T H E T E X T U A L H I S T O R Y O E T U E L IF E O F A D A M A N D

E V E IX T U E L IG H T O F A X E W L Y D IS C O V E R E D
L A T IN T E X T - F O R M

BY

JO H A N N E S T R O M P
Leiden University

T h e publication of the text of two m anuscripts of the Latin Life of

Adam and Ene by J.-P . Pettorelli gives eause for a reassessm ent of the
position of the Latin version in the textual history of this a ^ e r y p h a l
w riting .‫ ا‬For m any years, it has been usual to treat the Latin Life as
a witness to the original writing on an equal basis to the G reek Life of
Adam and Ene. Sinee the ^ b lie a tio n of the G eorgian and A rm enian
versions, in 1964 and 1981,2 however, the Latin Life has gradually been
sinking in the erities’ esteem, at least as far as its claim to ehronolog-
ieal and genealogieal priority is eoneerned. W hile this m ay still be
justifiable for the Latin version as it was known before the diseovery
of two hitherto unknow n Latin m anuscripts,3 the existenee of the text
represented by these latter m anuseripts m ay restore the Latin tradition

1 J.-P. Pettorelli, “La Vie latine d ’Adam et Ève,” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 56
(1104 -,(8 5 ‫( وو‬hereafter ALM A 1 8 ‫ ;) وو‬id., ‘V ie latine d ’Adam et Ève. La reeension de
Paris, BNF, lat.3832,” Archivum Latiniatis Medii Aevi 57 (152 -5 ,(‫( ووو‬hereafter ALMA
1‫) ووو‬.
2 Georgian: C. K ‘u re‘ikidze (ed.), “Adamis apokrip‘uli c‘xovrebis k‘artuli versia,”
Pdlologiuri Dziebani 1 (1064), 07-136; the Georgian version has beeome widely aeeessi-
ble by its translation into Freneh: J.-P. M ahé, “Le Livre d ’Adam Géorgien,” in: R. van
den Broek and M J . V erm aseren (eds.). Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented
to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden 1081, 227-260; Armenian: M.E.
Stone, The Penitence ofAdam (CSCO 420-430. Seriptores arm eniaci 13-14), Louvain 1081.
3 Nam ely, a text based upon a limited num ber of Southern G erm an and Austrian
m anuseripts, published by w . M eyer, “Vita Adae et Evae,” Abhandlungen der philosophisch-
philologischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 14, M ünehen 1878,
187-250; and a text based upon m anuscripts from England, published by J.H . Mozley,
“ T he ‘Vita A dae’,” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1020), 121-140.

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2002 Journal for the Study of Judaism , X X X III, 1
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OE THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EVE

as a whole to an im portant position within the textual history of the

Life of Adam and Eve.4
As Pettorelli has set out in the artiele preeeding this one (in this
issue of this journal), m anuseripts Pr (Paris) an d M a (M ilan) represent
a text-form of the Latin Life of Adam and Eve th at had to be assum ed
in order to explain the eom ing into being of the text-form represented
by the rest of the known tradition. T he text-form to whieh Pr and M a
are witnesses stands elosely to w hat m ust have been the first Latin
translation of a G reek text of the Life of Adam and Eve (designated by
Pettorelli as VLg). T h a t G reek text in turn m ust have been very simi-
lar to the G reek text underlying the A rm enian and G eorgian transía-
tions (designated by Pettorelli as VOr).
In this note, I shall first diseuss the ways in w hich the existenee of
the text represented by the newly diseovered m anuseripts should m od-
ify the views, as expressed by M arinus de Jo n g e an d myself a few years
ago, on the textual eharaeter of the Latin Life of Adam and Eve (seetion
l).5 Next, I shall sketeh an outline of the eontents of VLg¿ eom pared
to VOr on the one hand, an d to the rest of the Latin tradition on the
other (seetion 2). After that, it m ay be possible to define som ew hat
m ore exaetly the relationship of VLg to the extant G reek tradition,
m ore speeifieally to VGII (seetion 3).
It should be noted th at all argum ents an d eonelusions in this con-
tribution are of neeessity provisional. T h ere are stillseores of Latin
m anuseripts of the Life of Adam and Eve to be examined,^ and it is of
eourse unknow n w hat surprises they m ay still have in store.
In this article, other symbols will be used th an those proposed by
Pettorelli. His use of eapitals in italies to designate the versions is less
c ita b le w hen the G reek m anuseripts (also com m only designated with

4 It should be noted that the Life of Adam and Eve, as one of the most widespread
a p o e r^ h a in the Christian ehureh, is im portant for the students of m any different dis-
eiplines, with divergent interests: obviously, students of late M edieval E uropean eulture
look at the Life with another interest than those studying G reeo-Rom an Judaism or
early Christianity· M y perspeetive on the Eatin Life is that of someone who seeks to
reeover the earliest written form of this writing. Several differenees of opinion between
M r. Pettorelli and myself m ay be explained on the ground of our different interests.
5 M. de Jonge and j . The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (Guides
to Apoerypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheffield 1997; see esp. 37-40, 44.
6 See J.-P. Pettorelli, “La Vie latine d ’Adam et Ève. Analyse de la tradition m anu-
serite,” Apocrypha 10 (1999), 220-320 (hereafter Apocrypha 1999), who has eounted 106
m anuscripts so far.
30 JOHANNES TROMP

capitals, although not in italics) are taken into o n sid e ra tio n . Therefore,
I shall use the following symhols: VLg = lat (the original Latin trans-
lation of the G reek text, or that G reek text)‫ ؛‬VL = Meyer,‫ ־‬E = ang
(the text-form as puhlished by M ozley)‫ ؛‬VOr = armgeo (the original
A rm enian an d G eorgian franslations of the G reek text, or that G reek
text)‫ ؛‬VG = gr (the extant G reek Life of Adam and Eve); VGII =
(the text-form represented by the G reek m anuscripts R and M , and
the Slavonic version).

1. An Initial Re-Assessment of the Latin Version in the Light of Pr M a

T h e m ost ^ c t a c u l a r differences b etw een th e L atin Life o f Adam

and Eve as it was know n until recently on the one h an d , an d the
A rm en ian /G eo rg ian an d G reek Lives on the other, were the com plete
absence in the form er of Eve’s speech (gr 13-30‫ ؛‬armgeo 44) and m ost
of the report on A d am ’s death an d burial (gr 33-42:2‫ ؛‬armgeo 45-48:2)‫؛‬
inversely, the Latin h ad some passages th at are lacking in all other
versions, nam ely the vision related by A dam to his son Seth (lat 25-
20), and the legend of two stelae im cribed w ith the story of A dam
an d Eve an d some o th er m aterial to be preserved for h u m an k in d
(49-53, with m ore additions in some groups of the Latin tradition in
54-57).
T h e view that these differences were the result of a thorough redac-
tion of the text,7 m ust now be m odified on the basis of Pr, to the effect
th at the Meyer- an d tf/zg-texts are not to be seen as the result of a
single, m ajor editorial i^ e ^ e n tio n , b u t of m ore, m aybe even a whole
series of mworkings.
(a) First of all, a speech by Eve is present in Pr. A lthough it is con-
siderably shorter th an th at in gr an d armgeo, it is obviously a variant of
the sam e speech: a flashback on the fransgression and the expulsion
from Paradise. It can safely be concluded th at the Pr-text represents
an abbreviation of the longer speech .‫ و‬T herefore, a tendency in the
Latin tradition can be observed to shift the accent of the story as a
whole from the causes an d consequences of the fall, to the penitence
of A dam an d Eve, related in lat 1-21 (also present in armgeo, b u t absent

7 De Jonge and T rom p, The Life of Adam and Eve, 37 -‫ت‬

8 See Pettorelli. “Deux témoins,” 22.
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EV E 31

from gr). This tendency seems to culm inate in M a, w hich has no sequel
at all to lat 1-23.9
(h) In the second place, there is the m atter of the stories of the death
an d hu rial of A dam a n d o f EYe, alread y elahorately discussed hy
Pettorelli, above.10 T h e problem can be briefly described by saying that,
of two angelic liturgies present in gr an d geo, one preceding A d am ’s
assum ption into heaven (gr 33-3?), the other surrounding his burial
n ear Paradise (gr 38-42:2), only one is present in arm (namely that at
his burial), an d the other in lat (at A d am ’s assumption). If the com-
m only held view th at arm an d geo are closely linked, so as to repre-
sent, eventually, a single G reek text, then the agreem ent of geo with gr
against arm excludes the ^ s s ib ility that the shorter text of arm is m ore
primitive th an the text with b oth liturgies in gr geo.n
H owever, Pettorelli suggests th at the liturgy as described in Pr m ay
well reflect a m ore primitive stage of the writing, in which, after the
description of A d am ’s assum ption into heaven, angels are said to descend
to earth, and assist at his burial. A n im p o rtan t argum ent for this view
is the fact that in gr geo, b oth scenes are very clumsily connected, and
make the im pression that the text of gr geo is the result of editorial
activity.12 E urtherm ore, the shorter ang Meyer-text, Pettorelli claims,
cannot be explained as ju st an extract from the longer text as repre-
sented by Pr. the corcespondences are too small in n u m b er to make
the hypothesis of abbreviation plausible, an d the hypothesis does not
account for the fact th at the ang Meyer-text in some instances retains
narrative m aterial present in gr armgeo, b u t absent from Pr. Finally, the
structure of the story, especially th at p a rt dealing with Eve’s death and
burial, is essentially different in the Pr- an d ang Meyer-texts. Pettorelli
cautiously concludes with the suggestion th at Pr and ang Meyer repre-
sent two different stories.13
In response, I w ould suggest th at these differences betw een Pr and

9 T h at Ma breaks off after seetion 23 is not i^entional; see Pettorelli, ALMA 1 8 ‫ وو‬,
102: “sans doute a-t-il été eopié à partir d ’un m anuserit am puté”. Nonetheless, ft is not
without m eaning that the eopyist m ust have thought ft worthwhile to eopy an ineom-
plete exemplar.
10 “Deux témoins,” lb-10, 23-24.
11 j . T rom p, “Literary and Exegetieal Issues in the Story of A dam ’s D eath and Burial
(GLAE 31-42),” in: j . Erishman L. van R om pay (eds.). The Book of Genesis in Jewish
and Oriental Christian Interpretation, Louvain, 100?, 30-31.
12 Cf. D.-A. Bertrand, “Le destin ‘post-m ortem ’ des protoplastes selon la ‘Vie grecque
d’Adam et Eve,’” in: I m , littérature intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17-19 octobre 1983),
Paris 1085, 109-118.
13 “Deux témoins,” 9.
 JOHANNES TROMP

ang Meyer can be explained as the result of two different ways in which
lat was handled by the respective editors responsible for the two branches
within the Latin tradition. I see no problem in regarding the text of
Pr as an abbreviated form of lat w hich m ay, by an d large, have agreed
with gr (the agreem ent of either Pr or ang Meyer w ith the other versions
w ould consequently result in the reconstruction of w hat was at least in lat).
It is also true th at the copyist responsible for the ang Meyer-text m ust
have in terv en ed in the text of his Vorlage in a rad ical way. T his,
however, m ay well be related to the reorganization of the entire con-
eluding p a rt of the Life according to the ang ^ ^ r - t e x t . W hereas m ost
text-forms an d versions conclude whh the death and burial of Adam
and of Eve, ang Meyer has a large appendix, in w hich Eve’s death and
burial are integrated into the two stelae legend (49-53). T he appendix
agrees with the tendency, characteristic of the ang Meyer-text, to elab-
orate on revelations (see also the vision of A dam in ang Meyer 25-29,
discussed below, in rection 2).
A pparently, the less than felicitous com bination of both scenes has
offended m ore than one read er and copyist, or m aybe even the some-
w hat longw inded conclusion to the w riting simply bored th e m .‫ ئ‬T he
copyist responsible for arm abbreviated the text in his own way, and
so did the copyist responsible for the text of Pr, presum ably also of lat.
T h e fact that the ang Meyer-texts are in some places abbreviated even
further, b u t also contain elaborations in other instances of the sam e
a c tio n , is in agreem ent with the free treatm en t of such texts as these,
and is c ^ ra c te ris tic of apocryphal literature in general .‫ئ‬
(c) In lat 42 (gr 13:3-5), Meyer an d ang include a section adapted from
a passage from the Gospel of Nicodemus, w hich in itself m ay be depend-
ent on a Greek text of the Life of Adam and Eve (Gospel of Nicodemus 19 =
Descensus ad inferos 3‫ ؛‬cf. armgeo; the addition in 14:1 in the G reek m an-
uscripts Q Z is sim ilar in subject m atter, b u t of independent origin).
T h e text of Pr differs from that of armgeo an d lat, in that it does not
give ،،5,500 years” as the period for w hich A dam will have to w ait
before his baptism , b u t “until the im titution of a consul, during the

14 Cf. De Jonge and T rom p, The Life of Adam and Eve, 38. A glance at the synoptic
presentation of a num ber of manuseripts by J.R . Le vison. Texts in Transition. The Greek
Life of A dam and Eve (Early Judaism and its Literature lb), A tlanta 2000, 03-1 Id,
reveals that, even within the G reek tradition, all texts have the tendeney to abbreviate
this p art of the story in some way or another.
15 J.-C . Piea^l, L · continent apocryphe. Essai sur les littératures juive et chrétienne, ^Lurnhout
1000, 284-287; j . T rom p, “Z ur Edition a p o k r^ h e r Texte, am Beispiel des grieehisehen
Lebens Adams und Evas” (forthcoming).
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OE THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EVE

e i^ e ro r s h ip of Constantine, 882 years (?; anni accc lxxxiiy\ T h e text

and its m eaning are unelear to me. It w ould seem in any event that
the text of Pr is a further developm ent of the armgeo- and lat-text.
(d) An interesting ease is found in lat 23-24 (gr 2-4). In this passage,
Eve is said to report a fearful dream she h ad h ad involving C ain and
Ahel. T h e report is h h r e v ia te d in ang Meyer, b u t Pr retains a version
very m ueh like th at o fg r armgeo. A ccording to armgeo, Pr and lat‫ و‬A dam
reaets to Eve’s report by suggesting that the two should be separated.
T he m otif for A d am ’s suggestion (namely, not to provide room for the
evil one‫ ؛‬so arm an d Pr, ef. gr; geo som ew hat differently) is Ich out in
ang Meyer. H ow ever, ang Meyer then add the detail that the ^ a r a t i o n
of C ain and Abel eonsisted in m aking one of them a farm er, and the
other a shepherd. In adding this detail, ang Meyer stand alone‫ ؛‬Pr does
not have the addition.
Next, Meyer dryly reports that “after that, C ain killed A bel,” 16 thereby
drastieally abbreviating the seene w hieh the other witnesses have at this
point, in w hich the angel explains to A dam that he will have another
son instead of Abel. T h e abbreviation has led to eonfusion in the text:
in ang Meyer 23:3 the rath er ineredible statem ent is m ade that at the
time of A bel’s death, A dam was 13d years old, and Abel 122 years.
This statem ent is absent from Pr an d the other versions (see 3:1 ‫م؛‬
armgeo 23[2]:4-23[3]:2). However, in Pr 24:5, the total num ber of A dam ’s
ehildren at the tim e of his death is set at 123 (or at 124, according to
the sum of sons an d daughters im m ediately following), w hereas the
rest of the tradition is quite unanim ous at a eonsiderably lower num -
ber (gr 5:1 an d armgeo 30[5]:1: sixty; ang Meyer 24:3: sixty-three, i.e.,
sixty plus C ain, Abel, an d Seth). T he oeeurrenee of the n u m b er 122
or 123 in both Pr and ang Meyer, albeit applied to different eategories,
nam ely the n u m b e r of A d a m ’s children, an d the n u m b e r of A bel’s
years at his death respeetively, suggests th at Pr and ang Meyer eaeh
represent two different developm ents of an earlier text (no doubt no
longer m eoverable), eaeh w ith its own abbreviations, C a p ta tio n s and
confusions.
T h e dynam ism of the textual history of the Life of Adam and Eve is
onee again apparent. T h e eom parison of ang Meyer with armgeo had
already m ad e it ffm n d an tly elear th at the L atin version, as it was
known until the diseovery of Pr, was not simply a franslation of a G reek
text sim ilar to th at underlying armgeo, b u t th at drastie editorial inter-

16 So also ang, where, however, the reading is attenuated by the addition of tamen.
34 JOHANNES TROMP

vendons h ad heen m ade to it. T h e text of Pr is a speetaeular instance

of a stage of the text m u eh closer to armgeo (and therefore to lat) than
that represented by ang Meyer, although it, too, represents a stage in
lafs further developm ent, an d can certainly not be taken to be lat itself

2. The Text-Form ö/Tat

It is far too early to begin to reeonstruet the w ording of the origi-

nal Latin franslation of the Life of Adam and Eve. H owever, the con-
elusion of the previous seetion ehallenges one to speeulate about its
text: w hat was ineluded in the G reek text that was translated, and w hat
should be eonsidered as later developm ents w ithin the Latin tradition?
T h e answ er to the question of w hat m ust in any ease have been in
lat is fairly easy: any agreem ent of any Latin text-form (that is, PrMa ‫و‬
Meyer, or ang) with any other version, gr, arm, or geo, proves with eer-
tainty th at the G reek text underlying the Latin franslation eontained
the passage in question.
This m eans that lat eontained at least the seetions (in the Latin see-
tion-num bers) 1-24, 30-33 (including the “angelie liturgy” in 33‫ ؛‬see
above, seetion 1, sub-section [b]), an d some form of the story of the
death an d burial of A dam , Abel, and Eve. A d itio n a lly , as ean be con-
eluded from the agreem ent betw een Pr an d the other versions, it m ust
have eontained some form of parts of Eve’s speeeh, nam ely 44(15-24)
and 44(20-30).
In all other eases, wc can of eourse be far less eertain. In apoe-
ryphal literature, one always has to reekon with the deletion of any
length of text by a eopyist. T herefore, the presenee of a eertain pas-
sage in only one of the Latin texts, w ithout support in the other ver-
sions, does not u to m a tie a lly im ply th a t it was seeondarily added.
H owever, it seems that in sueh eases it should be stated as a rule of
thum b that a passage that is present only in one of the Latin text-
forms is unlikely to have figured in the original Latin franslation (and
its G reek Vorlage), unless it can be m ade plausible th at the passage was
rem oved from the other text-forms (for instanee, by pointing at refer-
enees in the rem aining text to the deleted one, or at the presenee of
rem nants, sueh as in the instanee diseussed above in seetion 1, sub-
seetion [d], on the n u m b er “ 122”).
O n the basis of the rule of th u m b ju st m entioned, it is unlikely that
25-2 ‫ و‬, the vision of A dam , was present in the original Latin transía-
tion of the Life of Adam and Eve, beeause it is absent w ithout a traee
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OE THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EVE

from Pr an d all non-L atin versions. O n the contrary, Pr agrees with

the other versions in reading in 23(3):2b the statem ent th at Seth will
reveal things to A dam : tibique annuntiabit omnia que agere debes (ef. gr ουτος
δηλώσει πάντα οσα ποιήσεις [or: -σης]). This w ould agree poorly with
the faet th at in the im m ediately following episode, A dam is said to
reeount a vision to Seth. T herefore, it is likely th at in ang Meyer this
sentenee was exeised beeause of the vision the editor w anted to insert.
T he justifiable eonelusion is that 25-29 represents a later developm ent
of the Life of Adam and Eve, w ithin the Latin tradition.
Finally, som ething m ust be said abo u t the legend of the two stelae,
present in a num ber of the Af¿^?'-representatives and in ang. Unfortunately,
Pr breaks off after 48(40):6, possibly by ehanee, or possibly beeause the
eopyist saw that his page was full, an d found the com m and to bury
A dam an d Abel a c ita b le m om ent to quit the story. ^ In the original
Latin translation, however, at least a b rief report about Eve’s burial
m ust have been present, beeause w hat is found of it in ang Meyer in
48(40):5:b and 51(43):1, 3 is elearly genealogieally related to the other
versions. In ang Meyer, however, the burial of Eve is tru e tu ra lly em-
bedded in the legend of the two stelae (49:1-59: 51:
52
3 3‫؛؛‬- see above,
seetion 1, [b]). It is obvious th at this version of Eve’s burial is see-
ondary, eom pared to th at in gr armgeo, b u t it eannot be established if
the story as told in ang Meyer was already present in the original Latin
translation (or in the G reek text underlying it). This eonelusion m ust
be draw n, irrespeetive of the faet that the two stelae legend as sueh is
indeed o f G reek origin: it was know n already to Flavius Jo sephus,
Antiquitates judaicae II 67-71, b u t fraditions travel through other m eans
than literahire alone. It m ay well be that the two stelae legend reaehed
Europe by oral transm ission before it was eom m itted to writing in the
Latin Life of Adam and Eve.
T o sum m arize this seetion, it m ay be eoneluded th at the G reek text
underlying the original Latin translation was elosely related to that
underlying the A rm enian an d G eorgian translations. Ju st as armgeo, it
ineluded not only the story of the penitenee of A dam and Eve (absent
from gr), b u t also the speeeh of Eve (absent from ang Meyer). T he absenee
of A d am ’s vision from Pr is a further indieation of the proxim ity of Pr
to the original lat. A lthough the text of Pr is not free of its own see-
ondary developm ents, it m ay be ranged along w ith arm and geo as a

17 O n the next page, the copyist has begun to write Gospel of Nicodemus A 18-19;
FettoreUi, ALM A 1999, 7.
 JOHANNES TROMP

m ajor witness to the G reek text-form from w hich the three jointly
deseend.

3. The Relationships between lat, arm geo, and iMLslav

W hereas it is generally agreed that the A rm enian, G eorgian, Slavonie

and Latin versions were franslated from G reek originals, it is diffieult
to establish their exaet relationships to the extant G reek text. Beeause
they are translations, errors that are C x^eritieally relevant, espeeially
sueh corruptions as m ay lead to eonelusions abo u t direet genealogieal
links, are likely to have been sm oothed out d u ring the ta n s la tio n
proeess, an d therefore to have disappeared from view. Some instanees
m ay be eited, however, from w hieh Cntative eonelusions m ay be drawn.
(a) T h e following instanee suggests the eonjunetion of the G reek
m anuseripts groups L C A T R M with armgeo. In £ ٢ 21:1 LCA R M offer
the reading έβόησα φωνή μεγάλη (T leaves 21:1-5 out, perhaps through
homoioteleuton), w hereas the other extant witnesses (exeept Q Z , which
have an omission here) read έβόησα αυτή τη copa. In the Life of Adam
and Eve the verbs m eaning ،،to ery” (βοαν, καλεΐν, κλα(ειν) are fre-
quently qualified by an adverbial attribute expressing loudness, or some
other id ie a tio n of intensity (φων^ μεγάλη 5:2 ‫ ث‬2 ‫ و‬: ‫ ^ ﻟﻞ‬Μ‫ ؛‬φωνήν φοβέραν
8:123:1 ‫ ؛‬37:
R 1‫؛‬ μετά κλαυθμοί) 27:3‫ ؛‬ef. 34:1). T h e qualification ،،at
that m o m en t” occurs only in 21:1. T h e m ost likely explanation for the
divergent reading in L C A T R M is th at the eopyist responsible for
the m anuseript from w hich L C A T R M derive, inadvertently replaeed
the unusual expression with a eom m on one. This eom m on expression
is also found in arm an d slav; geo om its‫ ؛‬Pr h b re v ia te s.
(b) Possibly, the following instanee points to the conjunction of arm-
geo with R M in ^ r ti e u l a r , against the rest of the G reek f r u itio n ,
including L C A T .‫ ئ‬In (44)18:1, the devil is said to express his regret
beeause of A dam and Eve’s ignoranee. M ost G reek m anuseripts offer
the following reading: λυπουμαι περ'ΐ υμων, ού γάρ θέλω υμας άγνοειν.19
L C A T , however, have a few extra words: λυπουμαι περ'ι υμων, οτι ως
κτήνη (σκοτεινοί 4) έστέ‫ ־‬ου γάρ θέλω υμας άγνοειν. T h e d d itio n a l phrase

18 This passage is heavily abbreviated in slav, whieh will here be left out of eonsid-
eration. LCA T are separated from R M by their reading φυλασσόντων in 7:2 (the other
manuscripts, exeept B, but including R M , read διατηρούντας, διατηρούντων or διατη-
ρούντον).
19 So S VÁPB N IJ Q Z HEW F; D G K X are not extant.
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EV E 37

is also found in armgeo: “for you are like beasts” ‫ ؛‬the readings in R M
are reeognizable as m ere seribal Yariants: διότι αγοητως εσται (= έστέ)
R ‫ ؛‬ως ανοητοι εσται (= έστέ) Μ . T he next words in R M are έφθόνησεν
γάρ υμάς ό θεός. Sueh words are absent from L C A T , b u t they are pre-
sent in geo {arm differs somewhat): “G od was jealous of you,” followed
by the phrase: “an d he has not ^ r m i t t e d you” ‫ ؛‬after w hieh armgeo
again join the G reek text (RM om it 18:2-3‫ ؛‬the m otif of G o d ’s jeal-
ousy is repeated in 44[18]:4 arm, an d occurs there for the first time in
lat‫ ؛‬at this instanee, ft is absent from RM ).
T h e addition of the phrase έφθόνησεν γάρ υμάς 6 θεός im m ediately
after the phrase λυπουμαι περ'ι υμων, m ight suggest the likelihood of
^ M having h ad in eom m on with armgeo an aneestor that was no anees-
tor of L C A T . T h ere is no reason why the aneestor of L C A T (which
evidently aims at a full text) w ould have left this p artieular phrase out,
whereas the omission of 18:2-3 in R M is perfeetly e o i^ re h e n sib le in
the light of this text’s tendeney to give a eoneise ^ e s e n ta tio n of the
story. T h e simplest explanation for this state of affairs is th at the anees-
tor of L C A T R M armgeo eontained the addition οτι ώς κτήνη έστέ, and
that the editor of R M armgeo subsequently ad ded the explanatory phrase
έφθόνησεν γάρ υμάς 6 θεός‫ ؛‬in a next stage, the thrifty eopyist responsi-
ble for R M om itted 18:2-3, w hieh he m ay have frft to be an unnee-
essary m ^ titio n of 16:4.
Although these o b l a t i o n s m ay seem to be indieative of the genealog-
ieal priority of the text-form of R M as eom pared to armgeo (and lat),
there are signifieant obstaeles to that eonelusion. As has been argued
by G.A. A nderson, the P e i ^ e ie - s to r y as found in R M (44)29:7-13 is
m ore likely to be an A b rév iatio n (and m plaeem ent) of the story as
found in armgeo lat in 1-21, than the other w ay a ro u n d .^٥ Sinee ft w ould
seem to m e that ft is unlikely that armgeo lat as a whole refleet a m ore
primitive stage of the w riting th an gr (in th at ease, the textual evidenee
pointing at the seeondary nature of L C A T and R M over against the
rest of the G reek tradition w ould have to be ignored), one m ay have
to aeeept a m ore eom plex solution, involving either the hypothetical
existenee of a separate writing as the independent souree of both R M
and armgeo lat, or the use of the longer version of the Life (inelud-
ing the Penitenee) by the eopyist responsible for the text of R M . T he

20 “ T he Original Form of the Life of Adam and Eve: a Froposal,” in: Anderson et at.,
Literature on Adam and Eve, 215-231; cf. M. de Jonge, “ The Literary D evelopm ent of the
 JOHANNES TROMP

latter alternative entails m ore e o !^ lie a tio n s: the au thor of the R M -text
would have chosen to copy a short form of the Life, b u t insert an
extraet from another form of the sam e work, and move it to a plaee
he found m ore c ita b le . If, however, the P e^ten ee-story was adopted
independently from a third w riting by both the authors of the R M -
and the armgeo lat-text, this eom plieation does not arise. In any event,
some seenario of this kind m ust be assum ed to aeeount for the pres-
enee of the abbreviated Penitence-story in R M 29:7-13, as well as the
seeondary nature of armgeo lat as eom pared to L C A T (and possibly RM )
on the o th er.^
It now rem ains to be exeluded th at lat is the souree of armgeo and
R M . In so far as the Latin text represented by ang Meyer is eoneerned,
this has been shown by M .E. Stone.22 T h e text of Rr in 42:1-5 is obvi-
ously related to that of armgeo, and is, with its C hristianized tendeney,
seeondary to the eorm sponding passage in LAC R 13:3-5.23 Therefore,
lat eannot be the souree of R M
It is now possible to sketeh a history of the textual developm ent of
the Life of Adam and Eve in the armgeo lat b ran eh , ineluding MaPr. It
seems to m e that the following points, m ost of them eited by Pettorelli
in the artiele preeeding this one, allow the following m eonstruetion of
the genealogieal relationships within the armgeo lat braneh.
1. T h e addition of Miserere mei, domine in 19:1, an d th at of the prayer
to G od in 35(9):2 show th at all extant Latin texts derive from a text-
form in w hieh these additions were m ade: lat. This text-form is not
the one underlying the original A rm enian an d G eorgian franslations
of the Life of Adam and Eve.
2. Conversely, lat is not depen d en t on armgeo, beeause of 40(13):1.
In that instanee, armgeo rem ark th at Seth an d Eve supplieated G od to
send them an angel. This phrase is supplem ented in Pr (cf. ang Meyer)
by the phrase eis dare oleum misencordie sue, w hich eorresponds to gr και
δώσει αύτοίς το ελαιον το‫>؟‬έλέου.
3. T h e explieit m ention of C ain an d Abel in 22(2):3(1) in Pr ang
Meyer shows th at these texts deseend from a single aneestor that is not

21 De Jonge, “ T he Literary Developm ent,” 248-249.

22 The Penitence of Adam (CSCO 430. Seriptores arm eniaei 14), x-xvii; see also G.A.
Anderson, “ T he Penitence N arrative in the Life of Adam and E vef Hebrew Union College
Annual 03 (1992), 1-38; here quoted from the reprint in: Anderson et at., Literature on
Adam and Eve, 3-42, esp. 6-13.
23 M .E. Stone, “T he Angelie Predietion in the Prim ary Adam Books,” in: Anderson
et at., Literature on Adam and Eve, 111-131, esp. 121-124.
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OE THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EVE

an ancestor of M a, w hich retains the unspecific, am biguous phrase et

manserunt in unum also reflected in armgeo (see further the omission of ira
in 3:2 in Pr ang Meyer as opposed to the correct reading in 4‫(سة‬.
4. Ma, however, contains 23-‫ ل‬only. T herefore, it is excluded that
Pr ang Meyer descend from M a (see afso the secondary phrase propter nos
in M a 3:2). M a m ust therefore be considered as a copy of lat, not as
lat itself.
5. Pr does not descend from ang Meyer, because it retains the phrase
et filius pugnabat earn ea in 37(10):1, with gr an d armgeo, b u t against the
omission in ang Meyer.
6. Because in apocryphal literature omissions aim ed at abbreviating
and Amplifying the text cannot as a rule be counted as conjunctive,
the omission discussed in the preceding p arag rap h does not im ply a
conjunction of ang an d Meyer. H ow ever, the presence of an abbrevi-
ated form of Eve’s speech (fully extant in gr an d armgeo) in Pr strongly
suggests th at ang Meyer jointly represent a single edition of the Eatin
text, in w hich the last rem n an t of her discourse was rem oved— it is
highly unlikely that exactly this passage was skipped on no less than
four occasions (five being the n u m b er of Latin hyparchetypes distin-
guished by Pettorelli).^
7. ang Meyer do not depend on Pr, w hich strongly abbreviates A d am ’s
speech in 33(7)-34(8)‫ و‬w hereas ang Meyer rem ain close to the text rep-
resented by armgeo. T he curtailm ent m ust therefore go back to the copy-
ist of Pr or one of his im m ediate predecessors.
8. ang does not d epend on Meyer. T h e pluses in ang, du b b ed by
M ozley as “additional phrases”,^ are also present in Pr (as well as in
geo), and m ust therefore be omissions in MeyerF
9. Meyer does not depend on ang, as appears from 2:2 (cf. armgeo
3:1), where Meyer reads the original in paradiso, whereas ang has the
secondary reading primitus.
T h ese p o in ts, as w ell as th e p o in ts m a d e above to prove the
conjunction of E C A T an d with armgeo lat, can be gm phically
presented as follows.

24 Cf. Pettorelli, ALMA 1998, 94-102.

25 Apocrypha 1999.
26 Mozley, “T he Vita AdaeP 122-128; see Pettorelli above, “Deux témoins,” 3-5.
27 Cf. the eomparison of Ma with ang and geo by Pettorelli, ALM A 1998, 78-93.
40 JOHANNES TROMP

'on th a t m o m e n t’

a d d itio n o f the m o tif o f G o d ’s jealo u sy

f o i s t ia n i z a ti o n o f 42(13): Id

a d d itio n o f the Miserere

:plicit m en tio n o f G ain a n d A bel

Rem oval o f E v e’s speeeh

LGAT RM slav arm geo Ma Pr ang Meyer

Conclusions

Obviously, M a an d Pr are of prim e im portanee for the establish-

m ent of the original Latin version of the Life of Adam and Eve. Until
Pettorelli’s laborious task of editing the five m ain text-forms of it on
the basis of the evidenee of all 106 m anuseripts now known, the exaet
value of these two m anuseripts eannot be estim ated. M aybe m ore m an-
useripts supporting the MaPr-text will eom e to light. Some provisional
eonelusions, however, ean already be draw n.
T h e new evidence from M a Pr shows that the edition of M eyer is
u se ep tib le of eorreetion. O n num erous oeeasions, m anuseript readings
relegated to M eyer’s ^ p a r a tu s , ap p ear to agree with readings in arm-
geo, M a Pr or ang, or a e o !^ in a tio n of these witnesses, and are there-
fore eertain to refleet the original reading of lat, so that they should
be adopted in the m ain text of Meyer. Pettorelli has already pointed to
3:2: there, putas fac me in M eyer’s m ain text is eorrupt. T he reading
putas ne moriar fame in M a (cf. arm Pr ang) vindieates that of several m an-
useripts in M eyer’s ^ p a r a tu s .
In 9:2, the reading et repausa of Meyer’s elasses II and III is supported
by armgeo M a Pr ang, an d should be adopted in the text of Meyer. In
35(9): 1‫ و‬M eyer’s m ain reading talibus is now overruled by the agree-
m ent on tantis in his elasses II an d III with ang and Pr.
 THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF AD A M AND EV E 41

N o doubt, the list ean easily be m ade m uch lo nger.^ H owever, as

long as the edition of the Latin text-form s by Pettorelli is in progress,
it w ould be useless to undertake a eorreetion of M eyer’s edition. Both
his and M ozley’s texts m ay be expeeted to be entirely superseded by
the editions u n d er R e p a ra tio n by Pettorelli .‫وأ‬
It should be stressed, however, th at the habit of taking M eyer’s edi-
tion as the point of referenee for the Latin Life of Adam and Eve should
as of now be abandoned. M oreover, no other text should be allowed
to take its favoured position, not even Pr itself, w hieh, as was pointed
out in the previous seetions, is a eurtailed reeension of lat. Those inter-
ested in the text of the original Latin franslation of the G reek Life of
Adam and Eve, will have to resign themselves to the fact th at the new
eritieal edition of lat will not be available for some years, and th at in
the m eantim e they will have to undertake the cum bersom e task of eom-
paring all texts, including their ^ p a ra tu s e s , now at our disposal, and
deeide for themselves w hat the reading of lat was.
T h e evidenee of MaPr suggests th at a reconstruction of lat will result
in a text-form w hich strongly resem bles that of armgeo, not yet eharae-
terized by the typieal inner Latin developm ents. T ogether with the evi-
denee of armgeo, lat will probably prove to be an im portant witness to
the text of the L C A T RM^/tf^-branch of the G reek Life of Adam and Eve.

28 T o M eyer’s honour, it should be noted that his eonjeeture surgamus in 3:4 is now
confirmed by Pr.
29 The South-G erm an redaetion has been published by J.-P. Pettorelli in “La Vie
latine d ’Adam et Ève,” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin du Cange) 56 ( 1 8 ‫) وو‬,
6-164, esp. 41-62. M r. Pettorelli expeets to publish his edition of the Rhinelandish
recension of the Life of Adam and Eve in this and next year’s issues of the Archivum
Ijitinitatis Medii Aevii (Bulletin D u Cange).
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.