it and the compiler of the original text there was already a considerable period, in which corrupt copies were produced and circulated, then the second century A.D. will probably form a terminus ad quem for the date of its composition; nevertheless there is nothing to prevent our assigning to the original text a still earlier date. As the locality of the original composition we may assume Egypt, perhaps Alexandria, not only from the general character of the text, but also by reason of the Egyptian origin of texts which are cognate with it. The author was a Greek Jew:995 this follows incontrovertibly, as it seems to us, from the formal character of the text. If we had in the incantation a succession of verbal citations from the Septuagint, the hypothesis of a Jewish author were certainly the most natural, but we should then have to reckon also with the presumption that some “heathen,” convinced of the magic power of the alien God, may have taken the sayings from the mysterious pages of the holy and not always intelligible Book of this same God, very much in the same way as passages at large from Homer996 were written down for magical purposes, and as to this day amulets are made from biblical sayings.997 Really verbal quotations, however, such as could be copied mechanically, are almost entirely absent from our text, in spite of its extreme dependence in substance and form upon the Greek Old Testament. We have here an instructive example of the reproduction of biblical passages from memory which played such a great part in quotations and allusions in the early Christian writings. The compiler of our text certainly did not consult his Greek Bible as he set down one biblical attribute of God after another; the words flowed from his pen without any consideration on his part of what might be their particular origin, or any thought of checking the letters in a scrupulous bibliolatry. Only a man who lived and moved in the Bible, and, indeed, in the Greek Bible, could write as he wrote. And if here and there something got mixed with his writing which has no authority in the Septuagint, then even that speaks not against, but in favour of, our view. For the theological conception of the Canon has never been a favourite with popular religion,—we might almost say, indeed, with religion in general. In every age the religious instinct has shown an indifference in respect to the Canon,—unconscious, unexpressed, but none the less effective—which has violated it both by narrowing it and extending it. How many words of the canonical Bible have never yet been able to effect what Holy Scripture should! How much that is extra-canonical has filled whole generations with solace and gladness and religious enthusiasm! Just as the Christians of New Testament times not infrequently quoted as scripture words for which one should have vainly sought in the Canon (assuming that even then an exact demarcation had been made, or was known), so also does this text from Adrumetum, with all its obligations to the Bible, manifest an ingenuous independence with regard to the Canon. In respect of form, the following facts also merit attention. The text is almost wholly free from those grammatical peculiarities of the Septuagint which are usually spoken of as Hebraisms — a term easily misunderstood. This is a proof of the fact, for which there is other evidence as well,998 that the syntactic “influence” of the Alexandrian translation was less powerful by far than the lexical. The spirit of the Greek language was, in the imperial period, sufficiently accommodating where the enlarging of its stock of terms was concerned; the good old words were becoming worn out, and gropings were being made towards new ones and towards the stores of the popular language—as if internal deterioration could be again made good by means of external enlargement. But notwithstanding all this it had a sense of reserve quite sufficient to ward off the claims of a logic which was repugnant to its nature. The alleged “Jewish-Greek,” of which the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testament is supposed to be the most prominent memorial, never existed as a living dialect at all. Surely no one would seriously affirm that the clumsy barbarisms of the Aramaean who tried to make himself understood in the Greek tongue were prescribed by the rules of a “Jewish-Greek” grammar. It may be, indeed, that certain peculiarities, particularly with regard to the order of words, are frequently repeated, but one has no right to search after the rules of syntax of a “Semitic Greek” on the basis of these eculiarities, any more than one should have in trying to put together a syntax of “English High-German” from the similar idioms of a German-speaking Englishman. We need not be led astray by the observed fact that Greek translations of Semitic originals manifest a more or less definite persistence of Semitisms; for this persistence is not the product of a dialect which arose and developed in the Ghettos of Alexandria and Rome, but the disguised conformity to rule of the Semitic original, which was often plastered over rather than translated. How comes it that the syntax of the Jew Philo and the Benjamite Paul stands so distinctly apart from that of such Greek translations? Just because, though they had grown up in the Law, and meditated upon it day and night, they were yet Alexandrian and Tarsian respectively, and as such fitted their words naturally together, just as people spoke in Egypt and Asia Minor, and not in the manner of the clumsy pedantry999 of the study, submitting line after line to the power of an alien spirit. The translators of the Old Testament were Hellenists as well as were Philo and Paul, but they clothed themselves in a strait-jacket—in the idea perhaps that such holy labour demanded the putting on of a priestly garment. Their work gained a success such as has fallen to the lot of but few books: it became one of the “great powers” of history. But although Greek Judaism and Christianity entered into, and lived in, the sphere of its ideas, yet their faith and their language remained so uninjured that no one thought of the disguised Hebrew as being sacred, least of all as worthy of imitation,1000—though, of course, there was but little reflection on the matter.
Then the Tablet from Adrumetum manifests a peculiarity, well known in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, which, we think, ought also to be considered as one of form. This is the heaping up of attributes of God, which appears to have been a favourite custom, especially in prayers.1001 It is a characteristic of certain heathen prayers; it was believed that the gods were honoured, and that the bestowal of their favours was influenced,1002 by the enumeration of their attributes. We think it probable that this notion also influenced the form of Judo-Greek prayers.1003 At all events we hear in them the expression of the same naïve tendency which Grimm unjustifiably reproaches as “a misunderstanding of and lack of the true spirit of prayer”. Good words were given to God—something must be given: His divine self-importance, as it were, was appealed to. It is children that flatter thus. With regard to this characteristic in prayer, unmistakably present also in our text, compare the prayer of the Three Men, then 3Macc. 2:2 ff. and 6:2 ff.,but specially the following passages:—
2Ma 1:24 f. κύριε κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ πάντων κτίστης ὁ φοβερὸς καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ δίκαιος καὶ ἐλεήμων, ὁ μόνος βασιλεὺς καὶ χρηστὸς ὁ μόνος χορηγὸς ὁ μόνος δίκαιος καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ αἰώνιος, ὁ διασώζων τὸ Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ παντὸς κακοῦ, ὁ ποιήσας τοὺς πατέρας ἐκλεκτοὺς καὶ ἁγιάσας αὐτούς.
Man 1:1-15 (in 0. F. Fritzsche, Libri apocr. V. T. graece, p. 92) 1-4: κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν τοῦ δικαίου, ὁ ποήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν σὺν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ αὐτῶν, ὁ πεδήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ προστάγματός σου, ὁ κλείσας τὴν ἄβυσσον καὶ σφραγισάμενος αὐτὴν τῷ φοβερῷ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ ὀνόματί σου, ὃν πάντα φρίσσει καὶ τρέμει ἀπὸ προσώπου δυνάμεώς σου. The agreement, especially of the latter passage, with the tablet of Adrumetum is so striking that we should have to suppose that our compiler used the Prayer of Manasses, unless the case was that both were working with the same materials in the same framework of a customary form. That this form came in course of time to be of great influence liturgically, and that it can still be perceived in the monotony of many a service-book prayer, can only be indicated here. It is doubtless a partial cause of the fact that the word Litanei, in our customary speech, has gained an unpleasant secondary signification. [Litanei = litany + jeremiad.] The peculiarity just treated of was described as a formal one. For even if its origin points, psychologically, to a temper of mind not entirely alien to religion, yet the employment of it, where the religious motive has given place to the liturgical, the unconstrained feeling of the true worshipper to the literary interest of the prayer-book writer, is in general purely ritualistic, that is, formal. But the attributes of God which are found in the text from Adrumetum are of deep interest even in substance, when considered in reference to the choice which the compiler has made. It is true that they are here used as the vehicle of an incantation, but how different is their simplicity and intelligibility from the meaningless chaos of most other incantamenta! The context in which they stand must not cause us to ignore their religious value. If we put aside the adjuration of the demon for the trivial ends of a sickly affection, we are enabled to gain a notion of how the unknown author thought about God. The suspicion that he was an impostor and that he intentionally employed the biblical expressions as hocus-pocus is perhaps not to be flatly denied; but there is nothing to justify it, and to assert, without further consideration, that the literary representatives of magic were swindlers, would be to misapprehend the tremendous force with which the popular mind in all ages has been ruled by the “superstitious” notion that the possession of supernatural powers may be secured through religion. Our compiler, just because of the relative simplicity of his formulae, has the right to be taken in earnest. What strikes us most of all in these are the thoughts which establish the omnipotence of God. The God, through Whom he adjures the demon, is for him the creator, the preserver and the governor of nature in its widest sense: He has, of course, the power to crush the miserable spirit of the tomb. But besides this conception of God, which impresses the senses more strongly than the conscience, and upon which the poetry of biblical and post-biblical Judaism long continued to nourish itself,1004 this unknown man has also extracted the best of what was best in the Jewish faith, viz., the ethical idea of the God of prophecy, Who separates the pious from the transgressors because He hates evil, and the “fear” of Whom is the beginning of wisdom. Thus the tablet of Adrumetum is a memorial of the Alexandrian Old Testament. Not only does it reveal what a potent formal influence the Greek Bible, and especially the praise-book thereof, exercised upon the classes who lived outside of the official protection of the Synagogue and the Church, and who thus elude the gaze of history, but it lets us also surmise that the eternal thoughts of the Old Testament had not wholly lost their germinative power even where, long after and in an obscure place, they had seemingly fallen among thorns.