Johannes TRO M P

Leiden University

THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE LITERARY
DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREEK LIFE
OF AD AM AND EVE

Cette contribution veut montrer que l ’histoire textuelle de la Vie

grecque d’Adam et Eve se caractérise autant par l ’omission que par
l ’insertion intentionnelles de certains passages. En outre, dans le do­
maine de la critique textuelle, les arguments littéraires utilisés ordi­
nairement pour défendre ou nier l ’ancienneté relative d ’une forme
longue en comparaison d ’une brève et vice versa, s ’avèrent non vala­
bles. L ’établissement du texte le plus primitif doit être fondé sur des
arguments strictement stemmatologiques; ce n ’est qu ’après la recons­
truction de l ’archétype de la tradition manuscrite entière qu ’il devient
possible de déceler les motifs qui peuvent avoir mené un copiste-rédac­
teur à allonger ou à abréger le texte.

In this contribution it is argued that the textual history of the Greek

Life of Adam and Eve is characterized as much by omissions as by
additions. Moreover, the literary arguments that are commonly used
in the text-critical debate on the priority of a longer or shorter reading
have proved to be useless. The most primitive text should be establish­
ed on purely text-critical, stemmatic grounds. Only then can a co­
pyist ’s or editor’s motivations for having apparently added or omitted
a specific passage be recovered.

It has often been noted that the history of transmission of the

Life o f Adam and Eve has been extremely dynamic. The manu­
scripts represent a large number of various text forms, revealing
that many copyists have been intervening in the story in an ac­
tive and creative way. The problems this poses for the textual
critic are intricate and demand great methodological rigour.
In the recent discussion on the various text forms of the
Greek Life o f Adam and Eve and their interrelationships, atten­
tion has been focused on the historical priority of either the
“short” or the “long” text forms. Although the terms “long”
and “short” in themselves are exaggerations, because the extras
of the “long” version are of limited size only, these extras are
nonetheless of great importance. A decision for or against their

Apocrypha 14,2003, p. 257-275

258 J. TROMP

priority is crucial for establishing the exact position of the Ar­

menian, Georgian and Latin versions within the history of the
literary development of this writing. These versions, which re­
present an altogether different stage of development of the writ­
ing than the Greek version, include the elements which appear
as extras within the Greek tradition. If it can be proven that
these elements must have formed part of the earliest stage of the
Life o f Adam and Eve, then it can be concluded that the Greek
manuscripts containing “short” text forms represent an abbre­
viated hyparchetype. If, conversely, the extras in the “long”
Greek text would prove to be additions, the position of the
translations would be an entirely different one. So far, however,
in the text-critical debate no conclusive evidence for either posi­
tion has been brought forward.
In this contribution I shall restrict myself to the Life o f Adam
and Eve as it has been preserved in the Greek manuscripts. I
should like to make two main points: firstly, that arguments of a
literary nature, pleading for or against the priority of a reading
on the basis of narrative logic or language and style, should be
avoided in the text-critical discussion on the Life o f Adam and
Eve; secondly, that a purely text-critical, stemmatical approach
of the history of the transmission of this document results in a
more refined view on the intricacies of its development than an
approach employing the crude categories of “expanded” or “ab­
breviated” only. By the phrase “pure textual criticism,” I mean
that form of textual criticism which attempts to reconstruct the
genealogical relationships between manuscripts and the texts
they represent on the basis of “guiding errors” (Leitfehler).

1. How to distinguish an addition from an omission ? The useless­

ness o f literary arguments
For a reconstruction of the textual history of the Greek Life
o f Adam and Eve, it is an absolute requirement that the exact
genealogical interrelationships of the twenty-three available
manuscripts are established. Ah previous editors of the text
have failed to do so. As a result, the printed editions that have
been made so far, suffer to a certain degree from arbitrariness,
depending too heavily on the editors’ tastes and intuitions.
Tischendorf’s edition of 1866 is the clearest example of this.
Tischendorf had the texts of four manuscripts at his disposal: he
had transcribed the text of one of them, manuscript A from
Venice, in full. The text of this manuscript suddenly breaks off
at 36:3. Of manuscript D, from Milan, he says to have copied
only the beginning and the end. To judge from his apparatus, he
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 259

meant 1:1 -2:1 and 39:1-43:4. Tischendorf relied for parts of the
text of two other manuscripts, B and C, both from Vienna, on
the transcription by a certain Dr. Schenkl. The sigla B and C are
still used for these manuscripts, but it should be noted that
Tischendorf mixed up the texts of these manuscripts.1The main
text of his edition is that of manuscript A for 1:1-36:3 (at which
point the text of this manuscript breaks off), and that of B
(called C by Tischendorf) for the final part of the writing, 37:1­
43:4. Additionally, the text of manuscript D was occasionally
used to correct readings in the text of B.2 Why Tischendorf pre­
ferred A (and B) is nowhere explained. In short: Tischendorf’s
edition was based on a single, randomly selected manuscript
(A), complemented by the fictitious text of two mixed-up manu­
scripts (B/C), whereas a fourth manuscript, D, was practically
left out of consideration.
The shortcomings of this procedure were soon observed, ex­
cept that the confusion of the texts of B and C went unnoticed,
so that this ghost-manuscript continued to confuse the text-criti­
cal discussion for a long time. Two years after the appearance of
Tischendorf’s edition, A.M. Ceriani of Milan published manu­
script D in its entirety, noting that Tischendorf, because of a
lack of time, had grossly underestimated the importance of this
manuscript, and that his transcription was in need of correc­
tion.3 Unfortunately, the leaves containing sections 18-35 are
missing from this manuscript.
C. Fuchs, in the introduction to his translation of the Life o f
Adam and Eve underlined the importance of manuscript D.4
Moreover, he had two more manuscripts at his disposal: E and F.
Essentially, however, Fuchs’s procedure was the same as that of
Tischendorf, the only real difference being that the readings of D
were more frequently preferred to those of A. However, because

1. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, pp. 37-38. It is likely that the confusion weis due
to Tischendorf, and not to his Austrian collaborator. Tischendorf is noted
for having worked in a hasty and slipshod manner, whereas Schenkl is not
(the Schenkl in question is probably Karl Schenkl [1827-1900], the famous
philologist and editor of Ambrose, not Heinrich Schenkl [1859-1919] who
could not have made the transcript in the early 1850’s; cf. Tischendorf,
Apocalypses, p. xii; Nagel, La Vie grecque II, pp. 57-58). Moreover, it is ea­
sier to confuse two transcripts in the same handwriting, than to mix up two
manuscripts whilst transcribing them.
2. Tischendorf, Apocalypses, p. 19.
3. Ceriani, “Apocalypsis Moysi,” pp. 19a-b.
4. “Das Leben Adams und Evas,” p. 507: “Die verhältnismäßig beste Text­
form hat D ” ; cf. already Ceriani, “Apocalypsis Moysi,” p. 19a, asserting
that the text of D “praestare ceteris libris adhibitis in editione [sc. a Tischen­
dorf].”
 260 J. TROMP

the genealogical relationships between all manuscripts involved

were hardly researched, the choice for the A- or D-text was made
entirely dependent on the editors’ and translators’ discretion.5
An example of this is found in section 13 of the Greek Life o f
Adam and Eve. There, it is related that Eve and Seth travel to
the gates of paradise, to ask God to give to them some of the oil
from the mercy-tree, with which they would be able to soothe
the suffering of Adam, who is about to die. The archangel Mi­
chael answers Seth that he will not receive it now.
In manuscripts A and C, this answer is followed by an exposi­
tion on the time when this oil will be given to Adam and his pos­
terity, namely in the end of time, when humankind, purified
from sin, will live in paradise, together with God. This passage,
because of its eschatological content conveniently designated as
the “apocalypse” of 13:3b-5, will play an important role in the
rest of my contribution. Therefore, I let it follow here. Two
more manuscripts which have become known in the meantime,
L and R, also contain this passage. From manuscript T, which
is very close to A, the leaf which must have contained the pas­
sage, is missing. Remarkably, manuscript M, which is generally
acknowledged to represent the same text as R, does not contain
this passage (I shall return to this question below). Michael’s
answer to Seth, ou yev/joeTod aot vuv, in manuscripts CAL R is
continued with the following passage:

aXX’ ett’ sayaT tov tö v Tjpipcov, ote avaaT T jasT at tzolgol aocpE,
2 oltzo ’ASaji. ea><; z f ^ 7]ptipa<; exeivt;^ z f ^ ptsyaXT^, oaoi ectovtou
Xao<; a y t o 4 tote auTott; SoOvjcreTai Tiaaa eutppocruvT) tou tox-
4 pa&etaou xai ecrrai ó 0eo<; sv ptéaw auT&v. 5 xai oux eaovTat
STi sqa[i,apTavovTS(; svcotuov ocutou, cm apÜY)asTOU 7) xapoia y]
6 TrovTjpa in’ a u T « v xai SoOvjcreTai auTOÏ? xap&ia auveTi^opivT]
to aya0ov xai XaTpeuetv 0s« ptóvw.

1 tcov Yjpiepcov] xaipcov C; tcov xaipcov A • ote] tote CA 2 exeivyjc; tyjs pieya-
Xy]?] tyjs ouvteXy)? C; exeivyjc; R • oaoi] oaoi auTOi? C; tote R 3 auTOi?] om.
L 4 ev piEaco] ava ixecjov R • xai oux] oti auTOi C 5 eti] om. C; replaced be­
fore EaovTai R 5-6 yj xapSia Y) 7rovYjpa arc auTCOv] arc auTCOv Y) xapSia Y) (yj:
om. L) 7rovY]pa AL; yj xapSia auTCOv C 6 xai So0YjaETai] om. C • auTOi? xap­
Sia] om. C R 6-7 auvETi^opiEVY] to ayaOov (to ayaOov: tco ayaOco C) xai Xa-
TpEUEiv Oeco piovco (piovov replaced before Oeco C)] 0 eco XaTpsiav piovco R

5. Wells, who for his translation in Charles’s collection had made no inde­
pendent study of the manuscripts, took manuscripts D and B/C as “the chief
guides,” but followed “one of the others” where the former were “unsatis­
factory” (“The Books of Adam and Eve,” p. 125).
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 261

As Fuchs noted, this passage is lacking “in most manu­

scripts” (in his case, the witnesses for the passage were A and C
[designated as B following Tischendorf]; it was absent from
BDEF). “Nonetheless, ” he added, “this could well be original,
because it agrees with what is said in section 28, and because
one expects some kind of comfort for Adam.”6 However, the
very same points can also be used to argue that this passage is
not original: a copyist may well have felt that Michael’s answer
as he found it was harsh and, in light of the promises made in
section 28, not the full truth; therefore he may have decided to
supplement words of comfort, so that the passage is best re­
garded as an addition. Clearly, arguments such as used by Fuchs
can be used for either position, especially if the historical rela­
tionships between the various text forms are left unclear.7
Genealogical research was done by J.L. Sharpe and M. Na­
gel. Sharpe’s dissertation of 1969 was not published and has ex­
erted little direct influence.8 The work by Nagel, published five
years later, has often been praised for its accuracy and compre­
hensiveness.9 Nagel, who had twenty-three manuscripts at his
disposal, made a thorough investigation of all the similarities
and differences between them. He concluded that the witnesses
of the text could be classed into three main groups: one contain­
ing D, with a sub-group containing A and C; a second contain­
ing E and F ; and a third consisting of manuscripts previously
unknown; manuscript B was left unclassified. Nagel’s main cri­
terion for this classification was that of text form. Almost all
manuscripts appeared to represent text forms which are the re­
sult of clearly recognizable, diverse editorial interventions. The
manuscripts were grouped together on the basis of their repre­
senting one of these revisions.
According to Nagel, the most primitive text form was mainly
represented by manuscripts DS and CATL, the former being
characterized by a number of common deteriorations of the
text,10 the latter by a relatively large number of additions.11
None of their specific characteristics are found in manuscript V,

6. Fuchs, “Das Leben Adams und Evas,” p. 509; cf. Stone, “The Angelic
Prediction,” pp. 128-131.
7. Cf. the discussion in Eldridge, Dying Adam, pp. 137-140.
8. It was used by M.D. Johnson for his translation in The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. On the shortcomings of this translation, see Bertrand, La
Vie grecque, pp. 39-40. A summary of Sharpe’s findings can be found in
Merk and Meiser, “Das Leben Adams und Evas,” pp. 751-754.
9. Cf., however, the mild criticism of Bertrand, La Vie grecque, p. 39.
10. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, pp. 9-10.
11. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, pp. 48-51.
262 J. TROMP

which Nagel believed to give a very pure rendering of the arche­

type, albeit in a strongly abbreviated form.12
However, having grouped together the manuscripts on ac­
count of their text forms, Nagel failed to answer two very perti­
nent questions: (1) how are these revisions genealogically
related to each other? And immediately following from this: (2)
how can one be sure that the text form represented by the
CATL-group represents an expanded version of the text? Nagel
maintained that the CATL-group is characterized by the fre­
quent presence of shorter or longer additions as compared to
the text of DS and V.13 However, it has since been argued that
in most instances the opposite is more likely, and that the text of
DS is characterized by its omission of several shorter or longer
passages.14 Moreover, in the ensuing discussion about the prior­
ity of either text form, it has again become clear that the literary
arguments which were usually used in the debate on this matter,
are unfit for the purpose.15 Some passages can be explained as
clarifications of a shorter text, and hence as additions, but an
equally good case can often be made for the opposite scenario :
superfluous details were omitted, presumably for reasons of
economy. The story of the Life o f Adam and Eve is as fluent or
clumsy with or without these phrases : their absence causes nar­
rative lacunae and irregularities- and so does their presence.16
Nagel did produce a stemma codicum, but only a partial one,
including no more than eight manuscripts representing three
text forms: the so-called “short” text form of manuscripts D
and S, an expanded version of this text form represented by
CATL, and a revision of the latter in R and M .17 Another revi­
sion, represented by eleven manuscripts of which NI and HE are
the most important ones, is left out. Nagel characterizes this text
form as a “shallow redactional revision” of little interest.18 He
comments: “Elle représente l ’œuvre d ’un copiste qui, sans tou-

12. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, pp. 19-20. For convenient summaries of Na­
gel’s results, see Bertrand, La Vie grecque, pp. 43-45; Merk and Meiser,
“Das Leben Adams und Evas,” pp. 742-751.
13. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, pp. 48-51.
14. Eldridge, Dying Adam, pp. 112-113.
15. Cf. Eldridge, Dying Adam, p. 100.
16. This conclusion is also valid in the case of the discussion about the prior­
ity of the Greek version or the Armenian/Georgian versions; cf. the discus­
sions in Eldridge, Dying Adam, pp. 117-127, which at least (and perhaps at
most) show that arguments for either position, as long as they are based on
literary arguments, are unlikely to be conclusive.
17. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, p. 198.
18. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, p. 219.
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 263

cher au fond même de l ’original et sans y ajouter quelque élé­

ment étranger, se contente de changer par endroit la forme de
l ’écrit.” 19 If this is true, and I think it is, this text form is not of
little interest, but of the highest importance, and its exact rela­
tionship to the other branches of the tradition is an urgent mat­
ter.
Perhaps even more serious is Nagel’s failure to classify manu­
script V. He recognizes its importance as a text produced by a
copyist who had no intention whatsoever to make changes to
the text of his exemplar except to abbreviate it. Moreover, this
copy’s model must have represented the essence of the most
primitive text form. The text of manuscript V contains none of
the characteristics of either the DS-group, or the CATL-group.
Furthermore, Nagel has noted indications that suggest a certain
familiarity between its text and that of B and the NI HE-group,
but he felt that the facts were contradicting and allowed no firm
conclusion.20
As a result, such questions as posed by the different versions
of Michael’s answer to Seth’s prayer remained unanswerable.
In the provisional edition Nagel prepared for A.-M. Denis’ Con­
cordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d ’Ancien Testament, he
chose to include the long version, even if he had previously stat­
ed with great conviction that it was secondary, his main reason
being that it is inconceivable that a copyist would have left out
the promise of salvation for the eschatological future.21 How­
ever, this is exactly what must have happened to the text repre­
sented by manuscript M and the Slavonic version.22 Thus, the
argument that it is more likely that 13:3b-5 was added than that
it was left out, is nullified. I shall presently return to this matter.

19. Nagel, La Viegrecque I, p. 212.

20. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, pp. 19-20. It should be noted that his language
is somewhat less vague on pp. 50-51, where he seems to imply that the text
represented by V is also the one to which CATL secondarily testify. This,
however, is genealogically meaningless, if V and CATL have no secondary
readings in common: the common text which they represent may simply be
that of the archetype.
21. Nagel, La Viegrecque I, p. 51. D.-A. Bertrand, in his eclectic edition of
1987, did not include what he considered the addition of 13:3b-5 (Bertrand,
La Vie grecque, p. 78; cf. pp. 119-120); so also Knittel, Das griechische 'Le­
ben Adams und Evas pp. 224-225. That Nagel with this provisional edition
did not intend to offer the most primitive text form of the Greek Life o f
Adam and Eve (as supposed by Eldridge, Dying Adam, pp. 78, 83) is apparent
from the fact that he also included 29:7-13, present in manuscripts R and M
only (cf. Eldridge’s own comments on p. 91). On this passage, see below.
22. Nagel, La Vie grecque I, p. 88 ; cf. II, p. 122.
264 J. TROMP

In summary: if a stemma of the manuscripts of the Greek Life

o f Adam and Eve is to be drawn up, it must not be based on pas­
sages that may either be additions or omissions. The copyists of
this writing invested too much creativity for that approach to be
useful. Considerations of a literary nature, asking whether the
narrative logic of a story is better served with or without a cer­
tain passage, and measuring a reading with the standards of ele­
gance or consistency, will not work in the case of the Life o f
Adam and Eve,23 In any event, it can no longer be taken for
granted that wealth of detail is indicative of addition. In some
instances it appears, for instance, that lack of detail may as well
be due to the disinterest of a bored copyist who wanted cut short
his task.

2. Omissions and the motivations to omit

This brings us to the question of omissions in the history of

the manuscript tradition of the Greek Life o f Adam and Eve. I
will not be speaking about accidental omissions, caused by
homoioteleuton or other forms of parablepsis, or by physical
damage suffered by the exemplar, but only about omissions as
an editorial activity, bearing witness to the conscious decision
on the part of a copyist not to include a passage from his exem­
plar in his copy. The reasons for these decisions can be mani­
fold, and should be investigated in each individual case in each
manuscript.
In this connection I should like to draw attention to the final
part of the Greek Life o f Adam and Eve. Towards the end of the
writing, almost all copyists of this writing can be observed to ab­
breviate the story in some way or another. The copyist of manu­
script V (or its exemplar), retains most of the text of sections 1­
23, even if he tried to be economic. From section 24 onwards,
however, drastic cuts are made, and only those elements are
adopted that are absolutely necessary to let the story continue
and bring it to a close.24 His main reason seems to have been to
save parchment or reading time.25
A stunning example is that of the text represented by manu­
scripts AT. In 36:3 it is told how Seth explains to his mother
Eve that the sun and the moon appear as black figures, because

23. Cf. Knittel, Das griechische “Leben Adams undEvas, "pp. 84-92.
24. See, for instance, the major cuts in 24:2-26:3, and the omission of 34;
40:6; 43:3-4.
25. Nagel, La Viegrecque I, p. 17.
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 265

they cannot shine before the Light of all things, the Father of
lights, meaning of course God. In the text of AT, however, the
following reading is found: “they cannot shine before the Light
of all things, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now
and forever, until all eternity. Amen.” After that, the text
breaks off. It cannot be ruled out that the model of this text was
physically defective, but one gets the strong impression that this
copyist felt that it had taken long enough, and welcomed the oc­
casion to quit when he came across the word TOXTpo«;.
In sections 32-37 of the earliest text form of the Life o f Adam
and Eve it is told how Adam is pardoned after Eve, the angels
and the sun and the moon have said intercessory prayers. In sec­
tion 38 a new part of the story begins. God mourns over the
body of Adam and promises him his restoration in the eschato­
logical future. Then it is related with great detail how God and
the angels take care of Adam’s and Abel’s bodies and bury them
in a monument near paradise, followed by Eve’s death and bu­
rial. This last part of the story, sections 39-43, was apparently
too much for many copyists. Most of it is left out in the text of
the HE-group. The copyist of manuscript R (or its exemplar)
confined himself to some major outlines, and in almost all cop­
ies details here and there are suppressed.
The only text form of which the editor shows real interest in
the funerary details is that of NI.26 In this passage, manuscripts
NI offer quite a number of readings which are unique to the text
form they represent. On the basis of stemmatic arguments it can
be shown that most of these extras in NI must be additions.27
Most of these additions are minor phrases which serve to slow
down the advancement of the story. For instance, when the ear­
liest text form can be reconstructed as having read “And Eve
prayed” (42:4), the text of NI reads: “And when she was about
to give up her soul from her body, she stood up and prayed.”
From this and other examples it appears that the editor of the
NI text was prone to make additions to this part of the story,
which he apparently found interesting and important.
It should be noted, however, that this tendency to add does
not disqualify each and every extra in NI as an addition. A de­
celerating phrase is found in 40:2. There it is said that God com­
manded the angels to fetch cloths and balsam from paradise.
The text of NI continues: to t e ETroiTjcrav toxvtoc ol aytot ayyeXot
xa0d><; 7Tpocj£Tay07;cjav utto tou 0eou. No scholar has adopted
this phrase in the modern printed editions. However, in this in-

26. Cf. Levison, “The Exoneration and Denigration,” pp. 269-273.

27. For the stemmatic classification of NI, see below.
266 J. TROMP

stance, the reading of NI is supported by B (xai, outco<; Troivjcrav-

and M (xai, STTOiTjaav d><; T ip o asT a^ sv xupio? 6 0eo<;), as well
t e <;)
as the Armenian and Georgian versions (48[40] :2). This example
shows how acutely aware we must be of both possibilities: be­
cause of his interest in the detail of this part of the story, the edi­
tor responsible for NI has added quite a few phrases, absent
from the other witnesses. At the same time, however, most other
manuscripts represent texts made by editors who had little inter­
est in this part of the story, and had no qualms about omitting
phrases which were not absolutely necessary. What is an addi­
tion on one occasion, may well be an omission on another.
At this point, a few remarks concerning the nature and status
of apocryphal literature as compared to canonical or otherwise
classical literature are in order.28
Writings that were in the process of reaching classical status
were still very much susceptible of being expanded, for instance
by liturgical formulae, passages from parallel writings of equal
status, or simply because a copyist found the text he was tran­
scribing so important, that he felt that a certain element should
not be lacking. Such writings were copied because they were con­
sidered as authoritative, and the words contained in them were
valuable per se. Making additions to authoritative books can be
seen as an expression of a copyist’s desire to further enhance
their value, or perhaps, from a less noble motivation, to lend the
authority of the copied work to some of the scribe’s own convic­
tions. In any event, it is unlikely that words or whole passages
were deliberately changed or deleted.29 These are the grounds
for the text-critical rule of thumb of lectio brevior potior : the
shorter reading is more likely to be original than the longer.
This principle appears not to be valid for apocryphal litera­
ture. Copyists of apocryphal literature, in contrast to canonical
or otherwise classical literature, apparently felt free not only to
add material to the texts they were transmitting, but also to de­
lete parts of it. This must reflect a relatively low status of these
texts in the eyes of the copyists. Deliberate omissions indicate
that the exact wording of the text was not considered important,
and that the story that was told was believed to be in need of
amelioration.30

28. For the following paragraphs, cf. Picard, Le continent apocryphe, pp. 4,
284-287; Tromp, “Zur Edition apokrypher Texte” (forthcoming).
29. Cf. Bertrand, La Vie grecque, p. 47.
30. In none of its stages of development, does the Life o f Adam and Eve seem
to have been regarded as a “well-established text” which was to be treated
with respect, as Eldridge, Dying Adam, pp. 240,255-256, suggests.
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 267

The mere fact of copying of course shows that the writing was
not deemed altogether negligible. On the contrary, the produc­
tion of heavily abbreviated copies may even be seen as a form of
preserving what was felt to be the essence of the writing in an ea­
sily handled way. In the case of the Life o f Adam and Eve it was
apparently the message of the story rather than the exact written
text that was important to the copyists. Apocryphal literature,
then, was thought to contain truths, but writings of this kind
were not considered authoritative by themselves.
From this it follows that a copyist’s interpretation of the text
he was transcribing, that is, the way in which he envisaged its
purpose, could have great consequences for how he chose to
transmit it. It also explains why most manuscripts represent
texts characterized by both addition and omission. The copyist
who decided to transmit it in writing had already formed an idea
of what the story was about (probably being familiar with the
story through oral tradition). In many cases he will have pro­
duced a copy in which the point of the story, as he perceived it,
was intensified by omitting details which did not contribute to
it, and adding details which accentuated it.
To illustrate this point, I propose that we return to the ques­
tion of Michael’s answer to Seth’s prayer, and investigate why
the “apocalypse” of 13:3b-5 was left out in manuscript M and
the Slavonic version.31 As was noted by Fuchs, related content
matter occurs in section 28 of the Greek Life o f Adam and Eve.
Remarkably, this section 28 is also absent from manuscript M
and the Slavonic version; moreover, in this instance, manuscript
R (which had retained 13:3b-5) does not contain these lines,
either. Therefore, the suspicion arises that successive copyists res­
ponsible for this text form may not have been interested in pro­
mises for the eschatological future, and this is confirmed in other
instances. In sections 38-39, according to the main tradition, it is
described how the angels sing hymns on the future joy for Adam,
and God addresses the deceased Adam, promising him that he
will once again be restored to his heavenly throne. It is a rela­
tively long passage, and it is entirely missing in RMs/av.32

31. For a different evaluation of the tendencies of the text of RM than that
offered in the following paragraphs, see Levison, Texts in Transition, pp. 25­
30. According to Levison, the RM-text is mainly characterized by the re­
moval of emotions and pathos of the leading figures in the narrative (cf. pp.
42-44). This observation is not inconsistent with my own views. Levison has
paid no attention to the omission o f 13:3b-5 in M and the Slavonic version.
32. With the siglum RM^/av I indicate that particular Greek text form to
which manuscripts R, M and the Greek text underlying the Slavonic version
jointly bear witness.
268 J. TROMP

This is not to suggest that the editor of the RMs/av-text had

objections to the concept of a happy eschatological future lying
in store for humankind. The apocalypse of 13:3b-5 is still pre­
sent in R, and a brief reference to the day of resurrection is pre­
sent in 41:2 RM (47:3 according to the Slavonic numbering).
However, this editor was of the opinion that the point of the
story of Adam and Eve was a different one. The copyist of
manuscript M (or its exemplar) has even changed the title of the
work in this sense: whereas in most manuscripts the inscription
reads something like “The Story and the Life of Adam and
Eve,” manuscript M entitles the writing “The Story of Adam’s
creation, expulsion and death.” According to modern inter­
preters, the Greek Life o f Adam and Eve was originally written
with a two-sided message, contrasting the certainty of death
with the hopeful prospect of eternal life.33 No doubt, the editor
of RMs/av shared those beliefs, but he did not think that they
were or should be the subject of a story about Adam and Eve,
which he regarded as a lesson that sin is inexorably punished by
misery and death.
Another major deliberate omission from the model used by
the editor of RMs/av is that of 23:4-26:4, the passage in which
God condemns Adam, Eve, and the serpent in succession. Ac­
cording to RMs/av God, on discovering that Adam and Eve
have sinned, has them sent from paradise without delay (27:2).
In the curses as recorded in the other text forms of the Greek
Life o f Adam and Eve, as well as in Genesis, G od’s reasons for
the punishment of Adam, Eve and the serpent are given. By
leaving G od’s grounds for his decision out, the editor of RMs/av
suggests that God cannot be called to account for his actions.
After this, RMs/av again joins the rest of the manuscript tra­
dition for 27:2-4. Adam entreats the angels to stop expelling
him. As they comply, Adam begs God for pardon. God, how­
ever, does not answer him, but asks the angels why they have
stopped chasing Adam, and if they are perhaps of the opinion
that it is God who has sinned. In response, the angels acknowl­
edge G od’s righteousness (27). The next passage, in which God
turns to Adam to explain that he will neither allow him to stay
in paradise, nor give him fruit from the tree of life (28:1-29:1),
is again deleted from RMs/av. Again, therefore, the editor has
wanted to avoid a scene in which God is depicted as speaking di­
rectly to Adam. What follows is retained: Adam is permitted to

33. With variable degrees of emphasis on the centrality of this motif or

theme, see, e.g., Levison, Portraits o f Adam, p. 174; Eldridge, Dying Adam,
pp. 226-230; Knittel, Das griechische "Leben Adams und Evas, "pp. 234-235.
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 269

fetch frankincense from paradise to offer to God when he will

be outside (29:2-6). However, the remark that he also received
“other seeds for his sustenance,” is omitted.
The tendency of these omissions is quite clear. The editor of
this text portrays God as a judge whose verdicts need no justifi­
cation and cannot be negotiated. Also the reason why these
omissions were made seems clear. It cannot have been the sim­
ple desire to abbreviate the story, for this scene is followed by a
large addition, unique to the text of RMs/av.34 In this addition it
is related to Adam and Eve, finding that there is nothing to eat
for them outside paradise, decide to do penance by standing in
the river for a long period. According to RM, however, their ef­
fort fails, because the devil, disguising himself as an angel, se­
duces Eve for the second time by convincing her to break off her
penance prematurely (29:7-13). This grim outcome matches the
purport of the preceding sections, from which Adam’s bargain­
ing for pardon or at least a lesser punishment was deleted in or­
der to portray God as an inexorable judge.35
If this is seen in combination with the tendency to omit refer­
ences to the eschatological salvation, it can be concluded that
this text form reveals an editor who delivered a sermon to his
audience in the worst Christian tradition, by threatening them
with hell and damnation. It should be acknowledged that in this
text form, too, Adam is eventually pardoned and assumed into
paradise in the third heaven, but not until after the hearers of
this version of the story have been made aware that sin is a mat­
ter to be taken very seriously, and not easily expiated by repen­
tance.
It is clear, then, why the copyist of manuscript M (or its ex­
emplar) omitted the apocalypse of 13:3b-5. His action must be
seen against the background of a particular understanding of
the story of Adam and Eve, which differs considerably from that
attested by the mainstream of the Greek tradition. Whereas
most Greek text forms seem to emphasize G od’s grace, offering

34. The story is also found in sections 1-17 of the Oriental and Latin ver­
sions, independent of the RM^/av text. The editors of the Greek text under­
lying the versions, and of the RMsfav text may have relied on a third,
written source. Alternatively, the editor of RM^/av knew the Greek text in­
cluding the penitence of Adam and Eve as found in the versions, the story of
which he epitomized and placed afer section 29 (cf. De Jonge, “The Literary
Development, ” pp. 248-249).
35. Anderson, “The Punishment,” p. 58, has noted that in the Life o f Adam
and Eve the mitigation of the punishment of Adam and Eve, as formulated
in their damnation after the fall, is an important motif. Strikingly, it is ex­
actly this motif that has been removed by the deletions in RMj/av.
270 J. TROMP

the comforting prospect of eschatological salvation, the editor

of RMs/av and successive copyists stress the austerity of G od’s
judgement and the necessity of avoiding sin. The omission of
13:3b-5 in M and the Slavonic version is consistent with this in­
terpretation of the story, and hence of the writing copied, the
Life o f Adam and Eve.
The presence of 13:3b-5 in manuscript R proves that its ab­
sence from M is the result of an omission, and part of a sus­
tained strategy of revising the document by omission as much as
addition. It can also be concluded that the presence of this pas­
sage in manuscripts CAL and R is no evidence that the text
form underlying them is secondary to that represented by the
rest of the Greek tradition. The case of manuscript M does show
that editorial interventions in the text are not restricted to addi­
tions, as seems to be the case with authoritative literature, but
may as well consist of intentional, well-considered omissions. In
passing, it may be noted that the text form of RMs/av has occa­
sioned a revision of the document in the Slavonic version,
which, because it turns the penance of Adam and Eve into a vic­
tory over the devil, has an altogether happy outcome.36

3. The earliest text form o f the Greek Life of Adam and Eve; the
case o f 13:3b-5
Next I turn to the question raised before, whether 13:3b-5 is
added to CAL R, or omitted from DS. Since this passage is also
absent from the manuscripts left unclassified by Nagel, it is clear
that a closer investigation of their position in the genealogical
network of the manuscripts is crucial. If the text they represent
is independent of both that of DS and that of the CATL-group,
as Nagel suggested,37 the absence of 13:3b-5 in them weighs
heavily in favour of the secondary nature of these lines.
In the context of this contribution it is impossible to demon­
strate in full the genealogical coherence of VB and the NI HE-
group on the one hand, and the independence of the text of their
ancestor of that of DS and the CATL-group, on the other. Some
brief indications, especially with regard to manuscripts V and B,
must suffice.38

36. De Jonge and Tromp, The Life o f Adam and Eve, pp. 24-25.
37. See also the clarification of Nagel’s view in Merk and Meiser, “Das Le­
ben Adams und Evas,” pp. 746-747.
38. The argument for the genealogical link between the VB- the NI HE-
groups is complicated by the fact that many representatives of these groups
contain individual revisions, mainly by omission (V), rephrasing of words
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 271

For the conjunction of V and B, the evidence is sparse, mainly

because the copyist of B (or its exemplar) has made a drastic re­
vision of its text, often by replacing words with synonyms.
Nonetheless, I think that the evidence that can be gathered is de­
cisive. The main facts in this respect are the following. In 5:1 it
is said that Adam brought forth “thirty sons and thirty daugh­
ters.” Both in V and in B this is replaced by the briefer, but ade­
quate expression “sixty sons and daughters.”39 A similarly
intelligent abbreviation, economizing on words but saving the
meaning, is found in 27:5, where all manuscripts bear witness to
a text reading: t o t e ot ayyeAot ttecjovte:; etu ttjv yvjv Trpoasxu-
VTjcrav r a xupi«. Both V and B read instead: to t e ot ayyeAot
npoaenea(x.v t w xupioi, compressing a phrase of five words ( tte-
ct6 vte <; E7U tt ]v yvjv 7rpocj£xuv7;cjav) into one well-chosen word
(npoaenea(x.v). There are a few more instances in which V and B
have readings in common against the rest of the tradition, but in
those instances it cannot be ruled out that their agreement is due
to coincidence. Cumulatively, however, they may serve as corro­
boration of the evidence just cited for the conjunction of these
two manuscripts.
The text to which V and B together bear witness, is indepen­
dent of those of DS on the one hand, and the CATL-group on
the other, because it contains none of the secondary characteris­
tics of either.40 This leads to the conclusion that the archetype of

(B), or forthright substitutions of sentences for others (NI HE). The main ar­
gument is based on 16:2-3. There, ATG (members of the VB-group) and NI
can be seen to agree in reading cppovifio? el and 9 p6v1.ii.ov ovra respectively.
Next, B reads 81a touto auii.pouAeuoii.ai aoi, more or less corresponding to
xai pouAoiiai aoi Gapprjaai 7rpayiia xai auiiPouAeuaaaOai in NI HE; in this
instance V seems to agree with DS in having no corresponding reading, but
in reality V retains 81a touto (not recorded by Nagel), which can be seen as
a remnant of the text represented also by B. The text in CAL RM has a dif­
ferent addition, using entirely different words, and is most probably inde­
pendent of that in VB NI HE (cf. Levison, “The Exoneration and
Denigration, ” p. 262). It is likely that the reading in ATG, xai axouaov p.00,
was also present in the text from which VB and the NI HE-group descend:
in 16:3, NI HE have replaced the devil’s question as posed in the most pri­
mitive form of the text by an altogether different remark, followed by
e7taxouaov piou. Among the instances mentioned by Nagel, La Vie grecque
II, p. 29, 0? in 3 :2 may be singled out not for proving the coherence of these
witnesses, but at least for supporting its supposition. See further Seurepa in
8 :2; and axoAouGei p.01 xai Scoaco aoi in 18:5-19:1.
39. Compare, by contrast, the briefer expression in ATL: “thirty sons.”
40. For a list of secondary characteristics of DS, see Nagel, La Vie grecque
I, p. 10; although one might not agree with all items in this list, the second­
ary character of the text of DS in many of these instances is certain (pace
Knittel, Das griechische “Leben Adams undEvas, "p. 83).
272 J. TROMP

the Life o f Adam and Eve was copied three times; from these
three copies, all extant manuscripts eventually descend.41 This
implies that if one would want to defend the view that the pre­
sence of 13:3b-5 in CAL R reflects the earliest attainable text
form of the Life o f Adam and Eve, one would have to show the
likelihood of the omission of exactly this passage on two inde­
pendent occasions.42
Only through the study of the genealogical relationships of
the manuscripts (in which considerations of omission and addi­
tion must play no role in the discussions) can it be established
that the absence of 13:3b-5 in DS and VB is more primitive than
its presence in CAL R, which in turn represents an earlier stage
than M, from which 13:3b-5, together with the preceding
phrases in 13:2b-3a, was omitted as part of a systematic revision
of the document.

Concluding remarks

In his contribution to the discussion about the relationships

between the Greek and Armenian/Georgian versions of the Life
o f Adam and Eve, M.D. Eldridge has commented upon the exist­
ing viewpoints by classifying them as two opposing models for
explaining the literary development of apocryphal literature:
the “Growth by Accretion” model and the “Erosion of Particu­
larity” model. According to these models, the Life o f Adam and
Eve is assumed to have developed by its being constantly either
expanded, or simplified. I hope to have shown that the process
has probably been much more complicated. The absence or pre­
sence of a particular detail in one of the text forms of the Life
must be studied and explained in each and every case for each
and every text form separately.
As a final example, I should like to point to the episode told
in sections 10-12. There it is related how Seth and Eve, on their
way to paradise to fetch medicine for Adam, encounter a beast
which attacks Seth. However, Seth rebukes it and commands it
to go. This part of the story ends with the remark that the ani­
mal indeed left (xat STTopsuOv; zic, ttjv ctxtjvtjv auTOu), saying:
“Behold, I stand off from the image of God, ” a curiously abrupt
end to the episode (12:3). In manuscripts ATL R this final re-

41. For further substantiation of this claim, see my “Zur Edition apokry­
pher Texte. ”
42. It should be noted that the passage omitted in M is not exactly the same
passage as the one absent from DS VB NI HE.
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 273

mark is preceded by the phrase: “then the animal fled ( tote e<pu-
yev to 07]ptov) and left him wounded” . The absence of this
phrase from both DS and the VB NI HE-group43 shows that it is
an addition particular to the CATL RM-group, subsequently
omitted in both manuscripts C and M.
Only when it has been established that the phrase is secondary
can one explain why it was added (namely, to attenuate the
abruptness of the primary reading;44 its omission from C and M
is part of a larger omission, excluding also the words spoken by
the animal, intended to smoothen the narrative irregularity even
further). The fact that it is possible to give such explanations,
however, must not serve as an argument for its secondary char­
acter, for plausible explanations also exist for someone to have
omitted it.
Again, the Armenian and Georgian versions, generally held
to reflect a Greek text very close to that represented by the
CATL RM-group, also bear witness to the presence of the
phrase under discussion in the original armgeo text. The Geor­
gian version has retained it, but the Armenian has curtailed i t :
the latter retains only the phrase that the animal “fled, ” prob­
ably reflecting etpuyev from the secondary phrase, but leaves out
the reference to Seth’s wound, as well as the phrase contained in
the earliest text form: xcd e7topeu07] etc, ttjv ctxtjvtjv auTOU. The
reason for this may be gleaned from the Georgian version,
where Seth is made the subject of this last phrase: “and the
wounded man went to the hut of Adam his father” (39[12]:3).
In the next sentence, however, it is said that Seth and Eve re­
sumed their travel to paradise. If the armgeo text contained the
interpretation of 39(12) :3 as found in the Georgian version, it is
all too understandable that this absurd turn of the story was
omitted from the Armenian version.
This state of affairs was summarized by Eldridge as follows:
“the detail about Seth being wounded is left out of the Arme­
nian and the DSV but not the ATLC text of the Greek.”45 It is
clear, I believe, that such a summary is too brief in any event.
To conclude I should like to stress that I am well aware that
the earliest text form reconstructed by means of text-critical ar­
guments only, was itself no more than a copy of the original

43. For this passage, the testimony of V is lacking, due to am accidental

omission caused by homoioteleuton.
44. Anderson, “The Penitence Narrative,” p. 36, has suggested that this de­
tail is a reference to Gen. 3:15. If this is true, it does not imply that it was
“original,” as Eldridge, Dying Adam, p. 113, infers; cf. Bertrand, La Vie
grecque, p. 119.
45. Eldridge, Dying Adam, p. 113.
274 J. TROMP

document. It can be proven that in the single manuscript from

which all extant manuscripts eventually derive, corruptions re­
sulting from errors made while copying were present. Moreover,
this earliest traceable text form also contains irregularities, in­
consistencies and contradictions, partly due to the handiwork of
the document’s author, and partly due to the ever ongoing pro­
cess of both addition and omission, which must also have been
operative before the emergence of the present text’s archetype.
Maybe some of the additions in the text to which the manuscript
tradition as a whole testifies can be discovered, but that is the
domain of conjectural criticism.46 Also there may occur in­
stances at which the suspicion arises that something has been
omitted. However, what has been omitted is irretrievable.47

BIBLIOGRAPHY
G.A. Anderson, “The Penitence Narrative in the Life o f Adam and
Eve,” Hebrew Union College Annual6 (1997), pp. 105-134; here
quoted from G.A. Anderson et al., Literature on Adam and
Eve. Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepi-
grapha 15), Leiden 2000, pp. 3-42
—, “The Punishment of Adam and Eve in the Life of Adam and
Eve,” in: G.A. Anderson et al., Literature on Adam and Eve.
Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha
15), Leiden 2000, pp. 57-81
D.A. Bertrand, La Vie grecque d ’Adam et Eve. Introduction, texte,
traduction et commentaire (Recherches intertestamentaires 1),
Paris 1987
A.M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim
Bibliothecae Ambrosianae V, Milan 1868
A.-M. Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudepigraphes d ’Ancien
Testament, Louvain-la-Neuve 1987
M.D. Eldridge, Dying Adam with his Multiethnic Family. Under­
standing the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (Studia in Veteris
Testamenti pseudepigrapha 16), Leiden 2001

46. At this stage of my research, I would dare to suggest three cases in which
the earliest text form of the Greek Life o f Adam and Eve offers secondary ad­
ditions: (1) tov aSiacpoiTOV tov xaXoupevov and tov afjuXa|3ec; tov xaXoupe-
vov in 1:3, and tou ulou pou afjuXa|3ec; tou e7uXeyofji.evou in 2:2; (2) tout’
etmv Tyjt; e7n.0op.lat;, e7U0up.la yap etmv 7taa7); ap.apTiac, in 19:3; (3) xal
7]X0ov el? tov racpaSeiaov, xal exivijOrjaav 7tavTa Ta cpuTa tou mxpaSelaou
ox; 7ravTa? av0pd)7rou? yeyevvY]pevoo? ex tou ’ASap. vuaTa^ai onto Tvj? eu-
coSla?, ycupit; tou Eyj0 p.ovou oti eyeveTO xaOopcov tou 0eou exetOev 7rpo? to
aS>yux tou ’ASap. in 38:4-39:1.
47. Contrast Eldridge, Dying Adam, pp. 119-120.
 THE ROLE OF OMISSIONS 275

C. Fuchs, “Das Leben Adams und Evas,” in: E. Kautzsch (ed.),

Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments II,
Tübingen 1900, pp. 506-528
M.D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve,” in: J.H. Charlesworth
(ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha II, London 1985, pp.
249-295
M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, The Life o f Adam and Eve and Related
Literature (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 4), Shef­
field 1997
M. de Jonge, “The Literary Development of the Life o f Adam and
Eve,” in: G.A. Anderson et al, Literature on Adam and Eve.
Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha
15), Leiden 2000, pp. 239-249
T. Knittel, Das griechische ‘Leben Adams und Evas. ’ Studien zu einer
narrativen Anthropologie im frühen Judentum (Texts and Stu­
dies in Ancient Judaism 88), Tübingen 2002
J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2
Baruch (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Sup. 1),
Sheffield 1988
—,“The Exoneration and Denigration of Eve in the Greek Life of
Adam and Eve,” in: G.A. Anderson et al, Literature on Adam
and Eve. Collected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseude­
pigrapha 15), Leiden 2000, pp. 251-275
—, Texts in Transition. The Greek Life of Adam and Eve (Early Ju­
daism and its Literature 16), Atlanta 2000
O. Merk and M. Meiser, “Das Leben Adams und Evas,” in: H.
Lichtenberger et al (eds.), Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch­
römischer Zeit II, Gütersloh 1998, pp. 739-870
M. Nagel, La Vie grecque d ’Adam et d ’Eve. Apocalypse de Moïse I-
III, Lille 1974
J.-C. Picard, Le continent apocryphe. Essai sur les littératures juive
et chrétienne, Turnhout 1999
J.L. Sharpe, Prolegomena to the Establishment of the Critical Text
of the Greek Apocalypse o f Moses, Diss. Duke University 1969
M.E. Stone, “The Angelic Prediction in the Primary Adam Books,”
in: G.A. Anderson et al, Literature on Adam and Eve. Col­
lected Essays (Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha
15), Leiden 2000, pp. 111-131
C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Jo­
hannis, item Mariae dormitio, Leipzig 1866
J. Tromp, “Zur Edition apokrypher Texte, am Beispiel des grie­
chischen Lebens Adams und Evas” (forthcoming)
L.S.A. Wells, “The Books of Adam and Eve,” in: R.H. Charles,
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in
English II, Oxford 1913, pp. 123-154